[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 27 (Friday, February 18, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H1202-H1227]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             FULL-YEAR CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2011

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Price of Georgia). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 92 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 1.

                              {time}  0910


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 1) making appropriations for the Department of Defense 
and the other departments and agencies of the Government for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes, with Mr. Bishop 
of Utah (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on the 
legislative day of Thursday, February 17, 2011, a request for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 466 printed in the Congressional Record 
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) had been postponed, and 
the bill had been read through page 359, line 22.


                Amendment No. 575 Offered by Mr. Rehberg

  Mr. REHBERG. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be paid to any employee, officer, contractor, or grantee of 
     any department or agency funded by title VIII of division B 
     of this Act to implement the provisions of Public Law 111-148 
     or title I or subtitle B of title II of Public Law 111-152.

[[Page H1203]]

                             Point of Order

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman will state her point of order.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
Rehberg amendment because it violates clause 3(j)(3) of House 
Resolution 5 by proposing a net increase in budget authority in the 
bill. According to a cost estimate received from the Congressional 
Budget Office, the Rehberg amendment would increase net budget 
authority in the bill by $2 billion in fiscal year 2012 and a total of 
$5.5 billion over 10 years. Let me repeat that. That is adding $5.5 
billion to the deficit. And I have, in my hand here, the CBO estimate 
of the budgetary effects of amendment 575 to H.R. 1, a CBO document.
  The House rules package, adopted at the beginning of this Congress in 
House Resolution 5, includes the following rule in section 3(j)(3): 
``It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general 
appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the 
bill.''
  According to the CBO estimate, the Rehberg amendment does, in fact, 
produce a net increase in budget authority and is, therefore, not in 
order.
  The majority have raised a point of order on all other amendments 
that violate this rule in section 3(j)(3) because they increase net 
budget authority; yet on this amendment by Mr. Rehberg, that is not the 
case. It would seem that on the question of health care, the majority 
is not abiding by its own rules to reduce the deficit.
  I ask a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chair, I wish to be heard on the point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. REHBERG. I have been advised by the chairman of the Committee on 
Budget that my amendment complies with all applicable rules of the 
House. The point of order that my amendment violates clause 10 of rule 
XXI, known as the cut-go rule, is inapplicable in this case. The cut-go 
rule does provide a point of order against amendments to appropriations 
bills that cause an increase in mandatory spending over the 5-year 
scoring window. However, that rule contains an important exception. The 
point of order applies only to provisions that are modifications to 
substantive law. My amendment does not constitute such a modification; 
rather, it is a temporary provision limiting the use of funds in this 
act for the implementation of the law in a particular fiscal year.
  As the chairman of the Committee on the Budget stated, my amendment 
does not make a modification to substantive law in a year after the 
year for which the bill makes appropriations. Accordingly, the 
prohibition contained in clause 10 of rule XXI does not apply to my 
amendment, and the point of order should be overruled.
  And I respectfully ask the Chair for a ruling.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. ANDREWS. The gentlelady from Connecticut's point of order should 
be sustained, and, frankly, the chairman's arguments are deficient in 
two respects:
  First, he notes that the chairman of the Budget Committee's opinion 
is that the point of order should not be sustained. Although I realize 
that the chairman of the Budget Committee's opinion by custom is given 
some sort of special gravity on these kind of questions, with all due 
respect, the Chair is the Chair. The Chair is the authority here, and 
the Chair's responsibility is to follow the rules of the House which 
very clearly state that a piece of legislation that has a net increase 
in budget authority is out of order under these circumstances.
  Secondly, the chairman makes the argument that this is not a change 
in substantive law. One first would wonder why it's then being offered. 
But secondly, it seems to me that if agents of the executive branch 
have a responsibility and that responsibility includes discretion as to 
how to carry out a certain law, prohibiting them from carrying out that 
responsibility and limiting their discretion is, in fact, a significant 
change in substantive law.
  On those grounds, I would urge that the point of order be sustained.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  Mr. PALLONE. I rise to be heard on the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just find it incredible what I am 
hearing on the other side of the aisle here because we've gone through 
several weeks now where basically the rules have been changed so that 
the Budget Committee chairman basically does whatever he pleases and 
has the authority almost like equal to the rest of the House, the way 
the Republicans have given him this authority. It's sort of like a one-
man dictatorship. So I'm not sure that I am particularly interested in 
his opinion on this one.
  But beyond that--and I will follow up on my colleague from New 
Jersey--when you talk about substantive changes to the law, the whole 
purpose of this amendment is to basically gut the health care reform 
and make sure that it never takes place. And if it were to become law, 
if it were to be adopted, that is exactly what would happen. This has a 
major substantive impact.
  And beyond that, what we're highlighting here is the fact that here 
we have the Republicans saying that they are trying to save money or 
cut spending when, in reality, what they are doing with this amendment 
is increasing the deficit and actually making it more difficult to 
create jobs.
  I don't see how we could ever argue, frankly, that this amendment is 
in order. It clearly increases the deficit. It clearly increases the 
budget authority. It will kill the health care reform, and that's its 
purpose. So I would ask that the chairman rule that this is certainly 
out of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment on the 
point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized.
  Ms. DeLAURO. The chairman has argued--with all due respect to the 
chairman--that the amendment does not violate clause 10 of rule XXI. 
But that is not the point of order that I raised. The point of order 
was section 3(j)(3) of H. Res. 5, and I will repeat what that says.

                              {time}  0920

  ``It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general 
appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the 
bill.'' This clearly, clearly proposes an increase. And we have the 
documentation from CBO.
  So I am asking that this amendment be ruled out of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there anybody else who wishes to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chair, if I may respond.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montana.
  Mr. REHBERG. It doesn't matter which clause they want to draw from. 
The chairman said there is no impact.
  My amendment scores at a savings of $100 million in the current 
fiscal year. That is substantive savings, and I again ask for a ruling 
from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentlewoman from Connecticut makes a point of order that the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana violates section 3(j)3 
of House Resolution 5.
  Section 3(j)3 establishes a point of order against an amendment 
proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill.
  The Chair has been persuasively guided by an estimate from the chair 
of the Committee on the Budget that the amendment, which proposes a 
limitation on funding in the instant bill for the instant fiscal year, 
does not propose a net increase in budget authority in this bill.

[[Page H1204]]

  The point of order is overruled.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17, 2011, the 
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg) and a Member opposed each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montana.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple and straightforward. This 
amendment denies any funding provided by this bill to be used by the 
department or agency funded through the Labor-HHS title of the bill to 
support ObamaCare. It will create a firewall so that funds from this 
bill cannot be used for that purpose.
  ObamaCare included mandatory funding for several provisions normally 
funded through the discretionary appropriations; for example, a $1 
billion implementation fund. So, unfortunately, resources will be 
available to Health and Human Services. This amendment can slow but not 
completely stop the process.
  I have tried everything within my power to write an amendment that 
would completely defund implementation yet withstand a point of order. 
This is the best I can do today. I liken the situation with this bill 
to trying to drive a car to the moon. A car is the wrong vehicle for 
that purpose, but a car can take us on the first leg of the trip. It 
can get us to the launching pad. And I will continue to do everything I 
can to finish the journey.
  My goal, and the goal of the majority of Americans, is to repeal the 
new health care law. Until then, my objective is to defund it entirely 
and stop its implementation.
  It is impossible at this time to describe the many reasons that 
justify defunding and repeal. Let me begin with my belief that the law 
is unconstitutional. It runs contrary to our most fundamental concepts 
of limited government and individual liberty and responsibility. It's a 
law designed by those who wish to control every health care decision 
made by health care providers and patients, by every employer and 
employee, by every family and individual. It will control every aspect 
of one-sixth of our economy.
  This unaffordable program will cost $2.6 trillion in the first 10 
years if fully implemented. Ninety percent of that cost is for Medicaid 
expansion and insurance subsidies. Roughly half of the Federal 
Government's costs will be paid through new taxes, penalties, and fees 
on individuals and businesses. The other half is covered by cuts in 
Medicare benefits.
  The tax increases and regulatory burdens will be a significant drag 
on economic growth and job creation, and other costs to States, 
businesses and individuals are not included in the $2.6 trillion 
figure.
  This is a job killer. How foolhardy to create a new entitlement 
program when we cannot pay for the ones we already have and cannot meet 
our current operating expenses without borrowing beyond our ability to 
repay. This is madness.
  The structure of this bill was built on a foundation of multiple 
mandates, the individual mandate that requires people to purchase 
insurance whether they want to or not, mandates on States to create and 
operate insurance exchanges and to expand Medicaid dramatically, 
mandates on employers to provide insurance or be penalized, mandates 
regarding the precise terms of insurance policies that everyone 
ultimately must purchase, and on and on.
  Our forefathers would be appalled to see the power over our health 
and lives that we are surrendering to government. They had firsthand 
experience with unfettered government control, and they carefully 
designed a Constitution to limit the government's power. We've learned 
nothing from them. Never has there been such a complete transfer of 
power to our government with such blind faith and hope that government 
will get it right when our experience in every other context is so 
totally to the contrary.
  This is an experiment, a huge gamble imposed on us by those who did 
not read the legislation or fully understand its consequences. We are 
already catching glimpses of how government power will be exercised. 
Large corporations and unions have been granted waivers for mandates 
they cannot meet; large corporations with armies of lawyers and unions 
who hold a special place in the hearts, minds, and political campaigns 
of those who enacted this bill. Will Government be so accommodating to 
you?
  There are problems with the existing health care system, but this law 
only makes matters worse. The law must be repealed so that it can be 
replaced with incremental, market-oriented, affordable measures to 
improve, rather than transform, our current health care system. In the 
meantime, implementation must be stopped.
  There's a second reason to defund implementation. The law's 
individual mandate has been declared unconstitutional by two Federal 
judges. Judge Roger Vinson has written a powerful opinion that strikes 
down the entire law. The administration and Congress are on notice of 
the substantial risk that the Supreme Court will uphold Vinson's 
decision. If that occurs after a year or more of litigation, billions 
of dollars spent by the Federal Government to implement the law and by 
States, businesses, individuals, and taxpayers to comply with the law 
will have been completely wasted, thrown away. In light of the crisis 
created by our ballooning debt and anemic economy, it is fiscally 
irresponsible to go forward with implementation until the court 
challenge is finally resolved.
  For these reasons, I urge you to support my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 
30 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  The American people want us to work together to address their top 
priorities--creating jobs, turning the economy around, and reducing the 
deficit. The Republican majority told the American people, Vote for me, 
that's what we are going to do. This is a classic case of bait and 
switch.
  Their first order of business was to repeal health care reform, the 
results of which would add to unemployment, add to the deficit, and 
delay the economic recovery. And today, by denying funds for the 
implementation of health care, they are at it again.
  This amendment would take away the consumer protections of the 
Affordable Care Act and put the insurance companies back in charge, a 
further demonstration of the majority's special interest priorities and 
an hypocrisy on job creation and deficit reduction.
  Repealing health care will destroy jobs in the health professions. It 
will slow growth by 250,000 to 400,000 jobs a year. It will increase 
medical spending and add nearly $2,000 to the average family insurance 
premium. And according to CBO, repeal would add $230 billion to the 
deficit in the first 10 years and $1 trillion in the second 10 years. 
And let me repeat that. This amendment adds billions and ultimately 
trillions of dollars to the deficit, and it starts next year with $2.2 
billion.
  While my colleague will say that for the rest of this year that that 
isn't the case, one needs to just look at what the CBO says overall on 
the $5.5 billion in deficits that this would create. This is not what 
they promised the American people.
  This amendment will allow insurers to charge women 48 percent more 
than men for exactly the same coverage. It allows insurance companies 
to once again discriminate against Americans with preexisting 
conditions, even children with preexisting conditions. Women may again 
be denied coverage because they survived breast cancer or because they 
were a victim of domestic violence or because they had a c-section. It 
will deny up to 4 million small businesses $40 billion in tax credits.
  This amendment will increase drug costs for seniors. It will take 
away the 50 percent discount on brand name drugs for those who have 
found themselves in the doughnut hole. It will increase, also, seniors' 
health care costs, making lifesaving preventive services like 
mammograms, colonoscopies, wellness visits, blood pressure screenings, 
and diabetes screenings more expensive. This amendment will cost money 
and it will cost lives.
  In Connecticut 191,000 children with preexisting conditions benefit 
from the health care reform law. More than 540,000 seniors with 
Medicare coverage no longer have out-of-pocket expenses

[[Page H1205]]

for recommended preventive services, and up to 15,400 small businesses 
in my district alone will benefit from these tax credits.

                              {time}  0930

  If this amendment passes, what will happen to children with 
preexisting conditions, to seniors in the doughnut hole, to small 
business owners trying to help their employees find quality health 
insurance?
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this irresponsible amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my good 
friend from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As was so eloquently put forward by Mr. Rehberg, the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Health and Human Services Appropriations just a moment 
ago, this is a temporary limiting amendment on the appropriations for 
implementation of the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act.
  ``Bait and switch,'' that term was used by the other side just a 
moment ago in their arguments. Bait and switch. Think back to where we 
were just a little over a year ago in this House of Representatives 
when the Democrats' version of a health care bill passed. Where is that 
bill today? Somewhere in the dustbin out in the halls outside the 
office the former Speaker now occupies.
  Bait and switch. What happened on Christmas Eve of last year of 2009? 
The Senate passed a bill, a bill that was never intended to become law. 
It was a placeholder. It was a vehicle to simply get the Senators home 
for Christmas Eve ahead of a snowstorm so that then everyone can come 
back to the Capitol in January 2010 and work on the bill that would 
ultimately become President Obama's health care reform. But it didn't 
happen. The Democrats lost an election in Massachusetts for the Senate 
seat, and that changed the paradigm, that changed the narrative, that 
changed the debate.
  And then what happened? The House took up the bill passed by the 
Senate, conveniently, a bill that had been passed by the House of 
Representatives the summer before as a housing bill, H.R. 3590. Look it 
up on Thomas at home if you doubt. 3590 passed the Senate.
  Why would Senator Reid--why would the other body take up a previously 
passed House bill and turn it into a health care bill? Because it 
wasn't a health care bill; it was a tax bill. It was a tax bill that, 
by constitutional authority, had to originate in the House of 
Representatives.
  So then the other body had the perfect vehicle: Take this housing 
bill, strip out the housing language, put in the health care language, 
pass it on Christmas Eve, and then we'll all 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 of opponents 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? 
was answered affirmatively.
  But was that the end of the story? No. This was extensively litigated 
in the political arena last fall. And 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 part of it. Fix it. Do 
something.
  So Chairman Rehberg is doing exactly that today. Within the limits 
that he is constrained by in a continuing resolution, he is providing 
the vehicle, the floor by which the implementation of this very flawed 
process, this very flawed law can now be contained.
  It was important before, but 3 weeks ago it became critical. It 
became critical because of Judge Vinson's ruling. And why is that? And 
I encourage my colleagues to go to Judge Vinson's ruling. It's 
available on the Internet. It's not hard to read. It's about 75 pages.
  Judge Vinson's ruling, page 76 of 78: ``Because the individual 
mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be 
declared void.''
  Pretty clear language.
  Now, why is it necessary to approach the funding? Because earlier in 
his opinion Judge Vinson observed: There is a longstanding presumption 
that officials of the executive branch will adhere to the law as 
declared by the court. As a result, declaratory judgment is the 
functional equivalent of an injunction.
  Well, that should be good enough for members of the executive branch. 
They had the Federal agencies. But apparently that is not so, because 
what we see today in our committee hearings, in the headlines in the 
newspapers is that this administration is proceeding at light speed 
with implementation.
  The previous health care czar is now the Deputy Chief of Staff in the 
White House. What does that tell you about their plans for 
implementation? In fact, the plans for implementation were going so 
fast that one of the chief architects of implementation was hired 1\1/
2\ months before the bill was signed into law, and that's testimony 
that we heard in our committee in Energy and Commerce this past week.
  I sent a letter to Secretary Sebelius this week asking her to provide 
for us what direction she was going to take in light of Judge Vinson's 
ruling.
  In closing, I thank the gentleman for bringing this limiting 
amendment to the floor today. It is critically important that this 
Congress act to limit the implementation of this very flawed health 
care law. Let's get back to the work the American people asked us to do 
in the election.

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                Washington, DC, February 11, 2011.
     Hon. Kathleen Sebelius,
     Secretary of Health and Human Services,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Sebelius: I write to inquire of the 
     Department of Health and Human Services your response to and 
     specifically subsequent implementation decisions made by the 
     Department in the wake of Judge Vinson's ruling in The State 
     of Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human 
     Services. As you are well aware, the plaintiff sought 
     declaratory judgment that the Patient Protection and 
     Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional as well as an 
     injunction against its enforcement.
       In his opinion, Judge Vinson relied on precedent in 
     Committee on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. 
     Miers to determine that when a court issues a declaratory 
     judgment against federal officials, the ``declaratory 
     judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.'' He 
     quoted a previous United States Court of Appeals decision 
     which further addressed his point, ``that officials of the 
     Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the 
     court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the 
     functional equivalent of an injunction. . . There is no 
     reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply 
     here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and 
     separate injunctive relief is not necessary.''
       I would like to request information on how, in light of the 
     declaratory relief issued by Judge Vinson, the Department 
     plans to proceed in its implementation of the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act.
       Thank you for your time and consideration on this issue and 
     I look forward to your response. Should you have any 
     questions, please contact me in my Washington office at 
     (202)225-7772.
           Sincerely,
                                         Michael C. Burgess, M.D.,
                                               Member of Congress.

  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Miller).
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
me this time.
  The author of this amendment said a few minutes ago that this was a 
very simple and straightforward amendment. And that's probably true for 
Members of Congress who have government-paid health insurance, have 
policies that are looked after by a PPO to make sure that we get 
benefits. But if you are a member of the American public, this is not a 
simple and straightforward amendment. If you are a member of the 
American public, this amendment changes your life. For millions of 
Americans and for millions of their children, for millions of their 
parents this amendment changes their life. This isn't straightforward.
  So many of our new Republican colleagues have come to town and said, 
I'm just one of the folks back home. I'm not enamored with Washington. 
I'm just one of the folks back home.
  Vote for this amendment, and you won't be like the folks back home.

[[Page H1206]]

Vote for the amendment, and you will be very different than the folks 
back home, because you will have insurance and they won't. You will 
have coverage and they won't. You won't have lifetime caps and they 
will. You won't lose your insurance when you need it for you, your 
children, or your spouse, but your constituents will. You are not just 
like the folks back home. You are doing grave damage to the folks back 
home.
  So you ought to think about this amendment before you vote for it. 
Not only does it add $5 billion almost immediately to the deficit; it 
adds $1 trillion to the deficit over 20 years, takes us in the wrong 
direction. But this punishes people back home. Talk to your 
constituents who now are the seniors who have that free physical 
checkup and have been given medicine, have been told about things that 
they are doing wrong with respect to their health and now can prevent 
additional doctors' visits and hospital care because of that checkup 
that they now get that this amendment would take away. Talk to the 
parents. And you really ought to talk to the grandparents of the 
children who now have coverage that didn't have it before. They are as 
concerned about the coverage of their grandchildren as they are about 
their Medicare coverage, which you will change with respect to the cost 
of pharmaceuticals.
  No, this isn't simple and straightforward, and this isn't just like 
the folks back home. The folks back home are struggling every day to 
pay their insurance premiums. Pass this amendment, and once again the 
insurance companies can rip them off. Once again, they no longer have 
to dedicate 80 percent of your premiums to your health care. They can 
write themselves the bonuses, the advertising, the salaries, and forget 
the health care.
  There won't be that kind of protection for people who struggle every 
month to achieve health care coverage, for the 9 million people who are 
in the middle of getting rebates now because of the change in the law 
to make sure that health insurance companies provide you health 
insurance instead of a funding stream for the executives.
  No, this isn't simple and straightforward, and you are not just like 
the folks back home once you vote for this amendment. Is that clear?
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a new 
member of the Appropriations Committee, a great addition, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. I thank the gentleman.
  You know, just listening to what we just heard from our colleague 
across the aisle, he said, Go back and talk to your doctors, talk to 
parents, talk to seniors.
  You are missing the point. It's time to listen. That's what we've 
been doing. We've been listening. And the American people in November 
said it's time not only to defund this but to repeal this measure. 
Again, the House has moved forward to do so. Maybe you should quit 
talking to and start listening to.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm here in support of this amendment because, simply 
put, it defunds ObamaCare bureaucrats. If this amendment is adopted, 
government bureaucrats cannot be paid so much as to lift a finger, move 
a paperclip, send an email if it has anything to do with ObamaCare.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman from Georgia yield for a 
parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Sir, I would rather just finish my comments 
here. They have plenty of time on their side.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman does not yield for that purpose and 
continues to be recognized.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. And since today we're here to talk about 
saving the taxpayer dollars, let's remember the cost of ObamaCare.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia would need to yield for 
a parliamentary inquiry.
  The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. So we are here today to talk about the 
taxpayers' money. Let's remember the cost of ObamaCare: $2.6 trillion 
over the first 10 years once it's implemented, $560 billion in new 
taxes on American families and businesses, unconstitutional mandates, 
higher premiums, and, yes, lost coverage.
  The law is so damaging that the Obama administration themselves have 
granted at least 915 waivers for health plans and organizations.

                              {time}  0940

  Now, think about that savings--2.5 million people from ObamaCare.
  Mr. Chairman, let's save the rest of America here today and let's 
support the Rehberg amendment and move on and zero out the payments to 
those ObamaCare bureaucrats.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman will state her inquiry.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, is it a violation of the House 
rules wherein Members are not permitted to make disparaging references 
to the President of the United States? In two previous gentlemen's 
statements on the amendment, both of them referred to the Affordable 
Care Act, which is the accurate title of the health care reform law, as 
ObamaCare. That is a disparaging reference to the President of the 
United States, it is meant as a disparaging reference to the President 
of the United States, and it is clearly in violation of the House rules 
against that.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has stated a hypothetical. The 
Chair will not issue an advisory opinion, but will inform all Members 
that remarks in debate must avoid personalities, including 
personalities toward the President.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  To the prior gentleman, I would just say you didn't listen to the 
people of this country; you sold them a bill of goods. You told them 
you were going to create jobs, you were going to reduce the deficit, 
and you were going to turn the economy around. You have done none of 
this. You have been here 6 weeks, 8 weeks; and you have not done 
anything. And with this amendment you will, indeed, by the CBO numbers, 
increase the deficit as soon as next year by over $2 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. How many times are we going to hear about repealing the 
health care reform instead of having an initiative that actually 
creates jobs? I go out. The gentleman from Georgia said, Are you 
listening to your constituents? Yes, I listen to my constituents. They 
tell us we should address job creation and the economy and not 
constantly argue over and over again about repealing health care 
reform, which we know is going absolutely nowhere. So when I listen, 
that is what I hear: jobs, the economy, not this constant repetition of 
repeal.
  Now, I have a lot of respect for the gentleman from Montana, I have 
to say, but he talks about completely stopping and defending 
implementation. Well, the reason that the Republicans are saying that 
they want to de-fund implementation is because this health care reform 
is already working. Insurers now can't drop someone's coverage when 
they get sick; seniors are saving money on prescription drugs; young 
adults to age 26 are getting back on their parents' insurance; and 
small businesses are receiving billions of dollars in tax credits to 
provide health care coverage. This is moving along. This is working. 
That is why they want to stop the implementation, is because they know 
it is working.
  Now, the defunding amendments will end all these benefits, putting 
health insurance companies back in charge of America's health care. The 
only person who benefits from defunding and repeal are the special 
interest health insurance companies that want to charge more and 
continue their discriminatory practices.
  The gentleman from Montana talked about the cost. Well, the fact of 
the matter is that if we pass these defunding amendments offered in the 
guise of budget austerity, they are actually one step closer towards 
repealing the largest deficit cutter passed in the last decade, and 
that is the Affordable Care Act.

[[Page H1207]]

  Health care reform helps tremendously in reducing the deficit. It 
will save $230 billion over the next 10 years and over $1 trillion in 
the 10 years after that. If we defund health care reform, there will be 
no prohibition on discrimination against over 100 million Americans 
with preexisting conditions, no prohibition on insurance companies 
canceling your coverage when you get sick, no prohibition on lifetime 
caps and annual limits, no required coverage for young adults on their 
parents' policies, no assistance for seniors struggling to afford the 
cost of drugs in the doughnut hole, no free annual checkups in 
Medicare, and no tax credits for families and small businesses to pay 
for health insurance.
  Repeal, I stress, is a boon for the insurance companies, but an 
enormous setback for American families. If we pass this amendment, the 
insurance companies can raise their rates without review or 
transparency, they can deny coverage to millions of Americans with 
preexisting conditions, and they can cut off coverage when someone 
becomes sick.
  I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on these defunding amendments. 
Health care reform is working. I go back home and people are pleased 
with it because already in many cases they are able to get insurance 
they weren't able to get before.
  I am tired of hearing this over and over again. Concentrate on jobs 
and the economy, not this charade.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I respectfully do refer to it as ``ObamaCare.'' You would think that 
he would want his name attached to his signature legislation. But in 
four quick years, this Congress and this President have made what is a 
spending problem into a spending crisis. We wanted to create jobs. You 
wasted time on the health care reform that did not control the costs.
  They call it affordable health care. Unfortunately, all it did was 
add people. It didn't control the costs of health care, and that is one 
of the reasons it needs to be repealed. We wanted to build an economy; 
they wanted to build government. So we call it what it is. It is 
ObamaCare. It is a travesty. It is Big Government. It is not 
controlling health care costs, and it needs to be repealed.
  Today we are going to try to defund it, to the best of our ability; 
and if we are not successful this time, we are going to try again and 
again and again until we either have a Senate that is willing to pass 
it or a President that understands that we cannot do this to the 
American people.
  At this time I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on HHS, Congressman Rehberg, for yielding.
  I want to declare my support for this amendment, and I think he is 
happy if I refer to it as the Rehberg amendment. I also want to thank 
Denny Rehberg for the work that he has done on this. America will never 
know, Mr. Chairman, how much work went into crafting this amendment to 
get this fix that does a little bit to take us down the road. And, boy, 
it is important to me to see $100 million cut out of the resources that 
would be used to implement ObamaCare.
  Mr. Chairman, I am also very confident in declaring it to be 
ObamaCare. I listened to President Obama address it as ObamaCare on 
February 25 of last year at the Blair House during the health care 
summit. I thought that was the source of the moniker ObamaCare, was the 
President himself, and if anyone thinks otherwise, I think they should 
look back and check the record.
  ObamaCare is this: It's not $1 trillion in deficit over 20 years if 
we don't go through with this atrocity; it's $2.6 trillion in spending 
in the first full decade, according to the chairman of the Budget 
Committee, Paul Ryan--$2.6 trillion in spending.
  We are here in this CR to cut spending. We know that we have to go 
into a national era of austerity because of the overspending that has 
taken place over the last 4 years in particular and the last 2 years in 
a hugely significant way.

                              {time}  0950

  We're looking at a budget now that has a deficit proposed by the 
President of $1.65 trillion. And if you roll back to the full Federal 
outlays in 1997, $1.6 trillion. The on-budget items in 2002, $1.6 
trillion. And we have that much deficit proposed by the President. We 
want to shut off $2.6 trillion worth of irresponsible spending. We want 
to preserve the liberty and the freedom of the American people and the 
best health care system in the world. That's why you see sheikhs' 
planes landing in places like Rochester, Minnesota to get health care 
that they can't get in other places in the world. If Michael Moore 
thinks Cuba has the best health care system, I suggest he swim there. 
This country, we need to preserve the system we have and expand it. The 
Rehberg amendment helps slow down this implementation that is going on 
in an aggressive fashion by the Obama administration.
  I happen to have in my hand, Mr. Chairman, an excerpt from a CRS 
report that tells you how duplicitous this bill once one picked it up 
and read it, the 2,500 pages. And in here are multiple places, over 50 
places where ObamaCare actually not just authorizes, but it also 
appropriates--not completely unprecedented, but it is the largest, most 
substantial effort to trigger automatic spending that goes on in 
perpetuity, Mr. Chairman.
  The number here is not $100 billion. The number on this CRS report is 
$105.5 billion over the next 10 years. And in the balance of this 
fiscal year, it's $4.95 billion that we're having trouble getting at. 
Thanks to Denny Rehberg, we're getting at $100 million. I believe this 
amendment will pass today and it will go on this CR and it will become 
a significant leverage point over in the United States Senate.
  Other components of this that need to be ripped out that--oh, wait a 
minute, I forgot to remind you. Again, H.R. 2, full repeal of 
ObamaCare. I was pleased to see language that I had worked on and 
drafted for all those months went over to the Senate where every 
Republican voted to repeal ObamaCare. Here we had bipartisan support 
for the repeal of ObamaCare--three times the bipartisan support 
described by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi. And we sit here now with 
Americans that have--two-thirds of them by the polling--rejected 
ObamaCare.
  In this bill, another piece that reads deceptively is this: ``The 
authority for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to do 
interdepartmental transfers in any amount greater than the 2008 budget 
bill,'' which means slush funds all through that Department to 
aggressively implement ObamaCare. The Rehberg amendment shuts off some 
of that--probably not all of that, but it gets at it and it lays the 
point out. And I hope that we can do better on some of the others into 
the future.
  We also need to understand that when America has rejected a piece of 
legislation that so upsets all of our lives and takes away so much of 
our liberty and freedom, takes away our ability to buy a health 
insurance policy that is high deductible, high copayment, and low 
premium, that we have many more good solutions that will unfold here.
  This bill is unconstitutional in four places at least, two Federal 
courts have ruled, so we know that it will eventually get to the 
Supreme Court. And we can never say with certainty what the result will 
be, but we know the certainty of the two Federal courts, Mr. Chairman. 
We must have the Rehberg amendment so the American people are dealt 
with respect and honor of their opinion. H.R. 1 cuts the funding; H.R. 
2 repeals.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman from Montana.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, let me just reiterate again: This 
amendment would not create jobs; it would not do anything to reduce the 
deficit. In fact, by the CBO numbers, it would increase net budget 
authority in the bill by $2 billion next year, a total of $5.5 billion 
over the next several years. It increases the deficit. Let's keep 
hitting it on that point.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. If this amendment would become part of the CR, there will 
be no CR, and that will be your responsibility, your responsibility.

[[Page H1208]]

  This is an effort to repeal by paralysis, paralyzing the provisions 
that have gone into effect--preexisting conditions for children being 
covered, children under 26 having the ability to get insurance. It 
would paralyze the efforts to begin to implement the 2014 benefits.
  Instead of searching for common ground, this amendment intensifies 
warfare. Instead of collaboration, this amendment would mean chaos.
  The Republicans have become a wrecking crew, led by Paul Ryan and 
wrecking Medicare. This amendment is a deeply dangerous prescription 
for Americans' health. This prescription needs to be rejected.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Does anybody honestly believe in America that by repealing ObamaCare 
it's actually going to cost the government money? It just doesn't pass 
the smell test. Yes, the way the CBO is scoring it based upon the 
questions that they are asked show it is. But nobody, honestly nobody 
in this country honestly believes that when you repeal a piece of 
legislation it's going to end up costing you money.
  I now yield 5 minutes to one of the few people that clearly gets the 
entire picture, a doctor, one of our Members from the State of Georgia 
(Mr. Price), who understands that defensive medicine was entirely left 
out of this, but, of course, we know why. And it's one of the issues 
driving the cost of health care.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my friend, and I appreciate him for his 
remarkable leadership on this. Many of us tried to figure out how we 
could bring this issue to the floor under this bill, and you have done 
that.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about jobs, that this 
won't create any jobs. Well, I'll tell you some jobs that this will 
save if we pass this amendment and that's the physicians in this land.
  As a physician--and if folks in this body talk to their doctors back 
home, they will understand the remarkable challenges and the number of 
physicians who are throwing up their hands and saying, I can't handle 
the hassles anymore; I can't believe the intrusion of the Federal 
Government into my ability to take care of my patients in the way that 
I deem best.
  And so what are they saying? They're saying, well, there isn't any 
way for me to uphold and live by the oath that I took, to do what was 
best for my patients, and therefore I'm left in a remarkable moral 
quandary. And for many of them it is to say, I'm sorry, I'm no longer 
able to practice under this oppressive government.
  The deficit. That's right, we ought to be talking about the deficit. 
Here's the track right here of the folks who have been in charge for 
the last 4 years. In 2006, they came in, and this is what the Federal 
Government was spending down here, a little over $2.6 trillion. The 
last year of their reign they're up in the $3.7 trillion, $3.8 trillion 
range. The deficit is about a third of that, this year coming up, $1.6 
trillion. So Mr. Chair, to have our friends on the other side of the 
aisle tell us about deficit is a bit curious.
  I'm reminded by my friend from Texas, a fellow physician who gave a 
remarkable recitation of the history of the law that we have in place 
now, the non-health care reform law that was enacted, and I'm reminded 
of the jubilation on the other side of the aisle when they passed this 
piece of legislation last March. At the time I had some serious 
conversations with friends on the other side because we weren't allowed 
to have this kind of robust debate. That wasn't allowed, it wasn't 
allowed in committee, it wasn't allowed on the floor of the House. The 
decisions had been made beforehand and the bill was shoved down the 
throat of the House of Representatives and the American people.
  But I remember talking with them and I remember saying, It's puzzling 
to me why you're so enthusiastic and excited about this. There's no way 
that this law can go forward because it is clearly unconstitutional. 
And in fact now we've seen a Federal court in Virginia and a Federal 
court in Florida agree that the individual mandate--that the notion 
that the Federal Government can say to the American people, by virtue 
of being a citizen you must purchase this product and this is exactly 
what it must be. And that's what the law has done.
  And so I believe that before we will hold another election in this 
country this law will be determined to be unconstitutional, which 
really is a shame because we will have missed a great opportunity.
  My friend from Michigan who talked about bipartisan cooperation--of 
which there was none over the last 4 years in this arena--but we have 
missed a great opportunity, and hopefully we'll be able to enhance the 
opportunities that we have over the coming 2 years to be able to work 
together in a bipartisan way to address the challenges in health care. 
Because the status quo, as a physician and as a Member of Congress, the 
status quo is clearly unacceptable.
  But when you look at the principles of health care--accessibility, 
making certain that people have accessibility to health care, which 
they don't right now and which this law actually harms; affordability, 
which is becoming more and more of a challenge to the American people 
and which this law actually harms--if you don't believe it, just ask 
the employees in businesses across this land who are having to pay 
higher premiums because of this law; the quality issues, all of the 
quality sorts of things that we all believe in so strongly and which 
this law actually harms because the only person who knows what's 
quality health care for you and your family is you and your family and 
your physician.

                              {time}  1000

  What this law does is remove this decisionmaking power from you and 
your family and your physician, and it replaces it with folks here in 
town who believe they know best what kind of health care you ought to 
receive. Then there is the responsiveness of the system and innovation 
in the system and choices, Mr. Chairman--choices that have been 
remarkably limited and will continue to be limited by this law.
  So what Mr. Rehberg has done here is said that the only way that we 
can begin to dismantle this, which is what the American people desire 
in significant majority numbers, is to say you can't use resources that 
you have in your department to implement the law, itself. If the States 
and the Federal Government would listen to Judge Vinson in Florida, 
then they would realize that it, in fact, is their responsibility, that 
it is their responsibility not to implement this law.
  So I urge adoption of the amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to 
get to work on the principles of health care, which this law absolutely 
ignored.
  Ms. DeLAURO. The Rehberg amendment would increase net budget 
authority in the bill by $2 billion in fiscal year 2012--that's next 
year--for a total of $5.5 billion over the next several years.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, all across the country this morning, 
millions of Americans got up for another day of searching the job 
search Web sites or looking at the want ads, enduring another day of 
courtesy interviews, pointless discussions with potential employers, 
and dreading the arrival of the letter carrier today because he is 
going to bring one more credit card bill or dunning letter for a bill 
that they can't pay.
  Life has become a nightmare for 15 million unemployed Americans--and 
here we are in the House of Representatives. I don't think many of them 
got up this morning and said, I really hope that Congress for the 
second time in a month debates the repeal of the health care law. I 
think what our constituents said was, Why don't they get to work, 
working together to create jobs in this country?
  Instead, the Tower of Babel that the House of Representatives has 
become this week has produced yet another meaningless debate on the 
repeal of the health care law, which followed on the heel of defunding 
Planned Parenthood last night.
  Now, it's not bad enough what this bill doesn't do in having us work 
together to create jobs for the American people; it's bad in what it 
does do. It's very important that the Members understand the real-world 
consequences of the chairman's amendment.

[[Page H1209]]

  If his amendment passes and if the parents of a child with juvenile 
diabetes wake up one day to discover that an insurance company won't 
sell their son or daughter insurance because that child has juvenile 
diabetes or that an insurance company will charge them four or five 
times the amount of the premium because the child has juvenile 
diabetes, the person at the Department of Health and Human Services who 
can step in and stop the insurance company from doing that won't be 
able to, because this amendment says, let's tie the hands of the people 
here to enforce the law.
  If an insurance company says to a family who is grappling with a 
malignancy or a brainstem injury for their son or their daughter, 
``You've run out of coverage. You've hit your lifetime limit. Too bad, 
so be it,'' the person who would be in a position to do something, to 
require an insurance company to pay those hospital bills, won't be able 
to do that because this is happening.
  With all due respect, we've had a debate about using names this 
morning. I think we're using the wrong name for this amendment. This 
should be called the ``insurance company bill of rights'' because what 
it says is, anything any insurance must do at any time, so be it.
  The American people deserve better than this. Members of the House 
should vote ``no'' on the Rehberg amendment and get back to the 
business of putting Americans back to work.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains 
on both sides?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Montana has 6\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from Connecticut has 15\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. REHBERG. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. The Rehberg amendment increases net budget authority in 
the bill by $2 billion next year, a total of $5.5 billion over 10 
years. It increases the deficit, and it puts the American people back 
in the hands of the insurance companies. Again, it's a classic bait and 
switch.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me to participate 
in this debate.
  It's really quite amazing, Mr. Chairman, the alternative reality that 
has been created on the Republican side. They never liked the health 
care 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 people'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're going to have all that in it. Meanwhile, they 
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, when we have a law, it should be implemented in a 
reasonable, responsive and efficient manner. States want it. Insurers 
want it. Businesses want it. Health care providers want it. Trying to 
starve a program so we cannot implement it in a reasonable manner is 
irresponsible.
  Defunding amendments offered in the guise of budget austerity is 
actually one step toward repealing the largest deficit cutter passed in 
the last decade, the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act, if 
this amendment passes, will be stopped. There will be no prohibition 
against discrimination for over 100 million Americans with preexisting 
conditions; no prohibition on insurance companies canceling your 
coverage when you get sick; no prohibition on lifetime caps and annual 
limits; no required coverage for young adults on their parents' 
policies; no assistance to seniors struggling to afford the cost of 
drugs in the doughnut hole and no free annual checkups in Medicare; and 
no tax credits for families and small businesses to pay for health 
insurance.
  The full impact of this legislation will happen in 2014, which will 
require the Department of Health and Human Services to put into place 
its implementation so that we can move on a clear, reasonable path to 
accomplishing these goals.
  The repeal or even this defunding proposal is a boon for insurance 
companies, but it is an enormous setback for American families. That's 
why I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. REHBERG. My Democratic friends using the deficit argument is 
simply a diversion to draw attention from the real issue: the huge cost 
of this program.
  At this time I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas, Dr. 
Burgess.
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, seeing the gentleman from California down on the floor 
reminds me:
  When this bill passed, the Congressional Budget Office told us there 
would be $142 billion in savings over 10 years; but less than 30 days 
later, the chief actuary at CMS, Dr. Foster, came forward and said the 
bill was going to cost $318 billion additionally over that time.

                              {time}  1010

  That's a $450 billion swing, and even in the United States Congress, 
we ought to be able to get a little closer than that.
  I filed a resolution of inquiry with Chairman Waxman, who was then 
chairman of Energy and Commerce, who said let's sort this out. What did 
they know, when did they know it? Was Congress given inaccurate 
information before we voted on this very large bill?
  I was never allowed to bring that forward. We could have solved that 
last year and settled that part of the debate last year.
  Ms. DeLAURO. CBO: Repeal of the health care bill would add $230 
billion to the deficit in the first 10 years. The Rehberg amendment 
would add $2 billion in 2012, a total of $5.5 billion over the next 
several years.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague.
  Another day on a bill that will not create one single job in the 
United States of America; in fact, a bill that will cost thousands of 
Americans their jobs. The response just the other day from our 
Republican colleagues: So be it.
  Now we have an amendment before us to strip away critical patient 
protections for consumers, for our constituents. This is an insurance 
industry dream amendment. We heard from our colleagues they wanted to 
listen to the American people. They have not had one hearing, not one, 
to listen to the people around this country who were already benefiting 
from this bill.
  The provisions to ensure that kids with diabetes, leukemia, asthma, 
are not discriminated against by the insurance industry any more, not 
one mom was heard from.
  Provisions to make sure that our constituents aren't denied their 
coverage when they need it the most. There are thousands of Americans 
out there already benefiting from that. Didn't listen to one of them.
  And now under the guise of trying to save the taxpayer money, they 
are offering an amendment that, according to the independent, 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, will increase the deficit over 
the next 10 years by $230 billion. And when it's fully implemented, the 
bill, and you strip it away, it will add $1.4 trillion to the deficit.
  I just urge my colleagues to read the letter from January of this 
year from the head of the CBO to the Speaker of the House. It's right 
in there, plain and simple.
  We had a hearing in the Budget Committee just the other day. I hope 
your colleagues on the Budget Committee may have talked to you about it 
because the head of CBO was before the committee and Members on the 
Republican side. Surely you must have arrived at this deficit number 
through double counting.
  The head of CBO said very plainly there is no double counting. Read 
the lips of CBO. This adds $230 billion to the deficit over 10 years, 
$1.4 trillion over the next 20 years. So don't come to the floor here 
and pretend that by

[[Page H1210]]

enacting this amendment it's part of an effort to save taxpayer 
dollars.
  This will add more red ink to this Nation's credit card, the same 
kind of red ink that we saw being added over the years and years and 
years of the prior administration. We are trying to turn the corner on 
that.
  But all this does is add more. The cost is not just in terms of 
higher deficits; the costs are to the people throughout this country 
who are going to lose the important protections that this bill has 
provided them.
  Shame on this House for spending time doing this rather than focusing 
on jobs and getting this economy moving.
  Mr. REHBERG. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. The Rehberg amendment increases the deficit by $2 
billion in 2012, $5.5 billion over the next several years, and does 
nothing to create a single job.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the Republicans' latest cynical 
and callous attempts to derail health care reform, and I think it's 
quite interesting that the gentleman from Montana would be dismissive 
of the issue of deficit reduction and that somehow that's now labeled a 
distraction.
  I think that adding $5.5 billion to the deficit when we should be 
going in the opposite direction is far more than a distraction. It's a 
moral imperative that we not do that. In the past 6 weeks, we have seen 
the true face of the Republicans' legislative agenda. Rather than work 
to create jobs and improve our economy, they have focused on baseless 
attacks on American families.
  With their repeal and replace bills, they have demonstrated that they 
don't mind if insurance companies drop patients as soon as they get 
sick, or that families wouldn't be able to save thousands of dollars by 
keeping young adult children on their family plan. And with this 
pernicious amendment, we now see their outrageous attempts to strip 
funding from the implementation of the health care law.
  Let's be clear: Our colleagues across the aisle want to yank funding 
from a law that is already helping millions of Americans. This 
amendment would seize funding from the agencies and workers who have 
already been tasked with implementing the most essential tenets of the 
Affordable Care Act, provisions which are already making a world of 
difference in millions of lives.
  If this amendment passes, seniors will be thrown back into the 
Medicare part D doughnut hole coverage gap and be forced to pay 
exorbitant costs for their prescription drugs. Women in desperate need 
of an annual mammogram or a colonoscopy will once again face 
prohibitive copays or perhaps face denial of coverage for the 
preexisting condition of simply having ovaries, and our Nation will 
once again return to the egregious practice of denying so many young 
children coverage for their health history that they cannot control.
  Rather than roll back the hard-fought consumer protections and 
freedoms that unshackled Americans from the whims of private insurance 
companies, Republicans should be working with us to build on and 
improve the health care system. Instead, they wish to use this 
amendment process to reverse the progress that we have made with these 
vital health care reforms. I am glad the American people can see their 
hypocrisy right out in the open.
  Mr. REHBERG. I continue to reserve, Mr. Chairman.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIR. What is the gentleman's parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, would it be appropriate under the rules in 
the UC that have been suggested that we divide the question so that 
Members of Congress can vote individually on whether to deny seniors 
coverage for the doughnut hole, to deny coverage for pre-existing 
conditions, to deny small businesses from getting the tax benefit in 
this bill, all the different things--would it be appropriate to divide 
the question that way so that all of the benefits that Americans get 
they can see individually where my Republican friends stand on them?
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the order of the House of February 17, 2011, 
even if otherwise divisible, an amendment to this bill is not subject 
to a demand for a division of the question.
  Ms. DeLAURO. The Rehberg amendment would increase the deficit by $2 
billion next year, a total of $5.5 billion over the next several years, 
and that is the estimate of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office. It increases the deficit and does not create any jobs.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. I would like to say to the Republicans, be 
careful what you wish for. Your star is fading on this effort to 
repeal, to defund the Affordable Care Act. Only about 18 percent of 
Americans now are for full repeal of this bill.
  And are you the ones that are going to go and tell the American 
people that insurance companies can drop you when you get sick? 
Children with preexisting conditions? Well, they can be denied 
coverage.
  You go and explain that insurance companies can impose devastating 
annual and lifetime caps, and that pregnant women and breast cancer 
survivors can be denied coverage, and that being a woman will continue 
to be a preexisting condition. That's your mission if you were to 
succeed.
  In passing this legislation, the American people finally said, this 
Congress said, that health care is a right, that it should not 
impoverish individuals. Vote ``no.''

                              {time}  1020

  Mr. REHBERG. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I stand in strong support of the Rehberg amendment. I do so because 
of this very controversial health care bill which was passed through 
strong-arm tactics last year during a time period when the American 
public was crying out against it. This was a product of the backroom 
deal-making in Washington, D.C. This is one reason why the Democrats 
lost control of the U.S. Congress. It wasn't so much the bill; it was 
the process.
  But let's talk about the bill. An individual mandate that's already 
been ruled unconstitutional by two judges, a mandate which the Governor 
of Alaska is saying he is not even going to implement the rule. This is 
hardly a law that's bringing America together. This bill needs to be 
put on the back burner, and let us retool it and rework it. I believe 
that's what the Americans want us to do.
  It destroys the doctor-patient relationship. One thing that's 
abundantly clear is people do not want the insurance companies telling 
the hospitals and the docs how to conduct medicine. But they sure as 
heck don't want government bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., and all of 
the hundreds of new agencies and the IRS agents coming in and telling 
the doctor how to conduct medicine. The cost of this--there is not one 
credible report that says this will bring down costs.
  And I keep hearing this hollow cry from Democrats, suddenly with 15 
million people unemployed, that they are concerned about jobs. I 
haven't met in the First District of Georgia or anywhere else I have 
traveled in the country one business person who says this is a great 
bill.
  And I want to say this about 26-year-old children: As a father of 
four, and I have three kids under 26 years old, they are old enough to 
take care of themselves. They don't need the nanny state coming in. I 
have raised them to be responsible. At the age of 21, I expect them to 
go out and get their health care. You know, the average age in Vietnam 
I think was 19 years old. World War II, probably the same. And we have 
soldiers in harm's way all over the world who can take care of 
themselves. But we are saying but come home to mommy and daddy, we will 
take care of you until you are 26 years old.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. REHBERG. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. KINGSTON. And let me say this, Mr. Chairman. If you talk to the 
Nation's Governors, Democrat and Republican, one of the biggest drains 
on their

[[Page H1211]]

expenses right now, on their budget, is Medicaid. Yet this bill 
increases the Medicaid rolls by 16 million people without funding it. 
If we want to break our States, we need to keep this bill. If we want 
to help them, we need to repeal it.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I remind the gentleman from Georgia that the taxpayers 
pay for Congress' health insurance as well. And any children that we 
have are covered under our health insurance. We are in a rarified air 
in that regard. We have health insurance, as Mr. Miller pointed out. We 
go to the head of the line if there is anything wrong with us. That is 
not the case for millions of people in this Nation. And that's what the 
other side of the aisle would like to continue, that millions of people 
will not have the same kind of health care that we in the United States 
Congress have.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. I strongly oppose this amendment because it is harmful to 
the American people. It adds significantly to the deficit. And I have 
listened to my constituents. And they tell me they are opposed to this 
defunding stunt. Why? If health care reform is defunded, who will 
ensure that seniors in the doughnut hole receive half-price medications 
this year? Who will process the small business tax credits that 
employers across the country are entitled to this year under the reform 
law? Who will keep insurance companies honest, protecting Americans 
from coverage denials and limits on care?
  The Affordable Care Act is law. It's endorsed by the American Medical 
Association. And attempts by my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle to repeal it have failed. Instead of fighting this same battle 
over and over again and living in the past, Congress must turn its 
focus now to what the American people really care about: creating jobs 
and strengthening our economy.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to another physician who clearly understands the cost of health 
care, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise wholeheartedly in support of his amendment to 
repeal the funding of ObamaCare. ObamaCare, in not just my opinion, but 
many others have expressed this, is possibly the worst piece of 
legislation passed in the history of this Congress. In fact, it would 
probably be better called ``patient pain and non-affordable care act'' 
because it has accomplished none of the goals that President Obama set 
out to accomplish, especially not lowering the cost of health 
insurance.
  So we in this body, the Republican majority, in our initial week in 
the 112th Congress, we passed a repeal of ObamaCare. Unfortunately, our 
colleagues in the Senate, the Democratic majority, stopped that. It is 
our obligation to the American people to defund this wrongful piece of 
legislation. It is costing jobs all across this country.
  Talk about things like who is going to solve the problem of the 
doughnut hole, as the gentlelady from California just said. Well, I 
will tell you who solved it, Big Pharma solved it when the President 
and the Democratic majority in the last Congress broke their arm and 
made them agree to cut their prices in half for their brand name drugs. 
So there are other ways to solve the doughnut hole problem than having 
the Federal Government take it over lock, stock, and barrel.
  In regard to having children remain on the health insurance policy of 
their parents until age 26, why are they going to have to do that? 
Because they have no jobs. And why do they not have any jobs? Because 
of the job-killing bills like ObamaCare, and stimulus, and bailout, and 
I could go on and on and on. We have an obligation to defund this and 
to replace it with the right kind of legislation that will accomplish 
the goals of lowering health costs so that many more Americans can have 
health insurance and have good health insurance.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, it's often said that the facts are lost 
in the fog of war. The facts are lost in the fog of this debate. We 
should step back for just a few moments and see what this total picture 
is all about. This is nothing about a class war assault on the working 
men and women and the poor in this country, and literally around the 
world.
  Take a look at all of the provisions and add them all up. The 
decimation of clinics that provide care to the poor and the unemployed. 
The decimation and the significant reduction of Medicaid, providing 
care to those who do not have high incomes, including the elderly and 
the disabled. The decimation now in this of the health care proposals, 
turning over to the insurance companies once again the opportunity to 
go after working men and women and deny them the coverage that they 
need.
  Taken in total, and include the tax provisions for the great wealthy 
who will ultimately have their tax breaks paid for by the working men 
and women, put it all together, and this is class warfare by the 
Republicans against the working men and women of this Nation.
  Mr. REHBERG. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady.
  Eight hundred seniors gathered just a year or two ago, expressing 
their horrific opposition to the idea of being overwhelmed by this 
doughnut hole. My colleagues today are telling seniors all over America 
we now will close the door on you again. We will ensure that you will 
not have the money to pay for your rent or food because you will be 
paying these ridiculously high costs for your prescription drugs. 
That's what this amendment will do. It will close down potentially the 
Affordable Care Act that is providing a lifeline for our seniors.
  And then if you are laying on the sick bed in your hospital room and 
you need more care and more care to restore yourself, you have a doctor 
or an administrator come in and say, your insurance company called and 
they're pulling the plug. Not the plug that the doctors are pulling, 
but they are pulling the plug. You have no more money, get out and try 
to do the best you can.
  Two hundred and thirty billion dollars this amendment will cost us. 
But more importantly, this bill is not, the Affordable Care Act, 
unconstitutional. Only two courts have rendered that. And frankly, the 
Supreme Court will speak. Don't do this to the American people.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. REHBERG. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Let me just repeat, to be absolutely clear, about what this amendment 
does.
  It does not create jobs. It adds to the deficit $2 billion next year, 
$5.5 billion over the next several years. It does nothing to bring the 
deficit down. It increases the deficit, and it puts the American people 
back in the hands of insurance companies.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I am not the Speaker of the House. I am 
not the majority leader. But you know what I do? I represent more 
people in the United States Congress than anybody sitting in this body, 
consistently. After every census, I have the most population. I 
probably have more town hall meetings as well. I probably have more 
hospitals, more highways, more of everything in my congressional 
district. And I have had more town hall meetings, probably, than 
anyone, 75. And in those 75, they all tell me the same thing: They do 
need health care reform. They need to control the cost of health care.
  But they get it. They understand, this does not do it. You would not 
need waivers for unions and big businesses if it was working. You would 
not need legislation to fix the 1099 on the penalty for the $600 
purchases if it was working. You wouldn't have to cook the books, as 
they attempt to do, by counting a $750 billion tax increase as a reason 
to suggest that if we repeal it, it's going to cost the government 
something. That's funny money. It's not true. Nobody in America 
believes it.

[[Page H1212]]

  Get out. Listen at your town hall meetings. Travel around my State. 
Do the 75 town hall meetings like I did. And you will find you cannot 
control the cost of health care if you leave defensive medicine out. We 
gave an opportunity for people to join the Federal system. It was 
turned down by the Democrats in committee. They voted it down on a 
party-line vote.
  This is not the way to reform health care. It was done very quickly. 
In fact, the sponsor of the bill said I didn't need to read the bill. 
That's what I have staff for. It was so large, it was done so quickly, 
there was not enough input that the people of America know this is not 
the right thing to do. It's a job killer. It's going to bust our 
budget. In the end, it does, in fact, cost us $2.6 trillion to 
implement in the first 10 years.
  Please support this. Let's begin defunding ObamaCare.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Montana has expired.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), Democratic leader of the House.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I commend her for 
her leadership on a very important issue, the health and well-being of 
the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment that is on the 
floor today and also the underlying bill of which it is a part. The 
American people are desperate for jobs. They have sent us here to work 
together to create jobs; and in the 6 weeks of this new majority, not 
one piece of legislation has come forward to create one job.
  Showing the lack of ideas to do so, the Republican majority has 
chosen, instead, to change the subject, taking up a bill of such 
consequence without hearings, without really an open process to make 
amendments to it, with the illusion of open debate. And now they come 
before us, again without hearings, in amendment form to this bill and 
say they want to have no funds go to enact provisions of the health 
care bill which was passed before.
  Let's talk about the consequences of your action here today. What 
would it mean to people in our country if this amendment were to 
prevail? It may prevail on this floor, which is driving itself into 
irrelevance with the amendment process that is here, but that's another 
subject. Let's talk about the subject of this amendment. Let's talk 
about what this means to America's families. Let's talk about a family 
that came before a hearing that we had earlier in January.
  We heard from Stacie Ritter. She has 12-year-old twins. When those 
adorable little girls were 4 years old, they were both diagnosed with 
cancer and faced years of treatment and recovery. Imagine if that 
happened in your family. Their mother said they were lucky that they 
did have health insurance, but the additional cost of the care for 
these children drove their family into bankruptcy. The children got 
well, thank God, but they had a preexisting medical condition for the 
rest of their lives--until this bill came along. And now their mother 
was pleased to testify they are not to be the objects of discrimination 
because they have a preexisting medical condition. They will not face 
annual or lifetime caps on the benefits they receive. These healthy 
young girls now will be able to proceed in a healthy way, not 
discriminated against.
  Or let's talk about Vernal Branch, a woman diagnosed with breast 
cancer 15 years ago. Ever since, she has struggled to find health 
insurance because even though she had cancer and for the moment is free 
of cancer and, God willing, will be forever free of cancer, she had a 
preexisting medical condition which meant that she would be 
discriminated against in terms of getting health insurance--until this 
came along. Vernal Branch told us that the Affordable Care Act 
represents protection from the uncertainty and fear that came from 
being diagnosed and being denied health insurance coverage because of a 
past disease. Passing this amendment would stop the reform and mean 
that 129 million Americans, like Vernal, 129 million Americans would 
lose coverage because of a preexisting medical condition.
  Do you understand what that means in the lives of these people?
  And to our seniors, the subject has been brought up over and over 
again about our seniors. Claudette Therriault and her husband, Richard, 
are seniors on Medicare. Richard is a diabetic, and his insulin alone 
costs nearly $1,000 a month. When they fell into the doughnut hole, 
they were forced to choose between defaulting on the loan of their home 
or paying for Richard's health. As Claudette put it, Well, we chose my 
husband's health. But changes made, that we made in this bill, are 
starting to change the doughnut hole so families aren't forced to 
choose between paying their mortgage or paying for their medicine. 
Passing this amendment would mean that over 2.7 million Medicare 
beneficiaries would again fall into the doughnut hole, and Medicare 
would no longer be able to pay for the annual checkup for 44 million 
seniors in our country.
  Mr. Kingston says that his children are old enough that they should 
be able to take care of themselves, even though they are under 26 years 
old. Bravo for you. But that's not the way it is for many young people 
across the country, even if they do have a job. You say they don't have 
insurance because they don't have a job. It may be news to you, but 
there are many, many, many working Americans who do not have health 
insurance. But they will under the Affordable Care Act.
  If this amendment were to pass, if it were to become law, immediately 
all of those children who can now be on their parents' policy, if their 
parents are willing, would lose their health insurance.

                              {time}  1040

  With a job or without a job, these young people coming out of school 
are idealistic and ambitious. They want to follow their passions and 
their pursuits. That is what our Founders told them they could do--
life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. These young people want a 
healthier life to pursue their happiness, to choose a job not based on 
the health benefits it may or may not provide, but to choose an 
occupation which addresses their aspirations--not ours, theirs.
  So I just want to repeat back to our colleagues something I heard 
them say over and over again. They said, we didn't read the bill. Well, 
we did. But clearly, you did not. And I urge you to read the bill, 
because if you did, you would see that the bill puts medical decisions 
in the hands of patients and doctors, not your favorite insurance 
company. You would see that it brings down the cost of prescription 
drugs for seniors. You would see that it ends the days of 
discrimination based on preexisting conditions and lifetime caps on the 
care of children and families. You would see that under this bill, no 
longer would being a woman be a preexisting medical condition as it is 
now as women are discriminated against in terms of price and access to 
insurance.
  You would see that it offers tax credits to millions of small 
businesses who choose to do right by their employees and offer 
insurance benefits.
  It was for all of these Americans that we acted. It is for them that 
we stand here today to oppose this amendment.
  And if you read the bill, you will see contrary--contrary to 
misrepresentations that were set forth by those who do the bidding of 
the health insurance industry in our country, you would see what the 
bill does. You would see that it is about innovation. It's about 
prevention. It's about a healthier America, not just health care in 
America. It's about using the technologies of the future. It's about 
bringing health care closer to people where they live to lower the 
cost, to improve the quality and to expand the access.
  You would see that it is a bill about the future. Instead of the 
misrepresentations about this, that, and the other thing which I don't 
even want to repeat here, you would see that this is transformative for 
our country because it gives people the liberty, again, to pursue their 
lives.
  So I would like to know how many of you read the bill? We read it 
over and over again, to each other, drilling down on different parts of 
it. So we know of what we speak when we come to this floor. And maybe 
if you knew more about it, you wouldn't be so quick to say--we do not 
want to allow children to stay on their parents' policies. We do not 
want to end discrimination on the basis of preexisting conditions for 
our children. We do not want to begin

[[Page H1213]]

to close the doughnut hole. We do not want to have preventive medicines 
without cost and copay for our seniors. And the list goes on and on. So 
that's what's happening here today.
  This is again, yet again, another example of our friends standing up 
for the insurance companies at the expense of the American people, 
standing up for the insurance companies at the expense of the health 
and well-being of our country. It is again an example of Washington, 
D.C. holding on to the special interest status quo. It is again this 
Congress saying to the American people, we are here for the special 
interest, we are not here for the people's interest. To Stacie, we are 
not here for your two daughters. For Vernal, we are not here for women 
and having being a woman being a preexisting condition. To Claudette 
and Richard, to say to them, too bad about your mortgage. If you can't 
pay your mortgage because you have to pay your medical bills, so be it.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, which is another 
manifestation of the ``so be it'' attitude of some in Congress at the 
expense of many in our country.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, there are few policies passed in the past 
several decades that could do more harm to our country than last year's 
passage of the health care overhaul.
  That is why I fully support the Rehberg amendment to defund Obamacare 
and the McMorris Rodgers amendment to bar the IRS from spending any 
taxpayer money on implementing the law. Not only will these amendments 
save billions and billions in taxpayer dollars, they will also halt the 
government takeover of health care dead in its tracks.
  Mr. Chair, we cannot afford this misguided legislation that empowers 
bureaucrats and insurance companies rather than patients and their care 
providers. It creates constitutionally questionable mandates, raises 
hundreds of billions in new taxes, and penalizes job creators, families 
and businesses who do not comply with its draconian requirements.
  In the middle of a nascent economic recovery, how can we allow this 
job-destroying bill to take root? We can't. This body has a 
responsibility to listen to the American people who are demanding that 
we uproot this legislation. These two amendments help us do just that 
and I am proud to support their inclusion in the continuing resolution.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana will 
be postponed.


             Amendment No. 266 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds made available in this Act or any previous Act 
     may be used to carry out the provisions of Public Law 111-
     148, Public Law 111-152, or any amendment made by either such 
     Public Law.

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I reserve a point of order on this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman reserves a point of order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17, 2011, the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, amendment No. 266 is the amendment 
that has had a lot of discussion around the Chamber and around this 
country. And what it does is it recognizes the results of the CRS 
report, Mr. Chairman, this report dated just last Thursday, February 
10, 2011. It took a long time to put all the numbers together in an 
official document that identified the money that is automatically 
appropriated in ObamaCare. In digging that out, there are dozens of 
locations that automatically trigger appropriations that go on in 
perpetuity. And the total in this report is $105.5 billion. And here we 
are in this continuing resolution that the CRS reports at $105.5 
billion. I had been working on that for some months, and finally we 
came with a total.
  But if we are not able to shut off all of the funding that is 
automatically appropriated in the ObamaCare legislation, both 
components of it, the reconciliation package and the bill itself, then 
forever this money goes forward, and the administration aggressively 
uses it to implement ObamaCare.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentlewoman continue to reserve her point 
of order?
  Ms. DeLAURO. I do, yes.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Very briefly, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  This amendment--this amendment--will add to the deficit in the next 
year--next year--$3.5 billion, and over the next several years $5.6 
billion. It will not create a job and once again would put the American 
people back in the hands of the insurance companies without the ability 
to be able to get the kind of health insurance that they require to 
deal with any illness that may befall them.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene 
Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman and Members, I thank my 
colleague from Connecticut for yielding to me.
  Let me first say that I have read the bill. I was on the subcommittee 
and the full committee and served on the Health Subcommittee for many 
years. And I had many people ask me that. And believe me, when you 
spend hours and hours literally in testimony and amending the bill, you 
have the chance to read it.
  And I would hope my Republican colleagues, and all of us, would do 
the same thing, our appropriators, I would hope they would read the 
appropriations bill if they are accusing us on the Energy and Commerce 
Committee who drafted that bill.
  What this amendment would do would take away the funding that the 
Department of Labor and Health and Human Services would be able to 
enforce that insurance can't drop someone from coverage when they 
become sick.

                              {time}  1050

  They would take away that funding. Seniors would be saving money. 
They should enforce it, saving money for seniors for prescription 
drugs. Young adults up to age 26 are getting back on insurance with 
their parents. That would stop the Department of Labor and Health and 
Human Services from enforcing that law. Small businesses are receiving 
billions of dollars in tax credits to provide health care coverage. 
This would stop it.
  Defunding health care would end these benefits and put insurance 
companies back in charge. The whole goal of the health care bill, 
whether you call it ObamaCare--I wanted it to be called the Gene Green 
bill. But I admit, I'm only one of 435 is to cut these benefits. That's 
what this bill is about in this amendment. It will defund the great 
things in the health care law.
  Let's go back and talk about the things that we all agree that need 
to be changed. But if you take away the money, we'll lose this for all 
the folks in our districts.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank Mr. King for yielding.
  Make no mistake about it--the effort on the part of Steve King is to 
defund ObamaCare. This Chamber already passed a bill to repeal 
ObamaCare, which the American people have asked. This is now an effort 
to defund ObamaCare. Because as we have seen from the Congressional 
Research Service, the ingenious nature of the ObamaCare bill was to 
already put the funding in place so that if the majority lost the 
gavel, which they did, the new majority would be unable to defund this 
bill.
  Speaker Pelosi said it well last year when she said we had to pass 
the bill to know what is in it. We only found out recently that 
literally tens of billions of dollars have already been appropriated to 
fund ObamaCare. It was put in ``mandatory spending,'' spending

[[Page H1214]]

where this Chamber would not have access to be able to defund the bill.
  If we are unable to defund the bill now, make no mistake, Mr. Chair, 
this Chamber and the American people will do everything they can to 
make sure they put into place a new President, a new Senate, and a 
House that will have the requisite courage to finally defund the 
government takeover of health care.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. 
Baldwin).
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and 
in opposition to the underlying bill.
  I fail to see how Republican efforts to eliminate all funds for 
health reform will create jobs or help our fragile economy recover. 
Instead, defunding health reform would leave behind thousands of whom I 
represent in Wisconsin, thousands of Wisconsin families who have 
already begun to experience the benefits of health care reform.
  Should the Republican efforts succeed, tens of thousands of young 
adults in Wisconsin would stand to lose their insurance coverage 
through their parents. Once again, children would be refused insurance, 
discriminated against because of preexisting conditions. And nearly 
50,000 Wisconsin seniors would face higher prescription drug costs. 
What's more, the efforts to defund the health care reform law come on 
top of extreme cuts to community health care centers and family 
planning clinics.
  While I agree with my Republican colleagues that we must reduce the 
deficit and bring the budget into balance, we must be smart about it. 
And this amendment is not smart about it. This unwise bill jeopardizes 
our Nation's health, our Nation's recovery, and our Nation's future. 
And it's particularly troublesome to me this week because it falls on 
top of efforts by Wisconsin's governor to cut health, education, and 
public safety services, and to take away the rights of public servants 
to provide them.
  Mr. Chairman, today I stand in solidarity with my fellow 
Wisconsinites as I fight for a better future for all Wisconsinites and 
all Americans. I urge my colleagues to oppose Republican efforts to 
defund the health care reform law and to oppose the underlying bill.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in full support of the King amendment. I was at 
the well just a few minutes ago in support of the Rehberg amendment. 
But what this amendment does is eliminate and stop the funding, the 
hundred billion dollars' worth of funding that was automatically put in 
this bill to prevent, if we took over the majority of this House, Mr. 
Chairman, as we have done, or try to stop us from stopping the worst 
bill that's ever been passed in the history of the Congress. And we 
have to do this.
  This is a pledge to the American people. We can do it. We can start 
over, we can make this bill right, we can enact health care reform that 
truly does bring down the cost for patients so they can get access, 
they have more control, and that we don't destroy the medical 
profession in the process of continuing this wrongheaded, boneheaded 
ObamaCare bill.
  So I want to stand strongly with my colleague from Iowa in supporting 
this amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate that.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle talk about the need for 
listening to the American public. Well, I have been back home in my 
district meeting with providers, people in the insurance industry, 
hospitals, nurses, doctors and they are dealing with this plan moving 
forward. Many are excited about the opportunities to take advantage of 
it. The protections that are under way in the law right now are popular 
with the public because they are important to the public.
  My friends talk about listening to the American citizens. The 
Associated Press pointed out in a poll last month that the overwhelming 
majority opposed the notion of trying to defund health care. In fact, 
in that same poll, 43 percent thought the protection should be 
expanded.
  We are in a situation now where we can make a profound difference in 
improving the quality of health care in this country while we reduce 
deficits.
  Putting sand in the health care gears, arguing, trying to create 
confusion is not moving us forward. Work with our hospitals, work with 
our doctors, work with our citizens. Make health reform work for 
America.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this amendment No. 266, someone put 
the moniker on it ``The Silver Bullet Amendment.'' And as much as we 
have all worked here to try to find the right way to shut off all of 
the funding to freeze in place the implementation and enforcement of 
ObamaCare, many of us have worked in a number of different ways. This 
is the amendment that looks at the pattern that was set, that I 
understood, back in 1974, when there was a CR before the House of 
Representatives that shut off all funding that would go to the Vietnam 
War for offensive or defensive operations, in the air, over the land 
of, the seas adjacent to, or the countries adjacent to it. That 
language covered everything, and it stopped bullets on the dock from 
going into the hands of people to defend themselves.
  I disagree with the policy. But the foundation is here in multiple 
places in the history of this Congress. This is the language that shuts 
off the funding of ObamaCare until such time as H.R. 2 becomes law. 
That's the repeal legislation that becomes law. This is H.R. 1. It's 
completely appropriate--and H.R. 2 and H.R. 1 are married together--
that we shut off the funding for implementation of ObamaCare, all of 
it, the entire $105.5 billion that was slipped into this report that we 
just got back last February 10.
  So I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1100

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment. What we need to be doing is to focus on jobs to grow the 
economy and to reduce the deficit. This amendment does none of the 
above. Essentially what it does, it takes us back into the hands of 
insurance companies when they had free rein to raise rates, to reject 
claims and deny coverage to families and businesses who would have no 
recourse. It protects their CEO bonuses and their corporate profits.
  We need to be about the business of creating jobs. This amendment 
does nothing to do that and increases the deficit. It should be 
absolutely clear to everyone here and everywhere else what this 
amendment does.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of 
rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a 
general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing 
law.'' It waives existing law.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut has stated a point 
of order against the amendment. Does any Member wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this is a point of order that has 
been raised on my amendment that I referred to as the silver bullet 
amendment. I think it does not consider a duty that we have here in the 
House of Representatives, and that is we stand here and take an oath to 
uphold the Constitution of the United States, each one of us. I bring 
in my Bible to do that. And I take it very, very seriously when we take 
an oath to uphold the Constitution.
  We don't take an oath to uphold a rule, but we take an oath to uphold 
the Constitution. And as I look into this Constitution and read through 
it, Article I, Section 5 reads in pertinent part: ``Each House may 
determine the rules of its proceedings.'' And because each House can 
determine the rules of its proceedings here in this Constitution, you 
have in your hands the gavel, Mr.

[[Page H1215]]

Chairman, and the power and the authority to determine those rules, at 
least to make a strong recommendation to this body.
  I would urge that we understand that two Federal courts have found 
this bill, ObamaCare, to be unconstitutional, and it is immoral and 
unjust and irresponsible to waive any opportunity to shut off the 
billions of dollars that are automatically appropriated in a deceptive 
fashion and continue for the implementation of ObamaCare because we 
might think somehow that a rule would trump the very Constitution 
itself.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  Mr. WEINER. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chair, I agree with the gentleman. His amendment is 
clearly in order. But I know this because if this were legislating on 
this bill, that would mean that they can legislate. They controlled the 
House and the Senate and the Presidency; they were unable to legislate. 
We've been here for 8 weeks; they're unable to legislate. It is 
impossible to believe he is legislating in this bill.
  The point of order, if I may speak to it, suggests that the gentleman 
is legislating on an appropriations bill. I have watched those guys. 
They're incapable. There is no way this is legislating. So I believe 
the point of order should be struck down. It is impossible. After 8 
weeks they haven't legislated. They had 8 years in the majority, and 
they didn't legislate. How can it possibly be, Mr. Chairman, that the 
point of order is correct?
  The gentlelady from Connecticut is rarely incorrect, but if you think 
they're legislating, impossible, almost metaphysically impossible for 
the gentleman to legislate. He doesn't know how. How can we possibly 
have the legislating in this bill?
  I think the gentleman is absolutely correct. Let us have this debate 
because if it is that moment, if lightning is striking, if it is chilly 
in hell, then maybe this is the moment we have been waiting for--the 
Republican majority is going to start legislating. Please, praise God, 
maybe this is the moment.
  So I think the gentleman is correct. He is not legislating in this 
bill because it is impossible for them to do so because they simply 
don't know how.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that the amendment proposes explicitly to supercede 
existing law.
  As such, it constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2(c) of 
rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained.


             Amendment No. 267 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec.__. None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used to carry out the provisions of Public Law 111-148, 
     Public Law 111-152, or any amendment made by either such 
     Public Law.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17, 
2011, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this amendment No. 267 is an 
amendment that is narrowed in its scope in anticipation of the point of 
order that was raised by the gentlelady from Connecticut, and I can't 
help but reflect on what it must have been like before in this body 
before the invention of television. But my Amendment No. 267 says this 
in pertinent part: ``No funds made available by this act may be used to 
carry out the provisions of ObamaCare.''
  So what this does is, for the appropriations that go on outside of 
the scope of this continuing resolution, we have lost that point of 
order. But this amendment goes to those funds that are appropriated 
within it, down the exact same path as the Rehberg amendment, except it 
goes to the outside of the particular Department of Health and Human 
Services as the narrower scope of the Rehberg amendment. So this goes 
broader than just HHS, but it does go directly to shutting off all 
funds within this CR that would be used to enforce or implement 
ObamaCare.
  I have made my arguments, Mr. Chairman, on that.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chair, poll after poll shows that 
Americans oppose repealing or defunding health care. The latest one 
says 62 percent of Americans oppose these efforts. Why? Because they 
have figured out that the nonsense coming from Republicans over the 
last several years about this being socialized medicine or a government 
takeover is just that--it is nonsense.
  What they figured out is that this is helping millions of Americans 
all around this country, millions of Americans like a little 8-year-old 
boy named Kyle McCollough who had the courage to walk into my office 
yesterday and tell me about his battle with hemophilia. His family has 
to put out $10,000 a month to pay for his medications, and repeal of 
this legislation means bankruptcy for his family and for him a lifetime 
of worrying as to whether he has a job that covers his illness or 
whether he has the medications to stay alive.
  That is why 62 percent of Americans oppose what the Republicans are 
trying to do on this floor. And for anyone that votes for this, they 
have to have an answer to them and they have to answer to little Kyle 
McCollough.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the doctor from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).
  Mr. FLEMING. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, one thing that is lost in this debate is this fact, and 
that is there is a difference between coverage and access to care. I 
have been a physician for 35 years. I can tell you that today, pre-
ObamaCare, we have 85 percent coverage, but we have 100 percent access 
to care. Anyone who wishes can report to any emergency room in this 
country and receive care. Now, they may receive a bill, but if they pay 
that bill or not, they can still return for care.
  Now let's move to Canada and the U.K. where they have supposedly 100 
percent of coverage. Well, they oftentimes wait a year, maybe 2 years, 
for a CT scan or an MRI scan, and then once they get the results back, 
they may wait another year to get surgery.

                              {time}  1110

  It's not unusual to be told, hey, we could have helped you had we 
made the diagnosis in time.
  It's perfectly acceptable in these countries to have a death rate 
from lack of treatment. Look at the death rates from cancer, prostate, 
breast cancer in our country versus others; a horrific difference. Why? 
Because we diagnose it much earlier; we treat it much more 
aggressively.
  But if we go forward with this ObamaCare, then what we will have is 
budgets coming up against the decision on what type of care our 
citizens can receive. We'll be taking it out of insurance companies; 
but, yes, we'll also be putting it in the hands of the government.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Owens).
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I come before you today after spending 27 
years in the health care industry representing my local hospitals, and 
I can tell you that this bill was supported by them because it creates 
care in our communities, and it creates jobs in our communities.
  If we're going to focus on how to improve care and reduce cost, the 
bill is replete with opportunity. We can support accountable care 
organizations, we can support medical home pilots, we can support 
community health centers, we can support electronic medical records, we 
can support telemedicine, and we can support the Center for Medicare 
and Medicaid Innovation. That is how we're going to improve

[[Page H1216]]

care, reduce cost, and deliver benefit to our constituents.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, just earlier we heard the former Speaker 
come to the floor just moments ago and say that she has now read the 
bill. Uh-hmm. Of course we heard her famously saying before that we had 
to pass the legislation in order for her to find out what was in the 
bill.
  We can tell you who has read the bill, and that is the courts of this 
great country. And the most recent Federal courts said they have read 
it, and they have found that the bill is unconstitutional. For this is 
the first time in the history of this country that the price of 
citizenship, this is the first time in the history of this country that 
the price of freedom, this is the first time in the history of this 
country that the price of being an American is that you have to buy a 
particular product that some unknown, faceless bureaucrat here in 
Washington ordains that you have to buy.
  We have come to the time that liberty is being taken away from us, 
that the strong hand of a Big Brother is reaching out and telling us 
you have to do this and you have to do that as the price of freedom and 
the price of liberty.
  Yes, to answer your questions. Yes, we will legislate; yes, we will 
address health care; yes, we will address the American people's 
interests in this area. And I commend the gentleman from Iowa on this 
amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I remind the gentleman that the courts are split two and 
two.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Butterfield).
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I thank the gentlelady.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to King amendment No. 266.
  It has been said that we are the sum total of our experiences, Mr. 
Chairman, and that is certainly true. My experience consists of growing 
up in a low-income minority community whose history dates back more 
than 150 years since slavery. I represent that district, the First 
District of North Carolina, the fourth poorest district in the country.
  My constituents, Mr. Chairman, overwhelmingly support the Affordable 
Care Act. Why? My constituents know that their insurance costs are 
soaring, exceeding more than 18 percent per year in increased costs. 
For those constituents who don't have insurance, they know that they 
will be able to qualify for Medicaid if their income is less than 133 
percent of the Federal poverty line.
  My rural hospitals, Mr. Chairman, know that finally when patients 
walk into their emergency rooms, the hospitals will be paid for their 
care, and they will not continue to face bankruptcy.
  Mr. Chairman, this assault on the Affordable Care Act is unfounded, 
it's unnecessary; and I ask my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the amount of 
time remaining for each side.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa has 1\1/4\ minutes 
remaining; the gentlewoman from Connecticut has 2\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Republicans seem to be pretending that emergency room 
care is free. Every insured American is paying an extra 1,100 bucks 
this year--$1,400 in Oregon--for those who are uninsured. We want to 
begin to address that problem, get them in earlier, get them treatment, 
less expensive, don't pass the costs on to other Americans. Personal 
responsibility.
  We outlawed the worst abuses of the insurance industry--canceling 
your policy when you get sick even though you've been paying the 
premiums, preventing people from getting health care because of a pre-
existing condition.
  I heard from a dad whose young son with birth defects is finally 
getting covered for those issues because of this law. And then the 
students I met at Lane Community College--21, 22, 23 years old, getting 
an education, wanting to get in the workforce--they thanked me for 
their health insurance. They need that health insurance.
  The Republicans said they were going to repeal and replace. Well, 
they've been pretty darn silent on the replace side, maybe because it 
upsets their patrons in the insurance industry who are so generous at 
campaign time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I really take issue with the gentleman that declared 
this to be nonsense. This is not nonsense. This is very, very serious 
business. This is the largest taking of American liberty in the history 
of this country. And the shenanigans that went on to put this bill in 
place, you could not have sent this bill out on the floor of the 111th 
Congress and had it pass if it were all packaged up together in one big 
stack. It was two pieces of bills. And we listened to Dr. Burgess 
earlier about all of the things that took place to represent this bill 
in one place or another, to put it together, including a promise of an 
executive order that was designed to trump the very Congress itself.
  And here we are, with the first opportunity to put the brakes on 
ObamaCare--yes, we've passed the repeal, H.R. 2. This is H.R. 1. It's 
here because it's more important to the Speaker than H.R. 2. And that 
means that we must shut off this funding to ObamaCare.
  This CRS report, $105 billion automatically appropriated over a 10-
year period of time that goes on in perpetuity, sending the tentacles 
of this malignant tumor down. It is metastasizing as we speak, and 
American liberty is being strangled off by ObamaCare. This amendment is 
the amendment that shuts all of the funding within the CR. It must be 
passed by this Congress to keep faith with the American people.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. May I inquire how much time I have remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 1\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Washington State (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, we've been here now the better part of 2 
months, and we've seen political theater go on and on and on. Each day 
we bring out something that looks like it might have some usefulness, 
but it turns out it's just more political theater. We read the 
Constitution in here. Well, that took us a day. Then we spent 9 hours 
arguing about a bill that we knew wasn't going anywhere. Then we 
brought out the health care bill. Then we keep doing this. Meanwhile, 
the American people are saying--and Bill Frist--now, I wouldn't say Dr. 
Frist was a good friend of mine, but he was the majority leader in the 
Senate, a Republican, a doctor who said don't repeal this law, fix it.
  There have been no hearings in 2 months about how you would fix the 
bill, and yet the American people--the problems that my colleagues come 
out here talking about one after another are multiplied by the millions 
in this country. They know there's a problem, they don't want to repeal 
it. The numbers for repeal have been dropping as the people have seen 
more and more provisions of this law come into effect. They want you to 
fix it, not political theater. It doesn't help them in the emergency 
room or in the doctor's office.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. If I could just get the attention of the gentleman who 
is the author of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to yield to the 
gentleman from Iowa.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut has the time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I would ask her, at the appropriate time, to yield for 
an answer.
  Here is my question: Let's say we have a person who is on Medicare 
who

[[Page H1217]]

has $100 a week on drug costs and they hit the doughnut hole in August 
of the year.

                              {time}  1120

  The way the law works right now is they will get help to continue to 
pay for their prescription drugs in the form of either a cash rebate in 
the past or a discount in the future.
  I wonder if the gentleman could explain to us what will happen to 
those Medicare recipients when they hit the doughnut hole if his 
amendment becomes law.
  I would ask the gentlelady to yield to him for an answer.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  To the gentleman from New Jersey as to his question on the doughnut 
hole, I understand. Under the current circumstances of the doughnut 
hole, there are many people in the lowest incomes who are not affected 
by it.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Reclaiming my time, I think we want to try to answer the 
gentleman's question.
  I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. ANDREWS. The question was: What about someone who is in the 
doughnut hole? What happens to him under your amendment?
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. To compress my response, I think it's a bit unclear 
because we don't know how the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
may respond when the funding is shut off.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. ANDREWS. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, it is not unclear at 
all.
  What would happen under the gentleman's amendment is the prescription 
drug price of this senior would go up dramatically, and he would have 
to pay the entire cost of that prescription until he hit, I think, the 
$5,100 limit. This is substantive legislation, the effect of which will 
dramatically raise prescription drug costs for America's neediest 
seniors.
  I thank the gentlewoman for her time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to now yield to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, when you take a look at what is happening here, the 
effort to repeal, to kill, to stop the Affordable Health Care Act is an 
assault on the American public, and it would give back to the insurance 
industry their opportunity to deny benefits, to deny coverage.
  It is hard to understand how in this period of time when we should be 
talking about building jobs that our colleagues would put before us 
legislation that would, in fact, destroy over 800,000 jobs and destroy 
the opportunity for millions upon millions of Americans to have health 
care that they could afford. For small businesses to be able to provide 
the health care to their employees and to receive a reduction in the 
costs of that health care, it is hard to understand why they would be 
doing this when we need jobs, when we need health care.
  When you look across the broad impact of H.R. 1, it is an assault on 
the working men and women of the poor in this country. When you take a 
look at the tax proposals put forward by the Republicans, it is to 
benefit the high and the mighty and the wealthy to the detriment of the 
working men and women and the poor of this country.
  This is flat-out class warfare against the working men and women of 
this country. Plain and simple.
  If you remove health care, you remove their ability to get health 
care, and you remove their ability to be healthy and to work. If you 
remove the clinics, you remove their opportunity to get health care. If 
you cut back on Medicare and Medicaid, you remove their ability to have 
health care.
  It is an assault on the working men and women, on the elderly and the 
poor in this Nation. That's what it adds up to.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I now yield to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. I would just say to the gentleman from New Jersey that I 
was in almost all of the meetings in our caucus. This bill was read 
provision by provision, sentence by sentence, and we had the staffers 
there who wrote these provisions under the direction of our chairman at 
that time.
  This was carefully considered, and any idea from the gentleman from 
New Jersey that it wasn't is just an outrageous statement on his part, 
and he ought to be ashamed of himself.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, once again, as to what 
we are doing here, this amendment just mirrors the prior amendment of 
which we had a discussion. We keep saying it over and over again: Your 
inability to come here, as you promised, to create jobs for the 
American people, to lower the deficit for them, and to turn the economy 
around has failed.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose the King amendment.
  Repealing or de-funding health care reform is part of the 
Republicans' No Jobs Agenda. The Affordable Care Act will create jobs. 
One study says that repealing the law will put in jeopardy the 250,000 
to 400,000 new jobs this law will create each year.
  More importantly, de-funding the Affordable Care Act will jeopardize 
the many benefits this law provides to the American people.
  1. The Affordable Care Act prohibits insurance companies from denying 
coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, like diabetes, heart 
disease, cancer, and HIV/AIDS.
  2. Starting this year, the Affordable Care Act provides seniors in 
the ``donut hole'' a 50 percent discount on brand-name prescription 
drugs.
  3. Also starting this year, small businesses may qualify for a tax 
credit that covers up to 35 percent of the cost of providing health 
insurance to their workers.
  4. The Affordable Care Act provides $11 billion for community health 
centers, which serve low-income and uninsured families in my district 
and throughout the country.
  5. The Affordable Care Act provides $15 billion for wellness and 
prevention activities, such as cancer screenings and child 
immunizations.
  6. The Affordable Care Act provides funding to train additional 
primary care doctors and nurses, who will be able to serve patients in 
underserved parts of the country, like Los Angeles County.
  7. Most importantly, the Affordable Care Act guarantees all Americans 
access to affordable health insurance that covers essential medical 
benefits and that cannot be taken away when they get sick and need it 
most.
  De-funding the Affordable Care Act will impact all Americans, but 
especially harm the least of these--women, children, people of color, 
the poor, the homeless--people who often lack a voice and whom I have 
championed during my four decades in public service. People of color 
are disproportionately impacted by a lack of access to health 
insurance. According to the Department of Health and Human Services' 
Office of Minority Health, 20 percent of African-Americans were 
uninsured in the United States in 2007, and 32 percent of the Hispanic 
population was uninsured.
  Quality health care must be available for all Americans regardless of 
race, level of income, gender, or the existence of a pre-existing 
condition. That's why the Affordable Care Act specifically addresses 
health disparities and protects the rights of people with pre-existing 
conditions, and that's we must fully fund the Affordable Care Act.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be 
postponed.


             Amendment No. 268 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to pay the salary of any officer or employee of any 
     Federal department or agency with respect to carrying out the 
     provisions of Public Law 111-148, Public Law 111-152, or any 
     amendment made by either such Public Law.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17, 
2011, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.

[[Page H1218]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York reserves a point of 
order.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, amendment No. 268 goes to the end of the bill. It 
simply says that none of the funds made available in this act may be 
used to pay the salary of any officer or employee of any Federal 
department or agency with respect to carrying out the provisions of 
ObamaCare. It is that simple.
  It is one additional way to slow down the implementation and the 
enforcement of ObamaCare until such time as we see that day that the 
full repeal is signed by, hopefully, the next President of the United 
States, unless the one we have today has a reconsideration.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment and the underlying bill go 
in precisely the wrong direction.
  We should be talking about strengthening the historic reform that we 
passed last year. We should not be tearing it apart, because we all 
know that its repeal will leave millions out in the cold, stripping 
them of access to affordable health care; and it will cost small 
businesses the incentives and the tax breaks that they would get. It 
all goes in the wrong direction.
  The majority claims to believe in cutting government spending above 
all else; yet the CBO has concluded that, over a 10-year period, up to 
2021, their bill would add $230 billion to the national debt. Now, if 
you're really serious about reducing our debt, you should have a robust 
public option. That would save $68 billion.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  We keep hearing from the Democrats that we're here and that we're not 
doing a jobs bill.
  Why are we doing this bill? Why are we doing this bill now? It's 
because you guys did not pass a budget. We are on FY11, as you know, 
because you did not take care of your business. We are reaching back, 
trying to finish up what you guys should have done by October 1 of last 
year.
  By the way, this does create jobs, because the small businesses do 
not want government-mandated health care; and the folks back home don't 
want bureaucrats coming in between the doctor-patient relationship, 
which is what ObamaCare does. Now, we know the nanny state wants full 
control from cradle to grave, but folks back home don't want it. That's 
what November was about.
  So what we're trying to do is finish up the unfinished business of 
the Pelosi House from last year so that we can move forward on the 
coming year, FY12. We will continue to have this debate, but we are 
trying to protect the doctor-patient relationship, not create a doctor-
bureaucrat-patient relationship, which ObamaCare does.

                              {time}  1130

  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Neal).
  Mr. NEAL. I thank the gentlelady.
  When you consider how rhetoric doesn't square up with reality in this 
institution, the gentleman from Iowa started by saying this is the 
greatest threat to personal liberty in history. Well, we have some 
young people here today, and I guess he thinks that Plessy vs. Ferguson 
and Dred Scott and Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, that those 
didn't represent a threat to personal liberty.
  Now, President Bush said that the best way to get health care, for 
those who were outside the mainstream, was very simple. You could go to 
an emergency room.
  That is not health care. That treats the issue in front of the 
individual. It denies preventive care. It doesn't offer assistance to 
women who are in need of additional health care. This proposal that we 
passed was modest, and it was market driven. It kept the private sector 
alive and it put in place basic protections for the American consumer.
  I wish that we could have a separate vote on the individual proposals 
that we included in that bill, and I guarantee you we wouldn't be 
talking about death panels; we would be talking about the idea of 
extending health care benefits to all members of the American family, 
including the 51 million who find themselves outside of the mainstream.
  Just think of it today. This is more of a threat to liberty than 
Plessy vs. Ferguson and Dred Scott and Lincoln's suspension of habeas 
corpus.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered today which 
wold repeal the historic health care reform bill.
  With passage of the new law last year, American families can take 
back the control of their health care.
  The law bars insurance companies from discriminating coverage based 
upon pre-existing conditions, health status and gender.
  The law caps the out-of-pocket health care expenses that have 
bankrupted many American families.
  The law allows individuals and small businesses to purchase 
affordable insurance from competitive marketplaces.
  And--the law contains the cost of health care while reducing the 
deficit by $138 billion over the next 10 years.
  We solved the dilemma so many Americans families face on a child's 
22nd birthday by extending dependent benefits until age 26.
  I am an ardent supporter of Social Security and Medicare. The new law 
filled the Medicare prescription donut hole and provided new wellness 
and preventive benefits seniors.
  We made history last year with this new law. And yet, today, this 
amendment seeks to undo all of this progress, all of these 
achievements, all of these new protections and benefits for Americans.
  I have visited the world-class hospitals of Massachusetts and spoken 
with the administrators, doctors, nurses, and other health care 
professionals. Massachusetts is way-ahead of the rest of the country in 
requiring health insurance coverage for almost all of our citizens. And 
I can tell you the state is better for it. The hospitals are better for 
it.
  I urge opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
judge and Congressman from east Texas, Mr. Louie Gohmert.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, we heard Minority Leader Pelosi saying 
earlier that we were here as Republicans siding with the insurance 
companies. Revisionist history is great, but if you go back and look at 
who was supporting the ObamaCare efforts, you had the insurance 
companies lined up all out there, supportive.
  You had the big pharmaceutical companies all out there supportive. 
You saw the American Hospital Association out there supportive. You saw 
the AMA out there supportive. You saw AARP. They were seen out there 
encouraging all of the ObamaCare stuff. Naturally they stand to gain 
with UnitedHealth more than anybody. They are the biggest sellers of 
Medigap insurance.
  So if you really want to look at history, who was it that was not 
supportive? Well, folks, we heard from them in November. It was the 
American people.
  That's why we are here. We are with small business. They will create 
the jobs. We are with the American people. That's why we are doing 
this.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. 
Wilson).
  The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The Chair would note that 
the point of order by the gentleman from New York continues to be 
reserved throughout.
  Ms. WILSON of Florida. Good afternoon. Madam Chair, somewhere in 
America today a family is losing their home because they can't afford 
the health care premiums for a diabetic dad and a hypertensive mom. 
Somewhere in America tonight a child will die because they have been 
denied health care because of a preexisting condition.
  Somewhere in America tomorrow a family will go bankrupt because they 
took care of a cancer-stricken family member.
  Black, white, Hispanic, Asian, urban, rural Republican, Democrat, 
independent, tea party, it doesn't matter.

[[Page H1219]]

At some time in our life we will all get sick. We need health care.
  But you know what? We, as Members of Congress, are very fortunate. We 
all get health care. We get the very best.
  But what about Jennifer and Lisa and James and grandma and grandpa 
and the Johnsons and baby Joshua? We represent them too. They deserve 
what we get.
  My constituents sent me to Washington to preserve the affordable 
health care legislation. They are proud of the product that the 111th 
Congress and Nancy Pelosi and President Obama produced. Long live 
affordable health care legislation.
  On behalf of the people of this Nation who depend on our leadership, 
I call upon you to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Thank you to the gentleman from Iowa for offering this 
important amendment.
  The liberal talking point in the debate thus far has gone something 
like this: We can't defund ObamaCare today because we have to focus on 
job creation.
  Now, that is very interesting, coming from the liberals in this 
Chamber who spent literally trillions of dollars out of the public 
Treasury only to see 2 million jobs lost in the private sector because 
of their failed policies on job creation.
  ObamaCare will likely create the largest government bureaucracy in 
the history of our country, filled with even more government jobs than 
any other agency. There is one thing that ObamaCare will likely do 
very, very well, and it's this: It will create the largest bureaucracy 
of government workers in the history of the Nation.
  It isn't that we will necessarily get more doctors; it isn't that 
ObamaCare will necessarily give us more nurses or truly more health 
care.
  What we will get from ObamaCare, according to the Congressional 
Budget Office, is increased costs in health care with a huge 
bureaucracy, all designed for the purpose likely of saying ``no'' to 
people when they need to have access to health care.
  What a bargain, Mr. Chairman. Pay more, get less. That's the reason 
why I believe the Rasmussen poll came out last week and said that 58 
percent of the American people are begging this Congress to repeal 
ObamaCare. Repeal we will, and defund we must.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank you very much to my dear friend.
  This is a siege on the lives of innocent Americans. It is a siege by 
undocumented claims of unconstitutionality.
  When Justice Scalia said the relevant inquiry is simply whether the 
means are chosen or reasonably adapted to the attainment of a 
legitimate end under the commerce clause. It is. This bill is 
constitutional.
  What this gentleman wants to do is to literally shut down community 
health clinics that are now under the Affordable Care Act. He wants to 
make sure that children are not getting immunized. He wants to make 
sure that HIV patients are not getting their medicine. He wants to make 
sure that seniors who can come to these clinics are not able to access 
them. He wants to make sure that families are getting no coverage. This 
is the end result of this very, very dangerous amendment.
  In addition, we have to respond to someone who got up and actually 
said this is the worst bill that has ever been passed. What about the 
slave laws? What about the fugitive slave laws? How dare anyone suggest 
this is the worst bill when we give opportunity to all Americans.
  This amendment should be denied. They should listen to Senator Frist, 
who said this bill is a good bill. There are Republicans who believe we 
should provide health care for America.

  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Chair, I recall back at the beginning of the Obama 
administration when President Obama said that we are in an economic 
calamity, an economic mess, and we couldn't fix our economic problems 
unless we first fixed health care. And so his solution for spending too 
much money was to spend a lot more money, $2.6 trillion on health care.
  So if we couldn't first fix the economy unless we first fix health 
care, let me take that philosophy and turn it this way. We can't fix 
health care unless we first repeal ObamaCare. That's where this country 
is today. We can't put the replacement in place, we can't put the fixes 
in place until we pull this thing out by the roots.
  And the only way to do this today is to shut off the funding. The 
repeal is over there in the Senate. The House voted in a strong way to 
repeal ObamaCare. H.R. 1 is the unfunding of ObamaCare. It is the 
vehicle to do it. This amendment is one of the vehicles that 
contributes to that cause.
  Again, I thank Denny Rehberg and the people that did this work and 
all those people that worked on this cause. I urge adoption.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1140

  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, the American people want us to focus our 
time and attention on creating jobs. They want us to turn the economy 
around. They want us to reduce the deficit. The total of the two 
amendments that have just come before this body would increase the 
deficit, increase it, the first one by $5.5 billion over the next 
several years, and this one at about $5.3 billion over the next 5 
years.
  That's not what you told them you were going to do. You told them you 
were going to create jobs and roll back the deficit. What you are doing 
here is putting the American people in the hands of the insurance 
companies again to make their decisions about health care. And we have 
health care in this body. Millions in this Nation do not.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, which doesn't create 
jobs, doesn't turn the economy around, and adds to the deficit.


                             Point of Order

  The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman from New York insist on his 
point of order?
  Mr. WEINER. Yes, I do.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state.
  Mr. WEINER. Madam Chair, I make a point of order that the gentleman's 
amendment is not in order because it results in a net reduction of 
revenues to the Treasury, in violation of the rules of the House and in 
violation of the rules stipulated in this bill. I explain that in the 
following way:
  As the gentleman surely knows, if his amendment is successful, the 
checks that are going to small businesses today, the tax breaks that 
they are getting to provide health care to their workers and the fact 
that there are no burdens on those small businesses means that they are 
going to have less money to spend, therefore less people they will be 
able to hire, a reduction in the amount of jobs, a reduction in the 
amount of revenue coming into the government, an increased burden on 
government services.
  In fact, the gentleman would say that anyone that would be writing 
the check to give back to citizens, they can't do it. Anyone taking 
that check, bringing it to them can't any longer do it. Anyone cashing 
that check would be in violation of the law. This amendment says that 
anyone getting a tax break under this bill would have to give it back. 
That would provide a net reduction in the amount of economic activity 
and job creation in this country, and therefore his amendment is out of 
order.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is the gentleman making a point of order under 
section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5?
  Mr. WEINER. I actually withdraw my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman withdraws his point of order.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be 
postponed.


                Amendment No. 83 Offered by Mrs. Emerson

  Mrs. EMERSON. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

[[Page H1220]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Internal Revenue Service to implement or 
     enforce section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 
     section 6055 of such Code , section 1502(c) of the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act, or any amendments made by 
     section 1502(b) of such Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17, 
2011, the gentlewoman from Missouri and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Missouri.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Madam Chair, this amendment will prevent the appropriation of any 
funds in this act to implement or enforce the provisions within the 
health spending law that require the IRS to verify that individuals 
have health care coverage and impose penalties on those who don't 
comply.
  The fate of this mandate in the courts is uncertain, but we know that 
it already has been ruled upon by the American people. They don't want 
and shouldn't suffer a mandate from government to engage in specific 
economic activity. As a matter of fact, my own State of Missouri passed 
a ballot initiative last August by a vote of 71 percent not to enforce 
the individual mandate.
  This is the bright lights example of what's wrong with the health 
care law. It compels Americans to give up their freedoms, to render 
their choices, and part with their hard-earned money to support a 
system of health care designed by and run by the Federal Government 
through a maze of boards, committees, and bureaucrats.
  No Americans should be forced to buy or purchase health insurance 
they neither want nor can afford, and the Federal Government has never 
based the purchase of a good or service as a condition of being a law-
abiding citizen. The American people need some form of protection that 
the IRS will not begin to aggressively implement the individual 
mandate, and this measure ensures that it won't be implemented prior to 
the end of fiscal year 2011.
  States, including my own, small businesses across the country, and 
individuals of their own volition deserve the chance to speak on this 
important matter in the courts before the law adds extraordinary new 
burdens to the fiscal responsibility of the State governments, forces 
small businesses to fire employees they value, and compels individuals 
to spend money they would rather save. For all these disconcerting 
reasons, I urge you to support this crucial amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. I think before we go any further on this subject, we 
really have to understand what is happening here. The majority party 
would like to do away with the health care reform law, and the way to 
do that is exactly that way, to try to do away with the law. But they 
don't have the votes in both Houses to do that. So what they're trying 
to do is not fund provisions that have to go into place.
  So at this moment what Mrs. Emerson is trying to do is say that no 
funds can be used to impose this mandate. Now, this particular part is 
going to get played out in the courts. So let's be honest: the courts 
will have to decide why it's okay to mandate that you have car 
insurance but not this particular issue. And there are going to be a 
lot of other issues that are going to be done. But the issue here is 
that they would like to legislate on this bill the end of health care. 
And that's just not going to happen.
  Lastly, what this amendment does is speak to the larger issue, which 
is that in this country now we have a law that provides access to 
quality health care to all residents regardless of who they are, where 
they live, or their income. The only people who are upset about this 
bill, about this law, and have done a good job of telling the American 
people that this is the end of the world, are the insurance companies 
who now have to step up to the plate and follow the law.

  So we know what this is about. We know what you are trying to 
accomplish, but it's not going to work. It's not going to work this 
way, and it's not going to work in rescinding the law.
  Lastly, you know that every so often I give advice to the Republican 
Party because I like you. If you keep calling it ObamaCare, you know 
what's going to happen? It's going to make it through the courts, and 
20 years from now you are going to have Social Security, Medicare, and 
ObamaCare, and you would have cemented his legacy forever. So we thank 
you for that, and I am sure the President thanks you.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. I thank my friend for yielding, and I rise in opposition to 
this amendment. The reason I do is as a member of the Ways and Means 
Committee, we had Commissioner Shulman before us talking about the IRS 
role in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. And he said 
virtually all of the additional funding that they will receive will be 
used for outreach efforts to inform small businesses of the tax cuts 
that they are now eligible to receive with the implementation of this 
law.
  That means 16,000 small businesses in my district alone in western 
Wisconsin are receiving tax credits under the Affordable Care Act, 
making it more affordable for them to provide health care coverage to 
their workers.
  And if you look at the 50 million uninsured individuals in this 
country every year, the bulk of them are working Americans, typically 
in small businesses or family farms who have a hard time providing 
health care coverage. And yet the IRS is going to be doing outreach to 
them to let them know the benefits they are eligible for, along with 
other individuals throughout the country, of what they are eligible for 
in the Affordable Care Act to make sure they receive quality, 
affordable health care coverage. That in essence would be the IRS role. 
And I think for that reason we should vote against this amendment.

                              {time}  1150

  Mrs. EMERSON. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. How much time do I have, Madam Chair?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 2 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from Missouri has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SERRANO. I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I would just like to point out, again, the 
gentlewoman's amendment is just like the others we've heard before. It 
is going to completely eliminate implementation of the health care 
reform because the bottom line is that, if this amendment were to pass, 
then all of the positive things that have already gone into place in 
terms of eliminating discrimination against preexisting conditions or 
the other discriminatory practices, like lifetime or annual caps, or 
the requirement that young people up to the age of 26 be able to get 
insurance coverage on their parents' policies, all of these things 
essentially depend on the mandate, because without the mandate, what 
happens is that insurance companies go back, again, to discriminatory 
practices. This is nothing more but an effort essentially to eliminate 
the health care reform. Whether it's defunded, whether it's eliminating 
the mandate or the other amendments that we're going to see later today 
because this is a package. And we all know, it's absolutely clear, that 
without the mandate, it is going to be impossible to carry out the 
coverage and the implementation of these important provisions that 
eliminate discrimination.
  Mrs. EMERSON. At this time, Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  The issue is, is this constitutional? It's not whether it's a great 
idea, whether an individual mandate is going to save us all. The issue 
is whether it's constitutional. Now I do not believe the Constitution 
gives the Federal Government the authority to force an American to buy 
anything, whether

[[Page H1221]]

it's health care insurance, whether it's a car, or whether it's a box 
of doughnuts. And if we allow the Congress to go in and force Americans 
to buy a product or be punished by paying a fee which is a fine, and if 
you don't pay the fine, you could be prosecuted under the IRS code and 
go to prison, then where does it stop? Where does Congress then stop 
its nonsense of forcing Americans to buy products all in the name of 
saving us all?
  This portion is unconstitutional. We should not force Americans to 
buy any product. And we should defund the individual mandate for the 
simple reason it's unconstitutional. Let's talk about that issue in 
this discussion and debate on the House floor.
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from the great State 
of California.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, the issue before us is whether the IRS 
should be able to enforce the laws, in this case the health care laws. 
During the first decade of the 2000 period, there was enormous Medicare 
fraud going on. In the health care bill, additional agents were added 
to the IRS and other agencies to enforce the Medicare laws against 
fraud. This provision would defund that and make it impossible to 
enforce the laws and prevent Medicare fraud. A very bad idea.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mrs. EMERSON. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. I rise to ask a question of the Chair. Who has the right 
to close on this amendment?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has the right to close.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mrs. EMERSON. Madam Chair, parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman will state her parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Is it not correct that I would have the right to close?
  The Acting CHAIR. The manager in opposition would be entitled to 
close.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Missouri is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Number one, my colleague tried to make a comparison 
between car insurance and health insurance. First of all, auto 
insurance, if you will, deals with liability and the harm that you may 
do to others. Health insurance has to do with a liability to yourself. 
It's totally different. And I don't believe that any State actually 
requires comprehensive insurance. The bottom line is, we do not want 
the IRS implementing now regulations that may be overturned perhaps in 
the near future in the courts.
  At the end of the day, we do not know what the courts are going to 
say about the constitutionality of an individual mandate. And as such, 
it seems irresponsible for the Internal Revenue Service, when it has so 
many demands on its time and on its employees, to implement something 
that we don't know whether or not it's actually going to become the law 
of the land. So with that, I believe very strongly that the IRS should 
not be spending those moneys in FY 2011, and we will deal with 2012 at 
the time when it comes up.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Let me just very quickly in closing say that I was very 
surprised and interested in hearing that the Republican Party is going 
to move next on undoing the mandate on car insurance throughout this 
country and other insurance. We know what this is. This is a way to try 
to kill the law of the land. This should not be done. And I oppose the 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SERRANO. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Missouri 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 552 Offered by Mr. Schrader

  Mr. SCHRADER. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act (other than a provision relating to amounts required to 
     be made available by a provision of law), divisions A and B 
     of this Act appropriate for fiscal year 2011, for each agency 
     for which amounts were made available (with respect to 
     division A) in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 
     2010 (Public Law 111-118) or (with respect to division B) an 
     appropriations Act referred to in section 1101(a), such 
     amounts as may be necessary, under the authority and 
     conditions provided in applicable appropriations Acts and at 
     the level specified in section 1101(c), except that such 
     level, with respect to the following appropriations Acts, 
     shall be equal to the following percentages of the amounts 
     made available for such agency in such Acts for fiscal year 
     2010 (other than amounts required to be made available by a 
     provision of law), including transfers and obligation 
     limitations:
       (1) The Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2010 (division B of Public Law 111-117), 
     89 percent.
       (2) The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 
     (Public Law 111-118), 101 percent.
       (3) The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 
     2010 (Public Law 111-83), the percentage required to bring 
     the aggregate amount appropriated in such Act for fiscal year 
     2010 (other than amounts required to be made available by a 
     provision of law) to $42,517,000,000.
       (4) The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (division E of 
     Public Law 111-117), the percentage required to bring the 
     aggregate amount appropriated in such Act for fiscal year 
     2010 (other than amounts required to be made available by a 
     provision of law) to $74,682,000,000.
       (5) All other appropriations Acts referred to in section 
     1101(a), 96 percent.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     expenditures made pursuant to the Continuing Appropriations 
     Act, 2011 (Public Law 111-242), shall be charged to the 
     applicable appropriation, fund, or authorization provided by 
     division A in the same manner as provided by this Act with 
     respect to division B.
       (c) Amounts appropriated by subsection (a) may be allocated 
     by the applicable agency head among agency accounts, 
     programs, projects, and activities, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this Act.

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17, 2011, the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. SCHRADER. Madam Chair, colleagues, I have enjoyed seeing this 
open process in this body for the first time in a long time, as far as 
it goes. However, a real open process would allow for real alternatives 
representing meaningful compromises in scope as well as in the 
particulars. America needs and deserves a real bipartisan solution that 
is more than political theater and actually has a chance of being a 
viable compromise with the Senate and President.
  I took two messages from the election last November: America wants 
jobs, and they want to see their Nation's fiscal health restored. To 
achieve these dual objectives, we need to have a careful balance 
between ensuring this fragile recovery and beginning the march to 
prudent fiscal reform. Expert economists and previous CBO directors 
agree that $61 billion in reductions to the 2010 budget level, which we 
are currently debating, representing a 14 percent hit to our domestic 
spending on education, health care, public safety, and economic 
development, would be a crushing, crushing burden on job creation and 
our economic recovery.
  Contrary to the lofty rhetoric surrounding the CR's role in 
correcting our budget deficits and national debt, this deals with less 
than 15 percent of our budget.

                              {time}  1200

  I'm afraid this is merely a political exercise. America is begging 
for more from its duly elected Representatives. The proposed CR does 
not even get to the mythical $100 billion in reductions that were 
talked about during the political campaign. This proposal was not even 
considered by the Republican leadership as real. They opted for a more 
reasonable $34 billion reduction target before being hijacked by 
politics again. Where are the open committee

[[Page H1222]]

hearings? Where is the testimony from individuals, businesses or 
agencies? We are operating with virtually no deliberation at all; and 
oftentimes, Members have mere minutes to evaluate the amendments.
  Members have literally been working day and night for a reasonable 
compromise. We need a CR that gets us through these tough times and 
sets the stage for real fiscal reform.
  I have such a proposal before you here today. My alternative CR 
requires a 4.7 percent, across-the-board reduction in domestic spending 
for the remainder of 2011. The only exception is the Census Bureau. My 
proposal strikes more appropriate reductions in military spending while 
at the same time protecting our warriors in the field. As the Secretary 
of Defense has stated, we need to eliminate costly weapons systems, way 
over budget, out-of-control civilian contracting and achieve much 
needed efficiencies in the agency. So rather than a 2 percent increase, 
we talk about a 1 percent increase.
  This proposal, which I hope is taken as a beginning for a bipartisan 
compromise on the continuing resolution, makes real cuts of about $20 
billion in our current level of spending, enough to be meaningful, with 
7 months remaining in our calendar year, or our fiscal year, but not 
enough to undermine the recovery. It's simple, it's serious, and it's 
real.
  I urge its adoption.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order 
against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates 
clause 2 of rule XXI, which states in pertinent part: an amendment to a 
general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing 
law. The amendment attempts to create a legislative formula for 
spending.
  I ask for a ruling.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be recognized to speak to 
the point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment seeks to establish a legislative 
formula for funding. The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.


                  Amendment No. 89 Offered by Mr. Kind

  Mr. KIND. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to provide payments (or to pay the salaries and 
     expenses of personnel to provide payments) to the Brazil 
     Cotton Institute.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17, 
2011, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KIND. I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  Madam Chair, my amendment is very simple and straightforward. It 
would save the American taxpayers $150 million a year by ending a new 
American taxpayer subsidy that is going to Brazilian cotton 
agribusiness. If this program sounds crazy, it's because it is. But 
it's also the truth.
  How did we get to this point? Well, Brazil had a successful WTO 
challenge against our own cotton subsidy program under our own farm 
bill. They prevailed; and you would think that the logical, reasonable 
response from us would be to reform our cotton subsidy program. But 
that's not what happened.
  Instead, a new program has been created to the tune of $150 million 
per year to buy off Brazil cotton agribusiness so they won't pursue 
economic sanctions against our country. It's foolish, it's wasteful, 
and it speaks to the need for us to get into serious farm bill reform, 
especially under the title I subsidy commodity programs. We need to 
eliminate this new subsidy and then get onto the tough lifting of 
comprehensive farm bill reform.
  I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I rise in opposition to the Kind amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, in 2004, the WTO, the World Trade Organization, found 
the United States guilty of illegal subsidies to American cotton 
farmers. It's been a long process, but Brazil is a very important ally 
of ours. We get along fine. They are very important to us strategically 
in our own hemisphere, so we want to get along with Brazil. And because 
of that, we worked out this settlement which kept Brazil from putting 
retaliatory tariffs on us. That saved us money.
  If we did not agree to this--which Mr. Kind has pointed out--$147 
million, we would have to pay $829 million. This is less, and it only 
is in effect until the farm bill is passed. In the 2012 farm bill, 
we'll deal with that.
  With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the chairman of the Agriculture 
Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  This transfer of funds was established as part of an agreement 
negotiated between the U.S. and Brazilian Governments. As a result of 
this agreement negotiated by the USTR and USDA, Brazil agreed to 
suspend retaliation against U.S. exports. If this amendment passes and 
the funds are not transferred in compliance with the agreement, then 
the U.S. will be in violation of the agreement. Brazil would then have 
the right to immediately impose punitive tariffs on U.S. exports. What 
Mr. Kind's amendment does is invite a trade war.
  The U.S.-Brazil agreement is in place only until the 2012 farm bill 
is completed. This provides an opportunity for the U.S. to determine 
what adjustments to current law are necessary as a part of the next 
farm bill to bring the U.S. cotton program into compliance with the WTO 
ruling. This amendment should not be on this bill. It is a policy 
change.
  Please join me in defeating this amendment.
  Mr. KIND. Madam Chair, I respect my colleagues' position. The answer 
is not to create a new $150 American subsidy program going to Brazil. 
The answer is to reform our programs now in the United States.
  And with that, I yield 1 minute to my good friend from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I think if we were to have a 
contest on your YouCut for the single stupidest thing the Federal 
Government could do, it would be to take $120 million more of American 
tax dollars and send it to subsidize Brazilian cotton farmers so we can 
continue to subsidize American cotton farmers. That's what we're 
talking about.
  I find it somewhat ironic that my friends who are the great believers 
in free enterprise and the free market think somehow there's an 
exception for agriculture. But whether you do or you don't, sending 
money to Brazilian cotton farmers at a time when we are making 
fundamental cuts here is problematic.
  It also illustrates my problem with the structure of this bill. I was 
hard-pressed to find offsets so we could continue to fund enforcement 
of securities fraud or consumer protection. Where could we have gotten 
the money? Well, we could have gotten it from Brazil. Instead of 
sending it to Brazilian cotton farmers, we could have used it for our 
own law enforcement. But the bill is structured to protect this. At 
least we cannot waste it.
  So let's be very clear. To protect our right to continue to subsidize 
American cotton farmers, we are going to subsidize Brazilian cotton 
farmers. Lunacy.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KIND. Madam Chair, at this time, I would like to yield 1 minute 
to my friend from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I hope that nobody in this Chamber or watching here misses the irony 
of this, that we are spending money to subsidize Brazilian agriculture 
so that

[[Page H1223]]

we can continue to subsidize agriculture here. That is just incredible 
when you think about it.
  And what this amendment will do is to force us back to the table. It 
won't spark a trade war. It will simply say, all right, stop 
subsidizing your own agriculture in a way that violates your trade 
agreements. That's what we want to do is force the issue where we can 
actually get out of these subsidy programs. We cannot continue to send 
money to Brazil so that we can continue to subsidize agriculture here. 
It just makes no sense at all. This is a great amendment. I hope that 
my colleagues will support it.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 3 minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Wisconsin has 1\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I yield myself 10 seconds. I just want to 
point out that I understand and hear what the folks are saying, but we 
are in a situation where we have an existing farm bill. If we do not do 
this, it is going to cost American taxpayers $682 million. That was the 
WTO agreement.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, the 
ranking member of the Ag Subcommittee on Appropriations, Mr. Farr.

                              {time}  1210

  Mr. FARR. I think that this is a problem. And I think Mr. Kind has a 
way of looking at trying to remove the money, but it's not going to 
make the problem go away.
  I agree that this is a thing that needs to be addressed because 
there's going to be retaliatory implications if this money is just 
pulled, and those retaliatory implications are unknown to an awful lot 
of other agriculture who may even support this amendment. So it is an 
idea that we need to address. This is not the place to address it.
  I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. KIND. Again, the answer is not to invite a trade war. The answer 
is to fix our problem here in America by reforming the long overdue 
cotton subsidy program.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to my friend from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. We've got everything but murder going on here.
  We're being blackmailed by the Government of Brazil, and so we are 
giving precious U.S. taxpayer dollars, $147 million, to Brazil for 
their cotton farmers while I have got small farmers going broke. Now, 
come on.
  And now we hear from the gentleman from Georgia, well, that's what 
the law says. Hey, you just repealed health care. You can change the 
farm bill. We can do away with these obscene subsidies, $3.4 billion 
bilked from U.S. taxpayers going to subsidize cotton farmers, who use 
subsidized water on top of that, whose total crop value was $4 billion. 
So $3.4 billion of it is our taxpayer subsidy. This is indefensible.
  Take this step now, and then next week you can repeal the farm bill 
and replace that.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I would remind the gentleman from Oregon we are going 
to reauthorize the farm bill next year, which is what this is all 
about.
  I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  While far from perfect, this agreement was arranged by the Obama 
administration and the country of Brazil. This will incite a 
retaliatory trade war against the United States' intellectual 
properties. It won't have anything to do with tariffs on U.S. 
agriculture, but it will hurt other segments of our economies.
  The 2008 farm bill was a contract with American farmers. They have 
put business processes in place based on that 5-year contract. We will 
renew and renegotiate that contract in 2012. It makes no sense to 
unwind this on a piecemeal basis right now.
  This is a smokescreen by the other side who wants to go after the 
farm bill. Madam Chairman, they have gone after it time and time again. 
But the contract with American farmers, which allows Americans to enjoy 
the cheapest, most affordable, most abundant and safest food and fiber 
supply in the world, is on the backs of this farm bill. Reopening it 
now on an ad hoc piecemeal basis is the wrong policy for this country. 
Voting for this is a vote to institute a trade war with Brazil, no 
matter what the rhetoric is from the other side.
  Oppose this amendment.
  Mr. KIND. Madam Chair, what is really ironic in this debate is that 
cotton prices are at an all-time high in the marketplace, and yet it 
shows the built-up resistance in this institution to get to the hard 
work of reforming these farm subsidy programs, which is long overdue. 
They claim they are going to do it in the next farm bill, but there is 
no assurance when that is going to come up. It could be 3 years from 
now. That could be an additional half billion dollars from the American 
taxpayer for subsidies flowing to Brazil. The answer is to do it now 
rather than waiting next year or 3 years from now, or maybe never at 
all.
  I have been around here long enough to know the powerful special 
interests that resist farm reform. We should do it and save taxpayer 
dollars at the same time.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), the chairman of the Trade 
Subcommittee, who will explain why this saves $682 million and complies 
with WTO laws.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Chair, I am sympathetic to this amendment. 
The United States should live up to its WTO obligations, particularly 
if we expect other countries to do the same.
  Paying Brazil about $12 million a month rather than complying with 
the WTO decision regarding cotton subsidies isn't the best way to 
resolve this dispute. I acknowledge that. But this settlement is 
necessary to prevent Brazil from imposing almost $1 billion in 
retaliation against American goods and services, as it's entitled to 
do.
  This retaliation could take many dangerous and costly forms, 
including high tariffs on our American sales abroad and allowing Brazil 
to no longer protect American intellectual property rights. Such 
retaliation would be devastating. It would cost U.S. jobs and harm 
thousands of innocent workers who have nothing to do with this case.
  As a result, I must oppose this amendment and urge its defeat.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KIND. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 88 Offered by Mr. Kind

  Mr. KIND. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by division A of 
     this Act may be used to research, develop, test, evaluate, or 
     procure any of the following:
       (1) Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.
       (2) Surface-Launched Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air 
     Missile program.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17, 
2011, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KIND. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, my amendment is pretty straightforward and simple. It 
would eliminate two weapons programs that the Defense Department, 
Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the bipartisan fiscal 
commissions all say are not necessary, they are not needed, they don't 
go to improve military readiness, and they are redundant. It's the 
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle as well as the Surface Launch Medium 
Range Air-to-Air Missile System, the SLAMRAAM for short.
  Now, I am not going to get into the details as to why these weapons 
programs should be defunded. Those serving on the committee have heard 
these arguments for years. But what I want to make is a larger point 
here today; that if we're going to be serious about true deficit 
reduction, the defense aspect of the Federal budget also has to

[[Page H1224]]

be on the table. And what better place to start than by listening to 
our own military leaders who continually tell this Congress: Stop 
appropriating money for weapons systems we don't want, that we don't 
want to use, that aren't necessary, they don't enhance military 
readiness, and they are not going to support our troops in the field. 
And these two programs fit that bill.
  Now, we had a previous amendment from Ms. Woolsey in regards to the 
EFV program. She laid out the reasons behind that, that I don't have to 
get into. But the fact is defense spending is the second largest 
spending category in the entire Federal budget after health care costs. 
And if that is taken off the table, which I hear too often from too 
many of my colleagues, it's going to make restoring the fiscal health 
of our Nation that much more difficult.
  And with just the elimination of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, 
Secretary Gates estimates it could save the American taxpayer over $12 
billion. And then for the SLAMRAAM program, General Chiarelli estimated 
that would save an additional $1 billion. When the budget is going to 
be tight and there's inevitably going to be an increasing squeeze on 
our military and military readiness, what better place to start than 
these weapon programs that the military is not even asking for and 
instructing Congress to stop the insanity?
  But I was also proud in the last session of Congress that the 
Democratic majority moved forward on another important area of defense 
reform, and that's the weapons procurement program. A recent General 
Accounting Office report indicates that current weapons programs in the 
pipeline today are over $300 billion over budget.
  So this blank check that defense contractors expect from the American 
taxpayers has got to end, or we will spend ourselves into oblivion and 
we won't get a good bang for the taxpayer dollars and we won't be doing 
right for the American fighting soldier.
  So the point of my amendment is simple. It's going to be tough making 
the type of budget decisions that we have to make in a bipartisan 
fashion to get these structural deficits under control. The defense 
budget should also be fair game for scrutiny and transparency and cost 
savings. And what better place to start than where our own military 
leaders are instructing us to go: weapons programs they don't need, 
will save money, reduce the redundancy, and help deal with the budget 
deficits that we're facing.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1220

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, we had a long discussion on the 
EFV program, and this legislation provides for an agreement that we are 
just about to reach where it is a win-win situation. It is a win for 
the taxpayer. The taxpayer is not going to have to pay $145 million in 
termination costs. The same money can be used to complete the program 
as it stands.
  The Marine Corps is satisfied with this. I have been discussing this 
with Secretary Gates for quite a long time now. Too often the military 
starts a program, a great idea, spends a lot of money in the conceptual 
design, research and development, only to cancel the program, get 
nothing for it and lose the money. Here is a case where we win. Three 
billion dollars has already been spent. We get to take advantage of 
completing that program with the money that we would pay to terminate 
the program anyway.
  SLAMRAAM is basically a similar program, much smaller than the EFV 
program, but SLAMRAAM is similar. They are just about to complete the 
development stage and have SLAMRAAM on the shelf in the event they need 
to go to procurement immediately for an immediate need.
  So I am opposed to this amendment. It doesn't do good for the 
taxpayer or the military.
  I want to compliment Mr. Kind, because we have had several 
opportunities to work together with his constituents, wounded 
constituents and their families, and he has been very, very helpful. I 
want to thank him for having worked on those issues.
  I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks), the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations 
Committee and the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
  Mr. DICKS. I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment for the 
same very reason. The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is coming to an 
end. I agree with the chairman. It makes me cringe that they have spent 
$3 billion on this, but for an additional $34 million, we can finish 
the R&D phase of this program. That is what the chairman was talking 
about. Then we don't have to pay $145 million, as I understand it, in 
termination costs. I think it is just wise to get the final research 
done. So I would reluctantly have to oppose this amendment because it 
would take away our opportunity to get this better agreement that the 
chairman is talking about.
  SLAMRAAM is an AIM-9 missile that is ground-based, and this program 
is coming to an end. It is being terminated as well, and we support 
that.
  Again, I think we should reject the gentleman's amendment, but the 
outcome of what he is talking about will be achieved in the very near 
future.
  Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, I am just going to conclude my statement 
with this. I have great respect and admiration for the two gentlemen 
who have been serving on the Defense Appropriations Committee for years 
and I am not going to stand here and pretend that I know more about the 
defense budget than these two gentlemen do. I don't. But I do tend to 
listen carefully to our own military leadership at the Pentagon.
  Secretary of Defense Gates said about the Expeditionary Fighting 
Vehicle that over two decades the program is going to consume half of 
the Marine Corps procurement funds and nearly all of the ground vehicle 
budget, something they are trying to avoid. Even though the Marine 
Corps Commandant General James Amos has supported the EFV in the past, 
he has now recognized that this is ``an onerous fiscal program.''
  So if we can't start here with these programs, where are we going to 
go in defense for cost savings?
  I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. As I understand the arguments of the 
chairman and the ranking member, it is we are going to get rid of these 
eventually, but let's not do it too quickly because we might save money 
prematurely. I have never heard a weaker defense for continuing to 
spend money, that at some point we are going to stop. So why not stop 
now? So I think the gentleman from Wisconsin ought to be supported.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I will conclude this debate.
  This is probably a very well-intentioned amendment, but it just gets 
in the way of working out solutions that are a win for the taxpayer and 
a win for the military. We should take advantage of every opportunity 
that we have to save the money for the taxpayer and get them something 
for it. That is what this amendment would prevent from happening.
  We had a lengthy discussion on the EFV earlier in the debate 
yesterday, and I am more convinced than ever, as well-intentioned as 
the amendment might be, it is just not a good idea and it is not in the 
best interests of the taxpayer or the military.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 48 Offered by Mr. Polis

  Mr. POLIS. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

[[Page H1225]]

       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enforce section 75.708 of title 34, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, as it relates to section 5205 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7221d).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17, 
2011, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, this amendment would help increase the 
ability of the administration to leverage the resources they already 
have to support expansion and replication of charter schools that have 
shown to be effective.
  Basically, this amendment will remove a regulation that prevents 
subgranting and doesn't allow charter school grants to be done through 
intermediaries, which are generally venture philanthropy organizations 
like New Schools Venture Fund and Charter School Growth Network. These 
organizations have proven that they can help guide charter schools and 
CMOs, organizations that manage one or two charter schools and help 
build them into successful, multisite organizations that support 
student success.
  These venture philanthropy organizations use the same model in the 
nonprofit sense--I want to emphasis they are nonprofits--as venture 
capital does in the private sector and support excellence in the 
charter schools that are part of their portfolio. They encourage 
rigorous evaluations. They provide strategic guidance to board 
membership.
  One of the issues we frequently have with charter schools is lack of 
quality governance. These intermediaries actually can help establish 
quality governance, which is such an important determinant of whether a 
charter school is successful or not. They can provide flexibility and 
provide specific interventions as needed. When something isn't working, 
they can help.
  Finally, it will empower the administration to help be able to work 
through venture philanthropy organizations to better leverage Federal 
funds. If you have X dollars in Federal funds, they can combine that 
with two-X or three-X in private philanthropic capital they have raised 
to have a more meaningful impact on student achievement, to help expand 
and replicate what we know works with regard to charter schools.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POLIS. I yield to the gentleman from California, ranking member 
of the Education Committee.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding 
and thank him for this amendment. I would hope he would withdraw this 
amendment so we would have an opportunity to go through exactly what 
the thresholds would be for the Department to award this right to the 
grantors to make these subgrants.
  Obviously, you have been a leader in the effort of improving the 
quality and number of charter schools, but this is a $50 million pool 
of money that could rightfully be used for this purpose, but I think we 
want to make sure that we have some assurances as to accountability and 
the kinds of subgrants that would be made to expand the universe of 
high-quality, high-performing charter schools.
  I know that Congressman Kline is also supportive of this amendment, 
but I think it would be best if we had an opportunity to walk through 
it and then either approach the Department to rewrite the regulation or 
to have legislation from the committee.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman and look forward to working with the 
chair and the ranking member to ensure that the administration has all 
the tools they need to make sure that the limited resources they have 
for expansion or replication of models that we know work are used in 
the highest-leveraged way possible.
  Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1230


         Amendment No. 400 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair notes that the amendment proposes to 
amend portions of the bill already passed in the reading.
  Does the gentlewoman from Texas seek unanimous consent to offer the 
amendment at this point in the reading?
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I do.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I object.
  The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. I am very sorry that the gentlelady cannot offer her well-
thought-out amendments on a technicality, but I will yield 3 minutes to 
her to explain what her amendments would have done if they had been in 
order.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. It's unfortunate that Republicans want to 
issue a point of order. We asked unanimous consent for amendments that 
have been placed timely into the Record against jobs. And that is what 
my amendment is about. It clearly is about restoring the $5 billion 
that the Republicans want to take out and block American jobs.
  You can clearly see how long we've been here, and there have been 
actually no jobs being created by Republicans. This amendment does 
simply one thing: It restores the $5 billion in stimulus dollars that 
have created thousands upon thousands of jobs. It has created this 
housing for low-income housing. It has created this kind of map that 
shows that stimulus jobs have been all over America and created 585,653 
jobs, 253,000 projects.
  It is interesting that our friends can support President Obama on 
agricultural subsidies, but they can create no jobs, and they want to 
oppose restoring the $5 billion in stimulus dollars--and I might call 
them reinvestment dollars.
  In addition, our friends want to ignore the fact that by taking away 
$5 billion they close what we call community health clinics. Yes, this 
is where Americans are now getting their good health care, in community 
clinics.
  So I would argue that it is a shame that we have a situation where 
you cannot present this amendment. Jobs, the idea of infrastructure 
investment, the idea of low-income housing that is being created, and 
as well, projects like housing for the elderly in Minnesota, Kawana 
Village Apartments that are in the Washington area, Father Murphy Phase 
III, 10 new rental duplexes in Shawnee, Oklahoma. Blackfeet housing, 
223 homes, again, in Montana. Mount View Village Lodge, again in 
Alaska. And of course Pueblo Housing in El Paso, Texas. Can you tell me 
why you want to eliminate the idea and the ability for individuals to 
work by taking away the moneys that have been invested in America? That 
is what this has done.
  In Houston alone, Center Point has been able to improve their grids 
to provide more energy for our community. We have gotten $849 million 
that has put people to work and has provided health care, has improved 
the environment. I would ask my colleagues to take away the point of 
order, to not say I'm out of order.
  You're putting a point of order on American jobs. And I think it is 
insane to not be able to allow a Member to stand and say that the 
moneys that you're taking away have proven themselves to be moneys that 
have been legitimate and have called upon the American people to rise 
up and to be employed.
  There are people who are now at their 99th level of not being able to 
get employed and get unemployment insurance. They need these jobs. The 
$5 billion that will be taken away will be impacting projects yet to 
come that will help rebuild America's infrastructure.
  I thank the gentleman from Washington for allowing this explanation, 
but I hopefully will be heard at least by the colleagues and the people 
of the United States on this amendment, restoring simply $5 billion.
  There was a second amendment that was going to make the point that we 
don't want Americans to know how much great work the Recovery Act has 
done by taking money away for signs

[[Page H1226]]

that have been put up. I'm willing to withdraw that amendment because 
$5 billion is $5 billion to put Americans to work. I am simply appalled 
at the fact that we don't have the opportunity to share with the 
American people their tax dollars to make sure that they have the 
opportunity to work, to have good health care, to have housing, and to 
have good energy relief to make sure that our environment is safe and 
that we expand our independence by having the kind of energy efficiency 
that seniors are in need of.

  So to the gentleman from Washington, I do want to acknowledge that 
the Recovery Act moneys have been an effective tool for building jobs. 
And frankly, 1,000 jobs were created in Houston.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Many economists today say that if we had not had stimulus, 
unemployment would be at 13 percent. I hear so often over on the other 
side that it didn't work.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. I hear so much talk on the other side that the stimulus 
program didn't--reputable economists say the unemployment rate would be 
at 12.5 to 13 percent if we hadn't had the stimulus package. And again, 
that's why we're so worried about the magnitude of the cuts here having 
a countercyclical effect. So I appreciate the gentlewoman's work on 
this.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.


              Amendment No. 104 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Jordan), I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. (a) Each amount made available by the following 
     provisions of division B of this Act (other than an amount 
     required to be made available by a provision of law) is 
     hereby reduced by the following percentage:
       (1) Section 1101(a)(5) and title IX, 11 percent.
       (2) All other provisions of such division (except as 
     provided by subsection (b)), 5.5 percent.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to amounts made 
     available--
       (1) by section 1101(a)(3) and title VI;
       (2) by section 1101(a)(6) (with respect to division E of 
     Public Law 111-117) and title X; and
       (3) for Israel, by section 1101(a)(6) (with respect to 
     division F of Public Law 111-117) and title XI.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 17, 
2011, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and a Member 
opposed each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Chair, the American people spoke loud and clear 
in November, and they have continued to speak and hold us accountable. 
Their message is clear: They are overtaxed, this government is 
overspent, and they have had enough of Washington passing bills, 
regulations, rules and programs they can't afford and do not want. They 
have said stop the out-of-control spending.
  Washington does not have a revenue problem; Washington has a very 
serious spending problem. They are ready for us to change the way the 
system operates. They want the fiscal house in order, and there is a 
systematic way we can approach this.
  In the past couple of years, 26 different States have used this 
method--indeed, even Tennessee, my State, used it during a time of 
fiscal crisis. They have replaced billions of dollars in deficit 
spending and projections with spending cuts, and now it is time for the 
Federal government to follow the States.
  The Republican Study Committee amendment makes an 11-percent cut on 
our legislative branch spending and a 5\1/2\ percent cut in other non-
Defense, non-Veteran, non-Homeland Security accounts. This amendment 
will save $22.2 billion for the balance of this fiscal year and from 
this year's deficit. I know not everyone is a fan of across-the-board 
cuts, but many of us are and so are our constituents.
  This is a concept that should be implemented at the Federal level. 
And indeed, it has been used before. President Roosevelt used it during 
World War II, and from 1942 to 1944 they cut 20 percent. President 
Truman, with the Korean War, they cut 28 percent in 1950. It is used. 
It works. It has a history of working. It is imperative that we get the 
spending cut. And across-the-board spending reductions are a very 
responsible way for us to do this.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Let me remind my colleagues what the underlying CR does to 
existing programs even before we consider the additional across-the-
board cut offered by Mr. Jordan:
  A cut of $107 million from food safety inspections. This amendment by 
Mr. Jordan would take an additional $5.6 million. The CR also already 
cuts $400 million to the Food and Drug Administration, and this 
amendment would take an additional $22 million. Cuts to State law 
enforcement assistance of $1.3 billion, 35 percent compared to the 
current rate; the Jordan amendment would cut an additional $68 million. 
The original version also completely eliminated the Cops Hiring 
Program, but an amendment passed by the House this week from our side 
prevailed, reinstating some of that funding.

                              {time}  1240

  It cut $661 million below the current rate from the Army Corps of 
Engineers, leaving hundreds of communities without critical flood 
control and navigation work. The Jordan amendment would cut an 
additional $35 million.
  The CR also completely eliminates weatherization in State energy 
programs.
  It cuts $648 million from the Nuclear Nonproliferation program, 
increasing the likelihood of bomb grade material entering the United 
States. The Jordan amendment would cut an additional $37 million.
  The CR cuts safe drinking water and clean water State funds by 56 
percent, or $1.7 billion. The Jordan amendment would cut an additional 
$167.2 million.
  The CR cuts the maximum Pell Grant amount by $845. These grants help 
more than 8 million students afford college. The Jordan amendment 
exacerbates that reduction by taking an additional $962 million from 
the program.
  The CR cuts Head Start by more than $1.1 billion, which is $500 
million below the 2008 level. The Jordan amendment would cut an 
additional $338 million, meaning that individual students would lose 
their right to Head Start, that the teachers would be fired, and that 
people would be unemployed because of this amendment.
  Then Transportation and HUD, which already saw a cut of nearly $14 
billion, would be cut by an additional $3.7 billion, impacting critical 
funding for roads and bridges and infrastructure across this country.
  This is a meat ax approach on top of a meat ax approach--it's a 
double meat ax approach. It is an amendment that we should defeat and 
defeat soundly.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Walsh).
  Mr. WALSH of Illinois. I rise today in support of amendment No. 104.
  You know, we have spent the past few days talking about billions 
here, billions there--real programs, real people. But the American 
people have got to be shaking their heads.
  We are broke. We are $14 trillion in debt, and we know it's more than 
that. By 2014, in interest on the debt alone, we will spend more than 
we will on all non-discretionary spending except for defense. By 2014, 
every citizen in the United States will spend $2,500 just to pay 
interest on the debt.
  I appreciate the leadership the Republican leadership has provided in 
being as bold as they can be on necessary, important spending cuts; but

[[Page H1227]]

my colleagues, we've got to have faith in the American people. They are 
ahead of us on this. They are ready. This is one of those rare moments 
when the American people are asking us to be bold, when they are asking 
us to go one step further.
  I have a brother who has been in the financial services industry for 
20 or 30 years. He sent me a text last night, which read: Keep the cuts 
coming, baby.
  The lack of leadership the White House is providing on this issue is 
stunning. You have to lead. The American people are ahead of us. To get 
back to real FY08 spending levels, to actually get $100 billion in 
cuts, my colleagues, don't be afraid of that. That's what the American 
people want.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the 
House Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  I am in opposition to this amendment, Madam Chairman. The House 
Republican package that we have before us already represents the 
largest reduction in discretionary spending in the history of the 
Nation. It is a historic package with much needed spending cuts and 
reductions that meet and exceed the pledged goal of cutting $100 
billion.
  In this package, there is $106 billion in cut spending, including the 
termination of 150 programs. These reductions were tough, thoughtful, 
and were made by the people who know those programs best. They went 
through the budget line by line, cutting or eliminating programs that 
don't work or that we can no longer afford. The subcommittee chairs, 
the staff, and our Members worked around the clock to make it happen. 
They did the hard work of getting deep into the weeds, making the best 
possible choices of exactly where and how to make these cuts.
  In contrast, rather than make careful decisions on specific programs, 
the Jordan amendment hits everything indiscriminately and in a heavy-
handed way. We were elected to make choices, not run on automatic 
pilot.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Kline) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________