Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 3590) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4872) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage in a colloquy, if I might, with my distinguished committee Chair if that's possible, if she would do that.

If we can use my 15 seconds, Madam Chair?

Well, let me just say that the one thing that we are guaranteed, and please tell me if I am wrong, the one thing that we are guaranteed is that the Senate bill, under the rule that has been crafted by the Rules

Committee, is the only thing that if it passes today we know will become public law; is that correct?

Is that correct, Madam Chair?

Under the rule that was crafted and reported out by the Rules Committee just before midnight last night, is it not true that the only thing that we are guaranteed to have become public law at the end of this day, if the votes are there, is, in fact, the Senate bill?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules and ask the question as follows:

Is it not true that the only thing that we know with absolute certainty, if in fact it passes, is that the Senate bill will become public law?

We have heard all about this reconciliation package, and the gentlewoman seems to be certain of its passage. But is it not true that this rule guarantees that the only thing that will be law for sure is the Senate bill, which has the Cornhusker kickback, the Louisiana purchase, and those other items?

I would like to reclaim my time.

Mr. Speaker, we now know with absolute certainty that the only thing----

That we are guaranteed----

Mr. Speaker, I encourage everyone to read the rule. Because

the only thing that we are guaranteed upon its passage is that the Senate bill, with the Cornhusker kickback, Gator aid, Louisiana purchase, and all in fact becomes public law.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, as the debate on how to reform our health care system has proceeded, a great deal of attention has been focused on how partisan and divided this House is. And I totally concur with the gentlewoman about the horror that took place here yesterday with the awful treatment of our colleagues. It is totally unacceptable.

I will say I am certainly one of those who has lamented the loss of bipartisan cooperation and substantive debate on the most important issues confronting our country. But I think there is at least one thing that we all will agree on, and that is the fact that the measure before us will have enormous repercussions for the American people for years to come.

For many of us, the votes that we are to cast today will be among the most significant that we have ever cast. Health care represents one- sixth of our Nation's economy. That fact alone makes any health care overhaul a tremendously important issue. But it is a lot more personal than that. The care that families receive, the choices that are available and the quality of those choices, these issues couldn't be more important. For many at some point in their lives, access to quality health care will become literally a matter of life or death.

Now we just heard a story from the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Rules, and we will hear story after story of tragedies, and we all have them that our constituents face. We must all recognize what a sobering and weighty matter lies before us today, which is why this utterly ill-conceived bill is so dangerous and is such an unfortunate, missed opportunity for a good bipartisan conclusion.

In addition to the divisiveness surrounding this measure, a great deal of attention has also been focused on the process by which this has been brought to the floor. Speaker Pelosi has argued that the American people care far more about the final product than the process by which it is considered. Now in a warped and bizarre way, Mr. Speaker, she is absolutely right. As egregious as this process has been, the American people will suffer the consequences of the substance of the bill in an even more significant and lasting way. As much as the public was outraged by procedural tactics to avoid a transparent vote on the Senate health care bill, the greatest outrage has always been reserved for the bill itself.

This is not a bill that will increase access to care or improve its quality. It will not rein in costs.

What it will do is add an enormous amount of new government bureaucracy to our existing system. It will spend $1 trillion at a time when our deficit is already $1.4 trillion, and our total national debt exceeds $12 trillion. It will cripple the small businesses that are already struggling in this economy and will further drive up unemployment. It will exponentially increase the waste and the potential for fraud and abuse that drive up costs while reducing access and quality. It will undoubtedly gut Medicare and potentially threaten the benefits and health care choices for nearly 11 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage. It gives no guarantee to the more than 8 million Americans enrolled in health savings accounts that they will be able to keep their current coverage if they so choose. And it will implement all of the backroom deals that have so outraged the American people, and which we have discussed here today--Gator aid, the Louisiana purchase, the Cornhusker kickback, and the Bismarck bank job. As I said in my exchange with the distinguished chairwoman earlier, this is the only bill that has the potential of being the law of the land by the end of this day.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill that grows even more unpopular every single day. But while Speaker Pelosi may be right that the substance of the bill will be remembered longer than the process, the process has been so tainted that we cannot simply gloss over it.

The Democratic leadership charged forward recklessly all of the past week or two with plans to try to avoid a transparent up-or-down vote on the Senate's health care bill despite enormous public outrage and harsh bipartisan criticism that came from their colleagues of the Democratic leadership. For days they ignored the demands of the American people to dispense with the Senate health care bill in an accountable way.

But when Democratic Members began demonstrating their outrage, the Democratic leadership had no choice; since the American people got it and understood what was taking place here, they had no choice but to abandon their plans.

The rule before us will allow for votes on two questions, Mr. Speaker: Will the Senate health care bill become law and will a second reconciliation bill be advanced to the Senate for further consideration. So again only one measure will become law. While the decision to actually hold a vote I have to admit is a welcome one, I hope very much that my colleagues will forgive my lack of exuberance over this development. I can't quite bring myself to congratulate the Democratic leadership for agreeing to uphold the democratic process and actually have a vote on their legislation.

It is a sad commentary on the state of our institution when simply holding a vote to make a hopelessly flawed bill the law of the land feels like progress. But that's the reality, unfortunately, of where we stand today. While the Democratic leadership, as we all know, had no choice but to agree to hold a vote on the Senate bill, they have still completely closed down the debate.

Yesterday we had a very rigorous debate in the Rules Committee, where countless concerns were raised. Mr. Speaker, none of those concerns will be voted on today. We went 13\1/2\ hours yesterday, yet none of those concerns will be addressed today.

While the debate over health care has gone on for over a year, today we will be voting on a reconciliation package that was only fully made available last night, violating the 72-hour requirement. Yes, we will be having an actual vote today. But without open debate, the opportunity for amendments, or the chance to fully analyze the legislation, we still do not have full transparency or accountability. What we do have the opportunity to do today is to answer two different questions: One, will the Senate health care bill become the law of the land? And will a separate reconciliation package be advanced to the Senate for further consideration?

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely critical to emphasize this two-track process because the Democratic leadership would very much like, as we have seen from the exchanges earlier, muddle this crucial fact. If they prevail today, Mr. Speaker, the Senate bill and only the Senate bill will become public law. The Senate bill, with all of its backroom deals and serious problems that are widely recognized by all, that is the only thing that will become law.

The Democratic leadership has tried to claim that the reconciliation package will fix all of the problems in the Senate bill. That claim is far from accurate. The fundamental approach to health care reform put forth by the Senate bill, which is fatally flawed, will remain intact. Putting aside that hard truth for just a moment, the more immediate issue is that the reconciliation package will not become law today. It will merely be sent to our friends, our colleagues in the other body, where it will be slowly picked apart like everything else that is sent to the other body. Maybe the Senate will amend it and send it back here for further action, Mr. Speaker. Maybe it will fail to act at all. No matter what anyone says in this institution, Mr. Speaker, no one knows. No one has any idea what takes place those many, many miles away, it seems, down that hallway. The only thing that can be sent to the President for signature today is the Senate bill that virtually no one supports.

Let's cut through all of the misrepresentations and distortions. Passage of the underlying measures will ensure one thing and one thing only: enactment of the Senate bill. And I challenge anyone to take me on on that one. A vote for these measures today is a vote for all of those things that I mentioned: the Louisiana purchase; the Cornhusker kickback, which even Senator Nelson wants taken out; this Bismarck bank job; and the Gator aid. All of these things. It is a vote for new taxes and government bureaucracy. It is a vote for a trillion-dollar bill that does nothing to improve access or quality in our health care system.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule. The Democratic leadership has demonstrated that when they are left with no other option, they can be forced into doing the right thing. Mr. Speaker, let's start fresh and find the real solutions for the American people that are so critically needed.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my very hardworking Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from Miami, Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm happy to yield such time as he may consume to another hardworking member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Dallas, Mr. Sessions.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to another dedicated member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from Grandfather Community, North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm happy to yield 1 minute to a former member of the Rules Committee, but always hard working, the gentleman from Moore, Oklahoma, Mr. Cole.

(Mr. COLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm happy to continue the Rules Committee and former Rules Committee lineup by yielding 2 minutes to another former Rules Committee member, the gentleman from Marietta, Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to a hardworking new member from Clarence, New York (Mr. Lee).

At this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to our very, very thoughtful colleague from Athens, Georgia (Mr. Broun).

(Mr. BROUN of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side?

At this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to my very good friend from Fort Myers, Florida (Mr. Mack).

Mr. Speaker at this time I'm happy to yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to another former Rules Committee member, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. Hastings.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield to the distinguished vice chair of the Republican Conference for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).

(Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).

(Mr. BROWN of South Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the gentlewoman from Miami, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

(Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

(Mr. NEUGEBAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger).

(Ms. GRANGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

(Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).

(Mr. FLEMING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to our soft-spoken colleague from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

(Mr. CULBERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. We will certainly comply with your directive and appreciate it.

I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the former mayor of Dayton, Ohio (Mr. Turner).

(Mr. TURNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Houston, Mr. Olson.

(Mr. OLSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Vienna, Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

(Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

(Mr. ROSKAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

(Mr. PETRI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the next Governor of Oklahoma, Ms. Fallin.

(Ms. FALLIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

(Mr. BARTLETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

(Mr. FRANKS of Arizona asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the distinguished ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Mica.

(Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).

(Mrs. SCHMIDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

(Mr. SHUSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Newport Beach, California (Mr. Campbell).

(Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1203 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Technically, this point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule and, ultimately, the underlying legislation. In reality, it's about blocking much-needed health care reform in this Nation. Those who oppose the process don't want any debate or votes on health care itself. They just want to make reform go away.

I know my colleagues on our side will vote ``yes'' so we can consider this important legislation on its merits and not stop it on a procedural motion. Let's stop wasting time on parliamentary loopholes because those who oppose the legislation can vote against it on final passage. We must consider the rule. We must pass this important legislation today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a 1-page document explaining why the requirements in the bill are not unconstitutional.

Attack: The individual responsibility requirement is

unconstitutional.

Response: The arguments that have been raised against the

constitutionality of an individual responsibility requirement

are meritless. For over 70 years, the Supreme Court has

recognized that Congress has the authority under the Commerce

Clause to regulate activities that have a substantial effect

on interstate commerce, which includes buying and selling

health insurance. The requirement for individuals to

contribute to their own health insurance coverage is clearly

constitutional.

Over 70 years of Supreme Court precedent has recognized

that, under the Commerce Clause, Congress can regulate

activities that have a substantial effect on interstate

commerce. A requirement that individuals purchase health

insurance is both commercial and economic in nature--indeed,

few things are more critical to our nation's economic health.

The failure of individuals to obtain health insurance has a

substantial effect on our national economy. The U.S. spends

over $2 trillion dollars on health care each year--more than

$7,000 per person and more than 16 percent of our GDP. The

economy loses billions of dollars every year because of the

costs of treatment for uninsured Americans. And currently,

individuals can forego buying insurance, leaving hospitals--

and ultimately Americans who do buy insurance--on the hook

for expensive emergency procedures. That drives up insurance

premiums for all Americans.

Mandating health insurance affects interstate commerce in

several ways. Covering more people will reduce the price of

insurance by addressing free-riders who rely on emergency

care and other services without paying for all the costs,

which drives up costs for people with insurance. It will also

ensure an insurance pool with a full cross section of healthy

and sick subscribers, which will help keep down costs for

everyone.

Even the conservative Supreme Court has recognized that the

federal government has broad authority to regulate under the

Commerce Clause. In 2005, the Court held that the federal

government can prohibit medical marijuana grown at home and

consumed personally under the Commerce Clause (Gonzalez v.

Raich). Justice Scalia, no fan of expansive claims of

Congressional power, even voted to affirm Congress' authority

to regulate in that case. Certainly health insurance coverage

has a greater effect on the national economy than people

growing medical marijuana in their backyard.

Congress also has authority to impose an individual

responsibility requirement under its Power to Tax and Spend

for the General Welfare (Article 1, sec. 8, cl. 1) and the

Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 18.).

Now I am so happy to introduce and yield 2 minutes to Mr. Kennedy, the gentleman from Rhode Island, who is not only a valued Member of this House but whose father, as we know, devoted his congressional life to health care for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen).

Mr. Speaker, let me yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Mr. Speaker, I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider so we can debate and pass the important legislation today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My friends on the other side of the aisle are attempting to use a purely technical violation of the earmark identification rule to try and block the House from even considering the rule and the underlying legislation. In fact, the Budget Committee did include an earmark statement in their committee report.

However, a minor technical error in that statement made the legislation subject to a point of order. The Budget Committee has since filed two clarifying earmark statements in the Congressional Record. Clearly these statements, as well as the initial statement in the committee report, should show that it does not violate the spirit of the earmark rule. I have copies of these statements for any Members who need clarification.

The rule and the underlying legislation deserve to be debated on the merits, not stopped by purely procedural motions. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' so we can consider this important legislation, so important to the American people. Let's not waste any more time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am happy to tell you that. The final bill will not have State-specific provisions. The provisions that are in apply to multiple States, and a provision in the education portion of the reconciliation bill regarding State-owned banks is being struck by the manager's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

If we can use your time.

Yes.

I am sorry, I couldn't hear.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Dreier, it is absolutely true that the Senate bill does contain those things. It has already been passed and requires no further action in the Senate.

What we will do today is pass the bill, which will then be sent to the President and become law. We will this afternoon pass the reconciliation----

Please let me answer.

No, you don't.

You don't know that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Yes, the Senate bill will become law today, followed by the reconciliation bill which contains the amendments to the law, which contains what everybody here wants us to take out. The best way that they can achieve their ends of removing the things that are objectionable from the Senate bill is to support reconciliation. And let's see if you can do it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. Speaker, I did not address the Senate. I want that to be clearly on the record.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands, Dr. Christensen.

I reserve the right to close, and I will reserve the balance of my time unless it is given up on the other side.

Mr. Speaker, I do not.

Mr. Speaker, again I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider so that we may debate and pass this important legislation today.

Mr. Speaker, I am certain that I heard you say that the gentleman's time has expired. Is that not correct?

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and all time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, these have been solemn days and not just because of the important legislation before us. Yesterday just steps away from where we are now standing, a group of protesters engaged in dangerous and derogatory behavior toward four of our Members. I believe the attacks yesterday were a step back for this country, a stark reminder of where we used to be and a reminder of how much further we must travel to fulfill the promise of equality.

It was only 2 weeks ago that my colleague from Georgia, John Lewis, marked the 45th anniversary of Bloody Sunday in Selma, Alabama, and yet this civil rights icon was accosted yesterday while walking here to cast a vote. The use of racist, homophobic and inflammatory rhetoric and reports that the protesters who were gathered on our east terrace plaza attempted to spit on a Member of Congress is heartbreaking. This type of display should alarm every American and encourage us to work harder to put aside the hateful divisions and to come together to bridge the volatile spirit that is tearing apart our country.

The anger isn't just contained outside the Capitol. Last week someone hurled a brick through the window of my district office in the dark of night. We must step back to remind ourselves of why we are here.

I would like to show an incredible document given to me this week by the National Archives from the collection of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's original records. As the father of Social Security, Roosevelt has an honored place in this battle to create a national insurance plan for our country. This message, dated January 23, 1939, over 70 years ago, entitled, ``To the United States Congress of the United States,'' talks plainly about the need of this government to provide health care for its citizens. It was recognized at the time that a comprehensive health care program was required as an essential link to our national defenses against individual and social insecurity. Roosevelt wrote: ``The health of the people is a public concern; ill health is a major cause of major suffering, economic loss and dependency; good health is essential to the security and progress of the Nation.''

I would like to read directly because I think the familiarity is overwhelming: ``I have been concerned by the evidence of inequalities that exist among the States as to personnel and facilities for health services. There are

equally serious inequalities of resources, medical facilities and services in different sections and among different economic groups. These inequalities create handicaps for parts of the country and the groups of our people which most sorely need the benefits of modern medical science.

``The objective of a national health program is to make available in all parts of our country and for all groups of our people the scientific knowledge and skill at our command to prevent and care for sickness and disability; to safeguard mothers, infants and children; and to offset through social insurance the loss of earnings among workers who are temporarily or permanently disabled.''

I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that reading from that piece of paper with his hand notes scribbled on it absolutely takes my breath away, but it is a reminder that eyes of history are watching us. Future generations will look at what we do today, and it will be a guidepost to who we were as a people.

The effort to reform the health care system goes back to at least Theodore Roosevelt, that great President who campaigned in 1912 by promising: ``We pledge ourselves to work increasingly in State and Nation for protection of home life against the hazards of sickness.''

Still later, Harry Truman tackled reforms, as did President Clinton, during the nineties, a battle that I was here for. Before that, the last broad legislative rewrite was led by President Richard Nixon. It's remarkable to me that even after all these years, our final bill may end up being less progressive than the plan that Nixon would have supported, yet still the forces of the other side whip up opposition.

I want to share a story I heard from a constituent in Buffalo. I will be very brief because these heartbreaking stories are nationwide. But it is about a young man who moved from New York to California. In California, his insurance only allowed him to visit the emergency room for seizures. When he got to New York, his insurance did not cover that at all except in New York City, so his father has to drive him back and forth from Buffalo to New York City. And he said, We are slowly going poor.

Our bill covers an estimated 32 million Americans in a fiscally responsible way that improves Medicare benefits, holds insurance companies accountable, and helps small business owners with coverage. We are finally gaining ground against insurance special interests. Small businesses, the backbone of our economy will get tax credits if they make health care coverage available for their workers. We offer free preventive care for people on Medicare. We help people who have retired at 55, 10 years before they are eligible for Medicare. And we ban the lifetime and yearly limit on coverage.

All of these provisions have the potential to transform the way that we deliver health care in the country. The fight has been long and contentious, and the public has been grievously and purposefully lied to. This week the Congressional Budget Office, which is nonpartisan and objective and unbiased, estimates that we will cut the deficit by $143 billion over the next 10 years and $1.2 trillion over the following 10. What do our opponents say? That we can't afford this legislation. The fact of the matter is we can't not afford to do this legislation. For the 100 years we've worked toward this goal and all the obstacles, we are here today to do our job. And Harry Truman said, ``If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.''

Well, I consider the Rules Committee as the kitchen of the of House of Representatives, and I am proud to be the cook. And I am proud to stand up and say that this bill is the right thing to do, and the time to act is now. I am delighted to vote ``yes'' today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to yield 3 minutes to a member of the Rules Committee and a gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine, a member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Pingree.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that the chairwoman of the Rules Committee just said that if the language in the Senate bill that was referred to by the gentleman from California is going to be changed, would that not mean that the Senate bill would have to go back to the Senate for further action in that body?

Mr. Speaker, in order to keep the American public informed, let me restate this so that you can understand.

Is it true that if the actions to overcome the Cornhusker compromise, the Louisiana purchase and those special provisions that have been designated in the Senate bill are changed, as was assured by the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, then would not that bill have to go back to the Senate for further action?

Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking a question that if a bill is changed, does it not have to go back to the other body for further action, because the gentlewoman from New York has assured the gentleman from California that his concerns about specific sections that were used to get specific votes is going to be changed by the manager's amendment. Would that not then change the underlying Senate bill, which would then have to go back to the other body for further action? Is that not true?

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused, then. Perhaps you could, in a parliamentary inquiry, explain to me that if a bill is changed once it comes from the other body, does it not have to return to that body for further action?

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Was not the gentleman from California yielded another 10 seconds, and he did not get to use it?

Mr. Speaker, it was the assumption of the body here that all the earmarks that were contained in the Senate bill would be taken care of in the reconciliation bill. If it is true that they are not all taken into consideration for, do the earmark rules then apply to the rest of the bill?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to.

It was the impression given the Members and the people of the United States that the reconciliation bill would take care of all the earmarks in the Senate bill. However, we now know that there are earmarks in the Senate bill that are not being taken care of. So do not the House rules on earmarks apply to the remainder of the Senate bill?

Mr. Speaker, I am asking for an inquiry on the House rules. Do the House rules apply or not?

Mr. Speaker, is it not the purpose of your role to make sure that the rules of the House are incorporated into our discussions?

Mr. Speaker, clarification of the point of order.

Is it my understanding that you said that the rules will apply to the Senate bill on earmarks that

were not covered by the reconciliation bill?

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health care bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of not only the people of the great State of Kansas but also on behalf of the millions of Americans whose wishes are not being represented by their own Representatives. Kansans, over two-thirds of Americans, and I are strongly opposed to the Senate bill and the Reconciliation bill, both of which represent a massive government takeover of health care. I cannot and will not support this government takeover of our health care system that will restrict choice, ration care, increase the cost of health care, greatly increase government spending, cut Medicare spending, bankrupt States, lead to the destruction of the world's best medical care, and kill jobs during one of the worst economic periods in our Nation's history.

In order to get to the Capitol today, everyone in this body had to pass the tens of thousands of Americans from all walks of life who came by plane, train and automobile, at their own expense, to petition their government not to impose government run health care on them.

I spent the weekend speaking with many of these patriotic Americans, many of whom were turned away by their own Representatives on the other side of the aisle. I was struck not only by their personal stories (from the great-grandmother with a bad knee who came from Pennsylvania and navigated the Metro for the first time to the small business owner from Wisconsin who has never gotten involved in politics but bought a ticket to come out here because he felt this was so important) but also by their determination. The media may have made the prospects for killing the bill look grim, but they were not going to let that happen without a fight.

The group was diverse but almost everyone with whom I spoke mentioned the same concerns with the bill: government power grab, deficit spending, increased taxes, rationing of care, taxpayer funded abortions, and especially the restriction of freedom. If government can take over one-sixth of the Nation's economy over the will of the people, they asked,

what separates us from Venezuela and socialized nations?

Power grab

We have a one party town; the Democrats control the House, the Senate and the White House. They are taking advantage of this situation to centralize power in their hands so that they may control every aspect of our lives including what cars we can drive, how we educate our children, now our health care options. Believe me, the American people are opposed to this, as indicated in rock bottom approval ratings for Congress and even the President, who less than a year ago had the highest approval ratings seen in a long time.

Patients benefit when their doctors make the decisions as to their health care needs, not bureaucrats sitting in an office building in Washington, DC. The federal government should not intrude in this sacred relationship. The most famous line of the physician's Hippocratic Oath is ``I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.'' Under government-run health care, Washington will override their judgment and it will be government bureaucrats, not doctors, who prescribe regimens.

It's not just the bureaucrats at HHS that Americans will have to worry about, this bill also greatly expands the power of the IRS and hands them the authority to harass and even fine American families and job creators for their health care choice. Despite repeated inquiries, no one has been able to tell me just how many new bureaucrats will be added to the federal payroll to implement government-run health care.

The unfunded mandates on the States to provide health insurance options and oversee the private sector, at a time when they are in dire financial straits, are confounding.

Access

Today over 20 percent of physicians in Kansas already no longer accept new Medicare patients because they will be forced into bankruptcy trying to care for them with the grossly inadequate government reimbursements. Now the new administration wants to compound this loss of accessible health care professionals with a loss of access to health care treatment. In response, 46 percent of family physicians indicated that they would leave the medical profession due to a government takeover of health care.

Cost

This bill will cost well over the $1.2 trillion that CBO has scored. That score conveniently does not include the cost of the ``doc fix,'' the Medicare prescription drug donut hole fix, the Pell Grant expansion inexplicably included in the bill, or many other provisions of the bill.

As if the health provisions weren't enough, the Democrats have used this bill as a vehicle to pass education and energy provisions that will increase deficit spending by billions and kill even more jobs.

How are they paying for this? By cutting other areas of our bloated federal government? No, they are paying for this on the backs of American families and job creators. There is $569.2 billion in new taxes included in this bill. Much of that burden will be shouldered by the middle class and small businesses.

Rationed Care

My biggest concern with the Democrat proposals is the intended rationing of health care. The Obama administration has already begun to set the framework for rationed care with comparative effectiveness research. This is a very dangerous road to travel down.

Freedom

We pride ourselves on being the home of the free but this bill will reduce the United States to the level of every socialized nation in the world. If this bill is signed into law, Americans will not have the freedom to choose their doctor, their course of treatment, or their health plan.

The federal government has no authority to force Americans to buy health insurance or to mandate what benefits employers can and cannot provide employees. In addition this bill begins to destroy Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). HSAs are what we should be promoting as a way to expand choice, give patients more control over their medical spending, and reduce health care costs.

Prevent innovation

Just this week I met with NTH Director Francis Collins. We spent the better part of an hour talking about all of the exciting advances in medicine, especially in the area of individualized medicine. It was not lost on me that the treatments and cures we were discussing will never come to fruition under a government-run health care system that rations care and stifles innovation.

Seniors

This bill is a bad deal for our seniors. It expressly cuts $523 billion from Medicare and doesn't even fix the Medicare prescription drug donut hole until 2020. The rationing of care will also disproportionately affect seniors who, for obvious reasons, are the largest consumers of health care.

Pro-Life Concerns

Finally, the bills before us include abortions paid for with federal dollars and do not include conscience protection for medical providers. This is in blatant disregard of the House vote just 4 months ago. More importantly, it is in blatant disregard of the whopping two-thirds of Americans who oppose using federal dollars to pay for abortions. Even those individuals and organizations who strongly support government-run health care, such as the Catholic Church, do not want such programs to pay for abortions or euthanasia.

I want health care reform and am saddened that this process has become so political that we won't see the much needed modernization that will ensure Americans have access to the best health care for decades to come. I am saddened that states like my home state of Kansas are forced to take drastic action to try to protect their citizens from being affected by Washington's takeover of health care.

Republicans have offered better solutions and principles that should be included in any health care reform. Those principles should: let Americans who like their health coverage keep it, give all Americans the freedom to choose the health plan that best meets their needs; ensure that medical decisions are made by patients and their doctors, not government bureaucrats; and improve Americans' lives through effective prevention, wellness, and disease management programs, while developing new treatments and cures for life-threatening diseases. CBO has declared that the Republican health care plan would lower health care costs by at least 10 percent. This is the approach the American people want to see passed by Congress, not the destructive bill that is instead before us.

Our constituents have spoken loudly and clearly and it is our duty as their representatives to listen to them, not ignore them and use the sacred Speaker's gavel to impose personal political goals upon them. Therefore, with every breath in my body, on behalf of my constituents, I scream ``heck no'' and vote ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 1203 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act which causes a violation of section 426(a).

Mr. Speaker, let me just quote from a letter to the Speaker of the House by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office dated yesterday: ``The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the total cost of those mandates to State, local and tribal governments and the private sector would greatly exceed the annual thresholds established under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.''

Mr. Speaker, this bill is the mother of all unfunded mandates. There are mandates on States. The new Medicaid mandate is expected to cost, according to the CBO, an additional $20 billion on States. Let's start with the State mandate, $20 billion on States in Medicaid. Democratic Governors have been speaking out against this. Let me quote Governor Rendell from Pennsylvania: ``I think it's an unfunded mandate. We just don't have the wherewithal to absorb this health care bill without some new revenue source.''

There is an individual mandate. It mandates individuals purchase government-approved health insurance or face a fine to be collected by the IRS which will need $10 billion additional and 16,500 new IRS agents to police and enforce this mandate.

There is a business mandate. It mandates businesses provide government-approved health insurance or face penalties. If you don't offer health insurance coverage, you have to pay $2,000 per employee. If you do offer health insurance coverage, but one of your employees decides to take the Federal subsidy, you have to pay up to $3,000 per employee anyway.

There's a health plan mandate. There are mandates on health plans to comply with new Federal benefits, mandates without any funds to meet these new requirements. There are new medical loss ratios of 80 and 85 percent. This hardly jives with the notion, If you like what you have, you can keep it, because millions of Americans will exactly lose just that.

There's a provider mandate. This mandates that many health care providers must actually provide exactly what Washington says. They're forced to take unilateral reimbursement cuts from the new independent payment advisory board.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I want to elaborate quite a bit more, but I will reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire how much time is remaining between the two sides, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let's look at the fiscal consequences of this bill. I think we're going to hear a lot today how this bill reduces the deficit according to the Congressional Budget Office. Well, I would simply say, the oldest trick in the book in Washington is that you can manipulate a piece of legislation to manipulate the final score that comes out.

But let's take a look at the subsequent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. Let's take a look at the claims being made and the reality that we're facing. This bill double-counts billions of dollars. It takes $70 billion of premiums from the CLASS Act to spend on this new government program, instead of going to the CLASS Act. It takes $53 billion in Social Security taxes which are reserved for Social Security and, instead, spends it on this new program. The Congressional Budget Office is telling us that in order to fulfill all the discretionary requirements, $71 billion will be required to manage this new government-run health care system. They're saying at the Congressional Budget Office that Medicare part A trust fund, the trust fund itself will be raided to the tune of $398 billion.

So if we actually count a dollar once, which is how law in math works, this bill has a $454 billion deficit. I find it very interesting and noteworthy that just 2 days ago, the Speaker of the House said, We will be passing legislation in April, doing the so-called doc fix. Well, that's $208 billion. And according to the Congressional Budget Office, when that will pass, combined with the double-counting and the gimmicks and the smoke and mirrors, we will have a $662 billion deficit under this bill alone.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let's think about the economic consequences because the economic consequences that will be borne by this bill are truly horrific. People are losing jobs in this country. Our unemployment rate is near 10 percent. For us to get our unemployment rate back to where it was before the economic crisis, back to 5 percent, we will literally have to create 250,000 jobs every month for 5 years in this Nation. So what does this bill do? It imposes a new tax increase of $569.2 billion, over half a trillion in new taxes on labor, on capital, on families, on small businesses, on work, on jobs.

And look at what we're looking at. Before even passing this bill, Mr. Speaker, we are going into a tidal wave of red ink of debt. The interest alone on the national debt that's about to befall us will be crushing to our economy. I asked the Congressional Budget Office, what would my three children face

when they were my age? What we heard from the CBO was just alarming. By the time my three kids are my age--I am 40 and they're 5, 6 and 8 years old--the CBO said that the glide path that we are on before passing this bill, the tax rate on that generation by the time they're 40 years old will be that the 10 percent bracket goes up to 25 percent, middle- income taxpayers will pay an income tax rate of 63 percent, and the top rate that the small businesses pay will be 88 percent. This is the legacy we are leaving the next generation.

Last year the General Accountability Office said that the unfunded liability of the Federal Government--meaning the debt we owe to all the promises being made--was $62 trillion. You know what they say today, $76 trillion. And what are we doing here? A $2.4 trillion new unfunded entitlement on top all of that. We can't even afford the government we've got right now, and we're going to be putting this new unfunded entitlement on top of it?

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, though, what's most insidious, what's most concerning, what's most troubling about this bill is what the future holds. This bill subscribes to the arrogant idea that Washington knows best, that Washington can organize and micromanage the entire health care sector of this country, 17 percent of our economy, one-sixth of our economy.

Well, let me give you a glimpse into that future, Mr. Speaker. This is the Treasury's 2009 financial report. It tells us that we are walking into an ocean of red ink, of debt, of deficit, of spending. And the only way to get this under control, the only way to stop a debt crisis from befalling this country--much like Europe is about to walk into--if you have government-run health care, if you have the government take the rest of the health care sector over is to deeply and systematically ration health care.

Think about what's in this legislation. We have a new comparative effectiveness research board placed in the stimulus legislation that decides what treatments are worth paying for. We have a new Medicare commission called the Independent Payment Advisory Board that makes across-the-board cuts into Medicare whether it's good for patients or not based upon cost considerations, bypassing the authority of Congress. And we have the new U.S. Preventive Task Force. That's an agency that recently said women in their forties don't need to do mammograms, that has been given unprecedented power in this legislation to make decisions that are normally made by patients and doctors.

What this bill does is it says this: we are no longer going to trust the will, the interest, and the decisions of patients and their doctors. They don't know enough. We're going to take the power and the money from the citizens and bring it to Washington, and Washington knows best. Washington will set up elaborate boards and bureaucracies of technocrats who can better micromanage those decisions. And the only way to get this debt crisis only control, the only way to get this under control is to ration care.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, we can do better. It doesn't have to be

this way. This is not democracy. This is not good government. One of the cornerstone principles of this Nation that the Founders created is the principle that we govern by consent of the governed. That principle is being turned on its head here today.

More to the point, the shame of all of this is we have been offering constructive solutions from the very beginning. We have asked you to work with us on a bipartisan basis, step by step, piece by piece, work on the uninsured, work on preexisting conditions, work on costs, work on prices, work on the deficit. All along the other side said ``no,'' we are doing it our way, one-party rule.

This bill clearly violates the House rules. We shouldn't be waiving our own rules and imposing these costly mandates. We are going to hear many emotional appeals today. Let me tell you a little bit about my own. I have the best mother-in-law a man could ever ask for. She is 5 years facing stage 3 ovarian cancer, and she is still fighting it because of a drug called Avastin that is keeping her alive. Well, if she was a British citizen, she wouldn't have it because they deny this drug to their cancer patients. We are setting up the identical same bureaucracies they have there here.

This bill explodes the deficit, it explodes the debt, and the only way to fix it is to put that kind of rationing in place. That is not what our government should be doing. This bill is a fiscal Frankenstein. It is a government takeover. It is not democratic.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, it is not too late to get it right. Let's start over, let's defeat this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against consideration of the resolution. The resolution violates clause 9 of rule XXI by waiving that rule against consideration of H.R. 4872.

Mr. Speaker, my point of order is quite simple. In the last 2 weeks, both the House Republicans and the House Democrats have passed sweeping anti-earmark resolutions. Moreover, the leadership of the House has said that they will ensure that earmarks are in the past. But, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is filled with earmarks, not the least of which is the Louisiana purchase, not the least of which is the Bismark provision. Mr. Speaker, the amount of earmarks violating both Republican and Democratic House rules against earmarks is beyond the counting of any of us. My

point of order is intended to stop the bill until earmarks can be removed from the bill.

I might note, Mr. Speaker, last night until late at night, for more than 13 hours, Republicans offered 80 amendments, many of which could have fixed portions of this bill. None--I repeat, Mr. Speaker, none-- were ruled in order.

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that an earmark is tantamount to a bribe. An earmark to receive a vote is clearly a way to get a vote in return for something of value.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a vast tax increase and a vast increase in the reach of government. It deserves to be considered on its merits, not based on promises and bribes for financial gain to various Members' districts. Therefore, it is clear we must remove all earmarks before this legislation can move forward.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am flabbergasted. Perhaps the gentlelady from New York could tell me, does that mean that under the rule that the Louisiana purchase, the Cornhusker kickback, the Gator aid, and the Bismark bank job will be somehow removed from the legislation after its passage?

Reclaiming my time, I'm going to simply state for the record that our reading is that all of these will go to the President in the bill. And, of course, if by some miracle a bribe for one becomes a bribe for many States, somehow I don't think the American people will find that particularly a happy day for anyone, except perhaps the few States who receive for a short time a special consideration.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Speaker, the ranking member needs 15 seconds to enter into a colloquy. I would yield the gentleman from California 15 seconds for a question.

I would yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Under the rules of the House, if the House is not in order, as it was not when the gentlelady from New York said she could not hear the question, wouldn't the time not tally until the House is in order, thus allowing for her to get the question and be able to answer, something that we were denied, even though we gave 25 seconds for that process?

Further parliamentary inquiry.

If you recall, Mr. Speaker, I yielded 15 seconds and then an additional 10 seconds, and the gentlelady from New York repeated that she could not hear the question.

In fairness to the tally of the time, how can that time run when she could not hear? And wouldn't we be entitled to at least the time lost in debate because the House was not in order and she could not hear?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Mr. Speaker, point of inquiry.

Did I just hear an allegation of a threat? Would that be a threat against an action on Members of Congress? Is that in fact an allegation that we should consider at this time, since that's what I think I heard, that Members were being threatened?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. Speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry.

Is it not against the rules of the House to urge an action in the Senate, such as voting for or assisting in reconciliation?

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

It is now acceptable to lobby the Senate from the House floor in any and all conduct and questions?

I thank the Speaker, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to inquire as to whether the gentlelady had any additional speakers, other than the right to close.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) to give his view of the Louisiana kickback and purchase.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have but 15 more seconds to give to my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.