it was a tax bill that had by constitutional authority had to originate in the house of representatives. so then the other body had the perfect vehicle. take the housing bill, strip out the housing language, put in the health care language, pass it on christmas eve and we'll 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 opponent 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, the answer affirmatively. was that the end of the story? no. this was ostensibly litigated in the political arena last fall. 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 piece of this very flawed law can now be contained. it was important before, but three weeks ago it became critical. it became critical because of judge vincent's ruling. why is that? i encourage my colleagues to go to the ruling, it's available on the internet. it's not hard to read. it's about 75 pages. the judge'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 vincent observed that there is a long-standing presumption that officials of the executive branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. as a result, delayer torrey judgment -- declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction. that should be enough for members of the executive branch, 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 this limitation was hired a month and a half before the bill was signed into law. that's testimony 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 the ruling. i'll submit that for the record. but 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. i yield back to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from the connecticut. ms. delauro: three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. miller. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. miller: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. miller: 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 people make sure we get benefits. but if you are a member of the american public this is not a simple straightforward amendment. if you are a member of the american public, this amendment changes your life for millions of americans. 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 one of the folks back home. vote for this amendment and you won't be like the folks back home. vote for this amendment and you'll be very different than the folks back home because you'll have insurance and they won't. you'll have coverage and they won't. you won't have lifetime caps and they will. they will -- you won't lose your insurance when you need it it for you, your children, 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. 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 medicines and 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. there was concern 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 sism and straightforward, and -- 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% of your premiums to your health care. they can write themselves 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 nine 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 executive. no, this isn't simple and straightforward and you are not just like the folks back home once you vote for this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from montana. mr. rehberg: thank you, mr. chairman. at this time i'm pleased to grant two minutes to the new gentleman on the appropriations committee, a great addition, mr. graves, from georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. graves: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. rehberg. 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 have been doing. we have 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. 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 paper clip, send and email if it has anything to do with obamacare. the chair: does gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry? mr. graves: i would rather just finish my comments here. they have plenty of time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. graves: since today we are here to talk about save the taxpayer dollars -- >> i don't believe the gentleman needs to yield for a parliamentary inquiry. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? ms. wasserman schultz: for a parliamentary inquiry. for a parliamentary inquiry. the chair: the gentleman from georgia must yield before a parliamentary inquiry. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. graves: thank you, mr. chairman. we are here today talking about save 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, yes, lost coverage. the law is so damaging that the obama administration itself has granted at least 915 waivers for health plans and organizations. think about that. saving 2.5 million people from obamacare. 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. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? ms. wasserman schultz: mr. speaker, is it a violation of the house rules wherein members are not permitted to make the disparaging reference 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 clearly in violation of the house rules against that. the chair: the gentlelady has stated a hypothetical. the chairman will not rule on a hypothetical but will urge all members in this discussion to engage -- refrain from engaging in personalities or descriptions about personalities in general. the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: mr. speaker, 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 are going to create jobs, you were going to reduce the deficit, and turn the economy around. you have done none of this. you have been here six weeks, eight weeks, and you have not done anything. with this amendment you will indeed by the c.b.o. numbers increase the deficit as soon as next year by over $2 billion. with that, let me yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. chairman. 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's what i hear. jobs. the economy. not this constant repetition of repeal. i have a lot of respect for the gentleman from montana, i have to say, but he talks about completely stopping and defunding implementation. the reason that the republicans are saying that and want to defund this 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 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. -- this is working. the defunding amendments will end all these benefits. putting health insurance companies back in charge of american'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. the fact of the matter is that if we pass these defunding amendments, in the guise of budget austerity, they are one step towards repealing the largest deficit cutter passed in the last decade and that's the affordable care act. the 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 will thereby no prohibition on discrimination against 100 million americans with pre-existing 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. no tax credits for families and small businesses to pay for health insurance. repeal and i stress is a boone 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 pre-existing conditions and they can cut off coverage when someone becomes sick. i urge all members to vote no on these defunding amendments. the health care reform is working. i go back home and people are pleased with it because already in many cases they're able to get insurance they weren't able to get before. this, and i'm tired of hearing this over and over again, concentrate on jobs and the economy, not this charade. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from montana. mr. rehberg: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rehberg: 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 has 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 the affordable health care. unfortunately all it did was add people, it didn't control the cost of health care. that's one of the reasons it needs to be repealed. we wanted to build an economy, they wanted to build government. so we called it what it is. it is obamacare, it's a travesty, it is big government, it is not controlling health care costs and it needs to be repealed and today we're going to try and defund it to the best of our ability and we're not -- if we're not successful this time we're going to try again and again and again until we either have a senate that's willing to pass it or a president that understands that we cannot do this to the american people. at this time i yield five minutes to my good friend from iowa, mr. king. the chair: the gentleman from iowa voiced for five minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i thank the chairman of the subcommittee of appropriations on h.h.s., congressman rehberg, for yielding. and want to declare my support for this amendment and i think he's happy if i refer to it as the rehberg amendment. i want to also thank danny rehberg for the work he's 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. and, mr. chairman, i'm also very confident in declaring it to be obamacare. i listen 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, you know, 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're here in this c.r. to cut spending. we know that we have to go into a national era of austerity because of the overspending that's taken place over the last four years in particular and the last two years in a hugely significant way. we're looking at a budget now that's proposed, 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 budget items in 2002, $1.6 trillion. 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 sheiks' plains landing in places like rochester, minnesota, to get health care they can't get in other places of the world. 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. now, i happen to have in my hand, mr. chairman, this is an excerpt from a c.r.s. report that tells you how due police to us this bill read, once one picked it up and read it, the 2,500 pages. in here are multiple place, 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 c.r.s. report is $105.5 billion over the next 10 years. and in the bam of this fiscal year it's $4.95 billion that we're having trouble getting at. thanks to mr. rehberg, we're getting at $100 million. i believe this amendment will pass today and it will go on this c.r. and become a significant leverage point over the united states senate. other components of this that need to be ripped out, now, oh, wait, 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 sat here now with america that has 2/3 of them by the polling has rejected obamacare. in this bill, another piece that reads deceptively is this, the authority for the secretary of health and human services to do interdependental transfers and 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 ledgeslation that so upsets all of our lives and takes away so much of our liberty and freedom, takes away our ability to buy heament insurance policy that is high deductible, high co-payment 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 t