tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN January 20, 2011 10:00am-1:00pm EST
and the right type of reform will actually reduce cost and improve health care outcomes while we protect vulnerable persons. . however, this health care law is an -- is a complicated mess that will increase spending and reduce health care liberty. americans deserve better. i believe it's important to craft a new, commonsense policy that provides new insurance models for families, farmers, and small business owners, but any model we craft must continue to build upon a culture of health and wellness. allow newly insured persons to keep their current coverage, and also retain protection for pre-existing conditions. this will be important. so now the hard work begins. but this time, we have the opportunity get it right. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield two
minutes to the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. moore. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. moore: thank you so much, madam chair and thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise as the incoming co-chair of the congressional women's caucus to talk to you a little bit about the impact that repealing this health care law will have on women. as you all may be aware, women are twice as likely to be dependent upon their spouses for health care and they're less likely than men to have employer-sponsored insurance. as single female heads of household, this has a devastating impact on the entire family when there's no health insurance. all of us have heard stories from our dict about how the repeal of this law will have on
women and i heard such a story just yesterday. meet nicole lipski, she's 25 years old, working part time and going to school part time because because of the health care law was able to remain on her dad's insurance and lucky for her, because just last week, she had an infected pancreas and had to have her gallbladder removed in an emergency surgery which cost $13,000 that fortunately, was covered by her parents' insurance. you know this law outlaws gender rating, and insurance companies of course charge women higher premiums than men for coverage and it also has a disparate impact on women with respect to pre-existing conditions when you consider that being a victim of domestic violence is considered a pre-existing condition. now, you don't have to be a
harvard economist to know that this law is not a job killer. but we do have a harvard economist to back us up. david cutler, professor of applied economics at harvard, released a study on january 7, finding that repealing the health care law would destroy 250,000 -- can you yield 15 seconds? mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentlelady 15 seconds. ms. moore: would grow 250,000 jobs annuallymark of them are women's jobs, x-ray techs, nurses, and even the cleaning person wo who cleans up the emergency room. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: at thistime i'm happy to yield one minute to my good friend from north carolina, many mchenry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one
minute. many mchenry: last night, house republicans took a major step in our pledge to america by passing a repeal of obamacare. now we must work to replace this budget-busting law with sensible, market-placed policies that lower costs for families and small businesses and expand access to affordable care. small businesses are the job creators that hold the key to our economic recovery. they cannot afford the hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes in the obamacare law and the new employer mandate as well. our small businesses need certainty in the tax code, certainty in regulations coming out of washington and obamacare only makes matters worse. i look forward to an open and transparent debate in this congress on alternative, affordable insurance. that's what the american people want and what my constituents desire. i would also challenge my friends on the other side of the aisle to listen to the american people and join our efforts to
work toward better solutions to our nation's health care challenges. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield one and a half minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one and a half minutes. ms. jackson lee: thank you, madam speaker. thank you to my good friend from massachusetts for yielding. let me say the good news is that the only thing that occurred last evening was simply a vote because the law of the land is still the patient protection and affordable care act and i hope that the president's words are not twisted, because i agree with him, we are all willing to work together to do the right thing, which is to amend the bill. i don't understand the understanding of my friends on the other side of the aisle. repealing the law of the land has nothing to do with questioning the provisions. frankly they're not even listening to a distinguished doctor, senator fritz, the former majority leader who said
this bill, our bill is the law of the land and it is a platform, the fundamental platform on which all future efforts to make that system better for the patients and families will be based. what is there not to understand? amend the bill, don't repeal. senator fritz said if the bill was on the floor, he would have voted for it. i spoke to some students the other day and they asked about doctors. this bill had in it scholarships for medical professionals, the bill that we have. the issue of course is one that you cannot dispute. this bill saves lives. so much so that the republican majority leader ran to the media to promise seniors that they wouldn't lose the $250 that our bill, the patient protection bill, guaranteed them so that they would have some cushion for their prescription drugs. so my friend, i know we're doing the right thing. we're all willing to amend. but how ridiculous it is that you would repeal the law of the land or attempt to do so and i
know the president still has his veto pen. this law will save lives. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired this egentleman from california. mr. dreier: i yield a minute and a half to one of our new members from oklahoma city, mr. lankford. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one and a half minutes. mr. lankford: thank you, madam speaker. thank you for yielding time. the repeated diatribe from members on the other side of the aisle that somehow they're the only individuals in the chamber that care about the health of the american family demonstrates again the deep-seated partisanship that we must defeat. we all want to help the american people. the people don't like obamacare but they want something to be done. we must have tort reform to reduce the cost of defensive medicine. we must deal with the f.d.a. approval process that covers any new discovery in paperwork costing a billion dollars to get
it through the process. we must open up more options for insurance carriers, allowing someone frustrated with their service to fire them and get a new insurance provider. we must reject price fixing as a cost-cutting solution. we must allow every american to choose their own doctor, even pay their doctor directly if they choose to do that. we must give senior americans more choices in physicians who accept medicare patients. we must provide states with greater flexibility and deal with portability, high risk and pre-existing conditions. republicans have friends and family dealing with the same medical issues the democrats deal. with suffering, disease, and pain have no respect fb political affiliation. we just believe that if you're sick and hurting, you should contact your doctor, not washington, d.c., to see what to do next. let's surprise america. let's work together and get something done. let's show them that even with the divided house and senate, we can reject the gravitational pull of hol picks and put aside our differences for the good of
those most vulnerable. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i want to respond to the gentleman who just spoke. we hear distortions other and over again. we heard them during -- over and over again, we heard them during the campaign, that were perpetrated by our friends on the other side of the aisle and their friends in the insurance industry. that somehow what we passed was a bill that wouldn't allow you to keep your own health insurance. we passed a bill that provides competitions. i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. ellison: madam speaker, repeal and replace? what about protect and improve. what about improving the bill that is there right now, rather than repealing and replacing? you know, the fact is, the republican caucus is talking about replacing a bill and yet whether it's pre-existing
conditions or filling in the doughnut hole, i've heard several of them say, we want to keep that. yet they don't want to protect and approve -- and improve, they want to repeal. why? to protect the insurance industry. i can't see any other reason why they're doing this. the affordable care act is a good bill. can it be bet her of course. but that's not what we're talking about today. we're talking about taking away benefits that americans have in their hand. the republican caucus is snatching away people who want to get their children on the health care insurance who are under 26 years old. -- years of age. snatching away. -- snatching away free preventive care for seniors, snatching out of the hands of families whose children are trying to be able to get care who may have pre-existing condition. snatching out oaf thnds half seniors filling in the doe -- out of the hands of seniors filling in the the doughnut hole.
this is wrong and it's a shame. the fact is the democratic caucus, when we had the white house and the -- and both houses of congress, within two years, we brought to the american people a health care bill. when the republican caucus had the house for six years, between 2000 and 2006, they don't do anything other than do a big fat giveaway to pharma. this is what we get. mr. dreier: will the gentleman yields on that point? would the gentleman yield? mr. ellison: i think i'm out of time. mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield. mr. ellison: i'm out of time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i yield myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. dreier: the gentleman's time did expire. i yield myself 15 seconds to say, as i said to my friend earlier, it's interesting that they continue to say we did nothing. associated health plans which
democrats and republicans like, designed to drive down the cost for small businesses to provide health insurance, was submitted from this republican house to the other body, the democrats, in fact, killed that measure, attempts were made to put into place real reform. with that, back by popular demand, the rules committee member from lawrenceville, georgia, for two minutes, mr. wood yawl. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. woodall: thank you for yielding, michigan. i return to the well because i wonder if folks have the same small business people in their district i have in my district? i wonder if folks are doing the same listening in their district i'm doing in my district? we are here today to respond to what folks have been asking for. to give credit where credit is due, last year, before the last congress expired, democrats and republicans came together to extend for one year, i would have like to see it extended longer, but to extend for one
year the tax cuts our small business men and women were demanding. but the second part of the indecision there in the business community, the anxiety and uncertainty that was there, is what's going to happen with the health care costs? what's going to happen with the health care plan? we have not solved that anxiety. we have not solved that indecision. because we've only gotten half of it done. we've gotten it passed in the house. but we've still got to take it to the senate and to the white house. in the spirit of giving credit where credit is due, i told folks throughout my campaign that i thought the president identified exactly the right two health care challenges. rising costs and access. then came up with exactly the wrong solutions to those problems. we talk about what's going to happen to folks when the doughnut hole change goes away. didn't we have a chance last year? i'm new to congress, did we have a chance in the last congress to
vote on that stand-alone doughnut hole closure? i don't believe we did. did we have a chance to vote on the pre-existing condition solution? i don't believe we did. did we have a chance in the last corning to talk about the kids up to 26 issue? i don't think we did. but now we have the opportunity to vote on this one by one. the only option congress had last time under democratic leadership to vote for a doughnut hole solution to vote for pre-existing condition solutions to vote for insurance for kids under the age to have 26 was to do it with the unconstitutional mandate a trillion dollars of new spending and hundreds of new bureaucracies. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expyred. the gentleman from midwest. -- from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i remind the gentleman, we could have had a chance to vote on those individually. he did have a chance to vote on
whether or not we could vote on them on the floor but he and republicans voted each and every one of those protections down. they voted against protecting people against pre-existing conditions, they voted against people, putting people on the doughnut hole. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expyred. mr. mcgovern: they voted against everything. mr. dreier: would the gentleman yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time had expired. mr. dreier: i yield 30 seconds to our rules committee colleague in the name of comity and civil discourse to respond. . mr. woodall: i would say to my friend i absolutely voted no on every single one of those amendments in the name of repealing the bill yesterday. and now today i have returned to speak in favor of this resolution so that you can work with the committee leadership to bring each and every one of those provisions to this floor for a vote again for the very first time. for the very first time. i'm glad to support you in having that opportunity and i'm pleased to be here to support
this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the chair must ask members to bear in mind the principle that proper courtesy in the process of yielding and reclaiming time in debate and especially in asking another to yield must foster the spirit of the comity that elevates our deliberations over and above mere argument. with that the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i yield -- i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: may i inquire of my friend if he has further speakers? mr. mcgovern: i'm the final speaker. mr. dreier: madam speaker, with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. mcgovern: may i inquire how much time i have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts has four minutes remaining. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i want to -- i have one additional speaker. the gentleman from virginia,
mr. moran, would like to be able to speak for 30 seconds. mr. dreier: the gentleman told me he was the closing speaker. and now he has one additional speaker? mr. mcgovern: i was misinformed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. moran: i appreciate the lenience of the chair of the rules committee. thank my very good friend from massachusetts. what troubles me with this debate, and i would have particularly address myself to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, is that we took two votes yesterday. one was to provide coverage for ourselves, the next, really, to deny it to our constituents. that i find troubling because we all have the right for guaranteed coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions. we have a choice of easy to compare health insurance plans. we have coverage for early retirees. women have equal premium coverage. we have access to affordable care, low cost preventive service. all these things. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman's time has expired. mr. mrian: voted to deny it to our constituents. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. dreier: i don't seek recognition. i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself the remaining time, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: gnat is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. -- the gentleman is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. mcgovern: this is not a serious legislative effort. it's a series of sound bites that mean nothing. committees don't have to do anything. speaker boehner is quoted in the hill basically saying he's not going to hold any of these committees accountable. they can do it if they want to, whatever, if they don't, so be it. what we are dealing with here today is kind of a political ploy. not a serious legislative effort to replace anything. my friends on the other side of
the aisle have got up over and over again said we are really with you on pre-existing conditions, on the doughnut hole, allowing parents to keep their kids on their insurance until 26. yet they are really not. because if they were they wouldn't have voted yesterday to repeal all those protections. and if they were really with us, we would be talking about today coming to the house floor with a series of initiatives that would actually continue to protect those benefits for consumers. but they voted to repeal all of that. i want to know how could anybody in this house, how can anybody in light of the protections that have been put in place, go back to an individual who has been -- who is now able to get health insurance because we prohibited insurance companies from discriminating against them for pre-existing conditions, how can you go to them and say we are going to change our mind, we are not going to do that anymore? how do you go to senior citizens who are struggling with that doughnut hole and we
have begun to close it, how do you begin to say we are going to raise your taxes? how do you do that? how do you go to a parent whose child can remain on the health insurance because we have extended it to allow them to stay their until they are 22 to say that doesn't matter anymore? it doesn't make sense. that's not what people voted for. they didn't vote for you to repeal all those things. what they voted against was this distortion of a health care bill that you put out there, my friends on the other side of the aisle, that was very well funded by the most expensive advertising campaign funded by the insurance company in the history of our country. this distortion out there. everybody was against that distortion. that is not the reality. and as the months have gone by and the reality has become clear to people, as they have seen the benefits and protections, as people have been able to wrest control of their health care from the insurance industry, as consumers realize they have
more and more rights, there are more and more protections built into the law to protect people of all ages, people say we don't want you to change that. we want that to be saved. i'll just say one thing, when my friends say we can do a little bit of this and little bit of that, you can't. because it's like a domino effect. everything has an impact. so this is a serious debate. and there's indignation on this side of the aisle it is because we no that this is a big deal and real people have -- who have real challenges affording their health care and dealing with the complexities of a health care system and the inequities of the health care system are getting some relief and they will be hurt by what you are doing. so let's be honest here. what happened yesterday was my friends on the other side of the aisle went on record as saying we are against everything. today they were -- we are going to pass a resolution, i guess, that doesn't do anything, doesn't even require committees to do anything, but just says we are for all these nice feel
good sound bites. that's not a serious legislative effort. that's why people are cynical. we can do better. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, there was a very powerful and resounding message that came last november 2 and that is the imperative for us to create jobs and get this economy growing. the american people are hurting. in my state of california we have a 12 1/2 percent unemployment rate, part of the area i represent has a 15.5% unemployment rate in the inland empire in southern california. it is essential that we focus our attention on creating jobs. and i believe, i believe that the step that we are taking today is going to be very, very important as we pursue that goal.
why is that? when we look at what passed last year, was signed last march 23 by the president, it was a measure that imposes mandates on small businesses. jeopardizing their ability to hire new workers. it's a measure that imposes dictates on doctors, on doctors, a regulatory structure which undermines their potential to hire new employees. it is a measure which in many ways jeopardizes our potential to grow the economy because it is a dramatic expansion of the entitlement programs which democrats and republicans alike say need to be addressed if we are going to create jobs and get our economy back on track. one of the things that i think is important to note is that people have said that repeal of
the health care bill in fact is going to cost $230 billion based on those c.b.o. numbers that came out. only in washington, d.c., can one cut a $2.7 trillion expenditure and have it labeled as a cost. as a cost. why is it a cost? it's a cost because the measure that was signed last march 23 imposes a /4 of a trillion dollar -- 3/4 of a trillion dollar tax increase on working americans. now, what does that do to create jobs and get our economy growing? obviously it undermines, it undermines our shared priority of creating jobs and getting our economy back on track. we know that with the $14 trillion national debt that we have and deficits down the road, we need to do what we can
to rein in that spending, tackling entitlements, and dealing with issues like the one that we are facing today. now, having said that we all know that democrats and republicans alike want to ensure that every single american has access to quality, affordable health insurance so that they can have access to quality health care. and i underscore the word quality because if one looks at the important research and development that takes place in the united states of america, i believe that the measure that was signed last march 23 and that we voted in this house to repeal yesterday, that that measure undermines the very important pursuit of research and development to deal with many of the diseases that are out there. so, madam speaker, i've got to say that we all say that we want every american to have access to quality, affordable health care, and everyone has acknowledged that that bill
that was signed march 23 is flawed. in his news conference right after the election the president of the united states said he believed we need to address the so-called 1099 provisions that impose, again, and onerous mandate on small businesses. undermining their ability to create jobs. exactly what i was saying earlier. i quoted the distinguished assistant minority leader, the former majority whip, mr. clyburn, who on a program earlier this week said republicans and democrats need to work together to rectify some of the problems that exist with this measure. and as i said, it was two days ago that the president of the united states wrote his editorial in which he talked about in the "wall street journal" the need to reduce the regulatory burden that is imposed on the private sector so that we can get our economy going and create jobs and he also said on that same day that he is willing and eager, madam speaker, willing and eager to
work with republicans to rectify some of the problems that exist in this measure. now, i heard my friend, mr. matheson, this morning on national public radio state that there was not a plan out there, and that's the reason having voted against the bill he did not vote for repeal because there is not a plan out there. i heard that at 7:35 this morning on wamu. and mr. matheson made that statement but the fact of the matter is, unlike the plan that was signed into law march 23 of last year, that did not include the kind of bipartisan participation that we believe is essential, i've got to say that we are planning to proceed with this direction to the four committees that will allow virtually every member of this house to be involved. we have 12 items and i'm happy to say that under this rule we have made in order, mr. matheson's amendment that we'll
be considering in just a few minutes, that will add a 13th item to deal with the so-called doc fix. so that again underscores our desire to work in a bipartisan way to address some of the concerns that are there. what is it that we say needs to be done? and frankly the president of the united states has indicated some of these he supports. we need to make sure that people do have a chance to purchase insurance across state lines which is now denied. we need to make sure that we have put into place associated health plans. a provision that passed a republican house but was killed by democrats in the senate when we lats were in the majority. we need to do everything that we can to allow for pooling to deal with pre-existing conditions. we need to make sure that we expand medical savings accounts that provide incentives for people to put dollars aside to plan for their health care needs. and one of the things that the president of the united states said in his state of the union
message one year ago right here in this chamber, we need to deal with meaningful lawsuit abuse reform so that we can have atension focused on patients and doctors and not on trial lawyers. so i would say to my friend from utah, those are five items that are part ever our plan that i believe can enjoy strong bipartisan support. so, madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to support h.res. 9 so that we can proceed with a bipartisan consideration of this very important goal that we share of creating jobs, getting our economy back on track, and ensuring that every single american has access to quality, afford and health insurance. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time for debate has expired. for what purpose -- for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. matheson: i have an
amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment printed in part b of house report number 112-2 offered by mr. matheson of utah. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 26, the gentleman from utah, mr. matheson, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. matheson: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. matheson: i rise today to offer an amendment to h. resolution 9. i did not support repeal legislation but i do believe there are bipartisan improvements that could be made to the existing law. and i think now is the time for all of us in congress to roll up our sleeves and work together. the goal of this amendment is pretty straightforward. it is set up to maintain adequate health care service to stabilize the business practice of doctors and to take into account the long-term economic health of this country. we all agree that the doctor-patient relationship's a fundamental part of quality health care, but we have found that we have a flawed formula
when it comes to setting reimbursement levels and every year threatens the ability of doctors toer care for patients and threatens the ability of patients to see their doctors. . members on both sides of the aisle, stake holders throughout the health care community, citizens, have all recognized we have a flawed policy. how many times have we come together to provide a temp care -- temporary patch to this problem without fixing the underlying problem. in 2010 alone, congress took five different votes to delay a scheduled cut without stepping up and dealing with a permanent fix to the problem. by an overwhelming vote a few weeks ago, congress supported a one-year delay to a looming 25% cut in physician payments. my amendment is very straightforward and clear. it adds an additional instruction to the committees of jurisdiction over health care
legislation to replace the flawed sustainable growth rate formula used to set medicare parmentes -- payments for doctors and instructs congress to find a permanent fix. it's the right thing to do on behalf of physicians as we look to make health care more sustainable and predictable and as we begin the yearing looging at this extremely complex yet highly personal issue, i think that adopting this amendment would be a good step to move in that direction. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment in a bipartisan way. i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. dreier: i'd like to claim the time in opposition to the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: i claim time in opposition to say i support the amendment, madam speaker. i believe that as you look at the list of 12 items that we have in h.res. 9, they are not
to be limited at all. i think that by virtue of our making the matheson amendment in order to deal we the so-called doc fix issue, we have made it clear we are already beginning at this juncture to work in a bipartisan way in our quest to create jobs, get our economy back on track and ensure that every single american has access to quality, affordable health care. so this is again the beginning of a very important process. and i'm very pleased that mr. matheson has been able to play a role in fashioning h.res. 9 and i hope very much that with the president of the united states saying that he is willing and eager to work with republicans, to rectify the problems that exist with the past health care bill and the fact that mr. clyburn, the assistant minority leader said he wants to work in a bipartisan way to deal with these issues, will lead to
strong, bipartisan support for mr. matheson's amendment and for the underlying resolution. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from utah. mr. matheson: i yield one minute to my colleague from new jersey, mr. pallone. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pallone: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in support of mr. matheson's amendment. i do want to point out, though, that the democrats, when we were in the majority, many times tried to pass a permanent fix and did not receive support, i believe, from many republicans, except i believe we did have dr. burgess' of texas, his support. we passed a permanent fix, the doctors fix but because we could not get any real republican support, we had to continue to rely on short-term fixes.
we did, however, as you know, at the end of the last session, pass a one-year fix which is in effect now. i do think this is a commendable response that mr. matheson has and i certainly intend to support it, but the difficulty is, that the many years when the republicans were in the majority, they had the opportunity to pass a permanent fix and to deal with this issue and they always kicked the can down the road and did not cooperate with us on a bipartisan basis when we were in the majority to try to achieve a permanent fix. i certainly intend to work with the republicans to do that, but they are the reason we don't have it now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. dreier: the gentleman from california. i was mistakenly under the impression that the gentleman had exhausted his five minutes. i'd like to reclaim the remaining time i have. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? mr. dreier: i reserve the balance of my time.
mr. mathston: i have no further speakers, i ask for the support of my colleagues, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: as we know, i have claimed time in opposition to the amendment but i will state once again, i am supportive of the matheson amendment. i urge my colleagues, democrats and republicans alike, to come together and vote for adding what will be item number 13, which will be the beginning of wide-ranging reform to ensure that every single american has access to quality health insurance so we can, again, get our economy back on track and focus on job creation and growth and with that, i again urge support of the matheson amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from utah. mr. matheson: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back as well. pursuant to clause 26, the previous question is ordered on the amendment and the resolution. the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from utah, mr. matheson. those in favor say aye.
those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. dreier: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered and members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on the question of adopting the
the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland, the distinguished minority whip, rise? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i thank the speeblinger -- thank the speaker for recognition and i ask to speak out the of order for one minute to inquire of the schedule for the coming week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: i thank the speaker and i yield to my friend, the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, for yielding. on monday the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m.
on tuesday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour debate and noon for legislative business. the house will recess no later than 5:00 p.m. to allow a security sweep of the house chamber prior to the president's state of the union address. the house will meet again at approximately 8:35 p.m. in a joint session with the senate for the purpose of receiving an address from the president of the united states. on wednesday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for legislative business. during the week the house will consider at least one bill under suspension of the rules which will be announced by close of business tomorrow. in addition we will consider h.res. 38, a resolution reducing nonsecurity spending to fiscal year 2008 levels or less and a bill of the public's choosing via the youcut program to reduce federal spending in the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns and party conventions. saving taxpayers $520 million in mandatory spending according to
c.b.o.'s estimate last year. mr. speaker, i yield back. . mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for informing us of the schedule for the week to come. i want to thank at the outset not only the gentleman but the speaker as well for the respect and consideration they have given during this current tragic situation that's confronted us in tucson and the critical injury sustained by our colleague, gabby giffords. i want to thank mr. cantor in particular for his very strong statement as well as the speaker's very strong statement that an attack on any individual who serves is an attack on all of us irrespective of party or philosophy. and i think that we all have raised prayers for the victims
who lost their lives, the families, prayers who are either in the process of recovering or now out of danger. and of course for our beloved colleague, congresswoman giffords, as well. i want to thank the gentleman for his leadership and the speaker's leadership and join with our leader and myself in leading the house in what i thought was a very appropriate and united response to that tragedy. we are heartened by the progress that congressman giffords is making and we look forward to her quick return. mr. cantor, if i can, next week we are scheduled to leave on wednesday. i know that there has been an articulation of an intent to try to get out by noon on the day that is we leave. would your -- would you expect that to be the case next week?
mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. first of all i'd like to thank him for his kind statements regarding the expressions of grief and support that i think all members of this body have expressed to gabby giffords, her family, her staff. our thoughts and prayers remain with all of them and certainly to the victims and their families. and hope that they all know that we are thinking of them. mr. speaker, as far as the schedule's concerned, if you recall, the commitment on our schedule was the last day that we are here the finishing time would be 3:00 p.m. on the last day we are here and we specifically had indicated that january is going to be a little different and an exception due to the organizing process,
state of the union, etc. the expectation is to begin that in february as was originally expressed although we do intend to try and be as expeditious as possible on wednesday, the exact timing of our departure and finishing up depends on the actual rule coming from the rules committee, including the amendment debate, structure for the presidential election fund bill. and so we expect an announcement by the rules committee chairman later today on that. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comment. given that response, can i ask the gentleman what -- would he expect there to be an open rule with respect to that bill? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: the gentleman understands as the rules committee chairman presides over the rules committee and entertains the submission of amendments as to exactly -- i can't answer that right now and that will be determined by the
rules committee. mr. hoyer: not only do i recall that as being a fact, i also recall it as an answer i used to give the gentleman on a regular basis. i thank the gentleman for his response. but i'm certainly hopeful as he was hopeful, but given the representations of transparency and openness that there would be opportunities to amend, i know that mr. van hollen spoke to that in the rules committee, and i would hope that we could see that policy which has been expressed by your side pursued in this instance as well as future instances. i thank the gentleman for his response. let me ask the gentleman there was some criticism raised when we passed a budget enforcement resolution that we hadn't passed a full budget. in that budget enforcement resolution as you recall, a, we articulate add specific number, and b, that number was voted on
by the entire house. it's my understanding that the proposition that will be put before the house next week will provide and give unilateral authority to the chairman of the budget committee to set a number. that that number will not be voted upon by the house pursuant to the authority granted in that resolution. is that an accurate reading of that resolution? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman. to be clear once the house adopts the resolution next week, the resolution will then instruct chairman ryan to cap nonsecurity discretionary spending for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 at fiscal year 2008 levels. that is the purpose of our adopting the resolution. acting as the house as a whole, instructing chairman ryan to cap nonsecurity discretionary spending at 2008 levels for the remainder of this fiscal year.
and again, mr. speaker, i say to the gentleman, i know he shares with me the realization that people across this country, families, businesses are having to face some tough choices. we started this congress i think together committed to demonstrating that we are willing to make those tough choices. thus the resolution for next week. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his response. i do not want to be argumentative, i just received your amended copy of the resolution and as i read it on your second page it says, remainder of fiscal year 2011 that assumes nonsecurity spending at fiscal year 2008 levels or less. the implication is that it seems to me is that mr. ryan unilaterally can set a number which has not been agreed to by the house but would be under the power granted in this resolution would bind the house
to a number to which it had never agreed. in addition to that, -- let me yield on that. is that an at crack reading of that? could in fact under this resolution mr. ryan set a number that is less than, as your resolution says, 2008 numbers? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i say to the gentleman that the resolution provides the capping of spending levels at 2008 levels. the gentleman also knows that the speaker has been very consistent in his statement saying that we are going to have open rule process when it comes to spending bills. in fact that's what we said during the last campaign season in the pledge to america. so that is in working with that commitment, the -- as well as the language of this resolution, the budget chairman, mr. ryan, will be
instructed to enter into the record a cap of spending levels for the remainder of the fiscal year to be placed at 2008 levels. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. would it be, therefore, accurate that the or less is superfluous and is not intended to give mr. ryan the authority to set a figure at less than 2008 levels? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i would tell the gentleman i disagree with that characterization of the language, or less, and just say that, again, the speaker's committed to an open process on spending bills and i assume that we will see coming to the floor every attempt and effort to try and maintain some sense that this congress is going to be a cut and grow congress. we are about trying to find savings everywhere we can so
that we can get this country back on to a trajectory of fiscal sustainability. i say to the gentleman, no. this is not something that we intend to be meaningless. that we are serious. the cap is consistent with our commitment to the people of this country that the levels of spending for the remainder of the fear -- fiscal year will not exceed 2008ment it is our hope that we will continue to find additional savings so that, yes, we could even find ourselves below 2008 levels. but the cap is 2008 levels. i yield back. mr. hoyer:00 i thank -- mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the point i was trying to make perhaps not as clearly as i need, what we are in that resolution giving is to one person, one person, in this congress, the authority without consideration by this house to set the number without hearings
on what we will cap, as you articulate, cap spending levels at for fiscal year 2011. as i understand there have been no hearings by the budget committee. no hearings by the appropriations committee. no hearing by the ways and means committee or any other committee involved in fiscal matters what the ramifications of that cap will be to individual programs or individual americans. i share the gentleman's view and have voted consistently as i voted for the balanced budget amendment as the gentleman knows last we considered it, to bring our fiscal house into order. i think neither party can necessarily take sole responsibility for doing so or not doing so when it comes to fiscal balance. but i do tell my friend that with respect to transparency and openness, and to inclusion of all the members of the body, it is, i think, not consistent
with that objective to give to one person, however brilliant that person is, and i have great respect as the gentleman knows and have said so publicly in the press for mr. ryan, who i think is a very positive, effective, and important member of this body, but i'm not forgiving any one person in this body the authority to unilaterally set the number at which we will fund america's government for the next seven months. i yield back to my friend to see if i might have a response to that because in his responses to me, i have -- i understand the cap. but at any number below that at 2007, 2006, 2005 levels it seems to me this resolution authorizes mr. ryan to set such figures as he unilaterally determines is an appropriate figure. in his mind that may be an
appropriate figure but it is not necessarily the same figure that this body voting in a transparent, open way might select. i yield back to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i just respond to the gentleman by saying we are in the position we are in because the majority that he participated in the last congress failed to live up to its obligation in passing a budget and in even passing any appropriations bills short of a continuing resolution. that's why we are here today is because there is a mess that's been created from the last majority and we are trying to clean that up. now, we have committed to a transparent and open process and i have said to the gentleman that when the c.r. comes to the floor, we will see members on both sides of the aisle have an opportunity to amend the continuing resolution according to the way they think that we ought to be saving taxpayer dollars. so, again, i disagree with the gentleman's assertion that somehow there is a lack of
transparency here. we have said all along the cap on our spending will be 2008 levels for the remainder of the fiscal year. if this house works its will and if members on either side are able to gain a majority of votes in this house to achieve even more spending below the 2008 levels, then that will be the will of this house. and so, again, the gentleman understands well why we are where we are and we look forward to working together to go and produce a spending resolution here that begins to address the mess that was left before. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: i the gentleman the gentleman for yielding. -- i thank the gentleman for yielding. will -- mr. hoyer: i jiang that the for yielding. is the gentleman representing to me this resolution will result in 2008 levels of expenditure so that members who are being asked to vote on this will have a certitude of the
number on which they are voting? that's my only question. so that they will know on what authorization they are giving, what budget direction they are giving to the members of the appropriations committee? mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. the budget directive is 2008 levels or less. as the gentleman well knows. the intention is to allow the budget committee, the appropriations committee to do its work to report a bill to the floor, resolution to the floor, the body will work its will according to the insistence of the majority and speaker that we have an open process on spending bills. it is our hope that we can work to achieve even greater savings for the taxpayers of this country. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i understand that. i thank the gentleman. i know that he has indicated we are going to be considering what i believe to be a $52 million cut. that's important money.
. of course she will take approximately 50 years to get to $100 million. if we consider one every week that we're in session. my presumption is that you will be informing us of those opportunities to cut as well, giving us opportunities on our side and there may well be members on our side who want to join in making sure that we spend our money as effectively and efficiently as possible. but we also know in the commissions that -- and the commissions that have reported know that while these types of expenditures are important to review, and i don't know there thank there have been any hearings on this youcut, i know that this has been in response to the web page question that
you have -- webpage question, i don't know how many responses you received to that, but are you intending to have hearings in relevant committees on future propositions to cut? i yield to the gentleman. mr. cantor: i'd say, mr. speaker, i'd say to the gentleman, first of all, as far as the $520 million, not $52 million, is concern, as he knows, that is mandatory spending that is not discretionary spending and would be different and apart from the commitment that we just spoke about at 2008 levels. i would also say to the gentleman from, we -- to the gentleman, we will be glad to have hearings once the committee is organized. as the gentleman knows, it's been a little bit slow in upstart, just given the transition of leadership, etc. but we are waiting for your side in some instances. i hear from committee chairmen that things are working well. so we hope that committees will be up and organized to have
hearings. but to -- in order for us to deliver our commitment that we are going to bring up a spending cut bill every week, this body will be considering a bill providing for cutting the presidential election fund that has been in existence for some time. as the gentleman well knows, this tends to be of some controversy in some corridors. there are those who believe that this is an attempt to drive this country towards a public finance system for campaigns. obviously there are those in this country who believe that's what should happen. but knowing full well the controversy, i'm sure we'll have a robust debate and i am looking forward, mr. speaker, to as many cuts to this fund as the gentleman's side may offer and look forward to a robust debate on the issue.
and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. let me ask again, because -- does the gentleman intend, once the committees are up and running, i understand in a transition it takes some time, that the cuts that you're going to propose on a weekly basis will have been subjected to committee oversight and hearings with the public having an opportunity to testify on the consequences of those cuts? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i say to the gentleman again, yes, it is our intention to have as full and open debate on all of these issues. as the gentleman recalls, this process began last june or spring or so that we said we were going to redirect the focus to make sure that we are in line with the will of the people and that is trying to do everything we can to remind all of us of the import of cutting spending and therefore this process begins. but, yes, to the gentleman's
question about hearings, we welcome that and would expect that. i yield back. mr. hoyer: good. i appreciate that response. lastly, i ask my friend, one of the significant issues that will be confronting us in the coming months will be the extension of the debt limit, to ensure that america continues to pay the bills that it has incurred and therefore maintain fiscal stability. not only in this country but throughout the world. mr. speaker, and you have both made, i think, very positive comments on the fact that as unwanted as such a vote may be it is nevertheless, as the speaker pointed out, an adult vote, i took that to mean a responsible vote, to ensure that fiscal stability of our country. does the gentleman anticipate a clean up or down d vote on that issue -- up or down vote on that
issue when it becomes timely to vote on that issue sometime in march or april? and i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman and i would begin by saying to the gentleman, as he knows, it's unclear when the federal government will actually hit the debt ceiling and we will be closely monitoring that date. but before we reach that date it is very, very important that we prove that this congress is willing to cut spending. and the house, as discussion today indicates, will be taking those necessary steps each week that we are here leading up to an eventual vote. and in fact i will call on the leader on the other side of the capitol, mr. reid, to follow suit. the continuing resolution vote gives us the first opportunity, real opportunity, to demonstrate our commitment to cutting spending. the debt limit will be another opportunity for this congress to cut spending.
and as i think the gentleman knows, i have said repeatedly that we will not accept an increase in the debt limit without serious spending cuts and reforms. and i look forward to joining with the gentleman, debate on this house floor, hopefully we can have the senate join us as well as the president towards that end. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. it's my understanding from the gentleman's response that if in the eyes of you or mr. boehner or your side of the aisle that serious spending cuts have not been affected, that would you oppose the extension of the debt limit, is that what i hear you saying? i yield back. mr. cantor: i say to the gentleman this, we have been charged with an obligation by the people of this country to get our fiscal house in order. we intend to be very deliberate and focused on cutting spending while making sure we're doing
all we can to grow the economy and the private sector jobs. and it is our intent to prove that this house and this congress, hopefully leader reid will follow suit, that we'll deliver on that commitment. the public, as the gentleman knows all too well, is tired of business as usual. they don't want to see this country to continue to incur debt as it has in the past without some indication that things are changing, without some indication that serious spending cuts have been implemented and reforms affected and that would be our intent. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that response. but i hate to keep pressing him. if his hopes are not realized and i don't know the answer as to whether they will be, but if at some point in time we'll be confronted with an alternative on whatever the facts may be with respect to what we're payable able to pass for this house, the senate -- able to
pass for this house and the senate, signed by the president, we will be confronted with the consequences of our past behavior and i underline our, o-u-r. spending that we have incurred. i don't want to go through the tired debate that you and always -- you and i always go through so i won't do it but we will be confronted with an adult moment as to whether or not we will in light of the consequences of past behavior take actions necessary to preclude america from defaulting on its debts and i simply ask the gentleman, will we have the opportunity to have an up or down vote on that issue under the circumstances where we have reached, as the gentleman points out, we don't know the exact date, the extent of present authority? mr. cantor: i'd say to the gentleman, mr. speaker, that the vote on the debt limit comes within the context of our demonstrating a commitment to
cut spending, to affect reforms and the president as well as the gentleman's side here in this house has said both that they would like to see and join us in cutting spending. this debt limit vote comes in the context of all that we're going to be able to do over the next several months and we've got to be demonstrating that or frankly the public will not want us to accept any notion that we're going to continue business as usual unless we've demonstrated that things are changing and that's why i continue to say to the gentleman, we will not accept an increase in the debt limit without serious spending cuts in reforms. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
for what purpose does the majority leader rise? mr. cantor: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at noon on monday next for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the majority leader. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 10, resolved that the two houses of congress assemble in the hall of the house of representatives on tuesday, january 25, 2011, at 9:00 p.m. for the purpose of receiving such communication as the president of the united states shall be pleased to make them. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the regulationlusion is agreed to and the motion to re-- resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous
consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. hinojosa: mr. hoyer for five minutes. mr. van hollen from maryland for five minutes. ms. delauro from connecticut for five minutes. ms. woolsey from california for five minutes. mr. mcdermott from washington for five minutes. ms. kaptur from ohio for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee, rise? without objection.
mr. kildee: mr. speaker, today we will be saying farewell to the pages who have served this house so well, they're standing in back of the chambers here now, and we wish to thank you for your service. i've been on the page board for about 30 years. speaker tip o'neill appointed me to this board and this has been a tremendous group of pages. you've worked hard, yufpke worked well and you've worked -- you've worked well and you've worked honorably. you've seen history. you've seen a change of party control of this house. you've seen our joyce -- joys and our sorrows. you witnessed the sorrow we all experienced and you experienced when a member of this house was attacked back in her district. there is a program called close
up where people come to washington, people your age, to observe the congress. and they learn a lot. it's a great program. but no one sees the congress as close up as you do. and we appreciate the fact that you recognize that as a great responsibility and a great honor. and you'll go back home and tell others about this congress. i think you can tell them that everyone who serves in this congress, even though we may have differences, sometimes very sharp differences, the one thing that does bind us together is that everyone here in this congress loves this country. go back and tell them that we are imperfect people trying to
make a more perfect republic. i'd like to yield, mr. speaker, to my colleague on the page board, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, thank you. mr. kildee, i appreciate it. the young men and women who are standing behind the bar at the back of our chamber here today are great young men and women who have served us well over this past. we appreciate you. this is probably the best behaved group of pages we've ever had. i don't know if you want to take it further than that, but you've done a great job and we appreciate you. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to have placed in the record the names of those pages who have served us for this last semester, the fall class of 2010. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. bishop: thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. kildee: thank you very much and i want to thank mr. bishop
and ms. foxx also who served on this committee. we have enjoyed our work and you've made our work very enjoyable. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> take my five minutes at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the chair will entertain one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island approach? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. cicilline: thank you, mr. speaker. even as i speak the lan slides continue to ravage the country.
this national disaster, ongoing for several months now, has taken more than 300 lives and damaged or destroyed more than 2,000 homes. in total more than two million victims have been affected by the flooding and some reports are calling this the worst natural disaster in colombia's history. my district in northern rhode island is home to many wonderful colombian families. in fact colombians make up the fourth largest latino group in rhode island, most of whom have loved ones in the affected areas. so on behalf of the people of the first district of rhode island i extend my sympathies. we remember those who have died to those who have lost loved ones, injured, or lost their homes as a result of this destruction. i express my wishes for a rapid reconstruction of the damage to areas and return to safety for the families affected by this tragic natural disaster. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.
are there further one-minute requests? the chair leaves before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. ruppersberger of maryland for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, and under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mr. poe from texas.
mr. paul: i ask to take my five minutes at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. paul: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, perpetual war is expensive. we have been militarily involved in the persian gulf region now for 20 years. experts have predicted that the cost of this continuous and expanding war will reach $6 trillion. the hostilities in our overt involvement in iraq can be dated back to january 16, 1991, when the defensive operation desert shield became the offensive operation desert storm. though the end of the persian gulf war was declared on april 6, 1991, with a u.s. military victory, the 20-year war was just beginning. the u.s. and britain have had an intense interest in controlling the oil of the middle east dating back to the overthrow of the ottoman empire during world war i. this interest expanded during
world war ii with f.d.r.'s promise to protect the puppet government in the persian gulf region, especially saudi arabia. though this arrangement never set well with the citizens in the region, a fairly decent relationship remained between the arab people and the american public. but animosity continued to build with our ever present military involvement in iraq. our military assistance to the mugea had a dean in the 1980's, now the taliban, help the muslim defenders, one of whom was osama bin laden, oust the soviets from afghanistan. at that time we were still not seen as occupiers and the radical muslims encouraged by the u.s. were expected to direct all their efforts toward the munist threat. that all changed with the breakup of the soviet system and the end of the cold war , when as the lone superpower left standing, we named ourselves the world policemen. it was then that the resentment
by arabs and muslims became directed toward the united states now seen as an invader and occupier. continuous bombing and crippling sanctions against iraq during the 1990's, the appearance that the u.s. did not care about the plight of the palestinians, and our military bases in saudi arabia led to attention getting attacks against the united states. the 1998 embassy attacks in kenya and tanzania and the attack of the u.s. cole in the year 2000 were warning that the war was far from over. the horrible tragedy of 9/11 shouldn't have been a surprise and many believe it was preventable. currently the war has morphed into a huge battle for control of the persian gulf region and central asia. this involves iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, yemen, somalia, and iran. foolish policies lead to foolhardy conflicts.
foolhardy conflicts lead to unsustainable costs and a multitude of unintended consequences. to name a few we have spent trillions of dollars based on the false pretense of defending freedom and our constitution. the notion has been further solidified that war no longer needs to be declared by congress and can be pursued as a prerogative of the president. we are now seen by the world not as a peacemaker but rather a troublemaker and aggressor. thousands of american service members have been killed and tens of thousands wounded with a sharp increase in service connected suicide. over 500,000 veterans are seeking medical treatment and disability benefits. millions of citizens have been killed, wounded, and displaced in the countries on the receiving end of our bombs, droughns, sanctions, and occupation. the region has suffered huge environmental damage as a consequence of our military
occupation. christians from iraq have suffered the worst route in the history of christian done. iron and iraq are now better allies than ever with strong anti-american sentiment. iraqi political stability is a joke. ending hostilities in afghanistan is a dream. china and iran have been drawn into a closer alliance against the united states. america's uncontrolled deficits are senselessly fueled by needless militarism. we are now much poorer and less safe. there was no al qaeda in iraq before we invaded in 2003. today there is. no weapons of mass destruction were ever found in iraq. war always leads to government growth and the sacrifice of civil liberties. in the past 10 years this has been particularly costly to us with the acceptance of military tribunals, torture,
assassination, abuse of habeas corpus, and patriot act-type legislation. senseless war and senseless destruction and death should not be rationalized as providing a great service in protecting our freedoms. our constitution or maintaining peace. the only value that can come of this is to recognize our policies are flawed and they need to be changed. without this history will record the sacrifices were all in vain. the speaker pro tempore: mr. hoyer of maryland. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i rise to honor the great american. my friend, sargent shriver. a son of maryland who passed away this week at the age of 95. he was a public servant who lived a full life dedicated to promoting justice an opportunity in america and indeed throughout the world. as the first director of the
peace corps, mr. shriver skillfully launched an organization that has strengthened respect for america across the world and has for half a century exposed a generation of americans to the world beyond their borders. sargent shriver also made his mark as the director of the important anti-poverty programs and is the leader of the special olympics movement. a movement that he joined his extraordinary bride, eunice kennedy shave, in heading. -- shriver in heading. in the words of his biographer, i quote, often the things that sargent shriver accomplished, starting the peace corps, or getting 500,000 kids into head start programs, its first summer when the experts said that 10,000 kids was the maximum feasible, were things that everyone before him had said were not realistic or were
down right impossible. he did. he had a gift for what one of the old war on poverty colleagues called, and i quote, expanding the horizons of the possible. i'm reminded of robert kennedy's quote that he used so often that some men see things as they are and say why. robert kennedy said i dream things that never were and ask why not? sarge shriver mirrored that quote. may we all learn from his example. may we honor his legacy of public service by expanding our own horizons of the possible. by caring for those who need our help. here and around the world. sargent shriver brought to american life a singular commitment to service. his good work and his historic
examples will long outlive his nate -- his 9 his 95 years. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. jones of north carolina. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, i seek permission to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, voters all across the country have rejected the quote government knows best, end quote, philosophy that prevailed during last year's health care debate. in contrast my republican colleagues and i believe that american innovation and reduced government intervention are keys to successful health reform that reduces health care costs. after all, reducing the cost of health care should be the primary focus of any health care reform bill. unfortunately, the highly flawed health care bill that passed last year does not bring down the cost of health care.
it drives costs up. if we are ever going to fix health care, we must focus on reducing costs. for instance, it's estimated that 1% of the most seriously ill in america account for more than 25% of all health care expenditures. what if we could improve the care of these patients and at the same time reduce costs? we can. we can by harnessing the power of innovation and health research and groundbreaking fields like regenerative medicine. it is a highly specialized field that focuses on developing technologies to replace or regenerate organs and issues -- tissues using the patient's own cells. these treatments would reduce the cost of chronic diseases by up to $275 billion a year and would dramatically improve the lives of older americans suffering from terrible chronic illnesses. the cost of chronic disease is only going to increase if we don't focus on innovations like regenerative medicine that can
revolutionize how we treat illnesses. these costs are going to spiral ever higher mainly because we are in the midst of a major aging of our population. it is estimated that in the next 20 years people in the age range of 65 to 74 years old will increase from 6% of the population to about 10% of the population, almost doubling. statement, people over the age of 75 will increase from 6% to 9% of the total population. this demographic shift will drive up the cost of health care as more elderly receive treatment for chronic diseases like parkinson's disease, kidney failure, heart failure, or diabetes. regenerative medicine has the potential to revolutionize the treatment of all these diseases. but that may not happen. why not? it's simple. the same kinds of bureaucracy regulations and red tape that are stuck into every corner of
the obamacare law are holding back the widespread adoption of major medical breakthroughs in this field. consider the fact that dr. anthony itala at the institute for regenerative medicine at wake forest university has been able to successfully grow bladders for bladder replacement surgeries from the recipient's own cells. despite several successful bladder transplants, the f.d.a. insists that the institute goes through additional costly clinical trials on animals and spend millions of dollars on testing that is clearly unnecessary based on his success with the human transplant surgery. this sort of federal regulatory burden is still -- stifling innovation in america and the government takeover of health care passed by the democrats last year imposes still more job and innovation destroying regulations on health research. regenerative medicine has the potential to improve the health of our citizens and return them healthy and whole to the work force. it holds the promise of hundreds of billions of savings
in health care costs and unlike obamacare, will create jobs focused on developing these technologies across the nation. congress would be wise to strip away the bureaucracy and red tape that is stifling innovation in fields like regenerative medicine that could lower cost and improve the lives of all americans. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. mr. van hol be from -- mr. van hollen from maryland. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? >> address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. delauro: mr. speaker, words cannot describe the depths of my grief as i rise today. to pay tribute to the life of my former staffer and dear friend, ashley westbrook, who was taken
from in a tragic accident last week. to say that she was taken from us too soon is an understatement. she worked for me for seven years, first as my press secretary and later my chief of staff. however she was much more than a former staffer. she was family. ashley was quite simply remarkable. a native of north carolina she was known for her soft southern accent, bright smile, professionalism and determination to get things done. after graduating from the university of north carolina she first made her mark working for governor jim hunt and then attorney general mike easily. combining politics, policy and communication. she soon brought her talents to washington and she was good at it. ashley was committed to public service and to making a difference in the lives of others. ashley started in my office in 2000 as my press secretary and we quickly formed a bond of mutual respect and friendship.
she later stepped in as my chief of staff and was nothing less than transformtive in that role. ashley's leadership and drive was inspiring as she was a mentor for many young staffers, not only in my office but across the hill. as one former staffer remembered, and i quote, her work ethic could not be matched. she exemplified class and always cool under pressure. ashley was on the floor day and night, always deepening her understanding of the congress as an institution and how it operated. she was a bright, articulate and incredibly dedicated young woman who built a distinguished reputation during her time on the hill. and was respected by colleagues and by members alike on both sides of the aisle. a fact that was reflected in the many phone calls i received and the statements that were issued in her memory. ashley met her husband dan on the hill and looking back it was obvious that these two would wind up together. they shared a seriousness of
purpose and liberal values yet they were not flashy about any of this and avoided the spot light. the love that they shared was palpable. the kind we all dream of finding. i remembered her unbridled excitement about her wedding and her dreams of starting her own family. ashley truly enjoyed the simple thifpks in life, family and close friends. she cherished spending time with dan and their three children. neighbors have often recalled seeing her and dan wheeling the kids around the neighborhood. her children were her joy, the light of her life. she wanted nothing more than the very best for them. a childhood filled with love, encouragement and support. it is difficult to imagine that they will grow up not knowing her as well as we did. i, like so many others, have not yet come to terms with the reality that ashley is lost. the idea that i will not get a call or email or text from her,
just a couple of lines to say hello, is inconceivable to me. i simply cannot imagine my life without her in it. ashley was an exceptional young woman whose kind heart, quick wit, unwavering loyalty and unparalleled professionalism touched the lives and the hearts of all those fortunate enough to have known her. and so it is with the heaviest heart that i rise today to extend my deepest sympathies to her husband, dan, her parents, jim and diane westbrook, her brother, blair. dan's parents, tom and kathy, and ashley's children, shah, lane and mason gray. ashley's absence has left a hole in all of our hearts that will never be filled. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. mr. burlten of indiana -- burton of indiana.
for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? without objection. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. america lost one of her greatest public servants this week. shriver dedicated his life to others. he was the driving force behind the creation of head start and upward bound, opening doort to education, to countless children. he was passionate about service and through his stewardship of the peace corps and vista, gave millions of others the opportunity to serve. sarg and his wife were veakts for people with disabilities and -- were advocates for people with disabilities and today the special olympics empowers young people with disabilities around the world. sargent sliveears courage under fire earned him a purple heart
in world war ii. after directing the peace corps and helping launch the war on poverty in the johnson administration he applied his formidable talents to our foreign service as ambassador to france from 1968 to 1970. in 1994, president clinton awarded shriver the presidential medal of freedom, our nation's highest civilian honor. despite all these acolytes and well-deserved recognitions, those who knew sargent shriver now that he considered his work its own reward. his life was a tireless crusade for peace and justice, willing to lend a hand wherever one was needed, and building institutions that could carry his work into the future. when our deeds match our ideals, sargent shriver would say, we will be living life as it ought to be lived. shriver lived life as it ought to be lived.
i extend my deepest sympathies to his five children, mark, robert, maria, timothy and anthony, and to their families. i hope they are comforted by the thoughts and prayers of all those who knew, admired or helped shriver. his legacy, the children given a head start, the volunteers whose lives were changed and who changed lives in their service around the globe and the individuals with disabilities now treated with dignity and respect that they deserve. that legacy is with us today and will continue for years and decades and more to come. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. mr. burton of indiana. ms. woolsey of california.
mr. dreier of california. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the repeal of the health care law and beginning the process ref placing it with market-oriented solutions that reduce health care costs are important steps in the right direction for the people of the fifth district of virginia and for our nation as a whole. having heard from so many of my constituents on this issue, i believe that it is essential that we repeal the government takeover of health care that raises costs, increases taxes, imposes burdensome mandates on small businesses and jeopardizes quality of medical care for our people. i rise today to share an example of the real life implications that the new health care law has
had on one doctor in the fifth district of virginia. mr. hurt: his story is not unique. no doubt there are many others in central and south side of virginia as well as across the nation who are dealing with similar negative ramifications of this law. his story is an important one to tell. it's of the hardship this legislation has caused the people who have dedicated their lives to serving others. in 1999 this doctor took a huge risk when he decided to sell his home and move to charlottesville to buy and operate an urgent care center. the challenges he faced in starting up his own practice did not come without sacrifice. it was over over a year before he took home his first may check. he and his wife lived on savings and retirement money and did not know whether their business would make it until 2004. five years later. his sacrifice and hard work proved to be a model for success. now he has over 40,000 charts and 30 employees and he provides high-quality care to more than 16,000 patients. the average charge per patient visit remains low while the services rendered provide good
quality care, providing that health care at the primary level doesn't have to come with an overly expensive price tag. however this doctor has made it clear that the fear and uncertainty regarding the new health care law threatens both the present and future success of his practice. due to the tax hikes, added regulations and bureaucracy and overall government intrusion, the doctor is no longer sure he can afford to stay in business which means over 16,000 patients in the area served by his practice may lose access to this reliability and -- reliable and affordable care. what a crushing blow to the innovaters who are seeking new ways to provide quality headal -- medical care to their fellow man. what a crushing blow to the entrepreneurial spirit for those who are seeking to succeed and what a crushing blow to the very spirit upon which our nation was founded. this is just one example of why it is critical and necessary to repeal the government takeover of health care, to ensure that doctors in the fifth district can keep tchare doors open and that the people of the fifth district of virginia can continue to afford quality health care. it is critical that we find
replacement measures that seek to truly keep costs low while removing the government from the patient-doctor relationship. we have a great deal of work ahead, mr. speaker, but i'm committed to continuing to find the health care solutions that are in the best interest of all virginians. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. mcdermott of washington. ms. kaptur of ohio. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from missouri, mr. akin, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. akin: thank you, mr. speaker.
mr. akin: thank you, mr. speaker. it's a treat to be able to join you and my colleagues today and at the beginning of a new year take on a subject that we have been aware of and increasingly conscious of the problems really relative to our economy, to jobs, but particularly to the federal government. and its voracious appetite to overspend. i'm joined by a number of distinguished colleagues today. i think it should be an interesting discussion. we're going to try to keep it simple. and look at the big picture and look at the choices that america faces. along those lines here is sort of a by the numbers projection for this year, 2011.
and you see two different sort of a bar graph, these tubes here is $3.834 trillion, that's $3.8 trillion and that's what it's exacted that the federal government is going to spend -- expected that the federal government is going to spend. $3.8 trillion. the problem here is this other little thing here. this is the income projection. that's $2.6 trillion, if you round it. so $2.6 trillion versus $3.8 trillion which you can tell by the length of them that we're spending more money than we're taking in. people that have tried to run a budget at home understand that's a very easy thing to have happen. to spend more money than what you have coming in. and the federal government has that problem and it has it big time. in this case the difference between the two is more than $1 trillion. so that's what we're going to take a look at and what can we
do about it, is it so much a matter of if you're a liberal or conservative, really the fact is that it's mathematics. we're spending a whole lot more than we're taking in. and so that's the problem we're going to take a look at. when you do that year after year, spend more than you take in, you start to develop a debt. and in our case we've got a $14 trillion debt. so you have a deficit of $1.6 trillion but you keep adding these things every year and pretty soon you build this debt up and the problem with the debt is that you have to pay interest on the money that you borrowed. so that also makes things worse and so now you take a look at the fact that not only are we spending about 1/3 more than what we have but we've been doing a bad job of controlling our spending in the past, we have also cranked up this debt. the effect of that is that one of the things that comes as far as spending is your cost of the debt service.
so the more you borrow, the more you've got to pay interest on your debt and therefore just compounds the situation, making it worse. so that's the lineup. let's take a look at, where are we spending all this money? one of the things that people that are looking at numbers take a look at is three fairly big, what are called entitlements. entitlements means that somewhere along the line, the congress passed a law and the law works like a little machine. it just spits money out and anybody who meets certain parameters, the machine will give them some money. that's called an entitlement. so depending on what the entitlement is, it just spends money. and congress doesn't have to do anything, the money just gets spent. it's called an entitlement. the three big ones are medicare, medicaid and social security. if you project over time how much those entitlements are
going to spend, you find they're growing. they're growing because of people such as myself, baby boomers, the baby boomers are getting older and retiring and there's not a many people working, so the costs go up and this is the typical revenue that we get from taxes coming in that's running at 18%. you can see it goes up and down as we have more or less taxes, depending on who's in charge of the white house and the congress but it averages now, since 1965, it's averaging about 18%. you see this point out here at 2052, where these three entitlements will use up the entire budget, there won't be money for anything else other than these three things. unfortunately, this chart is optimistic. because this is only including these -- these three
entitlements. we have other entitlements also and in fact this point, we have pretty close to come -- we are pretty close to it even today. our entitlement spending when you look at the bar chart up here, pretty much of our income, about $2.5 trillion, pretty much that income is spent today on various entitlements. it's not just medicare, medicaid, social security, but there are two other categories, miscellaneous entitlements, things like food stamps, public housing, stuff like that, but also debt service, because you have to keep paying the interest on debts. you put that all together that's just about what we've got for income. we've got ourselves some challenges. i'm glad that i don't have to solve this problem. but we have got some very smart people that are going to join and talk a little bit about this and what are our alternatives and what we should be doing. my first is a freshman who is already distinguishing himself in the congress, bill johnson, he's from ohio, we're thankful
that ohio sent one of their great sons here, somebody who first of all has a great background as a chief information officer in a global manufacturing company. information officer means people that deal with the transfer of data and information butal the data processing side of the company, which is really the communications and life blood of the company. but also somebody who served our country faithfully as an officer in the united states air force. bill johnson is a -- it's a treat to have you on the floor, we're glad you got elected and we just wanted you, you've heard the opening here, we've got a bit of a problem. we've got a problem so big that a lot of people are kind of -- in missouri, we have an expression, hunkered down like a toad in a hailstorm. there's a lot of people look at this and they're like, oh, my goodness, what are we going to do? let's talk about that. mr. johnson: thank you so much more the opportunity to be here.
you're exactly right. you've pointed it out so well. we have a disease. here in washington. that disease is called overspending. and it's by and large what has brought us economically to where we are today and the debts that we see is the symptom of that disease. you know, it's amazing to me how many in d.c., how many in the administration and in the previous congress really believe that we can borrow, tax and spend our way back to prosperity. you know, as a businessman, as a graduate from a business school, i have a minor in business administration, i don't think that there is a business theory in place that says that you can prosper that way. mr. akin: let me stop you, i just wanted to cut in on you. what you're saying is, most
businessmen if you tell them, we're having trouble with overspending, so what we're going to do is spend some more, they're going to laugh you out of the shop, is that what it boils down to? mr. johnson: that's exactly right that kind of thinking has never been good for families. it's never been good for businesses. and it certainly is not good for america. we see where that has left us. your charts point out, we're on a path to a train wreck here. yet we see policies consistently coming out of the administration and out of the previous congress that continue to punish the job creators. take ohio, for example. since the giant stimulus bill was passed in the previous session of congress, only three states have lost more jobs than the state i've come from, the great state of ohio. unemployment in the district that i represent is another
symptom of that disease. we cannot continue down this track of spending and borrowing and punishing job creators and expect america to pull through this economic crisis that we find ourselves in. mr. akin: bill, if i could, once again, you are right on track and right on topic. this is so important because down here in washington, d.c., there are really two very different schools of thought on this, aren't there? there are some people, and i think they're people probably that come from your background as executives in companies, people who have the responsibility, you had your own small business you understand what it takes to make a business work. and the mindset of those people when you get into trouble over spending is, you either got to increase your revenue somehow or you have to cut back your spending. but there's a whole other school of thought down here, which to me is kind of weird, because i come from the business world
too, and the theory is that somehow you can get the economy going by spending a ton of money. that's what that quote stimulus bill we passed two years ago was supposed to create i don't know how many hundreds of thousands of jobs and the projections in terms of the numbers of jobs it would produce, it actually lost more than what they projected it was going to do. at the time irk stood on the floor with a bunch of other people that came from the business background and we were going, hey, this thing isn't going to work. don't spend this money. it was sort of based, it was at least theoretically excused under the keynesian idea that if the government spends a lot of money, it stimulates the economy and everything will be ok. it's like grabbing your belt loops of your boots and lifting up and flying around the chamber here. it's a bizarre idea. it was tried by that guy, henry morgenthau, who worked for f.d.r.
they tried it for eight year, spending money like mad. he appeared before the house ways and means committee and he said, it just doesn't work. now that was 1938. he told congress, it doesn't work to spend money like that. yet we haven't learned. so that's one possible way that the democrats propose, and that's spend lots and lots of money. but we see, spending so much money, the question is, it isn't working because it created unemployment, big time. of course you in ohio with your manufacturing background, we're just killing jobs. somehow there's this disconnect. you can punish companies and then you're surprised there are no jobs. it's bizarre. i yield again, bill. mr. johnson: you hit the nail on the head. we're punishing job creeyoitors. i mentioned in ohio, only -- -- the job creators. i mentioned in ohio, only three straits have lost more jobs.
i don't know the exact number today, but in november, around election time, ohio lost 100,000 jobs. mr. akin: were a lot of those manufacturing jobs? mr. johnson: absolutely. here's what puzzles me. i don't understand why more don't realize that when you let families and businesses keep more of their hard-earned money that builds economic confidence that builds buying power. they invest. they spend more. that's what gets an economy going. they begin to become innovative. let's -- let me give you an example. ohio boarders -- borders on a state that has no sales tax on clothing. one of the first things i saw when i started looking at how to help the state of ohio was how can we keep that sales tax revenue in the state of ohio? so we started doing the research and found out that 17 states
have sales tax holiday programs. so i built a grass roots effort to put a sales tax holiday program in place in ohio. without going into excruciating detail, that sales tax holiday, having a sales tax holiday around back to school time and a sales tax holiday around christmas time promised to bring in upwards of $250 million in additional sales tax revenue into the state coffer, keep retail jobs, let ohio families keep more of their money, it was amazing what that program would do. yet we could not get those on the other side of the aisle in ohio to understand that. and to buy into that concept. it's a simple economic concept. mr. akin: so, just interrupting again, what you're realing --
really saying is, you can get more revenue in a state if you back off on taxes. mr. johnson: absolutely. mr. akin south carolina: that's an interesting concept. i'd like to pick that theme up. you, i assume were a member of the ohio legislature at one time. mr. johnson: i was not. i built a grass roots effort to try to address that problem. we were successful in getting a bill introduced into the ohio state legislature to put those sales tax programs in place, but it never made it through the system. mr. akin: oh, boy. we've got another gentleman here, congressman bishop, who is joining us, also a guy who has some experience in the business world but also as a teacher and leader here on the floor. he's represented his district, particularly on some armed services kinds of issues and somebody who has really earned
the respect of his colleagues and has done a great job in setting up some of the new rules that have been established for this congress. congressman bishop, i'd be delighted to have you join us. you heard what we're talking about. we've got a problem, we're spending too much money, the question is, what are we supposed to do about it. mr. intish shop: i thank the gentleman from missouri for allowing me to have some time here. i appreciate the gentleman from ohio's comments, illustrating what's happened in the states. i think oftentimes we should be looking to the states as an example of what does and what does not work. and we can emulate those concepts here in washington. you are right as you initially said, we have a severe budget problem. there are only two ways of trying to reconcile that budget problem. we can either raise taxes or cut spending. i think it's interesting to look at what some other states, cal thomas had a wonderful article this morning, or maybe last night, but he talked about comparing what other states have
done. we see the state of illinois, another mid western state whose solution was to raise the personal income tax 67% and their corporate tax rate by over 46%. mr. akin: could i interrupt you said raise the personal income tax by 6%? mr. bishop: 67% is what i heard. mr. akin: 67%? mr. bishop: and 46% on corporate taxes, which are paid by consumers anyway. you can compare that with their surrounding states that decided to solve their problems by recusing their spending. i'm told indiana reduced its spend big 40%. mr. akin: that's a number! mr. bishop: it would be interesting to see if the illinois experience will replicate what happened in
indiana and other states i listed and my guess, my gut guess is it probably will not. but when we instituted income tax for the first time in this country, the statute that did that would cap the maximum rate of income tax at 2%. even though we only applied a .5% income tax. i think if people would look at their paychecks today they would see it's slightly different than that original time. mr. akin: at that time, weren't people saying that that income tax could possibly get as high as 5% and they were laughed off the floor of the congress that income taxes could get as high as 5%? am i right in that? mr. bishop: it's alarming but that's accurate. as we found out, the best tax is obviously something paid by somebody else. it was estimated when that original income tax was in place, 80% of it would come from only four states. apparently four states were fighting it and the rest of the states kind of liked it. unfortunately there was, i'm not
impugning anybody here, but a representative of missouri at the time did say, a new dawn has broke within this new income tax and the government would be more careful with people's money now that we're taking it directly from them than in the past when we simply ran government by taxes coming from tariffs or land sales. mr. akin: we're not proud of everybody from missouri. mr. bishop: that doesn't represent your thinking, anyway. what happened is within a short period of time, using world war i as an excuse, the top rate was at 75%. we found out that the actual amount of money coming into the country was in a decline. not an incline. so when president coolage came into power and initiated the first tax cut business reducing rates across the board, the amount of revenue coming into the country actually increased. the same thing happens when president kennedy tried it, president reagan, president bush, because what we found out were people with money were not stupid, they had money for a reason.
and it was not that they were avoiding their taxes, they just found an alternative way of investing, in the case of world war i, it was a lot of municipal funds going in there that were not taxed, or they simply did not invest their money, they sat on it until such a time as they actually had control of their money again. so, the bottom line is here, if we look at the tax pot or proposal as a way of solving our problem, all we do when we allow taxes to increase is allow congress to actually spend more. it's like going on a diet which i desperately need, i may change my diet to only eating good food but i have to eat a whole lot more of good food, it's not going to solve the problem. there's another problem, too, that goes onto the spending side is, i can actually be full and malnourished at the same time. if i only eat potatoes as a diet i may be full but i'm not helping my body. when we look at the spending side which is really the only
option that we have, and we don't look at it in a way of looking at how we are spending, all we're doing is malnourishing us and all the c.r.'s we passed last year, without actually doing a real budget, or a real appropriations act, may have flatlined our spending, but it didn't help us out. it was like eating potatoes all the time. which in moderation are good, but if that's the only consumption you have we're making serious problems. mr. akin: i think what i'm hearing you say is that america has been getting high on junk food. at least you have an economic analogy is that where you're going? mr. bishop: somewhat and i have to admit i love potato chipping. that's what we're doing. what we need to do is what this congress is looking at. to try to readjust what we are doing, look at our spending levels, which is why 2008 spending will be a starting point to adjust and look at what we are doing. we have to look at our spending in prioritization so we're not just spending everything.
we have to look at what our responsibility of a government is and we have to look at the spending side seriously. and as the gentleman from ohio stated and you stated with your chart, if we do not, if we do not take the spending side seriously as the solution to our problem we will never find a solution to our problem and the end result is disastrous for this country. mr. akin: i appreciate your thoughts and particularly that direction that you're taking because my argument would be the problem that we pointed out with overspending cannot be solved with increasing taxes. and i'd like to talk about that for a minute and my good friend from ohio, just hold for a second, i'd like to try to illustrate something that, when i first came here a couple years back people talked about the laffer curve and the idea that you could have the government take more money in by reducing taxes. now, i'm an engineer by training. and to me that seemed like
counterintuitive. how in the world can the government lower tax rates and take in more revenue? it seemed like such an odd thing. and then i started sort of puzzling it with my mind a little bit and let's say that someone were to appoint you to be king for a year but the only thing you can tax is a loaf of bread. so you start thinking, huh, how do i get the most revenue for my country out of a loaf of bread? because i'm a political guy and i have to pay the bills of the federal government. so you start thinking, you say, well, i think i'll put a one penny tax on every loaf of bread that people eat. no one will notice the penny and i'll take in a certain amount of money. and then you start scratching your head and say, what if i went the other way? let's say i taxed a loaf of bread at $10 a loaf. boy, then i'd get a lot more money in that way. yeah, but the trouble is, nobody would buy any bread. so common sense would say somewhere between a penny and
$10, there's some point in there where you're going to get the maximum tax you can get on a loaf of bread and as soon as you go beyond it your revenue's actually going to fall off because people will stop buying it and there just won't be any more bread market going on. and so the point of the matter is that there is an optimum level you can tax when you -- tax, when you go beyond it you stall the economy and destroy the federal revenues. now, that may seem like a theory but in fact it's true. it's what happened. i'd like to run through consume of charts here. this happened in 2003. in the second quarter of 2003, in may, we passed a big tax decrease in capital gains, dividends and the death talks. what that did was it freed up a lot of -- tax. what that did was it freed up a lot of money for a bill for people who owned businesses. the detect tax ties up a whole lot of money because -- the death tax ties up a whole lot of
money and capital gains and dividends are all money that was being tied up because of our tax code. so when we reduced those taxes, this is what happened on this line. i have three charts here. this black line is when we cut capital gains, dividends and death taxes. first thing, look at the gross domestic product of our country. you can see it's spotty in here, we're in a recession, the amount of money we were taking in was not good in these early years. here's what happens when we do the tax cut. you see that there's a jump from 1.1% g.d.p. to 3.5%. so g.d.p. goes up when we cut taxes. so that says, hey, the economy's going, it's doing better. what else happens? let's take a look at the chart. same thing. this is may of 2003, this is job losses, everything below the line is a job loss. we're losing jobs like mad, we have some problem once employment. here's a couple of times where we gain jobs for a quarter but these are by the quarter. we're losing jobs. then, boom, we put this tax cut in place and look what happens
in terms of job creation. we created 168,000 jobs and here we've lost 100,000. so first of all g.d.p. goes up, job creation goes up, so people go back to work, and here's the key point. look, look what happens here to federal revenues. we have cut taxes here and federal revenues are shooting up. now that seems like you're defying the law of gravity but what's happened was those taxes were stalling our economy. so when you've got a recession, you've got unemployment the way we do, what you've got to do, this would suggest, is you've got to cut taxes, give the money back to the people you're talking about that own those companies, let them invest, build additional wings on the building, new products, new technology and when that happens you pull out of a recession and it helps you with your revenues.
so the bottom line is, when you take a look coming back to our original question, how do we get out of the problem that we're spending too much money? the answer is, if you sp start taxing -- the answer is, if you start taxing, you're going to drive us further into a recession, making the problem worse. so really tax increases do not work to fix the problem that we've got going here and i wanted to jump over, bill, and allow you to piggyback some. bill johnson from ohio, a great freshman member, congratulations to those in the state of ohio for sending us some good people down here, bill, please jump in. mr. johnson: well, you've made so many points there. you know, and i'm a businessman. after my military career i founded two small businesses and before i came to congress i was the chief information officer for a business, a global manufacturing company. and i sat at the table with our executive leadership team and we talked about how do we increase the value to our shareholders?
how do we make our company more profitable? how do we put ourselves in a position to be able to invest and grow? there's two sides to that formula. on one side you've got spending. on the other side you've got revenue. there's a balancing act and controlling spending we've talked about. we've got to stop the out-of-control spending here in washington and we're going to address that in this congress. but how do we increase the revenue? that's where you've been talking here for the last few minutes and you're exactly right. it does not come through tax increases. it comes through letting americans and businesses keep more of their money because that builds economic buying power. that buildings confidence. they invest, they spend. now, when we did our research on the sales tax holiday back in 2009 what we learned, there were 17 states that had already
implemented a sales tax holiday which validated the concept that you just referred to. take one state, for example, implemented their sales tax holiday in the very first year. in the month that they implemented that sales tax holiday they saw an overall, now there were adversaries that said, you can't take that sales tax revenue out of the cougher at a time when we are struggling to meet the state budget. fortunately sound minds prevailed. they were ail able to get the bill through and in the month -- they were able to get the bill through and in the month that they passed that bill and they had that sales tax holiday, their overall sales tax revenues did not decline, they went up. nearly 5%. so what happened, let -- mr. akin: so what happened? let me see if i understand this. the sales tax holiday was not a
total cutting of all sales tax it just redecembered -- reduced it and by reducing the tax their revenue increased. mr. johnson: it elimb name thed -- eliminated sales tax on certain items like back to school items. things that people had to have to get their kids back in school , to put them in college and those kinds of things. clothing, school supplies, computers, for example, many states had a sale that included computers in those sales tax holidays. over the next year they saw another nearly 5% increase in the sales tax, in the overall sales tax revenues. by the third year they saw a nearly 8% increase in sales tax revenues and over a three-year period they were looking at close to 20% overall sales tax revenue increases over that
three-year period. by cutting taxes. because what happened was when people got a tax break on things that they had to have they would channel those savings into buying things that they wanted to have. and that they had been saving up for with their families. and other states started coming across the border to take advantage of that holiday. it's a simple concept that we need others to understand. when you let families and businesses keep more of their money and you put the decision about how they spend that money in their hands, american pros -- america prospers. mr. akin: i really appreciate, that's a real life example, something that you worked on, looking in different states. and it was the same principle we've seen. now, you know, the idea of cutting taxes in a recession and cutting federal spending is not
new. j.f.k. understood that principle . he cut taxes when he was president during a recession and put us back on a good economic footing. ronald reagan had the biggest tax cut just about in the history of the country until bush came along and same thing. the people made fun of him, it was trickledown economics and all that kind of stuff but the fact of the matter was the economy became strong and he had to have a strong economy to face the threats of communism and the soviet union and ultimately he bankrupted the ussr because of the fact that our economy is strong enough that they couldn't keep up with us in the arms race and he basically got them to the point to tear down this wall. but it was based on this same principle of the fact that he had tremendously cut the taxes which allowed the american economy to surge and allow free enterprise and the business then
to start making money. we're doing the exact opposite. we've got -- at the federal level our income tax is the second highest income tax in the whole world. that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. i want to go to this problem a little different angle from it and that is we talked about we're spending too much money, we talked about really the cutting taxes is not the solution, i mean, raising taxes is not the solution, which means then by definition you've got to cut spending. what are we spending money on? i think that's something we need to take a look at here. and i've got a chart. before i had the chart that showed -- it was this chart that shows medicare and medicaid and social security and these things people call entitlements because we passed a law a long time ago and it spits money out. more and more money over time. this chart suggests if you keep your tax at that 18%, at a certain point at 2052, these things get so big they squeeze
the whole rest of the budget out. the trouble is this chart is optimistic. the problem with the chart is it doesn't include all of the entitlements. there are a lot of entitlements that are not on that chart. here, take a look at this, what's happened since 1965, i think this adds perfect toiv what's going on in terms of spending. in 1965, entitlements were 2.5% of gross domestic product. it starts here, the red line goes up to the point now that in 2010, the entitlements have gone from 2.5% to 9.9%. that's a four-time increase to 2010. the trouble is, that's just medicare, medicaid, social security. the additional entitlements would go up even further. this is probably saying that since 1965, we've had probably about a five-time increase in
entitlements and what's happened in return to national security and defense? the u.s. constitution says the most basic function for the federal government is to provide for the national defense. it may say we're supposed to promote general welfare, but it specifically, because the only government that we have that can defend our country is the federal government. it is the primary function of the federal government in our preamble to the united states, provide for the national defense. we were spending 7.4% of g.d.p. in 1965, which has dropped down to not quite 5% of g.d.p. and we have the problem now with two wars, with all our equipment aging, so we're having a whole lot of trouble trying to stay competitive, particularly with china and a lot of their new developments because the entitlements are just going nuts. so the problem is that we're going to have to take a look at entitlements, not just social
security, medicare and medicaid but there are other ones too, food stamps, public housing, you also have the debt service. all of this, when you put it together, is using almost all the money we have coming in in a given year. that means we need to get serious about doing some cutting. once again, i'll come back to you, congressman johnson, comment on that aspect of where we are. mr. johnson: you hit the nail on the head again. national defense is our number one priority. it has to be. you know, in fact, the oath of office that you and i took on january 5, the same oath of office, virtually the same oath that the president takes, it says that we swore or affirmed to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic. that requirement, to provide for
the national defense, is the number one most important thing that we in the congress, in the administration, are required to do, keep america safe, keep america free, protect americans and american interests around the world. there is no question that we must invest in those programs that are going to support our troops in the field. and i agree with you that we must look at the proper balance between defense spending and other spending to make sure that we achieve what we've been charged by the americans to do. mr. akin: a good air force man, i knew you'd come up with the right answer. if you don't have national security you don't have any kind of security. mr. johnson: i often ask my constituents, what is our number
one job? what is the president's number one job? is it to keep us safe, or is it to keep us free? of course you get a different number of hands being raised. in my opinion, based on the constitution, the declaration of independence, the president and therefore the congress' number one responsibility is to keep us free. because if we are not free, we will never be truly safe. and safety is obviously pretty close on the same level and they play into one another. but our national defense, flowing down from our national security strategy, our national strategy, that's paramount. mr. akin: i very much appreciate your perspective. we're joined by another great freshman, coming from the great state of kansas, congressman yoder, it's a treat to have you on the floor. you've heard, we've been
pontificating here a little bit, we know the federal government is spending a whole lot more than what we take in. we've been talking about the fact that taxing isn't a good solution, you raise taxes, you drive your revenues down, it means we're going to have to do some cutting. it's a sufficient subject. i just appreciate the little bit of common sense from the great state of kansas. congressman yoder. mr. yoder: i appreciate the gentleman from missouri's indulgence for a little time here. i've been watching the conversation you've been having here on the floor, it seems we're in the middle of an ideological bat until this country, you have folks on the left that argue that government is the solution to all the problems the country is facing, unemployment, their argument is we need to create more government jobs that washington can solve these problems. out in kansas, we know it's the private sector, it's the individual that create jobs in this country. we know it's hard work and determination.
you can't substitute that with government bureaucrats or government mandates. you can't mandate or regulate someone into prosperity. it doesn't happen. that's a real battle that's happening in this couldn't rye right now. -- in this country right know. -- right now. that's something we have to face in this country. we've got higher taxes, but we've got economic prosperity so the essence of the challenge is are we going to create a free enterprise country or be an entitlement society. mr. akin: i think you've really framed things, you're getting off at a distance and say, there's two choices, and the two parties really are very, very different in this. one seems to be the party that wants entitlements, they want food stamps, and they have unemployment and the other party is saying, we want jobs and paychecks. that's kind of the choice. and if you want jobs and paychecks, you've got to have a
free enterprise economy. if you want the government to just subsidize you and live off of welfare, that's a different perspective. so what we're seeing is this growth in entitlements, this number is low on this chart because it doesn't have food stamps, doesn't have public housing, and it doesn't have the debt service. when you put that all together, we're right at the point where the money coming in is just barely paying for all these entitlements and the debt service. you put that together, that's not a good picture. the solution, i think most americans, i think that's what the election is about. i bet that's what your election was about is the fact that we want to have jobs. we want to see a strong america. we want to see an america that's free, we want to see a federal government that doesn't enslave us, doesn't tame us, put us in velvet chains in the welfare states. -- welfare state. but rather that allows us to rise the way americans have always risen to the challenges
that each one of us, the dreams we have in our heart to make those happen, to have a chance to fail or succeed. that's what made america such an incredible place. i appreciate congressman yoder, you're standing up for those basic american principles and values and i think what that means is we're going to have to deal with this level of spending. congressman johnson, back to ohio. mr. johnson: immaterial to comment on what you said -- i want to comment on what you said and what the gentleman said about what makes america great. you know, when people stop to consider that this little sapling of a nation, in terms of age, i mean, 230-plus years old, virtually -- we're a baby compared to other -- many of the other nations in the world yet virtually every modern convenience known to mankind was
birthed here in the country and why was that? it was because of the system of free enterprise, based on individual freedom, the ability to pursue our dream the ability to innovate, that created this free enterprise system we've come to know. it did not come about in the halls of congress. it was not discovered in the deliberation rooms of courtrooms. it was discovered around the campfires and around the dining room tables, the kitchen tables, the fields, the factories, as america came along, we learned when individuals are allowed to pursue their dreams in an environment of freedom without an oppressive federal government taxing them into oblivion, everybody wins. america wins, our allies win, everybody wins.
you know -- mr. akin: you know, just hearing you talk about that, somehow that gets me excited. i think about it, god made all these different people and all of us are different and from the day that you grow up as a little kid, you start thinking about stuff that you'd like to do, whether you want to be a fireman, doctor, indian chief, people kind of talk about that, and you never really know for most people, they don't know where their life is going to go and what they're going to achieve or accomplish. but there's something inside human nature that has this idea, once you start to get the idea that you can dream and do something cool and so people have these crazy ideas and america was full of these crazy people and all these crazy ideas. they didn't know the ideas were impossible and kept trying and trying and finally the idea becomes maybe, vaguely possible and then pretty soon, it actually happens. you take the crazy guy that built light bulbs. what did he built, 200 or 300
light bulbs and somebody said, you've got to be discouraged, thomas edison. he said, i've got a couple hundred ways not to make light bulbs, so i'm even closer to the solution. you've got to be entrepreneurial to have that perspective. this country was built one dream at a time by all these people. one of the great things, congressman yoder, you do and congressman johnson, you have a chance to serve your people. you're both freshmen. what you're going to find is all these people in your district, you'll run into them, you'll see a warehouse somewhere and all of a sudden you realize that this thing is a thundering success, some guy's dream just happened there. and you have -- we have a chance to see all these people around us that have experienced that american dream. it is cool. but it doesn't happen by a whole lot of red tape and taxes. congressman yoder, please, jump in. mr. yoder: i think what the
gentleman is speaking about is the american dream, the american free enterprise system it's the essence of what makes america what it is. to watch and see it under threat here in washington, it angers and frustrates americans. that's what we saw this last year. americans coming out otown hall meetings, expressing themselves, they don't feel their voices are being heard on the floor of the united states house of representatives. they want people to stand up and to explain to the greater spending and greater deficits, that's not the road to prosperity. the road to prosperity is built brick by brick by hardworking americans out in kansas, out in ohio, missouri, all across this country as they work to put a little of their own money in, build a business, take care of the family, they work hard. sweat equity. that's what builds this country. when they see the folks in washington believe that this money isn't the people's money, it's washington's money. in fact, the folks in washington, they don't even spend the money they're given. they spend as much as they want, regardless of how much money we
have. part of the job situation this american prosperity situation, it comes back to spending. what we do here on the floor of the united states house of representatives, and how we advocate and stand up for those people that aren't always heard, that's what we have to do here. mr. akin: i'm glad you're joining us in that. congressman jordan from the great state of ohio, who i believe has been holding a press conference, not so long ago, talking about what are some of the things we're going to cut. people ask, what are you going to cut? one thing is we're going to reduce the nondefense discretionary spending to 2008 levels, that's a lot of money. we're going to reduce the budget office of every congressman, that was our first week, your first week here, we cut the congressional budget offices by 5%. then we read the u.s. constitution on the floor of the house to say, any bill you introduce now has got to be consistent with the constitution. but we've got another whole
series of things we're going to do to try to reduce spending, some of them, there are $25 billion in unused federal property, so what are we going to do with that in why not sell only real estate. let's get rid of it. $125 billion allocated to programs for which government auditors can find no evidence of success. the one i find amuse, the department of energy was designed so we wouldn't be dependent on foreign oil. the department has grown like mad but we're more dependent than ever on foreign oil. eliminate duplicative programs. we've got 342 economic development programs. do we need that many? 130 programs serving the disabled, 130 programs serving at-risk youth. maybe we need a couple of good ones but certainly we don't need that many of them. these are all things on the table. and all things t