tv Washington Journal CSPAN February 18, 2011 7:00am-10:00am EST
good morning this friday, february 18, 2011. looking at the scenes from wisconsin's state capital as a couple thousand people gathered yesterday and expected to continue in the budget battle which opponents of the governor's plan suggest is also a union and were kurds battle. "usa today" tells us this morning that other states looking at benefits -- of iowa, indiana, iowa, michigan, new hampton, new mexico all considering ways to address their budget shortfalls. our question this friday morning is -- this wisconsin budget protests, could happen in your state? here are the full numbers -- remember you can also join us by twitter --
and also you can send us your e- mail -- we welcome comments and questions throughout the program and during the first 45 minutes, to the question -- could the wisconsin budget protest happen in your state? people living in wisconsin we would love to hear from you. here is the "usa today" article. later this quote --
our question is, could this happen in your state. while we're waiting for your telephone calls to come in, let us catch up with the budget battles going on here in our national capital. we have the house leadership reporter for "roll call." house leadership considered under an open rule which means it can be amended by the members and several hundred and then it's -- that have been filed to the continuing resolution to fund a the government. bring us up-to-date about what happened late in the evening last night. >> after midnight, house republican leaders were able to come to an agreement to limit the number of amendments. they had several hundred that were still outstanding. i think there was a real concern that they could be there until next spring if everyone was able to offer every single amendment. what they are doing now is they limited the debate on these amendments. the more controversial ones
coming at the end -- last month's political amendments. members did not want to take them off the table. they wanted to -- you will see a lot of amendments on health care. but they are hoping i think on the leadership and that this could get them out as soon as today but they are leaving open the possibility still being in session on saturday. >> what are some interesting amendments that were considered last night and i passed or failed and the reasons behind them? guest: the two more interesting and biggest amendments in the entire debate, i would say, probably happens a little earlier on. moderate republicans and democrats, willing to come together on $810 million -- to fund local police and firefighters. that was championed by a representative from new york. the other thing that really
caught a lot of eyes is the f- 35 strike fighter engine project. it was removed. it was going to provide $four runs and 50 million for alternative engine. -- $450 million. it will be interesting to see if there is a later fight, whether not they are able to restore that funding. >> the deadline -- host: the deadline is what? guest: the deadline for them is over. host: but i am talking about the continuing resolution. what are the legislators working under? guest: march 4. the house must pass this bill, and they are hoping that the senate will take it up. although it is unclear if that will actually happen. democrats control the senate, so you are looking at what could be
a standoff. that has been a lot of rhetoric about whether the government shutdown is going to ensue. but they need to get something passed by march 4. host: the house of representatives is back in an early time. hoping to be gone for the presidents' day weekend. a company -- coming in at 9:00 a.m. to continue the debate. it used to adjust it is possible there would be a saturday session? guest: they are keeping their options open. majority leader eric cantor of to have it wrapped up thursday by 3:00 p.m.. they are keeping it open. each of these 120 amendments left. host: thank you for keeping us up to date. a late night two nights in a row for the house of representatives. you can watch live coverage, as always, on c-span beginning at 9:00 a.m. eastern time. let us bring you back to wisconsin because it is the
>> the president get -- age for the president gave an interview to a local station. >> some of what i heard coming out of wisconsin, where you are just making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain generally, seems like more of an assault on unions. and i think it is very important to understand that public employees, they are our neighbors, they are our friends. these are folks who are teachers, firefighters, and social workers and police officers. they make a lot of sacrifices and make a big contribution and i think it is important not to vilify them or to suggest somehow that all of the budget problems are due to public employees. host: for his part, the speaker of the house john data released a statement on what is happening in wisconsin and the white house's involvement -- speaker boehner released this statement. he said -- republicans in congress and reform-minded gop
governors are daring to speak the truth about the dire fiscal challenges americans face at all levels of government, and daring to commit to solutions that will liberate our economy and help put our citizens on a path to prosperity. i am disappointed that instead of providing similar leadership from the white house, the president has chosen to attack leaders like gov. walker who are listening to the people and confronting problems that have been neglected for years at the expense of jobs and economic growth. according to news reports, the white house has been unleashed the democratic national committee to spread disinformation and confusion about the governor's created actions. i urge the president to order the dnc to suspend of tactics. there is no way you begin an adult conversation in america about solutions to the fiscal challenges that are destroying jobs in our country. let's get to your comments about the wisconsin budget protest. the second question is, could this happen in your state? let's hear from pennsylvania. steve is a republican. you are on the air.
caller: i think it could happen in pennsylvania. excuse me -- i have to mute my tv. i wish it would happen in pennsylvania. when you look at the public sector and the union movement, you could pretty much contained that to the entire public sector. the fact is, according to the bleak -- bureau of labor statistics, of the entire work force, only 12.4 -- or roughly just over 12% of the entire workforce is unionized and of that 12%, 52% are government workers -- state, local, are federal. to me, that is an enormous conflict of interest. that is why the unions and nothing more than giant political action committees. i was a union member for 10 years. i let the union because of the way the union held me back -- left the union because the way the union held back and did not
advance me personally. i was a union official, i was a steward, a shop steward and at that time -- now, that was back in michigan and back in the 1980's, and the union environment was different then. all we did was spend 90% of our time protecting the people who did not want to work and thought that they were owed everything and did not have to work for it. host: mike, democrat. you are on. caller: thank you for accepting my call. i would think the republican governor, they just want to be union busters. i don't think they want to balance the budget. if they did, they would repeal the bush tax breaks for the rich. host: allentown, pennsylvania. james is a republican. you are up next. caller: hi, susan? can it happen and where -- pennsylvania? yes. has happened before? yes.
there was a popular book in the -- that came out last year, about 100 years ago unions and big business were actually fighting to the death in the streets. there was "a los angeles times" build was bombed by the union and 25 people dead -- "the los angeles times" building was bombed by the union and 25 people that -- dead. a different angle of question. you look at these nice, little signs. i am watching the signs where it says walker is like mubarak, hitler, saying take out a tyrant, pictures of him as hitler. all of the things the people in the left in the media says the tea party does that they cannot stand and the tea party is so how dangerous. but these people are more animated and angry than any tea party rally but the left glove is it, msnbc is on the ground there, obama says these are our friends and neighbors.
well, the tea party are also our neighbors and friends but they are compared -- chris matthews compared them to the muslim brotherhood last week. i did not sit -- understand this double standard. the tea party is not as close to as enraged as these people and i think it is unfair about the media. they should be more consistent. host: this tweet from -- >> is a comment from pontiac, michigan. jackie is a democrat. caller: good morning. i am totally with of the union people. i am totally with them. in the first place, none of these people marching out here today is responsible for what happened to the budget.
pennsylvania and michigan -- everyday workers, we are not responsible for what happened. if that's got guy had not given -- that scott guy didn't give top 2% a tax break, they would not be in the shape they're in and now all of a sudden he needs working people's attention. what about his pension? is he trying to give up his pension or anybody who sits on the bench with him? he is not trying to do that. all they are trying to do is hurt the average working class people. everybody else in the country that works every day, gets up and work, realize that they would stop working for the stupid republicans. host: jacket from pontiac, michigan. bill tweets -- or next call comes from madison,
wisconsin. sondra, independent. how does this look on your independent point of view? caller: i live less than a mile from what is going on down at the capitol. i have lived here for 25 years. i will tell you that no one knew this was coming. scott walker, on his platform, never once talked about taking away collective bargaining from our teachers. we have one of the best public school systems in of the country and i am very concerned it will take it right down the tubes. who is going to want to come here and teach? teachers in this city that make $25,000 a year. to take anything from them is just ludicrous. there also really isn't this a big budget deficit. there has been a 6.2% request for increase in the budget line
items and that is what needs to be addressed, not -- this is the wrong path. host: how do you see it ending? republicans have control of the house, senate, and governor's mansion. this legislation is likely to pass. i guess what you need is one democrat to come back to the floor in the senate, right? caller: correct. and i can understand their frustration because they did not feel like they are representing their constituency coming back knowing that they will pass something they don't agree with. host: how do you see this ending? caller: i see it ending that lead. i also feel that because people should pay attention to who they are voting for and there is so much focus on national politics but this is what affects people's lives every day, what happens at the local level. people should be doing a better job of researching the candidates they are voting for. i did not vote for this guy because there were a lot of things -- he gave away our trade
money first thing. a lot of things i did not agree with his platform. people don't read and then they get mad when something like this gets voted in and does what he does. he was a little bit of a loose cannon -- you can see from his election. i think a lot of people do not pay attention. host: and independent viewer in madison, wisconsin. she refers to this governor, walter. wikipedia tells us a little about on -- he is 43 years old, born as -- in colorado springs. member of the state assembly and the executive of milwaukee county. he got as interest in politics by participating in boys nation in washington, a program for high-school students. he attended marquette university from 1986 -- 1990 -- quitting the first governor -- the first
governor in 64 years to not have a college degree. non-denomination evangelical christian. more profile available but just a couple of snapshots of the governor scott walker who is in the center of this battle over the budget in wisconsin. here is what the "wisconsin state journal" looks like. one of the way reporters' bylin e reporters on the senate is on the line. first of all, the missing legislators, apparently they have been found. is that correct? guest: they have been found. we talked to them. they say they don't know when they are coming back actually. they have been traveling around illinois. they were spotted in rockford at a belltower resort. they have kind of been traveling quite a bit.
host: the requirement for debate to continue in the senate, there and 19 republicans. they need 20 members on the floor for debate to proceed? caller: for a vote on a fiscal measure, which in this definitely has a fiscal components. to vote on anything that has to do with the budget they would need at least one democrat there. host: we showed you "the washington post" this morning with reports that the democratic national apparatus has been getting involved, encouraging the protest, encouraging people to support the union and in members to be involved. have you seen evidence of that? guest: i seen a lot of tweets from organizing for america -- it does not feel like it is the vast majority. we have seen a lot of uw students either marching or heading up state street, the big st. from university to the capital. a lot carrying sleeping bags and
pick it signs. a lot of teachers coming down from various parts of the state. it does not seem like the vast majority of people certainly that i have talked to are from out of the state. host: what will happen today? what is officially on the agenda and what is likely to happen in addition to that? caller: the senate says and they are ready to come back and they will try to take it up again. but when i talked to one of the democratic senators last night, just before midnight, he said they will stay away as long as it takes. that they don't have a plan to come back. i guess they could have changed their minds but they sound pretty resolved. so, it could actually go to the assembly first for a vote in the house. they recessed until 9:00 a.m. host: where are there any seats for compromise or deadlines that may force a compromise? caller: gov. walker said there really is no compromise on this
issue. he has been very clear that he would not be open to any amendments that would undermine what he called the integrity or the main concept of his bill of limiting collective bargaining on anything but wages. we are trying to figure route how long the standoff can last and how the democratic -- long the democratic senators can stay away. the halls of a capital have been packed listens monday but growing every day. we dealt know how long the protests will continue. it is hard for senators to move around the building, for the republican senators who are still here. host: thank you for your eye witness and local perspective for the national audience. writing for the protest, covering the senate in wisconsin. she is with "the state journal." you can go on their website and find additional updates from
that newspaper. syracuse, new york, as we talk about the wisconsin budget protest what the added question of could happen in your state. ralph, a democrat. you are on the air. caller: i am proud uaw member from upstate new york and what is happening in wisconsin will not happen in new york yet. we still have a strong labor movement in both the public and private sector. governor cuomo in new york state, he will look at pensions but unlike walker, he is going to allow the public sector unions to bargain over their wages and benefits. what this amounts to is just a union busting. one final note on this -- non- union workers across america have a dog in this fight because of you bring down the last bastion of the middle- class, which is the public sector, their wages are going to be brought down, too. thank you for your time. host: thank you, ralph. he was talking about the state of new york. but the city of new york, mayor
bloomberg, announced the city budget and here is covered in " the tabloids -- here is covered in the tabloids. here is more detail in the "new york post." eliminates teaching positions, including layoffs. it slashes budget -- school budget. 16,000 of 100,000 acres lots, 6500 summer youth jobs and trans 192 million and rental subsidies to former homeless residents. those items they chose to take out of the budget for highlights. the daily news has a photographic and graphic description. thousands of workers can be laid off. proposed cuts in mayor bloomberg's budget put senior centers, summer jobs for teenagers, fire companies closed, teacher layoffs and children that will lose access
to day care -- all evidence of states and localities grappling with budget soared -- shortfalls in 2011. tennessee. dave is a republican. good morning to you. caller: i love your id beat caller -- i do not think she ever voted for a republican in her life -- i love your independent college. i think we need to understand exactly what governor walker is asking for. he is asking state employees to pay one-half of what we pay in the private sector for their health insurance, for their pensions -- when have, that is it. and this assumption -- that have the option -- he can massively fired -- just like they did in new york city. he could do that. if it were me, i would declare a state of emergency and say, ok, you cannot walk out of your classroom, you cannot drag your kids to the capital, and if you do, we are going to have a reagan moment and we are just
going to fire everybody in madison county. what i would prefer happens first is that the tea party gets organized and we will walk down there to madison and we will have -- i will guarantee you, we will have a lot bigger demonstration on the part of a public. public workers, there should not be a union and public workers. it is an automatic conflict of interest. they should not be deunionized to start with -- fdr was against unionizing public workers just because of crap like this. host: from twitter -- "usa today" gives us more detail on what walker wednesday change. pensions -- require workers to pay 5.8% of pay up from none for most workers now --
that is his take on the governor's proposal. dallas, texas. dave is an independent. good morning. you are on the air. caller: thank you. within the last two weeks, the dallas independent school district announced cutting i think 3000 jobs, of which two of those -- 2000 our teachers' jobs. the same thing happened on a smaller scale a year or two ago. of course, these are citizens and taxpayers of dallas county. but, you know, the question that occurs to me is, why weren't we out protesting industry two or three years ago when the financial crisis was occurring, because that is the underlying
cause of all of this? we should have been protesting -- in front of goldman sachs and lehman brothers and congress, for that matter, because the overseers or not paying attention to what was going on. that is really bothers about the whole financial disaster. host: flushing, michigan. mary is a democrat. you are on. caller: i am in a unique position. all of my children and grandchildren living in madison, wisconsin. i am very familiar with the situation there, and i am very familiar with what is happening in michigan. yes, it could happen everywhere. where ordinary working people are beginning to ice -- fight for survival. the crisis was really over the financial institutions who went
unregulated. i cannot go into it. i know my time is limited. we have not really ever looked at the real cause. why we are in the financial mess. and then we turn around and talk about shared sacrifice -- instead of sharing the sacrifice to bail out of the financial situation that was not even a created by working people. the burden is put on the working people and the elderly. in wisconsin and in michigan they have been giving money to the corporations and to the wealthy. we do not have a graduated income tax where the wealthy paris -- pay a fair share. when we did a that, we had a striding economy where middle- class people were able to afford the extra of life and give education to their children and not worry about the roof on their heads and food on their
table. believe me, the same thing is happening here in michigan. the burden is being put everywhere on the elderly -- michigan is taxing the elderly and taking away services to the people who are in most need. we wouldn't need an earned income tax -- if businesses -- and i am also speaking of small businesses -- it has been made it difficult for small businesses to pay a living wage. then we turn around and government has to subsidize -- we once thought it was important -- make sure that people were able to put food on a table and a roof over their head. we are subsidizing the wealthy and the large corporations. host: with a lot of the
emirates on the line. thank you from -- we have a lot of callers on the line. thank you. here is a tweet -- the last caller mentioned small business. karen kerrigan from this small business and an entrepreneur should council will be our guest on the shorter show this morning. clifford, a republican. what does this all look like from your perspective? caller: i have been watching this this morning. long winded crybabies on the show. every state should have a right to work law where everybody has an equal chance and i think the senators should be fined $1,000 a day for avoiding their duty. one other thing i want to comment on -- when i called you this morning, i found below the message about protecting the unions was kind of -- the little
message about protecting the unions was kind of disgusting and it takes away from your credibility. host: >> it is charlie from topeka, kansas. independent. good morning, sir. caller: the crazy thing about this. i was a union construction worker and i worked around a lot of city and state workers. and they all got paid a lot less than we did. for the same basic job. their pay was a lot less, but they had better benefits at the end. basically these state budgets, what they are doing is -- it was part of their pay basically. most of them put that money away into a certain place, just like what they have done with
everything. even our pensions were hurt because of what happened on wall street and stuff. at least our stayed at a normal level and came back up. at least that the states, basically -- all of the sudden they just figured it was the state's money, which it wasn't. it was their employees' money that they put it -- can you hear me? host: we are listening, charlie. caller: what they did is they just gave it away. they did not put it in a fund where it would be their safe. there were just giving money away or spend it basically. that is what is going on. host: back on the national level, let me show you some of the headlines about the budget debate in congress. in "the new york times" --
tom coburn is often described as an ideological sparring partner but good friend of the president. he has an opinion piece this morning published in "the post." he writes --this could be the presidents nixon goes to china moment. only a liberal democratic president would be able to reform entitlements. in "usa today" -- threat of shut down stokes party bickering. speaking of the shutdown, jim jordan, a republican from ohio who heads of the republican study committee, the caucus of conservatives in the house of representatives, is our guest on newsmaker as this week, in its entirety sunday at 10:00 a.m.
the possibility of a government shutdown -- >> john boehner has said it comes down to doing a short-term continuing resolution -- if the parties cannot agree by march 4, that he will not do a short-term extension at the current levels of spending. from your perspective -- does that mean that a government shutdown is on the table? >> i did not think it means that at all. i think it means that john boehner as our speaker understands what the election was about november 2. think about this -- if we were to just continue to kick the can down the road and do a short term cr for a month or so, and continue to spend at the current levels, that is agreeing to what the democrat house, the democrat senate and administration put together last year. this election in november was all about not agreeing to that so that there is no way we can agree to continue to fund the government at the current levels. we have to achieve savings for
the american people. i think the speaker is brought on as he makes the statement and that is what we are all about doing. >> does that mean a shutdown would be acceptable? neither side seems to want to talk about this but that is the consequence of not getting something agreed upon. >> i think the democrats will say things our way. you guys have been covering this. have you ever seen the appropriations committee cut tens of billions of dollars -- now $100 billion, from what the president requested last year. have we ever seen it? this is a whole new look? host: congressman jordan who had to a 185-member republican study committee. 10:00 i am eastern sunday. virginia, as we talk about the wisconsin budget process, asking if it could happen in your state. ralph, you are on the air. caller: i want to tell c-span
they are doing a good job. i was in at the teamsters union, trucking, for 27 years. back in the early or mid 90's when i retired, the economy was good. i am not afraid to say it -- i lost 2007 to dollars from the union -- to thousand $700 for the union. it is fine to say unions and the jobs -- in this economy, i thought they ought to be able to pay 10% or 12% of their own retirement or take a pay cut of what they are making. just until the economy gets back on its feet and the government gets back. host: that trucker might be interested at our next guest after this segment will be the transportation secretary ray lahood, one of the departments of the president's budget that its additional funding for the
nation's infrastructure. he will be talking about the president's plans and a reaction and washington to the proposals for increase in infrastructure spending in areas like high- speed rail and the faa next- generation air safety system. one of the things we found on line that is interesting is we ask, could happen in your state -- this is on the national conference of state legislatures website. it is a chart of the partisan breakdown of the various state legislatures and governors mansions. you can see from the color coding -- but red, republican, democrat, blue -- yellow, split. 20 republican-controlled states, 11 and democrats and 18 with a split governments. as we head into the budget cycle this year, that is what a landscape looks like politically. >> as a call from baltimore. jeffrey, independent. -- next is a call from baltimore.
caller: i think americans need to get the message. when it comes to corporate america, when it comes to government, they are not looking to take care of americans. look at the bailout with wall street. look at the wall street leaders and what they did to this economy. we have to wake of and say -- take back and say, i have to take care of myself. i have to realize that nobody is going to take care of me. that is the message in that i think americans need to realize and understand. host: thank you for your call. at the center for budget and policy priorities looks at state budgets and what the shortfall might be. we recommended to you if your interested. looking at the table of states with as why 2012 gaps, no state does not have gap -- but the
smallest is in indiana with just 2% projected. other states like montana with 4%, west virginia, 4%. but some of the states on the other end that have big budget gaps and included nevada, 45%, new jersey, 37%, texas, 31%. let us turn the page -- california, which we heard about so much, 29% budget gap projected in 2012 and the illinois at 44.9% budget gap. illinois is in the news with "the new york times." pension bonds to test investors''s phase. this story says pat quinn --
just a couple of more calls. huntington, west virginia. caller: it could not happen here because we did not go with the national trend and vote for the republicans. we have a democratic house and senate with a democratic governor and you did not see this type of class warfare that the republicans always say they are against but always come out for. they give tax breaks to the super rich. $140 million to corporate cronies. that is exactly what the debt amount is for wisconsin. people voted against the democrats and they get what they deserve. people voted for the republicans and they get what they deserve. host: jim from west virginia. women's work usa on twitter --
another telephone call -- probably our last is from maryland. kathy, republican. caller: good morning, susan. i said i did not think it could happen in maryland because i had a bad feeling about the tea partyers and i did vote democratic this time. i am thankful that we did do something here in maryland where it will not happen. host: thank you very much for your call. we have a short show, so this would be the last four open phones but two opportunities to help the -- talk about the budget at the federal level. the transportation secretary is our next guest and he would talk about the president's proposal for infrastructure spending and karen kerrigan will talk about small business and the white house plans to promote small business to create more jobs.
we will be right back after this break. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> this monday, visit the public and private space is of america's most recognizable home -- the white house. c-span's original documentary provides a rarely seen look at the history of the presidential residence and takes you through the mansion, the west wing, the old office, and lincoln bedroom and focuses on the presidents and first families that most influenced how it looks today. airing in high-definition newly updated with interviews with president obama and the first lady and comments from george and laura bush. the white house -- inside america's most famous home. 6:00 p.m. eastern monday on c- span. >> donald rumsfeld was both the youngest and the oldest person to serve as u.s. defense secretary. >> when you have proximity to a
president, you automatically have the obligation to tell you the truth and what you really believe. because people who don't have proximity and only go in and see him occasionally simply don't want to do it. >> sunday, he will discuss his philosophy of presidential staff leadership, the process of writing his memoirs, known and unknown, and address some of books critical and positive reviews. on c-span's "q&a." >> it is a three-day presidential weekend on american history tv on c-span freak. live from the truman little white house in key west, what is it like to be related to an american president. candid conversations with descendants of four u.s. presidents. and historians, friends, associates of president kennedy on his place in history, lessons learned and application today. and the smithsonian natural portrait gallery to learn the art and politics of presidential portraits. is. american is the tv on c-span 3
all weekend, every weekend. for the complete three-day holiday schedule go to c- span.org/history and have them e-mail to you. >> "washington journal" continues. host: on your screen and making a return visit to "washington journal," we are pleased to have the secretary of transportation ray lahood. we want to talk about the budget but i want to start with a budget battle in florida over high-speed rail because you are right in the middle of it. tell our audience about. guest: the governor decided he did not want to move ahead -- after two decades of planning by rail enthusiasts and government officials, after a very strong commitment on the floor of the legislature come after our commitment to give the second largest amount of high-speed rail money, over $2 billion, the governor made the decision that he doesn't want to move ahead with this.
we have really accommodated every concerned that he had. i met with the governor on three different occasions and we talked about high-speed rail on all three occasions. and we addressed the issues that he wanted addressed. he did not want the state to be on the hook for any money. the state would not have been on the hope for any money and all of the ridership studies showed that high-speed rail would have been successful. a lot of doesn't -- disappointed people in florida today who have been working on high-speed rail for more than two decades and we made a commitment to the florida congressional delegation yesterday, led by senator nelson, that we would take the next week to figure out -- if they could figure out if there could be another group that could accept this money other than the state.
all of our high-speed rail money has gone to the states, has gone to the governors. so, we need to find somebody else. they need to find somebody else. if they could do that in a week, we will try to work with that group. if not, over $2 billion that we were going to get to florida for high-speed rail will be allocated to other states. host: in the the budget proposal, you have a one-year and a six-year transportation plan he presented to the congress. the high-speed rail project, 53 -- how does the partners of work with the states? how would the 53 allocated and what responsibilities do the states have? guest: the states have a responsibility to match of the money we give them. they can do it if they have private investors -- they can do it through the legislature. states have done it in many different ways. at $53 billion over the next six years continues the down payment of $11 billion that we allocated already to several states around the country.
we will get additional states and the high-speed rail business and we would enhance some states we were not able to get -- of all the money to that they needed. the president's vision is a bold vision for high-speed rail. no one has ever talked about this really. and president obama and vice president biden decided they wanted to get the country into a high-speed intercity rail and connect 80% of america over the next 25 years. that is half the time it took to build the interstate system. our investment would be to states, matched with the money from the state's or resources that they can provide. host: let me give you the phone numbers, because we would like to have you join in the discussion. the transportation budget covers a lot more than high speed rail and highway infrastructure -- airports and air-traffic control systems. all modes of transportation really are under the purview of the u.s. department of
education. we know many of you have thoughts on this and question is the sow wheat welcome them. one skeptic is a columnist robert samuelson. i know you saw his, but i would like to have you respond to it. here is what he wrote on february 14. there is something wildly irresponsible about the national government underlining states already poor long-term budget prospects by plying them with grants that provide short-term jobs. worse, the rail proposal cast doubt on the administration's commitment to reduce huge budget deficits.
your chance to respond. guest: amtrak actually made money last year. ridership is way up, on-time service that people can afford. that is not accurate. amtrak made money. we have to think big in america. and in order to really accomplish our goals to put people to work, to get the economy going, there is no secret about the fact that transportation does that. we have proven it over the last 24 months with our stimulus money. created 15,000 projects and put 65,000 people to work who would have not been working on those
projects have that money not been allocated. the president has a big, bold vision. similar to the big, bold vision, president eisenhower had when he signed the interstate bill. those same critics existed back then. why create a huge interstate system? we know why today, because it connects america. 25 years from now, americans will not only have an interstate that they can drive their cars on, but they will be able to go on a train and go visit their relatives at christmas time or take a vacation. they can go from new york to california, they can take a train all over california. we are going to connect america. this is the same kind of big, bold thinking that people came before us had. we are not going to just sit back on an idea that we cannot do big things. we can do big things and we can still work on the deficit also. this kind of criticism, i am
sure, was leveled by eisenhower and others that have big, bold visions of connecting merkel with a state of the art interstate system today. i am glad we don't listen to the critics because we probably would never really accomplish any big things. host: to the big numbers. here are the requests the department of transportation asks for in 2010 -- $77 billion. this year, $128 billion. a big increase in two years. what have american taxpayers got and from that increase in funds to dot. guest: what we are really talking about is the idea what we will continue to build roads and bridges. we know there are lots of bridges and very bad art this repair and roads that need fixing up of around america. we also want to use the money to increase the capacity for people who want to ride on buses, who want to ride on light rail, communities who want to get into other forms of transportation other than just automobiles.
creating opportunities for people. all kinds of transportation. so, we needed to create some additional capacity in this country. we did that by putting money into infrastructure. the one thing that our money does, it puts people to work in a good paying jobs and it creates what kind of capacity for transportation -- roads, bridges, transit, light rail, streetcars, and all kinds of forms of transportation that people really want, of -- and airports that people use on a daily basis. host: the budget request for the six-year plan is not fully paid for. there is a gap between what you ask for and what is covered by the highway trust fund. how you pay for it? it raised and gasoline tax? guest: the president has made it clear he does not want to raise gasoline taxes in a lousy economy with almost 9%
unemployment. we want to work with congress on a way to pay for it. i think congress recognizes that a strong transportation program will put people to work. we will continue to build our industry in america. it will help state economies that are hard hit by a lack of funds. we will work with congress on how to pay for it. the highway trust fund still exists, paid -- paid for by the gasoline tax that we all pay for. we want to create an infrastructure fund to do big things. big, bold projects, again, that we have been talking about. that would be a pretty good chunk of money. but we need to find resources to do this. and we will work with congress to do it. host: how much do we pay on a gallon -- guest: 18 cents. host: has it been at the level since it started? guest: in 1993 the congress raised it -- part of it went to deficit reduction.
that was a huge debate when president clinton went into office. part of the way the congress and the president balance the budget that was to raise the gasoline tax in 1993. not all of it went to roads and bridges. it's pretty big source of irritation. part of it went to deficit reduction. host: the first call is from new jersey. jane, a democrat. caller: good morning. in response to the article. a big difference between spending and investment. it will be great for business because not only in the in belize but the merchandise will move faster. the way to pay for it is to change the corporate tax structure and have them pay their fair share. they covered it nicely since they really do profit from our infrastructure more than any others. but we have a problem here similar to what is going on in florida with our governor.
we had a plant in new york city to have light rail and our -- our governor decided it was something he did not want to do, for all the same reasons the governor of florida listed. i am sorry. secretary look, i honestly believe that our governor as well as the florida governor, who has something in common, they don't want to create jobs, especially if they are coming from the federal government, because it means they will be union workers. they honestly want to see this country failed because that will ensure that they have more of a chance of being elected in the next election cycle. it breaks my heart to watch. but i can see that with the transportation situation and i can also see it in the education policies. host:, we have a lot of callers. thank you.
guest: where disappointed when the arc program for people travelling from new jersey to new york, with thousands do every day -- they have a 100- year-old, and there is not enough capacity. this was a very good project. but governor chris christie made the decision and decided to terminate the project. host: you expressed optimism about working with republicans in congress. let us listen to paul ryan, budget committee chairman. >> not a fan of high-speed rail. we are rescinding a high-speed rail stimulus in the current cr. i think there is a $53 billion high-speed rail initiative. that is something we just disagree with that -- we disagree with the high-speed rail. i can tell you about the wisconsin plan. calling it a boondoggle would be generous. we are rescinding the funding for this year and we do not think it is a good investment. >> i believe it totals $120
billion over a period of time and the president's proposal to have it within walking distance of 80% of americans is a bit ambitious. and and and time when we have no money, you know -- and i raised the question about the train that comes through my home town of mobile. it goes through three days a week at 1:00 a.m. going east and 2:00 a.m. three days a week going west. not a lot of people use it. their areas of the country that can use better rail -- no doubt about it, and we should use forward with that but this plan is way too ambitious. and our governor in wisconsin and john kasich of ohio opposed the program and the bill we are bringing today, or tomorrow, to the floor, reasons that money for ohio and wisconsin and i think that is the kind of thing we ought to be doing in the future. host: secretary lahood, your reaction? guest: i agree that it is a very
ambitious plan. the same kind of big, bold vision of the presidents have had. and we don't take a back seat to anybody when it comes to having -- the president is dreaming big about high-speed rail but there are a lot of americans dreaming big about high-speed intercity rail because it puts people to work, it builds new infrastructure, it builds a new capacity, it is what americans want and we did rescinded the money from wisconsin and ohio because those two governors decided they did not want to move ahead with the project. but i go back to what i said before. 50 years ago there are governors and elected officials is said, we don't need an interstate system. 50 years later we have a state of the art interstate system that delivers people all over this country in a very efficient way. 25 years from now, we will be connecting people and delivering people on high-speed trains because of the president and vice president's vision to connect america.
this is what americans want and we are moving ahead of it. host: i know you are a lincoln died. this twitter, it has a little bit of history to it -- i know you are a lincoln guy -- guest: ehud talk about somebody with a big vision, it was president lincoln -- you talk about somebody with a big vision. he started the intercontinental route of system. i am sure people said, we are in the middle of a war, we do not have any money, why are we doing this? because we elect people to provide the leadership, and in this case, president obama is providing very strong leadership in the area of transportation. so the next generation, susan, will have the same benefit that our generation has but the interstate system. we will provide the next generation with the next generation of transportation, high-speed enters bit --
interstate rail. chris, florida. caller: can you hear me? host: you need to turn your mute on your tv. caller: sorry. i just took off of speaker. i apologize. i am a truck driver for landst ar -- i am concerned about the cross border program in trucking that allows mexican trucks -- it seems to me the self-employed owner-operator will have a hard time competing with this. can you, mr. gluck, and you tell you will fully implement but cross border trucking program -- mr. lahood? guest: the reason why we will implement it. i did not know if we have enough time to discuss this. the nafta agreement, signed by our government and the mexican government, calls for cross border trucking. congress suspended at about two years ago.
we have a proposal that we are working with the mexicans on to restart that program. the answer is, it is considered a pilot program. it is not necessarily a full- blown program. but we intend to restart the program because it is in the law. the law requires us to do it. we don't want to cause it will be restarted. we will work with trucking companies in the united states to make sure it doesn't impinge on your ability to continue to have a job and make money. host: here is all look at the dollars behind the six-year transit division. paul requested -- host: tell me about the national
infrastructure bank. guest: apot of money to debate, significant projects. i was just in nevada. i was dedicating a bridge the goes over the hoover dam. that project was started seven years ago. people were thinking big. we know there are big, bold, significant projects in america that need to be funded. we will continue to use the highway trust fund to fund transportation projects. we'll use the infrastructure bank to leverage some private dollars to leverage some other dollars from the states to continue to build a significant projects around the country -- bridges, finishing interstates,
and other types of infrastructure. host: our next call comes from morgantown. caller: am i on the air? the last caller was talking about the cross border truckers per if you could get the truckers to get the trucks up to code, there are a lot of trucks on the road. they will get the bridges and roads. i think it would be a lot better spent than the high-speed rail. if people want to go somewhere, they get on amtrak and the go slower. we cannot afford this right now. a lot ex-presidents have had big vision. we're about to go broke in the government right now. we need to think about getting andregular roads straight not the rich people back and forth. things have been slow. 20 years ago,, 50 years ago, we
had people who wanted to work. people to not want to work no moderate welfare queens, they don't want to work. i don't see how you can get this made. host: let's get a response. guest: people want to work. i have been to more than 40 states and over 100 cities. there are people that want to work. we create 15,000 projects were stimulus money. we put 65,000 people to work. people want to work. they want to work in good-paying jobs. we're going to creep that opportunity with the kind of bold vision that president obama has for infrastructure and high- speed rail and doing big things for our country. host: we have a twitter who asked this question.
what is the role of government and what can be done by the private sector? we have some experience in washington with a highway that was built and people pay to use it. help us understand what you see is the public sector responsibility. guest: europe and asia have good high-speed trains. people come back and scratched their heads. the government made big investments. private companies made huge investments, too. there are probably six companies in america, in california, florida, illinois beginning to set up businesses to build train sets and to build the infrastructure. they are going to make huge investments. it is not just the investment we have made. there will be huge private investments from companies who know how to build train sets and
infrastructure. this will be a good public- private partnership. these will corridors will become economic engines. you'll see businesses along these corridors. you'll see lots of jobs. we have told foreign manufacturers to come to america and hire americans to build american trains that will be used by the american people, taking shuddered plants in ohio or illinois or someplace else, and use it to hire american workers. we have a lot workers that can build train sets. our vision is this. build american trains for american people. this is what our leaders did years ago in terms of having a big vision. this is what we need to do for the next generation of transportation. host: harrisburg, pennsylvania. caller: this is wayne.
i was born and raised in the inner city. i am a carpenter. that was my chance to make it to not just middle class but to make a good living. where did the people in the inner city go to get these jobs? and why do you have to have a license to get these jobs when you can take transportation that get to their perfect i am ill little nervous. that is my main problem. people in the inner city wanted jobs. they want a decent job. that is all i have to say. guest: thank you for your call. it goes to the point i made earlier. there are americans that want to work. people want jobs. because of the investment that this administration, that president obama is making in transportation and many other areas, housing, education. people will be able to get good-
paying jobs in the case of transportation, and building infrastructure, building new capacity. in the case of education, the opportunities hopefully will be provided to folks. but this president has a vision for investing in those kinds of opportunities that do create jobs. host: we saw senator sessions on that video we saw it earlier. we have a tweet. i will use that as a way to talk about your views as a member about the budget battle. guest: i came here in 1994 as a member of congress after being a staffer. i have seen these budget battles go on year in and year out.
a lot of new members were elected this year on an agenda of fiscal responsibility, bringing down the deficit. i was in a class of 73 republicans and 13 democrats, one of the largest class is a came in 1994, republicans came into the majority. i am a majority. speaker gingrich was the speaker. we had huge debates. we had long sessions at the end of the morning, voting on amendments. i was here when we had the government shut down. so it seems like these things are old cyclical. in the end, the congress will have to get it right with the administration for the american people so that we do continue programs that make investments and to continue making sure the government is providing the services that we have told
people we would do. host: are you planning for the possibility of a government shutdown? guest: we have not discussed that. i think those of us that have been in congress-watchers believe that this matter will be resolved in a way that will not lead to a government shutdown. that is good for no one. host: next call from sarasota, florida. caller: good morning. the governor who i voted for horrified me when he decided not to do this high-speed rail program. this is the second time one of our governors has abandoned this project. we had jeb bush -- the voters voted on a bond issue. he came in and said no. florida is a long headstay, difficult to get around the state.
-- florida is a long state. the only way you can do it is on highways. we're delighted to have them. if you could connect our airports, tampa to orlando, unit gets these people moving. i can see a lot of ridership there. in times of a hurricane, you could put a lot of people out of harm's way on a high-speed rail and get them up to someplace out of the hurricane's path. you could have done that perhaps in new orleans, getting those people out. i see this as a public benefit. host: to live. let's go to tampa. this is bob. caller: good morning. i am an unemployed air traffic controller. five or six years ago, lockheed martin took 3000 of bust and reduced the workforce by 80%.
i was wondering -- a bill was being supported the would of restarted our pensions. i lost my career, and i lost my pension after 19 years of federal service. i was wondering if you would support that and to make sure this thing will not happen again. host: are you still unemployed? caller: there are no jobs. host: thank you for your call. he mentioned the next gen system. guest: florida has a very strong high-speed rail program that connects orlando to tampa and then connects orlando to miami. it is a plan that people have worked on for more than 20
years. we gave floor mat the second amount of high-speed rail money because they had a good plan that made good investments -- we gave florida the second of high- speed rail money. my suggestion for the gentleman who is laid off, i know the faa is looking for opportunities for people. i would encourage you to go on making faa website. next generation technology is the highest priority for the president. as you can see, we put significant resources in for next generation. that is technology that will go into every airport. that is the technology that allows air traffic controllers to guide planes in and out of airports. the next generation technology is like putting a new computer in every airport and putting in new computer, if you will, into
every airplane, so that planes can be guided more safely, saved and there's a strong commitment from this administration to fund this and to make it happen. we have made some investments in the gulf of mexico and other places. we're prepared to make a strong commitment for the next generation technology. host: we're talking about airports and airlines. there is revenue involved. spending cuts. the construction cuts and grants for airport improvements -- host: what is the new proposal? guest: i do not have that off
the top of my head. it allows airlines to put an additional fate that then goes to the airports to do some of the improvements. you have played some of these members of congress saying there has to be some reductions. we have made a reduction turkish airports want to continue to improve capacity, add capacity come the way to do it is to add this fee or have the airline's ades add this fee. host: airlines have been lobbying about this suggestion. what is your response to that? guest: i think the airlines have done pretty well. most of the airlines are making money. they have put additional fees on passengers. there's a fee for a blanket or a
pillow. this allows them to get too much better bottom line. we're going to work with the airlines. we want to make sure we have a strong airline industry. we want to make sure that they can continue to offer people the kind of airline prices where people can continue to fly and take vacations. it is a delicate balance. we want a strong airline industry. host: pennsylvania, you're on with secretary llahood. caller: you get more bang for the buck if you did not award all these contracts to unions. people from the inner-city -- if they get in -- i moved from new jersey. you have contractors that have a lock on everything.
the electric bill, everything. every infrastructure is covered by the unions. you are lucky if you get hired by the unions. what are you going to do about non-union workers on some of this work? guest: on federal contracts, the prevailing wage has to be paid. that is a strong provision of the law. it is something this administration supports and believes it allows people to get a good wage for the hard work that people put in. that is something that has been in the law. we support that. it does provide good wages to people on this federal jobs. host: could you explain the 4
per $1 billion requested on some recalled a little committee -- a $4.1 billion request? guest: that is offering alternatives than other just automobiles. dot has been good at building roads and bridges and infrastructure. the program is about light rail and a good buses, serving rural america was good bus service, good transportation. it is about communities like washers, d.c., -- like washington, d.c., and atlanta, georgia, getting back to a street car business. more walking and biking paths. it is a comprehensive approach to transportation. washington is a classic example of a little ball community. you can live in this town and
not own an automobile. you can get on a natural or a bus -- you can get on a metro or a bus. you can get to the baltimore airport by taking the marc train. eventually you can get to the dulles airport on the metro. there should be options for people, is best for those who do not have a car or do not drive a car or cannot afford the insurance for a car. we have many different options for mobility. host: callers in washington are complaining you propose to cut the budget for metro. guest: we have a strong relationship with the metro system. we have held their feet to the fire on the safety issues. we have allocated millions of
dollars for them to be able to buy new equipment and new, safer metro cars for the metro system. there are others who do want to make reductions. we think this system is very strong. we have been good partners with them. host: so no cuts. guest: that is correct. caller: i wanted to make the point -- this or al -- florida is a terrorist state -- this or for itself.ay it will create jobs. florida is one of the highest unemployment rates. i don't understand why the governor is so against it. he is not given a concrete reason that i have heard as to
why he is so against it. guest: i met with the governor on several occasions to talk about high-speed rail. he raised some concerns. we addressed those concerns. this particular project as a part of our high-speed rail project will put thousands of people to work building the infrastructure for the high- speed rail, building the train sets for the high-speed rail, and then the employment that is created when you have a train system in your state. there is a number of jobs that people that manages the trains. this is a job producer. it is also the next generation of transportation for america. the next generation of transportation for florida and a floridians. to see what the governor said. the concerns that he raised, we address. host: connecticut, steve. you're on with the secretary.
we lost steve. i wanted to use this tweet. this is a tweet that says streetcars have replaced buses. we grew up in an age where there still were some streetcars in american cities. the cyclical nature of america's transportation system is rather interesting. guest: in my hometown, i remember growing up writing streetcars -- riding streetcars. streetcars are not a replacement for buses. they are another option. streetcars are made in america. they are made in portland, oregon. we don't decide if a community wants a streetcar system. the mayors and city councils
to decide that. many areas have decided that. where streetcars exists, people use them. they are a great option for people. it is another form of transportation in their communities are getting back to. host: you remain optimistic despite the budget battle that congress will fund your budget. guest: i served in copper is for 16 years. -- i served in congress. we passed two bills. the past bipartisanly. -- they passed bipartisan way. this bill is a bill to put americans to work, building american roads and bridges and high-speed rail for the american people for the next generation of americans. that is what this is about.
i am optimistic that this congress will pass a bipartisan transportation bill the way that every other congress has done because it is good for america. it puts americans to work. i am optimistic the president will have a bill by the august recess. host: thank you for being here. we'll take a short break. our final guest will talk about small business and how it promotes the jobs and what kind of assistance they are getting from the administration and congress in their jobs creation. we will be right back. >> it is 83-day presidents' day we can. -- it is a three-day president'' day weekend.
this weekend, the story of carol simpson in climbing the ranks. also, an examination in the way governments are using the internet to remain -- to maintain political power. the birth of the women's movement. from the complete schedule at booktv.org. "abraham lincoln," a unique contemporary look at mr. lincoln. from its early years to his presidency. and his relevance today. the publishers are offering to c-span viewers of the hardcover edition for the special price of $5 plus shipping and handling. click on the abraham lincoln book. use the promo code "lincoln" at
checkout. >> you are watching c-span. every morning, it is "washington journal," connect the with policy makers and a journalist. weekdays, watched live coverage of the u.s. house. also, supreme court oral arguments. on the weekends, you can see our signature interview programs. on saturday, "the communicators." you could watch our program and any time at c-span.org. it is all searchable at our c- span video library. c-span, washington your way. created by america's cable companies. "washington journal" continues. host: let me introduce you to karen kerrigan making her first
visit to "washington journal." she is the president and ceo of the small business & entrepreneurship council. guest: i started the organization over 15 years ago. there was a need in the marketplace. i represent the interests of small business and entrepreneurs. it brings a voice to washington on a range of issues. record stores, technology, a trade, all issues that affect small businesses. host: had you been a small- business person yourself? guest: yes, a consultant. i know very well the challenges that are out there. but also, some great opportunities. i know what it is like. host: can you give us some
statistics about how many small businesses of there are? guest: there are about 27 million businesses in this country. 21 million are self-employed individuals, people that work for themselves. the 5.9 million firms in this country, about 5 20 million of those -- about 5.8 million -- you can see america is about small business. they employ 50% of the work force over the past 17 years. they have been responsible for 65% of job creation. they have credit 9.8 million jobs over the last 17 years. we count on small businesses, particularly in times like this when we're coming at of recessions to create most of these jobs. we need this sector to be cranking and to be healthy and
doing well and to be confident to create jobs. host: there is discussion about how to best aid small businesses. you hear about excess regulation on the republican side. tax burdens on the republican side. more loans and stimuluses for job creation. let's listen to the president as he went to the chamber of congress will try to mend ties. they have been at odds over health care and other issues. there were discussing the tax code. >> we believe americans have the best products and the best business. there is there reason why we cannot do better than we're doing right now when it comes to our exports. another barrier government can remove, and they hear a lot about this from many of you, is a burdensome corporate tax code with one of the highest rates in the world. you know how it goes.
because of various loopholes that have been built up over the years, some industries pay an average rate that is four or five times higher than others. companies are taxed heavily for making investments with equity. the tax code pays companies to invest using leverage. as a result, you have too many companies in the making decisions based on what their tax director says instead of what their engineer designs or what the factories produce. host: does the corporate tax code affect the direction of most -- are small businesses are mostly affected by a personal tax rates? guest: 90% of small businesses do pay taxes as individuals. but we also think that we should lower the corporate tax rate. our taxes can be competitive for all businesses. when you look at corpse, the
average multinational corporation does business with 6000 small-business suppliers. to be more competitive, then you're going to have more small businesses to do business with them. if you're going to lower corporate taxes, we want you to also lower individual taxes as well. there does have to be that level of parity from that perspective. host: what kind of grade would you give this administration for small business policies? guest: right now, i would say a d. maybe an incomplete in some areas. looking at the end of last year in terms of extending the tax relief, that was beneficial for many small businesses. the president announced a couple of weeks ago his regulatory reform initiative to look at the
regulations that are on the books right now and which ones were burdensome from a small- business perspective. we think that regulatory strategy should also apply to regulations that are moving through the system right now. so maybe i would move from a d to an incomplete. host: we would like to involve our viewers in this discussion with small businesses and policy. we'll talk more about what is happening at the states as this segment continues. if gingrich's by e-mail and twitter. karen kerrigan is here talking about promoting growth in business. you have a piece the came out -- we start our morning talking about what happened in wisconsin. you had a peace that cannot part to the protest talking about
wisconsin as a good place to do business. guest: that peace basically -- that piece congratulate the governor for passing certain tax initiatives that will encourage more small business creation. look at which states are more friendly and unfriendly to small business. wisconsin has been in the middle range. when you have a variety of different states to doing things, then we put out releases and we encourage them to do more. it is very competitive at the state level. we want to see states cutting taxes, encouraging private sector investment, reducing regulation. that will help the environment. host: we will try to call the small business survival index that you published.
it is an interactive feature under website. you can roll over any state and to the framework. what are the indices used? guest: we have 30 measurements. look at taxes, workers' compensation costs, litigation costs, regulation that affect the cost of health care. with its spending. those types of things that our government costs on business and that discourage investment and that take more resources away from small businesses. host: if you look get small businesses by sector, which has been most robust recently since the downturn? guest: the technology sector. they have done quite well. those who have been able to utilize using ecosystems.
-- a broadband and develop a business model. technology has been very strong. host: how about real estate gues? guest: they have been better but challenging. caller: i was listening to the news a few months ago. they talk about pasture companies. are you familiar with that? -- they talked about pass- through companies. these are companies that are multi-million-dollar corporations. they present themselves as a small business or they don't pay any taxes usually. one of the companies they mentioned was the chicago tribune.
that newspaper. host: your concern about corporations avoiding taxes. caller: that is exactly right. guest: i think we need to simplify the tax codes. we need to come up with a fair and simple tax code. we need some stability in the tax code. right now, you're looking at two years from now. a lot of the tax relief components expiring on different types of credits that small businesses benefit from. i think it is imperative that they need to develop a system and reform the tax system and to make it simple. so you don't have this jockeying around with the system. and there is more transparency. host: we do explain the story behind this piece which deals with the small business lending fund, which the administration gritted. it was pulled from tarp money.
this is the headline. what is happening with the small business lending fun? guest: i am not quite sure. they are still working on that. there is still some uncertainty as to where it is going and help small businesses can access that fund. that has been in the works for quite some time. they have only began to execute on it. the concern is if small businesses can have access to this money. that has been a big issue. host: $17.4 billion of the original goal, according to administration sources. it was the centerpiece of this plan.stration pause pla's apparently, it is not being
utilized. guest: that is a problem with a lot of these types of programs and why we need to encourage more private sector investment. we are concerned right now with the money sitting on the sidelines, trillions that experts talk about. corporate profits or whether it is venture capital, the confidence we need to boost -- we need to boost confidence. the comet has to get better. there needs to be incentives -- the economy has to get better. money needs to flow to small businesses. host: speaking of small business, here is a tweet. guest: that is not surprising, given the economy right now.
this is going to be a challenge moving forward. there was a big drop-off in those long programs. they are starting to come back. what types of businesses they are getting? will will be more failures? to what extent are tax breaks footing the bill? -- will there be more failures? these are very challenging economic times. host: brian, a republican. caller: i have had this conversation with people over the last few years. how do we expect to compete in small business with the wage disparity is so great between mexico and china? we have set up an unfair plane up for ourselves. when i say nafta, you marginalize and a think all of
us should dig into the nafta treaty and not throw it out but make some adjustments to make it more fair. there is no fair in this fair trade. without manufacturer, i did not say how the united states will have full strength and prosperity. manufacturing is the backbone of this country. it won't be all of innovations like mr. donahue states. you have to make things. guest: right. our members tell us that they cannot compete on labor. they realize that. our elected officials should not be imposing more things that increase the cost of labor. whether it is certain laws and regulations at the state level or the federal level or new regulations coming from osha or the department of labour. you increase the cost of labor.
that makes us less competitive. what my members tell us is that they can compete on an innovative skill and that they can compete if -- on capital investments. the government has to stop from a regulatory perspective. they should begin to think about everything they done and what the impact is on business. we live in a competitive global economy. u.s. countries across the globe who are doing all they can to attract private sector investment. they are reducing regulation. they are stuffing out corruption in their countries. pretty much laid out the red carpet for private sector investment. we have to realize that this is happening on a global scale and think about everything we do, not only in washington but that the state level and whether it
will impose more costs on small to midsize and larger-sized enterprises and if it will drive private-sector investment overseas. capital and labor is important in the global market price. host: is there an exemption for companies below a certain size? guest: if you have a firm that is 50 employees are lower, you are exempted from that mandate. however, most of them are impacted. they believe that the health care law lot is not going to bring out the cost of health coverage and it will increase the cost of health care. that in effect take away choices in the marketplace that many small-business owners have turned to, like savings accounts. there's the much hated expanded to 99 reporting requirements in the health-care bill that
requires all businesses to file 1099 report to the irs for everybody -- for every vendor on every individual they pay $600 or more on an annual basis. for some, you're talking about scores, hundreds, or even thousands of new paperwork 1099 forms ese09these that they will have to send to washington. they are impacted in terms of the cost. some will be impacted by the employer mandate. host: we are talking to karen kerrigan about small businesses. jupiter, florida, is up next. george. caller: good morning. i have owned a business for 20 years.
what you consider a small business is beyond me. you keep saying the same thing. we have the highest corporate taxes in the world. the actual marginal rate is paid less than 6%. how can you justify everything you just said? host: what is your small business? caller: wastewater management companies. i have two employees. i've been around for 20 years. when i hear anyone on your show, they always say the opposite. if -- there is no fairness in this country no one wants to pay taxes. no one wants to go out and work. it is either a fever or conniving or one thing or the other. -- t jeter thievery -- it is either thievery or conniving. guest: there is a lot of people
who are out of work right now who are looking for jobs and wanted to find jobs. there is a lot of individuals who have to dream of starting a business. people want to see their businesses grow. they need access to capital to grow their business and to hire more people and to invest in things that will make them competitive. the way the we represent -- we have members. we listen to them and their concerns. they are concerned about taxes, about the tax items that were extended at the end of last year, expiring in two years. they are concerned about their taxes going up and having less capital to invest and compete. they are concerned about regulation and the regulations that are being implemented as part of the health care bill and part of the overhall bill.
the don't know if cost is going to go up. -- they don't know if the cost is going to go. they are concerned about the regulatory activity. we are their voice. we meet with the agencies. we tell them what the impact of these regulations are going to be. hopefully, when they listen to us, we do a lot of comments on proposed regulations. it will take our concerns in suit concerned. some of them do and some of them do not. osha pulled back on two rules impacting small businesses. this said, we have to rethink them. we have to rethink this rule in general. regulations, more costs, we're doing our best to pare back regulation or a least do that in a way that is not
disproportionate impact and small businesses in a more costly way. host: could give some detail about the rollback provision for moshe? guest: -- from osha? guest: there were looking at a noise reduction rule and basically, noise in the workplace could be hazardous to employees from a safety and health perspective. after they heard from the small business community about the existing things that business owners usually do to reduce noise level in their company and was being required by osha, they saw that the business community is right. they are doing a lot of things right now that are protecting their employees. will we might do my work against some of their provisions -- what we might do my work against some
of those provisions. we want to have more of them. we do have agencies that do not listen as they should to the voice of small business. and as they are required under the regulatory flexibility act. there is a lot worked to be done. we want to make sure they are taking our views and the cost into account. host: maryland on the democrat's line. caller: good morning. i have a comment and question. you don't want to want to pay a decent wage. you don't want to protect your workers from hazards in the workplace. you think that you shouldn't have to pay taxes. and still, after 16 tax cuts for small businesses in the last two years, no entrepreneurs seems to have the guts to go out and hire
people or create jobs after record profits are posted. i am thinking, what exactly is it that -- what to we have to do? do we have to become china and mexico pull the do you want to upset the kyra au pair river on fire again -- do you want to set a river on fire? how far into the labor what do you want to cut? how much environmental protection of do we have to get rid of for this douglas, small business owners to compete -- smallhese gutless business owners to compete? who are your big contributors? guest: let me start with -- we do not think that business owners are now car acting gutless. and certainly, it is being
compounded by -- we have policies in washington that they are concerned about that will raise their costs. given the economic uncertainties in terms of where the economy is going, they are worried about sales and were about revenue and about the cash flow. worry about inflation. where inflation will be headed in the next year. wherehearing from members suppliers are increasing their cost and there will have to pass those costs on. they already operate on tight margins. this'll be a difficult thing if inflation continues to tick up. they are not asking for all regulations to be abolished. they did not believe that all regulations should go away. it is the imbalance and the overtreach.
in terms of paying taxes, we do think business owners pay a lot. we need to pay less in order to stay competitive. we're not saying we don't want to pay taxes. there has to be more -- it has to be more competitive and we need a better tax system. it is pretty crazy right now. the news to be some stability in the tax system. it is amazing that someone would call business owners gutless when they are the ones taking risk, putting their own money on a line, risking their fortunes, their houses. some of them with families in order to add to the economic vitality and growth of this country. they risked a lot. we need to encourage more of that risk-taking if we're going to move back to economic recovery. we have 100,000 members
throughout the country. our budget will be about $2 million. most of that is a member-funded. we do have some corporate partners, which represent about 10% to 12% of our funding. i would be more than happy to provide you with some of -- with that list. host: is it on our website -- is it on your website? guest: it is not. we do a quarterly webcast which is a training type of program for entrepreneurs. we tell about what is going on on capitol hill. that is sponsored by at&t. we need to cover the cost of that webcast. we have specific programs that we have, training programs and projects where we do get
corporate support. host: pittsburg, bernard, republican. caller: good morning. i am a retired small business. i guess i'm one of vacanthe guts ones. it got harder and harder. i had probably 150 shops the block for me. they are all gone now -- i have probably 150 shops that bought for me. they are all gone now. the point i wanted to make, in 1990-something, president bush put a 15% tariffs on chinese steel.
being from pittsburgh, that is very important. we're called the rustbucket. nobody ever talks about this. i remember russians walking through the streets. three television stations. there was no fox news over here. host: what does steel import have to do with small business? caller: i think we have to start with the top. -- i think we have to start with the jobs. there is a shifting% tax and that would create inflation -- there is a 15% tax. we have inflation but we do not have the jobs. guest: a lot of people, you think about trade, it is the dominion of larger enterprise. 97% of our exporters are small
to midsize firms. small business owners do benefit from trade. the want to see additional markets open because the internet and technology now and the size of the world has become smaller. they see the opportunity to sell their products and their services abroad. our members are very high on trade. we think it is a great program that the white house has undertaken in this regard in terms of wanting to double our exports over the next five years and reaching out to the small-business community in terms of everything that the department of commerce and the international trade group does to bring businesses to their products overseas. they do a lot. it is tremendous in terms of the training and in terms of the market intelligence that they provide, in terms of the u.s. commercial services people on the ground in a variety of
countries that are there to help businesses of all sides. much as larger enterprises. again, we want to see more trade happened because it does benefit small businesses directly in terms of expanding the market. larger enterprises -- most of them -- the average multinational company has 6000 small-business suppliers. they are selling stuff overseas, there's more contacts with small business owners. they buy $3 billion worth of things from small-business suppliers. if the larger enterprises are healthy than the small businesses benefit from that. we are interdependent. and dependent on large enterprises, as well. host: columbus, ohio, it morning. van, are you there?
caller: hello? do you work with the u.s. chamber of commerce? what was your great for george bush? thank you. guest: i have not thought about that. probably about a c or a c- plus. we're tough graders. i would like to see the tax initiative make permanent. small business is to not support the big bailout. they did not believe that these big companies that were caught up in the financial crisis should have been bailed out. in terms of the u.s. chamber, we have worked with them in college and on a variety of different
issues, just like we do with other members of the business community. host: what defines the small business under the law? guest: the federal government describes it as any business with five for employees or less but is not dominant in their field. that does not -- most of your small businesses have less than 20 employees. 5.9 million employers firms, five. million have less than 100. i just say, most of the businesses in our country. host: 1 caller said he sold products to pet stores. it talks about the regulatory burden and our group. if you were to write a history of company regulations in the united states, when did it begin to escalate? is there a time when states and the former governor became much more active regulators? guest: probably in the late
1970's and in the 1980's, we began to see an uptick and will begin to see new departments and agencies, the informant the protection -- the environmental protection agency to crank out larger regulations. we do have the economy-wide regulations that fear doing, whether it is c-o regulators which would impact all business. there are specific regulations they are proposing that impacts small businesses. the late 1970's, and during the 1980's, at the state level, we saw a lot of activity, the 1970's and 1980's, but when you create these bureaucracies and these departments, then they continue to do more and more and more. and so there has been growth in
regulation to accept -- the per employee cost regulation is over $10,000 for a firm with 20 employees or less. that is pretty staggering. that is a barrier for entry for some companies. host: michele, a republican. caller: good morning. i was wondering -- i am a small does business owner myself. i have just about 10 employees. i was wondering -- to do like i cannot afford health care for my own family. -- i am a small-business owner myself. it is a franchise. it is considered a small business. a big business, a subway. subways are all over the world, pretty much. i keep hearing -- i am here as a
republican. i don't want to be known as a republican democrat or an independent right now because our country is in such chaos that i hear that the federal government considers a small business 540 people or less. that is not a small business -- 500 people or less. that is ridiculous. that to be any different bracket when it comes to health care. for years and years, i am frustrated because we see these things going on tv about -- host: i apologize. we're out of time. guest: the cost of health care has been the top issue for small businesses for the past 15 years. thank you for being here. we hope you'll come back. house of representatives are now in session. propose a common response to the
overall security of your people. integrate the information of this age with the practical and ethical standards that have guided your people always. through the mysteries of nature and the multiple legitimate needs of the most vulnerable in our midst. enlighten the nation with your word and your grace both now and forever. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance this morning will be lead by the gentleman from georgia, mr. price. mr. price: please join me in the pledge. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five one-minute requests on each side. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker: without objection. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, yesterday marked the gruesome second anniversary of the administration's misnamed stimulus plan. when this irresponsible plan of massive spending was introduced, liberals promised unemployment would not exceed 8%. at that time house republicans led by john boehner explained that our nation cannot borrow and spend our way to prosperity and the failure of this stimulus plan is a sad reminder of this. now two years later taxpayers have more than $817 billion added to the national debt. unemployment is still above 9%. and it's been above 9% for 21 straight months. that means 14 million americans are without jobs. our debt is over $14 trillion.
i have introduced legislation for an audit of the stimulus to show the american people where their tax dollars were spent. where is the money? where are the jobs? in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? without objection. >> mr. speaker, this week my republican colleagues offered us a clinton administrationps into their vision for america. it is a country where millions of women are turned away from basic health care. mr. deutch: where the wealthy can buy access to our courts and the poor are denied justice. where we abandon our obligation to pass on a cleaner, safer world to the next generation. where the voices of 1,000 workers cries for better treatment fall on a few pairs of deaf ears. where we deny children the art
education that has helped inspire the greatest culture on earth. this is not the america envisioned by the constituents i serve. among them thousands of america's greatest generation who fought during world war ii an built an extraordinary nation after the great depression. this continuing resolution is quite simply a disgrace to their vision and to their sacrifice. we can do better. we must do better. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, last year the military received over 3,000 reports of sexual assault involving other members in the service. this week, 17 veterans are saying that the military ignored their cases of sexual assault while they were on active duty. these accusations have occurred in all branches of the military. the most recent complaint came from a woman who said she was drugged and gang raped by two fellow members of the navy. this ended her career.
another rape victim reported the crime to the marines and she was ordered not to tell anyone and to respect the alleged rapist who was of a higher rank. the perpetrators of rape in the military must be held accountable for their misdeeds and victims should be respected and validated by the military. the united states has the world's finest military personnel and we must support all of them, including victims of crime. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? the gentleman is recognized for a minute. mr. inslee: mr. speaker, i come to the floor to warn my colleagues and the american public of a nasty little amendment in this c.r. an amendment will be offered by the republicans today to eliminate the ability of the environmental protection agency to enforce the clear mandates of the clean air act.
the supreme court has ruled that the e.p.a. owes the american public an obligation to reduce certain of these dangerous toxic gases and yet incredibly the republican party wants to eliminate the ability to enforce that bill. i think of this amendment as the dirty air act. it is the dirty air act because if they pass it, that's what we'll get is dirty air. americans, i want to warn my colleagues, a poll distributed by the american lung association shows americans are adamantly opposed to this amendment. they know we want clean air. they know we don't want more children's asthma. we have to defeat this amendment. keep the clean air act the law of this country. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? without objection, you are recognized for one minute. mr. walz: mr. speaker, listen to
the people. kinder garten teachers, not a group -- kindergarten teachers, not a group easily lyle riled, are among 30,000 of their neighbors in wisconsin in the state capitol. the audacity of their demand, the ability to find a living wage, dignified retirement. they make our public safe and functioning at an average wage of $30,000 a year. they did not cause the financial catastrophe in this country. that was the speculators and robber barrons who received billions in tarp funds then outsourced it to avoid paying taxes. the folks in wisconsin rallying, teach our children to read. in a time of astroturf rallies, i urge all my colleagues, listen to that sound coming like a warm spring breeze off the prairie. that's the sound of america's proud middle class that built this country and they have found their voice. we would all be wise, listen to the people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the other gentleman from minnesota, for what purpose does he rise? the gentleman is recognized for a minute. mr. ellison: i come to the floor today to talk about the c.r. in larger context. what's going on? the american people have been watching us debating this stuff for days now, late into the night, what is it all about? what it's all about, mr. speaker, is which direction will america go in? will we cut back and scale back vital programs that help americans do better and move into the middle class? will we cut back and scale back vitally needed regulations to help protect us, make us -- allow us to have clean air and clean water and important other rights? or, or, mr. speaker, will we have an america where we have labor rights, where we can organize, where we can have adequate regulation that give us the opportunity to have a he decrept standard of life in america? it is a stark choice. a dim view where the vision is a
small number of really wealthy people and a vast number of really desperate people, or a large robust, strong middle class which powers america into the future. what we are fighting about is the soul of this country, direction of this country, and the democratic caucus is standing firmly with the people as we have seen the people of wisconsin stand up and snatch back their destiny from somebody who would take it from them. mr. speaker, today focus your attention, the people are rising up around america and the democratic caucus is standing strong right here. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? the gentleman from california, then. without objection, so ordered. she's recognized for one minute. ms. speier: a budget is a serious document. a statement of our values as a
union. americans are depending on us to reduce the deficit in a responsible manner while growing our economy and putting people back to work. but as their so be it, let them eat cake approach to jobs and the economy shows, the republican colleagues have chosen to abandon the responsibility for recklessness. now the republicans are proposing to wipe out the california salmon industry and the thousands of jobs that depend on it. california fishermen just made throughhree years of unprecedented slowdown in the salmon industry. an estimated 23,000 jobs and $2.8 billion have been lost. in just the last three years. these latest proposals threaten water supplies for millions, including both fishermen and farmers. mr. speaker, salmon means jobs. i have met the people who make their living with salmon and they are proud of their job. according to recent studies, restoring the california bay delta could provide 94,000 new jobs and $5.7 billion in
economic activity. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. -- the gentlelady's time has expired. pursuant to house resolution 92 and rule 18, the chair declare -- declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 1. will the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, kindly resume the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 1 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of defense and the other departments and agencies of the government for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2011, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on the legislative day of thursday, february 17, 2011, a request for recorded vote on amendment number 466 printed in the congressional record was offered by the gentleman from texas, mr.
poe, has been postponed and the bill has been read through page 359, line 22. for what purpose does the gentleman from montana rise? mr. rehberg: i have an amendment at the desk. 575. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 575, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. rehberg of montana. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from connecticut rise? ms. delauro: i rise to make a point of order on the amendment. the chair: the gentlelady will state her point. ms. delauro: i make a point of order against the rehberg amendment because it violates clause 3-j-3 of house resolution 5 by proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill. according to a cost estimate received from the congressional budget office of the rehberg amendment, the rehberg amendment would increase net budget authority in the bill by $2
billion in fiscal year 2012 and a total of $5.5 billion over 10 years. let me repeat that. that is adding $5.5 billion to the deficit. and i have in my hand here the c.b.o. estimate of the budgetary effect of amendment 575 to h.r. 1. c.b.o.'s document. the house rules package adopted at the beginning of this congress in house resolution 5 includes the following rule in section 3-j-3. i quote. it shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill. end quote. according to c.b.o. estimates, the rehberg amendment does in fact produce a net increase in budget authority and is therefore not in order. the majority have raised a point of order on all other amendments
that violate this rule in section 3-j-3 because they increase net budget authority. yet on this amendment by mr. rehberg that is not the case. it would seem that on the question of health care the majority is not abiding by its own rules to reduce the deficit. i ask a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any member wish to be heard on the point of order? mr. rehberg: mr. chair, i wish to be heard on the point of order. the chair: the gentleman from montana is recognized. mr. rehberg: i have been advised by the chairman of the committee of budget that my amendment complies with all applicable rules of the house. the point of order that my amendment violates clause 10 of rule 21 known as the cut-go rule, is inapplicable in this case. the cut-go rule does provide a point of order against amendments to appropriations bills that cause an increase in mandatory spending over the five-year scoring window. however, that rule contains an important exception.
the point of order applies only to provision that is are modifications to -- provisions that are modifications to substantive law. my amendment does not constitute a modification. it is a temporary provision limiting use of funds in this act for the implementation of a law in a particular fiscal year. as the chairman of the committee on budget stated, my amendment does not make a modification to substantive law after the year for which the bill makes appropriations. accordingly, the prohibition contained in clause 10 of rule 21 does not apply to my amendment and the point of order should be overruled. i respectfully ask the chair for a ruling. the chair: does anyone else wish to be heard on the point of order? the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: the gentlelady from connecticut's point of order should be sustained and the chairman's arguments are deficient in two respects. first, he notes that the chairman of the budget committee's opinion is that the point of order should not be
sustained. although i realize that the chairman of the budget committee's opinion by custom is given some sort of special gravity on these kind of questions, with all due respect the chair is the chair, the chair is the authority here and the chair's responsibility is to follow the rules of the house which very clearly state that a piece of legislation has a net increase in budget authority, it's out of order under these circumstances. . secondly the chairman makes an argument that this is not a change in substantive law. one first would wonder why it's then being offered, but secondly, it seems to me that if agents of the executive branch have a responsibility and that responsibility includes discretion as to how to carry out a certain law, prohibiting them from carrying out that responsibility and limiting their discretion is in fact a
significant change in substantive law on. law. on those grounds i would urge that the point of order be sustained. the chair: any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? the gentleman from new jersey first. for what purpose does do you rise? -- for what purpose do you rise? you're recognized. >> mr. chairman, i find it incredible what i'm hearing on the other side of the aisle here because, you know, week of gone through several weeks where the rules have been changed so that the budget committee chairman does whatever he pleases and has the authority almost like equal to the rest of the house, the way the republicans have given him this authority. mr. pallone: sort of like a one-man dictatorship. i'm not sure i'm particularly interested in his opinion on this one. but beyond that and i'll follow up on my colleague from nnl, when you talk about substantive changes from the law, the whole purpose of this amendment is to basically gut the health care reform and make sure that it never takes place.
and if it were to become law, if it were to be adopted, that is exactly what would happen. this has a mainly substantive impact. beyond that, what we're highlighting here is the fact that here we have the republicans saying that they're trying to save money or cut spending when in reality what they're doing with this seamed increasing the deficit -- with this amendment is increasing the deficit and making it more difficult to create jobs. so i don't see how we could ever argue, frankly, that this amendment is in order. it clearly increases the deficit. it clearly increases the budget authority. it will kill the health care reform. and that's its purpose. so i would ask that the chairman rule that this is certainly out of order. the chair: anyone else wish to be heard on the rule? the gentlelady from knk. ms. delauro: yes, mr. chairman, i'd like to make a comment on the point of order. the chairman has argued, with all due respect to the chairman, that the amendment does not
violate clause 10 of rule 21. but that is not the point of order that i raised. the point of order was section 3-j-3 of h.res. 5 and i'll repeat what that says. it shall not be in order to consider an amendment to the general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill. it clearly proposes an increase and we have a documentation from c.b.o.. so i'm asking that this amendment be ruled out of order. the chair: thank you. the lady yields back. is there anyone who wishes to be heard on the point of order? the gentleman from montana. mr. rehberg: it doesn't matter which clause they want to draw from. the chairman said there is no impact.
my amendment scores it a savings of $100 million in the current fiscal year. that's substantive savings and i again ask for a ruling. the chair: the chair is prepared to rule. any other discussion to the point of order? if not, the gentlewoman from connecticut makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from montana violates section 3-j-3 of house resolution 5. section 3-j-3 establishes a point of order against an amendment proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill. the chair has been per swacively guided by an estimate from the chair of the committee budget that the amendment does not propose a net increase in budget authority in fiscal year 2011. the relevant fiscal year for this bill. the point of order is overruled. pursuant to the order of the house of february 17, 2011, the gentleman from montana, mr. rehberg, and a member opposed will each control 30 minutes.
the chair recognizes the gentleman from montana. mr. rehberg: thank you, mr. chairman. i ask for as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rehberg: mr. chairman, my amendment is simple and straightforward. this amendment denies any funding provided by this bill to be used by the department of -- or agency funded through the labor h.h.s. title of the bill to support obamacare. it will create a firewall so that funds from this bill cannot be used for that purpose. obamacare included mandatory funding for several provisions normally funded through the discretionary appropriations. for example, $1 billion implementation fund. so unfortunately resources will be available to health and human services. this amendment can slow but not completely stop the process. i've tried everything within my power to write an amendment that would completely defund implementation, yet with stand a point of order. this is the best i can do today. i liken the situation with this bill to trying to drive a car to
the moon. a car is the wrong vehicle for that purpose. but a car can take us on first leg of the trip. it can get us to the launching pad and i will continue to do everything i can to finish the journey. my goal and the goal of the majority of americans is to repeal the new health care law. until then, my objective is to defund it entirely and stop its implementation. it's impossible at this time to describe the many reasons that justify defending or defunding and repeal. let me begin with my belief that the law is unconstitutional. it runs contrary to our most fundamental concepts of limited government and individual liberty and responsibility. it's a law designed by those who wish to control every health care decision made by health care providers and patients, by every employer and employee, by every family and individual. it will control every aspect of 1/6 of our economy. this unaffordable program will cost $2.6 trillion in the first
10 years. if fully implemented. 90% of that cost is for medicaid expansion and insurance subsidies. roughly half of the federal government's costs will be paid through new taxes, penalties and fees on individuals and businesses. the other half is covered by cuts in medicare benefits. the tax increases and regulatory burdens will be a significant drag on economic growth and job creation and other costs to states, businesses and individuals are not included in the $2.6 trillion figure. this is a job killer, how fool hardy. to create a new entitlement program when we cannot pay for the ones we already have and cannot meet our current operating expenses, without borrowing beyond our ability to repay. this is madness. the structure of this bill was built on a foundation of multiple mandates. the individual mandates that requires people to purchase insurance whether they want to
or not. mandates on states to create and operate insurance exchanges and to expand medicaid dramatically. man cates on employers to provide -- mandates on employers to provide insurance or be penalized. mandates regarding the precise terms of insurance policies that everyone ultimately must purchase and on and on. our forefathers would be appalled to see the power over our health and lives that we are surrendering to government. they had firsthand experience with unif thered government control in the careful -- in the unfettered government control. we've learned nothing from them. never has there been such a complete transfer of power to our government with such blind faith and hope that government will get it right. when our experience in every other context is so totally to the contrary. this is an experiment, a huge gamble imposed on us by those who did not read the legislation or fully understand its consequences.
we're already catching glimpses of how government power will be exercised. large corporations and unions have been granted waivers for mandates they cannot meet. large corporations with armies of lawyers and unions who hold a special place in the hearts, minds and political campaigns of those who enacted this bill. will government be so accommodating to you? there are problems with the existing health care system but this law only makes matters worse. the law must be repealed so it can be replaced with intellectual cremental measures to improve rather than transform our current health care system. in the meantime, implementation must be stopped. there's a second reason to defund implementation. the law's individual mandate has been declared unconstitutional by two federal judges. judge roger vincent has written a powerful opinion that strikes down the entire law. the administration and congress are on notice of the substantial risk that the supreme court will
uphold vincent's decision. if that occurs after a year of more litigation, billions of dollars spent by the federal government to imple metropolitan the law and by states -- implement the law and by state, businesses and individuals to comply with the law will have been completely wasted. thrown away. in light of the crisis created by our ballooning debt and anemic economy, it's fiscally irresponsible to go forward with implementation until the court challenge is finally resolved. for these reasons i urge you to support my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. who seeks time in opposition? ms. delauro: i seek time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. she will control 30 minutes. ms. delauro: thank you. mr. chairman, i yield myself five minutes. the american people want us to work together to address their top priorities, creating jobs, turning the economy around and reducing the deficit. the republican majority told the
american people, vote for me, that's what we are going to do. this is a classic case of bait and switch. their first order of business was to repeal health care reform. the results of which would add to unemployment, add to the deficit and delay the economic recovery. and today by denying funds for the implementation of health care they are at it again. this amendment would take away the consumer protections of the affordable care act, put the insurance companies back in charge, a further demonstration of the majority's special interest priorities and their hypocrisy on job creation and deficit reduction. repealing health care will destroy jobs in the health professions, it will slow growth by 250,000 to 400,000 jobs in a year. it will increase medical spending and add nearly $2,000 to the average family insurance premium. and according to c.b.o., repeal
would add $230 billion to the deficit in the first 10 years and $1 trillion in the second 10 years. and let me repeat that, this amendment adds billions and ultimately trillions of dollars to the deficit. and it starts next year with $2.2 billion and my colleague will say that the rest of this year that that isn't the case. one needs to just look at what the c.b.o. said overall on the $5.5 billion in deficit that this would create. this is not what they promised the american people. this amendment will allow insurers to charge women 48% more than men for exactly the same coverage. it allows insurance companies to once again discriminate against americans with pre-existing conditions. even children with pre-existing conditions. women may again be denied coverage because they survived breast cancer. or because they were a victim of domestic violence or because they had a c-section. it will deny up to four million
small businesses, $40 billion in tax credits. this amendment will increase drug costs for seniors. it will take away the 50% discount on brand name drugs. for those who have found themselves in the doughnut hole. it will increase also seniors' health care costs, making life-saving preventive services like mammograms, could lonoscopies and diabetes screenings more expensive. this amendment will cost money and it will cost lives. in connecticut 191,000 children with pre-existing conditions benefit from the health care reform law. more than 540,000 seniors with medicare coverage no longer have out-of-pocket expenses for recommended preventive services and up to 15,400 small businesses in my district alone will benefit from these tax credits. if this amendment passes, what will happen to children with pre-existing conditions, to seniors in the doughnut hole, to small business owners trying to
help their employees find quality health insurance? i urge my colleagues to vote against this irresponsible amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from montana. mr. rehberg: i'm pleased to yield five minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. burgess: i thank the gentleman for yielding. as was so eloquently put forward by mr. rehberg, the chairman of the subcommittee on health and human services appropriations just a moment ago, this is a temporary limiting amendment on the appropriation for implementation of the patient protection affordable care act. bait and switch, that term was used by the other side a moment ago in their argument. bait and switch. think back to where we were just a little over a year ago in this house of representatives when the democrats' version of the health care bill passed. where is that bill today? somewhere in the dust bin out in
the halls outside the office of the former speaker, -- former speaker now occupies. bait and switch. what happened on christmas eve of last year of 2009? the senate passed a bill, a bill that was never intended to become law. it was a placeholder, a vehicle, to simply get the senators home for christmas eve ahead of a snowstorm so that then everyone could come back to the capitol in january of 2010 and work on the bill that would ultimately become president obama's health care reform. but it didn't happen. the democrats lost an election in massachusetts for the senate seat. and that changed the paradigm, that changed the narrative, that changed the debate. and then what happened? the house took up the bill passed by the senate, conveniently a bill that had been passed by the house of representatives the summer before as a housing bill, h.r. 3590, look it up at home. 3590, passed the senate.
why would senator reid, why would the other body take up a previously passed house bill and turn it into a health care bill? because it wasn't a health care bill. it was a tax bill. it was a tax bill that had by constitutional authority had to originate in the house of representatives. so then the other body had the perfect vehicle. take the housing bill, strip out the housing language, put in the health care language, pass it on christmas eve and we'll gather back after the new year's eve festivities and create a conference committee and pass the president's signature health care legislation. but it didn't happen that way. and then the elimination opponent on the democratic side began in sequential form such that by march 23 of last year, enough democrats had changed their votes and would support the senate-passed house bill and the question, will the house now agree to the senate amendment on 3590, the answer affirmatively.
was that the end of the story? no. this was ostensibly litigated in the political arena last fall. what was the judgment of the american people after the litigation in the political arena? the answer was, we don't want it. we don't want any part of it. fix it. do something. so chairman rehberg is doing exactly that today. within the limits that he is constrained by in a continuing resolution. he is providing the vehicle, the floor by which the implementation of this very flawed process, this very flawed piece of this very flawed law can now be contained. it was important before, but three weeks ago it became critical. it became critical because of judge vincent's ruling. why is that? i encourage my colleagues to go to the ruling, it's available on the internet. it's not hard to read. it's about 75 pages. the judge's ruling, page 76 of 78 because the individual
mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void. pretty clear language. now, why is it necessary to approach the funding? because earlier in his opinion judge vincent observed that there is a long-standing presumption that officials of the executive branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. as a result, delayer torrey judgment -- declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction. that should be enough for members of the executive branch, but apparently that is not so because what we see today in our committee hearings, in the headlines in the newspapers, is that this administration is proceeding at light speed with implementation. the previous health care czar is now the deputy chief of staff in the white house. what does that tell you about their plans for implementation? in fact, the plans for implementation were going so fast that one of the chief
architects of this limitation was hired a month and a half before the bill was signed into law. that's testimony we heard in our committee in energy and commerce this past week. i sent a letter to secretary sebelius this week asking her to provide for us what direction she was going to take in light of the ruling. i'll submit that for the record. but i thank the gentleman for bringing this limiting amendment to the floor today. it is critically important that this congress act to limit the implementation of this very flawed health care law. let's get back to the work the american people asked us to do in the election. i yield back to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from the connecticut. ms. delauro: three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. miller. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. miller: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. miller: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. the author of this amendment said a few minutes ago that this was a very simple and straightforward amendment. and that's probably true for
members of congress. who have government paid health insurance, have policies that are looked after by people make sure we get benefits. but if you are a member of the american public this is not a simple straightforward amendment. if you are a member of the american public, this amendment changes your life for millions of americans. for millions of americans and for millions of their children. for millions of their parents. this amendment changes their life. this isn't straightforward. so many of our new republican colleagues have come to town and said, i'm just one of the folks back home. i'm not enamored with washington. i'm one of the folks back home. vote for this amendment and you won't be like the folks back home. vote for this amendment and you'll be very different than the folks back home because you'll have insurance and they won't. you'll have coverage and they won't. you won't have lifetime caps and they will. they will -- you won't lose your
insurance when you need it it for you, your children, your spouse, but your constituents will. you are not just like the folks back home. you are doing grave damage to the folks back home. you ought to think about this amendment before you vote for it. not only does it add $5 billion almost immediately to the deficit, it adds $1 trillion to the deficit over 20 years. takes us in the wrong direction. but this punishes people back home. talk to your constituents who now are the seniors who have that free physical checkup and have been given medicines and told about things that they are doing wrong with respect to their health and now can prevent additional doctors visits and hospital care because of that checkup that they now get that this amendment would take away. talk to the parents and you really ought to talk to the grandparents of the children who now have coverage that didn't have it before. there was concern about the coverage of their grandchildren
as they are about their medicare coverage, which you will change with respect to the cost of pharmaceuticals. no, this isn't sism and straightforward, and -- simple and straightforward, and this isn't just like the folks back home. the folks back home are struggling every day to pay their insurance premiums. pass this amendment, and once again the insurance companies can rip them off. once again they no longer have to dedicate 80% of your premiums to your health care. they can write themselves bonuses, the advertising, the salaries, and forget the health care. there won't be that kind of protection for people who struggle every month to achieve health care coverage. for the nine million people who are in the middle of getting rebates now because of the change in the law to make sure that health insurance companies provide you health insurance instead of a funding stream for the executive. no, this isn't simple and straightforward and you are not just like the folks back home once you vote for this
amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from montana. mr. rehberg: thank you, mr. chairman. at this time i'm pleased to grant two minutes to the new gentleman on the appropriations committee, a great addition, mr. graves, from georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. graves: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. rehberg. listening to what we just heard from our colleague across the aisle, he said, go back and talk to your doctors. talk to parents. talk to seniors. you are missing the point. it's time to listen. that's what we have been doing. we have been listening. and the american people in november said it's time not only to defund this but to repeal this measure. again the house has moved forward to do so. maybe you should quit talking to and start listening to. i'm here in support of this amendment because simply put it defunds obamacare bureaucrats. if this amendment is adopted, government bureaucrats cannot be
paid so much as to lift a finger, move a paper clip, send and email if it has anything to do with obamacare. the chair: does gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry? mr. graves: i would rather just finish my comments here. they have plenty of time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. graves: since today we are here to talk about save the taxpayer dollars -- >> i don't believe the gentleman needs to yield for a parliamentary inquiry. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? ms. wasserman schultz: for a parliamentary inquiry. for a parliamentary inquiry. the chair: the gentleman from georgia must yield before a parliamentary inquiry. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. graves: thank you, mr. chairman. we are here today talking about save the taxpayers' money. let's remember the cost of obamacare.
$2.6 trillion over the first 10 years once it's implemented. $560 billion in new taxes on american families and businesses. unconstitutional mandates, higher premiums, yes, lost coverage. the law is so damaging that the obama administration itself has granted at least 915 waivers for health plans and organizations. think about that. saving 2.5 million people from obamacare. let's save the rest of america here today and let's support the rehberg amendment and move on and zero out the payments to those obamacare bureaucrats. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? ms. wasserman schultz: mr. speaker, is it a violation of the house rules wherein members are not permitted to make the
disparaging reference to the president of the united states in two previous gentlemen's statements on the amendment, both of them referred to the affordable care act, which is the accurate title of the health care reform law, as obamacare. that is a disparaging reference to the president of the united states. it is meant as a disparaging reference to the president of the united states and clearly in violation of the house rules against that. the chair: the gentlelady has stated a hypothetical. the chairman will not rule on a hypothetical but will urge all members in this discussion to engage -- refrain from engaging in personalities or descriptions about personalities in general. the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds. to the prior gentleman i would just say, you didn't listen to the people of this country, you sold them a bill of goods. you told them you are going to create jobs, you were going to reduce the deficit, and turn the economy around. you have done none of this. you have been here six weeks,
eight weeks, and you have not done anything. with this amendment you will indeed by the c.b.o. numbers increase the deficit as soon as next year by over $2 billion. with that, let me yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. chairman. how many times are we going to hear about repealing the health care reform instead of having an initiative that actually creates jobs? i go out, the gentleman from georgia said, are you listening to your constituents? yes, i listen to my constituents. they tell us we should address job creation and the economy. and not constantly argue over and over again about repealing health care reform which we know is going absolutely nowhere. so when i listen, that's what i hear. jobs. the economy. not this constant repetition of repeal. i have a lot of respect for the gentleman from montana, i have to say, but he talks about completely stopping and
defunding implementation. the reason that the republicans are saying that and want to defund this is because this health care reform is already working. insurers now can't drop someone's coverage when they get sick. seniors are saving money on prescription drugs. young adults to 26 are getting back on their parents' insurance. and small businesses are receiving billions of dollars in tax credits to provide health care coverage. this is moving along. this is working. -- this is working. the defunding amendments will end all these benefits. putting health insurance companies back in charge of american's health care. the only person who benefits from defunding and repeal are the special interest health insurance companies that want to charge more and continue their discriminatory practices. the gentleman from montana talked about the cost. the fact of the matter is that if we pass these defunding amendments, in the guise of budget austerity, they are one
step towards repealing the largest deficit cutter passed in the last decade and that's the affordable care act. the health care reform helps tremendously in reducing the deficit. it will save $230 billion over the next 10 years and over $1 trillion in the 10 years after that. . if we defund health care reform will thereby no prohibition on discrimination against 100 million americans with pre-existing conditions, no prohibition on insurance companies canceling your coverage when you get sick, no prohibition on lifetime caps and annual limits, no required coverage for young adults on their parents' policies, no assistance to seniors struggling to afford the cost of drugs in the doughnut hole and no free annual checkups in medicare. no tax credits for families and small businesses to pay for health insurance. repeal and i stress is a boone for the insurance companies, but an enormous setback for american families. if we pass this amendment the insurance companies can raise
their rates without review or transparency, they can deny coverage to millions of americans with pre-existing conditions and they can cut off coverage when someone becomes sick. i urge all members to vote no on these defunding amendments. the health care reform is working. i go back home and people are pleased with it because already in many cases they're able to get insurance they weren't able to get before. this, and i'm tired of hearing this over and over again, concentrate on jobs and the economy, not this charade. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from montana. mr. rehberg: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rehberg: i respectfully do refer to it as obamacare. you would think that he would want his name attached to his signature legislation. but in four quick years this congress and this president has made what is a spending problem into a spending crisis. we wanted to create jobs, you wasted time on the health care reform that did not control the costs.
they call it the affordable health care. unfortunately all it did was add people, it didn't control the cost of health care. that's one of the reasons it needs to be repealed. we wanted to build an economy, they wanted to build government. so we called it what it is. it is obamacare, it's a travesty, it is big government, it is not controlling health care costs and it needs to be repealed and today we're going to try and defund it to the best of our ability and we're not -- if we're not successful this time we're going to try again and again and again until we either have a senate that's willing to pass it or a president that understands that we cannot do this to the american people. at this time i yield five minutes to my good friend from iowa, mr. king. the chair: the gentleman from iowa voiced for five minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i thank the chairman of the subcommittee of appropriations on h.h.s., congressman rehberg, for yielding. and want to declare my support for this amendment and i think he's happy if i refer to it as the rehberg amendment. i want to also thank danny rehberg for the work he's done
on this. america will never know, mr. chairman, how much work went into crafting this amendment, to get this fix that does a little bit to take us down the road and, boy, it is important to me to see $100 million cut out of the resources that would be used to implement obamacare. and, mr. chairman, i'm also very confident in declaring it to be obamacare. i listen to president obama address it as obamacare on february 25 of last year at the blair house during the health care summit. i thought that was the source of the moniker, obamacare, was the president himself. and if anyone, you know, thinks otherwise, i think they should look back and check the record. obamacare is this, it's not $1 trillion in deficit over 20 years if we don't go through with this atrocity, it's $2.6 trillion in spending in the first full decade according to the chairman of the budget committee, paul ryan. $2.6 trillion in spending, we're here in this c.r. to cut
spending. we know that we have to go into a national era of austerity because of the overspending that's taken place over the last four years in particular and the last two years in a hugely significant way. we're looking at a budget now that's proposed, a deficit proposed by the president of $1.65 trillion. and if you roll back to the full federal outlays in 1997, $1.6 trillion. the budget items in 2002, $1.6 trillion. we have that much deficit proposed by the president, we want to shut off $2.6 trillion worth of irresponsible spending, we want to preserve the liberty and the freedom of the american people and the best health care system in the world. that's why you see sheiks' plains landing in places like rochester, minnesota, to get health care they can't get in other places of the world. this country, we need to preserve the system we have and expand it.
the rehberg amendment helps slow down this implementation that is going on in an aggressive fashion by the obama administration. now, i happen to have in my hand, mr. chairman, this is an excerpt from a c.r.s. report that tells you how due police to us this bill read, once one picked it up and read it, the 2,500 pages. in here are multiple place, over 50 places, where obamacare actually not just authorizes but it also appropriates, not completely unprecedented, but it is the largest, most substantial effort to trigger automatic spending that goes on in perpetuity, mr. chairman. the number here is not $100 billion. the number on this c.r.s. report is $105.5 billion over the next 10 years. and in the bam of this fiscal year it's $4.95 billion that we're having trouble getting at. thanks to mr. rehberg, we're
getting at $100 million. i believe this amendment will pass today and it will go on this c.r. and become a significant leverage point over the united states senate. other components of this that need to be ripped out, now, oh, wait, i forgot to remind you again, h.r. 2, full repeal of obamacare, i was pleased to see language that i had worked on and drafted for all those months went over to the senate where every republican voted to repeal obamacare. here we had bipartisan support for the repeal of obamacare, three times the bipartisan support described by then speaker nancy pelosi and we sat here now with america that has 2/3 of them by the polling has rejected obamacare. in this bill, another piece that reads deceptively is this, the authority for the secretary of health and human services to do interdependental transfers and any amount greater than the 2008 budget bill. which means slush funds all through that department to aggressively implement
obamacare, the rehberg amendment shuts off some of that, probably not all of that, but it gets at it and it lays the point out and i hope that we can do better on some of the others into the future. we also need to understand that when america has rejected a piece of ledgeslation that so upsets all of our lives and takes away so much of our liberty and freedom, takes away our ability to buy heament insurance policy that is high deductible, high co-payment and low premium, that we have many more good solutions that will unfold here. this bill is unconstitutional in four places at least two, federal courts have ruled so. we know that it will eventually get to the supreme court and we can never say with certainty what the result will be but we though the certainty of the two federal courts, mr. chairman. and we must have the rehberg amendment so the american people are dealt with the respect and honor -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. king: h.r. 1 cuts the funding, h.r. 2 repeals. thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back the balance of my
time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: let me just reiterate again this amendment would not create jobs, it would not do anything to reduce the deficit. in fact, by the c.b.o. numbers it would increase net budget authority in the bill by $2 billion next year. a total of $5.5 billion over the next several years. it increases the deficit. let's keep hitting it on that point, mr. levin of michigan is recognized for two minutes. the chair: without objection, unanimous consent is granted and the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. levin: if this amendment would become part of the c.r. there will be no c.r. and that will be your responsibility. your responsibility. this is an effort to repeal by paralysis, paralyzing the provisions that have gone into effect, pre-existing conditions
for children being covered, children under 26 having the ability to get insurance. it would paralyze the efforts to begin imple meant -- implementing the 2014 benefits. instead of searching for common ground, this amendment intensifies warfare. instead of collaboration this amendment would mean chaos. the republicans have become a wrecking crew led by paul ryan and wrecking medicare. this amendment is a deeply dangerous prescription for americans' health. this prescription needs to be rejected. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from montana. mr. rehberg: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself one minute. does anybody honestly believe in america that by repealing
obamacare it's actually going to cost the government money? it just doesn't pass the smell test. yes, the way the c.b.o. is scoring it based upon the questions that they are asked show it is. but nobody hon, honestly nobody in this country believes that when you repeal a piece of legislation it's going to end up costing you money. at this time i'd like to yield five minutes to one of the few people that clearly gets the entire picture, a doctor, one of our members from the state of georgia, mr. price who, who understands that defensive medicine was entirely left out of this but of course we know why, it's one of the issues that is driving the cost of health care. five minutes to mr. price. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: i thank my friend and i appreciate him for his remarkable leadership on this. many of us tried to figure out how we could bring this issue to the floor under this bill and you have done that. our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about jobs. this won't create any jobs. well, i tell you, some jobs that
this will save if we pass this amendment and that's the physicians of this land. as a physician and if folks in this body talk to their doctors back home they will understand the remarkable challenges and the number of physicians who are throwing up their hands and saying, i can't handle the hassles anymore, i can't believe the intrusion of the federal government into my ability to take care of my patients in the way that i deem best. so what are they saying? they're saying, well, there isn't any way for me to uphold and live by the oath that i took. to do what was best for my patients. and therefore i'm left in a remarkable moral quandary and for many of them it is to say, i'm sorry, i'm no longer able to practice under this oppressive government. the deficit, that's right, we ought to be talking about the deficit. here's the track right here of
the folks who have been in charge for the last four years. in 2006 they came in, this is what the federal government was spending down here. a little over $2.6 trillion. the last year of their reign they're up in the $3.7 trillion, $3.8 trillion range. the deficit is about 1/3 of that. now coming up this year, $1.6 trillion. so, mr. chair, to have our friends on the other side of the aisle tell us about deficit is a bit curious. i'm reminded by my friend from texas, a fellow physician who gave a remarkable history of the law that we have in place now, the nonhealth care reform law that was enacted, and i'm reminded of the jubilation on the other side of the aisle when they passed this piece of legislation last march. and at the time i had some
serious conversations with friends on the other side because we weren't allowed to have this kind of robust debate, that wasn't allowed, it wasn't allowed in committee, it wasn't allowed on the floor of the house. the decisions had been made beforehand and the bill was shoved down the throat of the house of representatives and the american people. but i remember talking with them and i remember saying, it's puzzling to me why you're so enthusiastic and excited about this, there's no way that this law can go forward because it is clearly unconstitutional. indiana fact now we've seen a federal court in virginia and a federal court in florida agree. that the individual mandate, that the notion that the federal government can say to the american people by virtue of being a citizen, you must purchase this product and this is exactly what it must be, and that's what the law has done, and so i believe that before we will hold another election in this country, this law will be determined to be unconstitutional.
which really is a shame because we will have missed a great opportunity, my friend from michigan who talked about bipartisan corporation of which there was none over the last four years in this arena, but we have missed a great opportunity and hopefully will be able to enhance the opportunities that we have over the coming two years, to be able to work together in a bipartisan way, to address the challenges in health care. because the status quo as a physician and as a member of congress, the status quo is clearly unacceptable. but when you look at the principles of health care, accessibility, making certain that people have accessibility to health care, which they don't right now and which this law actually harms affordability, which is becoming more and more of a challenge to the american people and which this law actually harms, if you don't believe it, just ask the employees in businesses across employees in businesses across this land who are having to pay