stainless steel booths and under the watchful two nurses, they shoot them to their veins. welcome to the first superinjection site. it is in 10 blocks. the home is -- the area is home to thousands of crack addicts. for years it's been a world-class health disaster, not to mention a public relations disaster for a town that's beautiful for their mountains and beaches and is gearing up to host the 2010 winter olympics. nearly a third of the downtown inhabitants is estimated to be h.i.v. positive. twice that number have hepatitis c. dozens die of drug overdoses every year. this has been a problem that has been building and building, now spreading to the suburbs of british colombia. they have the first -- british columbia. they have the first gun violence there. it's the example of the failure of this program. we are in the process of

eliminating moral hazard there. if you fail in your bank we bail you out. if you fail in your business we bail you out. now the question is are we going to bail t narcotics? there is no accountability for your behavior. that everything is ok, we're just going to put you over in a zone. you know what the problem is with the zones in it's where the people that are homeless are. they have seen a soaring of their addiction rates because we put these needles in places. they are by the poorest people, the people most vulnerable to seeing drug addiction for the first time having free needles there. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. souder: has started the free heroin. they are into providing free cocaine. >> will the gentleman yield? souppedsoud no. i'm closing. that they are providing free narcotics but they say, well, the people won't go in. the lines are too long. that's the answer in vancouver. the lines are too long so we're doing it out in the streets anyway. as you get more and more packed in in the different areas you

have to put in additional sites. or unless you provide the narcotics in the safe area and then the government in fact the taxpayers are funding a habit. we need to use this on drug treatment. we don't have enough dollars in drug treatment. we're in fact cutting back what prevention programs we have. it's proposed to zeroed out and changed to safe schools. the drug czars have been taken down from a cabinet post to just another consultant. i don't know if he's really a czar anymore. that we've been cutting drug funds in this congress. the question is, is there going to be a moral hazard? america? are we going to create a bunch of people who we just write off and don't pay attention? walker percy wrote a great book where he talks about a drug addicted society that no longer has free will. are we going to have accountability in america or not and are we going to fund this type of project? the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: i yield myself three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. mr. obey: let me point out that the underlying language in this bill is a compromise. it lists the ban but does not permit federal funds to be used for needle exchanges that occur within 1,000 feet of schools, playgrounds, youth center, swimming areas or any event sponsored by such entity. there's overwhelming evidence that syringe exchange programs, when implemented as part of a comprehensive strategy, are an effective part of health intervention for reducing h.i.v. and hepatitis and do not promote drug use. let me be clear. i detest illegal drug use. i think it constitutes a national security threat. it ruins lives, it causes crime, it gets us into wars against drugs in colombia, and mexico, and it gets us into

another war in afghanistan because of poppy production. so i hate illegal drugs. but even more, i hate the spread of aids. and there's overwhelming evidence that we can help stop the spread of aids by allowing needle exchange programs. they are endorsed by leading public health organizations such as the institute of medicine, the world health organization, the american academy of pediatrics, the american medical association, the american nurses association, the american public health association. they're endorsed by people such as dr. anthony fouchi, the nation's leading worker against aid. they're endorsed by a former surgeon general, c. everett koop and david satcher who served under republican and democratic administrations.

and they are endorsed by people such as captain andrew smith from the los angeles police department, robert schwartz, deputy chief of place, atlantic city. let me make one other point. every member of congress has access to decent primary health care. but we are going to put at risk a substantial number of people if we do not support this underlying committee amendment. i want to say something personal. if we lose this amendment, it is not going to be because a lot of people on this house floor really believe that this ban makes sense. it will be because many members are concerned and fear a cheap shot political 30-second ad that distorts their position, spreads half-truths, and scares

people. i understand that concern. but the goal -- but for the good of the country, we are being paid -- i yield myself one additional minute. for the good of the country, we are being paid to ignore that kind of pressure and simply do the right thing for the country. i ask every member of the house to do the right thing because if you do, it will save lives. i ask them to vote no on the amendment. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? the gentleman from indiana has yielded back. the gentleman from wisconsin yields back the balance of his time. the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. souder: on that, i'd like a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana will be postponed. it is now in order to consider

amendment number three, printed in house report 111-222. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. issa: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: the chair: clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number three in house report 111-222 offered by the gentleman from california, mr. issa. the speaker pro tempore: the -- the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. issa: my amendment does not reduce by one penny m.i. -- n.i.h. funding at all. it simply prohibit what is is clearly becoming an endless stream of repeating and repeating and repeating studies of h.i.v. at ever greater costs. it deals with the $325,000 to research they sex workers who also -- thai sex workers who also use drugs. we've already gone into extensive legislation to deal

with that criminal activity on a worldwide basis. it also deals with prostitutes in china and alcohol and drug users in russia. we're simply looking at just $5 million, $5 million over three grants. i think when we look at this $5 million, we have to consider this. a flight to bangkok is $9,000. a ride on bart, across town is $3.10. on the government rate for less than $200, people who want to study the growth of h.i.v. can come here to washington, d.c. where we have a 25% rate. mr. chairman, we have studied this. as a matter of fact, mr. chairman, we have studied h.i.v. from dangerous behavior, particularly drug and alcohol over 200 times. we've studied h.i.v. at national institutes for health over 1,400 times. we've studied just about everything one could imagine.

but just so we not miss one, how about h.i.v. prevention with young men who have sex with men, why young men themselves says is needed. this was the medical college of wisconsin. we have studied it all. we have studied it for decades. this money needs to be spent on more than just study. it has to be spent on prevention and cure. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. who seeks time. mr. obey: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, though i'm not opposed to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. obey: let me say i'm perfectly happy to accept the amendment. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. obey: i reserve the time unless the gentleman is

repaired to close. mr. issa: i have one speaker. the chair: the gentleman from california has the right to to the to close. mr. issa: i yield 45 seconds to the gentlelady, ms. jenkins. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for 45 seconds ms. jenkins: i have a provision in the republican motion to recommit that will be discussed late they are afternoon that i would like to bring to the body's attention. the need to bring more choice, affordability and access to health care to americans is something we all agree on. two towns in my district are facing the possibility of losing their hospitals because growth in a town 45 miles per hour is jeopardizing their critical access funding at a time when rural communities are faced with major challenge, any loss of health care access would be devastating. my provision will protect the critical access hospital designation and i ask the body for their support for the motion to recommit.

the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. the gentleman reserved his time. the gentleman from wisconsin reserved his time previously. mr. obey: i'm happy to yield the time back. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. issa: never let it be said that republicans can't take yes for an answer. i wish we had more amendments allowing us to refine the bill. with that, i thank the gentleman for agreeing to the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the jell que is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number four printed in house report 111-22. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. pence: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number four, printed in house report 111-222 offered by mr. pence of

indiana. the chair: the gentleman from indiana, mr. pence, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana. mr. pence: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pence: thank you, mr. speaker. i believe in all my heart that ending an innocent human life is morally wrong but i also believe it's morally wrong to use the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life americans to fund abortions is also wrong. this says that tax payer money would not be able to planned parenthood for any purpose under title 10 of the public health services act. this act does important work around the country. while i understand that laws prevent them from flowing directly to abortion, the

largest recipient of funds is for planned parenthood. they are able to offset he sources and free up resources to engage in the abortion trade which they boast last year of over 300,000ry aabortions performed. planned parenthood, the largest provider of abortion in america, should not be the largest recipient of funding under 150eu9le 10. the time has come to deny all federal funding to planned parenthood of america and the pence amendment would do that. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? mr. obey: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. obey: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana. mr. pence: with that, i would like to yield one minute to the gentlelady from ohio. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute.

mrs. schmidt: i rise in strong support of the pence amendment. recent polls indicate a majority of americans are opposed to paying for abortions through their tax dollars. this amendment offered by mr. pence simply brings the federal family planning funds in line with the sentiment of the majority of our americans. from 2007 to 2008, planned parenthood, our nation's largest abortion provider, received almost $350 million of our american taxpayer dollars. the fiction that we try to create when we say that these funds are not indirectly going for abortion is disingenuous at best. i urge my colleagues to support the pence amendment today and deny title 10 funds for planned parenthood. i yield back to to mr. pence the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: i reserve.

the chair: the gentleman from indiana. mr. pence: could i inquire as to whether the distinguished chairman of the appropriations committee has any speakers on this amendment? mr. obey: just one, me. mr. pence: with that, i would like to clarify with my good friend from wisconsin that the author of the amendment would like to reserve the right to close. mr. obey: i have the right to close. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin has the right to close. mr. pence: understood, mr. chairman. with that, i'd like to recognize the distinguished member for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for one minute. mr. cao: i ask for permission to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. cao: i rise in strong support of the pence amendment because i am very concerned by the prospect of taxpayer dollars of hardworking families going to fund an institution like planned parenthood. we need to look no further than to the comments of planned parenthood founder margaret

sanger to see how controversial this organization is. she said, and i quote, we want fewer and better children, and we cannot make the social i've and the world peace we are determined to make with ill-bred, ill-trained swarms of inferior citizen this is a you inflict on us. yesterday, while we debated on this amendment in the rules committee, my friend and colleague, pete sessions, shared a heart felt story that deeply touched and inspired me. as many of us know, pete's son has downsyndrome. he and his wife could have chosen the easy way life by choosing to terminate the life of their son while he was in the womb. they chose to give his son life and through this life have instilled and inspired hope in the lives of others. the same profiling is reflected in my mother who single handedly raised eight children in the midst of war and poverty.

with that, i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment and with that -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from indiana has two minutes and the gentleman from wisconsin has five minutes and has the right to close. mr. pence: it is my pleasure to yield to the republican whip, mr. cantor, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman from indiana. thomas jefferson warned that to compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. mr. chairman, i rise in support of this amendment as the underlying legislation embodies the very action jefferson cautioned against. about seven out of 10 americans oppose public funding of abortion, yet this bill defies their moral concerns by funding groups like planned parenthood. the single largest abortion provider in america, planned parenthood performs over 300,000 abortions per year

while receiving $350 million in taxpayer dollars annually. the gentleman from indiana's amendment does not reduce overall funds for family planning services. it merely ensures that no taxpayer dollars are used to fund enits that conducts abortion. it's a reasonable approach, mr. chairman, and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. pence: thank you, mr. chairman. with that i close, i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pence: the pence amendment states that none of the funds available under this act are available for planned parenthood for any purpose under title 10. that's all it does. the pence amendment does not cut one penny from title 10. it merely prohibits those funds from flowing to the largest abortion provider in america. the pence amendment is endorsed by national right to life committee and a score of other organizations representing

traditional values. we cannot reduce the number of abortions in america while increasing federal funding to the nation's leading abortion provider. the largest abortion provider in america should not also be the largest recipient of federal funding under title 10. the time has come to deny all federal funding to planned parenthood. i urge my colleagues in both parties to join us in supporting this sensible amendment. let's choose life, let's defend the defenseless, let us defend taxpayers. i urge adoption of the pence amendment. the chair: the gentleman yield back? mr. pence: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. obey: title 10 is america's family planning program. it provides comprehensive family planning services and a wide variety of other preventative care, including breast examines and instruction

on breast self-examination, pap tests, screening and appropriate treatment for sexually transmitted infections, h.i.v. screening, etc., etc., etc. this amendment gratuitously blocks planned parenthood clinics from receiving title 10 funding. those clinics provide important health care access to low-income, uninsured patients, five million women in 4,500 clinics nationwide. the breast cancer screenings and the well mother exams they receive may be the only health care they get all year. if planned parenthood clinics are forced to close, these women may have to forgo critical care. this amendment would only make matters worse. now, if this amendment is intended to stop abortions, it has no impact whatsoever. title 10 statute forbids the

use for funding abortions, and this bill appropriates no funds whatsoever for abortions. our bill includes the traditional hyde language, prohibiting funds in the act for being used to support abortions. and it reads in part, projects under such title shall not be exspended for abortions. -- expended for abortions. all pregnancy counseling should be nondirective and shall amounts shall not be expended for any activity, including publication or distribution of literature which tends to promote public support or any opposition to any legislative proposal or candidates for public office. and i repeat again, no funds flow for abortions. none whatsoever. planned parenthood plays a central role in expanding cess to care under title 10. planned parenthood is the nation's leading reproductive health care provider for over

-- care provider. for over 90 years they've helped women with the vital reproductive health care care they need. i want to make one other point. every member of congress has access to decent primary care. the pence amendment would cut millions of american women off from their source of primary care. if members want to do that, go ahead and vote that way. not me, not me, and not any member of the house i believe who understands the true needs of american women. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. obey: i urge opposition to the amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from indiana. mr. pence: mr. chairman, i ask the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 -- does the

gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. pence: yes. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 111-222. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. wittman: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 111-222 offered by mr. wittman of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 673, the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wittman: mr. chairman, my amendment is simple. it would cut spending in the bill across the board by .5%. while this appropriations bill funds critical national priorities, such as research at the national institutes of health, pandemic flu preparedness and job training programs, the underlying bill provides $730.5 billion, making

it the largest of 12 appropriations bills. the total is $59.4 billion, that is 9% more than the regular f.y. 2009 appropriations, and $1.9 billion more than the requested by the president. it also includes $163.4 billion in discretionary spending, which is $11.15 billion or 7% over last year's level. i do not question the value of many of the programs funded by this bill. this bill funds programs that are critical to my district, like impact aid, community health centers, the trio program, nurse training and technical education, but i offer this amendment because our nation cannot continue on this path of deficit spending without serious negative long-term consequences. among the various appropriations bills, this bill is typically the largest single source of discretionary funds for domestic federal programs. it represents a 12.8% increase in spending over the level we

were operating in fiscal year 2008, less than one year ago. and while i travel around my district and talk to constituents, their greatest concern is spending. s hard to explain to a family that's had to make tough choices about their own spending that washington can't make the same tough choices. mr. chairman, i yield. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? mr. obey: to claim time in opposition. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: mr. chair, i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin continues to reserve his time. the gentleman from wisconsin is reserving his right to close.

the gentleman from virginia has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. chairman. i would yield a minute to the gentleman from kansas. the chair: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for one minute. teertteert i thank the gentleman from virginia -- mr. tiahrt: i thank the gentleman from virginia. mr. chairman, this is a pretty straightforward amendment. but i want to put it in perspective. this bill is a 7% increase over last year's funding. the gentleman from virginia is merely asking for a half of a percent redeficit reduction -- reduction in something that's increased by 7%. when you include what was in -- what was allocated in the stimulus bill for these very same agencies, it's a 93% increase. so when you look at it in total , we're merely scratching the surface by having some common sense brought into the amount of money being spent. now, this doesn't eliminate any programs.

this doesn't put anybody in a hardship. this simply says that rather than have a 93% in total increase for this funding that we're going to reduce it by a total of $11.15 billion. now, this is $11.15 billion that we will not have to borrow, that our children will not have to pay back. this is money that we will not be obligated to return to the people in china. so this is a commonsense amendment, and i urge it's adoption. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank the gentleman from kansas. mr. chairman, i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. chairman. for the past couple of months we've been passing spending bills with double digit increases year over year, and these are unacceptable increases in spending. already, there have been mentioned of tax increases that will be necessary to maintain this level of spending.

imagine that for a moment, tax increases in the name of fiscal responsibility. the administration projects that the budget deficit will reach $1.8 trillion in 2009 compared to $455 billion in 2008. this represents a 3.2% of our gross domestic product, up from $161 billion or 1.2% of g.d.p. in f.y. 2007. as a share of g.d.p., this will be the largest deficit since world war ii. for f.y. 2009, we have a $2 trillion deficit. between f.y. 2010 and f.y. 2019, the congressional budget office estimates cumulative deficits could reach as high as $10 trillion. a few other signs we have in dangerous territory when it comes to the nation's economic security are, this congress raised the statutory debt limit from $11.315 trillion to $12.104 trillion in the recovery and reinvestment act earlier this year, and together china and japan holds almost

41% of our foreign-held debt, which is 27.8% of the gross federal debt. the question then becomes, how and when do we slow the growth? when do we make the tough decisions on spending? this amendment is an opportunity to show that this congress wants to make responsible decisions on spending and to achieve fiscal discipline. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is reserving his right to close. the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: mr. chairman, i recognize mr. broun for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. broun: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i'm pleased to see that finally after 10 appropriations bills under closed rules the democratic majority has finally seen fit to allow this sensible cost reduction amendment. the underlying bill increases the funding for the departments of labor, health and human services and education by 25%.

mr. speaker, isn't a 24.5% increase over last year enough? is the department of labor really going to feel the effects of this modest amendment? we're only talking about reducing their increase by half a penny for every dollar that the agency spends. the american people are feeling the squeeze of this economy, and to date, congress has done nothing to ease their burdens or address their frustrations. this modest reduction, mr. speaker, however small, is an important step. so i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia has 20 seconds remaining. >> this is a good amendment and puts us back on the path to fiscal discipline and i urge my colleagues to support it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. obey: i yield to the gentlewoman from texas for a unanimous consent request. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized.

ms. jackson lee: because this bill does have the right priorities for hsbo, i ask unanimous consent i may put my statement in the record supporting this legislation and the priorities of the committee. i yield back. the chair: without objection. mr. obey: mr. chairman, i rise in strong support of -- i mean in strong opposition to this amendment. which would cut $803 million out of important investments in this bill. let me point out a few facts. first of all, as i said earlier, the appropriations committee allocation has already cut a total of $10 billion from the president's discretionary spending request. this bill cuts $52 million from that same request. this bill, on a comparable basis, is 3.6% above the 2009 level. that is hardly runaway spending. furthermore, when you look at

program lines, you'll see that this bill makes hard choices to terminate programs that are not working, with $1.3 billion in cuts to individual programs below the 2009 level. the bill terminates or cuts 44 programs. the largest single program increase is for the -- is for the social security administration. effectively, 1/4 of the bill's entire increase for 2009 with dramatically rising retirement and disability claims facing the agency, nobody would argue the funds are wasteful. after accounting for the s.s.a. increase, this bill is 1.7% above for the rest of the bill, meaning in real dollar terms, after inflation, it is an increase of .3%. that is hardly being spendthrift. 23 this amendment is adopted, i would point out two problems. first of all, it makes no real spending decisions. it leaves all of that in the hands of the president of the

united states. it allows the president to determine the funding level for every single account in this bill. i don't think this congress should be a rub stamp for any president. then i think we ought to look at what the implications are for programs in this bill. applied to the national institutes of health, this cut would wipe out more than 900 new research grants and eliminate inflation adjustments for 36,000 new and existing research grants, undermining efforts to treat cancer, parkinsons, diabetes, and other deadly diseases. applied to community health centers, nearly 1.3 million people could see their health care services redeuced or eliminated. applied to special education, idea funding would be cut 7% below the twibe level. applied to pell grant, 7.6 million students could see the grants reduced and the maximum

pell award cut by approximately $135. apply to liheap, it would reduce the number of households served by over 900,000. applied to senior nutrition, it would eliminate nearly 240 million meals to 2.5 million vulnerable americans. aflide head start, over 50,000 low income children would apried to comprehensive -- would be denied service. applied to the block grant, over 17,000 families would be eliminated, aflide job corps, it would apply a 50% cut to job corps centers. i don't think anybody on this side of the aisle needs to hear a lecture about deficits. i have opposed the bush policies both economic and war policies, which led to the unraveling of the budget, which led to a huge mount of debt and

which led to the collapse of the economy. i don't think we need more of that kind of medicine. i urge a no vote on this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. wittman: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will resume on those amendments printed in house report 111-222 on which further proceed wrgs postponed in the following order, amendment number one by mr. obey of wisconsin, amendment number two by mr. souther of in indiana, amendment number four, by mr. souder of indiana, amendment number five, by mr. wittman of virginia. the time will be reduced to two minutes for any vote after the

first vote in the series. the unfinished business is the vote on the amendment number one offered by mr. obey of wisconsin. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number one baferede mr. obey of wisconsin. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. suppose in -- those in support of a request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] ös1s4s4s4s4s4s4s4s4s4s4s4s4s4s41

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 284 and the nays are 187. unfinished business is request for recorded vote on amendment

number 2 offered by the gentleman from indiana, mr. souder, on which further proceedings were postponed and nos prevailed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 111-222 offered by mr.ouder of indiana. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor of a request for a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 211 and the nos are 218. the amendment is not adopt d. request on amendment number 4 offered by the gentleman from indiana, mr. pence, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the nos prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 pripted in house report 111-222

offered by mr. pence of indiana. the speaker pro tempore: a the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. a sufficient number having arisen, members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 184, the nays are 247. amendment is not adopted. request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 offered by the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman, on which further proceedings were postponed and the nos present veiled. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 111-222 offered by mr. wittman of

virginia. the speaker pro tempore: those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the the chair: on this vote the yeas are 199, the nays is 299, the amendment is not adopted. the clerk will read. the clerk: departments of labor, health and human services and education and related agencies appropriations act of 2010. the chair: under the rule, the committee rises. mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 3293 and pursuant to house resolution 673 i report the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has reported that the committee has had under consideration h.r.

3293 and pursuant to house resolution 673 reports the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. pursuant to house resolution 673, the question on adoption of the amendments will be put en gros. the question is on adoption of the amendments. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the speaker pro tempore: -- the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the departments of labor, health and human services and education and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september30, 2010, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the house will be in order. please take your conversations off the floor so we can complete this bill. please clear the aisles. please take seats. it's friday afternoon at 2:20.

please take your conversations off the floor. the house will come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? mr. tiahrt: mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. tiahrt: i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clirk will report the bill. the clerk: mr. tiahrt of kansas reports the bill back to the bill on appropriations as amended as follows. at the appropriate place in the bill -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? mr. obey: mr. speaker, i make a point of order of the motion to recommit with instructions because it includes legislation that is not in order under clause 2 of rule 21. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will complete the reading. the house will come to order. please take your conversations off the floor. please take your conversations off the floor. please clear the aisles if

you're having conversation. the clerk will read. the clerk: at the appropriate place in the bill, execute amendments numbered 1 through 22 printed in the congressional record of july 23, 2009. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? mr. obey: to make a point of order against the motion of the recommit with instructions because it includes legislation and is not in order under clause 2 of rule 21 and ask for a ruling from the chair. the speaker pro tempore: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? mr. tiahrt: mr. speaker, i would just like to say that the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kansas. mr. tiahrt: mr. speaker, this takes the amendments that were not made in order by the rule en masse. it's very simple to what the manager did by inaggregate in considering amendments, and i ask that the chair will allow this vote up or down on the amendments that were not made in order. the speaker pro tempore: as

argued by the gentleman from wisconsin, the amendment proposed in the motion to recommit violates clause 2 of rule 21 and a number of -- in a number of respects. the point of order is sustained. the motion is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? mr. tiahrt: mr. chairman, i have a motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman still opposed to the bill? mr. tiahrt: i do. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the speaker pro tempore: mr. tiahrt move to recommit the bill to the committee on appropriations with instructions to report the same back to the house forth with with the following amendments. page 2, line 19, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $195 million. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. the clerk will suspend. the house will come to order. mr. tiahrt: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to waive the reading of the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, the gentleman from kansas is recognized for five minutes. mr. tiahrt: i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, i offer this motion with the gentleman from

minnesota, mr. kline. he's the ranking reason on the education and labor committee. the motion is simple. it adds $1 billion for special education with offsets from an equal amount on other agencies. americans are compassionate people. we want every american to climb the ladder of success even if we have to provide the less fortunate with an escalator. almost 35 years ago when the individuals with disabilities and education act, or idea, as we refer to it, when it was enacted the federal government mandated that our schools educate all children, even those with severe mental and physical disabilities. during the floor debate, it was clear the federal government was committed to pay 40% of the cost needed to educate a special needs child. today, however, we are falling short of that promise. now, our good intentions have turned into bad consequences.

the federal government's mandate has undermined the public school system's ability to adequately meet the needs of the special children. this is not acceptable for either the children who needs special education or those without disabilities who watch their education programs cut in order to fund idea. educating every child is the right thing to do, and i'm proud we are doing that today. yet, idea has placed an extreme financial burden on our schools forcing school districts to rob peter to pay paul. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will come to order. the house will come to order so we might hear the last few minutes of this debate. the gentleman from kansas. mr. tiahrt: i thank the speaker. but we can fix this problem. this shortfall. by fully funding idea we can put an end to this practice helping all children reach their full potential. i'd like to now yield to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. kline.

mr. faleomavaega: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: mr. speaker, this amendment should have been made in order during this debate. it is germane. it's all about priorities in education funding. as mr. tiahrt said, this a motion to reconsider is laid on the table would increase -- this motion to recommit would increase funding by $1 billion. we have for over 35 years fallen short of our commitment, the government's commitment to fund special education and provide relief to every school in america. this bill would provide relief to every school in your districts. even with the one-time spike in idea funding provided by the stimulus bill, we fall short of reaching the 40% threshold that mr. tiahrt discussed. what we are -- what this motion to recommit would do would increase that percentage of funding from the 17% where it sits to 18.3% in the base. my colleagues, we need to get that base up and let our

superintendents, our principals, our teachers, our families know that that money is going to be there for the long term. we take money from some other programs, absolutely. i am arguing that those programs, some of them brand new, some of them with hundreds of millions of dollars, may be important but not as important as this. this is the debate that we should have had this morning. it's the debate we are having now. i am asking my colleagues to help us start to meet up -- meet our obligation, let's help our children with special needs. i yield back. mr. tiahrt: mr. speaker, i'd just like to conclude by saying we only take money from new programs or we continue programs that exist at a lower level than we have today to replace it with the higher priority program, idea, which meets the needs of our special needs students and also this will help preserve the ability to educate those who are not physically and mentally challenged in a better fashion. so i would urge its adoption.

i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman from wisconsin oppose to the motion? mr. obey: i certainly am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. obey: mr. speaker, this is what i would call the original holy picture amendment. sometimes we see legislators who think that the way to do business is to cut everybody else's priorities in order to fund theirs. that's not the way 435 people can come to a constructive conclusion. the fact is that this is a recover your tail amendment left over from the stimulus bill of a few months ago. just a few months ago we had a stimulus bill on the house floor which increased special education by $12 billion.

in the 12 years the republicans were in control of this house, they increased special education by a total of $8.5 billion. we increased it by $12 billion in one year and not a single member on that side of the aisle voted for it. . and now they're trying to recover politically by cutting a laundry list of other programs in order to pretend that they found a responsible way to free up money to fund special education. i want to point out that this amendment would cut $100 million from school improvement account that could endanger 100,000 kids who right now have after-school learning programs. it cuts $148 million from the innovation and improvement account, reach out and read, teach for america, full service

community schools, reading is fundamental. it eliminates $88 million in mall smaller learning communities. a lot of high schools need to be downsized and this cripples the program that would provide 500,000 -- prevent 500,000 high school students from benefiting from that program. it cuts $170 from the -- 170 million from amere corps and put at risk the effort to bolster the participation of disabled americans in community service. it would cut the foster grandparents and senior companion programs as well. it would eliminate $300 million for the global funds to fight aids, tuberculosis and malaria. if the vir rust has taught us anything, we have to attack

these diseases on a worldwide basis. i think the amendment speaks for itself. i don't think we want to flay food basket upset so somebody can get better on a roll call. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the nos have it and the motion is not adopted. mr. tiahrt: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those in favor of a recorded bill, a bill that

protects what works in the system and fixes with broken. i think we are on the way. this is not a major setback. i wish we could move faster. and the people who have cautioned us to slow down are the same people that have killed health care for the last 40 years. they say slowdown, slowdown and if we wait until next year, it is that much harder because the interest groups way in more and more and there's a lot of money spent on lobbying after reinsurance and pharmaceuticals, higher than ever before. host: you have been around this town for a long time. will the amount efforts for what your side of the aisle is hoping for, some major changes? guest: there were going to mount those efforts in august anyway. originally, they would try to pass it in july or early august and comeback in in september or october for both conferences to need and leaders in both houses meet and come up with a final plan.

it always happens. the drug companies, the insurance companies, medical interests are much too pot -- powerful in this town. is going to the grass-roots activists, including people who were part of the obama campaign and a year ago who will be talking to their members of congress over august and september, too, and pushing us for a strong public auction, which senator white house and i wrote into the version of the bill a month ago. and other parts could put cost controls on this bill and alof that and i think we are on the way. host: part of the story is from the so-called blue dog democrats you serve with in the house of representatives. how much influence do they have on the house version, especially on the energy and commerce committee? guest: is still a lot of unresolved questions -- there are still a lot of unresolved questions and how we pay for it, do they want to write the public auction? what do they do for employers

who are not insuring their employees now? they might dump their employees on to the public auctiooption be republican party is a very narrowç ideological party, that is where they have such a small minority. the democrats are much broader. urban democrats and the northeast and california to more conservative southern democrats. if you look at the house republicans, more than 40% of them are from the old confederacy and border states. they're a much narrower party and they're always going to be disagreements with the democratic party. that is healthy and that is why we win elections. it is difficult to govern, but nobody in the end -- i do not think anybody in congress who is a democrat wants to stand in the way of the most important domestic issue we have ever

done in our careers. this is probably the most important vote i ever made was against the iraq war seven or eight years ago, but this is the second important vote i will likely ever cast, health care, because it is the most important thing we have tried to do since franklin roosevelt, really. host: put your own headline on this story? guest: my wife could do that. host: ok, a "billone deadline, blown chance" what is the story out of all of that? guest: very animated discussions within the caucus and in the senate -- in the senate, and i'm sure there are the same discussions in the house. there's a much money at stake accurate there is so much history at stake, if you will. i think democrats all sense that.

a better headline might be "deadline looms," because thinking of october to get to the president's desk will focus our minds. just like in school, ok, this test is tomorrow night and we have got to be ready. it is not a question of slowing down. we have been working on this, you could say, starting with roosevelt, certainly, with truman. johnson was finally successful. president clinton was not successful in the early 1990's, but it is something that we know well and have worked on and we have enough information. there is no reason to slow it down other than coming to agreement. i think we could have a bill to the president's desk in october or early november. host: former congressman, current senator sheriff brown. we will get to your phone calls in just a moment -- senator sherrod brown. we will get your phone calls in

just a moment. here is how a patient's rights are playing on the health care issue. >> some of congress's health care plans could squeeze you four ways. it could raise taxes by $600 billion, even taxing soda. it could have a trillion -- $1 trillion to the federal deficit. new rules could hike short interest premiums 95%. you still might end up on their government run health plan. tell congress you have been squeezed enough. say no to a government-run health plan. host: how would you respond to that? there is guest: nothing much to that. -- guest: there is nothing much to that. what is always left out of this equation is what happens if we do nothing? what happens if we do nothing is small business continues to get overwhelmed by these costs. individuals lose their health insurance.

14,000 americans every day are losing their health insurance. 14,000 every single day, and conservative interest groups, funded usually by the drug companies and insurance companies and medical interest groups run ads like that, protecting their interests, protecting their profits. we end up continuing to spiral down in this health insurance ins -- health insurance system. taxpayers are spending twice as much as any of the country in the world per capita, get our life expectancy is not as good. our infant mortality and maternal mortality rates are higher than other rich industrial countries. the system is evidenced by the president's trip back to cleveland. he could have seen that same kind of really good care. it is going to get worse if we

do not do something and this really does give people a choice. nobody is going to be forced into a government-run plan. they would rather have increasing and -- increasing insurance at mastrodicasa @ 20% this vote the yeas are 131, the nays is 248. the motion is not agreed to. the question is on passage of the bill. the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the

without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> mr. speaker, by the direction on appropriations, i present a privileged report for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany h.r. 3326, a bill making

appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the union calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to the rule, all points of order are reserved. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. watt: mr. speaker, by the committee on financial services, i submit a privileged report for printing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 591, resolution requesting that the president transmit to the house of representatives all information in his possession relating to certain specific communications with and financial assistance provided to general motors corporation and chrysler, l.l.c. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to remove as co-sponsors from h.r. 2469 the following representatives, mr. latta of ohio, mr. broun of georgia, ms. foxx, north carolina, dr. gingrey of georgia, mr. shadegg of arizona, ms. fallin of oklahoma, mr. king of iowa, ms. smith of ohio, mr. pence of indiana, mr. conaway of texas, mr. kingston of georgia, mr. fleming of louisiana, mr. pence of pennsylvania. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i ask to address the house for one minute for the purpose of

inquiring about next week's schedule. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. cantor: i thank the speaker and i yield to the gentleman from maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman from virginia, the rep whip for yielding. on monday the house will meet at 12:30 for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. on tuesday the house will meet at 10:30 for morning hour and 12:00 for legislative. on wednesday and thursday the house will meet at 10:00. and on friday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. we will consider several bills under suspension. the complete list of suspension bills will be announced at the close of business today. in addition we'll consider the 2010 department of defense appropriation act. also h.r. 2269, the corporate financial -- compensation fairness act of 2009 and the food safety enhancement act of 2009. i yield back.

mr. cantor: i thank you, mr. speaker. i did not hear the gentleman speak of the prospects of the house considering the health care bill, an i would ask the gentleman the status of that discussion and whether this house will be delivering on the speaker's commitment that this house was going to vote on her health care bill, and i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the status of the health bill as i think the gentleman knows is it's still in the energy and commerce committee. the energy and commerce committee has not reported out that bill. i don't know the speaker's commitment, but certainly the speaker and i both had the hope that we would be able to pass the health care bill by the time we left here on the 31st of july. my view is that this point in time that may not be possible. however, that does not mean

necessarily that we won't be here perhaps longer. i hope that's not the case, but if it proves to be necessary, we may be here a either longer, either on a saturday or the third or the fourth. i don't want anybody to be planning on that at this point in time, but currently the status of the bill is it's still in the energy and commerce committee. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i'd ask the gentleman again for some clarification. did i just hear the gentleman say that we will not be considering the health care bill this week? and i yield. mr. hoyer: i didn't say it in so many words, but i have indicated and the speaker's indicated that we will do 48 hours' notice, as required, or at least we would hope to do. this is a very important bill. it is a bill that has great consequence to all americans. and we -- we're going to meet that -- those targets of

notice. so in that context in light of the fact the bill is still in the committee, it may be impossible to meet that commitment and get the bill on the floor on the 31st. as a result, my view is the probability of doing that bill by the 31st is very small. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. so to reiterate, i will say that i heard the gentleman say the probability of doing taking up the health care bill by the 31st is very small, and i suspect that is due to what we have read in the news reports for successive days now about the difficulty that your side is having in gaining a majority in support of the bill. and we have said all along, mr. speaker, there is a reason that there's a bipartisan majority against the health care bill being proposed by the speaker. .

people are unsure about the direction a government health care program would take them. we stand ready and willing to work together to try and effect reform for the american people. we on the republican side of the aisle do not accept the status quo. we want to see a health care reform bill that works for the american people, mapets choice and quality, reduces costs so more folks can have access to coverage. and that's not the bill before us, at least that which is being reported. and so i would ask the gentleman if there is a very little probability that this bill would come up prior to the 31 and given that he and i have had discussion about the schedule, how long will we be in session beyond the 31? and i yield to the gentleman. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding and we think the

bill that is pending, we're not sure that your premise correct. we think your premise not correct. we think the majority people on this floor want to vote for a health care reform bill and they will vote on the bill as it becomes more perfected. i don't accept your premise that there aren't majority of votes for the bill that is being considered in this house. having said that, however, my point was that we want to give appropriate notice. if we can't give appropriate notice by the 31 of july, it is possible -- i'm not saying we will be doing this -- but it is possible that we would move onto it they are saturday the 1 or monday and tuesday the 3 and 4 if need be. and if that was appropriate. it may or may not be. i don't want to say at this point in time, but i do want to

give members some notice that that is a possibility. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. and obviously, if the process had worked differently, if i would suggest to the gentleman if we were allowed to try and put forward the kind of proposals that we are attempting to do and there was reception on your side to allow for some of the quote free market principles and cost control suggestions that have been made, according to a member on your side, mr. minnick, a few days ago, maybe we would be on a better course. in the same way, i think -- a colleague from the gentleman's state, mr. kratovil said, the bill isn't out of the committees and we are already talking about voting on this. we feel the same way, that there has been very will willingness to work together to try and get

a health care plan right. and mr. speaker, the way that i believe we get it right is to tell the people of this country exactly what would be in store for them by the insistence that there be a government plan involved in their health care. so i would tell the gentleman, we obviously stand ready to work with him and the speaker to perfect a plan that could get much larger than just probably the small majority that he'll be able to produce, given the news reports that we're hearing. and with that, mr. speaker, i would like to ask the gentleman about his anticipation of next week's appropriations bill, the d.o.d. bill. and he and i, as the gentleman knows, have had a long-standing discussion on the rules. we on this side of the aisle have been extremely upset, as he

knows, about the change in precedence of this house, that somehow it was ok for this house to leave the precedence of rules and to insist that we not be able to hold open discussions on issues surrounding the constitutional obligation of this body to spend taxpayer funds. so i would ask even after the good faith attempt that we have made to open up rules and have been rebuffed at each turn, is it his hope, his intention that perhaps on the d.o.d. bill, whether we could see that happen. and i yield. mr. hoyer: certainly going to have good faith on our side as you have had all along. on the defense appropriation bill, it's my understanding there are well over 100 amendments that have been filed. clearly if we did that under an open rule and allowed all 100

amendments, which ks by the way are by one member, we would never finish the bill if we stayed through august. having said that, i have talked to the chair woman and it's my belief that mr. flake has filed over 100 amendments, will be given a.m.le opportunity to choose which amendments he wants to offer. i don't know the other amendments. notice has been filed. i don't know the other amendments and don't know what the rules committee is going to do. i will tell the gentleman that the bill will come under a rule, we believe that this side of the aisle has had most of the amendments that have been offered clearly and mr. flake and others, mr. hensarling were given the opportunity to offer a number of their amendments on earmarks, which i know are of

great concern to both sides of the aisle. so i say to the gentleman, we expect to take the defense bill up under a rule similar to those under which we've operated, which are facilitated by the way, as the gentleman knows, all 11 of the 12 appropriation bills having passed and while i was not sure of what was going to happen on the health care bill, we will achieve our objective of passing all 12 appropriation bills in a timely fashion. i yield back. mr. cantor: the gentleman does speak to the point i'm making, we are trying to get things right here. and spending billions of dollars is not the goal here and i know he agrees with me on that. that we are trying to effect the most prudent expenditure of taxpayer dollars in this difficult economic time. as the gentleman knows, we voted on a pay-go bill this week and frankly, the spirit behind that

pay-go bill was to attempt to restrain the type of spending that we've seen this congress conduct. in fact, this week in one of the reports, one of the authors of an opinion column said, frankly, we're spending -- the spending pay-go bill that was passed this week was full of loopholes. and again, we know that the pay-go bill that was passed was that, it wasn't a hole is particular pay-go bill and wasn't something that will do much to address the runaway spending. and so we still sit here, mr. speaker, and want to have an open process so we can contribute to holding back the runaway spending in this town. and so i would say to the gentleman just as he has said to me, we ought to be looking to

try and open up this process again. and we were not allowed to do so on the pay-go debate and address the number one concern of this government right now, which is the runaway spending. we have not been allowed to do so on any of the appropriation bills. and if we're going to be here through the weekend, as the gentleman has suggested, why isn't we couldn't take that time to debate the d.o.d. bill in an open and full transparent manner? i yield. hoyer hoyer as i said, i think we will have a -- mr. hoyer: as i said i think we will have a rule as we did in the previous 11. as i said, i believe we will be considering the defense bill under rules similar to those which have led to the passage of the 11 other bills. i yield back. mr. cantor: i say to the

gentleman, obviously with much disappointment and i think really reflecting the disappointment on the part of the american people that we should be having a much morrow bus debate on these issues. certainly if we are going to be addressing the issue of health care and the gentleman says his side is insisting on rushing that to the floor and insisting on some political deadline and i don't understand why it is we couldn't have an open debate on some of the other issues if we are going to be waiting until next monday. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on monday next for morning hour debate and further, when the house adjourns

on that day, it adjourns to meet at 10:30 a.m. on tuesday, july 28 on tuesday for morning hour debate. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. mcgovern: address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcgovern: the defacto government in hondure as should accept the accord proposed. the proposal includes the return of the president, the formation of a unity government, general amnesty for political crimes and moves forward the date of the upcoming elections. the u.s. should impose tough sanctions on the defacto government that carried out the can you please.

the u.s. should cancel visas of the government and their families and freeze assets. the president must accept the terms of the proposal in order to restore democracy in honduras. not a single solitary government in the world recognizes the can you please government. it is time to move forward. the proposal puts the people first, treats all parties with respect and offers a peaceful resolution. it's not too late for the president to accept it. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. gingrey: address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, two days after the senate voted to strip funding for an additional seven f-22 raptors from the 2010 national defense authorization act, it seems critical information could have been withheld that could flines the outcome of this vote.

it was revealed that full rate production of the f-35 joint strike fighter may be delayed given the need to transition to the f-35 was cited by several senators who voted to terminate the program, it is troubling that this information was withheld until after the vote was held earlier this week. if the pentagon has been forthright with the facts there is a strong chance that the hearts and minds of several senators might have been changed and the funding for the additional f-22' might not have been stripped. it only further strengthens the argument for continued production of the world's only fifth generation fighter and full rate production the f-22 raptor. i hope as we move forward with negotiations between the house and senate on the future of the f-22, the pentagon will make every effort possible to enshir that congress is briefed on the

-- ensure that congress is briefed on the facts. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today, july 24 marks the 50th anniversary of an important incident in the history of the cold war famous kitchen debate in moscow between then vice president richard nixon and soviet premier khrushchev. at the debate in 1959, mr. khrushchev predicted wrongly that the soviet union would overtake america in economic prosperity. the "time" magazine reported vice president nixon managed in a unique way to personify a national character proud of peaceful accomplishment. such as its way of life, confident of its power under

threat. today, i pay tribute to president nixon for his diplomacy and years of service to the nation, including at the kitchen debate 50 years ago today. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objeion, so ordered. mr. poe: mr. speaker, american taxpayers spend millions of year screening people who board an airplane. we check i.d.'s, pes, pockets and computers and take off our shoes and check everything. the next attack on our country is not going to be because someone is flying in an airplane but because someone has access to our airports and airplanes who shouldn't. a wfaa in dallas reports that the san antonio facility hired 677 foreign mechanics without a

real background check. these mechanics come from 45 countries including, vietnam, egypt, cuba, jordan, china and sudan. these people work on american airplanes. the state department says it does a criminal background check but reports indicate those checks are poor quality and sometimes left up to third parties. we are ignoring the obvious when it comes to airline safety. foreign workers with shady or unknown backgrounds should not have access to american aircraft and that's just the way it is. . the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, seek recognition? mr. gohmert: i do. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house, revise and

extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. poe, july 31, for five minutes. mr. jones, july 31 for five minutes, mr. burton, july 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, five minutes each, mr. gohmert, july 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31, five minutes each. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. blumenauer: i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials. ms. woolsey of california for five minutes, ms. captor of -- kaptur of ohio for five minutes, mr. blumenauer from oregon for five minutes.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. under the speaker's announced policy, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. the gentlewoman from california, ms. woolsey. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. blumenauer: i seek unanimous consent to speak out of order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. blumenauer: just a moment ago, i heard the minority whip profess interest in working with the democrats to reform the health care system. yet i'm sad to say that the minority whip, the minority leader, have been part of an effort to deal with fear and misrepresentation, attack -- attacking bipartisan legislation that would have den precisely that, reform the health care system. sadly, mr. speaker, there are some here who simply are not

expressing the sense of urgentcy that most of us feel from the american people, a sense of urgentcy about fixes a broken health care system that costs too much, produces wildly uneven results, and leaves too many outside the system of coverage and others with health insurance at risk. we cannot continue along this path. americans are not getting the help they need, even if they have insurance coverage. i was -- i must say, i was disappointed, to say the very least, to see the attack on bipartisan legislation that we have worked on to help reform the health care system. in a statement from the minority leader, and with the whip and mr. mccotter, there is

an allegation that somehow there is legislation in the health care draft that may place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end of life directives they would not otherwise sign that may start us down a, quote, treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia, if enacted into law. well, mr. speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. had the minority leader and his whip an the conference chair bothered to check how that legislation came to be enacted into our health care legislation, they would have found out that it was work of a bipartisan group of ways and means committee members. there were republicans co-sponsoring it along with democrats, we had spirited

discussion, dealing with the fact that too often, senior citizens and their families are not given the information they need to be able to cope with the most serious situation any of us will ever face as we have a loved one move into the end of his or her life. we discussed how medicare would pay for tests to hook people up, to poke them to run them through machines, to have them on ventilator, do all sorts of things, but it will not pay a health care professional to sit down with that patient, with that family, and let them know what they expect, answer their questions, help them know what their choices are. we had examples of committee members talk about their loved ones, and i would say republican committee members, talk about how their loved ones didn't get that type of help at

the end of life and actually were subjected to thinks they -- to things they thought were not in the best interest of their loved one. if they had a choice they wouldn't have done it over again, and it didn't prolong their life, it made themless comfortable. -- it made them less comfortable. we're seeking to change that to be able to adjust medicare so it speaks to the needs of american seniors and their families, that they're given the attention they need to prepare for this difficult period of time. there's nothing in this legislation that would force people to have consultations. there's nothing that would force them to sign advance directives. it's not going to choose a health care professional by the government and force it on it. it's the type of sad, inflammatory rhetoric that suggest this is a people aren't serious about health care

reform, not serious about meeting the needs of american families, but rather they're playing political games. mr. speaker, i can't tell you how disappointed i was to see this type of reaction to a carefully crafted piece of legislation that we've been working on for more than six months, that is bipartisan and that speaks to the needs of american families. the american public, especially our senior citizens, deserve our best efforts to meet their needs, not treat them like political footballs. i hope the republican leadership will reconsider and that we'll be able to enact provisions like this to help our senior citizens. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. gingrey: i would like to ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes.

the speaker pro tempore: first the chair will call from the list. mr. gingrey: i ask unanimous consent i get outside the list. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana, mr. burton. mr. gingrey: i ask unanimous consent to take his place. >> back in december, hank paulson and president bush came to congress in a rush, the financial sky was going to fall out if we didn't pass the tarp bill, the financial bailout for wall street. now, we were told if we didn't do it, stock portfolios and savings of americans all over the country would decrease, maybe as much as 30% or 40%. in that spirit of panic, that frequently happens in this town we did pass tarp. and what happened to your ira

back home? what happened to your savings account? what happened to your stock portfolio? unless you're extremely lucky and unusual, your assets dropped 30% to 40%. so much for the $700 billion bailout. then in january, president obama, using the same panic tactic, came to us and said, we have got to pass a second stimulus program. keep in mind, we'd already passed one under president bush in may of 2008. but we had to pass in a hurry, something big, something dramatic, $790 billion for stimulus program. why? because the unemployment rate was 8%. but this would give us immediate results. president obama promised. so that was passed by congress. yet now unemployment is approaching 10% and in states like michigan, it's as high as 15%. 2.5 million americans have become unemployed since the

passage of the stimulus program. now we have the same washington-knows-best experts telling us we have to pass major health care reform by next week, august 1. i want you to think about this. this is 17% of the economy, and we would put it in the hands of the federal government. it would set up a scheme where there would be a health care czar that would run and stipulate insurance policies all over the country and in order to sell insurance in the united states of merge, you would have to go through this bureaucracy and enter into an exchange and there, inside this closed circle defined by the federal government, you would compete against a government option, which would have the rules rigged in its favor. if you as an individual did not do that, you'd have to pay a 2.5% surcharge. if you as a small business did not offer insurance to your

employees, you'd have to pay 8%. is that the best way to get things zphone a huge $1.2 trillion expense on top of the tarp bill, on top of the stimulus bill, on top of the war in iraq, on top of all the other problems we have? we're now going to go out and spend $1.2 trillion and tax virtually everybody in america to do it. we can also look at the canadian or german or british system and see that the rationing that it leads to and we know if you live around a border state near canada, when they need to see a doctor, they come to the united states of america. we have also seen in states like massachusetts, where they have a government option, that it takes twice as long to see a doctor as it does in los angeles. we also know that this plan will do away with medicare advantage. i don't know if the aarp realized that when they endorsed the bill.

but this not only does away with medicare advantage, but it cuts medicare itself. and then, between you and the doctor, comes the bureaucrat. because you don't get a second opinion under the government-run health care system. what the doctor tells you, that sticks. you can't go to three or four doctors because the bureaucrats in washington who made the rules, don't allow it. these are thing this is a concern me. they concern democrats and republicans alike. seniors and young people enter into the work forest. that's why i think we should -- work force. that's why i think we should slow this system down. when you hear somebody say this does not require a senior citizen to have a consultant with their doctor and the government bureaucrat every five years on their end of life plan, they're wrong. because that is in the bill. every five years, senior citizens are supposed to report to some bureaucrat and say, here's my five-year end of life plan. as president obama said himself, we are going to

strongly encourage hospice. you know, i'd rather have my mom make that decision as my dad, who is now dad, i'd like to have him -- her make that decision as he did, with his doctor, not bringing in a government bureaucrat. not having to have some sign off by some government bureaucrat. that should scare anybody whose parents are alive or any senior citizen. indeed, there are better ways to do this thing. association health plans to allow smail businesses to -- small allow small businesses to band together and get the economies of scale big employers could get. medical savings accounts to allow you to have deductibles. many other option, we can look at them, let's make the time count and pull democrats and republicans together for the best product for america. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes mr. salazar of colorado.

mr. poe of texas. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. gohmert: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. . this body passed a cap and trade bill, friends across the other side of the aisle said it's not going to cost jobs, it will create jobs. it says they did not read the bill. it's going to create jobs. if they had read the bill, they would have seen before the 100 pages were added there was a fund created to pay an allowance to people who lost their jobs because of the bill.

it also created a fund that could help them with relocation after they lost their job because of the bill. so they just hadn't read the bill so they're able to come down and in rightous indignation say it's not going to cost jobs. they were ignoring what the bill said. but it will cost jobs. and now we're told that some of us don't care about seniors. mr. speaker, i'm here because i care about seniors and i know what that health care bill is go to do to them. -- going to do to them. it will put seniors on lists to get treatment for those who are not considered too old to be put on lists. and if you followed the president's own presentation on that town hall when he was asked by pam stern, she pointed out my

mother was nearly 100 and needed a pacemaker and the doctor said because of the joy and quality of her life, she should have one, but a specialist said, no not one her age. and she's now 105. when ms. stern asked the president is there any consideration to be given for a certain spirit, joy of living, quality of life or is it a medical cutoff, he went into a long explanation and ended by saying, you know what? we can let your mom know, maybe this isn't going to help. maybe you are better off not having the surgery but taking a painkiller, taking a painkiller when she has seen she had another five years and the president said, give her a painkiller and let her die. this is going to allow seniors

to die that could have a much more ongoing productive life. there is no reason to do this. when i had my staff and i look at this with the latest numbers we were able to get were for 2007, 112 million households roughly in america and divide that by the amount of money paid into medicare, medicaid, $9,200, forever household in america. well, once i saw that, i realized, boy, there is a way for the first time in 40-something years to give seniors control over their health care and their own lives. you give them $3,500 in their health savings account which they control and give them a debit card. no insurance company can tell them what to do with it and then you buy them private insurance

and they won't have to do like my mother in law and buy supplemental insurance, others buying wrap around. they don't need to do that. and on top of that, you save the country hundreds of billions of dollars a year. that puts control in seniors' hands and saves the country money. this health care bill is about control. it's about taking charge of peoples' lives. we have had the e.p.a. say since carbon dioxide is a pollute ant this body has the right to control any entity that puts out carbon dioxide. well, maybe there are people here in the majority that can pick out individuals and say, you know what? i'm tired of them putting out carbon dioxide, it's time for them to stop. i mean, that's how ludicrous it gets, except that once you can

control whether people put out carbon dioxide, you can control where they live. once you can control their health care, you can have the right to say, you know what? i noticed in your credit card budget you bought some twikies and we ain't going to provide health care unless you quit buying those. the one thing that's clear is orwell was 25 years early6 c1 orwell was 25 years early, because this is going to be or wellian with big brother looking in on everyone's lives and having the right to do so. this will allow seniors to die waiting in line for lists. you think that's over the top? i had a canadian man tell me that a few weeks ago. his dad got put on the list for a bypass surgery and had to wait two years and i said why did it

take so long? he said the bureaucrats kept moving him back. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. ms. kaptur of ohio. mr. jones of north carolina. mr. defazio of oregon. mr. moran of kansas. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from california, mr. dreier, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. dreier: i ask unanimous consent to revise and stepped my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. dreier: mr. speaker marking

anniversaries is a very important thing to do and we do that on a regular basis. in fact, just this past week, a great deal of attention was focused on that marvelous achievement when we saw neil armstrong 40 years ago take that first step on the moon. we, in just a few months, are going to be marking the 20th anniversary of that amazing achievement, which many of us throughout our lifetimes thought would never happen, and that was the crumb bling of the berlin wall. and there are countless other events that take place that are regularly remembered. and the importance of remembering events that have taken place, mr. speaker, is

that we want to do everything that we possibly can to learn from those very tragic experiences and also the good experiences so that we can ensure that the world is a better place. 11 years ago, 11 years ago at this very moment, there was a tragic occurrence here in our nation's capital. and i remember it just as if it was yesterday. it was when we saw a mad man come into the capitol at what is now referred to as memorial door and at that door, he brutally murdered officer jacob j. chestnut and detective john gibson of the u.s. capitol police. and mr. speaker in just one moment, colleagues of ours and members of the u.s. capitol

police are going to be for one minute taking a moment of silence to remember the lives of those heroes who were here defending the u.s. capitol. earlier today here in the house chamber, we all know that remembering that occurrence of 11 years ago, we did have a moment of silence in remembrance of those great men. and at this moment since it is now 3:40, mr. speaker, i'd like to ask that we have one minute of silence to remember the lives of officer chestnut and detective gibson.

mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i'd like to continue the train

of marking anniversaries. today, i rise to mark the occasion of the 220th anniversary of the first congress and what is perhaps the most important milestone that was achieved in that first session of congress, that being, of course, the passage of the bill of rights. 220 years ago, james madison, a congressman from virginia and the father of our constitution, introduced a package of constitutional amendments sparking a great historic debate in the house of representatives and in the senate. this came about despite the fact that madison had opposed inclusion of a bill of rights when drafting the constitution. and it came about because his constituents demanded it. lives, fortunes and say credit honor had been sacrificed in the

war following the signing of our declaration of independence and many believed fervently that it would all be in vain if it had not been putting in place a bill of rights. the states, mr. speaker, went on to ratify 10 of the 12 amendments that congress passed. the first 10 amendments to our constitution, which collectively are known around the world as the most enduring and comprehensive guarantor of rights in the modern world. i believe there is great value in remembering our history. as a nation and as an institution and examining the lessons that can be applied to our own era today. as we deal with the many challenges today, the worst recession in recent memory -- two ongoing wars and a worldwide

struggle that is going against violent extremism, there is much to be gleaned from the great debates of our past. and the more we know about where we have been, the better we can understand where we are now and where we, as a nation, are headed. on may 4 of 1789 james madison announced his intention to introduce a series of amendments that would constitute the bill of rights that many opponents of the constitution had sought. there were 11 of the 13 states had ratified the constitution. there remained those who opposed the constitution and the system of federalism it established. chief among the complaints by those who had not supported the constitution was, as i said, the absence of a clear bill of rights. as i have said, madison himself had originally opposed the issue when he crafted and then under

the slogan, joined hamilton and john jay, pened the federalist papers with the goal of defending the u.s. constitution. but he came to see the value not only in delineating the rights of the citizens of the united states, but more important, he came to see the value in bringing unity to the nation and consolidating support for our constitution. on june 8 of 1789, he introduced his proposal in the house of representatives. 220 years ago this week, 220 years ago this very week on july 21, 1789, the matter was referred to the rules committee on which madison served. after reviewing the proposal, the committee moved the amendment package to the house floor on august 14, marking the start of a very vigorous debate

right in the house of representatives where we are privileged to serve, mr. speaker. that debate, that debate carried on for 10 days, 10 days as members passionately argued for and against the individual amendments, passing some, amending some and rejecting others. on august 24, the house took its final vote and passed 17 amendments sending them over to the other body, the senate, for consideration. 220 years ago this summer, the senate began its debate on august 25. the debate carried on throughout the month september and additional changes were made. ultimately a conference committee was convened and both the house and the senate passed the final version on september 24 of 1789, having whittled the package down to 12 proposed

constitutional amendments. as we all know, the states went on to ratify 10 of those. and mr. madison's bill of rights was incorporated into our constitution. . throughout that summer and early fall 220 years ago, many fashion gnat arguments were made for and against constitutional amendments. i believe, mr. speaker, the most instructive debate came on june 8, when madison first introduced his proposal in the house of representatives. he argued vigorously for the need to pass a bill of rights, but he also presented a fair representation of the arguments against a bill of rights. he welcomed a fair, open, and spirited debate. and he wanted it to take place on the floor of the house of representatives, where it could be conducted in the light of day and within plain view of the american people.

though madison had previously opposed the idea, he became increasingly ambivalent and then ultimately, as we all know, supportive of the need for a bill of rights. but rehe -- but he remained sympathetic to the argument that rights enumerated are inherently limited. he noted that some believe, and i quote, some believe a declaration of rights is either ineffect chal or improper. it is said in the federal government, it is unnecessary because the powers are enumerated and it follow this is a all that are not granted by the constitution, are retained by the people. that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great number of them being the rights of the people. madison, mr. speaker, understood that the government does not grant the people their

rights, rather the people grant their government certain powers. for this reason, he sought to assuage these concerns by including in his proposal, a provision clarifying that. as i quote again from that speech, the exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution made in favor of particular rights shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution. close quote. congressman madison knew that this was an important clarification to make. but ultimately, he believed deeply that despite the concerns, the imperative for moving forward was far more compelling. as i said at the outset, mr. madison passionately believed in bringing unity to our nation

on the question of our constitution. he saw this as the most fundamental of issues and he believed deeply in continuing to work toward consensus, despite the fact that the necessary majority had ratified our constitution already. in his speech on june 8, he ex-pressd -- expressed respect and understanding for those whose point of view on our system of federalism was different from his he said the following, and i quote, yet still there is a great number of our constituent whors dissatisfied with our constitution, among whom are many respectable for their talents, their patriotism and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which though mistaken in its object is laudable for its notion. congress' capability as a

representative body depended on the full support of those they represented. whatever disagreements on the various issues of the day there may be that exist, congress' legitimacy in working out these issues would be called into question as long as there remained a vocal minority who opposed the very existence of a constitution and our federal government. he noted that, and i quote again, so far as to satisfy the public that we do not disregard their wishes, it will have a salutary influence on the public counsels and prepare the way for a favorable reception of our future measures, close quote. mr. speaker, he also saw the passage of a bill of rights as an opportunity to demonstrate good faith to those who were skeptical of the federal government and its powers, saying, and i quote, those who have been friendly to the adoption of this constitution

may have the opportunity to have proving to those who were opposed to it that they were as sincerely devoted to liberty and a republican government as those who charge them with wishing the adoption of this constitution in order to lay the foundation of an arresting to becy or despotism. it will be a desirable thing to extinguish from the bosom of every member of the community any apprehensions that there are those among his countrymen who wish to deprive them of the liberty for which they valiantly fought and honorably bled. i close quote. mr. madison viewed the unity of the nation on the issue of our constitution as far more important than any reservation some may have had on the need for a bill of rights. and he championed the need for a rigorous, very rigorous debate on the issue.

mr. speaker, he also believed, despite his earlier ambivalence, that the case for a bill of rights was ultimately persuasive on the merits because of the needs -- the need for checks and balances on the power of the federal government. though he found persuasive the argument that the government's powers are enumerated and therefore our liberties need not be, he recognized that explicitly enumerating the most important rights would help to place a check on the government's power. he noted, and i quote again here from that june 8 speech, he noted, it is true the powers of the general government are circumscribed, but even if government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means which may admit of abuse to a certain extent. close quote. mr. speaker, ever mindful that government is made up of fallible men, madison believed

whole heartedly in the need to hold the federal government's power in check. he also understood that the issue of basic rights could not be left merely to the whims of majority rule. in fact, he feared this even more, even more than the potential abuses of government, saying, again in that june 8 speech, and i quote, i confess i do not conceive that in a government modified like this of the united states, the great danger lies rather in the abuse of the community than in the legislative body. the prescriptions in favor of liberty ought to be leveled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power. but this is not found in either the executive or legislative departments of government, but in the body of the people operating by the majority against the minority, close quote.

mr. speaker, had madison not taken up the cause of the bill of rights, our constitution may never have explicitly enshrined our freedom of speech, freedom of press, of religion, of assembly, of our right to petition our government. it may never have expressly granted, it may have never expressly guaranteed trials by juries of our peers or guarded against lawful serge searches and seizures -- searches and seizures, cruel and unusual punishment, or double jeopardy. today we hold these enumerated rights to be as self-evident and fundamental as the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that the declaration of independence proclaimed. we can't imagine our constitution without the bill of rights. but what i believe is most instructive for us today is not the content of madison's bill

of rights, but the manner in which he proposed it. the intellectual rig your, the intellectual rig or which led -- rigor which led him to champion this cause with which he made his case to his colleagues and the american people was very important. that open, vigorous debate held in the united states house of representatives and the tenor of that debate, mr. speaker, as we've seen from the text of that june 8 speech, 1789, as was introduced by mr. madison, he had great respect for the views of the members with whom he disagreed. he argued with civility, comity, and respect. he did not impugn his adversaries' motives and in fact defended them he passionately sought consensus on the fundamental issues and placed it above his own

ambivalence on lesser concerns. he urged his colleagues to ask based on, and i quote, the principles of amity and moderation to proceed with caution, but that ultimately, they must act resolutely to satisfy the public mind that their liberties will be perpetual, close quote. he did not believe that decisive action and a full, open debate were mutually exclusive. in fact he saw them as being fully intertwined. that elevating the debate above reproach would give this body the moral authority to act decisively and appropriately as a truly representative body. in his closing remarks that day, june 8, 1789, mr. speaker, congressman madison said, and i quote, if we can make the constitution better in the opinion of those who are opposed to it, without

weakening its frame or abridging its usefulness in the judgment of those who are attached to it, we act the part of wise and liberal men to make such alterations as shall produce that effect, close quote. let me repeat that final phrase, mr. speaker. mr. madison said, we act the part of wise and liberal men. by that, one can only surmise that he meant, we're not here to grand stand. we're not here to demagogue or turn the important issues of our day into political footballs. we're not here to attack those who hold different views or stifle debate or prevent opposing views from being heard. we're not here to become mired in petty arguments and partisan politics. we are here, mr. speaker, as we all know, we are here and james madison set the example for

this, we are here to deliberate. we're here to honestly and openly confront the difficult challenges we face together as a country. to ensure that our constituents' concerns, whether they represent the majority or minority view, can be voiced and discussed in the house of representatives. i believe very much in this madisonian model of rigorous yet civil debate. it's with great dismay and sadness, mr. speaker, that i've seen the tenor of our debate deteriorate and the legislative process grow ever more closed in recent years. i believe, mr. speaker, that republicans and democrats alike have shared in the blame for this deterioration. but there is no doubt whatsoever, no doubt, that that deterioration has accelerated dramatically in the last few years.

we've seen the opportunities for open debate become rarer. what's more, the level of debate and transparency allowed has been inversely proportional to the significance of the legislation in question. the more consequential, the more complicated, the more controversial a bill may be, the less opportunity there is for the kind of intellectually rigorous debate that james madison called for and exemplified. one by one, mr. speaker, the traditions and precedents of this house have been discarded. perhaps the most significant of these has been the abandonment of openness in the appropriations process, which, as is the tradition, we are in the midst of considering this summer, and we have only one appropriations bill left to be considered, the department of health appropriations bill next week.

throughout our 220-year history, the house of representatives has considered its annual appropriations bills with an open debate. in recent history, this open appropriations process has been one of the very few opportunities that members of the house have to get to freely offer amendments and have a debate on the issue this is a matter most to them. unlike the senate we have a rules committee on which congressman madison sat. they set the terms and conditions of debate on almost every major bill that comes to a vote. these terms and conditions have become increasingly more restrictive, shutting out all amendments to more legislation than ever before and significantly limiting the number of amendments on others. but, mr. speaker, the open appropriations process has always been held sack row

sanction because we have no greater constitutional duty in this body than that being holding the power of the purse. we have the very serious responsibility of spending taxpayers' hard-earned money and this responsibility deserves to be considered under a completely open and transparent process. there have been times in the past when some limits have been imposed. this has almost always been done by unanimous consent, both parties coming together to expedite matters after a period of open debate. there have been other instances of debate, restrictions on individual appropriations bills that are put into place for various reasons. but, mr. speaker, those have been the exceptions to the rule. and the rule has been an open, good faith process in which any

member, democrat or republican, i underscore that again, any member, democrat or republican, can offer any amendment that conforms to the rules of the house. i'm proud to say that this is certainly the spirit in which republicans operated during the 12 years that we held the majority and during eight of those i was privileged to serve as chairman of the house rules committee. but this year we have seen a very troubling reversal of this practice. mr. speaker, from the very outset, before a single vote was cast or a single word of debate was huttered, the appropriations process was -- was uttered, the appropriations process was restricted. they imposed a preprinting requirement. now, the preprinting requirement means that rather than a free flowing and rigorous debate that is always -- that has always

characterized our appropriations process, members were required to submit their amendments in advance to be printed in the congressional record and now this may seem like a reasonable requirement at first glance and many on the other side of the aisle argue that it was a very reasonable request. why shouldn't amendments be submitted in advance of debate? in practice, there are a number of ways that, unfortunately, this stifles the madisonian debate. appropriations bills are often debated over the course of a number of days. i mean, 10 days on the bill of rights, we have had three, four, five days on appropriations bills for many, many years. when a deadline is imposed prior to the start of debate, in effect this requires amendments to be submitted two, three, or even four days in advance of when debate on relevant -- on

the relevant section of the bill is considered. secondly, the budget act prevents members from offering amendments that increase the overall cost of an appropriations bill and that's a correct thing. this means that if a member wants to increase funding for a particular program, the amendment must also cut funding elsewhere by an equivalent amount. but what happens is, what happens if the offset contained in one amendment has already been zeroed out by another, that member would no longer be able to offer his or her amendment. and the deadline having come and gone before the start of debate, there would be no opportunity to redraft the amendment with a different offset. and what's more, mr. speaker, there are many logistical issues beyond members' control that can prevent them from getting their amendments properly submitted prior to this artificial deadline that has been set.

legislative council, faced with a deluge of requests as members scramble to get their amendments drafted and submitted, can be too swamped to handle every request. likewise, for the government printing office. this is a self-compounding problem, mr. speaker, as members submit multiple versions of the same amendment just in case their offsets of choice are altered by another's amendment, it compounds the problem. all of these problems inherent to the preprinting requirement have the effect of limiting debate and the ability of rank and file members of both political parties, again, democrats and republicans, from being able to fully participate in the appropriations process and yet it was imposed at the very outset this year before we had begun one consideration of one appropriations bill. now that was only the beginning. as we started the already restricted debate on our very first appropriations bill we got to exactly page 2, line 7, before the chairman of the

appropriations committee had had enough. one page, seven lines, was apparently his capacity for even a partially, even though it was limited, a partially open debate. so he promptly shut down the entire process. we returned to the rules committee late that night where the democratic majority imposed a structured rule to the consideration of the bill. they decided that they alone would be the arbiters on which issues could be debated, which amendments would see the light of day. basically they were saying, 220 years of history be dammed -- damned. this closed process has been repeated for every single appropriations bill that we've considered and for those, mr. speaker, who have followed the debate here, our colleagues know that we have just completed 11 of those 12 appropriations bills and have only one remaining next week, i will make my commitment

that this has been the case for every single one of them, we will try, try to make an open rule and order upstairs in the rules committee on this. i say, with one a-- one remaining appropriations bill we know that it most likely will be considered under a highly restrictive rule that shuns the traditionally open debate with which we have handled our constitution alley mandated power of the purse -- constitutionally mandated power of the purse. it's no accident that the abandonment of debate on our appropriation bills has coincided with the most profligate spending in our nation's history. it's no coincidence that our deficit has exceeded that $1 trillion mark, $1 trillion mark, just halfway through the year at the same time that the democratic majority has shut out meaningful debate on their spending practices. as disastrous as the

consequences of this reckless and unchecked spending spree will be, i fear that even greater damage will come as a result of the utter disregard for the traditions and precedence of this great body. looking back at that historic debate on the bill of rights 220 years ago this summer, it's so instructive because it illustrates just how far we have degressed from the high-minded example that james madison laid out for us. the civility, the respect for opposing views, the intellectually rigorous and open debate, the deep pleef in the importance of building consensus. all of these elements, mr. speaker, all of these elements that characterized the debate led by congressman james madison, 220 years ago, have been gradually hollowed out,

leaving us with little more than empty partisan rhetoric. perhaps most troubling of all is how quickly this has become, and it really saddens know say this, the new normal. more than a quarter of this entire body has served less than two terms. for over 25% of the house of representatives, limited debate and bills written in the dead of night appear to be standard operating procedure. a closed appropriations process is just the normal way of doing business. rank rouse debate and demagoguery is simply the way we operate now. if we do not urgently consider ouhistory, our traditions as an institution, if we do not make an effort to come together very soon and work to restore civility and open debate, these traditions will be lost forever.

of course there will always be significant divergence of opinions. we were meant to have a great clash of ideas here in the congress. our founders very intentionally designed a system in which we would hold ourselves accountable by this very divergence. benjamin franklin wrote very famousfully 179, and i quote, a plural legislature is as necessary to good government as a single executive. it is not enough that your luthure should be numerous, it should also be divided. franklin went on to say, numbers alone are not a sufficient barrier against the impulses of passion. the combination of interests, the intrigues of faction, the haste of folly or the spirit of encroachment. one division should watch over and control the other. supply its wants, correct its

blunders and cross its designs should they be criminal or erroneous. i closed quote. and, mr. speaker, we have certainly seen a great deal in recent beaks of the haste of folly and -- weeks of the haste of folly and encroachment that franklin spoke of. these checks and balances that the founders inadviceaged are drasticly diminished and the result is both a poisonous atmosphere and, sadly, reckless public policy. in fact, the latter inevitably follows the former. a bad process begets bad legislation. and the respect, civility and comit i that used to govern this body are destroyed in the process. mr. speaker, my fear, my fear is that irreversible damage has already been done. but i'm standing here today to remember history. by remembering history, by

honoring our traditions, by looking back to our founders and the example that they gave us 220 years ago this summer, with that rigorous, open debate, i believe we can begin to restore our constitution. we can once again engage in great debates, in that clash of ideas, and do so with respect for our adversaries and a sincere desire to ultimately reach consensus. this is the model, this is the model that james madison presented in one of the most important debates in congress' history. the great challenges we face today are no less deserving of this kind of debate. if we're going to effectively and appropriately deal with the economic, energy, health care, environmental, national security and other issues that are before us, we must immediately reverse the very dangerous course on

which we have embarked. mr. speaker, i urge the democratic leadership to restore deliberation in this body. this body is known as the greatest deliberative body known to man and sadly we are losing that. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to once again engage in exchanges characterized by what madison scribed as the principles of amity and moderation. to once again act the part, act the part, as madison said on june 8, 1789, act of part of wise and liberal men. we must do this, mr. speaker, if we are going to successfully address the great challenges of our day. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan for 60 minutes. mr. hoekstra: i thank the speaker. i thank the speaker for the opportunity to talk about issues that i think are not only important to my congressional district, that are not only important to the state of michigan, but are also important to the people of the country. i was struck this morning when one of the first newspapers that i saw indicated that, it said, "democrats out of sync." i didn't read the article because what really caught my attention was the one line at the bottom, the headline at the

bottom that said, "michigan lawmakers look to gitmo for stimulus." now this is a story that has been out there now for a couple of months but it looks like that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle again believe that the stimulus package for the state of michigan should be moving the people from guantanamo, the radical jihadists, the individuals who are identified as being members of al qaeda, some of whom have been identified as members of al qaeda, and say, we ought to move these individuals to the state of michigan. this is our economic stimulus package. now, i understand why they believe that michigan needs help. as i take a look through my counties i see unemployment rates of 13.9%, 13%, 12.5%,

19.1%, roughly one out of every five people are out of work in at least two of my counties. 16.8%, 15.3%, 16.7%. . as a state we have an unemplment rate that is now 15.2% which i expect will be the highest unemployment rate in the country. but believing that michigan stimulus package and the way we are going to rebuild the state of michigan is by opening gtmo north i think is a terrible idea . i'm chairman of the -- ranking member of the intelligence committee, i have had the opportunity to also serve as the chairman of that committee. we get some special insights into who these folks really are. and what the impact of having these people in your community may be. i have no doubt that we could move these folks into a prison

in michigan. we do move them into a maximum security prison, perhaps anywhere around the country. and there's no doubt in my mind that we could probably contain them and hold them and they wouldn't escape. but there is a reason that they are in guantanamo. guantanamo is a difficult place to get to. we have constructed a facility specifically to match the needs and the challenges of the prisoners that are held in guantanamo. and those facilities don't exist in other parts of the country. the other reason that we have them there is we recognize that by the very fact of putting them in the united states and putting them into a community, they present an increased threat to those communities, to the people that work in those facilities, and to the region itself. this is a really bad idea. to my colleagues from the michigan delegation, let's not

do this. let's not promote this. let's make sure we keep guantanamo open and let's make sure that we don't move these people to michigan, and let's make sure that we don't move them to other parts of the united states. keep them in gtmo and let's make sure that we deal with this threat in the most appropriate way. i also found it interesting that as we talk about economic development, we've got a model for economic development. we did it in the 1990's. we did it with a republican congress, and we did it with a democrat president. it began in january of 1995. it was relatively straightforward. we were going to cut taxes. we were going to reform government. and we're going to freeze spending. the end result is that during the 1990's we saw unprecedented economic growth and we balanced

the budget for four years in a row. i wish that my colleagues here from michigan and my colleagues in the state of michigan would have recognized that formula. because instead of cutting taxes, reforming government, and freezing spending what we are doing in washington, what we are doing in michigan today is we are increasing business costs by piling on more mandates, and there's no plan to create jobs. they want to raise the minimum wage to perhaps the highest minimum wage in the country. they want to put more mandates on business in michigan. and we will end up with the most mandates on our businesses save from any one state save one,

which is california. and right now i don't think michigan really wants to go down the path of california. we have seen what california looks like. if you want to take a look at the state of michigan, this is my state, the counties that are in pink have an unemployment rate of between 10% and 15%. the darker purple, that is 15% to 20%. and we now have two counties, we have two counties now where the unemployment rate is over 20%. more than one out of every five workers. and the response from the other side of the aisle and from democrats in the state of michigan is to open guantanamo north, put more mandates on businesses, and provide no incentives for economic growth in the state of michigan. michigan's a whole lot better than that. we could cut taxes.

we could reform government programs. and we could freeze spending. and we could become a model and engine for economic growth. michigan has tremendous strengths that we could build off of. sure there's a lot of focus as to exactly what's happening with the double industry today, but think about the people that have lost their jobs in the automotive industry, the skills, talents, that they have that can be applied to other industries and other opportunities. it's happening each and every day. i have a situation in my congressional district right now where the people coming out of the auto mowive industry have developed some -- automotive industry have developed some very innovative products for energy. the ideas came out of michigan. they have been created, they have been engineered and developed in the state of michigan. a relatively small number of jobs. but as this particular product is now moving into production, which is where the real jobs are and where michigan has a

tremendous number of strength in terms of manufacturing skills and manufacturing facilities, it appears that those jobs will go to some other state. not some other country. they are not going offshore. they will go to some other state that has created a more inviting environment for job creation and business investment than the state of michigan even though we've got all of those manufacturing skills and all of those talented manufacturing people. we can build things in the united states. it appears that right now we just can't build them in the state of michigan because we put up too many barriers to job creations in the state of michigan. we are also doing some of that same thing here in washington that some time in the future may force those types of jobs offshore. what kind of things am i talking about? well, if the model is freeze

spending and to cut taxes, what are we doing in washington, d.c.? well, we are spending, we are spending much more than we ever spent before when president clinton came into office and we were in a recession, he proposed, i believe, an economic stimulus package of around $25 billion to $40 billion primarily on infrastructure. when this president came into office, he, too, proposed a stimulus package. $787 billion. $787 billion which is starting to slowly work its way through the system but is having very, very little impact because of the types of things that it is being used for. it's not being used significantly for long-term infrastructure investment. if you were looking at the state of michigan, where could we be building, or what could we be building and what could we be using those dollars for real

stimulus? meaning we would be building infrastructure that our kids would benefit from. we need a new train tunnel between windsor and detroit. sounds like a good idea to build that tunnel with stimulus dollars. it is a long-term investment. right now detroit and michigan, we are the main link between ontario and the united states. that traffic comes through the state of michigan, goes through that tunnel that we currently have. the problem is if you take a look at the trains coming through, the trains coming to the tunnel, they are stacked too high with the containers. they get to the tunnel they got to take the top one off, set it aside, take the train through, put the container on another carrier, take it underneath the river when they get to the other side of the river they put the container back on. it's not a very efficient way to move goods from canada into the united states. we need a new train tunnel.

build a new train tunnel that will accommodate a double-decker. to make sure that michigan and the midwest stay competitive because we've got an efficient transportation corridor. we need a new bridge between detroit and windsor. build a new bridge. it will last a long time. we have a lot of minerals that we take out of the u.p. that we take out of minnesota that go through lake superior and down to the lower great lakes. we need a new sioux lock. in we are worried about stimulus and going to have federal stimulus dollars being spent, let's use it on things that make a real difference and will provide us a competitive advantage and strengthen our economy and will benefit our kids and our grandkids rather than spending it on projects that don't have much of a long-term benefit. what are some of the things that we are going to be building in michigan with our stimulus dollars? $500,000 to renovate a facility

which may house yoga or children's movement classes. $6.9 million to put in 29 intelligence transportation system signs in four west michigan counties. i'm assuming these big electronic signs will be put up to warn the motorist about the potholes that are ahead because we are building signs instead of repairing the roads. we are going to be spending $983,000 for street scaping. we are going to be spending $1.3 million for construction of a wastewater treatment plant for which there may be no plan and has little community support. and of course every time whether are you in michigan or whether are you in some other state around the country, you're going to see these wonderful signs that say, this project was brought to you by the stimulus package. these signs cost anywhere from $300 to $1,000 a piece. they don't fill one pothole. they don't pave one increment of

road. buyet we are spending those to remind you that your money that came to washington, d.c., actually the money that washington, d.c., is borrowing for the stimulus package, you ought to thank us for borrowing this money so we put up the sign to remind you where it came from. but we don't say this road or this project is brought to you by your kids and grandkids. we seem to think that it's brought to you by your congress. you should be be thankful for the stuff that we have done. we have just approached and gone over $1 trillion of deficit spending for this fiscal year, and the fiscal year doesn't end until september 30. so we've still got july, august, and september to go and there are many that are saying that the deficit for this fiscal year will probably exceed $1.5 trillion. that is something that our kids will not be thankful for. it's something that they will carry long into their future.

in addition to that kind of spending, again if the model is cut taxes, freeze spending, and reform government, where are we headed today in washington, d.c. in regards to cutting taxes? we are not going to cut taxes. we are actually going to increase taxes on the american people. it is estimated by some accounts that the cap and trade, the cap and tax bill that we passed through this chamber a few weeks ago is going to cost the average american family about $3,100 per year. now, you may not see this as a tax bill that you'll have to write a check to the federal government for, but what you will see it in is you will see it in increase cost for electricity, for gasoline, and any other product that when you consume it has a carbon

emission. it's a carbon tax. so you will see across -- the cost of goods, the cost of services increase for every american family. it will also make it more difficult for american businesses to compete, to invest, and to grow our economy. again in michigan we are a heavy manufacturing state. what does cap and trade do to the state of michigan? what does it do to the midwest? it hammers the midwest. we have a lot of coal-fired plants. they do have carbon emissions. they will be heavily taxed, heavily regulated and the cost of producing energy out of those plants will increase significantly. i've got a lot of first down terrorist in my district. what do foundries do? they melt steel, aluminum, they pour them in a mold, wait for them to cool, take the mold out, and you've got a piece of metal

that has been molded and shaped and will be machined and become part of a car or become part of another product. that consumes a tremendous amount of energy. what do we think will happen to that business if cap and trade becomes the law of the land and that business sees its energy costs go up by 50% to 70%? . remember this is a large input cost to this business. it's a cost of production. they will start looking for alternatives. and where will those alternatives be? will they be someplace else in the united states? probably not. because these facilities and the similar facilities in the united states will all be experiencing these kinds of cost increases. where will they begin looking? they'll begin looking in places like china, they will begin looking in places like ippedia and mexico, the countries that

do not, that do not have these types of regulatory burdens placed on them. so, again, it is an indirect tax on jobs and businesses and the result will be, you know, more and more counties in my state and more and more counties around the country will start shading these pink counties from being pink to being purple, meaning that the unemployment rate is going to continue to increase. you know, we see it both at the state level and at the federal level. the model that my counterparts on the other side are using to their belief to grow the economy is to increase taxes, to grow spending and really to reform nothing. i'll give you one example of where we're not seeing a lot of effective reform. there's a couple of things you

ought to know about this chart. number one, the speaker of the house and counterparts on the other side have said this chart is unapproved for public use. actually, it's unapproved for us to send to our constituents under the franking process. so if someone calls my office and they say, congressman hoekstra, we'd like a better understanding of how this new health care proposal is going to work or what the structure is going to be for that new plan, you know, when all of the -- that's another new tax that's coming as well, but as the president proposes and as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle propose a new plan for health care, what is that system exactly look like? i don't know if this chart's right but we had some really bright people come together and

read the thousand pages of rules and regulations of the new health care bill and as they read it they tried to put an organizational structure to it to say, here's how it's going to work and this is the process and these are the different kinds of organizations that are going to be necessary, or are identified by name in the legislation. and this is it. at least this is what they thought it looked like as they put the pieces together and how different pieces of this related to each other and this is the organization that will stand between my constituents and their doctor. this is the organization that will say, if you're sick and you want to go to a doctor or you want to go to a hospital, this is the organization that will decide whether that is

permissible and then what the doctor may or may not be able to do. at least this is our understanding. but the franking board, the organization that determines whether we can make copies of this and send this out to our constituents, has decided that this is inappropriate to send to our constituents because they say it's inaccurate. so now the democrats here in the house are starting to control what members of congress can accepted back to their constituents when their constituents ask for information. the interesting thing is, we talk about this, we may ask and say, well, if this chart isn't right, could you lay out for us the chart that is more accurate and the chart that you would use to explain to your constituents exactly how this process would work? we are still waiting for that chart. the other thing that we found out that was kind of interesting is that the speaker is also

determined or it appears that the speaker's office has determined that it is inappropriate to say government-run health care. so even though we're putting an organization in place like this to manage the health care system in america, something that the congressional budget office says will add about $1 trillion to our debt from the next 10 years, even though we're creating all of these different agencies, it is inappropriate to tell our constituents that this is government-run health care and that we cannot use those words to describe this system to our constituents. but, again, so rather than reforming government, what we are doing is we are growing government. we are growing this bureaucracy in health care, we are also growing this bureaucracy in the energy area. so we are having -- seeing a massive expansion of the role of

government and an erosion of freedom for american citizens today. the model is cut taxes, reform government and freeze spending. whether you are in the state of michigan and perhaps many other states around the country or you are in washington, d.c., if you're asking where are the jobs and why is there not any economic recovery, the answer becomes fairly clear. we've got the wrong model in place. because rather than cutting taxes we are going to be increasing taxes, whether it's in cap and trade, whether it's in health care or whether it's allowing many of the tax cuts that were implemented, we are going to grow taxes rather than reforming government, we are going to grow government and rather than freezing spending we're going to increase spending. we're going at exactly the wrong

direction for economic growth. the model that you're seeing here in washington, and i remember a couple of months after the election president-elect obama was sitting at a conference in chicago and had a lot of his economic advisors and a lot of his future cabinet with him and they were talking about what to do with the economy. and i saw that the governor of michigan was sitting next to the president and i thought part of the reason for this would be for the president to learn from our governor what some of the things that we had tried in michigan that clearly hadn't worked. that increasing taxes, no, that had not grown michigan's economy. that had been detrimental to our economy. more regulations and more bureaucracy had been detrimental to our economy. that increasing the size and the scope of michigan's government

had been bad for our economy and bad for job creation. that, you know, the president would be able to understand that and say, maybe we ought to take a different look at what we're going to be doing in washington. but he has followed the same formula of increasing taxes, forgetting to reform government and increasing spending. and each of these cases, as we move through that direction, as we move down that path, when we grow taxes, when we grow taxes, who gets more control of america's future and who loses freedom? when we grow taxes it means that america's families, america's individuals and america's businesses, they lose control and they lose freedom. when we grow government, when we put this system between you and your doctor, who gets control

and who loses freedom? this system guarantees that control moves to the federal government. who loses freedom? america's families, america's individuals and america's businesses. so when we grow taxes, who loses freedom? the american people do. when we grow government who loses freedom and who gains control? america's people lose freedom, the government gains control. when we grow spending who gets control? the federal government. who loses freedom? the american people. which means that a lot of this debate now in washington, d.c., is about control and it is about freedom. let me give you a couple of examples. you know, this week the

president announced a new education program. $4 billion, one more education program, we counted all the education programs that were out there a few years ago and we came up with a number of 659 different education programs and now we've got one more. and the other parts of this education bill that i agree with the themes and the objectives, it says, you know, we got to open up our education system to more charter schools, it's kind of like, yes, i like charter schools, i think they work. but then, you know, this is the federal government saying, if you want a piece of the action, you want some of these $4 billion, these are the things that you're going to have to to do to compete for those $4 billion. well, you know what? charter schools may be appropriate for michigan, but they may not be appropriate for another state. so why is the federal government saying that charter schools, that's now the way it's going to

be nationally and we're going to take your money to insent you to do things that the federal government wants you to do? who loses control and who loses freedom? the federal government gets control using your money to bribe you to do things they want you to do that may or may not be appropriate for your state or your community. who loses control? local schools, local families and the states. of course the most massive expansion and best example of this in education is the passage of no child left behind in 2001. the goal is a goal that i think every american agrees with. no child left behind. every child is a unique gift to us and it's our responsibility, you know, as and as a parent it's my responsibility to try to do everything that i can to raise up that child and to make sure that that child is given the background, the values and

the education necessary that will enable this them to have a fruitful and productive life. i want that responsibility as a parent. i want the freedom to raise my child. what is no child left behind do? no child left behind says we're going to move for k through 12 education, we're not going to move it from a parent and a family to the local school board to the state, it says, man, we're going to grab k through 12 education and we are going to move it not only from the local community, we're going to move it all the way from there, we're going to move it all the way to the department of education. who gets control? who now has control of your local schools? we spend about, we send for your local school about 10%, 15% of the money they spend every year, the majority of that money is raised at the state or local

level. but ask your teachers and ask your superintend epts as to who is controlling what is going on in your local school. and they'll tell you very clearly and very quickly, they'll say, it's that bureaucracy in washington, d.c., the called the department of education. when i chaired the oversight committee on the education and workforce committee and had the opportunity to have oversight over the department of education i halls a great time, me and a colleague, we would walk over to the department of education and we would just walk in and we'd walk into some office and people would look at us and say, who are you? and we'd say, i'm congressman hoekstra and this is congressman schafer and, you know, we're here to help. and to help we'd really like to understand what you do and how you help my kids in my local schools and jude kind of say, this is my congressional

district and here's lovington, michigan, and i'm very concerned about what's happening with the schools in detroit and there's some rural school districts up here, but this is my congressional district. you can tell me if there's anybody from luddington, michigan, that works here department of education who might understand the needs of luddington, michigan? what about pent water, what about holland, what about generalson? couldn't find anybody from west michigan at the department of education. and then, you know, you'd say, well, if we really don't have anybody there from west michigan , it was hard to find people from michigan, you know, as we went through, you'd say, i wonder, do you guys know where these towns are? do you know the differents in the needs of the schools in luddington versus the kids and the challenges and the opportunities that we have in baldwin or cadillac or sparta? do you understand that? and these are just names to

them. they're just little push pins on a map to these folks. they he don't know the differences and the unique characteristics of each of these communities. then you'd ask them and say, you know, all of my school districts in the state, they prepare a mountain of paperwork that they send to this place in washington, to the department of education. you can tell me where this paperwork comes in and to what office it goes to? . no, not really. who reads this stuff and does anybody ever read it and then send a letter back to the kids at muskegon heights or the superintendent and say, you know, we have read your material, we have analyzed if, -- t here's some ideas how you may improve your schools. but at the same time that these folks in washington really don't understand the kids or the communities that they are managing, they have a tremendous amount of control over what goes

on in these schools. how do you know? every year now what does this department of education in conjunction or mandated through the states do? think about it. you got a department of education here in washington that is dictating the standards that identifies whether your school is a good school, they don't call it a not so good school or school in need of improvement, what do they call it? they call it a failing school. you got the department of education telling you whether your school is a good school or a failing school. they'll tell you the same thing about your teachers. we put in all kinds of mandates. i spent a lot of time going through these schools and talking to these different classrooms. after we passed no child left behind i started going into -- back to some of the schools hi been at and they would bring in the kids and the government teacher would come in. it's kind of like, what happened

to mr. smith? well, mr. smith wasn't a highly qualified teacher. he didn't meet the requirements that some bureaucrat in washington said you needed to have to teach government under no child left behind. so he retired or he's not here -- he or she, they are not teaching government anymore. it's like, wow. i know that -- i didn't know that they didn't have necessarily all the class background. they got a teaching degree and all those types of things, but this person really, when i had been there before, they appeared to have a genuine passion for the kids. they understood the subject matter. they must have found out about it some way. they appeared to be doing a really good be job with the kids when i was there. but now what you find out is that because they maybe didn't check every box on a form that came out of washington, d.c.,

they no longer could teach the subject that they loved and perhaps they taught for 10 or 15 years. control came to washington, d.c. and parents and local school boards lost the freedom to run their schools the way that they felt was most appropriate for their kids and would give them the best learning. we now have a school system that -- across the united states is getting to look a lot more bureaucratic rather than innovating and being creative as we are moving forward. i'll give you another example as to where states lose freedom. think about it. every time you go to your local gas pump a good -- 10%, 15% of the price of the gas that--of the price that you pay comes to washington, d.c.

and the history of the transportation bill, a state like michigan has gotten historically, we have gotten 83 cents on the dollar back. for every dollar that we send to washington, d.c., under the highway trust fund, we get -- we have gotten 83 cents back. that's not a very good return. it's maybe one of the reasons we don't have the greatest roads. there are other people around the country who ought to be thanking michigan because michigan dollars are paving their roads. but the interesting thing is when this money comes back, when the money comes back to michigan, it comes back with a lot of strange and mandates attached to it. saying, you're going to build these signs that may be expensive, but -- in the northern part of my district a few years ago, they were going to build a turtle fence.

along the expressway. it goes through a westlands area. maybe a mile, mile and a half long. and we found out about it. we are not going to build a turtle fence. we were effective in delaying the building of that turtle fence for about a year. came back a year, year and a half later and saw there was construction going on along the road there. it's kind of like, man. they are going to build this turtle fence. and for those people who don't know what a turtle fence is, you don't need much imagination. a turtle fence is a fence you put alongside the highway to make sure that turtles don't cross the road. and that's really good for the turtles. except when you build the turtle fence and you prevent -- build it, and build the fence along the river so a turtle can't sneak into the river, swim under the bridge, and get into the median by getting up on the bank

there, they put the turtle fence there, so all they can do is get in the river, swim under both bridges and get up on the other side on the other fence, for the turtles that are outside of the fence, they are really thrilled by this fence. because they can't get hit by a car again. but i have gotten a significant number of complaints. the turt ills inside the -- turtles inside the fence are really unhappy because the only place that they can hang out is in the median or on the roadway, and they can't get back to the road. er the bottom line here -- the bottom line here is, i talked to the governor about this. pete, let's not get into the argument about the turtle fence. i'm telling you that the federal government, that money came in a funnel. we had to use it for road beautification or enhancement projects. meaning we had to build things like turtle fences. for those of us that live in the state of michigan, we have a lot of potholes and a turtle fence is not a priority for us.

but it was $318,000 for the turtle fence. and before that we had spent about $80,000 to $90,000 i believe doing a study as to whether a turtle fence was seengs. in florida they have actually done us one better. they have not only built a turtle fence, but they have also built turtle tunnels. so that they now have tunnels under the roadway so that the tunnels can go and get from one side of the road to the other side of the road and they go through tunnels. i'm not sure whether they built turtle tunnels as well as alligator tunlts tunnels because you don't want -- tunnels because you don't want them in the same tunnel. in michigan we have been forced to spend about $400,000 on a turtle fence. we also have a rest area. looked like a perfectly good rest area to me. but we ended up tearing down the

rest area and we ended up building a new rest area for about $3.6 million. remember, that this is the state that we have the eighth worst road system based on overall performance in the country. we could have spent the $400,000 on the turtle fence, the $3ings 6 million -- $3.6 million on the rest area, we could have spent that on other things -- and invested that on the things we really need those transportation dollars for and that is to repair our roads torques build bypass, and to build new on and off ramps so we can facilitate the movement of goods and services throughout our state so key could enhance our ability to compete t states but on a global basis to enhance our transportation system. but again, when we send that money to washington, when we

send that dollar to washington, washington gets control and washington uses its scroll -- control by saying, michigan, you are sending a buck here and we are only going to send you over the life of the program, we have only sent you 83 cents back. we have that improved now. i think this year we'll get about 93 cents back. still not good enough. we are going to exercise control by taking some of your money and siphoning it off and giving it to other states. then when you get the money, we are going to force you to spend that money on things that you otherwise perhaps would not have wanted to do. and what is washington, d.c., what does the department of transportation know about whether we ought to be building ale fence, a rest area, or investing it in basic infrastructure? those are the decisions that should be made and could be made at the state level. again, washington exercising its control. the residents and citizens of

michigan losing the freedom to set their own destination and to set their own priorities. the same thing happens with all kinds ever other spending. it comes here to washington, d.c. it goes back to the states. but it comes back with all kinds of strings attached to it. michigan's budget is about a $44 billion budget. i think it's roughly 2/3, somewhere between 2/3, 3/4 of that budget comes back to the state with strings attached to it by the federal government and strings mean control to the federal government and it means a loss of freedom for the people in the state of michigan. there's one other area that is a very, very different area. let me change focus for a minute here. before i do that, let me just reinforce, what we are talking about here, if we want to get back to economic growth, what we need to do is we need to move in a direction of cutting taxes,

reforming government, and freezing spending. we need to empower individuals. we need to empower families and businesses. the job creators and movers in our economy. and take control away from washington, d.c. and devolve it back to states, local governments, and individuals. that is how we will get economic growth. not by raising taxes, not by growing government. and not by increasing spending. the thing that i wanted to talk a little bit about is one other area of freedom. a year and a half ago a friend of mine came to me and said, pete, we need to do a constitutional amendment. i'm very cautious about amending the constitution. i think that's something we ought to take very, very seriously. he said, i've got an idea that we need to do a parental rights constitutional amendment. it's kind of like, parental

rights? what are we doing with parental rights? the parental rights constitutional amendment, it's very simple, it's 50 words -- less than 50 words. it basically says that the parents have the right to raise and educate their kids, or lead in the direction of raising and educating their kids, the federal government or government has the responsibility to step in if there are cases of abuse or neglect with the children. the third part is that this constitutional amendment takes precedent over any treaty. you ask, why would we need to do that? it's very -- people would say, we understand that. it's clear. that is an implied right in our constitution. meaning, if you read the constitution, most people would say, we understand that to be true. that parents have the right and responsibility to raise and educate their kids. but what we have found so often in the last 40 to 50 years, the things we took for granted

slowly eroded and changed and got to a point where we didn't expect that it would ever go. 50 or 60 years ago if people had said we need an amendment to protect an unborn child, people would have said, people understand that that is a life. obviously we found out that that's not true. we have moved to a different place. people would have said, it was 20, 25 years ago, someone would have said we need to define marriage and put a definition of marriage into the law, into the constitution, people would have said everybody knows what that is. we have now have found out that, no, we have broad disagreements as to exactly what that is. that's why we are doing this parental rights thing where we understand that it is implied right. that parents have the right to raise and educate their kids. what we are now seeing is that that right is starting to be eroded. eroded by our courts, it's being

eroded by what we are doing here in congress and those types of things. so what we want to do is we want to take this implied right and make it an explicit right in the constitution, just like the bill of rights, which guaranteed explicitly what the rights and privileges were. right to free speech, right to practice religion. right to bear arms and those types of things. that's what the spirit of this amendment is to explicitly put into the constitution the right of parents to raise, educate, and direct the upbringing of their kids. the other part, because that right is being eroded and being questioned and challenged in the courts and in this building each and every day. the other reason that we want to do this is that the third piece here is why put in that it takes precedent over any treaty? under the u.s. constitution, loosely interpreted by marketing guy not an attorney, the

constitution if the united states signs a treaty, the treaty takes precedent over the constitution unless it's expressly stated in either the treaty or in the constitution what takes precedence. . the president has said we ought to ratify this treaty. the secretary of state has said that it is a disgrace that we have not yet signed this treaty or ratified this treaty, and barbara boxer, our colleague in the senate, said she's going to make it a priority of hers to get it through the committee and that is the treaty of the u.n. convention on the rights of the child. if this passed, if this was ratified by the united states senate it would totally change the relationship and set in place a framework to alter of relationship between a parent

and their child and put the government in a critical -- potentially in a critical role in directing the upbringing of our kids. probably another bureaucracy just like this bureaucracy that is going to potentially get between you and your doctor. you could very easily envision this kind of bureaucracy getting between you and your children. and that's why we've done that amendment. and finally, let me bring up an issue that we're working through right now in the intelligence committee. you know, earlier this year the speaker of the house indicated and made a statement along the lines of i believe that, you know, loosely stated that the c.i.a. lies, they lie all the time. more recently, the chairman of the intelligence committee has made a similar statement that

the c.i.a. lies and lies consistently. seven members of my intelligence -- of the intelligence committee have written to the director of the c.i.a. asking him to retrack some statements that he made back in may about the c.i.a. and the honorable men and women in the c.i.a. and their service and their intent to always -- to fully and brief congress and to be truthful in their testimony to congress. and these seven members said that he should retract that statement and basically implying that they believe that he had now misled the congress and the intelligence committee. and, remember, this is all democrats. the speaker saying, the c.i.a., this c.i.a. lies. now under the direction of leon pi neta, former democratic -- pineta, former democratic

member of this house. the seven members said that leon, former democratic member of this house may have lied to the committee. the president of the united states, as we were considering -- as we were hoping to bring an intelligence bill to the floor for debate, the president coming back and saying that he, putting a veto threat on that bill because of the language that was in that bill. but the bottom line is that as we've gone through this process and coming out of this briefing where director pinetta had briefed us, some of my colleagues on the committee have now said, well, we're going to bring in the vice president. we need to bring in vice president cheney, and we have to, you know, investigate a program that was very clearly stated yesterday in the -- was stated yesterday in "usa today." they want to investigate a program that they never told

congress about that never happened, meaning they planned it and worked on it but they never executed the program. it's kind of like, what's going on here? the program, sure there was some planning done on it. there might have been some training dollars that were expended on it. yeah, you're right. they didn't brief congress but they never did the program, and then "usa today" said, guess what, this was in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and it's alleged that the program and the deliberations within the c.i.a. were about how to disrupt, contain and perhaps kill the leadership of al qaeda. and you kind of step back and think, you would think that our

national security apparatus in the months after 9/11 and the years after 9/11 that they would have been considering different ways to contain, disrupt or to kill the leaders of al qaeda. and in reality, according to press reports, much of that has happened over the last eight years. and guess what, in many of these cases, the american people are grateful that we've disrupted al qaeda, that they've not been able to carry out another attack against the united states. and according to press reports in the last few months, one of the top leaders of al qaeda, one of bin laden's sons may have been killed in an attack. but he was part of the leadership that still wants to attack u.s. troops in afghanistan, to kill our troops

in afghanistan, and if possible to attack the united states again. but, you know, it's just amazing to me that you have the men and women of the c.i.a. who have been aggressively going after the threats and the enemies of the united states and they've done it successfully for eight years, we haven't been attacked again, and the thanks that they get now from this administration and the leadership of this congress is that they are called liars and they're called liars repeatedly and they are now being threatened by the attorney general that they are going to be investigated and they may be prosecuted. it's the wrong way to go. these are all points that were raised in the editorial yesterday in "usa today" saying it's wrong to go down this path because, number one, there's nothing there to be investigated. it appears that some want to do, it appears what they want

to do is they want to move and they want to focus back on the previous administration. and what we need to be doing is we need to be looking forward. the threats to america are real. we need to be focused on containing and defeating the threats that we face as a country today and we need a strong intelligence community and a strong military to make that happen. and we need to demonstrate to the men and women of the intelligence community and in the armed services that we stand behind them and, sure, we recognize that they make mistakes. they will recognize that. and when they do they will be held accountable. when they do the job that we have asked them to do, when they do the job that we have funded them to do, it is amazing to me that many of the programs that are now being criticized that have kept us safe are the same programs that many of the members of this house knew about, they supported them, they funded

them and they asked the intelligence community to carry them forward and to do them. they are now criticizing the intelligence community for. they are calling them liars, and they're saying we may prosecute you. and the bottom line is, was pointed out in the "usa today" editorial, they are destoring, they are destoring the -- destroying the morale. they are saying, this is the thanks we are getting from america's elected political leadership for the risk that we have taken and for the results that we have gotten. it is just plain wrong for us to be doing this to the men and women of the intelligence community. and like the "usa today," i think the message has to be very simply, stop. stop. there's not any evidence that

you need to go down the path that you're going down, and all you're going to do is hurt the community that has kept america safe. america has great strengths. we've got great people in the state of michigan. yes, we're struggling, but michigan's going to come back because we have great people. we've got great resources. we have got the opportunity to rebuild the state. we've got the opportunity to rebuild this country. but the solutions for rebuilding america and rebuilding michigan are not going to come from washington, d.c. they are not going to come from lansing. they are going to come from washington, d.c. and lansing, giving up control and giving more freedom back to the people of america, to the people of michigan to let them have some of their sovereignty back, to let them get some of the freedom back and to free them from some of the burdensome

mandates, rules and regulations. we do that by cutting their taxes, by reforming government, allowing for innovation and creativity at a grassroots level, at a local level and by freezing spending here in washington. i think with a mad dash that we've done here in washington in spending, we ought to be looking at cutting spending here in washington and shrinking the size of this government and unleashing the potential of america's people and michigan's citizens to rebuild our state and rebuild this country. give them the freedom, give them the freedom to grow their business, to start a business, to hire a few more people, to try things. the freedom to grow a business, the freedom to fail and the freedom to be successful, the freedom to succeed in a dream that they may have. michigan was built on the creativity and the innovation and the ingenuity of a whole

range of people over generations. michigan's future was never built or created by a government in lansing or a government in washington, d.c. we need to reform this government here in washington. we need to cut taxes. we need to reform government, and we need to reduce spending. and when we start setting up the tone here in washington and start moving that money back and just think, if we can get 5% or 10% of efficiency of the money that goes back to the states, a lot of our states wouldn't be facing the financial challenges that they face today. they'd have more money coming in. and if they experience and implemented the same kinds of practices of cutting taxes, lowering spending and getting rid of burdensome government programs, we would see a real rebirth at the local level, at the individual level and at the

business level in this country. we've done the model before. we didn't do enough of it in the 1990's. we need to do it again, and we need to do more of it because only, you know, during the last eight years and now going into the last nine years what we've been doing is we've been growing this beast in washington. we've been taking control here in washington and we've been stripping freedom away from people at the local level and moving the control, moving the freedom that they had and been moving the control to washington. and that's exactly the wrong thing to do. with that, speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. hoekstra: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: madam speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: madam speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed without amendment h.r. 2632, cited as the korean war veterans recognition act. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. hoekstra: madam speaker, i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly, the house stands

the >> of the london session on civil rights and race relations with >juan williams, >> the ongoing trial of roger this, with the chambers and the conference. >> how is c-span funded? >> the nation's, maybe? >> government. >> they get their funding through taxes. >> a public funding thing. >> america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiatives. no government mandate, no government money.

>> now, chairman of the house judiciary committee talked earlier today about health care legislation and investigations of the bush administration. this is about an hour. >> we have 12 seconds. good afternoon, welcome to the national press club. i am president of the national press club. where the world's leading the organization for journalists. we are committed to the future of journalism by providing informative programming and

fostering a free press worldwide. for more information about the national press club, please visit our web site. on behalf of our 3500 members worldwide, i would like to welcome our speaker and our guests in the audience today. i would also like to welcome those of you watching on c-span. we look forward to today's speech and afterwards, i will ask as many questions as time permits. please hold your applause during the speech so we have time for as many questions as possible. for the broadcast audience, the applause maybe from the guests and members of the general public to attend our luncheons, and not necessarily from the working press. i like to introduce our table desk and ask that the stand briefly. john peterson, senior vice president of atco world wide and

washington correspondent of the detroit news. larry bivens, also a member of the board of governors. dr. patricia berg, a professor at george washington university medical school. dick bryan, a retired reporter and past president of the national press club. gayle dickson, a guest of congressmen conniers. chief counsel of the house judiciary committee. skipping over myself. angela from bloomberg news. skipping over our guest, the speaker committee member who recognized today's luncheon.

marcia dyson, a guest of congressman. deborah price of the detroit news. [applause] "washington post" journalist once called our guest a junkyard dog investigator watching out for taxpayer's wallets by rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse. there has been no shortage of that and the over 40 years that john has served in the house of representatives as a democrat from michigan. the congressman is the second longest serving house member, and before winning his own seat, he served as an aide to the

longest serving congressman john dingell from michigan. he has been reelected 22 times. [applause] and along the way, there have been great achievements and some great controversies. among his claims to fame, he is a founding member of the congressional black caucus. he is an original enemy on president nixon's enemies list. [applause] and he introduced the first bill in congress to make martin luther king djr. day a national holiday. the congressmen now chairs the powerful house judiciary committee where he has been an outspoken critic of president bush's policies regarding interrogation of terrorism suspects and warrantless wiretapping. he has not hesitated to use his

committee's power to pursue investigations into those policies. he is also front and center and the national health insurance debate as a longtime advocate of the single payer system in which the government would provide health care for every american. we look forward to hearing his take on the stalled health care bill. [applause] >> thank you, donna for well- prepared introduction. you delivered it remarkably well. to everyone here, the head table, and all of you, i am

happy to see you appear today -- to see you up here today. dick ryan, from way back. john peterson, april ryan, barbara reynolds, dave mcconnell, and the few friends i have invited. this is a great time to have a discussion for a few minutes as to where i think we are. i have always asked my staff to over prepare me. they did not let me down today. we have 29 pages and some books

and things that i asked about. and then i always go off on my own anyway. this is a great help. but nothing like it. there are five things that i wanted to squeeze into 50 or 20 minutes. eric holder must appoint a special counsel to review the bush administration's abuses of power and misconduct. a criminal probe has got to do that. that is why i love being at the press club. i did not have to call them. he knows how i feel anyway. eric and i go back a long ways.

number two, i have a bill that calls for a blue-ribbon panel about the same thing. why do you need both? because a special counsel is not going to work in the public. they have to work confidentially. we need in 9/11 type panel. no congressmen on it. i wouldn't even put x members on it. so we can publicly go into what we have talked about and been doing. by the way, i was surprised.

as i was looking over my notes, they said we have had 55 hearings about that subject matter. the administration, the abuse of power, the misconduct. i said, 55? may i see the titles? they went back to 2007 and started off with all of these. i have them available for anybody who would like to get a copy of them. we would be happy to make it available to you. we need, also, to enforce the subpoena is that i have issued to my friends in the other administration for declining to

join us in the hearing room for a few dozen friendly questions under oath, at risk of perjury. we have to keep the process working congress's role has been diminished as the president's executive role has increased. when you get around to saying, i can't come because it is executive privilege. i work in the white house, i can't tell you -- i can't answer these questions. we tried to counter with, wait a minute, you don't know what questions we're going asked. if we ask one that you think

deserves to be challenged, we will set it aside and see if we can work something out. but the blanket -- anybody near the white house doesn't have to come to a hearing, that would not wash in my son's freshman class in atlanta, much less with me. and we're in the process of enforcing the sabena's against. meyer's former chief of staff, joshua bolton -- and forcing the subpoenas against harriet meyer's former chief of staff, joshua bolton.

it is not hard to figure out. the firings of the u.s. attorney's politicizing the one branch that should be as free from politics as possible, the department of justice. we're trying to get hate crimes through. oh boy. somebody wanted to end the -- equate the death penalty with a hate crime act. nothing like cooperation. the subject that has commanded so much of my time is the universal health care bill. i started with this so long ago,

not as the leader of it, but when hillary clinton called us into the white house, we had 100, and we have 85 co-sponsors now. it is the most popular health care bill and the congress -- in the congress. and yet, there is this effort to lock it in the drawer and talk about it as little as possible. the one that most americans have been called to want. this reaches everybody. a universal health care bill, from the moment you're born to the time you go to heaven is

what we need in this country. most industrial countries have some form of it already. i spent an enormous amount of time with other organizations, over 500 labor organizations alone. progressive democrats of america, churches, community groups. i will be speaking sunday night with the national medical association of african american box -- docs. their organization was supporting this when i first started out. that is the general drift of where i am coming from.

we want to lay down some guideposts. one of the problems in this democratic process of ours is, if you don't, it is assumed that it is ok. you did it under the past administration, there are the usual liberal critics. forget them. it has been done. there is precedence. we're saying no, not even to our dear friend, the forty fourth. we are laying down guidelines. yes, when we have honest disagreements, we want to talk about them. that is what is all about.

i told president obama when we were in the white house of all the important things you said, the one that i think is the one i want to thank you for right now is that you said you wanted all the people that supported you to keep advising you. he has asked for these groups to being around. i said, you did not have to tell me that. i was going to keep devising new even if you hadn't said it. what made me proud it was the fact that you did say it. no president has ever done that before. you get elected, you got your

staff, you got your counsel, stay in touch. he said, keep me advised. and i think that is what we have to do. so in the spirit of keeping him advise, -- keeping him advised and not just congratulate him all the things he overwhelmingly worked on, i want to take a moment and describe to you the circumstances that i think we find ourselves then on this twenty fourth day of july. in terms of health care and the political system itself, where are we? first, the health care bill is

unfortunately in trouble. i heard the president driving this morning -- being quoted on npr from chicago. he said, first of all we have to do it right, and that we have to get it done. yes, but i did not think it is being done right. -- i do not think that it is being done right. he could not have been a single pair before me, but he was a single pair and a good one -- single payer, and a good one. he made some good speeches about it. if we were starting all over

again, we would start with single payer. we are not starting all over again. please, as they say, give me a break. of course we're not starting out all over -- but we should scrap the system. somewhere along the line, people in congress inside the beltway are going to do what most people already want. they want a system where it doesn't turn on which of 1200 insurance policies you have, not that anybody has ever read the fine print. number two, did you understand it after you read it? i love these members and get up and say, read the bill. what good is reading the bill if it is 1000 pages and you don't have to days and two lawyers to

find out what it means after you read the bill? what i am saying is that too much is the same. we are not making enough changes. we are not covering everybody. it is not really universal. creating to class's, that failed in massachusetts. -- two classes, that failed in massachusetts. asked barney frank. we need a serious bill. the fundamental question is, is health care a constitutional right? do you have a right to health care in the american system? we believe that people do.

and introducing a constitutional amendment just to make it really clear so that you do not have to and for it or -- infer it or assume it is a given. how many minutes have i got left? >> about 9. >> good. look at the other body. well, don't look at the other body. [laughter] how can you have it -- i keep thinking that if this business that i am in wasn't so serious, it would make a great comedy if you took out the names, not to embarrass the people that speak.

here we are, climate change is something we caused and -- we finally admitted it. the science is a mile long on the subject. we're finally agreeing to it. and this is a phrase that draws cheers or a smile to my face. we want to provide everybody in america with affordable insurance. what an oxymoron. he can't pay his rent, lost his job, how can he get affordable insurance? we will buy it for him, chairman. you will,?

-- you will, huh? and of course, to make it really difficult to, we have the question of a public auction. -- a public option. i am so proud of dennis q. senate -- dennis kucinich that would allow for any state who wanted to try universal, single payer health care, they would be able to do it. he got that through. we are trying to keep it in. do not hold your breath on how long this can stay and. at least he got it in and we're not going to find out who doesn't want it in and so forth

at least give us a public auction that is -- a public auction -- option. many senators have said, a public auctoption is out. we're not giving them the option for a public plan. profit would be down 3% or 4% overhead for medicare. 15% for private insurance is depending on which one. we don't even want it. we don't even want a weak one. we don't want any at all. so we've got a problem.

the president -- what a guy. what presence, what intellectual force, what courage, what ability. mr. nice guy. there are so many people even in my group that say, look, let's stop being so nice. these guys are no on everything, and we have the votes, let's take them out. he doesn't do that. he keeps saying, please come to the table. have a drink with me on friday evenings and the white house. let's talk, negotiate. that is smart. once he starts swinging back, the media like you guys will be

saying, there they go again. the d's and r's are fighting and fighting. obama is all about making it not all the same. that is why he is doing that. that is why i take exception to some of my friends that want him to punch back and that sort of thing. i close with my observations about the political situation we find ourselves in. it is funny. here is an old american respected political party self- destruct in right in front of our eyes. in every way.

every day, they call 18 or two dozen votes, roll call votes on everything they can think of. motions to adjourn all over the place. the minority leader had a fund- raiser, so he made them read the whole bill, 55 pages for two or three hours. that was yesterday. what will they do today that will make you either laugh or cry? it goes on and on. as a supporter of sarah palin for taking over the republican party, i am one of her great advocates. what an attractive, young

neoconservative. reactionary. [laughter] there had never been one like her. she attracts crowds. she is so busy she doesn't have time to govern alaska. let's get ready for the big one when we go back and to take on obama. i want to encourage her on. [laughter] and there is my four colleagues, newt gingrich. he has remade himself at least three times. there are three editions of gingrich. he has a book coming out. and of course, with the vice president, there groups in the

democratic party that have been accused of helping him get time to get on because as a guy that could not get above 15% popularity when he wasn't hiding somewhere and claiming he is not in the administration, this is our kind of guy. and don't forget to the chairman of the republican party. he has not gotten off one consistent speech ever since he became the chairman. the whole thing -- i do not know who is left, but with an organization going down the drain and with these kind of leaders coming forward to regain control, we have a couple of

family values men who got caught. i want to mention their names or what they did. you know already. they were going to become presidential candidates. and now they want them to take a hike out of the senate. we live in exciting, important times. what you do in the media is so important. it is not always easy. but many of you do it. are you giving me the hook? all right. many of you have been the ones that cause many of the things we are investigating to happen. i commend you for it.

i think you for your patient attention to my remarks this afternoon. [applause] >> not that we don't like hearing all this a nice stuff about the media, but can you explain to us a little bit more about the politics of the health care bill? what will it take to bring the democrats together, and what will it take to get republican buy-in. >> if i knew the answer to that, i would leave this luncheon and go straight to the speaker's office and to make her the beneficiary of this wisdom that i do not possess. here are some of the problems, and we can expound on them.

we have got majorities, but in some sense, they are paper majorities. we have 60 in the senate. i would not want to bet your house on that. we have 60 in name, but we have 50 something blue dogs in the house that vote republican half the time. then we have a number of men and women who are freshmen from districts that are normally republican and they don't want any of -- they think a strong breeze will blow them away. these are the problems you are confronted with. we want a strong public auction

-- option in the house. some do, some don't. when you have max baucus helping us make decisions on reformed health care bills, you are in trouble. if you do not know it, you're going to find out over the next few weeks. so it is not an easy lift at all. the president says now is the time. he called us and to the summits and said, everybody get busy. if he is waiting for us to serve him with a health care reform bill, he knows now he has got to get into it. he has got to expand some capital, and he is doing that.

those are some of the problems. the overarching problem is, how are you going to pay for it? will this put us into more debt? the answer with universal, single-payer, you end up with less. but we do not have universal, single-payer. as long as the insurance companies are there and pre- existing illnesses is a way to disqualify anybody that has got something that is going to cost them money, after all, this is a business. the way you make a profit in the health-care business is to not insure the people that are likely to be sick and the ones that are, get rid of them if you can by any means necessary. that is how you make a profit. ask the insurance people, they will tell you. >> why do you want to scrap the

health care system when it is reported that 70% of americans are generally satisfied with their health care plan? >> is not an accurate statement, that's why. the majority of americans want a single-payer. i have tw low -- i have to bwo polls to back me up. now the medical community has come around. when i first started out, i was invited to an ama conference once. but now, more doctors support our plan than any other plan. you know the nurses are all over this plan. they supported. the people support it.

the union's support it. community groups support it. 50 million people don't even have a pan -- don't even have a plan to prefer. they don't have any insurance at all. >> how influential are the big insurance lobbyists? should your congressional colleagues send back their campaign contributions from those groups? >> how could anybody have gotten the notion that farma and the health insurance companies were giving campaign contributions to influence the independent-minded members of the house and senate? where did anyone ever get that notion? if you were in a group were the chief executive was making millions of dollars a year, and

you have questions on the bottom line, how much money did you make? power the stocks doing? of course they are the ones blocking this. why would they want a single pair when they have 1200 other insurance companies to fool around with right now and compete with each other. the down my street in my town, and what do i see? a billboard, come to this hospital. we're the best in the country. come to this heart specialist. something else. they are competing. and until we take that incredible cost of advertising

and administration overhead that is driving some doctors out of the business, they can't afford all the administrative help. they need to fill out this growing number of insurance policies. >> will you oppose the health plan without a public plan? >> no. i should say heck no. i could say something else. [laughter] of course not. it's all i can do to support a health plan without universal single payer health care. that is what i have been working on. that movement will hopefully help a lot of people and the legislature realize that a public auction, a real -- a

public option, an real public option -- they're not worth the napkin they are written on. i am topic -- and i am talking about a real public option, not something a guy dreams up between martinis and sends it down to us to enact. >> you want a single payer. president obama does not. why do you want it, and why doesn't obama? >> i wanted because it is the best plan. i can remember when obama agreed with me. i'm just guessing now because we have not talked about it. he wants it because of the rahm emanuel factor. i am glad you asked me.

[laughter] the rahm emanuel factor, look, we want a success and we are willing to make a deal about anything. does that make you feel pretty comfortable about health care? that is the whole idea. he wants a bill. he wants to win in the off-year elections. he wants our president reelected the next time he comes up. and so do i.. but i don't want anything to stamp reform and let it go. this will not hold down costs or cover everybody. it will not take away the

misery of hundreds of thousands of people who have been caught. we have horror stories of people having to go into bankruptcy. we're having a hearing on it next week in judiciary about the major cause of personal bankruptcies. it is health care bills, hospital bills, doctor bills. and the tragedy of people not being able to eat or pay rent or even get their pharmaceutical prescription. >> can you hold on a couple of minutes? >> 12 minutes left on the first vote. for votes follow. many apologies. i thank you very much.

>> can we take a couple more questions? >> no. >> really? >> really really. [laughter] [applause] so what? i got to go. >> that's his job. >> thank you all very much for getting me to do this. maybe i will come again when i have more time. [applause] >> ok, my apologies that we are ending early. i will make a few announcements about our future speakers. on july 27, monday, congressman barney frank, a democrat from

massachusetts and chairman of the house financial-services committee will join us. on july 29, senator john kerry of massachusetts and chairman of the senate committee of foreign relations will join us. coming up in the fall, september 29, ken burns, the documentary filmmaker will be here to talk about his latest documentary. and on september 12, we will host the twelfth annual 5k run and auction for diversity in journalism. for more information, please go to our note -- to our website. i would like to thank you all for coming today and think the national press club staff members malinda coke, and howard roffman for organizing today's launch -- lunch. the video archive of today's luncheon is provided by the

national press club broadcast operation center. our offense are available for download on my tunes -- on itunes as well as on our website. or, go to archives.press.org. our website is www.press.org. thank you very much, and we are adjourned a little early. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> race at the american criminal-justice system with former justice sandra day

o'connor, and an attorney for henry louis gates jr.. saturday on c-span's "america and the court's." >> susan jacoby with the espionage trial of alger hiss. . . this is about 40 minutes. >> this is the primary committee

for health care jurisdiction and house. we share that jurisdiction with the ways and means committee. i think everyone knows that this was the week that the energy and commerce committee was supposed to mark up the present's health care bill. i think everyone knows that this is the week that it was not. it did not happen. there are rumors that it is not going to happen next week, that the speaker will take the bill away from chairman waxman and bring it directly to the floor. i predict that if that happens, the bill will fail on a rule vote. i do not believe the democrats and the blue dog democrats and institutional democrats in the house would vote to bypass the committee a primary

jurisdiction. in the chance that there is a marked up next week in the energy and commerce committee, we wanted to hold this press conference to talk about our republican prescription for a healthy america. if you look down beside me here he will seek to l.b.o. boxes. -- you will see two boxes. there are 17 boxes of republican amendments. they are at the desk in the rayburn building. these are republican amendments to put together a healthy america. when the democrats say that we do not have a plan, this is congressman po's chat next line, but i'm going to use it, where is their plan?

i am going to go through this very briefly and let the rest of the member speak. first and foremost, we agree with president obama that if you have insurance that you like, you should be able to keep it. the current plan in the energy committee does not allow that. it requires mandates that many current plans will not be able to meet. most americans within five to eight years, if they have an insurance plan they like, they will not be able to keep that under the president's plan. we have an amendment that does that. any system that is based on the pre-market theives transparency. i think it is telling that as soon as the president and mr. waxman and the blue dogs announced this medical review board, people went crazy in opposing it because they are afraid that that board, in addition to taking power from congress, that board will insist upon transparency. people that have information

about health care choices, health care outcomes, health care costs, will usually make a better decision about where to put their health care dollars. we believe senior citizens should be able to have choice in the kind of medicare package that they have. we will have an amendment on that. we believe that low-income families that are eligible, and the premium assistance. we will have an amendment on that. the amendment no. 5 on our list, probably one of the more in court once -- more important ones, it access to health insurance is really the issue -- i think there is access issue and cost issue, but if access is the issue we do not need bureaucracies in mandates. we need a straight-forward, a national plan. we need to create a plan, and we

have an amendment that does that. mr. chavis has a number of amendments -- mr. chaddoick has a number of amendments. i am not going to go through these all. suffice it to say, republicans of the energy and commerce committee are prepared to work every day next week if necessary. we're prepared to work from 10 in the morning to 12 that night, or however long the chairman wants. we think there should be at a markup in the energy and commerce committee, and we think we should adopt some of these amendments. the only true negotiations that have been held between republicans and democrats in the house on the health-care package had been done in the open market process. the ways and means committee for a day. last week, ended little bit this

week, about a day in the energy and commerce committee. the only committee still in play is the energy and commerce committee. we think there should be transparency and legislation, not just in transparency in the bills that go into effect. we hope chairman waxman and nancy pelosi will let there be a mark up. we stand prepared to offer these amendments, plus many more to try to improve the package. i would like to introduce the deputy ranking member of the committee and the chairman of the healthcare solutions working group appointed byed, mr. bluntf missouri. >> we want to reform the system. the solutions group has been working hard for six months. we have put principles out long ago. those principles are as outlined

in the amendments and we hope to be able to offer in these various committees. the principles are what are really important here. our principles really do reform the system and we are convinced they will have the right impact on cost. one of the principles as a more competitive marketplace. we had a hearing yesterday that included people from canada and the united kingdom. they repeatedly said competition plus choice equals quality. he could have also said, competition plus choice equals lower prices. we want to have a system where there is more opportunity for people to make choices. the idea that if you like what you have you should keep it is fine, but we would like to add to that even if you like what you have, you should have more choices than you have now. there are easy ways to put more

marketplace dynamics into the system. you might want to look at the wall street journal editorial board that references the daschle/dole speculation. they even mentioned the fact that are refundable tax credit and our concept of a broadening the market place are not too far at of line with what the concept on the market place was. we might not agree on every issue, but on marketplace expansion we do agree. how do you with in the health- care system kit cost savings? -- how do you at with in the health-care system get savings? what would we do within the system to save money? we look at liability reform.

we will look at more health it. we would also look at more transparency. what kind of results do people get? none of those things are in the plan that the democrats are offering, if there is a plan. there are about three different bills in the house right now, but every time you see the bill it is 100 pages bigger than the last time you saw it. if anyone believes that there is a bill that any single democrat knows what is in it, we will have a debate on that, because i am sure that is not true. if you watched the president in the past few days, she clearly did not have answers about his plan. our plan is more competition, more choice, let market forces work in a way that will drive prices down. do not defend the current system, but make it work better for consumers. also, make the current system work better at the point of

health care itself. those principles over and over again are reiterated in the 17 boxes of amendments setting in the commerce committee waiting to be offered if they will ever have a hearing. you cannot offer your idea if there is not a forum to offer your ideas. you can also not combat their ideas if they changed by 100 pages every time you walk into the room. we are eager to have this discussion. we have been right up to the edge of counting on the door for six months. our pants that -- are counting on the door has been calling the white house chief of staff and sending letters and we want to work with you on this and make the current system better, and no one is responding to that. iobviously they are not responding because they do not have a standard that meets the goals that we should work

towards in health care of. the member that over the last decade has been more engaged in this and any body else day in and day al and been an integral part of the solution is the ranking member on the health care subcommittee nathan deal. >> thank you. i am from georgia. let me put are circumstances in perspective. most of us believe that the decision is a major reform of how americans get their health care in this country deserve at least as much time deliberation as it would take to select a puppy it to reside in the white house. it took the president six months to decide which party he was going to have and to expect congress to do something on major health care reform in six days is totally irresponsible. alet me talk about a couple of

areas that we are concerned about. we believe the current system needs some reform. we believe that the current free enterprise system of delivering health care through private insurance companies as things that need to be fixed. for example, we believe exclusions for pre-existing conditions must be addressed. at the portability of insurance must be adopted in any plan. people should not have to work about rigid worry about losing health insurance because they lose their job -- people should not have to worry about losing their health insurance because they lose their job. we believe that those are the kinds of substantive reforms coupled with the transparency issue that mr. burton referred to earlier. let me mention another area.

that is the area of illegal immigrants being a part of a publicly financed health system. we have been through this debate before. we have a number of amendments that would assure the taxpayers of this country that they are not going to be using their hard-earned tax dollars to pay for people who are illegally in this country. those are the things that resonate with my constituents, and certainly what most people across the country. i am afraid we will not have the opportunity to offer those kinds of progressive reforms, not only to the current system, but also to the proposal that the democrats have on the table. >> i am from north central florida. let me echo what they have indicated. the president is obviously not read the bill himself. i am going to have a very simple amendment. let me read it to you. nothing in this division shall prevent individuals from keeping their current health benefit

plan. that sounds pretty simple. the president has said -- this is what he said -- if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. if you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep the health care plan. that is the president's statement. what does the bill said? i have a copy therefore anyone that is interested. -- what does the bill say? it says that after five years the commissioner mandates that all health care plans in america must meet a qualified health benefit plan under section 1 01 including the essential benefits action under section 121. what that means is that all the plans that patients have will have to conform in been mandated to change otherwise they are eliminated, terminated. the president says he wants everyone to be able to have

their own choice of doctor and health care plan. it will not have the right to choose. simply put on page 17 on this bill, it outlined specifically after five years, all plants will be mandated to comply to the government health care physician or be eliminated or terminated. the president needs to talk to mr. waxman. i do not think he has read this section. >> this is the purpose of bringing this to you today, so you will see what we are offering. we certainly want to make certain that health care works for americans. this morning we had a great press conference with female business owners that came to capitol hill to express their concerns.

are they concerned about costs? absolutely, because they know that costs need to be addressed. are they concerned about accountability for insurance companies? yes, they are. they agree with us. our ranking member mentioned this morning that some of those issues dealt with support ability. -- support ability. we're looking forward to the opportunity to present these, not only to the committee but to the congress and to the american people. we certainly want to make certain that people had transparency in the options that are there. that people own their health insurance, that they own their health records. these are some of the highlights from the conference we had this morning with a female business owners. they're going to work hard with us as we continue to push through the next few weeks to

look at what happens before we go out on recess. to look at the opportunities that exist. as we talk to health care consumers and businesses to make certain they understand our commitment to stand with them to preserve their access to affordable health care in their own community. >> thank you. i am from the third district of arizona. i got here. i worked on this back in 1995, 1996, 1997. i have written a comprehensive health care reform bill every year i have been here. let me make it clear. these other things we agree upon. republicans believe in and

support legislation to fix the problem for people with pre- existing conditions and chronic conditions. we believe those people should be able to buy health care through a high risk pulling mechanism at the same cost of every one of us. this is not just talk. we passed legislation to encourage states to do that three state high risk mechanisms at least four years ago. i read the bill. we republicans would like to go further now and make that a national thing so it covers everyone. second, covering all americans. many republicans who have been working on this including myself and others have lodges -- have offered legislation that covers every single american. those are the biggest issues. let's talk about where we do not

agree. we believe the tax code has to be fixed. it is an outrage to say to american businesses you can buy health insurance with pre-tax dollars, but we want everyone else who does not have an employer-sponsored plan to be responsible. we will smack you down by making it costs a third more. that is the law in america today. if you do not have the employee- based health insurance you have to buy a with after-tax dollars. that is unfair. that is an outrage. i have tried to fix it since i have got here. there is a fundamental difference. the democrats want a top-down bureaucracy driven, punishment redding, commands people around, mandate coverage by businesses, mandate coverage by individuals, and punish them if they do not comply. republicans want to empower you.

i want to encourage you to be able to buy your own health insurance plan -- and every single one of them to be able to buy your plant. democrats talk about plans that cancel people. your employer by is the plan -- buys the plan and he does not look after you. if you could pick out the plan, you would not accept the terms that he picks. that is what we want for you. we want you to be able to buy a plant that cannot cancel you. if they threaten to cancel you, you cancel that planned parenthoo. >> everyone else gets to speak here.

>> a year ago due would not pick up the government to sit at a car you would buy. that brings up the point. the government has taken over the financial sector, automobile in its -- manufacturing and now your doctor's office. we have liability reform that has done a lot towards lowering malpractice rates and also bringing doctors into the practice. it was the first amendment offered. it was struck down on a technicality. we're going to bring it back and address the technical problems. on the issue of if you are denied by one of these boards. if they have boards that will decide, should the patient had the opportunity to come back and have a hearing of protest that denial of care? we ask our insurance companies to do that a couple of years ago. shouldn't we ask the public to

do the same thing? there is going to be a vast expansion of medicaid. should we not at least ensure that those patients have access to let dr.? one of the ways we can do that is to ensure that every state will reimburse physicians that is no less than 75% of their state plan rates. those are simple, common-sense things. i hope we do have the opportunity to get back and discuss this. better would to be opened the doors and get back to writing legislation. >> doctor bill gingrich. -- dr. phil gingrich. my colleague spoke about what kind of doll the white house could have ended up with if they had rushed that. they would have ended up with a

junkyard dog if they have rushed it through. just like this health care situation. we want affordable, accessible, and universal health care. accessible in universal to everyone. instead, we rush it through an end up with universal nightmare. we can do this right. we talk about republican legislation. this iwe have plans and amendmes that representative glenn just held up -- rep blood just held up. -- representative blunt just held up. if the public option is so good, then left side of the president and every member of congress --

then it lets assigned at the president, vice-president, and every member of congress. if you're going to talk the talk, you need to walk the walk. if we're going to end up getting denied coverage and a rationing of care, let's put up or shut up. i think we have some great plans. i am creance rigid proud to be here with my colleagues. -- i am proud to be here with my colleagues. >> this is my 17th year in congress. i have had vast experience dealing with the private health system. i look back over the years as republicans working with conservative democrats, we would work on the prevention side of health care. we tried to maintain it that

which is right within the private system and work on that which is wrong. the advocates today at the government auction of health care calling it reform are the individuals that voted against things that we tried to do in successive congresses. that was associated health care plans. allowing businesses to pull together to spread the risk and lower the premiums. we left the initiatives. look at what you do with automobile insurance. you are able to buy that insurance across state lines. we should be able to do that with health care. if you are a good driver, you did a good driver discounts. what if you are responsible and how you take care of your body? you exercise, you watch your cholesterol level, you do not smoke or drink, should you get a

premium discount? we believe that you should. it is called wellness programs and trying to encourage people to take a greater incentive in their personal wellness. i tried to work with democrats on an amendment to do that. do you know that the white house advise the democrat on the other side not to work with republicans on that amendment? that is pretty bizarre to me. the president himself had talked about some of these companies that are doing the wellness programs. it is very clear that the government option is their plan. they are calling it health reform, but it is all about government control. it is very disturbing. with that, i am going to deal. >> district 1. john sullivan. last week there was a plan that

dealt with inefficient spending. in the past -- it passed. it gave the blue dogs the ability to show their teeth and willing to work in a bipartisan way to eliminate additional level of government inefficiency. unfortunately, shortly after my amendment was adopted, chairman waxen -- waxman shut down the process. house republicans all agree that health care is too expensive and too many such families are struggling with the rising cost of health care. we stand ready to reform the system and make it more affordable, regardless of creed- existing conditions. our nation's health-care system is in need of reform but should not come at the expense of our nation's small businesses. things that i think we should point out is that since then barack obama has been on tv a lot. he wants to root out duplication

and then he talks about expanding the program even more if this thing were so good, it why would the biggest majority of the energy and commerce committee in 50 years, why can't they pass this bill? the american people cannot stand it. i have not found anyone out there that thinks this is a good idea in my district and outside my district. people have told me do not support that government run plan. we're hoping it -- we are happy with our health care system. >> all of us up here agreed that our health care system needs to be reformed. you do not blow up the best medical health care system in the world. we strongly oppose a government

takeover of health care with the rising costs and massive increases in taxes that go along with it. you can see from the large number of alternatives that we're offering to chairman waxman, many of which he may not let's see the light of day that we have a really good common sense ideas. we hope these ideas get brought forward. if you judge by the last few weeks, -- unfortunately you did not know about this because the chairman waxman through the public at the meeting. they literally shut down the meeting to the public and through the media out. while we heard was things that they probably do not want the public to hear. the head of the cbo talk about some of the rising cost and talk about all of the savings that we keep hearing about do not exist in the bills they filed.