kin singer -- kinzinger, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. kinzinger: it's an honor to give my first speech on the house of representatives on this issue. when i went around in the campaign, i heard from the people of the 11th district of illinois repeatedly a number of things, but on the forefront of it was cut spending. . we have a massive deficit, we've acted the last few years like we can spend money and never worry about it. we saw a matsive change in the last few months and it's time for us to heed that message. how better to do it than lead by example. as well as hearing about needing to cut spending, i heard about humility a lot, and a majority needs to lead with humility. i think this is important. i don't have kids yet but

someday i will and when i do i don't want to live with the responsibility that i shoveled debt and debt on top of them and make them live with that i understand what sacrifice is and i understand that folks have been fighting on the outside for defense of our country and it's time for us now to fight on the inside for the defense of our country. $35 million isn't going to solve all our budget problems but it's a good first step. this is a first step in a probably very painful process where we have to understand and wrestle with this beast and where everybody is going to have to sacrifice. but it's the first step in a very -- and a very necessary step to ensure that we're leaving our children a union and a country far better than one we inherited. so to the people of the 11th district of illinois, to the people of merck, let me say, the freshman class and the republican majority has heard your voice.

we heard what you said on november 2, and we're going to seriously cut spending and we're going to start with our own budget. we're proud to do it and we're going to step forward and lead and make you proud. thank you so much for the opportunity to address on this issue and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania continues to reserve. the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: at this time i'd like to yield to the gentleman from mississippi, mr. harper a member of the house administration committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. harper: mr. speaker, i'm eager to enact the republican governing agenda that focuses on creating jobs, driving down spending and shrinking the size of the federal government. republicans will take swift action to turn america from the failed economic policies of the last two years to conservative principles that promote prosperity through individual freedoms and liberties.

our plan includes pay do you think the national debt and putting the federal government back on a path to a balanced budget this goal can be achieved by employing fiscally conservative policies just like this. mr. speaker, the federal government is broke, borrowing 41 cents of every dollar we spend. nearly one in 10 american workers is unemployed while the federal government has added 100,000 new jobs. washington continues to record trillion-dollar deficits, despite the fact that family budgets get smaller and smaller. the government cannot continue to grow while americans wallets shrink. as lawmakers, we must lead by example, for this past congress, my first term, my congressional office has come in under budget, voluntarily returning approximately 10% of the member's representational allowance. this gesture has not impacted the quality of our

representation and our stitser vises. during this time period, my office has replied to over 37,000 emails and letters and connected with nearly 82,000 constituents via teleconference. i urge congress to follow this example by providing taxpayers with a fiscally responsible operating budget. our path to a balanced budget begins today and it begins with this vote. with that, i thank you and yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: it's my privilege to yield to the gentleman from georgia a new member of the house administration committee but a veteran of the house, mr. gingrey -- dr. gingrey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gingrey: i thank the gentleman for yielding, i thank mr. lungren, mr. brady, the members of the tansigs team, many of whom have spoke on this

issue. clearly it is time for us, we members of congress of the house of representatives, with house resolution 22, to show good faith in regard to tightening our belts. it's been said, mr. speaker, by other members that cutting the member representational account is kind of routine for a lot of members. i know that this past year, i returned something like $160,000 of the m.r.a. to the treasury and over the course of my eight years in congress, in the aggregate, some $900,000. quite honestly, that's more than a 5% cut. it can be done. many members have done that as well. we have concerns, of course, as to where that money goes to. does it go to truly reducing the deficit and long-term debt? and i will be introducing legislation later on today that by law requires that that money

that's turned back in goes back to the taxpayer. but this piece of legislation, house resolution 22, is something that i think will have wide if not unanimous, bipartisan support. the former chairman of this committee, mr. brady, now ranking member, my good frent dan lungren of california, the same mind in regard to fiscal responsibility and doing what is right for the american people. november 2, they were telling us, look, we are sick and tired of you guys just keep throwing money at things like $1 trillion cost of the stimulus bill and another $1 trillion for patient protection and affordable care act. some people recognize that better as obamacare. but when you've got $1.4 trillion of deficit for two or three years in ta -- in a row, no wonder you add $5 trillion to the long-term debt and you get up to something like $14

trillion. so mr. speaker, at a time when there's a 9.8% unemployment rate and families across the country are forced to tighten their belts, i whole heartedly believe that congress should lead by example and that's what we're doing with this bill. i appreciate my colleagues giving me time to weigh in on this. i fully support it, i look forward to being a member of the committee and i thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from michigan, mrs. miller who has done great work in the past about the operations of this house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. miller: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, we have a spending problem here in the congress of the united states. we know it, all the members here know it, certainly the american people know it as well. over the past few years, we have run deficits of over $1 trillion each year and we've driven our national debt to over $14 trillion.

on november 2, 2010, the american people spoke out in a very loud an clear voice, stop the reckless spending. the republican majority elected on november 2 heard the call of the american people and we will start the spending cuts today by cutting our own budget by 5%. since my election to congress, i've always tried to be a good steward of the money appropriated to my budget, to serve my constituents. in the last congress, i returned actually about 11% of the money that was allotted, in twine, i returned nearly 8% to the treasury and in 2010, i expect that return to about -- almost 14%. i'm sure many members can make similar claims here. a cut of 5% for members for leadership offices, for committees, is a very important first step in getting our spending under control and some may say that 5% doesn't cut nearly nuffer but certainly it is a welcome change and we are

going in the right direction rather than the wrong direction of increasing these members' allowances that we have seen for too many years. if we cannot cut our own budget, how can the american people expect us to start cutting spending? i would urge all my colleagues to join me in sending this important message to the american people that we are very serious in cutting spending. we get it. we heard what the american people said in this last election and we're starting here right now with ourselves. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania . the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: i would make an inquiry as to whether the gentleman has any more speakers? mr. brady: i don't think so. no. mr. lungren: if the gentleman is going to yield back the balance of his time after the statement, i'll do the same on

this side. mr. brady: i yield back the balance of my time and urge adoption of the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i would like to thank the gentleman, my friend from the great state of pennsylvania who has worked on a bipartisan basis most of the time and what i mean by that is, about 85% or 90% of the work we do on our committee has to do with making this place work. helping members do the job that they were elected to do to represent their constituents and making sure this institution of the house of representatives works. there is a sense of the pride of the institution that i think mark ours committee. -- marks our committee. and we try in a very real way to work, both on the democratic and republican sides to ensure the productivity of the

membership here and to ensure that, frankly, the people get their money's worth. about 10% or 15% of what we do has to do with election law. i might say that that's not always as obviously bipartisan, but we've always done it in a spirit of civility and all in a spirit of respect for one another and for that i would like to thank the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. speaker, this is an important vote. it -- in comparison to the trillion-dollar budget, trillion-dollar deficit, people might say this is a small amount. it is not a small amount. it is a serious 5% cut with respect to the operations of this house in very, very significant ways. it is a down payment on the future actions of this house with respect to other operations of the house but as we scan across the entire federal government, marks the

down payment on that new vision and so i would once again like to thank the congressman from oregon mr. walden and i have just discovered that i do have another speaker here and with the indulgence of my friend on the other side, i would like to yield to the gentleman, mr. walsh, from illinois, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. walsh: thank you, mr. speaker. i apologize, i snuck up on you there. i rise today to support resolution 22 in the house. we were elected this past fall to do what we said we were going to do, to lead by example when it comes to spending and tightening our own belts,

following through on this key pledge that we made in the pledge to america, i think, is vital, we're taking the first step before we ask others to tighten their own belts and it's important to understand this is a first step, hopefully in an ongoing effort to continue to cut costs. this will impact each and every one of us and i think it's very important to the american people that we see we are talking the talk and walking the walk. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: i would urge all members to support this resolution, let's make it a bipartisan effort, let's show that we have the commitment of the membership here toward responding to the reality of our times and with that, i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time having expired, the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 22? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,

2/3 of those present -- for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. lungren: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: those in support of the request for the yeas and nays will rise, a sufficient number having raisin, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. [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 speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 410, the nays are 19. 2/3 of those present having voted in the affirmative, the resolution is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> mr. speaker i ask unanimous consent to have extraneous materials and a statement intrt

into the record directly after the reading of the constitution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair will entertain one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlelady from tennessee rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i humbly rise today to welcome home the heroic soldiers of the 101st airborne division's task force after a year deployment in afghanistan. mrs. blackburn: we read allowed the document that we are sworn to protect and defend. defend our document and freedom than those deployed in harm's way. many have been deployed five times since september 11. they are part of the most deployed unit in the history of the u.s. army. they have my profound gratitude

for that service. these these brave soldiers served in and around afghanistan together with their afghan allies. they took 2,000 insurgents out of the fight and cleared the way for expanded afghan government. they arrived in a region that was controlled by the taliban. they leave an area where children are free to go to school, play cricket, fly kites, all activities that the taliban forebode. tomorrow, tennessee will welcome these heroes home. we will open our arms and embrace them and thank them for their service and sacrifice. we will also remember those who are not returning. i hope that my colleagues in this body will take a moment today to reflect on how our service should honor the service of those who serve us so well. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the the gentlelady has expired. -- the time of the gentlelady has expired.

for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. gingrey: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. gingrey: i rise today in memory of trooper first class chadwick lecroix, who was killed in the line of duty by an unrepented thug on monday, december 27. at the young age of december 28, he was a highly decorated husband, father and public servant. he graduated from trooper school in august of 2008, and had been a highly respected law enforcement officer in the atlanta area ever since. trooper first class lecroix is the 27th georgia state trooper killed in the line of duty and he leaves behind his wife and two young sons. a hero like him will not be forgotten, and i join his family and friends in mourning this moment us loss to them. i -- momentus loss to them. i ask my colleagues to join us

in remembering this heroic georgian. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair asks members to take their conversation off the floor. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? ms. ros-lehtinen: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, mr. speaker. on saturday, january 29, the dan marino foundation will host its first annual walk about autism event at sun life stadium in miami from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. 100% of the proceeds will benefit our south florida community-based programs that help children with autism and their families. the center for disease control states that one out of every 110 children in the u.s. have autism. autism impairs social interactions and communication skills. while some autistic children will grow up to function in

society, others, many others will need some level of professional care all of their lives. since its creation in 1992, the dan marino foundation has raised over $30 million to support research, services and treatment serving children and young adults. i urge all south floridians to participate and help make this first annual walk about autism event a success. our combined efforts will help assure that all money raised here stays here and benefits programs in our south florida community. let's all walk about autism. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? for what purpose does he rise? mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, are you ready for special orders?

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, to revise and extend their remarks, and to include therein extraneous material. ms. woolsey of california. mr. kaptur of ohio. mr. defazio of oregon. mr. mcdermott of washington. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: 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. myself, mr. poe, for today,

january 7, 11 and 12. dr. gingrey for today. mr. mcclintock for today and january 7. mr. burton for today and january 7. mr. jones today for -- january 7, 11 and 12. mr. franks for today. mr. goodlatte for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, under the previous order of the house, the following members are permitted to address the house for five minutes each. the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. >> i'd ask unanimous consent to exchange times with mr. poe and mr. barton be allowed to do the five-minute special order right now and mr. poe be given my time later in the cue. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection. without objection, mr. barton is recognized for five minutes. mr. barton: first off, let me thank the gentleman from texas,

judge poe, for letting this happen. one was part of the house of representatives from december 1982 to 1984. he was defeated for re-election in 1984 by dick army, moved back to texas, switched parties from the republican party -- from the democrat party to the republican party and in 1990 was elected county judge which he served from 1990 to 2007. he passed away on december 30, 2010. his memorial service is tomorrow afternoon at the university of texas at arlington texas center from 1:00 until 3:00. judge vandergriff was a personal friend of mine. when i first was given part of arlington in the redistricting process in 1992, he agreed to be my co-chairman for my

campaign. he was just an absolute gentleman and helped in every way possible. one of the most unique things about judge vandergriff is that in his entire political career which spanned from 1951 until 2007 he never held a political fundraising event for himself. he did actually accept political contributions, obviously, but he never solicited and he never held an organized political event that he himself organized on his behalf. i thought that was astounding in the modern mittcal era for as successful as politically as he was without having to go out and do the numerous fundraisers that most of us have to do. we are going to miss judge vandergriff. he's got a list of accomplishments a mile long. he was mayor of arlington from 1951 until 1967. during his tenure as mayor, he

was able to get the general motors assembly plant located in arlington. he helped get the texas rangers, which were then the washington senators, to move to arlington, and was able to attend the world series this past october in which he saw the texas rangers first of all win the american league and then fight valiantly against the san francisco giants who ultimately won the world series. he wanted to be a broadcaster. went to u.s.c. in los angeles, applied for a broadcasting job in 1947 and was not successful in getting that broadcasting job. it went to someone named chet huntley who became an anchor on "nbc news." judge vandergriff assumed a role in his chevrolet dealership with his father

which he maintained that dealership except for times when he was a u.s. congressman in some capacity. we're going to miss judge vandergriff. we give our condolences to his family. again, he was a member of congress from 1982 to 1984, and he will be missed. i would now like to yield to congresswoman kay granger who wishes to speak also on behalf of judge vandergriff. ms. granger: today we remember tom vandergriff. he was a leader in everything he did. he was a man who saw challenges and tried to solve them. he found opportunities and made them work for us, had a vision that he always reached for. he never accepted the status quo. he was always working for what ought to be. as a successful businessman, a mayor, a member of congress and a county judge, he did so much

to promote economic development and opportunities to make tarrant county, texas, what it is today. just think of this, starting as what is called a boy mayor, he was 25 years old, served his community by helping texas bring general motors, six flags over texas, the texas rangers to north texas. he had the vision to anticipate the needs of a growing community and population, but more than that, he was a decent and kind man. his grace was matched only by his courage, and his personal character was exceeded only by his compassion for others. he was the epitomy of a great public servant. he will be missed but not forgotten. and our thoughts and prayers are with him. thank you. mr. barton: i yield to the gentleman from denton, congressman burgess.

mr. urgess: i want to stand in remembrance of tom vandergriff and his 50 years in public service. 13 years it took him to bring major league baseball to texas rangers, and he took the team from washington, d.c., which was known as the senators, had to fight two presidents, both lyndon johnson and richard nixon. judge vandergriff was the original representative from the 26th district of texas when it was formed after the 1980 census. my fondest memory of judge vandergriff, however, is the voice of the texas rangers. along with dick hoover, they did the broadcast. they were spell binding and exciting and kept me many times away from my graduate school studies. but to his family, we offer our prayers and condolences. thank you, judge vandergriff, for 55 excellent years in public service. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman from texas is expired. mr. barton: i'd ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. i know we have a new protocol for recognizing former members who passed away.

is it appropriate under our rules to have a moment of silence for judge vandergriff and if so how would i request such a moment of silence? the speaker pro tempore: the chair would recommend that the gentleman from texas consult with the leadership on making such request. mr. barton: so it would not be appropriate at this time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct and the time has expired. under the previous order of the house, the gentlelady from california, ms. woolsey, is recognized for five minutes. is there objection? without objection, the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcdermott: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, we have a new leader in the house and a new majority, and next week they're going to begin their legislative activity.

with a stunt, it's a stunt they're bringing out here to pretend that they're repealing the accountable care act that was passed in the last session. they know it won't pass the senate. they know the president isn't going to accept it, so it is being done simply for their base. now, i object to doing stunts like this when they affect real people's lives. i just want to ask you for a minute to consider what the repeal of this means to middle-class families in this country. i'm a physician. there are other physicians on the floor. they know how this repeal will affect people in this country.

in september we already had go into effect the ability of families to put their children on their health insurance up to the age of 26. . this repeal will say if you've got a 25-year-old who has cystic fibrosis and on your health care plan and getting their medication through a health care plan, we are going to take it away from you. that's what they are saying in this. they are saying for pre-existing conditions, if you are trying to get a health care plan, and your wife or your son or you have a pre-existing condition, you can be denied by an insurance company. we have already passed a law that says that can't happen. it went in in september. and yet the republicans are going to come out here an say to the middle class in this

country, we are going to take away your protection against insurance companies denying you coverage. it goes on and on and on. but i want to focus on one particular part of this bill. this bill has the largest middle class tax cut in history. the largest tax cut for the middle class in history. because the tax cuts in this health care bill to help the middle class are used for giving credits to people when they buy insurance. people buy insurance, they get a tax credit, it is the largest one in history. let me say that again so you get it. they are going to vote next week, they are going to stand out here with a straight face and vote to repeal the largest middle class tax cut in the

history of this great nation. it will be worth $110 billion that they will take away from the middle class. now, a few weeks ago we passed a tax bill out of here and we had to give tax cuts to people who make millions and millions of dollars. millions. they said, if you don't give the tax cuts to the rich, we are not going to give them to the middle class. the entire republican caucus voted against tax cuts. unless millionaires got it. well, we should have learned from that that this repeal will be just more of the same. take $110 billion away from the middle class by taking a repeal of this law. you don't have to take it from me. this isn't me making this up.

families u.s.a., a nonpartisan group, has put out this information and everybody understands it. now upstairs in the rules committee right now i could be up there talking but i decided to talk here first, then i'll go up there, and try to get this amendment offered in the bill that will be on friday. allyson schwartz and gawen -- gwen moore are already working on this. it would prevent effort on increases taxes on moderate income or low-income individuals including through the elimination of tax credits for health care premiums as provided under the health care reform law. we would exempt that one part of the repeal. i don't know what success i'll have up there but we'll try because it's worth trying. it's worth pointing out how absolutely unthinking, it is mindless thing to come out here

with this repeal. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey. mr. gingrey: madam speaker, thank you. my remarks will be about saving money, but i can't help but take an opportunity to respond to the previous speaker, my good friend, the gentleman, the good doctor from the state of washington. i would say to him, madam speaker, and to my colleagues, when we repeal obamacare, that we'll do in this house next wednesday, parents will once again be able to afford a health insurance policy on which to include their adult children. that's what we'll be doing. as far as this $110 billion worth of savings we lose in repealing obamacare, madam speaker, we spent $1.1 trillion to save $110 billion. hey, madam speaker, it's true. you can indeed go broke trying

to save money. with that, madam speaker, let me get on to my five-minute discussion and i rise today to encourage my colleagues to recall the conversations they had with their constituents during the recent campaign season. as we begin the telft congress to remember that the -- 112th congress to remember that the american people spoke with a resounding voice. they told us to abide by the constitution, create jobs, rein in responsibility, and end the culture of crafting legislation in the dark of night, 2,400 pages on the health care bill, outside of the view of the public. in order to fulfill this mandate we must fundamentally change the way we do business here in washington. i have taken the first step by introducing several legislative initiatives this week and they are all centered around the pursuit of meaningful government reform. madam speaker, transparency is an integral part of this package and it's a necessary element for

real government reform. for the first time, the constitution, a document, critical to understanding our parameters and responsibility, it was read right here in the house today on the house floor. i'm proud to have introduced a bill as part of my initiative stating that any legislation brought to the floor must cite its constitutional authority. many may find it surprising to know, madam speaker, that while votes taken on the floor of the house are available on the net -- to view on the website, that's not necessarily the case in committee. therefore my package also contains a commeent transparency bill. it would require committee votes to be posted on line, the committee website, within 48 hours so that the american people are kept better informed of what their members are doing and how they are voting in committee. madam speaker, rejection by the american people of democrats' reckless spending emphasizes the importance of fiscal responsibility, doesn't it? this is a reason i incorporated the congressional budget

accountability act into my plan. each year my colleagues and i receive a fixed budget for all expenses. we call that the m.r.a., member representational accounts. this bill would codify that our unused m.r.a. funds must be returned to the treasury for debt and deficit reduction. along these lines i have also included what's called the fiscal responsibility act which will preclude any member of congress from being eligible for a pay adjustment, so-called cola, if we have incurred a budget deficit in the previous fiscal year. we may not have a balanced budget amendment, madam speaker, but that doesn't mean we can't balance the budget. i want to hold our feet to the fire. this is yet another way that we can do that. also in the package, madam speaker, is the bill to prevent federal employees from engaging in union on official time. it's amazing that this goes on.

but we have estimated that in a five-year period of time we could save the taxpayer over $600 billion -- i'm sorry, million, and $1.2 billion in a 10-year period of time. put simply, it's unacceptable that the government employees paid with, yes, your tax dollars, are currently permitted to spend time during their workday performing union activities. and i have already given you the savings. equally unacceptable is that legislators in washington commonly attach legislation that cannot pass on its own merits to unrelated must-pass bills. let me give you an example. military construction-v.a. a couple years ago we passed that out of committee with almost 100% bipartisan vote. the democratic majority held that bill up for 100 days because they wanted to attach an unpopular bill. something like the dream act or

don't-ask, don't-tell, some controversial bill. and put our veterans at jeopardy. literally held them hostage. this bill, madam speaker, would say from now on no attaching unpopular bills to good stand alone bills, especially if -- stand-alone bills, especially if they are for our veteran military. madam speaker, in conclusion while these may seem like a small start compared to the big challenge we have ahead of us, it is a patway to -- pathway to start changing business as usual in washington and fulfill the promise we made on november 2 to the american people. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: ms. kaptur of ohio. mr. mcclintock of california. the chair recognizes mr. mcclintock for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: thank you. madam speaker, i rise today to express my hope that historians

will look back on the 112th congress', the session that restored american prosperity, and express my strong agreement with the new leaders of this house who declared that every action of this body must be measured against this goal. we speak of jobs, jobs, jobs. but jobs are merely a byproduct of prosperity and prosperity is the product of freedom. government does not create jobs or wealth. it merely redistributes them. jobs and wealth can only be created through the free exchange of goods and services in a free market. government's role is to create and protect the conditions which promote prosperity. if i give you a dollar for a cup of coffee, what's going on in that transaction? i'm telling you that your cup of coffee's worth more to me than my dollar, and at the same time you're telling me that my dollar is worth more to you than your cup of coffee. we make that exchange.

and both of us go away with something of greater value than we took into it. each of us goes away richer. that's the freedom that creates prosperity. that simple exchange whether it's for a cup of coffee or multibillion dollar acquisition, that is what creates wealth. but now suppose some third party butts its nose into the transaction. no, the coffee has between 110 and 130 degrees, it has to include a swizzle stick, consumed more than 25 feet from the point of sale. every one of these restrictions reduces the value of that exchange for the one or both of us. that's the fundamental problem that we face today. our government is not only failed -- has not only failed to protect the freedom that creates prosperity but it's become destructive of that freedom. to create jobs we must restore prosperity, and to restore

prosperity we must restore freedom. we must restore the freedom of choice that gives consumers the ultimate sale over the output of our economy. in a free and prosperous society, consumers vote every day with their own dollars on what kind of light bulbs they prefer or on how they want to get to work or what foods they like or how much water they want to put in their toilets or what kind of cars they want or housing they desire. these consumer choices signal every day what things are actually worth and what our economy will actually produce. government is destroying the elegant simplestity of this process and congress must reverse this destruction. we must restore the freedom of individuals to enjoy the fruit of their own labor so they can make these decisions for their sems -- them selves once again. that's why excessive government spending is so destructive to prosperity. it destroys the freedom of individuals to make their own

decisions over what to spend and where to invest their own money. it robs them of both the ability and incentives to create prosperity. presidents like coolidge, truman, reagan, and clinton who have reduced government spending relative to g.d.p. all produced dramatic increases in productivity and prosperity and the general welfare of our nation. and presidents like hoover, roosevelt, bush, and obama who have increased government spending relative to g.d.p. all produced or prolonged or deepened periods of economic recession and hardship and malaise. our government's now embarked upon the latter course and this congress must reverse this direction. government has an important role to play in the marketplace. it's there to assure that representations are accurate and that contracts are enforced. you have to tell the truth. you have to keep your promises. and government has an important role to play in assuring that.

government exists to assure that the currency is stable and reliable and that property rights are secure. when it fulfills this fundamental role, it maximizes the freedom the buyer and seller have to assess their own needs and resources, and to make those exchanges that allow both to go away better off than they were. madam speaker, let us together revive and restore the freedom and prosperity of this nation and fulfill that sacred command inscribed on our liberty bell, to proclaim liberty throughout all the land and under all the inhabitants thereof. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. defazio of oregon. >> madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. engel: i ask permission to speak for five minutes out of order. to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. engel: thank you, madam speaker. this coming wednesday the really first order of real business of

the house, we are voting on health care reform repeal. the new republican majority has decided that this is the most important issue. even though they know that it's political theater, charade, it may pass the house. but it won't pass the senate and certainly the president would veto it. so this is not becoming law. . at a time when we have so many pressing issues, i am saddened that the majority wants to conduct this political charade. you know, if there are problems with the health care law, we don't have to repeal it, we can change parts of it, we can tweak it, we could put out of the bill what we don't like and keep in the bill what we do like. but, unfortunately, the attitude, the decision has been made to try to repeal the whole bill.

my constituents understand that as we speak now the rules committee is discussing what kind of amendments to allow, and we know no real meaningful amendments, if anything, is going to be allowed. so the republican majority coming in says that they are going to have open rules and we're not really going to have an open rule on the very first bill that they are going to attempt to pass which is a repeal of health care reform. i think that's wrong. i think there are many of us who feel strongly that there ought to be some rules that we can -- some amendments we can put in to ensure that the good coverage that we have achieved in the health care bill is kept. surely it's not everything what's wrong with the health care bill which my colleagues oppose. i want to ask them since they want to repeal the bill, are they against the part of the bill which says that you can keep your child on your health

care bill -- on your health care coverage till age 26? i think my constituents like that, and i think theirs do as well. do they want to repeal the part that says that an insurance company can no longer deny you coverage because of a so-called pre-existing condition? i think that's something that all constituents like and appreciate. do the people that want to repeal the health care reform bill want to say to insurance companies, it's ok to put caps on people so when they pay their premium year in and year out and they finally get sick and they ask for coverage the companies can tell them, sorry, not only do you have a pre-existing condition but there's also a cap on benefits, either an annual cap or a lifetime cap, so, therefore, we're not going to coverage you at all? i don't think anybody's constituents wants that part to

be repealed. and what about the doughnut hole for seniors in medicare part d? you know, seniors have found it very, very difficult. they get part of their prescription drugs paid for and there's a doughnut hole which is for a long time they have to pay for everything themselves while at the same time still paying their monthly premiums to the government and then at the end they get the government to come in and help them. that has put a tremendous burden on seniors, and what the health care bill, which was passed by the last congress, does is it eventually removes that doughnut hole for seniors so seniors can get back money and it starts right away where they can get back money to help pay for those prescription drugs. so i think that we hear a lot about lame-duck session and how we all work together and how the big question of the new congress is going to be, is it going to be a stalemate, is it going to be gridlock, or is it

going to be people coming together in a bipartisan fashion to try to work together? if the first bill that the republican majority is putting on the floor is any indication, it seems to me that they've chosen gridlock, and i think i'm really sorry about that because i will admit there are some things in the new health care law that should be changed and that we should work across the aisle together to make sure that changes. but to repeal the provisions that benefit my constituents and everyone else's constituents all across america to me makes no sense whatsoever. the big insurance companies have had it too big too long, and my republican colleagues, unfortunately, are right in bed with them, and i think that is something that the american people ought to see. who do we care about, the big insurance companies or do we care about the average american who is struggling day in and day out to get health care coverage? we have almost 50 million

americans without coverage. it's not only the people who are not covered now but it's working people who will find out in the days and months ahead if there is no health care bill that day will be added to the rolls of people who are uncovered and people working hard will find out that the 50 million will swell to 60 million and 70 million and maybe even more. and so it's going to affect all of us because the health care costs have been rising way, way beyond the rate of inflation, and that's why we needed to have health care reform. so i say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, let's not posture politically. let's try to put our heads together and work in a bipartisan fashion to do something for the american people. if there's something in the bill that needs to be changed, then we should change it, but repeal is not the answer. every major bill from social security to the civil rights bills of the 1960's to medicare and medicaid all had to be tweaked after they were passed,

all had to be changed a little bit. the same thing is with this bill. we should not repeal it, we should fix it. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. goodlatte from virginia. >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order to address the house for five minutes and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, earlier today, the historic occasion of the first reading of the united states constitution here on the floor of the house took place, and it was a very good bipartisan occasion where nearly 1/3 of all the members of the house of representatives participated in that reading. unfortunately, during the reading one of the members while they were reading from the notebook at the podium turned two of the pages and two pages of the constitution were not read. and so i ask unanimous consent that i now read those pages and if they be placed into the

reading of the constitution as it occurred earlier in the day so that we have a complete reading of the constitution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. goodlatte: it shall protect each of them against invasion and on application of the legislative or of the executive when the legislature cannot be convened against domestic violence. article 5. the congress, whenever 2/3 of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this constitution or on the application of the legislatures of 2/3 of the several states shall call a convention for proposing amendments which in either case shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of this constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 3/4 of the several states. that is the portion that was

omitted earlier, and that by unanimous consent is now included in the reading of the constitution. i thank the speaker and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. burton of indiana. >> madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i wish to reclaim my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: thank you, madam speaker. more border agents are being sent to the border. the border, as we all know, is violent, dangerous and it is not safe. drugs and guns and people and money cross back and forth the bored -- border because two nations don't have operational control of that border. the border is desloate, it is hard, it is a war zone. but, madam speaker, i am not talking about the border of the united states with mexico. i am talking about the southern border or the border with pakistan and afghanistan.

that's right. border patrol agents from the united states are going to afghanistan to protect the afghan border from the taliban coming in from pakistan. it is a war zone over there. and the secretary of homeland security, janet napolitano, has said we are going to contribute border patrol agents to protect the border of afghanistan. there are already 25 there, and more are on the way. madam speaker, why are border patrol agents from the united states going to afghanistan? the marines and our soldiers and our troops over there can do the job, but more importantly, we need the border patrol agents over here. homeland security means that the secretary of homeland security protects the american homeland, not the homeland of some other nation. we need the help. in fact, we need the military

on our southern border. our border is a war zone. drugs and people and money crisscross our border with mexico. it is a violent place. it is the third front. more recently, we have had several people murdered on the battle front on our border. let me relate three of those. one of those was a 27-year-old female police chief in mexico right on the border with the united states. chief garcia was on the job for 51 days and she was shot down and shot seven times by the drug cartel. recent homicide on the border. border patrol agent brian terry was shot in the back while he was protecting our border. ironically he had been to iraq and afghanistan as a soldier, as a marine, and now he came back here and killed on our

border. and david hartley was killed on falcon lake with his wife, tiffany, shot and killed by the drug cartels. our homeland is not protected adequately, and it's time that we put border patrol agents on our border but also we put the national guard on our southern border. it is the third front. homeland security should protect it and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. jones of north carolina. the gentleman is recognized. mr. jones: madam speaker, today i have a photograph of tyler jordan whose father, philip, was a marine gunnery sergeant killed in iraq. i saw this photograph about five years ago in a national paper, and i felt that i needed to have this photograph for myself to be able to be reminded of war and the pain of

war. on tuesday i had the privilege and humbling experience to visit the wounded warriors at walter reed. i saw the pain these heroes were experiencing from the severe injuries they received fighting for this country. that's why today i show you the photograph of tyler jordan's pain as he holds a folded flag at his father's funeral. this boy's pain and the pain of the heroes at walter reed is the reason i joined my colleagues in both parties in asking president obama to bring our troops home. madam speaker, this country is -- has many problems and maybe i'm wrong, but sadly it seems to me the war in afghanistan seems to be on the back burner. before christmas i read from a "washington post" article that quoted president karzai saying he now has three main enemies, the taliban, the united states and the international community.

he said in that article that if he had to choose sides today he would choose the taliban. there have been many articles questioning the success of our troops in afghanistan, but our troops have been successful. so why keep them in a country risking their lives when the president of that country supports the enemy? the afghan government is corrupt. no one american life should be sacrificed for such a dysfunctional corrupt government. in mid-december, president obama released a review of the american strategy in afghanistan that painted a positive picture of the progress being made there. this review is at best dubious, and i agree with two national intelligent reports that were also released with a more realistic, negative assessment on the state of war and our chance for success. as i have said before, we are

spending approximately $7 billion a month, which is $in million a day for a winless war for a corrupt government. why do we continue to spend $in million a day so some other -- $234 million a day to some other government? i ask god to please help our men and women in uniform. i ask god please bless our men and women in uniform and those who have given a child dying for freedom in afghanistan and iraq. i ask god to please bless the house and senate that we will do what is right in the eyes of god for the american people. and i will ask god to give wisdom, strength and courage to the president of the united states that he will do what is right in the eyes of the american people. and i will say three times -- god, please, god, please, god,

please continue to bless america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. franks of arizona. . for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. woolsey: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. woolsey: thank you very much. madam speaker, this week as the 112th congress begins, there is a lot of talk from the republicans about ending business as usual and doing things differently than before. but for all the supposed change afoot, there is one critical matter on which the new majority is fully embracing the status quo. the war in afghanistan that is now nearly a decade old. this war has been going on so long that 55% of my colleagues weren't here when it started.

we have heard plenty about changing the house rules, about changing the ways we conduct the nation's business, about changing the relationship between the government and the people. we even heard about how a new law that will provide affordable health care to all americans is somehow the greatest threat to the republic and the constitutional order. but on the subject of war, disastrous war that has taken the lives of more than 1,00 americans in afghanistan -- 1,400 americans in afghanistan and cost taxpayers some $366 billion, the new congressional majority is interested in no change whatsoever. in his speech yesterday, speaker boehner spoke of giving government back to the people. in his speech he talked about honesty, accountability, and responsibility and responsiveness.

look, if he meant that, he should be listening to the 60% of people who believe the war in afghanistan is not worth fighting. a clear majority of americans realize what so many washington -- in washington refuse to acknowledge. this war represents an epic failure, a national embarrassment, and a northerly blight on our nation. -- and a moral blight on our nation. on this matter of life and death, the history will judge the united states, most of the representatives in the house, in the people's house at that, have told the people that their point of view doesn't matter. that we know better than what they know. as usual the people are way ahead of their policymakers. just as they were four years ago on iraq. they may hear reassuring

platitudes from washington, about how we are on track, but they can see the news for themselves. they can see that the security situation is in decline. the casualties are up. the taliban is strong, and that afghan governance is ineffective at the very best and corrupt. at the worst. so i can't think of anything more patronizing than to tell them not to worry their pretty little heads about the war. that us grown-ups in washington have it all taken care of. we are not bowing before them, madam speaker. we are sticking our finger in their eyes. do we truly believe it's about them and not us? do we truly believe that we are caretakers whose only legitimacy derives from our employees who elected us? if that's true, then it's time for representatives of the people's house to start

listening to the people. with that it's time to bring our troops home. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, -- under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2007, the gentlewoman from missouri, mr. bake -- january 5, 2011, the gentleman from missouri, mr. akin, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. akin: thank you, madam chair. i appreciate an opportunity to talk about a subject that i think has been on a lot of americans' minds over the past, particularly the last couple years, and it's the subject of

spending cuts in the federal government. now, most people are perhaps tuned in to some other planet, they realize the federal government is spending more money than we take in so we are running all these deficits. therefore the idea is that we need to do some spending cuts. so that's what we wanted to talk about here for a little while. i'm joined by some good friends and very trusted congressmen on this subject. just to try to frame what we are talking about a little bit, and i usually have some charts to go along with this, but the charts haven't been printed yet, if you take a look, these are pretty simple numbers, if you take a look at the spending projection for 2011, it's $3,834 billion. and the income protection is $2, 567 billion. the two numbers aren't the same and basically we are spending more than $1 trillion, close to

$1.5 trillion that we don't have. and that suggests for most americans that have some level of common sense we are going to have to make some cuts in spending. so that's the overall subject. i think it's one that gets everybody's attention and that we need to give some thought to. now, obviously right off the beginning of the bat the new party, republicans, are running the house and we are trying to start off setting a good note in being fiscally responsible. today we just voted to cut the congressional -- there's a fund that's allocated each congressman for them to run their office, to make their airplane flights, to pay phone bills, things like that. we cut that 5% just as -- in the sense an indication of the fact we are serious about doing this spending cut. that certainly doesn't get us to where we have to go. but at least it's a start.

there are a number of different ways we can approach this subject, but one of the other things that we'll be voting on this week aside from the 5% cut in congressional budgets, is the fact that we want to get rid of this tremendously expensive government takeover of the health care in america. known as obamacare, i suppose, and i'm joined by a good friend who has joined me on the floor many times in the past two years, medical doctor from georgia, dr. gingrey. and he is somebody who knows inside and out not only the medical profession, but this bill which has the government taking over all of health care. now, as you can imagine that would be expensive. it would be expensive to american citizens. it would be expensive to businesses. and expensive to the federal government. so one place we can -- we start

talking about spending cuts is what we'll be voting on before too long which was to get rid of this government takeover of health care. and for that reason i would like to recognize my good friend, doctor, congressman gingrey from georgia. mr. gingrey: i appreciate the gentleman from missouri yielding. i know that when he was referring to my medical expertise in regard to knowing that subject inside and outout, no pun was intended when he mentioned that, i do know a lot more about health care probably than i do about government spending. one thing's for sure, madam speaker, as the gentleman pointed out, we are spending way too much money and i think the figures today, this year, last year we spent a third more than we took in. we have a revenue stream from taxation of the american people, and yet we went beyond that by

$1 trillion of borrowed money. of course of the nondomestic creditors, the largest one is china. they hold a lot of our debt. they happen to be now the second largest economy in the world at $9 trillion g.d.p. we had about a $15 trillion g.d.p. but the thing that is so scary and frightening about that is we owe $14 trillion. so our debt to g.d.p. ratio is approaching 100%. so when we stand, madam speaker, as we are doing right now and talk about this issue, we are almost in a panic. and we should be because we are right on the precipice, right on the edge of becoming part of the pig's acronym, portugal, italy,

ireland, greece, spain, and we point the finger at them, but goodness gracious, it's like the bible, the scripture that i'm sure the representative from missouri probably knows by heart, it goes something like, if you've got a plank in your own eye, you shouldn't be pointing out the speck in somebody else's. we got a plank in our own eye. this is why in this 112th congress we have a huge challenge, don't we, my colleagues. we have a huge challenge. we are up to it. i hope we are going to be up to it on both sides of the aisle. mr. akin: let's say that we get what you have been working for and let's just say by some great miracle that we were able to stop that obamacare. that would save a whole, whole lot of money, wouldn't it, in terms of -- mr. gingrey: reclaiming my time.

absolutely. the gentleman from washington, our esteemed colleague physician, mr. mcdermott, was on the floor earlier talking about, well, what we were trying to do in repealing obamacare, formally the recognition of that bill, patient protection and affordable care act, socialized medicine is easier, because that's essentially what it is. that's essentially what the former majority party were pushing toward. but the gentleman who spoke said, well, it's a stunt. these republicans know they can't repeal obamacare. and furthermore, even if they did, it would be at a cost of $200 billion. and what i pointed out to him, madam speaker, as he was leaving the floor was, you know, that's real interesting. it's going to cost us $it00 billion if that's -- $200

billion if that's accurate to repeal what cost $1.1 trillion to enact. so you can literally go broke saving money, can't you? and by golly we are going to repeal it because that's what the american people want. if we fall short in our efforts, despite 110% on this side of the aisle or in this body and the other body, we have a backup plan b. i know my colleagues would like to talk about that. so i'll yield back to the gentleman from missouri and let you continue the discussion. mr. akin: i appreciate your medical expertise and your overview. obviously if the federal government isn't jumping in and taking overall health care, there's going to be more in the private sector. we'll get into that a little bit about what really the federal government should be doing and what we should ask states to do and allow the free market economy to do. we are also joined it seems like the way things are working today, we've got georgia, very well d, and

congressman tom glaves from dwafment -- graves from georgia has joined us before. this is a pet topic for a lot of us that think that government isn't a servant anymore but it's the master. if you say, hey, let's start cutting government, that's kind of an interesting top erik. i would like you to join -- topic. i would like you to join us. mr. graves: you're right. today what a breath of fresh air to hear the sill balances of the constitution recited for members all throughout this body. leading into this topic and this discussion because we really want to address spending cuts and the proper role of government. what better way to start it than reciting the constitution today and hopefully members of this body listened and heard. they didn't get up and just read a sentence or two or an amendment. they actually consumed it in their mind and starting to understand what it means, because for too long the federal government has been kicking the can down the road on spending.

elect me, elect me. we'll cut spending. when you look at the data it's clear deficit spending has occurred at an average in the last fiscal year, probably $110 billion a month. deficit spending. mr. akin: $110 billion a month. that used to be the deficit in a whole year. but we are -- wow, we are saying all -- setting all kinds of records in the wrong direction. mr. graves: you're right. that leads up to the discussion we are hearing now in the media. i don't know where they have been in the last several months talking about the debt ceiling. the reason we are approaching and about to pierce the debt ceiling is this deficit spending that's occurred from the previous leadership here in the house as well as the administration who is still there, and as we approach this debt ceiling, we have got to push spending cuts more and more and more. and i'm thankful that i just was sworn in for the second time yesterday. mr. akin: we are glad to have you back again. we thank the good people of

georgia for making a good decision there. mr. graves: being appointed to the appropriations committee, it is clear and i have made it clear to my constituents, i'm not going on as a spender. i'm going on as a saver. it seems for far too long members who seek to be on appropriations because they want to spend money. guess what? a new day, a new era. it's a fresh day when you have members going on to say, here's how we are going to save money. what a great debate we'll have in the next several weeks. mr. akin: let's go. get on to this more. get into the details in terms of procedurally, ok. now you've got a new congress, republicans are in the majority, and we have the problem, we look at the numbers, and we are spending a third more than what we are taking in. so we know we got to do cutting. . one of the things people want to pin us down on, what are you not going to fund because that will be some group that will get mad ought? so how do you approach it?

i know in state governments they do sometimes is they say, well, what we got to do, we're 10% overbudget so we have to cut 10% off of everything. that makes it seem to be fair. and that might be one way to approach what we got going on. mr. graves: i think you're right. what we heard about repealing obamacare. yesterday i introduced legislation again to defund it, to take away all authorizing funds going to the legislation as well which is another step forward. you know, why don't we defund some czars? that's a whole other discussion we have seen. and then as we move back to the 2008 levels, then we might even need to go a little bit further and begin cutting more and more and more. i mean, are the decisions going to be difficult? sure they are. mr. akin: let melee out -- mr. graves: that's why people elected us to come here and make the difficult decisions. mr. akin: congressman graves, let melee out two ways to approach it. if you have a little bit to cut, you may take a little bit from everything.

there's another way to look at it. when you need to cut 1/3, you can say, what are the essential functions the federal government has to do and what are the things we really don't have to do because the state can do it or the private sector could do it? mr. graves: you're right. mr. akin: and i'm not sure -- excuse me -- yes, i yield. the speaker: if the gentleman could suspend and if representative sessions, representative fitzgerald -- pat patrick -- sorry -- from pennsylvania, showed themselves in the well, would be happy to swear them in as new members. raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that you will bare true faith and allegiance to the same, that you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, that you will well and faithful loedis

charge the duties in the office for which you are about to enter so help you god? thank you. congratulations. you are now members. the gentleman from missouri may resume. mr. akin: thank you, mr. speaker. so we were just talking about now you got the situation where the federal government is spending a third more than it takes in so we have to figure out some way, how you going to skin this cat? and in one way is just trying to take a certain 10% or whatever percentage -- actually 33% off of everything or whatever, or what you could say would be, one of the things we have to do and what are the things that maybe are nice but we can't afford and one of the things that maybe actually unconstitutional. and i suspect in order -- when you're 1/3 over budget, it's going to be hard to just do a set percentage across the board. i suspect we're going to get into i think some very interesting questions about what's really constitutional

and does the federal government really have to do that function. maybe it's an important thing to get done, but maybe the federal government shouldn't do it. so just wanted to know if you want to jump in on that subject. mr. graves: yeah. i'd be happy to add a little bit more to that. a couple of approaches. is it duplicative? is another agency or department doing it? that's when you get over the hurdle. and is it something you can give back to the state? you usurp the states, which many of our conference would agree, in way case the federal government has overstepped its bounds and it's time to remove ourselves from the states and allow the states to take over. you know, from a business owner's perspective, what if you look at the department heads or the agency heads and you said, you go back and you cut 25% and you bring back glur recommendation? and then you show us a budget estimate of 20% cut and then

20%. empower those agency heads to analyze their department's income's back while we're also on the theme of physicians, we're taking a surgical approach as well as pulling out those unnecessary programs as well. so that would be some approaches i would take. mr. akin: those are some great recommendations here to reinforce what you said, i didn't have time to get some of the charts that we normally have printed, but here are some examples. we have 342 economic development programs. do you think we really need 342 of them? talk about duplicative. that seems to make it -- mr. graves: with unemployment at what? mr. akin: 10% or whatever. 130 programs serving the disabled. do we need 130? maybe consolidate, do a couple of good ones. and then 130 programs serving at-risk youth. and so these are all of these things where you say it doesn't even make common sense and we have to really start getting into analyzing -- first of all,

should we be doing it and if we should, do we need hundreds of programs doing something that should be done with one or two? i see that dr. gingrey is back at it again. he just couldn't sit still when we talk about cutting things. so just welcome you to the discussion. goip madam speaker, i appreciate the gentleman -- mr. gingrey: madam speaker, i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. i can only stay for a few minutes because of a prior engagement. so thank you for giving me an opportunity to kind of in front of the cue, if you will. but i tell you, one of the things in regard to how you cut is it by picking and choosing or in one fell swoop across the board? we just passed a bill, last vote of the day, in regard to our own budgets and that was a 5% across-the-board cut, madam speaker in our member representational account, our

expense account that we're allotted each year to pay our salaries of our staff members and to have a roundtrip flight back to our districts once a week. and those budgets vary a little bit depending on obviously somebody from california's going to have more travel expense than somebody like myself and representative graves from georgia. but we just basically voted to cut 5%, and i quite honestly -- and this question that has come up, madam speaker, and my colleagues, how do you do it? i just think we more and more need to look at this thing and say, there are no sacred could you say, and let these departments -- caos and -- cows and let these departments saying where shouldn't there be an across the board 2%, 3%, 4% cut? i know i voted every time we come up on these appropriations bills -- we didn't get to vote

any in the 111th congress because our friends did he tell let us vote on them. most people are reluctant to talk about cutting homeland security and national defense, particularly when we have two wars going on and certainly not wanting to cut the veterans' benefits. there's waste, fraud and abuse and duplication of things across every spectrum of this federal government. if we're going to get serious about it, we need to have an adult conversation, and, madam speaker and my colleagues, that includes entitlements as well. because if we don't address entitlements, we're looking at 1/6 of the budget and we're never going to get there just addressing that part of the budget. with that i yield back and continue to listen to my colleagues. mr. akin: i'll run over to moving a little bit from georgia to the west to the great state of utah and our congressman bishop, you've

joined us on the floor a number of times. and one of the questions that -- let's say you were on the budget committee or something and you're trying to prioritize, how are you going to -- guns and butter, how are you going to prioritize defense versus endowment for the arts or whatever it is? how do we crack this nut about trying to reduce federal spending? i would appreciate your perspective. mr. bishop: let me try and hit for just one moment two potential areas to address that particular question. and it goes back to the fact that we did read the constitution on the floor today. you know, it's amazing as p.j. o'rorke once said that the constitution is 16 pages which is the operator's manual for 300 million people. the operator's manual for the toyota camry in contrast is four times as large and it only seats five. but you also contrast that by what we did in the lame-duck session when the senate's omnibus spending bill, not 16

pages, it was 1,924 pages. those are the kinds of issues we're talking about. and i think if we really want an answer of how we make those decisions we go back to the document that was read this morning. the general welfare clause today puts the emphasis on the word welfare. when they wrote that thing they put the emphasis on the word general. what the federal government should do is that which affects all of us. monroe, madison, jackson vetoed road projects because they said those road projects didn't meet the general welfare. when savannah burned to the ground, congress had a great deal of empathy for savannah but did not actually appropriate any money for savannah because they said giving money to savannah to rebuild would simply help savannah and was not general welfare. now, i made this speech once on the floor a couple years ago and i got a nice letter, kind of, from a lady in alabama who took me to task and listed all the programs that she thought

were viable and good and she wanted continued. i said, ma'am, you actually missed the ultimate point. the point is not should these programs be available for citizens, the point is who should be responsible for providing those programs. not every idea has to germinate, be funded, be appropriated, be regulated from washington. the states are equally comp tent, and if indeed we divided our responsibilities together we could provide better services for the people for a cheaper price. now, mr. akin, if i could give one second of a simple example. david walker has written a great book called "rebirth of federalism" where he made the effect that dangling money in front of cash-starved states is not good for both levels of government. for example, he said, when we put conditional grants to states which become regulations an mandates it undercuts both

the interlevel cooperation between those two bodies and it's a term he invented creeping conventionalism which means the cost to the taxpayer actually increases. by doing his estimates, the safe drinking water act of 1986 cost the states $2 billion to $3 billion than the states would have spent to provide their own safe drinking water. from 1983 to 1990, he estimated that the regulations imposed by the federal government was $9 billion to $13 billion in local taxes that did not provide a benefit to the citizens. it was just the creeping cost to them. so the -- our mandates, supposedly with free money given states, ends up costing the taxpayer not only for the free money we don't have but costs the states to do more than they would have done or needed to do to actually address the problem. mr. akin: to beat the mandates. to beat the mandates. interestingly, and i can't help but piggyback on your point,

gentleman, it used to be a very boring place to be a congressman down here because there were almost no laws on the books. do you know the federal laws to begin with in terms of laws about right and wrong were -- one of them was a law against piracy on the high seas. another one was against counterfeiting. another one was a law against espy nauge. those three laws -- espionage. those three laws were on the books. what do they have in common? piracy, counterfeiting and espionage against our country were against the general welfare. they were laws that affected everyone. so laws against murder and rape and stealing and all that kind of stuff were allstate laws because the states made -- all state laws because the states made those laws. so to limit the jurisdiction federally. so now we have these creeping

red tape which keeps costing in an insid with us way everyone's cost of living keeps slipping up but you don't know who is nibbling all the money out of your wallet. but it's because all those things you are talking about, and i appreciate that perspective you shared with us. i promised my good friend from louisiana, congressman scluse, he is -- has become this last year or two an expert on oil rigs and oil spills and everything, but good on many other topics as well and what a -- when we start talking about cutting government, i got to let you have a piece of the action, my friend. mr. scalise: well, i want to thank my friend from up the mississippi river in missouri, madam speaker, for yielding to me and talking about this important issue because there seems to be a lot of energy as we're talking about energy in this house. i think yesterday was so exciting to see i think not only the gavel ceremoniously passed from nancy pelosi to now speaker boehner but also these principles that are in the constitution be restored to the

people. this is the people's house, and it should operate as the people's house. and i think now it's starting to get back to those principles that we articulated today when we read the constitution, a real uplifting experience, sad, unfortunately, to note as we look through history that this was the first time that the entire u.s. constitution was read on the house floor. i think this should be an event that occurs every new congress so that we re-establish and remind ourselves just what we're up here to uphold. and as we talk about the spending issues of the country, i think one area that shows you where spending has gotten out of control is if you go to the 10th amendment, the 10th amendment to the constitution, as i note my friend from utah, is such a proud poe opponent, the powers not delegated to the united states nor prohibited it to the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. yet, if you look at so many things we're doing up here in washington that this federal government has gotten so expansive in doing have

absolutely nothing to do with powers that was delegated in the constitution and in fact one of the big debates we are going to have here this week under this first new week here in this congress is this government takeover of health care that a federal court just ruled is not constitutional. the federal government does not under federal court ruling now does not have the authority to mandate that american citizens have to buy a private product as a condition of citizenship. so i think the fact that not only today did we put our money where our mouths are by voting to cut our own budgets, because as we're talking about cutting all throughout government where threes' duplication, where there's departments that shouldn't exist, these czars, these 30 or so shadow government figures that are running their almost cabinets, like a secret cabinet that's running out there, and every one of them has multimillion dollar budgets and staffs and they're not accountable to anybody except to the president, not the people, not to the senate, we are going to

be looking at all of those areas to make serious cuts but then we also have to look and then, of course, tomorrow we'll be voting on the start of the process to repeal obamacare and do what the courts have already said, this isn't constitutional, it shouldn't be on the books and get rid of that unconstitutional mandate with all the bad taxes and other things that go with it. but then we got to look at creating jobs, and i think that's where you get into an area where we're cutting spending, which we need to do aggressively, we also need to unleash the potential of the individual, it's not government here in washington ma makes this a great -- makes this a great country and the greatest country in the world, it's the power of our people back home, the small business owner, the stay-at-home mom who is raising a family, the people that actually makes this country work and i think there is no place more evident than what is wrong with washington than in moy home state where you have this thing going on since after the b.p. disaster in the gulf of mexico.

it's the president's policies, not the actions and failures of b.p. but the president's policies that put 12,000 people out of work through what's called a perma tombings rium. the president said all the companies that didn't do anything wrong that follow the best safety guidelines in the world and had in problem the government has shut them down, put them out of work. mr. akin: i can't help but jump in a little bit, it keeps coming back to my mind, as you talk about the particular situation, the job killing mandates that are coming from the administration, i keep thinking, an awful lot of americans must be starting to feel the same way i do, that the government's not a servant anymore, that it's a fearful master. we were warned by the forefathers that if you let your government, your federal government get out of control, it will become a fearful master and it seems to me that that's kind of what's starting to happen. i think that the last election was an understanding across the

whole country that this government needs to be put back in its proper place, being a servant of the people, doing programs that are constitutional instead of things that people think, wow, it would be a great idea if we mandate this or mandate that. now you have an area that's had a tough hit from the oil spill, and we'll take a business that's done nothing wrong and shut them down because of some mandate. somehow or other, i don't see that as being government the servant, do you? mr. scalise: it's the opposite of the government being the servant, it's the government being the oppressor. 12,000 jobs have already been lost in south louisiana alone, and these aren't my numbers, this is the white house. the white house and the president's response to that was, well, they can go get unemployment. these aren't people who want to be on unemployment rolls, they are hardworking people who want to be contributing to america's energy security, but it's this

administration that's shut them down and not allowed them to go back to work drilling safely. i'm talking again, i'm not talking about b.p., i'm talk act the companies who have played by the rules all along, never had any safety problems because they follow a higher standard. they're the ones who have been shut down and put out of work. not only is it affecting louisiana in terms of 12,000 out of jobs but it's affecting america's security. s that time, once you get out of the summer, where gas prices typically start falling again. but what are we seeing? now gas prices are breaking over the $3 a gallon mark in many states because in part this administration has changed our energy policy where we've shut off more areas of energy production in america which means middle eastern countriesmark of whom don't like us, and other countries, are producing the energy we need, it reverses our trade balance, sends billions of dollars and thousands of jobs to foreign countries out of america and it make ours

country less secure which is why we're approaching $100 a barrel gasoline because the united states of america has said through president a because ma's policy, we're going to shut off most of our sources of known energy and of course our demand for energy hasn't dropped so we're more reliant on many foreign country who don't like it. it's devastating in terms of consequence, in terms of 12,000 lost jobs in south louisiana but devastating effects on energy security, which we're seeing in gas prices that are breaking $3 a gallon. mr. kay kin -- mr. akin: you've talked about louisiana and i appreciate that perspective, but let's back up from what you've said and take a look at the subject here we're talking about today is cutting government. if you take a look at the department of energy, the department of energy was founded years and years ago with the purpose of making sure that we were not dependent on

foreign oil. now that department has grown with more and more and more buildings and bureaucrats and people in it. i'm sure with well-meaning intention. but as the department has grown, we've become more dependent on foreign oil. now there's something in that equation that's fundamentally nuts. so we have to take a good look at this subject. i'm interested too that sometimes i point out to my constituents, i think people don't understand this, but congress, our opinions in this chamber, are pretty divided. if i were to say to some of my constituents that there's a big difference between republicans and democrats on the abortion issue, they'd go, gee whiz no big surprise. but they may be surprised to know if you look at voting records, there's a bigger difference on development of american energy between republicans and democrats than there is on the abortion thing. so there's a great difference of opinion as to whether or not

we need to become energy independent in this country and i'm glad you've got the common sense to say, we need to be energy independent, we need to develop all -- do to develop all our energy resources. the fact that you've take an big stand on that, it's great. it's a treat to have you here today. i'm going to run back over to georgia a little bit and then jump over here to representative graves and jump in, please. mr. graves: thank you for yielding some time and madam speaker this should be the final few minutes of my discussion as i'm going to leave and yield to the gentleman from utah, so i want to follow up on what he said, but before i do, i want to point out the republican study committee, which i believe many of us -- all of us are members of and actively part of, is putting together a plan that has $2.6 trillion in cuts identified already that would occur over the next 10 years. an amazing set of proposal that to me, as we stand here today

in the majority, john boehner is our speaker that we nominated, we elected, and we're still talk about spending being the number one issue, that's how committed we are. going back to the gentleman's statement, he was talking abthe general welfare clause in the preamble and i thought i'd bring up a point, it says to promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare. interesting distinction what a notion we have taken from a central government role to want to provide for everyone. if you go one clause prior to that it says provide for common defense. not promote, but provide common defense and promote the general welfare. two distinct differences in clauses and we've certainly mistaken that second clause there. mr. akin: that is such a good point, i don't think it does any harm to repeat that. let's go back through it again. we're talking about the preamble to the u.s. constitution, sets the whole framework for what this country

rests on. you've got two words that are loaded with meaning. the first one is the general defense, that's national security, and the general defense is general. security for every state, for every american, rich or poor, black or white, male or female, when americans are secure, americans are secure and we use federal money to do something general, it's not to encourage it, it's to provide for that. mr. graves: clearly the word is provide for the common defense. the next phrase or clause is then promote general welfare. not provide but promote the general welfare. mr. akin: they wanted to help make that point and define the fact that to to the promote yen welfare is not a clause big enough to run tanks through and say that anything that seems like a nice thing to do for somebody is constitutional.

mr. graves: you're right. i will wrap up with this, two quotes from two very different presidents. ronald reagan once said that revenue is not the problem, spending is the problem. we all know that. but then another quote is this -- interesting. increasing america's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. leadership means the buck stops here. instead, washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren, america has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. mr. akin: who was it that said that? ronald reagan? mr. graves: americas deserve bert, end quote. then-senator barack obama. mr. akin: there's a big difference between senate and presidency. mr. graves: big difference. but he's absolutely correct

that america has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. mr. president, here's your opportunity. mr. akin: and the interesting thing is, if you take george bush's biggest deficit year, which was when speaker pelosi was here in congress, which was twine, or was it -- was 2009, or was it -- yes, it was 2009. his biggest deficit was 1/3 of the first obama, which was $1.4 trillion. what's the connection between the quote and the action? i think what we need to do is take a very, very good look at what really is constitutional. mr. graves: the connection is, in his quote a failure of leadership. mr. akin: a failure of leadership. his own words. mr. graves: his own words. mr. akin: thank you, congressman. it's been a treat to have you here this afternoon. i want to run back to utah to plimy good friend congressman bishop. mr. bishop: thank you. i do appreciate the congressman

from georgia talking about the difference between to provide and to promote. let me go with one historical example of how that works. one of your earlier questions was how do we handle this spending problem? part of it is we have to think outside the box and make some things that are common assumptions not necessarily have to survive. instead of going with some issues we're funding right now which may be too close to people, let me go back to history. in most of the history books i do, that i have seen, i taught high school history, they talk about how this nation came together with the uniting of the railroads, the u.p. and central pacific joining together and how the federal government subsidized that process and it was the only viable way of getting that done. we provided the railroad system. one of the concepts, though, as i was reading another book and took a closer look on the issue, is that not only did the federal government help with this railroad building craze, but the idea that the federal government became involved

changed the mechanism in which railroads were built and the kinds of ways they were built. we paid railroads for every mile of track that was laid. which meant you gave them more money if they went to a mountainous route than on flat land system of many of those routes took a very circuitous route going through some elevated terrain because they got more money than if they had just take an simpler, flat route. one of the -- i won't mention which one, but they refused to put up masonry supports. they put up wooden culverts only for their train tracks. in the winter they lay track over ice, which meant as soon as the thaw chame, the tracks disappeared. much of our railroad system had to be rebuilt within two years of its actual completion. i live in the state of utah and my only national monument is the golden spike national monument in my district in which both the union pacific and central pacific came and they passed one another,

continuing to lay track because they were paid for it by the federal government until congress finally told them knock this off and link up somewhere. they picked prom oner to summit in -- they picked promontory summit in my county to link up. ironically, hill built a northern railroad that went from chicago to seattle and he did it without any government subsidies whatsoever he paid private property for renting his lines even during the panic. it survived. it was functional. it was profitable. sometimes we make assumptions that only the federal government has the ability of doing things when in reality we don't. and we forget that once again if we were to make states a true partner with us in projects, states have the ability of being creative much more than we do. they have the ability of

providing justice more than we do. if the states make a mistake it doesn't harm the entire country. i think obamacare may be one of those particular examples where state creativity was going on a proper road with some wonderful ideas that were stop dead in their tracks, no pun intended, by bomb care. mr. akin: you know, it's interesting you talk about -- there was a great little short book, and i don't remember the title of the gentleman that came out with some of the facts you mentioned and it was a study of how the government in the 1800's got involved in the sixth major industries in america because the assumption was that the federal government has to get involved in these big industries to make us competitive in an industrial world. they got involved in the oil industry, the steam ship industry, the steel industry, of course, the railroad industry. and the example you're talking about, again, the government created this incentive that you're paid by the mile. so among other things they did

was they used cheap steel rails which wore out right away and wooden ties that were not treated and also they wouldn't blast which was expensive to go up a steep grade but they'd make these long routes back and forth. so the result was the company that used all the government money had a completely -- a rail line was you couldn't maintain it. and as you said, the northern route was done totally with private money. they had the scrap and borrowed a little piece at a time. at the end of what they could build they'd form a little town and they'd give them free shipping to encourage the trade and they built the radar in pieces that way using the cash that they had and that, like the other industries, the steam ship, steel and oil industries, the same pattern occurred where the federal government got involved, the businesses that were using federal money all went bankrupt. and so there's an example where you, again, think the government's got to get

involved. the answer was every time the government got involved the companies went bankrupt. and so that's a good principle. let's get over, though, to take a look at this big picture of how in the world do we deal with the budget. one of the big things that everybody's been taking a look at -- and i know you know this, gentleman -- and that is that we have this new category that is called sbimets, that as we pass some law the law then runs like a machine and spits out money to people. if you get enough of those machines going spending money pretty soon you spend a lot of money. we've gotten to the point where medicare, medicaid, social security are spending almost half of the revenue that the government's taking in. so when you deal with that, as we take a look at overspending, people have projected that if you let social security, medicare and medicaid continue as they are there will come a time when there will be no money for anything else in the budget at all. these are some of the hard

choices that we have to face. it seems to me, gentleman, as you -- as we have made an emphasis on the constitution -- in fact, we have in the rules package that was passed yesterday, we have created a new mandate that every bill that comes to this floor has to have a constitutional justification. and i think that's the start of where we really have to get at this problem and that is, what really is the job of the federal government and can we afford to be all things to all people? i just want to let you piggyback on that. mr. bishop: i appreciate that very well because to be very honest, this is not an easy task which this congress faces. mr. akin: no. mr. bishop: we have spent -- we probably spent eight, nine decades digging the hole in which we are in to think there is a simple way of getting out of it. it's naive to think that we can get out of it. we need to move in terms of a

general direction to go there. i'm very proud the rules that were passed yesterday will enable this body, if we decide to do it, to take the time to think outside the box with new ideas. the idea that for the first time we have -- since the 1960's, we have set aside specific time during the day so that the committees could function. roll out every member of this floor to sit and work in a committee to come up with ideas to reach this goal of how we can control or at least limit the runaway spending that we have. mr. akin: i need to stop and interrupt a minute here because you'll never say this but, congressman bishop, you were one of the main people that helped put that rule in place. and i think the whole country needs to say a big thank you to you because what you're doing is trying to make congress just a little more efficient and do a few commonsense things. now, a lot of people might not say thinking outside the box

but the box is small down here sometimes and you provided us with the idea that we're actually going to get into some of these questions and we're going to approach them in a systematic kind of way, we are going to not have votes run all day long and say, systematically, what do we have to do to deal with this problem? i congratulate you on that first step. also the rules package that says you got to have a constitutional justification for everything you bring to the floor. i think we're starting on the right spot. mr. bishop: you make me embarrassed right here. i wish i could take full credit for the time management plans that we are implementing here. i may have said it but somebody else had to make a decision and go forward with it. i think it was the right thing to do because it requires us instead of us running around in circles like a bunch of squirrels on a thread mill or chip munks on a treadmill so that we are on the floor it makes a difference.

let me give you another historical difference. i believe it was in the first congress that the issue came up of postal roads, where to draw the line, where would the postal roads for the new post office go? there is some kind of economic benefit of having actually mail dropped on a route but congress, eager to get out, said let's just allow the president, the executive branch to decide where the postal routes will be which seems to be a logical thing to do. i believe it was congressman page from virginia who stood up and said no. our job of congress is to legislate which includes taking the time to agree on where those postal routes will go. it is not our responsibility to give it to an executive branch or a bureaucracy or some other group to come up with all the details. and he forced congress to stay there and they did their job.

too often we as members simply have a tendency of coming up with a grand and noble idea and they say, all right, we'll empower -- i think the language in the tarp bill is a perfect example of where we empowered the secretary of treasury to make all kinds of decisions which were legislative decisions by their very nature. well, i hope the schedule allows us to do and what you were talking about is to say we have a great deal of work to be done here, we're still looking at ideas. there may -- i'm sure there are great ideas out there that will be coming from the people as time goes on but we need to dedicate the time, not simply running around in circles playing silly games but coming here and zourg in on our task and it was -- zeroing in on our task and it was said by you, the gentleman from georgia. spending is hurting americans, that's what bloating our budget. we need to zero in on that. and until we do that we will

never come close to meeting what the american people expect of congress to do nor what we really morally need to do. i yield back to the gentleman. mr. akin: well, i think that ronald reagan, you know, he had a way of putting complicated ways in simple words. he said, we're buying more government than we can afford. that's not a bad summary of the situation, and it hasn't gotten better since ronald reagan was here. we're buying more government than we can afford. i appreciate your historic examples. of course, there's no way congress can do the example of the postal roads that you made out when we're trying to basically do everything under the sun be all things to all people. we have to make some decisions saying this is a nice thing to do but it could be done by a state government or it could be done by the private sector. and we're going to have to make some of those choices and just say, look, there are some things that the private sector and the states cannot do, and we better fund that first.

and certainly providing for the common defense is one that has to be up at the front end because the other governments can't do that and the individual citizens cannot do that. whereas when it comes to some of the other kinds of things, such as in the energy areas or education or insurance or a lot of those things, they could be done by other governments. when we say, let's do something that feels good about this subject and turn it to a bunch of administration bureaucrats, we really lost control of where we are. and i appreciate your bringing us back to ground zero. now, there have been some shifts. here's one that's kind of interesting, and it's the tradeoff. they always talk about the tradeoff between guns and butter, between defense and basically welfare programs. if you go back to 1965, the entitlement spending was 2.5%

of the overall budget of g.d.p. -- excuse me, percent of g.d.p., 2.5% in 1965 was entitlement. defense was 7.4%. now we've shifted to 2010, the estimate is 4.9% is national defense. we've gone from 7.4% down to 4.9% while entitlements has gone from 2.9% to 9.9% in entitlements and that's getting to that area where if entitlements continue to climb as if you just look at demographics, there will be no money for defense or anything else and the budget will be dominated by just simply medicare and medicaid and social security. so we're going to have ask ourselves, what are the top priorities? we're going to have to fund those and do a good job of those. that's what i was trying to get at. i don't think we have the mentality of take 10% out of everything or 30% out of everything.

i think we have to make some decisions. some we may not want to cut, we need to make them more efficient and leave money in it. others, we don't need the thing at all. let's get rid of that entire functional area. and that's where we have to be going. but, again, where we started today is the right place with the u.s. constitution and making the key distinctions that the constitution makes so clear. there's a difference for providing for defense and then in basically encouraging the general welfare. i appreciate your very specific historic examples. if you remember the name of that -- there was a book. i don't know if it was the same one you were quoting from that had the examples of those six industries, all of them where the government was then subsidizing the corporations, there was all kinds of corruption and the companies all failed and the ones that stayed away from government funding are the ones that stayed in business. it's a fascinating study. mr. bishop: if i could add one comment to that.

mr. akin: yeah. mr. bishop: it's not that the federal government will always be bad and incompetent of doing things. the problem the federal government has is the size of the federal government. any big industry has waste, fraud and abuse, and that's is one of the reasons why if we could coordinate and work with local government, that's why the old cliche the government spends closest to the people. it's not because they're better or smarter. it's because they don't have the problem of size in a wrun size fits all issue and -- one-size-fits-all issue. you are talking about entitlements. this is an area in which creativity will be the most important element and some things especially with the cost of medicare are driven by one-size-fits-all federal mandates and federal decisions when allowing creativity could help us solve the problem. i want to say one thing too when you talk about the general defense is so significant. it's not because we are funding

for the defense of the america today. the decisions we make, the plans we make for defense today will not come to fruition for another 10 to 15 years. and indeed, indeed the ability for us -- indeed the ability for us to have diplomacy in the future depends on wise decisions we make today. i appreciate the gentleman from missouri coming with this issue. this is something that the people care about, it's something that congress cares about. i think the fact that we just passed a 5% cut on ourselves with an overwhelming bipartisan support says that -- this is the direction we should be taking and we should continue to talk about this over and over and over again. i appreciate you allowing me to be part of this. mr. akin: it's just a treat to congressman bishop to have you here with us today talking about a very important subject, something that is on the front of the minds of i think many americans understanding that we have -- we are buying way too much government than we can

afford. and certainly the guiding compass and the guiding light for us has got to be the u.s. constitution and the fact is that we had hundreds of years of history -- at least 100 years of history where the constitution -- and where we get away from our foundational documents and principles, that's when we really start to get into trouble. and the principle on defense that was just made -- have to underscore -- i am on the armed services committee. we deal with defense issues day in and day out, and the problem in defense is that the things that are on the drawing board today won't be fielded for probably 10 years in the future, so decisions that we're making today are going to have their effect a long way out. that's why we have to be particularly careful. the situation in defense is one that as you take a look around the world, we are rapidly being

challenged by china and russia and we do not -- are not keeping up in those arms situations where we do not have the capability, diplomatically to have options that were otherwise available before when we had put enough funding into defense system of as we see entitlements increasing way, way, way up and defense being cut down as a percentage of g.d.p., we are risking not doing the most fundamental principle in the preamble of the constitution which is providing for the national defense. our objective, of course, is not parity. we're not trying to be equal with other nations. our objective is to be overwhelmingly superior. that's why we don't have wars. because of the fact that people say, we don't want to take on the united states and it's why we can be a great nation of peacekeeping, because of the fact that we have been strong and successful and set a good example for other nations.

so what we have before us is a very difficult question, it is the question of politics in america. if you take a look at all the fight the debates, the discussion that go on in politics in america, most of it resolves around this question, and that is, what should the federal government be doing? should it be spending more or less or be doing that at all or are we doing a good enough job? that's what the discussion and debate is about. until we get back to the constitution, until we start asking the questions, is it necessary for the federal government to do this function, we will never solve this problem of overspending. the current congress, and this is my opinion, but one that i think other congressmen and i have -- that i have discussed this with share, that is, we have another problem. that is the house and the congress is a product of a lot of time. there are various fief doms and

ways -- fiefdoms and ways we have gotten used to doing things which may not be logically or practical. i have been here 10 years, i have learned about authorizations and appropriations and the budget committee and the way we do things but if we're going to seriously get at this problem other than shaving a few percent here and there, if we're going to seriously get at the problem of having to radically reduce our appetite for spending, it's going to require changes in the structure of this congress. that will be one of the things that you can see we've already started on and are continuing and pledging to continue to do, to take a look at our rules and how the organization is set up so we can make those hard choices and decisions. there's been a commitment that those decisions would be made in a transparent way, in a way that everybody who was elected to be a congressman so that every district in this country will have somebody that can stand up and have an opportunity to weigh in and have an opinion. you won't see, as we had in the

last congress, bills that are being written in the speaker's office and brought to the floor and rammed through in the dead of night. you're going to hear open debate, a lot of discussion, and a lot of ideas being discussed and i think that's a good thing and a proper thing. but ultimately, we have to deal with the question, what are the essential functions that must happen in federal government? i've just heard there are going to be some very significant cuts in defense. that's very concerning to me. why would we be taking the defense department and doing major cuts there and no other department in government is being looked at? this is something that some of us will probably react to some because we believe we have to control spending, but why do you single out the department of defense? we're fighting two wars, why whack that budget when you have these other budgets that have never been touched whatsoever. so we have to take a look at those percentages. when you see entitlements going

very, very high, defense budget going low that signals we have to be careful about the choices we're making because the choices we make today, 10 years from now, your sons and daughters, or my grandsons and granddaughters, may be affected by those choices. so we start out a new congress, i think, on the right foot. emphasis on the u.s. constitution. emphasis on the fact that we have to be responsible. emphasis on the fact that everybody in every congressional district is going to have a piece of the action and the fact that we're going to have to be responsible, we're going to have to be cutting federal spending. you cannot run as we have in the first two years of the obama administration with a $1.4 trillion deficit. that will stop. i thank you very much, madam speaker and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from california, mr.

garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee for the minority leader. mr. garamendi: madam speaker, it's a great privilege to be here on the floor with you and congratulations to you and the other new members of the republican party. we have some extraordinarily important tasks ahead of us. this afternoon, i'm going to be joined by my colleagues and with the consent of the house, i'd like to enter into a colloquy with them so i request

that. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. garamendi: thank you. we've got -- we've just heard a very useful discussion on the role of the constitution and how it plays into it and indeed, today, we did spend a couple of -- actually, about three hours reading through the constitution. i think it was to all of our benefit. we started off with the new speaker, actually reading the preamble. i think that's a good place for us to start. we're going to discuss health care today and we're going to discuss an effort by the majority party, the republicans, to repeal the affordable health care act that was passed last session. in that -- and this issue has become a constitutional issue so reading the preamble to the constitution and section 1,

article 8, is useful. we the people of the united states, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare -- promote the general welfare -- and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity do ordain and establish this constitution of the united states. then later in article 1, section 8, congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, impose and excises to pay the debt and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the united states. it's about the general welfare of the united states that we'll be discussing in this next hour. and that's the welfare of the people of the united states. speaks to us, the citizens.

all of us, whether we are a newborn baby or a senior in the last of life. how do we provide for that general welfare? last year, in a major step forward, the first time in more than -- in nearly four decades this congress, together with the senate and president, passed the affordable health care act. a very, very important and extremely useful step in providing for the welfare that is, the general welfare, of the american population. it's a law that makes life better from birth to retirement. part of this law, very, very important part of it, deals with what we call the patients' bill of rights. the patient's bill of rights

vis-a-vis the insurance industry. i think all of us can go back to our districts, our homes, even to our own lives and find numerous episodes where the insurance industry has said, no you cannot have this procedure. or no, you cannot have coverage. because you have a pre-existing condition. today, we are going to talk about the patients' bill of rights and the republican effort that is now under way in rules committee in this building as we speak to write a rule that will bring to the floor next week without one hearing to completely wipe out this extraordinarily important effort to provide for the general welfare of the american

people. we're going to discuss that in great detail. for me, this is a very important part of my life. i spent eight years of my life as the insurance commissioner in california, taking on the insurance companies, trying to force them to honor their commitments. to force the insurance companies to pay the claim of a patient who had undergone chemotherapy. to provide insurance that was contracted for and not to rescind that health care policy. i cannot even begin to count the number of cases that came before me as insurance commissioner where the insurance companies would rescind a policy because the person suddenly became ill and had a very expensive episode. the patients' bill of rights prohibits that.

we're going to talk about that. i want to start here and then i'm going to turn this over to my colleagues. i'm going to give an example of a very dear friend who lived here in washington, he was a peace corps volunteer, married, was working here in washington, d.c. as the director of the national peace corps association of returned volunteers, had a child. that child had a severe disability. kidneys didn't work. he was insured, his wife was insured, the pregnancy was insured, the delivery was insured, but that child on the day the child was born with that pre-existing condition of kidney failure, was uninsurable under the parents' policy. that kind of action is prohibited by the patients'

bill of rights. no more would that happen. men and women, families, pregnant women across this country that deliver a baby that has some problem, that baby will be insured, whatever the condition might be. our colleagues on the republican side will bring to this floor next wednesday without one hearing in any relevant policy committee a repeal of the patient's bill of rights. and what of? what of the babies that are born in the future that have some issue? how will they be provided for? the rest of the story is, this family has spent 20 years now struggling to provide for health care services that their child needed.

they have been close to bankruptcy many, many times. they've struggled through it. the child is no longer a child a young adult. and under the law today he has health insurance. because that's what the american public wants from the republican party, the repeal of that? the bill of rights that guarantees coverage for that young man. i think not. let me now turn to our colleague from the great state of virginia, bobby scott, would you please share with us your own views and how this is going to affect the general welfare of the american people. mr. scott: thank you and i appreciate your hard work and thank you for organizing this special order so we can discuss the problems with repealing health care. you've gone all through the need for health care during your life and how the bill provides assistance for those with pre-existing conditions.

limits insurance company abuses like what's called rescission when you paid your premiums all these years and then finally get sick and they want to cancel your policy right when you need it. lifetime and annual limits on benefits when they pay a certain amount and once they get to that, you can be in the middle of a treatment and they're not going to pay another dime for the rest of your life, or at least for the rest of that year. there are many people with chronic diseases who hit up these limits very frequently. talk about young people on their parent's policies who are working, finally get a job, it doesn't cover benefits up to 26 years old, they can stay on their parents' policies. talked about prevention, the importance of prevention a lot of people because of co-payments and deducksables can't afford their -- deductibles can't afford their annual checkups, this provides

for that. for those senior citizens in the doughnut hole, where they get no benefits, adding insult to injury, have to continue to pay their premiums and get no benefit, we have assistance for them. no hearings, no nothing, just put a label on it, call it obamacare, and then expect people to go along with the repeal. you just can't label things and expect people by virtue of the label to take action. they call it government-run health care. no government-run health care is a singlepayer plan. that was defeated. the option of a public option would have been nice. it would be nice talking about choice, the plan that's on the books today, they have the choice of all the plans that anybody wants to sell insurance in their state. they have a choice of all of them. it would be nice to have an additional choice, a choice of a public option where you have the choice of a policy that is

not run by a for-profit corporation with a financial interest in denying you coverage or canceling your policy. it would be nice to have that option. you don't have to take it but it would be nice to have that option. one of the things that we want to make sure that we have as many options as possible, including a public option if we can ever get there, but when they talk about replace -- repeal and replace, there's no replace in the rules they suggested. they just want to repeal. we want to know what they want to replace it with, what they'll leave out. will they leave out where people with pre-existing conditions get covered? no. they going to tell young people under age of 26 to get off their parent's policies? are they requesting to tell those in the doughnut -- are they going to tell those in the doughnut hole to get back to

the doughnut hole where they belong? are they going to tell those who run out of coverage because of the limits that, no, you just -- what's -- that's enough. you can't get more coverage? what are they going to tell all of those people? we need to make sure that we keep these policies of these provisions intact. i have no idea what they want to replace it with, but i think if they went step by step and the people looked at the provisions of the bill they would elect to keep everything that's in the bill today. now, there's some things that people don't like. when you have a good plan you have to pay for it. and unfortunately they're taxing it because we're fiscally responsible. when we passed it we were under pay-go. now they repealed a lot of that so they can go trillions of dollars in the ditch without paying for it. we paid for it. and in fact c.b.o. originally said that the first 10 years of the program would save the budget deficit, would reduce

the deficit by $140 billion. now, the estimate is $200 billion-some in the next 10 years. so it is fiscally responsible. there is things that we can do better, and we need to oppose the repeal of this health care to make sure that people have the protections and the patients bill of riles that they have under this legislation. mr. garamendi: thank you. you raised about seven of the major issues that's involved in this repeal that the republicans will bring to this floor next wednesday without one hearing in any relevant policy committee. a repeal that will affect every single american and affect their well-being, their health, their ability to get health insurance, their ability to stay healthy. so we have an enormous issue before us, and we want the american public to be aware of what's going on here. it is the repeal of the

patients bill of rights. let's take -- let me move on to one of our other colleagues from tennessee, mr. steven cohen, if you'll join us, please. mr. cohen: thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to share with you. i want to first start because this day has been a day starting with the reading of the constitution which is a document we all revere. i have a little pocket copy of it right here, and we revere it, we pledge when we take our oath of office to protect and defend and support the constitution. but we all know that it's interpreted by a supreme court and more supreme court history would have been better today for people to understand. and you mentioned that the foundation of the particular health care bill is in the preamble. we the people of the united states to form a more perfect union, establish justice, etc., promote the general welfare. also, in article 1, which is the legislative article, section 8, it says that the congress shall have the power

to regulate commerce among the several states. and further, it says in article 1 that the congress should have authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carry in execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this constitution of the government of the united states or any department or office thereof. so in my opinion -- i'm a lawyer but there's lawyers on both sides. there's plenty of justification for this health care bill. do you know next week when the republicans will try to repeal this opportunity for americans to get health care and to wipe out these pre-existing conditions clauses, etc., will be coming under the idea that health care is not part of the general welfare? will they be coming on a constitutional argument that people can't require to buy insurance even though we

require people to sign up for the draft and lose their liberty for a while and serve in the army and we can do that, we can script soldiers, is that what they will say? or will they say what mr. scott said, it's not good policy to have people until age 26 to be on their parent's policy? what's their tactics, sir? mr. garamendi: well, i'll assume that they'll try to go into their interpretation of the constitution and avoid the very difficult argument of forcing -- or eliminating the patients bill of rights and allowing the insurance companies to engage in gross discrimination based upon sex, clearly women are discriminated against the health insurance company unless the patients bill of rights is there to protect them.

similarly, the two examples you gave, pre-existing conditions, i can't imagine they would attempt to successfully or even would be unsuccessful argue that somehow these protections for the individual are not worth having. i think they'll go into some obscure interpretation of the constitution. we'll see. it's going to be a debate on the floor. unfortunately there will be no hearings to precede that, and there will not be a discussion of the details. mr. cohen: and they will control the amendments that will be permitted to be discussed on this floor. i know speaker boehner said we will be able to have amendments and be able to have good -- due course. mr. garamendi: i saw you at rules committee earlier today. it's my impression that the rules committee will prohibit any amendments on the floor. we'll see. i mean, that has yet to be decided by the rules committee. we don't know. surely the one amendment i would propose is don't do it. maintain the patients bill of

rights. maintain these protections that we all need. there's not a person in this nation that is not subject to the possibility of an incident that would become a reason for rescission. that's my experience. eight years hammering the insurance industry, you've got to honor your contract. yet, because of the laws, they were able to wiggle out of an expensive incident. mr. cohen: when i was a child, i had polio when i was 5 years old in 1954. i was fortunate my father was a doctor, and so sometimes professional courtesy, but i'm sure he had insurance that covered my hospitalization. but there were years later, i think it was 11 years later, i had a tendon that was immediately related to my polio and necessary on my achilles' tendon. that would not have been permitted, necessarily, if they used a pre-existing condition such as polio to deny coverage, and whether or not how my father dealt with the expense

and whether it's because he was a physician, i don't know, but i'd hate to see children in the same situation and parents in the same situation not be permitted to get that type of coverage later on. mr. garamendi: well, i don't know if you remember congress at the time, but we all under this law would have the same policy that every american would have. we wouldn't have any different policy than the american public would have, and the question about rescission, i mean, you're a prime candidate, should you lose office, which you shouldn't, to be uninsurable if the patients bills of rights were repealed. under the patients bill of riles, if you were to leave congress you could get an insurance coverage under -- because the pre-existing condition that you have, polio, and an operation resulting from the polio would go into play as a pre-existing condition and you would not be able to get an insurance policy. mr. cohen: let me, if i can,

read something that i had prepared today. it came from a constituent's story. john hopkins. and i know john hopkins. very important and active citizen in my community and contemporary. he sent me an email. and mr. hopkins requested i share this story with the house as we consider a repeal of the affordable care act. i want to share it with everybody here on c-span. john was diagnosed with two unrelated cancers during his life. if you know anything about cancer, getting it twice for unrelated reasons is almost unheard of. but it happened to john hopkins. midway through his first bout with cancer he was, of course, dropped from his health insurance plan. he was left with a medical bill that wiped out his and his wife's entire retirement savings as well as the value of their house. they were never able to repay the debt in his lifetime. when he had the second bout of

cancer, he had no insurance because nobody would give him a policy because of the pre-existing condition. he got some plan in tennessee for uninsurables but it was limited to $250,000 a year. as we all know, annual limits are set to be phased out by 2014 because of this law, and lifetime limits are already a thing of the past. a quarter of a million dollars may seem like a lot of coverage, but when somebody needs something like a bone marrow transplant to cure their leukemia, that single treatment would exceed the annual cap. my republican colleagues have decided their first priority as the new majority will be repealing the affordable care act. and when they vote to do this, they will be voting for the following -- denying mr. hopkins the ability to enroll in a health insurance plan that doesn't discriminate against him for daring to be diagnosed with cancer again. they will deny john hopkins the ability to enroll in a health plan that will actually

continue to cover his treatments after he exhausts a current annual cap of $250,000. an amount that many cancer patients meet in a matter of weeks upon diagnosis, let alone those fighting two cancers over a number of years. and they will send a message to john hopkins that -- and every other single american that's ever been diagnosed with -- or will ever be diagnosed with a disease like cancer, that they're on their own when it comes to coverage, that, sure, they're free to get treatments and under go laborous surgeries or try to keep it under the annual cap because treating cancer, it should be -- mr. garamendi, i'm ashamed that we're considering a repeal of this affordable health care bill. when i think of $250,000 and the fact that the republicans were against any caps on insurance -- on taxes, they realized $250,000 annual income in many places a middle income

salary. but for limitations on health care, they think the insurance companies should determine that and that's enough. and if you've got cancer it's not enough. another friend of mine, facebooked me, jimmy. he worked long time for a company in memphis. always been successful. he lost his job with that corporation because he had high cholesterol, he had difficulties getting insurance and it took him a long time to find private insurance because of that pre-existing condition. he just sent me this on facebook. he friended me and he wanted me to relate it. there are so many people in this country that are getting benefits and many benefits don't get into effect until 2014. and the idea that this congress, the 112th, as its first act, would do such harm to the general welfare and the american public, is hard to

fathom. mr. garamendi: your closing sentence needs to be repeated. that the very first piece of legislation taken up by the new republican majority in the 112th congress is to repeal the patients bill of rights, it's unfathomable. let me now call on frank pallone, our colleague from the great state of, yes, it mr. pallone: let me thank my colleague from california and each of the other speakers here for the contribution they have made tonight and particularly when they listen to my colleague from tennessee talk about those particular cases of individuals that were impacted because that's what this is all about. it is amazing to me the first act of this new republican majority is to try to repeal a bill, health care reform, that really is making a difference

for people on a personal level, particularly with the patient protections and i thought to myself when i was coming down here, who benefits from repeal? who could possibly benefit from repeal? as many of you talked about the people who are going to be harmed by it, would who would benefit? and the only group that would benefit are the big insurance companies. because when you think about it, what do they want to do? they want to keep increasing premiums. in your state, you may have already mentioned it, blue cross/blue shield, 50-something percent increase. and we, of course, as this health care reform kicks in, it's going to be more and more difficult for the types of increases that we have seen in premiums that these big health insurance companies have put forward. and the reason they want to get

-- the insurance companies want to get rid of the patients' bill of rights and re-institute these discriminatory practices whether denying care because of pre-existing conditions or re-instituting lifetime caps or the different protections that we have seen kick in, the reason they want to do that is money oriented. they have to pay out money. you talked about the cancer person. i was up in rules earlier and mrs. slaughter was talking about someone who had cancer and was treated and ran into the lifetime cap and the cancer re-occurred and didn't have any more coverage because she hit the lifetime caps. they want to have lifetime caps, don't want pre-existing conditions, don't want kids on your policy because it saves them money. that's the way they make profit and pay dividends by raising premiums and having

discriminatory practices that eliminate people because they need health care. it's that simple. and just in the last few weeks, provisions have kicked in that go against that. we had the president announce or the white house announce around christmas time new regulations that say any premium increase that's over 10% will be scrutinized and they will try to -- under the provisions of this provisions, not allow the increase to go above 10%. january 1, the provisions kicked in that said 80% of your premium costs had to be used for benefits, couldn't be used for insurance company profits, couldn't be used to pay back dividends to the shareholders. all of these initiatives that are already kicking in, they basically make it more difficult for the insurance companies to make a big profit and the

consquens -- consequence of that is health insurance becomes more affordable. i was up at the rules committee earlier and it was interesting because i think you mentioned my colleague from california that -- run of you mentioned that under the health care reform that's in place now that they want to repeal, we get the same insurance as congressmen as any other american. and you know, i still have people write to me and say, well, you have your own policy, but you want to give me this lousy coverage that i'm going to give me under the health care reform. i say that's not true. you may hear that on a tv station, but that's not true. we have to go into the exchanges just like everybody else. we will be different from federal employees because we go into the exchanges. at the rules committee today,

one of the republican members who is very supportive of repeal said that he specifically wasn't going to take, you know, health insurance as a congressman and he wanted me to know that because he was voting for repeal. i said that's very nice and commendable for you but i think every member of congress who votes for repeal should say i don't want health insurance through the federal government, because if you are going to deny it to everyone else, you should deny it to yourself the same way we are going to get the same coverage as everyone else. if you don't want anyone else to have the coverage, you shouldn't get it yourself. there was one member from maryland who came to the ownertation who was a big advocate for repeal and he was inquiring because his federal health insurance didn't take effect until february 1. we were sworn in yesterday, but i guess it takes 30 days before the insurance actually kicks in

and he was complaining about the fact that he had to wait until february 1 to get his health insurance as a congressman. well, again, if you are going to vote for repeal next week, you shouldn't be worried about when it's going to kick in. you shouldn't be taking it at all, in my opinion. there's a lot of -- i don't know what the word -- smoking mirrors or whatever is going on around other side of the aisle and my point is, there is a lot of protection here for people. don't deny them that unless you are going to deny it to yourself. who is helped by this repeal? only the big insurance companies. they are the ones who are going to benefit. i know you were the insurance commissioner so i know you know what i'm talking about. mr. garamendi: i do have some experience on that. it's called the medical loss

ratio and the insurance companies have cut a fat check for themselves over the years by taking a big premium and then paying a small amount of it out for the medical conference. and the patients' bill of rights and affordable health care act, they can't do that. they have to pay for the individual policies, 80% and for the group policies, 85% for medical services. so what was the very first thing they did after this bill was signed into law? we passed it last year and the president signed it. the very first thing they did was to run down to the health and human services department and say, oh, but our advertising ought to be included as a medical expense. and oh, these expenses for these kinds of employees, mostly statisticians, we think that is

a medical expense. we are trying to make sure that when we pay a dollar at least we get 80 cents back in medical services. our friends on the other side would repeal that and allow the insurance companies to take that money or a larger portion of that money, put it in their pockets, give it to their c.e.o.'s, whatever, but not use it for medical services. medical loss ratio is important. and the other thing that needs to be understood is the ability of the government to review, not to say no, but to shine that big bright spotlight onto the insurance company premium increases. is it justified, yes, no, what are your costs, what ratios are you using for medical losses and the like. so that spotlight of information is required under the law. many, many things in the law. mr. cohen, i see you stood up,

anxious to make a comment here and i notice behind you our colleague from maryland has joined us and i want to start talking about seniors. so, please, mr. cohen, i want you to go for it. mr. cohen: i want to ask a question, the first thing that the republicans want to do is repeal the affordable health care bill. but the first thing they did was today and we joined with them and bipartisan was to cut 5% from our members' representational allowances, a small amount of money in the big picture. but the deficit was the issue they were highlighting. what would the repeal of the affordable health care act do to the deficit, that's the issue, because that's one of our big issues? mr. garamendi: well, it just happens we prepared this little blue chart here and it ought to be in the red. the repeal of the affordable health care act, obviously deals with the patients' bill of

rights but also deals with the deficit. this week, the congressional budget office, not republican, not democrat, they answer to neither party but to the general public. they said the repeal of the affordable health care act will increase the deficit by $230 billion, $230 billion in the next nine years and in the out years, the next 10 years, well over $1,200,000,000. mr. cohen: that's money we owe china and pay the interest to the chinese and our children and grandchildren will be paying this if they don't have pre-existing conditions where they can get insurance. mr. garamendi: our children and grandchildren and those of us living for another 10, 15, 20 years, we are going to pay

twice. we are going to pay the insurance costs, the health care costs that is not covered by the health insurance programs, the example you gave of the individual with two boughts of cancer and going to pay for the full costs of that because the limitation goes back into place. so you get to pay for your health care and you are going to have to pay off the deficit also. makes no sense whatsoever, but, hey, that's what they want to do, without one hearing by any of the relevant committees. mr. cohen: consistency is the hob goblin. thank you sir. mr. garamendi: i noticed that our colleague from maryland has joined us. ms. edwards. you were talking about it earlier today on the floor and in committee. ms. edwards: i feel very personally about health care, a person who went a long time

without health care coverage and worried like most americans and they did prior to our investing in reform for the american people. so i know that anxiety. and i was thinking about some of our swepts, in maryland's 4th congressional district who today, because of what we did in the democratic-led congress in passing landmark health care reform legislation are better off today and we haven't fully implemented the benefits for the american people. i think about a letter that i got from a gentleman who lives in my district in olney, maryland. and he writes to me that his son mike was 25, going on 26 and he could receive health care insurance coverage when he wasn't able to get it and needed it and couldn't get it. he got a letter from blue

cross/blue shield saying that his son could be covered until his 26th birthday. and what he did was he did what a lot of americans do, wiping the sweat from their brow because they know they can keep their young people on their health care plan until they are 26. i have a 22-year-old and i was feeling the same way. i got another letter from a woman who actually does health care policies and lives in my district and what she said to me was that her daughter had a pre-existing condition and she was very concerned, but she was an older young person, 20 years old with a pre-existing condition, really worried that she wouldn't be able to provide health care and got the notice for cobra coverage and we said the backup is cobra. that was going to be an extra $400 to $500 a month to make sure she didn't lose her health

care when she actually lost her job. now this parent, actually for the cost of about $70 or $80, as opposed to $400 or $500 can keep their child on their health care coverage. i think this is a great benefit for america's families, for families who work every day and actually have health care coverage. i heard discussion about premium increase hikes. and i want to tell you something. when we working on health care reform and many of us were concerned about people who don't have insurance and need coverage. but most americans all across the country do have some form of health care coverage and you know what they are worried about? they are worried about the premiums going up at astronomical rates. i have heard from my constituents, 20%, 30% premium hikes. because of what we did in this health care package, snirns

commissioner, insurance commissioners across the country have the power invested in them and say we are going to put a check on these companies. a big state like california, connecticut, maine, colorado and maryland, and all across the country, that's what the commissioners are doing. it's the states. we heard this morning as we read the constitution a reminder that states are in a great position to look at what insurance companies are doing in their states to regulate what's happening in their states and to say to them, you have to stop taking money away from scummers and patients by raising your preliminary -- from consumers and patients by raising your premiums. this is important and i'm glad to be talking about these benefits with the american people.

. mr. garamendi: i thank you so very much. you reminded me of two very quick stories. on monday i was at the inaugural for the governor of california, jerry brown is back again, and a lobbyist that i knew when i was an insurance commissioner representing health insurance companies came up to me and he came up to me and put his finger in my chest and said, don't let them repeal the law. i'm not going to give his name, he'd lose his job immediately. and i said, i'll do everything i can, but why? you represent them, why? and he said, i have two children. both are type one diabetics. they're approaching 23 years of age. they will be out of luck. they will never be able to get an insurance policy if this bill is repealed. patient's bill of rights gives that lobbyist for the health insurance industry an opportunity to see his children

get health insurance. i have six children of my own. patty and i do. all six of them have gone through that age of 23. it is the scariest time for a parent. you graduate, you get a diploma and you also get an exit from the insurance. that you've had perhaps for your entire life. this law provides another three years after you graduate, that period of time that's almost impossible nowaddais to find a job with a -- now a days to find a job with insurance. mr. scott: thank you very much. i appreciate your hard work and leadership on. this you've talked about the problems in health care with government. it's just not a government problem. you ask any human resources executive about what the -- one of the major problems they have and benefit package, it's the

ability to afford health care. health care costs have been going out of control. if you have an employee with a pre-existing condition and he's in the group and they do the study, you start getting bills you can't pay. you ask any human resources what's happened to their insurance costs over the years, it's going through the sky. if you look at the employees -- employee portion of health care, it will go from zero participation to a little bit, more co-pays, more deductibles, more costs for the family, on and on and on. everyone has a great deal of insecurity about their ability to do health care. then you look at the idea of what happens if you lose a job, if you have a pre-existing condition you will not be able to get health care until this bill passed. with all this insecurity, your ability to get health care, your ability to be able to afford it

in the future, all of these problem, all of these problems in the future, what is the response from the other side? about what to do about that kind of insecurity, they say, well, just be strong and go without insurance like me. well, that is not a particularly attractive solution for those that don't have an alternative, don't have a spouse who you can say, i'm not going to take government policy, i'm going to use another, or if they're so wealthy they don't need the insurance. most americans aren't in that situation. they need health insurance and this is what is provided, you have access to it and it's affordable. everyone in america will be able to afford health insurance in 2014 because those that can't afford it will have subsidies to make sure that they can. so everybody will be able -- again, if you make less than $88,000 you can get health care for less than 10% of your

salary. that is not the case now. if you're in the $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 a year bracket, if you can get insurance it's going to be a lot more than that. so with this bill people have the security of health insurance that they don't have now and the bizarre suggestion, just go without insurance, is not particularly nice when you have children that may need -- have a little ear infection, rather than have them lose their hearing you can deal with it when it's a little infection. these problems don't go out of control. we need that security, this bill provides it. and in terms of seniors, seniors are particularly helped under this legislation. they can get -- those who can't afford the co-pays and deductibles can get their annual checkups without any co-pays and deductibles. we'll help fill in the doughnut hole. take a little time but

eventually there will be no doughnut hole where they fall in and have to pay all of their drug costs. it would provide more community health centers so they'll have better access. we'll train more doctors and nurses so they'll have more professional -- you have a chart that extends medicare, medicare is extended. we know that medicare will go broke if we don't do anything. it extends the policy of medicare. so all of these, lower prescription drug costs, all of these things that seniors have a particular interest in, all of that will be lost if this bill is repealed. >> if i might interrupt you for just a moment, mr. scott, you're into an issue, an area, that is profoundly important to the seniors of america. the discussion last year as this bill was passing was that somehow this piece of

legislation would harm seniors by taking away medicare benefits. it was not true last year, it is not true this year. however if our republican colleagues are successful in repealing it, they, the seniors, will be seriously harmed. i want to make this point very, very clear and ask my colleagues to join us perhaps on their own personal experience in their districts, but you started going through this list here, this legislation actually extends the solvency of medicare. by reining in the cost and by giving seniors specific preillness care so they will be able to get preventative care free. free annual checkups. they can't get it today but under this legislation seniors can get preannual checkups which reduces the cost -- free annual

checkups which reduces the cost because you get to the illness quicker. mr. scott. mr. scott: you said people were scared about what might happen. i also said things about small business, this would bankrupt small businesses. small businesses are exempt from the requires -- requirements under the bill. so it can't possibly hurt them. but those small businesses that want to provide health care for their employees are given tax credits to encourage them to do so. so they can't possibly be hurting small business. but for the senior citizens, they have all of the benefits that you've listed on the chart that will be lost if this bill is repealed. mr. garamendi: you mentioned the doughnut hole. every senior that's in the prescription doughnut hole last year, 2010, received a $250 check to help them pay for their drugs. in going forward the doughnut hole will be lessened and lessened and eventually nine years from now will disappear. there will be no doughnut hole. you look at the quality of care, extremely important quality of

care, thank you for bringing that up. more primary doctors, more geriatric care of nurses and doctors, extraordinary important part of the legislation, not just only for seniors, you also mentioned the community-based and of course the preventative care. all of these things are there and all of them will disappear if the republicans are successful with their legislation, next wednesday that will be brought to this floor without one hearing to discuss any of these issues in a relevant policy committee. mr. cohen, please join us. mr. cohen: let me ask a question. i was just thinking here, as i'm honored to be in the house of representatives, and with the constitution that's so beautiful that it says we're to promote the general welfare, we are among other industrialized nations on this earth. what are the other industrialized nations on the earth do about health care for their citizens? mr. garamendi: i'm not sure i heard your question. mr. cohen: what do other industrialized nations in the world do for health care?

do they have program policies like ours with -- where 32 million people don't have health insurance and they're not mandated to get insurance? what do they do? mr. garamendi: i think you're asking me a rhetorical question because you know the answer and i think most americans know the answer. all the industrialized nations, we're not talking about china here, but we're talking about korea, japan, the european countries, the european union, all of those countries provide universal health insurance conference. universal. everyone, including -- conversation. universal. everyone, including tourists who happen to show up and this i know from one of my daughters who fell off a stair at the leaning tower of piza. she fell, went into an michael jackson room, -- emergency room, they took an m.r.i., she said, i haven't paid. she said, you're covered much that was in italy. mr. cohen: does the united states not have one of the greatest desscrepsies in wealth between the richest and poorest in the industrialized world as

well? are we saying to our wealthy people, you can afford health insurance so you can get it but for those people that are poor, too bad. mr. garamendi: the other countries of the world don't look at it that way. they look at it as a right for their citizens to have access to health care and they provide the health insurance. different ways of doing it. germany, france, britain, canada all do it differently. but they all do it and incidentally the health statistics in all of those countries are considerably better than america and america is placed at the bottom of the industrialized countries in terms of our health care, how healthy we are, how long we live, how sick we get. we're at the bottom. in fact, we are often with developing countries in the statistics, we spend almost twice as much as any of those countries. so the affordable health care act goes after many, many things beyond the patients' bill of rights and the senior issues. thank you so very much for raising that issue. we have about maybe 10 more

minutes? 10. mr. pallone. mr. pallone: i just wanted to talk a little bit about prevention and particularly in terms of seniors, which you mentioned. and what it means in terms of the people's health and allegation the cost to the government. because -- and also the cost to the government. some of the things we've mentioned with regard to seniors have already taken place. this summer under the bill seniors who fell into the doughnut hole got ads 250 rebate. beginning january 1 they get a 50% discount on brand name drugs . you mentioned the co-pays for preventative care, whether it's your annual wellness treatment or other kinds of tests like mammograms or colonoscopies, for example. the reason we're eliminating the 20% co-pay for these things, the reason we're trying to fill up

the doughnut hole, it goes to prevention. if people don't get their drugs and they get sick and go to the hospital, they have the annual wellness checks, they stay healthy, they don't go to the hospital. and when they go to the hospital if they're on medicare it just costs the government more money. so this is the way we save money. we save money, what does that mean? it means that the debt is decreased, it means that the solvency of medicare you have on the chart is extended. i don't know if we talked much about that. one of my amendments in the rules committee today is, you know, a lot of seniors tell me, they come up to me and say they're worried about the fact that, you know, medicare may become insolvent and there wouldn't be enough money in the trust fund to pay for it. the bottom line is that the health care reform bill extends the judgment day, if you will, when the solvency problem becomes an issue much further and if you have the repeal, the solvency problem hits us six years from now, in 2017, from

what i understand. so another problem with repeal is not only does it increase the deficit, but it also, you know, is only six years from now that we would have to deal with this medicare solvency problem. what is that going to mean? that's going to mean probably that cutbacks in benefits for senior citizens because if you don't have the money you're going to have to cut back on the benefits. it is amazing to me how they can continue to talk about this repeal. the other thing they keep saying on the other side of the aisle, the republicans say, well, the reason we want the repeal is because this health care reform is killing jobs. nothing can be further from the truth. i mean, the fact of the matter is that under this health care reform, because the costs of health care premiums for employers will be significantly reduced, they'll be able to hire more people. part of the problem that we have with competition of other countries, mentioned all these other countries, these other

industrial countries that have free health care, universal health care, that meengs that -- means that the employers don't carry the burden of that. when they hire someone, if the government is paying for it, they don't have to worry about that for their employees necessarily. well, it's the cost of premiums go down, then people -- the cost of hiring somebody goes down in the united states. in addition to that there are all kinds of jobs created in the health care profession because as everyone gets covered and everybody needs a primary care doctor, well, you're going to need more doctors, more nurses, more health aides because people will get that kind of preventative care. so there are jobs created with the preventative care in handling people to make sure they stay healthy or they stay well. what the republicans should be doing is spending the first days of this session talking about how to improve the economy and create jobs not repealing health care. i think the american people have

moved on. they don't want to hear this. they want to know what this congress is going to do to create jobs. we have dealt with the health care issue and they want us to move on. i yield back. mr. garamendi: we have three minutes, four minutes and i'm going to turn to mr. cohen and ms. edwards. would you like to close? mr. cohen: mr. pallone brought up an issue and he said it's not true it's costing jobs. there is some respected group. i think it is political fact check and they were on national news giving the biggest lies told in politics in the last year. and the number one biggest lie, this independent group was the republican mantra of government-mandated health care and it's just a fact, that's the biggest lie told the american public and it came from the leaders on the other side. it came from these halls where they are immune from defamation

suits because it's not government-run health care and it's unheard that the other side would use the fact that they are immune from prosecution in the other jurisdiction or court for words that aren't true to do that and politics to say it was government-run health care, the biggest lie of 2010 and comes to the floor next week. mr. garamendi: we will wrap this one up and mr. yarmuth will carry on with health insurance, but we really today focused on a broad range of issues, patients' bill of rights, the way in which the repeal would harm individuals. we also discussed a little bit about how this affects business and we went into some detail about senior citizens. all of these are critically important issues and will be discussing these in the days

ahead and i hope the american public will really pay attention and this next week particularly wednesday, it's going to be absolutely critical to the american people. it's a question about will all of us in america be able to get health care coverage that is affordable and provide us with the opportunity to have the health care that we need. so with that, i will wrap this up and turn it over to whom ever is next. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded that their remarks are properly addressed to the chair rather than any perceived television viewing audience. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for 30 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i can tell you that i am pleased to address you, mr. speaker, here on the floor of the united states house of representatives and welcome you to the great

deliberative body which becomes instantly far more deliberative than it has been in the last four years. and this is part of it. as i deliberate and i listen to the gentleman from tennessee, i have to make a point that when you challenge the mendacity of the leader there is an opportunity to make a motion to take the gentleman's words down, however many of the members are off on other endeavors and the leader and the speaker have established their integrity in their mendacity for years in this congress and i don't think it can be challenged and those who do so are making aspersions by making wild accusations. i came to talk about the weather and as i listend to the speeches that have gone on before in the previous hour, it actually changed the subject for me. i think there are many things

that need to be brought out and clarified, given this that we have debated this health care bill -- we debated this health care bill for oh, close to a year. and announced in rules committee earlier today -- i believe there were 100 hours of markup in committee. wasn't the bill they passed, 100 hours of debate and markup on a different bill and switched bills in the end. that's a matter of public record and fact. but the american public understands what happened. they understand that the speaker of the house said we have to pass the bill, meaning obamacare, mr. speaker, in order to find out what's in it. and when that bill was passed to set the record also straight, i don't think there is another time in the history of this congress that there was a bill of this magnitude that passed the house of representatives without the majority support of the house of representatives for the bill that was before us. it is a fact of record, it's a

fact of judgment, a fact of history that there had to be conditions that were attached in order to achieve the votes necessary to squeak that bill by and pass o'bauma care here on the floor of the house last march. and if people forget, remember there was a switch on the bill. the bill that was marked up in committee was not the bill that came to the floor or had hearings on it, but there were also conditions. there were the stupak dozen who said we insist that there be an amendment brought forward that will protect so that the language that's in the bill doesn't fund abortion through a federal mandate. and they held out on that to get that vote. little did i know up until that saturday afternoon that the gentleman who was doing the negotiating already committed to vote for the bill. and the stupak people were

anonymous people. and they negotiated with the president of the united states who made a commitment and followed through on it to sign an executive order that would pacify or nullify the anonymous stupak dozen under the presumption unconstitutionally and completely outside the bounds of the separation of powers that the president of the united states couldffective amenlegisln by executive romi he is goi to so fohe l brough to the floor for a vote. that happened in this cgress. and anotr ndition of that was, this is a condition that came after the then chair of the rules committee, ms. slaughter, had offered the idea that they should deem the bill passed so they didn't have to go on record for voting for this bill because they knew how bad it was. they knew how politically vulnerable they were. they knew speaker pelosi was making them walk the plank. a lot of them are not here because of that action. but as i talked about why this

bill didn't have the support of the congress and in the form that was before us, why the majority did not support it. the majority vote that day in its form, because there had to be another deal on top of this. this was the deal that the senate had to pass a reconciliation package which was designed to amend the bill that had not yet been brought to the floor of the house for a vote. and i don't know if that is the first time something like that had been played but first time to my knowledge that there was a bill that came before this congress ta was not the bill that came through committee, that was pledged to be amended by a presidential executive order and further amended by a reconciliation bill that would later pass the united states senate. that's what we have before us with obamacare and it became the law of the land on that date of march 30, 2010, passed over here in the house if i remember correctly on the late evening of march 21 or early sunday

morning. i remember telling myself i'm going to sleep and then wake up and figure out what to do. i didn't sleep very long and i couldn't sleep with that policy imposed upon the american people with the realization that it would become the law of the land. and about two and-a-half hours later, i got up and wept to my word processor and typed a request for a bill to repeal obamacare. and i filed that request at the opening of business that day, the first opportunity and the first minutes of that day. i want to thank and congratulate michelle balk man. i didn't know it, she was awake in the middle of the night and her bill came down within three minutes of mine and that draft was turned into a discharge petition with a huge pelosi majority in the 111th congress and discharge petition gathered

173 signatures bipartisan at least by the pelosi definition and part of the foundation that i think actually did shake this country. there was a statement made in the rules committee and they were deliberating on the rule for h.r. 2 that we had said that the sky would fall if obamacare became the law of the land and they said the sky didn't fall. chairman up ton and now chairman of the energy and commerce committee said yes, it did. yes, the sky did fall and when you look at the 87 freshman republicans that are seated over on this side, nine freshman democrats on this side rkts i think any --, i think any political pundit would say there was an earthquake in america that was brought about by the imposition of this liberty-stealing, unconstitutional obamacare bill

that's before this congress now. this congress was elected to come here and repeal obamacare, get a handle on the debt and deficit and lay the foundation so that private enterprise can start to have faith in the future of this country again and they can create the jobs under the framework that we're hopeful we will be able to bring through. we aren't in a position where the house of representatives can play all of the economic foundation that's necessary for free enterprise to have enough faith and confidence to invest their capital in a robust fashion. what we are in a position to do now with a new congress and a new speaker is to be able to play an effective defense against the existing majority in the united states senate and the president of the united states who has been digging holes through his economic steroid theory and dug such a deep hole and we watched nancy pelosi

preside over the debt and we watched the obama administration run that up under their term to about $3 trillion and got to stop. the american were looking at president gulliver obama and they came to the polls on november 2 and tied him up with their electoral ropes and said join the incumbents there. tomorrow and on wednesday, to repeal obamacare and take the shovel out of the hands of the president and take the gavel out of the hands of nancy pelosi. that's what happened. i take you back through this history because it's being rewritten again. how can they stand here, go before the rules of committee, before the american people, mr. speaker, and take the position that somehow if they just explain it one more time and one more way that the american

people will now have some left-wing light bulb come on in their head. that's not going to happen. the american people have seen clearly. they washed the lenses off and looked down through the constitution and fiscal responsibility and common sense and they were appalled at that liberty-stealing bill of obamacare and they said repeal that monstrosity because the destiny of america will be diminished unless we do. this is a charge that this new congress has. it's the voice of the american people and it's the respect that we must have. and my gratitude for god's gift to america, the freshman class that was elected in 2010 and sworn in here right here on this floor yesterday afternoon. and they will affect the agenda of this country for many congresses to come and it will be a responsible agenda that brings us to a balanced budget and begins to reduce the deficit that this country has, not just

the deficit spending, but reduce the national debt. we must get to the point where we can begin to pay down the national debt and we start with this congress. we start by rolling back the spending to 2008 levels and we started it today with a vote that cut our own budgets by 5%. it's not a lot of money and yes it's symbolic but the symbolism that compels us to follow through if it's good enough now for those of us in this congress that voted on that, it's also good enough to bring that policy through back to the united states of america. well, so what i have heard is, the members on the other side of the aisle that still stand here and defend obamacare, the ones that are left, they have four talking points about the bill that they think are compelling and they must believe that it offsets all of the horrible things about obamacare. first they say -- well, remember, the president had all of these promises about what he was going to do with obamacare

and he attached obamacare to it at the blair house during the health care summit, february 25, 2010 when the president of the united states referred to his own bill as obamacare. that is the shorthand version for all this long thing. they don't want to say obamacare. that's how everybody knows it and understands it. . so under obamacare they give you the four, four redeeming components to obamacare that apparently offset all the horrible things about it. and these four redeeming conditions are this. that it requires insurance companies all across america with a federal mandate to provide for policies that must keep your children on there up until age 26. and they think that that's something that america has fallen in love with as a really good, brainy solution. i know there are republicans

that support the idea of insurance policies being extended to age 26. but, mr. speaker, what a lot of people don't know in this country is that there are at least two members in this congress that were elected before age 26 and had obamacare been implemented before they were elected to office, they would have, could have been on their parents' health insurance plan. now isn't that a nice thing, when you wean them off of the parents' health insurance plan and you transition them over and say, now run the country, they haven't had a single minute of their own health insurance policy until they get here. they have a responsibility for it here. we pay our chunk of the premiums like any other federal employee, but i just think it's ironic that there would be such a strong argument that people elected to congress could come here, walk in that door, come down here before the speaker's ross trum, raise their hand and take the oath of office and at that moment still be on their mommy and daddy's health

insurance policy. i wanted my kids to grow up. when they turned 18 i told them, my responsibilities are now done. i'm going to nurture you and give you advice and council you and i'll help you where i can. but i'm not obligated, guys. we did our best for the first 18 years, while do our best for every year, we'll love you all our lives but you got to start pulling your own load and now i look at three grown sons in their 30's, all married, five grandkids, each an entrepreneur in their own right, pulling their own load and i'm glad that they didn't have to stay unweaned until age 26. but if the insurance companies want to do that you should be able to buy the policy. if states want to mandate, i think it's not a good policy, but they can do so constitutionally and then if a person's tired of paying those kind of premiums you can move to another state and vote with your feet. there's some states in the union here that i would move out of because they can't afford the health insurance in them. there are other states one could think about moving to because of

the opposite. here's a second point. pre-existing conditions. they always tie this pre-existing conditions in with the word discrimination. because it's like a civil rights code word so if an insurance company says, i don't want to buy, i don't want to provide insurance policies to people who have pre-existing conditions, who wait until they get sick before they buy a policy, the health insurance purchasing equivalent of waiting for your house to be on fire before you go buy property and casualty insurance, how many rational people, mr. speaker, in this country would make the case that we ought to have a guaranteed issue for our fire insurance on our house? couldn't we then just, you know, set up our little blackberry with an automatic send and wait for the fire alarm to go off and on the way down the steps to bail out of the burning house you could just click send, automatically they'd have to give you a policy so that your house could be rebuilt and -- if it's oth on fire.

we wouldn't do that -- if it's on fire. we wouldn't do that. it's ridiculous because it defeats the logic of insurance. you want to be insured against a catastrophe and you want to share that riss wisconsin other people who want to be insured against catastrophe. it's true for fire insurance. it was true for flood insurance until the federal government took it over and it needs to be true of health insurance. but we will address pre-existing conditions and we'll have a legitimate debate on pre-existing conditions here in this congress, in committee hearings, hearings before committees, amendments offered, amendments allowed and amendments offered and debated and voted up and down. my position is that if the states want to prohibit the consideration of pre-existing conditions, they may do so. our state has a high-risk pool and we fund part of those proom premiums with the high-risk pool out of the state treasury. i think that's a good idea. i have worked to develop that and expand that in my time in the state legislature.

i think it's worthy of consideration that the federal government can take a look at those state high-risk pools and find ways to help those states provide those kind of backstops. because there will always be people who are unfortunate. it won't always be those who are irresponsible, it will also be those who are unfortunate. so we need to take that into consideration. but to have the whole debate about just those that are unfortunate and not take into consideration those that are responsible, those that are taxpayers, those that are funding, those that are the engine of our economy that are being discouraged by these kind of big government socialized medicine, unconstitutional policies like obamacare. here's a third one, 26-year-old insurance, pre-existing conditions. oh, yes, the discriminatory pre-existing conditions policy. it's not discriminatory. it's logical and rational. would you say that it's discriminatory policy to not

allow people to buy property and casualty insurance if their house is on fire? not discrimination, it defies common sense. so i'm not going to let them get by with that word. here's the third thing. doughnut hole. they say they've fixed the doughnut hole and we would unfix the doughnut hole. the truth is that low income people have that fix, there is a backstop for that doughnut hole. it's not the hole that they say it is. furthermore they raise fees elsewhere to fill the doughnut hole so it's not fixed, it's just another transfer so that some people are beneficiaries and others that pay the extra money. i'm not particularly animated about that although i thought we should not have had that doughnut hole created here in 2003. in any case, the next argument is against lifetime caps. if states want to provide lifetime capps let them do that. but if individuals want to buy policies that have lifetime caps because the premiums are lower, let them make that decision as well, mr. speaker.

i envision a day that we have free markets that are engaged in this. we want to preserve the doctor-patient relationship. we want to preserve the free market effectiveness so when people make decisions about their health and their lives that they have some tools to work with. i want to be able to in this congress, this 112th congress, advance the idea and seek to pass legislation that is consistent with chairman dreier's -- i would expand it a little more. he advanced the medical savings accounts. i would add we need to advance health savings accounts, h.s.a.'s. in 2003 with the expansion of part d we put language in that established h.s.a.'s. health savings accounts. it allowed -- excuse me, in the first year for a couple to establish a health savings account with a maximum amount in it of $5,150. that's the calculus, from $5,150

on up. well that's a good deal. obamacare slashed that in less than half and capped the h.s.a. maximum amount to $,500. why? because they don't want people to be independent and they don't want them to be able to make their own decisions. if they do that they might undermine this effort of expanding the dependency class in america, which is what obamacare is designed to do. because expanding the dependency class expands the democrat party and that increases the political base and it seems illogical to the american people, well, there's the logic i've just applied to it and now, mr. speaker, they do understand that this is about politics. it's about expanding the dependency class, and it's about diminishing the independence and the spirit of americans. and so the lifetime caps piece is a fourth one. fifth one that's it. do they redeem those 2,500 pages of disaster? do they then overrule and trump

the constitution of the united states of america? i say no, mr. speaker. they cannot, they must not, they should not. and i hear this debate also about an increase in our deficit of the number i think was $332 billion, not if but when we repeal obamacare. well that deficit, and they want to know, well, you offset that deficit with spending cuts. yes, sir. we will be happy to offset a deficit with spending cuts but i would make this argument instead. when you have an unconstitutional bill in front of you and if you're debating whether or not that's a reason to repeal an unconstitutional bill, you can set no price on the constitution of the united states of america. if it's a trillion dollars you repeal the bill anyway because it's unconstitutional and you

don't sit back and twiddle your thumbs and wait for the court to resolve this for you. i'm glad that there's litigation going on in the judicial branch. i'm glad that judge hudson found with virginia on the constitutional component of the interstate commerce clause. i'm glad there are efforts out there in the states to deny the implementation of obamacare. all of these things going on. but we took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states here yesterday. we took it all in good faith. we said so. and when we have an unconstitutional bill before us, mr. speaker, it is our obligation to repeal that bill. our judgement of the constitution is not a judgment that defers across and down the line of independence avenue. we don't go to the supreme court and genuflect and say, if you change the meaning of the constitution my oath applies, our oath applies to our understanding and conviction of the text and the original understanding of the

constitution and the various amendments as they were adopted. that's what the constitution has to mean or it is no guarantee whatsoever to the people in this country. they rose up and they changed this majority in this house and they did so because there are a whole group of millions of constitutional conservatives, including the tea party groups and they said, enough unconstitutional activity, enough of this theft of our liberty, we are not going to pass the debt and deficit on to this succeeding generations. so i notice, and it was $230 billion was the point, not $232, to make it accurate but i noticed today in the republican study committee that chairman jim jordan read from an article written by tony blankly in the "washington times," december 20, 2010, and it caught my ear and so i looked it up and i'd like to just close with this concept that was delivered by tony blankly shortly before christmas

this year. and he wrote about smeerns in china and how they're worried that if they don't keep the growth going in china that they will create expectations and then the peasants in china will be unruleble if you give them expectations, then you have to meet those expectations. well we in america, we trust in our expectations and so he writes this, what happened in november 2 was this, that the american people went to the polls and said, i want more liberty and less government. i want more liberty and less security about my future and he puts in these words and i think they're excellent words. quote, no other people in the world would have responded to economic danger by seeking more liberty and less government protection. no other people would have fought to -- thought to themselves, if i have to suffer economically in order to not steal from my grandchildren, so be it.

i pray we would have come to that decision a generation ago instead of a couple of months ago, mr. speaker. but this congress has come to that decision at the direction and the effectiveness of the american people and we will follow through on that pledge. we'll ask them, keep sending us more people like this freshman class, to help get this job done so, that in our time we can hand the keys of this chamber and this government over to the next generation in sound fiscal fashion, sound constitutional fashion, not with diminished liberty, but with the expanded liberty and with the pillars of american exceptionalism refurbished by our generation thanks to the will of the american people. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmuth, for

30 minutes. mr. yarmuth: thank you, mr. speaker. and congratulations on your election. it's a great pleasure to be here today and i could spend the next half hour responding to my colleague from iowa. i think it's fascinating that just one comment that he talks about reading the constitution and then talks about how this is an unconstitutional bill. well obviously he apparently stopped at article 2 and didn't get to article 3 which stipulates that the judiciary and the supreme court ultimately decides what is constitutional in this country, not members of congress. and the constitution was read today, i'm glad it was, it's always good to remind ourselves of this great foundational document that we all respect, that all of us, all 435 members of the house, swore to protect and defend yesterday. and in the constitution, in article 1, section 5 it says,