each house may determine the rules of its precedings. and yesterday the republican majority in the house put forth a group of rules changes that will determine how this congress will operate over the next two years. and it was fascinating in light of our discussion of health care, in light of our discussion about the cost of health care that one of the things it did, these rules changes that republicans passed, basically divest extraordinary power in one member of the house of representatives to determine essentially what the cost, what the deficit or the debt -- the budget implications of a particular piece of legislation might be. and to the debate we are in now about republicans' proposal to take away all of the privileges and rights and benefits granted by the affordable care act that we passed in the 111th congress

and i was proud to support is that one of the things it said was that if there's a vote to repeal the health care bill, the affordable health care act that we passed last year, that we basically decide that we don't have to abide by pay-go rules. in other words, saying that just because the congressional budget office determined that the affordable health care act will save the taxpayers $230 billion over the next seven or eight years and then another $1 trillion in the following 10 years that we don't have to make the same kind of adjustments that we do for other kinds of additional expenditures because the republican philosophy is if you reduce revenues in any way to the federal government that's

fine and it doesn't affect the deficit. now, a lot of debate -- a lot of the debate we had last congress over the health care act i heard time after time after time, tax cuts and many other things that, oh, a business can't operate like this, a family can't operate like this. well, in fact, in this particular case that analogy are really relevant because if i have a family, two-income family and all of a sudden one of us loses our job and loses our income, it's really interesting that we could take the position that, oh, it didn't affect our budget. it didn't affect the family deficit. just that loss of revenue didn't matter. all we're concerned about is how much we spent. all we're concerned about is the expense. what the republicans have basically done is to say under this new regime, this new set of rules they passed yesterday

that there are two separate ledgers. one dealing with exexpenditures, one dealing with revenue and they don't affect each other. it's an astounding philosophy of operation that we're about to embark on. under this new rule when the bush tax cuts for the very wealthy expire in two years, we would not have to account for that loss in revenue to the philadelphia deficit even though when -- to the federal deficit even though when we start borrowing money to pay for the deficit we're going to have to come up with that money. they say, no, it doesn't affect the deficit. if we repeal the affordable health care act, which the c.b.o. says will save $1.3 trillion over the next two decades, that's money that we aren't going to have to borrow from somebody else. they say, oh, that's not part of the budget. we don't have to compensate for

that. so it's fascinating that they basically set up these two sets of books and then they give the power to the chairman of the budget committee, who in this case is mr. ryan of wisconsin, a very thoughtful, very thoughtful, honest man. you give him the power, however, to make a decision that whatever the c.b.o. says doesn't matter, he can deem or decide exactly what the impact of any provision or any act of congress is on the budget. one person. now, i come from kentucky. we're a big basketball state. last weekend we had a game, big game rivalry, kentucky and louisville played. didn't come out the way i liked to, but i have to think when we set up these rules that that would be like louisville and kentucky playing and saying to coach pitino or louisville or coach cal periiperri, you get

to make the calls in this game. coach pitino, we're taking the refs off the field. you are the one that will call fouls. you'll make all the decisions. that's basically what the republicans have done. and what they also said in this process is that they basically decided that the health care reform bill has changing it, repealing it will have no impact on the deficit, no impact on the budget. now, that's fascinating because for the last year and a half when we debated the affordable health care act they kept talking about how this was going to balloon the deficit, how it was going to explode the deficit, trillions of dollars it's going to cost the american taxpayer. well, now they say, no, has no impact at all on the deficit. because you have to understand if it costs nothing to repeal it, then there was no cost to passing it.

so one has to question, who's been honest in this debate? who's been honest in this debate? i understand finding referees as to who's right and who's wrong and which facts are accurate has been a difficult process. and my colleague, mr. king, said that all of a sudden we keep talking about this expecting liberal light to go on in people's heads, well, we need some light on this subject because there's been so much attempt, billions and billions of dollars spent to create darkness about the impact of this bill and that process proceeds today. so i think as we debate this proposal the republicans to do away with many of the benefits which we are so proud of and which many americans, millions of americans are beginning to feel now, that we have the kind of discussion that is honest,

that is open, that sheds light on the subject. and no one can do that better than my colleague from the great state of maryland, donna edwards. ms. edwards: thank you for yielding, mr. yarmuth. as i listen to this discussion i thought, i wonder what taxpayers are thinking about this discussion. i wonder about the taxpayers that go to work every day but through no fault of their own they can't afford to buy health insurance even though they work every day and they pay taxes every day. and i thought, well, under the affordable care act indeed those people -- we get to, you know, put a little bottom up under them so they can be covered, so that they can, you know, go to work, take care of their families but also have the security and knowing that their families are going to be covered with health care. i thought about the discussion earlier on this floor where our colleagues on the other side of

the aisle talked, you know, somewhat disparagingly as a young person who maybe finishes college or trade school and goes to get a job but there's a gap in health care coverage because they've turned 22, 23 years old. they are working for a living, doing what they need to do, they've gone to school, they've gotten a trade maybe and they can't afford health care coverage. so their parents get to say, you know what, for all of our piece of mind and for your security, we're going to, you know, pay for that health care coverage under our plan. and so, you know, mr. speaker, as i stand here today i think about my son who's just gotten a job and there was this period, i remember when i received that notice from our health insurance company and that notice, you know, it was a shocker to me because it basically said, you're done. and had we not had this provision in our -- the affordable care act that

enables parents like me and other parents around the country to have the piece of mind of being able to keep our children, our young people, our young working people on our health care plan, i don't know what working families would do out there. mr. speaker, i thought, also, about a conversation that i'm going to share with you with some seniors that i had with friends as i was spending new year's eve. and one of the seniors said to me, we were talking about health care and they said, you know, i have a medical condition and i'm spending thousands of dollars and i've fallen into the doughnut hole and it's really taking a chunk out of our pocket. and i had the privilege on december 31 of saying to this family, do you know that as of january 1, as of the next day in 2011, your prescription drug that's fallen into that doughnut hole will actually receive a 50% discount for that

prescription drug? they had no idea. i was glad to be able to share it with them. they're not my constituents. they live in somebody else's state, but it was great to be able to share that with them, and that's the experience that many of our seniors all across the country are having right now as they realize that they won't have to bear the burden of out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs that fall through a doughnut hole because they can't afford it any more. they're young people -- their young people. if you undergo domestic violence, guess what, that's a pre-existing condition. the insurance companies, as we move into the implementation of our health care bill, will no longer call that a pre-existing condition. i'll close and allow you some additional opportunity in your time, but i do want to say that it was really compelling to read the constitution here on the floor of the house of representatives today and, again, a very important

reminder of our obligation as elected officials to look out for the general welfare of the people. and i can think of no better way to do that than making sure that we protect the health insurance, the health care that americans have been guaranteed because of what we were able to accomplish with the affordable care act. mr. yarmuth: i thank the distinguished congresswoman from maryland for her comments. i'm actually kind of glad that congressman king brought up these major benefits which are now helping families across this country. ms. edwards talked about the benefit of adding your son or daughter under 26 to your policy, and mr. king basically pooh-poohed that. i don't know if that's exactly a good legislative term, but kind of ridiculed that. and then he talked about lifetime limits and how lifetime limits were not

necessarily something that we should worry about in spite of the fact that almost a million americans a year historically over the last few years have gone bankrupt because they either had no insurance or their insurance was inadequate and they lost everything they had because of health care cost, because of a cancer diagnosis or a serious accident. these are real-life stories. these are not abstractions. and i understand that we have many colleagues on the other side of the aisle who believe in with almost a religious zeal in certain things like the perfection of the marketplace in spite of the fact that we've seen time after time after time in this country not the -- not too long ago with the financial system how our markets often fail, how we have created or allowed to be created enormous sources of power and

concentrations of economic power in this country that have basically distorted the marketplaces. and that is true -- very, very true in the area of health insurance. we have many, many states in which one company, one company, one insurer will dominate the insurance market. 85%, 90% of the insurance in that state solid -- sold through one insurance company. that's not something that the drafters of the constitution envisioned. so it's nice to believe in free market principles, and i think democrats believe in free market principles as well as republicans do. but the fact is in real life, not in a history philosophy book, in real life markets fail, markets get distorted and that is when the government is responsible for protecting the general welfare of the

population, as the constitution says. i want to return, because i've been joined by -- we've been joined by another colleague, i want to return to this issue of rules because, again, the budgetary rules that the republicans have set up to govern this next congress are creating some incredibly difficult situations for our states, our localities and our people. and one of those areas in which this has been particularly true -- i know i've been contacted by transportation officials in kentucky about how desperate they think -- how dangerous they think these new rules may be. and joe courtney from connecticut has joined us to talk about that implication of the new rules that we are going to be operating under, so i yield to the gentleman from connecticut. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. yarmuth. i appreciate the fact that you're putting the spotlight on this issue which is really extraordinary in terms of what's just happened in the last 24 hours. as you know and as congresswoman edwards knows,

the real workhorse, infrastructure, transportation funding in this country is the highway trust fund. that is a mechanism which is set up by the congress. it has a dedicated revenue source, gas taxes, and since 1998 there has been a rule which the congress has operated under which says that the five-year transportation plan authorized by the congress cannot be tampered with by a bill that's brought to the floor of the house. if it is, then that bill is ruled out of order. and the purpose of that is to make sure that the transportation plan, which is done in a five-year increment, has sanctity, has consistent is i, so that states like yours or maryland or connecticut can actually move forward on multiyear projects, which most roads construction, bridge construction falls within that timeline. this has been the operating rules of the house since 1998.

yesterday, the republican rule, which was adopted, astonishingly, rescinded that protection for the transportation trust fund, the -- again, the mechanism which ensures that states get appropriate funding for highways, so a coalition grew up over the last three days, including labors international union, ironworkers, the u.s. chamber of commerce, the american trucking association, the motorcycle riders of america, people who actually care about making sure that our roads and bridges have the adequate support to make sure that, again, as a growing country we are going to be able to move people and goods from one place to the other in an appropriate fashion. by the way, our competitors around the world are moving past us at mock speed in terms of their transportation infrastructure investment. nonetheless, this coalition warned the new majority that this new rule was going to

upset, again, the consistency which transportation funding requires the new majority went ahead with that rule, adopted it, claims that they in fact were not doing that to the transportation trust fund but interestingly the markets say otherwise. is payne webber issued a downgrade to construction companies on the wall street stock markets and stocks exchanges and their stocks declined yesterday in the wake of the adoption of this rule. again, i earlier today submitted press accounts that describe, in fact, the sequence of what actually happened. we are talking here about a sector of the u.s. economy that's not in a recession, it's in a depression. the construction trades right now are looking at unemployment rates of 25% rather than shrinking and inhibiting the transportation infrastructure of this country, we should be

investing in it. let's be clear here. there's not going to be any public -- excuse me, private investment that's going to fill the gap that's being created by undercutting the sanctity of the highway trust fund. the fact of the matter is, this is done through public dollars and every generation, going back to really jefferson, has understood that this is essential to have an economy that can thrive and grow. as i said, we have now left the highway funding of this country, subject to the whims of the annual appropriations process that is not the top of horizon which planning can actually take place at state d.o.t.'s. it doesn't surprise me that the folks in kentuckys have contacted the people at d.o.t. in connecticut have done the same thing. again, management, labor, public sector groups that care about, they are just incredulous, particularly at this time work the weakness of

this economy, that this house has adopted that type of rule. >> i thank the gentleman, reclaiming my time. the only ji i used earlier with was families. mr. yarmuth: we know we're running huge deficits right now. we know that the money that we are spending, a large portion of it, we are borrowing because tax revenues can't support it. this republican majority now has basically take then position that they are going to strangle this government and put a cap on expenditures and that certainly is, i understand that's part of their honestly held philosophy. but if you're a family and you've got two kids, high school age, and one of -- you have two income earners, one of them loses their job, are you going to then say, under in circumstances am i going to

borrow money to help pay for the college education of my two teenagers so they can have a better life and be prepared to meet the demands of the future? i'm just going to keep cutting expenses. that analogy seems to be working here particularly with regard to transportation as well and the investment we have to make. mr. courtney: families make that decision to make capital investment along exactly the same lines whether to fix a roof, put a new driveway in, buy a house, again that's done few financing, debt financing, and again the way that particularly the middle class kind of deals with those challenges, there's no question that in terms of our own country's history, going back in time, even to the beginsing of our government, even during the civil war when the finances of this country were completely going from almost day-to-day, abraham lincoln did not pull back in terms of the need for us to invest in rail, land

grant colleges, again, this is the middle of the worst conflict in the history of this country but he still saw the need for us as a nation to continue to invest in the future and with borrowed must understand. those type of investments, investing in people through education, comes back to benefit the economy long-term and the multiplier effect is much higher than the actual price tag of those initial investments. mr. yarmuth: i thank the gentleman. again, i go back to these rules that have been adopted now in the house and they basically give extraordinary, unprecedented power to one person to set these budget limits, to decide the budgetary impact of an investment in infrastructure ohealth care law, the repeal of the health care law, or for instance the repeal of many advances we made in terms of education funding in the 111th congress.

it seems to me that, as i read through the constitution, the founding fathers probably didn't anticipate that we would basically disenfranchise 434 members of congress in making these incredibly important decisions about how we raise revenue which is specifically power that has been given for initiation to the house of representatives, or to spend tax revenue, that that kind of power would vest in one person and you would set up a set of rules to set up two sets of books and say if you drop revenue you cut taxes, if you have a loss of revenue that has no budget implications but anything you spend has to be offset somewhere along the line. i think in terms of not just investment in infrastructure, but research, medical research which is the answer to our long-term financing of health care if we can control or cure

diabetes, make an impact on heart disease, these will make a difference in the future, but to set up these kind of rules that will disenfranchise 434 members of congress and virtually every american citizen from deciding what money should be spent and invested in some very, very important aspects of the general welfare. i'd like to yield again to donna edwards of maryland. ms. edwards: it occurred to me as we heard this discussion, and thank you to mr. courtney for raising these issues with us, mr. speaker, because it occurred to me that while we should be spending our time focused on job creation and we know that a core for job creation for the 21st century for this country is in our investment and transportation infrastrurture -- infrastructure, putting people back to work and instead we are relitigating what the american people thought we had finished with health care. here we are with a rule that then says to us, even as the

bipartisan commission on debt commission has said we need to invest in the nation's infrastructure, those are investments that create jobs, jobs with taxpayers are paying into the system so we have revenue so that we can invest in our infrastructure that we are going to be constrained from doing it and i'm reminded that in the last congress, in the 111th congress, every member, i believe, of our transportation and train structure committee, wrote to the president of the united states saying, we need to do a long-term transportation infrastructure bill so that our state can begin to really put people back to work and here we are in the 112th congress led by the republicans who have put forth a rules package that will constrain our ability to create jobs in this country. with that, thank you, mr. yarmuth, i yield. mr. yarmuth: i thank you for

that contribution. we have been joined by congressman cohen of tennessee, i'd like to yield time to him. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. yarmuth. indeed, the issues mr. courtney brought forward in his one-minute today were alarming to me because my home to town of memphis depends on transportation, that's what makes it america's distribution cent, the roads, rivers, runways and rails, and if we don't have money to go into helping our airports, where federal express is located in my district, and in your district, u.p.s., that's how we move products all over the world from those hubs and move congress. that's why it's so important we have an f.a.a. re-authorization act passed, a lot of which will be expenses to modernize the structure and the transportation bills that mr. oberstar, who was one of the great members of this house, no longer a member, tried to get passed last year to both stimulate the economy in the short run and in the long run, as mr. courtney said work that multiplier effect, in the long

run. i was hoping and co-hope we'll have bipartisan efforts to have transportation, f.a.a. re-authorization bills passed that will move this economy forward. the economy is still in a difficult spot. we can't really see that the economy improving if we continue to cut spending, particularly in places such as transportation infrastructure, and the airport infrastructures. that's so important. so it was distressing news to see this happen. it is difficult to see where we can get us out of this near-depression that was caused by the bush administration with cutting spending. i know paul krugman has people that don't think he's correct all the time. i happen to think he's correct most of the time, and the nobel prize people aren't always correct, but when they gave him the nobel prize for economics, some of the brighter people in the world thought he was pretty good on economics.

it's his belief that we need to do more spending and i concur with him and i'd hate to see us leave this economy, that's about to get out of the ditch to put it back in the ditch by cutting spending on infrastructure that's so important. pll yarmuth: i thank you for that. winding down, -- mr. yarmuth: i thank you for that. winding down, there are mr. reasons people borrow money, one is survival to eat. to pay salaries if you're a business. and they borrow money for investments. we have plenty of investments we can make in this country that are desperately needed, infrastructure, medical research, and we basically have been told by the republicans that there is no basis, no justification for spending any more money and because we're in a deficit situation, borrowing any more money, except when it comes to giving tax breaks for

very, very wealthy americans, millionaires, billionaires, hedge fund managers and the like. that's ok and we can do that and we can balloon the budget, the deficit, the national debt, to do that. but we can't do it to help people, to provide people's health care to invest in infrastruck and invest in things that will make this american economy, the kind of economy that we will always be proud of, that will work for everyone, that will truly live up to the ambitions of the founding fathers when they wrote the constitution that we read today. to create a more perfect union. that's what we're all about. and we'll continue as democrats and now as members of the loyal opposition in this body, anyway to fight for the kind of balanced and intelligent investment and restraint of

spending that will get us to the world that we all envision. soy thank my colleagues for joining me today and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. members are reminded not to traffic the well while another member has the floor. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2001, the chair recognizes the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pearce, for 30 minutes. mr. pearce: thank you, mr. speaker, i appreciate the opportunity to address the house on this historic day. this historic day when we have had the entire body read the constitution of the united states. as that process went on, there was some wonderment in the audience about why we were doing it and what it would mean. but as i listened to the different members, bipartisan, reading the constitution, i felt the gravity come through the institution that we began

to listen to and hear and read the words of our founding fathers as they set us on this great experiment calls the american -- called the american republic, the republic which was turned loose for the first time, a government of the people, by the people and for the people. on this historic day, we have to contemplate what our tasks are as they lie ahead. for myself, i see the most important thing that i -- in front of us as being economic growth, jobs, and we have to wonder what we're going to do about that. as i traveled around the district after the election, we did, we have 18 counties, and we did 18 different town hall meetings, listening to the people of the district after the election and the overriding concern is, what are we going to do about jobs and what are we going to do about the economic future of the country? i think people are alarmed of the policies that they have seen out of washington.

they're alarmed at the spending. they're angry that washington has not been listening, and they're just upset with the policies in general. the last election sent two very clear messages. number one, you in washington are not listening to us. number two is that we don't like what you've been doing. so as we contemplate the future, we have to try to get our hands around the economic growth question and we have to ask ourselves, why do we not have job creation at this time in our history? the most important thing as a business owner, i can tell you that the most important thing we face right now is uncertainty. now, that uncertainty originates from inside the government, so our government is doing the things which freeze our job creation in its place. the uncertainty arrives on two basic fronts. first of all, textation, and, second, regulation. so our friends across the aisle were just asking, why are we talking about the health care bill when that's been debated

and discussed? if we narrow it down to job creation, if we narrow it down to the economic uncertainty or certainty, i hear business owners every day saying, we're going to have to lay off one or two people, maybe up to 10% of our work force, maybe we're going to lay off more to get below that threshold because we cannot afford the mandates that are given to us in this health care bill. so, number one, that's taxation and uncertainty all in one piece. the health care bill hires 16,000 i.r.s. agents but does not hire one doctor. you can always tell by the functionality, not by the name of a bill what it does, but by the functionality, and when it hires 16,000 i.r.s. agents and no doctors you can guess that it's more about taxing the american public than it is about providing health care and we're seeing that play out in the job markets across the united states. people are frozen into place wondering what it's going to mean in additional costs for their companies.

so rather than leaving those people on the payroll they're actually shrinking the payroll at a time when we need employment. 9 1/2% to 10% unemployment for an extended period of time does not make people secure about the future. so that's one piece of the health care bill. the second piece of the health care bill that's freezing job growth and job creation in its tracks is the regulatory environment. this is a time with baby boomers moving into retirement age, retirement age brings more expenses, more health care costs and we should be seeing a growth in jobs in the health care industry nationwide but instead that industry is frozen regulatoryly. people don't know what the future is going to bring and so that job growth that should be occurring to take care of our seniors is actually frozen in place by the regulations in this bill. so, again, we begin with the idea that we want to create jobs and grow the economy, we have to assess those things,

those elements which are creating the impediments to growth, taxes and regulation and we can walk through our economy one section at a time to find the same thing that's occurring and we would begin to understand more clearly and more definitely that our government is the problem in job creation. for instance, as we take a look offshore, we all saw the problems with b.p. that was on the tv every day, and i think b.p. should be 100% accountable and responsible. it was my business, my wife and i had a small service company. we fixed and repaired downhaul problems in oil wells, so we're familiar with the decisions that were being made by the company out there as that well progressed towards a catastrophic failure. now, i do not believe, even though i think b.p. should be accountable, i do not believe that we should have killed one job in relation to that. when an airliner crashes, we don't stop all airlines.

we bring the nation's best people together, we determine what happened and we determine how to make it not happen again. that's what we should be doing offshore. we should be bringing the nation's best together, letting them analyze the problem and then making sure it does not occur again. but instead the obama administration implemented a moratorium and that moratorium shut down the drilling offshore. we have 33 deep-water platforms. those deep-water platforms cost blls to make -- billions to make, sometimes 15 years to build them. now we don't have any activity at all. now people will tell you they have to have revenue from their investment and now these deep-water rigs are beginning to steam away at two or three knots away to africa. those jobs will not occur in

the u.s. again. i think that's an overresponse from the obama administration, and i believe that one of the things this congress should do is find the pendulum -- throw the pendulum back to the middle. yes, we should protect our environment. yes, we should hold companies accountable, but, no, we should not have killed one job. so i think in the early days of this congress we should make that clear differentiation between the parties or between philosophical views of how to run the country. i think we should make those clear distinctions that this group of people should be back on the payroll and, yes, we should keep our environment clean and we will hold those who make problems accountable. and i think the american people are looking for that balance, that pendulum to come back toward the middle to where we say we can protect, we can preserve and we can create jobs simultaneously. and that is one of my sincere hopes that we begin to do this in these early days. there's an economic truism that says when you raise taxes you

kill jobs. when you lower taxes you create jobs. people would say, well, how do we create more jobs? the answer is, if you really want to do it you should lower taxes, and that's what this bill right at the end of the lame-duck session to extend the bush tax cuts. it was saying that we should not raise taxes on anything -- on every single american. now you have the partisan debate that we shouldn't be lowering taxes on billionaires. well, frankly, there are very few of those. many of the people who fall in that $250,000 and above income are simply small business people. for instance, just last week, we had a dairy owner saying, you know, we run a million dollars a month through my small dairy. we only have 50 or 60 employees but it costs us a million dollars a month to milk caos, to pay the fee -- cows, to pay

the fees. this is what you do, you take away their ability to create more jobs. now, if any of you have any cash left in the bank, which is questionable at this point, you wouldn't know that cash in the bank has almost zero worth. you get zero -- 0.0025. you get one quarter of 1% on your interest in the bank. so they're looking to create crash flow rather than holding cash in the bank. the regulatory uncertainty causes us to be uncertain about the future and it causes us not to create jobs. and so we in this body have a tremendous obligation and a tremendous responsibility and even the -- we can create the right perception, the right certainty if we'll simply take the right steps to just cause

the mental framework of america to say, yes, we now know where we're going in the future. we now can invest with a certain amount of predictability. and i think that it is our god-given responsibility at this point in our history to do everything we can to start rebuilding our economy. so those -- there are those who would say, but we dant do that. we might -- we can't do that. we might take jobs back from some foreign country. they talk their entire heartbeat from the u.s. economy. we are about 25% of the world's economy. i was in germany several years ago to visit the soldiers in land constitutional who had been injured. -- in lanstuhl who had been injured. they said, please fix your economy, when you the u.s. fail economically we the world catch the flu economically. so that gives you some understanding of our responsibility to fix our economy. so systematically i think that

we should walk through each industry one at a time to see what this government has been doing to kill our freeze jobs. i think once we look offshore and realize that we are killing those jobs we're sending those jobs to, say, venezuela. i'm not sure who among us would want to do that, but that's in effect what is happening. i think that we should do what it takes to bring those jobs back. i think then systematically as we work our way through the country we should ask ourselves about the 27,000 farmers in the san joaquin valley. 27,000 farmers that used to make their way, make their payments to the bank, make payroll by fertilizer, by seeds, invest in diesel, invest in repair of the tractors. that's a growing economy. two years ago that entire economic region was simply shut down because of a minnow.

that is we're choosing all on behalf of a species preservation and not on behalf of the human species job creation. i think that the american people are expecting us to find the balance. i think they're expecting us to keep the species alive, maybe in holding ponds, and release them by the millions into the river, but i think they're expecting us to find a solution to the job creation in this country, and i think that we can do it better than by simply saying by some judge's order that that entire economic subculture is simply going to disappear. now, the farmers haven't been working in a couple of years. many are on assistance. they are not making their payments for the land. the banking is less stable in the region, and the process we're implementing -- we're importing food which is far less safe to consume. we're importing from central america, south america, maybe mexico, and we have no control over what pesticides they use.

and so we've been seeing increasing inputs of food into our economic system here in the u.s. which are less safe. we saw the lead poisoning from china. we see these things every day. why we would do that on behalf of some rigid, philosophical viewpoint is simply exs a ber ating americans at this -- exs a brighting americans at this point. another point we should look at if we are systematically looking at the way our economy is frozen in its tracks is our entire timber industry. we used to have a thriving timber industry here in this country. in new mexico we had a thriving timber industry that was almost as big as the oil and gas industry. we employed 20,000 people in the timber industry at one point. today new mexico, like many of the other states, employs zero. we have nobody working in the timber industry. now, in full disclosure, during the last campaign i did have a guy come up and say that's

incorrect. we have eight. he said, i started a small lumber mill and we're processing small diameter trees and we employ eight people. imagine what is going on in new mexico if we had our communities with those timber jobs that used to be there, our tax base would increase, the number of jobs would increase, we would have people paying federal income tax, state income tax. but instead those economic potentials have been shifted away to another country. now, i love the canadians but i think we should have the jobs in new mexico that we shift to canada. the idea when we put the spotted owl regulations into effect was they were going to send these jobs to third world countries. that's not what happened. they went to the economically closest neighbor, the one with the least transportation cost, and we gave the jobs to them. i think that in this country people are tired of our government choking down the job

base, the economic base for different regions. and we can work our way across the country and assess these. i think the american people are expecting us in this new congress as we go through the constitution, as we read it on the floor, i think they're expecting us to redesign and reinvent government. i think they're expecting us to take a fresh look. do a forensic audit of the entire government to see what's working properly and what is working improperly. and when we do that i think they expect us to cause efficiencies to occur in the government and cause efficiencies in the regulatory framework to where we can protect the species, protect the environment, protect workers and have the job creation on the other side of the pendulum. find that spot in the middle where we can do both. i think americans are alarmed. i think that they're afraid, and i think that they're angry over the way that washington

has been functioning. the last election said so. i do not think the last election was about republicans -- republican politics. i think it was a message that we want things to straighten up in america. if we're going to straighten things up in americaing the most important thing to do is set about job creation and economic growth. if we grow the economy 3% to 3 1/2%, and that's what we averaged the last 70 years so that's not an unachieveable goal, but if we will grow the economy in that range, then all the problems begin to dissipate. the shortages in budgets in the federal government begin to dissipate. the shortages in our state budgets begin to dissipate. that is the only answer. i have never seen a company save its way to prosperity. so i agree with our leaders and

i agree with the republican party that we should be looking at spending cuts throughout the government and finding more efficient, effective ways to have governance. but i do not think we can find our way to prosperity in simply the budget cuts, but instead we have to look at tax certainty and regulatory certainty to create the economic growth that is there. now i said earlier that tax cuts create jobs. you might want to know how that actually plays out. one guy in artesia, new mexico, said most clearly, for me to create one job, he said, i drive bulldozers, for me to create one job takes $340,000. he said if the government is taxing away my profits, it takes longer to accumulate the $340,000. he said, as i mentioned earlier that money in the bank is

absolutely no use right now uh, that i would rather have it in the bulldozers but the government takes and taxes it away, then it takes me longer to create a job. so you see this stagnant economy, one job at a time, because we're taxing too high, we're spending too frivolously as a government and the american people are looking for solutions. i think that we as republicans have the right idea in tax certainty, regulatory certainty and the job creation will begin then from the private companies. now people have asked, what about the stimulus bill? the stimulus bill was never going to create jobs. what it does is it taxes away from that bulldozer operator who was going to create the job with his $340,000, and then it gives that tax money over here to someone else and they create jobs but just for a short time because if they only created jobs with that input of stimulus money, then that's not a legitimate, long-term job in the first place. what we are looking for is

sustained economic growth from jobs that come by private companies investing private capital. this is a capitalist society. capital is the building block. as we take away that capital, and those -- capital is generated by profits, as we tax away the capital, then we can -- then we convert ourselves into a stagnant, nongrowing economy. it's all fairly basic, but it just gets unbasic, it gets confusing when we here in washington want to take the money from our job creators and spend it ourselves. there's something in politicians that seems to thrive on taking your money and putting it here to create our idea of right and wrong. let the american people free, let the american people have their tax money back, and they will begin to invest it in growth opportunities.

how many of us are involved in the stock market? we do not want to invest our stock market in uncertain stks or uncertain -- uncertain stocks or uncertain bonds so the idea of certainty plays out all the way through the investment spectrum from just your basic, small guy buying into the stock market to your small business person who wants to invest in a piece of equipment a pickup truck a new room in his office a new office for someone to provide some service at a new computer, so they can bring on a new i.t. person. those are all examples of private investment, private capital, creating jobs in the private market. now people say, always, what about those jobs if we raise taxes, we can create more jobs over here in, say, teaching in our schools. or maybe hire more government agents over here in the adopt of transportation or wherever.

again, the basis of any economy cannot begin at government spending, it has to begin in the private market. when we in the public sector, when we in government take more than generally somewhere in the range of 20% to 22% to 23%, what we do is stifle growth of the economy. you can look at the full state-run economies, u.s.s.r. was a good example, they were above 50% or 60%. their government took in that much thoif gross domestic product. they eventually collapsed because there was no growth in jobs, no growth in revenue and then we had a simple failure of the economic system. now as we convert from more private market into a government market, we're going to see the increased pressures of stagnant economies because again we're taxing away that ability for private firms to invest private capital. we can never take money from

private companies, put it into the government, and have the government to run companies. i'll give an example that if the government thinks it can run a company, let's let it fix the post office first, that's a business operation it's in, and i don't -- maybe you think the post office is running well, but many would disagree that it does. another example of why government shouldn't be in business is medicare and medicaid. we've been told here in this body that medicare loses about 20% to fraud every year. that's about $90 billion. another $60 billion a year on medicaid fraud. that's just fraud. that's not waste. that's people cheating the system. the example was given by 60 minutes a couple of year -- by "60 minutes" a couple of years ago about a guy in florida making $400,000 a month selling

thing he is didn't really own to clients of the medicare system. they did exist and had numbers, so he had a store front, because he said the government inspectors would drive by and they'd drive by to see that i actually was there and had a store front, but he said i never owned any inventory, so never had any inventory, selling fictitious things to real medicare patient he made $400,000 a month he said on this tv interview, yeah, you caught me, i'm going to jail for 12 years, but he said, there are 2,000 people like me here in miami. he said while anaheim jail, i'm going to lease my list of medicare patients to somebody else and they'll do the same thing. if business did that, they'd be out of business in a month. government doesn't go out of business. they just increase your taxes. you as a private citizen are

sitting there trying to figure out how to make ends meet and the government is paying more money into a system that's leaking it so badly through the fraud and abuses that we're never able to have the program function correctly. the government at this point needs overhaul and serious -- in serious ways. i think, then, in addition to growing the economy, in addition to creating certainty in regulations and taxation, one of the great responsibilities that congress has in oversight. in that oversight capacity, i suspect that we need to deal with these leak wadges out of the system that are being taxed away from hardworking families struggling to make ends meet, and maybe, just maybe going down a bit on their taxes were they not trying to think under water themselves. but one of the regulatory things we should do is take a look at the way our banking regulators are operating.

what our local banks are being told is, by the regulators, that come from here in washington, d.c., is that if you make one bad loan, we're going to come take your bank away from you. what that has done is frozen our banks completely in their tracks. they're afraid to lend because that might just be the loan that goes bad on them and then they lose their entire bank. we have seen examples like that across the country. so our regulators right now, again, creating great uncertainty among banks who would be giving the loans that would keep small businesses going but instead they're afraid, they're uncertain they don't make loans, small businesses have the capital that they need to keep operating choked off by a regulatory framework that is wrong. these are the things that i think compel us in this congress to do the right thing.

americans are not expecting magic. they're not expecting just for us to do the unimaginable. just start choking off the -- choke off the abuses, choke off the fraud, create a little certainty in the economy so people can begin to hire, so that our economy will begin to grow and as it grows, medicare begins to work better again. social security begins to work better if we grow the economy. local and state budgets begin to work better if we grow the economy. and our national budget begins to work better. if we choose, as a congress, and there will be many choosing here to obstruct that because they feel it is somehow wrong to give tax cuts, they choose to obstruct it, i think we have deep economic troubles lying ahead. so for me, it's an easy question.

if we don't grow, you have great troubles lying ahead, then let's grow. let's pull out the stops, let's find those balance points and regulations, let's find the taxes where we can lower them to create more certainty and more job growth, let's begin to pull those manufacturing jobs back from around the country, around the world that have disappeared. we've driven them out through our overregulation and overtaxation. i think when we do that, we'll begin to see that this economy will grow and the world economy will grow along with us. if we choose not to do it, i think that we have those troubled waters ahead with higher unemployment, higher taxes, greater dislocation in our budgets nationally, i think then that we're going to see more printing of money as they print money, then we find that the money in your savings accounts begins to dissipate,

we've seen almost $2.6 trillion printed in the last year and a half or two by mr. bernanke. i think that americans are alarmed at the prospect of hyper inflation, so mr. speaker, as i conclude tonight, i would just like for this body to really contemplate the risks on the one side that we face, but the potential for optimism on the other. i believe that prosperity is possible, but i believe prosperity is a choice. it's going to be a choice on the part of this body as we move forward through the next month. so our friends on the other side of the aisle will complain about our consideration of health care, yet all we're trying to do is create tax certainty and regulatory certainty. all we're trying to do is reverse a government takeover of part of the economy in order to create jobs. to me, it makes sense.

i understand the arguments from the other side and appreciate that they come with a different point of view, but i think americans are looking for us to set aside the partisan differences that we have and to work as americans. we run as republican, independent or democrat, that's accepted in the american political spectrum, but what's not expected is that we come here and operate with those same partisan viewpoints. so let's set aside the partisanship now at this point, let's begin to work as americans, to do the right thing, grow the economy, create jobs, give the younger generations a sense that they have a place in the future, that the things they are working for will actually materialize, that there is a ray of hope for myself -- that there is a ray of hope. for myself, i have absolute belief that our economy in the future will be better and that there are great days ahead.

winston churchill's quote gave me that belief. he said, you americans always do the right thing. after you've tried everything else. we've been in the process over the last 50 years of trying everything else. now it's time for us to get serious and do the hard work of getting the government in control, shrinking the spending, lowering taxes, creating regulatory certainty so that this free market can continue to grow and expand through the next generation. mr. speaker work that, i yield back the balance of my time and i thank you. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, for 30 minutes. mr. welch: thank you, mr. speaker. welcome. i want to also thank the gentleman from new mexico and welcome him back. in your comments about trying to work together and bipartisanship, that all makes

an awful lot of sense to me and i hope to all of us. welcome back, sir. we're going to have an opportunity, mr. speaker, to use this special order half-hour to talk about health care and also about the deficit. you know, we do want to be bipartisan, but we also want to be real. our job, is, as you know to legislate. we will be judged by our actions, by our deeds, more than by our rhetoric. let me just say that the aspirations that have been enunciated by many of our more open rules, fiscal discipline, things that are fundamentally important to this country. and the question now is is on

those stated goals and let's look at what is going on with the health care bill. the decision of the leadership is to repeal health care. that is a radical decision because as much as there are million legitimate issues about that health care bill, wholesale repeal as a policy is going to do real damage to real families in this country in every district in this country and it is also going to immediately increase the deficit by $230 billion. and it is known that is not the opinion of democrat or republican but the conclusion of the congressional budget office. so if we are dedicated to fiscal discipline, we have to bring down spending, how can we as our first act of congress pass a bill that the congressional budget office says will increase

the deficit by $230 billion. it doesn't add up. i'm going to pause, because i have some of my colleagues who are going to be called to other locations and i want to start with the gentlelady -- the gentleman from colorado and i yield such time as he may consume to mr. perlmutter from colorado. mr. perlmutter: i thank my friend from vermont and i want to piggy-back on something you just said. i hope that we can and will work with the republican majority on a lot of issues to get people back to work in america, to stop outsourcing jobs to other countries, to stop importing oil at tremendous price to this country so that money continues to flow away from the u.s. instead of into the u.s. i want to work with them on those kinds of things. but what i'm concerned about is something you just meaninged that the ideology and the

radical approach that they're taking to repeal something that was put into place over the last two years but has been needed by this country for decades is something that i will fight. ideological, radical, extreme positions are not what the american people want. they want practical, solid solutions where people are treated fairly and equally. and in the health legislation, the affordable health care act that we passed, the guts of that legislation is about treating people equally. and what i mean by that is, we stop discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. they are now free from that kind of discrimination and that is so

important under both -- you know, we talked a lot today about the constitution. well, prior to the constitution, we had the declaration of independence. and the declaration of independence says -- starts off, we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal. probably should have added women at that point, but at that point, all men were created equal. that is carried forward in the 14th amendment to the constitution. and i have prepared a chart of this. tch says -- this says, nor shall -- no state shall denny to any

person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. people with prior illnesses, physical conditions have been discriminated against because of those conditions and illnesses. that's wrong. it's i am moral. and in my opinion, it's unconstitutional and in my district, i was standing at a gas station and a guy comes up to me and he says, you all have to pass that legislation. my daughter has chrone's disease and i'm in a roofing company and i want to start my own roofing company but because she has this disease, i have to stay here because otherwise, i will be un insurable and i'm stuck in this job. this bill is to give freedom against that discrimination, freedom to that roofer so he can

start his business. that's at the heart of the american way. and in my own situation, i have a daughter with epilepsy. she didn't ask for that, that is part of her makeup. because of the epilepsy, she is uninsurable, unless she is part of a some big group policy. in the affordable health care act, we have done away with that discrimination and freed people from that. and the republican majority wants to take that freedom away and i will fight that today, tomorrow and next week. i yield back to my friend from vermont. mr. welch: i welcome the gentlelady from maryland, congresswoman edwards. ms. edwards: i thank the gentleman and i'm pleased to be here again. i have been here on this floor for the last hour and a half and

i feel passionately about health care. there is not one among us either personally as the gentleman from colorado has expressed, or one of our constituents who doesn't have a health care story to share. i thought i would share with you a story today, mr. speaker, from a quint of mine who lives -- constituent of mine who lives in the 4th congressional district of maryland. her daughter graduated from college in 2008 and lost coverage under my health insurance and got a job in august of 2008 that provided her with health insurance coverage. when she lost that job in june of 2009 as millions of americans have lost their jobs, she was eligible for cobra. she writes that the subsidy made it impossible for her to continue with that insurance. when that subsidy ended in september of 2010, they had to

make a family decision, she says, to continue to pay for her cobra coverage until the end of 2010 when the expired. it was an affordability question. we knew she would become eligible for her nurns from my insurance at the start of the plan year in january of 2011, and why is that? because of the affordable care act she would be able to cover her daughter and no longer have to cobra that care. the unsubsidized cobra premium was close to $500 a month and it's going to cost me only $60 to $70 to add my daughter now 24 to my employer plan. and some of her doctors are in network from my plan, meaning that we will not have to pay for their full cost of out-of-pocket

costs. vickie, and i won't say her last name, says to me, i'm in the sandwich generation and help with the care of my stepmother who lives in florida. she falls in the doughnut hole every year. now on january 1, her costs will be reduced because of the health reform legislation as well. mr. speaker, what i'm saying to you and what we say to the american people today is that isn't about numbers and statistics, but about real people like vickie and her daughter and her step-mother and it's about real people who work every single day and are trying to find work and don't have health care coverage. we cannot repeal the affordable care act because that is like throwing ice water on the american people and i yield back. mr. welch: i talk about this question will promises made be

promises kept? it was a question that was asked by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle when we were in the majority, simes -- sometimes it may be a difficult question and we had to be judged according to our deeds and whether they matched our promises. but this rules process that is under way as we speak on the health care bill, there are three issues that have come up, number one, the fiscal issue. the congressional budget office has said that this legislation will increase the deficit by $230 billion and the congressional budget office is the neutral arbiter and we either go by the c.b.o. estimates or say we are going to play this game without a referee and going to make up whatever numbers for our political agenda. that is absolutely wrong. we can't afford to add $230 billion to the deficit.

my colleagues on the republican side agree with us that we cannot do that. it's irresponsible to do it. and this legislation that repeals health care will add $230 billion to the deficit. secondly, this question about the open process. as the member from maryland saidf we're going to have an open process, there has to be an opportunity for you, the member from from colorado, for every member of this body to offer their amendments, yes or no, whether we should continue protection for folks whether they have a pre-existing condition or not. right now, the law is, you have cancer, you can go out and buy insurance. if you have a son or daughter getting out of college, they can stay on your policy. right now, the law is if you have a mom or dad on medicare and trying to get preventative care, they can get it free. right now, if you have diabetes

or cancer, you have a serious long-term medical condition, there is no lifetime cap to cover the medical care that you need. the repeal legislation would take away from every single american who now enjoys those insurance protections, it would take it away from them, suddenly, abruptly and with nothing to replace it. that's not right. this is real, by the way. congressman edwards gave a couple of stories and we all have them in all of the districts, including those who are advocating for repeal. i spoke to donna watts from plainfield, vermont and she works in burlington vermont with 20 other employees. four of those people that she works with, along with her, now have their children on their health care policies. her son got out of high school, got a $10 an hour job and came without health care.

as most entry-level jobs do. and the worst happened. he had a car crash. $20,000 in medical bills. those are still largely unpaid and this family takes seriously their obligation to pay their bills. they didn't have insurance. with the passage of the legislation last year on health care reform, donna what thes was able to put her -- was was able to put her son on insurance and does this mean if we repeal health care my son loses insurance? and the answer is yes. that's not right. we don't need to do this. and it raises the other question. if this is not got a political aagenda ave attached to it. we have gone from a campaign to governing and the majority did a great job in the campaign and beat us up pretty good and have the majority now. but with that comes the responsibility of governing in a

responsible way. and if you are acting responsibly, when you see a problem, you fix it. you don't abolish everything. you don't abolish a banking system in order to correct the problem in the financial world. you don't abolish all of the good things in this health care bill to deal with the things that need to be addressed. so this is a very, very serious decision that's being made. it's going to be a template for the future of this 112th congress congress. are we going to actually deal with fiscal discipline even when that's inconvenient with our political agenda? and the answer for the american people is yes. are we going to protect the progress that we've made that benefits all of our constituents when it comes to these insurance reforms and are we going to have an open process on this body so that those of us who have different points of view will have an opportunity for an up or

down vote. by the way, that's not giving us the opportunity to present our amendments but letting our constituents know where we stand, because at the end of the day, that's the only basis upon which they can decide whether to send us back here or send us packing. i would like to recognize the gentleman from north carolina, representative price. mr. price: i thank the gentleman for yielding and also for engaging in this dialogue with other members about the challenge that we're facing. to reduce this country's deficit spending and reduce the accumulating debt and statement to make certain that quality, affordable health care are available to all of our citizens. and as the gentleman has pointed

out very, very ably, those two challenges are intricately related. in fact, one of the main reasons for supporting health insurance reform is because we simply must reduce our deficit spending and must reduce this country's debt. one of the main contributors to our country's escalating debt is the kind of escalating of health care costs that we've seen in recent years. it's one of the greatest threats to families, to businesses, to the overall economy. health care's become the fastest growing component of the federal budget as the gentleman well knows. last year health care accounted for 17.3% of g.d.p. that's more than twice the average of other developed nations. now the patient protection and affordable care act corrects the failures of the current system without compromising the many strengths that we know that it has. and so it's very disconcerting

here in this first week of the new congress to see our republican colleagues not only going after the protections in the health care law but also almost immediately abandoning their commitment to fiscal discipline. now the figures that i saw this morning show that the congressional budget office, the nonpartisan arbiter of budget decisions for this body, congressional budget office, has said that the repeal of health insurance reform as proposed by the republicans would cost the federal budget $230 billion over the next 10 years. that's a revised estimate, i understand, even greater than was earlier thought. that is an astounding figure. our republican friends have made a big show out of their commitment to deficit reduction

but they've made an exception. they've clearly made an exception for the repeal of health insurance reform. so not only is this bad health care, not only would it, for example, say to families who only now are being able to insure their children with pre-existing conditions, no, we're going to go back to the old way where the insurance companies can deny coverage to your children, what about those families that now are able to include their 24, 25-year-olds on their family policies? no, they're saying, go back to the old way where that wasn't possible. what about our medicare recipients who finally are going to get some relief from these uncovered drug expenses, the so-called doughnut hole? they're saying, oh, no, you're going to have to once again pay those full expenses. so it's certainly bad policy in terms of health care. but then to add insult to

injury, adding $230 billion to this country's debt burden over the next 10 years is -- and to do that without batting an eye, without any kind of recognition that this has an impact on the budget deficit, that just is almost unbelievable, that the republicans would be so audacious as to propose this in the first week of this new congress. and then to add another insult to the injury they're violating their very own pledge of openness in the way this is going to be considered. i'm sure the gentleman's been watching as i have the rules committee all day today. it's astounding. yesterday there was this commitment to open rules, to open debate, to the offering of amendments. today they're saying we're going to shut it down. it's an up or down vote. maybe we'll get around later to some of these other questions, some of the repair aspects of

repeal and repair, but right now we're just going to repeal it. and let the chipping fall. that is horrible procedure, it's a shutting down of this congress before we even start, it's horrible budget policy, it's horrible health policy. it's a very, very bad way to start this congress and i appreciate the gentleman for calling us together tonight to talk about this because we need to talk about it, we need to think about it. we need to fight it in every way we can. mr. welch: thank you very much, mr. price. i recognize the gentleman from again from colorado. >> i'd say to my friend from north carolina, he's talking about the fact that seniors will see this doughnut hole, their prescription drug prices go back up, the cost to go back up. mr. perlmutter: but even more worrisome than that is the fact that under the affordable care act, those same seniors receive

$250. in my district of colorado, the suburbs of denver, 31,000 seniors received $250 this past fall as assistance to payment of their prescription drugs. even with that we still save the $230 billion that you were talking about, but when they repeal this, if the republicans repeal this and kind of all-or-nothing situation, do the seniors have to pay those $250 back each of them? i don't know. i think they ought to be worried about that. and that's why this is such an extreme measure. they're taking away freedoms that belong to the people, belong to americans, they're doing it in a radical and ideological way, when they said during the campaign, you know, let's put people back to work, let's not spend too much money, they're spending more, they're taking away freedoms and i'm

concerned that those seniors are going to have to pay that $250 back per senior and the seniors should be concerned as well. this is a radical act, mr. speaker, mr. price, we've got to fight it. i hate fighting these battles right out of the box, but if they're going to take these kinds of radical positions, we have no choice. and with that i'd yield to my friend from oregon, mr. blumenauer. mr. blumenauer: thank you. i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy for permitting me to speak as i appreciate my colleagues coming to the floor to spotlight something that each and every american needs to be deeply concerned about. what is ironic, because i listened, for example, for the last four years as a member of the budget committee to my dear friend and colleague, mr. ryan, talk about the skyrocketing problem of escalating entitlement under medicare.

absolutely right. there are 79 million of the baby boomers like me who are going to start collecting medicare. 10,000 a day starting this week and continuing for 19 years. and because of the development of more improvements in health care, not only are there more of us, but we're going to want more complex and expensive care. my republican friends were talking about an entitlement crisis. the irony was, and we all heard it on the campaign trail, they talked about slashing medicare. which they want to repeal starting next week. a great deal of irony.

as the independent score keeper, the congressional budget office has pointed out and you have repeated on the house floor, the legislation will in fact save several hundred million dollars -- billion dollars, but more important than that, it puts in place reforms that will further reduce entitlement spending. i come from a part of the country and i know my good friend from vermont is well familiar with the dartmouth at lass dealing with health care disparts around the country -- disparities around the country. one of the problems we have is that medicare needs to be reformed. that is what we started in this legislation and they're relatively modest steps but they're going to save a couple hundred billion dollars. we need to do more. rather than repealing these reforms like stopping

unnecessary hospital readmissions, just that item costs over $12 billion a year. these reforms could enable us to bend the cost curve. if everybody practiced medicine the way it's practiced in metropolitan portland, oregon, which is half the price of mcallen, texas, or miami, florida, there wouldn't be an entitlement crisis for decades to come. i appreciate my colleagues focusing on the hypocrisy and the recklessness of trying to repeal health care reform that makes a difference for 32 million uninsured americans, that provides more benefits for the seniors with their prescription drugs, but most important and underappreciated is that it would reform medicare

so that instead of driving us off a cliff over the next 20 years it would in fact help us change how medicine is practiced, to provide incentives for value, medical value, rather than just volume. mr. perlmutter: thank you, the gentleman from oregon. the gentleman from colorado. mr. welch: may i inquire how much time we have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has three minutes remaining. mr. welch: all right. let me just ask the gentleman from north carolina, would you like to make any closing remarks and then yield to the gentleman from colorado. mr. price: i thank the gentleman and i'd like to underscore what our colleague from oregon has just said. there's so much concern obviously for good reason about the future of medicare. the most conservative estimate

i've seen is the health care reform extends the fiscal solvency of medicare by eight years and some estimates are much more than that. so to simply throw that overboard as well as to say, well, this doughnut hole, these thousands of dollars that senior citizens are paying full freight on more medicines they simply must have this gap in coverage, what insurance policy any of us know about would have that kind of gap in coverage? it's ridiculous. and we're finally fixing it, as the gentleman from colorado said, $250 payments this year, i mean, i guess this raises the question whether even that might be taken back. but in future years we're going to close that doughnut hole, we're going to extend the solvency of medicare. anybody concerned about the health care for this country's senior citizens simply has to be very, very alarmed at what's going on in this house right now.

mr. welch: thank you, the gentleman from north carolina, ilede yield -- i'll yield to the gentleman from colorado. mr. perlmutter: sure. i appreciate my friends. instead of amending or repairing as mr. price from north carolina described it, they want to repeal. just take it away. well, they're taking away freedoms, they're taking away the freedom from discrimination for prior illnesses like my daughter with epilepsy, like the daughter who had chromes disease or the friend at the gas station, taken away the freedom from cancellation because you get sick, you know, lose your insurance, you know, taking away the freedom to move jobs, so you're not stuck in a job, you can move jobs and not fear losing your insurance. i mean, they're taking away a lot and maybe this $250 that went to the seniors. it's a radical move. to take these freedoms away. and i hope they think twice and don't vote to repeal. with that i'd yield back to my friend from vermont for his final remarks. mr. welch: well, i thank my colleagues for being here.

bottom line, any time we pass a major piece of legislation we should have the humility to acknowledge it can be improved. and we all do. we can make it better, we can make it stronger. but to totally destroy things that we have been fighting for decades to achieve on behalf of the american people, had help for seniors with their prescription drugs, extending the financial viability of medicare, changing and encouraging a new way of delivering health care services, moving away from fee for service volume-driven to patient-centered for -- performance-based care and then insurance forms that put the patient in charge, that acknowledges we're all in it together and takes away the absolute unilateral power of for-profit insurance companies to decide whether your daughter or mine gets health care. thank you, mr. speaker. appreciate your consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. thank you. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule

1, the house will stand in recess subject to the call

>> the morning, everyone. i am pleased house acted yesterday to approve a new set of reforms that will fundamentally change the way of congress works. gone are the days when the bills will be written the speaker's office and rushed to the floors in a matter of hours. gone are the days when the constitution will be ignored. in this congress, we're making all bills publicly available on line three days before a vote. in this congress, there will be clear constitutional authority that will require the members to file bills. today, we are reading the constitution on the floor for the first time in our history. we are also making it easier to

cut spending. we are up reading the whole culture of this congress. the $35 million we're going to cut from our own budget is just the first that. the reforms house passed yesterday will help us meet our goal of cutting spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels. what does that mean for families and small businesses? in short, we believe to fix our economy, we need to fix our congress. a more open congress will be forced to listen to the people back on their priorities instead of washington's. we will make tough choices instead of avoiding them. that's why we are taking these steps to repeal the job-killing health care law was passed over the objections of the american people. you have often heard me say i believe this law would ruin the best health-care system in the world. what families and small-business is are worried about now is how

this will affect their livelihood. that is why we are releasing a report today that examines the health-care laws impact on our economy and budget. the evidence is overwhelming that this health-care law, by raising taxes, imposing new mandates, and increasing uncertainty is already destroying jobs in our country. it will continue to destroy jobs unless we do something about it. the report shows how the law is making it harder to end the job killing spending binge that threatens our children's future. when you look at it dollar by dollar, you can tell the numbers don't add up. with 10% unemployment and massive debt, the american people want us to focus on cutting spending and growing our economy. that is what repealing the health care law is all about. i hope the house will act to

repeal the job killing health care law so we can replace it with common sense reforms that will help reduce the jobless claims in america. >> republicans have come to our new majority with a clear determination to fix what is wrong here in washington. in so doing, we hope to be able to deliver results to the american people and get this economy going again so more people can get back to work. we believe a significant impediment to job growth in this country has been the existence of the obama care lot as a result of the passage of the bill last session. that is why we're taking action at next week, we will see a resolution to appeal the job- killing obama care law so we can demonstrate we are dead serious about cutting the disincentives

in this town to job growth across the country and began to once again grow the economy some more people can get back to work. >> taking health-care appeal to the floor without a hearing or democratic amendments, promising $100 billion in the first year, but now it is going to be less. they are saying republicans are already backtracking on their promises. >> i promised a more open process. i did not promise every single bill would be an open bill or, as i said yesterday, we went through two years without one open rule. there will be many open rules and in this congress and just watch. second, when it comes to repealing health care, we made it clear going back to last spring after the bill was passed that the bill ought to be

repealed and pace -- and replaced with common sense reforms. we outlined on september 24th when we put the pledge to america out there, our commitment to the american people that we would repeal this job killing bill. the american people understand this bill. the members of congress all get a chance, they have had to debated during their elections and have had a chance to discuss it. the fact is the committees are not constituted yet and we want to begin action. i believe is fair. when it comes to spending, we called for 2008 spending levels to be enacted going back to august. on september 24th, we made clear in the pledge that we want to go back to 2008 spending levels. if we had been able to move on to denver 24th, we would have been able to go back to 2008

spending levels. but we are halfway through the year. we will meet our committed to the pledge in this calendar year. >> one thing all lot of democrats are upset about is the -- there seems to be an allowance for paul ryan to set the budget levels for the next fiscal year. talk to joe smith in redding ohio why it is one person to set the budget for the entire congress and not have an open vote on that? >> the democrats in the house last year did not pass a budget, did not pass any appropriations bills. that has left us in a position where there is no spending limit under the law. between now and the time a new budget is enacted by the house, someone has to set a spending limit. under our rules, we decided

chairman of the budget committee was in the best position to do that. but it is only until a new budget is enacted. >> you put out a statement on the debt limit. could it be more specific on what you need to see happen on spending in order for the debt limit to pass the house? could you envision the valves not voted on that? >> the debt limit issue is out there. the reason we have to increase the debt load that is because washington good to gis to spend more money than we bring in. if the house is going to move an increase in the debt limit, i think we have a responsibility to cut spending and make changes in the process by which we sped the american people's money. i think it would be irresponsible to try to deal with a debt limit without taking corrective action so that

we are not facing this each and every year. >> use that the committees are not constituted yet. why not just wait a couple of weeks ago through the regular process? we have heard so much criticism people say it is bad pr: not just wait a couple of weeks? >> it is no surprise to you and it should be no surprise to our democrat colleagues that we want to repeal the health care law. this is a job killing a bill that is in the way of what the american people what and that is a better chance at getting a job. >> what is your timetable for legislation to replace the bill you intend to repeal? will you approve a ban on insurance companies and preexisting conditions? >> we have recall -- we have called for a repeal of health- care law and replace it with common sense reforms that will bring down the cost of health

care insurance. we will deal with legislation instructing the committees of jurisdiction to come back with their ideas about what those ideas ought to look like. >> the votes in the house to repeal the health care law, but in the senate, it is clear that you don't. the senate does not have to take up the bill and president obama could easily veto it. what is the point in going through this process? >> we made a commitment to the american people. we are listening to the american people. they want this bill repeal them we're going to repeal it. we are going to do everything we can over the course of however long it takes to stop this because it will ruin the best health-care system in the world. it will bankrupt our nation and it will ruin our economy. no, i do not. i believe it is our responsibility to do what we say

we're going to do and i think it is clear to the american people at the best health-care system in the world will go down the drain if we do not act. >> the congressional budget office announced today at repealing the health care law will add $230 billion to the debt by 2021. are you worried about the signal it sends about to cut the debt that the first major legislative action you take will increase the debt? >> i do not believe repealing the job killing health care law will increase the deficit. the cbo is entitled to their opinion but they're locked within constraints of the 1974 budget act. even the actuaries at the centers for medicare and medicaid have made clear that this bill will not save the kind of money that was predicted earlier. >> what should the world expect of this congress? is it going to be a return to partisanship and bickering and the beginning of the 2012 race

or is a more productive than that? >> i am hopeful that all parties have listened to the voters in the election. if everyone in washington is listening to the american people, there's an awful lot can accomplish. the american people said there's too much spending. you have to get spending under control. i would hope that the senate and my friends at a white house heard the message i heard. the american people said we want our economy fixed. we know spending hurts the economy and the job killing health care law hurts our economy. these are the kinds of things the american people expect. >> did you say the cd -- the cdo is a title to their own opinion? how can you do legislation if you don't trust what the cbo says? >> this cdo can only provide a score based on -- the cdo can

only provide a score -- a thecbo -- you see all of the double counting that went on and the fact that [unintelligible] was not even part of the bill. that is why cmf made clear that the ee the passage of this law will give savings to the american people. >> why do republicans exempt repealing health care from your own requirements that any bill be offset? >> if you believe that repealing obama care is going to raise the deficit, then you would have to have some way to offset the spending. but i don't bank anybody in this

town believes repealing obama care is going to increase the deficit. >> what ever bill you use to replace obama care with, will you introduce a health care bill? is universal health care still a republican goal? >> we will let the committees do their work on how they should replace the summit the common- sense reforms will be. they will have hearings. it will be a bipartisan process. we will see what they come back with. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> said democratic leaders today also talked about new actions, criticizing new rules passed by the house majority.

chuck schumer said the new rules will have the effect of greatly increasing the federal budget deficit. on a note to our viewers, due to a technical problem, we are unable to show you the first few minutes of this event. >> one thing voters rejected this november was the amount of red ink spent on the wrong priorities. now want to introduce my colleague, dick durbin, who has done the only work on trying to get the deficit down as witnessed by his leadership of the budget -- on the bulls/simpson deficit reduction commission. >> it wasn't that long ago when vice president cheney and president bush said deficits don't count. they said this at a time when it wanted to pay for a war and not

be held accountable for the amount of is going to add to the national debt. at the end of their eight years, the national debt of america have increased from $five trillion dollars to $12 tralee dollars on their watch. the surplus they inherited from president bill clinton turned into the worst annual deficit the nation had ever seen. when they announced deficits don't count. now, the first day of the new house republican leadership, we hear a similar song. we're learning, unfortunately, that the new republican leadership is replacing pay as you go with pretend that you go. the latest republican artifice is funnier than the laugher curve. what they have said to us is that there are things that will not be counted toward the deficit. i have sat around for 10 months last year on the deficit commission. a bipartisan commission that included the new house budget

chairman, paul ryan, of wisconsin, a person i respect very much. what did we learn in 10 months? we learned we have a terrible deficit that has to be addressed. we learned addressing it too soon might in fact make this recession worse. but then we focused on something people don't talk about on capitol hill -- each year, we lose $1.1 trillion from our treasury for tax expenditures -- tax deductions and credits, exclusions and earmarks. money that does not go into the treasury because of the tax code. so what do the republicans in the house do on the first day? they say we will not count tax expenditures toward the deficit, completely ignoring what the deficit commission established. if we're going to move toward anything near balancing our budget, includes not only spending cuts, but an honest look at tax cuts, tax exclusions

and the list of things they have said should now be exempt from conversation when it comes to the deficit. as chuck schumer said, a permanent cut in the estate tax for multi millionaires, $308 billion, they don't want to count it. a permanent extension of tax breaks for the wealthy, they don't want to count it. tax breaks on business income, but other $50 billion they don't want to cal. it all adds up. the last point i want to make is this -- time and again during the debate on health care reform, we waited, sometimes for days, sometimes for weeks for the congressional budget office to score the things we did. the president told us before we went into that debate, i want health care reform, you want health care reform, don't add to the deficit in the process. cbo came back to a said said in the first tenures by $143

billion. this morning, at 930 -- at 9:30, that figure was updated to $145 billion to be saved in the first year on health care reform. now, we have a situation where the republicans say we want to repeal health-care reform and ignore its deficit impact. that, to me, is living in the world of dick cheney and deficits don't count. we are back into that all over again. not only would repeal of health- care reform add to our deficit, it would got more than 30 million americans from coverage who would be protected by our new health care reform act. more than 50 million americans would not have the protection of health insurance. that is a personal family tragedy beyond the discussion of the deficit. the republicans would rather add one trillion dollars to the deficit and let the debt ceiling collapse on the american economy than deal in honest terms with

our deficit challenge. i took some heat for that deficit commission. a lot of people were surprised but i think they got right. we have a problem that has to be faced honestly on a bipartisan basis. the first day of the house republican leadership across the rotunda did not demonstrate the kind of honesty and bipartisanship we need to solve these problems. >> let me thank the senators for their leadership again. here they go again. you might call this of voodoo economics and it demonstrates whose side house republicans are on and what their values and priorities are. they are willing to add over a trillion dollars to the national debt in order to protect the tax rates of millionaires and billionaires. at the same time, adding costs to seniors that want to stay in their homes, have a bright

future and security and just want help with their medicine costs. they are willing to double the cost of brand-name drugs for seniors to have high medicine costs, but they are willing to add over a trillion dollars to the national deficit to protect millionaires and billionaires. willing to add to the cost of families and their children who just want to talk to a doctor when they're kids get sickens of fighting with insurance companies. they are willing to take away that freedom and security of knowing that they can get what they need for their children. at it is very clear what's going on here. this is the same old, same old. it is what happened in the bush administration when the republicans were in charge that got us into the deficit we are in today. i would simply say that we would

ask the focus on jobs and growing economy because that is the real way we're going to turn around this deficit. we will never get out of deficit with more than 50 million americans out of work. rather than protecting their wealthy friends and focusing on extreme ideology, we would ask them to join with us putting people back to work early this country and getting us out of that. -- getting us out of debt. >> we're talking about the house pay go rule. three weeks ago, when you passed an $858 billion tax incentive bill that included exemptions for millionaires and an estate tax provision that could not get even 50 votes in the senate. why are you making claims about how much money would be saved by restoring that? >> the bottom line is, as we

said, is the first day on the job and they said the reason they came into power is to reduce the deficit. that is their claim. they are not going along with that. we believe getting the economy going is important. we believe there are lots of different values, but our focus of today's deficit reduction colleges their mantra. if you increase the deficit by increasing tax breaks or by spending more doesn't matter. the deficit goes up. we are calling them what they campaigned on as opposed to what they're doing on the first day. >> do you think the pay go rule has been effective? >> i don't think it has been completely effective, it has been somewhat effective. but they are blowing holes through it. >> ease said it was reckless

fiscal responsibility that would be dead on arrival. if the house passed a permanent extension of the tax cuts or the estate tax -- >> we are going to be much more responsible fiscally, when the public says to reduce the deficit, we are not just going to talk about it the way they are. we are going to do it. we've begun to show it already. democrats, surprising to us, reported -- supported the limits on spending. we are trying to be careful in every way. they are not. i'm not going to comment on any specific plans, but we are going to put our money where our mouth is and reduce the deficit, not just talk about it and let them think they can get away with increasing it. >> to add to that point, to remind everyone, under the former administration, when republicans were in charge of the house and senate, they did

away with the basic principle of pay as you go. we have restored it. are there challenges as we go forward? yes. but we have made the commitment to restore the rules that were put in place by democrats under president clinton that got us out of deficit and into a surplus. they do a lot of talking about a couple we are seeing now what they're doing. >> the focus has been on what is the new republican senate going to do? we say watch what they do, not watch what they say. this is what they do. >> the new house rules give chairman ryan the power for a budget cap. those caps are said that -- are expected to be significantly lower than the senate's proposed spending. how will you merge the two? >> we are going to be very serious about that as a

reduction in a real way. i'm not going to get into what the senate is going to do right now. yesterday, with a great deal of fanfare, the house revealed how they're going to change things around by shrinking government and reducing the deficit. we are saying they are not. we are saying we will do better, watch us. >> the house republicans [inaudible] what is a realistic number -- >> i'm not going to talk about what we are going to do other than say watch us. we will be responsible what we will actually get things done. will we are talking about today, the focus of what we're saying is, again, they say one thing and do another. if they did what they said, the deficit would go up.

a trillion dollars. that's more than a stimulus which they complained about of a last two years. >> on another topic -- >> let's stick with this one. >> are you committed to introducing a budget this year? >> we are going to be fiscally responsible and the we are going to reduce government spending and reduce the deficit. we are. we understand that. we heard the message but we are actually going to do it. >> are you actually going to present a budget? >> today, our focus is on them. you can watch us over the next few weeks. yesterday, there was a lot of hoopla over how the republicans in the house are changing things. this is how they're changing things. >> are you going to wait for two

weeks on the rule changes? what are the chances between now and then, given the chance you're going to go home in that time that you have a bipartisan compromise? >> my hope is we can come to a bipartisan compromise. senator alexander and i met last night and had good discussions. it would delude anyone to say we are there, but we had good discussions. we're making it clear that there are certain bing's -- certain things are beyond dispute. if you're going to filibuster, you should have to talk. we're working on to path -- one, to build support for the principles we believe in, and second got to work out a compromise with the republicans if we can. >> you have more meetings scheduled over the weekend? >> telephonically. >> would it be okay to have an

agreement without actually having to change the rules? >> there are lots of different ways to skin the cat and we will look at every one of them. the goal is to make the senate and should better and the goal is one person cannot just got everything from happening. at a minimum, that seems to me, and the thing my colleagues would agree, if you want to hold a set up because you want the right to debate, then you have to debate, not just stand up and say i object. >> on another topic, do you think the sec will get an increase? [unintelligible] >> we have dramatically increased the number of people working for the securities and exchange commission as well as the commodities futures trading

commission to make sure we have people on the beat with the appropriate oversight and investigative authority so that the transactions on wall street, chicago and across the united states were adequately monitored. we have seen a dramatic >> we have tried to keep pace with that by increasing the number of personnel. there were a number of republicans who did not support wall street reform. they believe they can start the build into submission by not putting enough people on board montaigne exchanges. that is extremely shortsighted. the thing the united states has going for it is the rule of law and --if the republicans start the cftc, it is going to

diminish our reputation in the world. i will fight that. i understand i am up against big eyes in the house of representatives. >> what are your expectations? >> if they want to go down to 2008 spending levels, take a look at the fcc in 2008. we have had hundreds of people after bernie madoff and after concerns about this and other exchange activities. those are on the chopping block and they would be at risk if the republicans have their way. >> they are going to rue the day they cut enforcement. if you talk to most people in the market, they want a strong sec so that the bad guys do not dominate the market, but the people obey the rules and treat people fairly big.

>> you keep saying watch them and what they say and what they do. >> the voters, when they do not have jobs or health care, they do not see us and them. they just see congress. >> we would like to have some bipartisan agreement on how to deal with these issues. when they open up on a day like this, they do not seem to be doing much in terms of bipartisanship. we will have concrete plans soon on jobs, on the economy, on reducing the deficit and making america grow. we will talk about those shortly. thanks everybody. host: [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> whites live coverage of the

house debates on c-span. go online aat c-span.org. >> this week, robert kaplan on the geopolitical importance of the indian ocean region. a marine's baptism by fire. on "after words", eduardo porter on "the price of everything." >> pcs and networks. we provide coverage -- the c- span networks. it is available to you on television and on social media networking site. we take c-span on the road with

our digital bus and local content be a call, bringing our resources to your community. c-span. provided as a public service and created by cable. >> state department spokesman mark tone discussed a number of state department activities at today's briefings. this is one half hour.

[random conversations] good afternoon, everyone. i just had a few things to read at the top, beginning with the tech -- with the secretary of state's troubles. secretary of state hillary

rodham clinton will travel from january 8-13. she will consult with government officials on a full range of issues. she will emphasize the importance of government civil society engagement. in addition to these meetings, the secretary will engage civil societies and community leaders in these countries to help citizens realize the importance of partnerships that lead to prosperity in the region. the secretary will participate in the seventh forum for the future, which is a joint initiative of the countries in the middle east and north africa regions. this ministerial event brings together civil society representatives to discuss ideas on how best to work together to foster progress for the people

of the region. given that she is leaving on saturday, we will give every effort to giving a full briefing to you before she leaves so we can walk you through some of the details of that trip. as you know, secretary clinton will meet with the japanese prime minister to discuss regional security and deepening our security alliance as well as the prime minister's upcoming visit to the united states this spring. secretary clinton also meets with him and rights activists in belarus. the secretary shares their concern or the recent presidential election as well that the government's disproportionate use of force on

the elections. she will call for the end of oppression of the opposition, the media, and civil society in belarus. as many of you know who participated in the briefing yesterday, the u.s. special envoy the price today to observe the southern sudan referendum to demonstrate ongoing u.s. support. he was currently in khartoum. he will meet with the southern sudan referendum commission and united nations officials. he will observe the opening for the southern sudan referendum. he will travel to dark for with the administration's newly appointed ambassador to dark

for. -- to darfur. the u.s. plan to contribute $190 million from bonds authorized to the government of pakistan's citizens damage compensation fund. this commitment is part of the pipe into billion dollars recovery -- parts of the $500 million for recovery. he also urged pakistan to complete the mechanisms agreed to in order to enable expeditious release of boehner

funds to the citizens damaged compensation fund. we will have a more formal announcement on this later. the secretary mentioned this early today. a fourth round of u.s.-cuba migration talks are scheduled for january 12, 2011. the u.s. will use the migration talks as an important opportunity to discuss policies and procedures that promote legal and orderly migration. there is a commitment to promote safe, legal, and orderly migration. in anticipation of your questions, we urge the immediate

release. we engage with cuba to promote safe, legal, and orderly migration to reduce the loss of life related to migration. finally, a story that many of you have been following about a u.s. citizen possibly be attained in iran for spying. there are lots of conflicting reports swirling about on this issue. we have reached out to our swiss protectorate to ascertain the facts surrounding this incident. once we get information, we will obviously share that with you. [unintelligible] >> she reportedly crossed over from armenia.

[unintelligible] >> what we have heard so far is conflicting reports. rather than give those any kind of momentum or like, i would rather wait until we hear the facts. [unintelligible] >> what exactly happened as far as you know and what are you doing about it? >> there was an incident. anda u.s. diplomat -- a u.s. diplomat was injured. not seriously, but he was injured. we have official we registered a strong protest with the be the means government as well as would-be the amis -- protest with the vietnamese government

as well as with the vietnamese ambassador. it appeared to be an incident between him and certain personnel. he was attending a pre arranged meeting with father lee. >> he was government security personnel and he was beaten up? >> he was injured. he is up and walking around now, but he was injured. i do not really want to get into it. i do not know what the extent of his injuries were. >> when was this? >> good question. january said. >> you say you registered a strong protest. was he called into this building

to hear your protest? >> our ambassador in hanoi issued a strong protest. it was handled by our best. >> what does that mean? >> he was summoned here. >> your ambassador to hanoi is on a plane now? >> you lodge a protest with him. >> correct. >> do you have the details of the incident.

>> i have explained them to the fullest possible extent that i am going to explain them. >> before lodging the complaint , why didn't you have the details? >> he was injured. he was up and walking around. that is all i am going to provide. >> a different subject. are you aware of any similar our previous incidents happening? >> i am not. >> there are some reports that say mr. marshall has given a -- has been given an award for his reports. you know a thing about that? >> let me get back to you to

confirm that. >> excellent. >> the pakistani government has said it plans to roll back the fuel price increases that went into effect on january 1. in so doing, [unintelligible] to receive funds under the imf program. $190 million that you just mentioned or november. i want to know what is the u.s. government review of the pakistani government's decision to roll back those fuel price increases, particularly in the context of secretary clinton

calls to increase its ability to raise revenues. >> we stand by the fact that what we have said all along is that it reforms the government is taking are difficult, but they are important for its long- term and economic stability. >> is it a bad thing to world that the price increases? >> that is our belief and that is our position. i am not going to weigh into pakistani domestic politics. we believe that these reforms, though difficult, are necessary. >> just to make sure i am clear. the question was, do you think it is a bad thing. your response was, that is our

position and that is our belief. >> our position is that pakistan needs to undertake the difficult economic reforms that are going to require some pain, frankly. beyond that, i am not going to way into -- weigh into pakistani political reforms. >> but you just did. >> i will stop short -- >> the secretary talked about their tax structure, which seems to be an internal domestic thing. not enough people pay taxes.

they have to fix it. telling them they need to do that, which is a completely domestic, internal revenue issue, that seems to be getting involved. you think that the fuel price increases are needed and necessary. >> i think i did say that these reforms they are now trying to undertake are important and necessary for the long-term economic stability of pakistan. >> in your response to my question, you said that is our position. that is our belief. did you mean to refer to your previous statement? >> these are difficult reforms to undertake. we believe they are necessary. the political process that is underway right now of enacting those reforms -- i agree.

it is a nebulous line. we do not want to weigh into domestic policy. you said acting secretary had meetings with the finance minister. if he raise this issue with the finance minister and make clear your belief that reforms counter to the government are necessary -- >> i do not know. i will try to find out and clarify that. >> a couple up question. i am just following up. do you think the situation in pakistan has been defused? has anyone spoken to anyone in pakistan?

are you concerned about this situation if you are going to reassess the situation in pakistan? >> no. [laughter] the secretary met with the pakistani ambassador here. i have forgotten everything else you ask. we believe they have turned a corner on the domestic political situation. is that what you asked? aboutcretary's this is our strategic partnership with pakistan in the larger context of our mission to bring greater security and stability to that mission. -- to that region. i can i imagine that they

discussed the political situation there. to say that was the intent of his visit was -- his visit is clearly an overstatement. >> does she need opposition activists to talk about it when the fleet democratic elections? is this part of the overall response you are trying to coordinate on how to deal with the situation there on the strength of the opposition? >> short. -- sure. it is one of a variety of elements we are looking at. part of that is showing our engagement and showing our concern and sending a clear signal.

>> are you not at all concerned that a high-profile meeting might put them at risk given the fact that every single [unintelligible] is now in prison? are you concerned that these people might be put at risk after a high-profile meeting like this? >> these individuals meeting with u.s. secretary -- of the -- meeting with the u.s. secretary of state will not put them at risk. what we are trying to send it to show our engagement. we are concerned about the situation in belarus. we are going to stay engaged on this issue. we would just send a clear message that these individuals

have the right to meet with whomever they choose to. >> i think in his question he said opposition. it is not members of the opposition. you describe it -- you describe your concern about the elections and the authorities' disproportionate use of course. had he used that word disproportionately for? >> i think it was a misstatement. >> you talked about what you might do in terms of punitive measures or sanctions. has there been any movement on that?

>> the european union is saying it is considering a travel section -- a trouble sanction on members of the government. -- a travel sanction for members of the government. >> they are trying to find a way to find out what is going on in belarus. can we go back to pakistan for a minute? you were asked about the increase in gas prices. >> i said i did not want to

weigh into what is a domestic political debate. we believe there are hard reforms the pakistani government needs to take. we recognize these are difficult. they are in the long term interest of pakistan's economic stability. >> does the secretary have any plans to travel to india? >> i am not aware of that. i will check on that. >> a disturbing story. i don't know if you saw it.

a journalist was saying the visa on the guy who did the research should be pulled. he was coming into the united states and misleading people. is there any formal attempt to lift this guy's visa. is there any way back visas could be pulled for people to come to the state's? >> once they are in the united states, they fall into the jurisdiction of the department of homeland security. there are always cases whereby actions can be taken if laws have been broken or what not. i would refer you to the department of homeland security for more details.

as a general rule, we do not discuss visas. >> do you know anything about a meeting with chinese officials in beijing? >> ambassador bosworth did meet with a committee of the communist party of china as well as the executive vice foreign minister and a special representative on the korean peninsula. they had useful consultations on how to coordinate will be " in dealing with north korea. that is all i have. we can go on to tokyo next. >> are you going to convene another trilateral?

>> i do know what you are saying. i have nothing to announce. not that i am aware of. >> the meeting with the chinese officials. the chinese officials called for -- do you have any comment? >> we have bent over and over it. >> can you tell us exactly what you are asking, please? >> north korea must take steps to the nuclear rise as well as to live -- denuclearize as well

as to live up to its commitments. >> you issued a statement the other day congratulating burma on its independence. you do not have a relationship with burma. >> we are seeking engagement, which has not shown much progress or born much you -- born much fruit. >> there is a call for a quartet meeting early next month. the bill like that idea? >> i do not know about that idea.

thank you. >> house republicans are moving ahead to repeal what they called the job killing health care law. the vote is scheduled next week. reviewed the bill on line at c- span.org. >> i think you organizations have adapted. -- news organizations have adapted. the public bears responsibility for keeping themselves and form. >> martha raddatz looks at the wars in iraq and afghanistan on c-span's "q & a." >> this weekend, live coverage

of the american historical association conference. saturday, a debate on 1980's america. sunday, national security and the public's need to know. an oral history with congressman charles rangel on his political career and the founding of the black caucus. see the complete schedule online at c-span.org. you can also have our schedules e-mail to you. the c-span networks. we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history. it is available to you on television, online, and on social networking site. we takes the stand on the road with our digital bus and local content the vehicle. it is washington your way.

now available in more than 100 million homes. created by cable. provided as a public service. >> now, a reception honoring the hispanic members of the 100th of congress. members for hosted at union station. this is 20 minutes. >> hello everyone. i was told this was a group with a great party, so i had to be here tonight for this. good evening. so nice to be here among you. [speaking spanish] i am not going to keep you from

the drinks and the mainland. it is only going to be a short program. i promise you. it is my pleasure to welcome you to this evening's celebration. what an honor to be here with the new 112th congress. we were founded by visionary members of congress. they are two all of the nation's leading hispanic organizations that work to transform the young latino's lives to prepare them to be our future leaders. you have come back from the holidays. you see 3 liquor and everybody is ready to keep the party going. all right, everybody. let simmer down just a little bit. i promise to let you get back to mingling. let me tell you what chci is all

about. it was founded in 1978 with the vision of bringing the promise of the american dream to all latinos. we can relate as many of us are living that american dream. today, it is a unique model of educational services and leadership development. it touches fitting hundred young latinos annually, supporting college attainment. some of the young people who probably greet you are recipients of the scholarships. they are the future leaders of this country. throughout award winning the ship curriculum -- award winning leadership curriculum. they are an educated and severally -- educated and sickly

active -- and civicly active hispanic community. chli -- there is a partnership now -- it was founded in 2003 and was founded to work to strengthen the hispanic community by promoting the event of latinos in the global economic. since 2004, chli has focused its efforts on strengthening and development of our's leaders and has given more than $500,000 to be -- $500,000 to leadership and educational programs. they are able to do that with

your generous support and the partners and sponsorships. this evening's sponsors are comcast, mercke and company, pg & e, the coca-cola company and toyota. a big round of applause for our sponsors tonight. it means so much for the young people who are helping to shape their future. it takes leaders to bring forth leaders. chci and chli work to create leaders and they do it with mentorship. they represent our community across all sectors of society. tonight, we come together here as a unified community to recognize our elected leaders of

the 1:00 congress on whose shoulders press the tremendous -- on the 112th congress. i note the census results are coming out soon for 2010. we are eagerly awaiting those results. you do not need me to tell you what we already know. our hispanic community is quickly becoming a majority. it is no longer a minority. [applause] that is right. we know already that latinos account for more than 50% of the total u.s. population growth since 2000. i can only imagine that if we get a sneak peek what we are going to hear about how that population has exploded. the growth of the u.s.

population overall is at a direct result of the hispanic population's growth. of course, to those of you who have just been elected and are now in office, more than 6.5 million latinos voted in this past election. you need those votes to account, every single one. that is 8% of the overall vote. you know that that number is also going to increase incredibly. that voice has helped elect a new hispanic senator. he is not here with us tonight. he has his own party going tonight, i am told.

i am my pleasure to introduce tonight's speakers. the first hispanic woman elected to the florida house of

representatives and the florida senate in 1986. in 1989, the first hispanic woman to serve in congress. she is now beginning her 12th term in office representing florida's 18th congressional district. that says it all. on top of that, she is the chair of the house committee on foreign affairs in the 112th congress. she is the first hispanic woman to ever lead that committee. that is a huge honor. [applause] she serves on the chci advisory board. also tonight, you will hear from representatives charlie gonzales. [applause] the new chair of chci --we could

not have picked better. he is the leading voice on issues regarding the senses. he was first elected to the house of representatives in 1998 representing the 10th congressional district in san antonio. he is beginning his seventh term in the one hand while congress. he comes from a strong and politically active bloodline. his father was henry gonzales. he represented the same district for 37 years. in the 111th congress, he served on the house energy and commerce committee, the judicial committee and the house administration committee. without further ado, please help me welcome them.

>> charlie and i would like to begin our brief remarks. they will be brief. we will ask you to join us in a moment of silence. if we can all stand and say silent prayer in memory of all our armed forces personnel who have perished. a great many of them are from our latino community. please stand in prayer. amen. thank you. let's keep that nice quiet. i would like to thank the congressional hispanic caucus institute and the congressional

leadership institute for putting this is -- putin this event together. chci and chli have helped so many succeed and make a difference. as a chli board member, i am pride of the opportunities backed -- that chili provides. -- that chli provides. it has helped young people expend their knowledge of government and business. this past november, americans witnessed an historic midterm election. much of the punditry missed an even bigger story. that was the astounding victories of our hispanic candidates across the country.

the victory of senator marco rubio as well as five incoming hispanic house members. they are proof of the remarkable progress our community has made. you know would be by far. the-you know who the -- you know who the five are. let's give it up. for the ever increasing political participation of the spanish -- the hispanic community. it is highlighted by these victories. the 2010 census will shell that -- will show that hispanics are increasingly moving to the interior of the united states, with the number of hispanics as

a proportion of the population has grown by nearly 50% in the last in years. that is amazing. all of us have known these numbers for a long time. our community is part and parcel of the fabric of this great nation. i note the importance of our community will only grow. -- i know the importance of our community will only grow. i am inspired by all of the hispanic women and men who will be part of this new 104th congress. there were only 10 hispanics in congress when i came to washington during the civil war. this new congress will have 23 hispanic members in the house and two in the senate. [applause] we may not always see eye to eye on all issues. we may sit on opposite sides of

the aisle. we are committed to it in shoring that we continue to prosper. it is my great honor to introduce the new chair of chci, congrressman charlie gonzalez. >> thank you. [applause] thank you. i intend on think brief. to natalie, thank you for your presence and the contribution you make in our efforts. to my dear friend who has always been blocked when it comes to certain issues and tells me exactly when my voted was wrong.

with a smile. i want to touch on this at the beginning of my brief remarks. because it is about what our organizations represent and why they exist. this is a joint recession. we should rejoice and celebrate that we share the same goals. the goal is to further the aspirations and dreams of latino youth. why the team and used? for the same reason we celebrate being latino. maybe the communities we represent have different challenges and different obstacles that need to be acknowledged. in the time, maybe not my lifetime, no one will be giving a speech like this. i hope that we arrive there.

the first hispanic woman to be elected to the united states congress. the first woman on the foreign affairs committee. while she was in congress, she decided to get a ph.d. in education. the rest of us thought we had so much to read reading "the new york times" and she was watching -- she was working on a phd. first of all, people say things about filling certain issues. you are not going to picture me in those shoes. but truly, the first hispanic woman to chair a full committee. that is an incredible accomplishment.

we should never forget that. for all of us here, all of our success is because someone opened a door. someone mentored us. someone did that. if there is anyone in this room who said i did it completely alone and no one helped me, maybe you should not be in this room. you have had too much wine. no one does it entirely on their own. we open doors. that is what chci does. it is a joint endeavor. we are driven by the same goals, that is to help the team a new -- latino youth. thank you for everything you do

to allow us to accomplish the goal. all of you are special. i believe we have some elected officials and individuals from the administration. we want to acknowledge them as members of congress present and members of chci and chli. natalie? >> if you to will stand by, this two will standuyou by, this is a huge photo opportunity. we are appointed take a huge photograph. congressman beccerra.

representative charles gonzales from texas. this is like a leap from -- like the prome. prom. the present commissioner. representative is still grow by el al hart -- the sale will bile allard -- there are some who were here briefly.

you probably saw them meaning. we have lisa jackson, the epa administrator was here. senator robert menendez had to leave a little early. i believe we have the undersecretary of congress for international trade. frank sanchez. jim green, are you here. we have debbie waserman schultz. and of course, last but not least, a special guest.

the secretary of labor, hilda solis. [applause] if i missed somebody, i am sorry. but come join us. i think everybody is here. you might want to squeeze. [applause]

they are the ones who do the work. let everybody say there -- their welcome backs. congratulations to all of you, the hispanic members of the 112 congress. i am privileged and honored to be here to welcome you back. we look follower to a better america under your leadership. godspeed, because we need it. it is important to remember the sponsors and their generosity, who have been able to help us with this event paid and most .mportantly, the young people

we want to thank comcast, mercke and company, the coca- cola company, pg &e and toyota. enjoy the rest of the evening. now you can hit the bar and mingle. have a good night. at the media. -- happy new year. on c-span tonight, house speaker john bennett talks to reporters about the republican agenda. president obama and named a new

white house chief of staff. paul ryan and senate democrats talk about the newly passed house rules. house speaker john boehner and the majority leader eric cantor spoke about the republican agenda in the house. they talked about their efforts to repeal the health care law as well as the new gop budget. this is 15 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. the house is already at work listening to the american people and addressing their concerns. i am please that the house acted set ofay to approved a returns -- a set of reforms that will improve the way congress works.

gone are the days would -- days when the constitution will be ignored. every bill will be available online for three days before a vote. today, we are reading the constitution on the floor for the first time in our history. we are also making it easier to cut spending. we are approaching the whole culture of this congress. the $35 million we are going to cut from our own budget is just the first step. we will cut spending to pre stimulus levels. what does that mean for families and small businesses. we believe to fix our economy, we need to fix our congress.

a more open congress will be forced to listen to the people and act on their properties instead of washington's. we are poised to make tough choices instead of avoiding them. -- we are going to make tough choices instead of avoiding them. that is why we are going to repeal the health-care law that was passed over the objections of the american people. i believe this lot will ruin the best health care in the world. businesses are worried about how this will affect their livelihood. the health-care law's impact on our economy will be examined. this health-care law, by raising taxes, imposing mandates, and increasing uncertainty, is already destroying jobs in our country. country.