>> i believe that the civil justice system that exists in this country is able to handle cases that go forward based on the state common law that exists that has been developed by the state. if the state common law and frankly if the state decides -- >> reclaiming my time, most states have specific statutory liability provisions. >> exactly. look at texas. what has happened in texas is they have made the standard of liability for emergency room malpractice so high that it is has knocked out virtually all cases. you have a situation where a woman was in an emergency room, was misdiagnosed. as a result of that her legs have been cut off. she cannot get an attorney because of that. >> you're again avoiding my

question. >> i'm saying. i'm saying i don't agree with u. >> what about on the highway, at the theater, out in public away from a medical facility if a doctor provides care, volunteers that care under those circumstances, very different than emergency rooms. i agree emergency rooms should be different than other standards of care as well, but in an emergency itself, should the doctor have greater protection? yes or no? >> i believe that the law should be what the state common law is. >> i'm going on to another qution. thank you. dr. hoeven, some argue that lowering a doctor's malpractice liability insurance bill does not really lower health care costs in a way that benefits patients. i don't agree with that. what are your views on that? >> i disagree with na statement as well. it's clear that our liability costs have to be something we can budget for and build into our costs of running a practice or a clinic. money that i don't have to spend on liability insurance i can and

do turn back into a practice to retain a nurse to provide care to 100 diabetic patients so that our costs are lowered. i think we have to be very careful in this phraseology, but in actuality if i can budget, i know what my monies are going to be. they're not out of sight. i can improve care and quality and access to my patients. >> thank you. dr. weinstein, "news week" reported that younger physicians are eecially frustrated with practicing defensive medicine betweening rising insurance rates and the legislation and bureaucracy in the new health care law. are you concerned that in the future fewer of our best young students will pursue medical career science. >> yes, i think the evidee is very clear. this is born out in the study done by the harvard group and the columbia university legal team which showed that physicians in all residencies

are just discouraged, number one, to be doctors. 28% regretted choosing medicine as a career, and that 81% viewed every patient they encountered as a potential lawsuit. i think this is a terrible state of affairs, so there's no question that the younger generation is profoundly affected in the career choices and practice locations. the context in which they practice. in other words, whasht they cut down their skill set to and what they offer their community in which they live. >> they can spend a lot of years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to receive a license to practice medicine, and the cost then of liability insurance and the risk if they have to make a claim against that insurance or more than one claim against that insurance to their future as a physician, what is that risk? >> i think the issue here is there are plenty of people that

need ood, medical care that aren't necessarily high risk. if you feel you can have a satisfactory practice without putting your life and your family at risk by unnecessary liability, many younger physicians are taking that route. >> and that is indeed the crux of the problem. the quality of medical care and availability of medical care is very much affected by the perception of the medical profession and the reality to the medical profession of the current standards with regard to medical liability? >> there's no question that access and quality of care are profoundly affected by the current situation. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. i yielmyself five minutes. i come to this like everybody else does as a product of my experience. my dad was a doctor, a board

certified cardiologist and internist from long beach, california. i was his wayward son that went to law school, but i spent five years doing medical malpractice defense,lthough i did some plaintiffs' cases in southern forn. my practice bracketed the time before micra and after. for anybody to suggest that micra didn't make a differce, you weren't there. i happened to be young attorney at the time, and i had some classmates from high school and college that went to medical school, and they were about ready to enter the practice of medicine. a number of of them left the statof california because the insurance rates were so hichlt i remember a good friend of mine who is an anesthesiologist left the state. some ob/gynseft the state. some doctors involved in brain surgery left the state because of the high costs. i don't know where you get these figures that it wasn't until '88

we saw any progress, because the absolute increase on a yearly basis of the premiums paid for by the tdoctors leveled off aftr we passed micra. it was interesting to hear the gentleman from georgia talk about noneconomic damages. it puts a limit on noneconomic damages, pain and suffering. why? that's the most potentially abused part of the system. i can prove losses for future earnings. i can prove what the costs are, the direct costs. pain and suffering, if you think about it, if before an instant you were to ask somebody, how much would it be worth to you to lose your arm or leg? they'd say you couldn't pay me enough money to do that. after the fact when you talk

about pain and suffering, it's a very difficult figure to determine. so you make a rational judgment by the legislature or the people as to what that limit would be, because otherwise it has an adverse effect on the potential for people having access to medical care. i mean, it's not a perfect system. never has been a perfect system. so i'll just say from my standpoint as someone who was there when we passed it in california, i saw a tremendous difference. when people talk about frivolous lawsuit, let's talk about the real world. when a plaintiff's attorney begins the lawsuit, he or she sues everydy in sight because he or she can't be sure who was responsible. by the time you get to trial, you ought to know as the plaintiff, plaintiff's attorney who you think really is responsible. you ought to let out the other people.

if you don't, we ought to have a very simple, modified loser's pay provision so that at the time of trial you can present to the judge and say, if they have no case or they get less than what i am offering now, all attorney fees and costs should be borne by the plaintiff. i was in settlement conferences where the judge would say to me, i know your hospital or i know dr. c doesn't have any liability, but the cost of defense will be $10,000 so throw in $10,000. that was considered a quote-unquote settlement. in every case i'm aware of you have that dilemma, and so when you're talng about even real cases of malpractice, a lot of other people are involved in the case and they may settle out but there was real liability. unless you sort of change that

dynamic, you're going to have this situation. i have to overcome my reluctance to do this on a federal level, because i thought california, we were ahead of the rest of country when we passed what we did. you probably couldn't have ssed micra onhe federal level at that time. i'm sorry my friend from north carolina is not here, because he said ve clearly to me that health care is not covered by the commerce clause. i would hope that he'll make that presentation before the courts that are considering the lawsuits right now. so i'm sorry i don't have any questions for you. just listening to everything, i have to put it into my sense of -- no, he said someone is not taking care of across a state border. they're in a hospital here, a hospital there. it's not in interstate commerce. that's what he said. having heard all of this, it

brings me back to the argument that is we were making in california in 1974-1975. we made a reasonable judgment in california, frankly i think it has worked very, very well and is a model for the rest of the country. i don't think there's any doubt that the specialties that are available in california are available in larger numbers today than they would have been had we not passed micra. so there's no perfect system. i think we all recognize it it. what we're trying to do is find that which will give us the best overall response to a continuing challenge. how do we provide health care for the people of the united states? last note is i take my hat off to the medical community because i had major kidney surgery when i was four, i've had five knee surgeries and i have a new hip and knee, you repaired my achilles tendon a while ago.

i'm a walking example of what medical care can do for people in the united states. my wife said you're getting older, but i said i'm getting new parts. there is hope. i'd like to thank our witnesses for testimony today. they have five days to submit the chair additional written questions for the witnesses which we will forward and ask you to respond to those, please, as quickly as you could so we could make your answers a part of the record. if we send them to you, there will be serious questions for members, some who weren't able to attend, some who had to leave, some who have more questions for you. i would thank if you you seriously consider that, all three of you. without objection all have legislative days to submit additional materials for inclusion in the record. i'd like to thank the witnesses. i kn this is an imposition on your time and we have to run off and vote and so forth and you sit here. we thank you very much for your testimony. it is very, very

>> this new law is a fiscal house of cards. >> as any family, any single mother, any child, any grandparent net a more bureaucratic system than the american health insurance system? >> wants this week's health care debate from the house floor anytime online c-span's congressional chronicle. see what your representative said, track daily timelines. congressional chronicle at c-

span.org/congress. >> in a few moments, house leaders discussed next week's agenda includes proposed cuts and federalist -- cuts in federal spending. "washington journal" is live at 7:00. we will be live at 11:30 eastern with a news conference uon the house democrats retreat in cambridge, maryland. then the u.s. conference of mayors. we'll hear from secretary john donovan and trade representative ron kirk. a couple of live events to tell you about today. house democrats are meeting in cambridge, maryland. we will have the news conference at 11:30 a.m. eastern. shortly after that at 12:15 p.m. eastern, more from the annual winter meeting of the u.s.

conference of mayors. >> madam speaker, the president of the united states. >> by congressional invitation, the president outlines his legislative agenda for the next year and reflects on the previous in the annual state of the union. watch at the c-span feel library, all searchable on your computer -- the c-span video library, all searchable on your computer any time. you're watching c-span, bringing you public sex and public affairs. every morning it is bringing you politics and public affairs. weekdays, watch coverage of the house, and weeknights on the weekend you can see our signature interview programs. on saturdays, the communicators. on sundays, newsmakers, q&a, and prime ministers questions from

the british house of commons. and watch our programming at c- span.org and it is all searchable at our c-span video library. c-span -- washington your way. the public service created by american's cable companies. >> now house majority leader harry kantor and -- eric kantor and steny hoyer. this is 45 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland, the distinguished minority whip, rise? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i thank the speeblinger -- thank the speaker for recognition and i ask to speak out the of order for one minute to inquire of the schedule for the coming week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: i thank the speaker and i yield to my friend, the gentleman from virginia, mr.

cantor. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, for yielding. on monday the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. on tuesday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour debate and noon for legislative business. the house will recess no later than 5:00 p.m. to allow a security sweep of the house chamber prior to the president's state of the union address. the house will meet again at approximately 8:35 p.m. in a joint session with the senate for the purpose of receiving an address from the president of the united states. on wednesday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for legislative business. during the week the house will consider at least one bill under suspension of the rules which will be announced by close of business tomorrow. in addition we will consider h.res. 38, a resolution reducing

nonsecurity spending to fiscal year 2008 levels or less and a bill of the public's choosing via the youcut program to reduce federal spending in the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns and party conventions. saving taxpayers $520 million in mandatory spending according to c.b.o.'s estimate last year. mr. speaker, i yield back. . mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for informing us of the schedule for the week to come. i want to thank at the outset not only the gentleman but the speaker as well for the respect and consideration they have given during this current tragic situation that's confronted us in tucson and the critical injury sustained by our colleague, gabby giffords. i want to thank mr. cantor in particular for his very strong

statement as well as the speaker's very strong statement that an attack on any individual who serves is an attack on all of us irrespective of party or philosophy. and i think that we all have raised prayers for the victims who lost their lives, the families, prayers who are either in the process of recovering or now out of danger. and of course for our beloved colleague, congresswoman giffords, as well. i want to thank the gentleman for his leadership and the speaker's leadership and join with our leader and myself in leading the house in what i thought was a very appropriate and united response to that tragedy. we are heartened by the progress that congressman giffords is mang and we look forward to her quick return. mr. cantor, if i can, next week

we are scheduled to leave on wednesday. i know that there has been an articulation of an intent to try to get out by noon on the day that is we leave. would your -- would you expect that to be the case next week? mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. first of all i'd like to thank him for his kind statements regarding the expressions of grief and support that i think all members of this body have expressed to gabby giffords, her family, her staff. our thoughts and prayers remain with all of them and certainly to the victims and their families. and hope that they all know that we are thinking of them. mr. speaker, as far as the schedule's concerned, if you recall, the commitment on our schedule was the last day that

we are here the finishing time would be 3:00 p.m. on the last day we are here and we specifically had indicated that january is going to be a little different and an exception due to the organizing process, state of the union, etc. the expectation is to begin that in february as was originally expressed although we do intend to try and be as expeditious as possible on wednesday, the exact timing of our departure and finishing up depends on the actual rule coming from the rules committee, including the amendment debate, structure for the presidential election fund bill. and so we expect an announcement by the rules committee chairman later today on that. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comment. given that response, can i ask the gentleman what -- would he expect there to be an open rule

with respect to that bill? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: the gentleman understands as the rules committee chairman presides over the rules committee and entertains the submission of amendments as to exactly -- i can't answer that right now and that will be determined by the rules committee. mr. hoyer: not only do i recall that as being a fact, i also recall it as an answer i used to give the gentleman on a regular basis. i thank the gentleman for his response. but i'm certainly hopeful as he was hopeful, but given the representations of transparency and openness that there would be opportunities to amend, i know that mr. van hollen spoke to that in the rules committee, and i would hope that we could see that policy which has been expressed by your side pursued in this instance as well as future instances. i thank the gentleman for his response. let me ask the gentleman there

was some criticism raised when we passed a budget enforcement resolution that we hadn't passed a full budget. in that budget enforcement resolution as you recall, a, we articulate add specific number, and b, that number was voted on by the entire house. it's my understanding that the proposition that will be put before the house next week will provide and give unilateral authority to the chairman of the budget committee to set a number. that that number will not be voted upon by the house pursuant to the authority granted in that resolution. is that an accurate reading of that resolution? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman. to be clear once the house adopts the resolution next week, the resolution will then instruct chairman ryan to cap

nonsecurity discretionary spending for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 at fiscal year 2008 levels. that is the purpose of our adopting the resolution. acting as the house as a whole, instructing chairman ryan to cap nonsecurity discretionary spending at 2008 levels for the remainder of this fiscal year. and again, mr. speaker, i say to the gentleman, i know he shares with me the realization that people across this country, families, businesses are having to face some tough choices. we started this congress i think together committed to demonstrating that we are willing to make those tough choices. thus the resolution for next week. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his response. i do not want to be argumentative, i just received your amended copy of the resolution and as i read it on your second page it says, remainder of fiscal year 2011 that assumes nonsecurity

spending at fiscal year 2008 levels or less. the implication is that it seems to me is that mr. ryan unilaterally can set a number which has not been agreed to by the house but would be under the power granted in this resolution would bind the house to a number to which it had never agreed. in addition to that, -- let me yield on that. is that an at crack reading of that? could in fact under this resolution mr. ryan set a number that is less than, as your resolution says, 2008 numbers? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i say to the gentleman that the resolution provides the capping of spending levels at 2008 levels. the gentleman also knows that the speaker has been very

consistent in his statement saying that we are going to have open rule process when it comes to spending bills. in fact that's what we said during the last campaign season in the pledge to america. so that is in working with that commitment, the -- as well as the language of this resolution, the budget chairman, mr. ryan, will be instructed to enter into the record a cap of spending levels for the remainder of the fiscal year to be placed at 2008 levels. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. would it be, therefore, accurate that the or less is superfluous and is not intended to give mr. ryan the authority to set a figure at less than 2008 levels? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i would tell the gentleman i disagree with that characterization of the language, or less, and just say that, again, the speaker's

committed to an open process on spending bills and i assume that we will see coming to the floor every attempt and effort to try and maintain some sense that this congress is going to be a cut and grow congress. we are about trying to find savings everywhere we can so that we can get this country back on to a trajectory of fiscal sustainability. i say to the gentleman, no. this is not something that we intend to be meaningless. that we are serious. the cap is consistent with our commitment to the people of this country that the levels of spending for the remainder of the fear -- fiscal year will not exceed 2008ment it is our hope that we will continue to find additional savings so that, yes, we could even find ourselves below 2008 levels. but the cap is 2008 levels. i yield back. mr. hoyer:00 i thank -- mr. hoyer: i thank the

gentleman for yielding. the point i was trying to make perhaps not as clearlys i need, what we are in that resolution giving is to one person, one person, in this congress, the authority without consideration by this house to set the number without hearings on what we will cap, as you articulate, cap spending levels at for fiscal year 2011. as i understand there have been no hearings by the budget committee. no hearings by the appropriations committee. no hearing by the ways and means committee or any other committee involved in fiscal matters what the ramifications of that cap will be to individual programs or individual americans. i share the gentleman's view and have voted consistently as i voted for the balanced budget amendment as the gentleman knows last we considered it, to bring our fiscal house into order. i think neither party can

necessarily take sole responsibility for doing so or not doing so when it comes to fiscal balance. but i do tell my friend that with respect to transparency and openness, and to inclusion of all the members of the body, it is, i think, not consistent with that objective to give to one person, however brilliant that person is, and i have great respect as the gentleman knows and have said so publicly in the press for mr. ryan, who i think is a very positive, effective, and important member of this body, but i'm not forgiving any one person in this body the authority to unilaterally set the number at which we will fund america's government for the next seven months. i yield back to my friend to see if i might have a response to that because in his responses to me, i have -- i

understand the cap. but at any number below that at 2007, 2006, 2005 levels it seems to me this resolution authorizes mr. ryan to set such figures as he unilaterally determines is an appropriate figure. in his mind that may be an appropriate figure but it is not necessarily the same figure that this body voting in a transparent, open way might select. i yield back to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i just respond to the gentleman by saying we are in the position we are in because the majority that he participated in the last congress failed to live up to its obligation in passing a budget and in even passing any appropriations bills short of a continuing resolution. that's why we are here today is because there is a mess that's been created from the last majority and we are trying to clean that up. now, we have committed to a transparent and open process

and i have said to the gentleman that when the c.r. comes to the floor, we will see members on both sides of the aisle have an opportunity to amend the continuing resolution according to the way they think that we ought to be saving taxpayer dollars. so, again, i disagree with the gentleman's assertion that somehow there is a lack of transparency here. we have said all along the cap on our spending will be 2008 levels for the remainder of the fiscal year. if this house works its will and if members on either side are able to gain a majority of votes in this house to achieve even more spending below the 2008 levels, then that will be the will of this house. and so, again, the gentleman understands well why we are where we are and we look forward to working together to go and produce a spending resolution here that begins to address the mess that was left before. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: i the gentleman the gentleman for yielding. -- i thank the gentleman for yielding. will -- mr. hoyer: i jiang that the for yielding. is the gentleman representing to me this resolution will result in 2008 levels of expenditure so that members who are being asked to vote on this will have a certitude of the number on which they are voting? that's my only question. so that they will know on what authorization they are giving, what budget direction they are giving to the members of the appropriations committee? mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. the budget directive is 2008 levels or less. as the gentleman well knows. the intention is to allow the budget committee, the appropriations committee to do its work to report a bill to the floor, resolution to the floor, the body will work its will according to the insistence of the majority and speaker that we have an open process on spending bills. it is our hope that we can work

to achieve even greater savings for the taxpayers of this country. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i understand that. i thank the gentleman. i know that he has indicated we are going to be considering what i believe to be a $52 million cut. that's important money. . of course she will take approximately 50 years to get to $100 million. if we consider one every week that we're in session. my presumption is that you will be informing us of those opportunities to cut as well, giving us opportunities on our side and there may well be members on our side who want to join in making sure that we spend our money as effectively and efficiently as possible.

but we also know in the commissions that -- and the commissions that have reported know that while these types of expenditures are important to review, and i don't know there thank there have been any hearings on this youcut, i know that this has been in response to the web page question that you have -- webpage question, i don't know how many responses you received to that, but are you intending to have hearings in relevant committees on future propositions to cut? i yield to the gentleman. mr. cantor: i'd say, mr. speaker, i'd say to the gentleman, first of all, as far as the $520 million, not $52 million, is concern, as he knows, that is mandatory spending that is not discretionary spending and would be different and apart from the commitment that we just spoke about at 2008 levels. i would also say to the

gentleman from, we -- to the gentleman, we will be glad to have hearings once the committee is organized. as the gentleman knows, it's been a little bit slow in upstart, just given the transition of leadership, etc. but we are waiting for your side in some instances. i hear from committee chairmen that things are working well. so we hope that committees will be up and organized to have hearings. but to -- in order for us to deliver our commitment that we are going to bring up a spending cut bill every week, this body will be considering a bill providing for cutting the presidential election fund that has been in existence for some time. as the gentleman well knows, this tends to be of some controversy in some corridors. there are those who believe that this is an attempt to drive this country towards a public finance system for campaigns. obviously there are those in

this country who believe that's what should happen. but knowing full well the controversy, i'm sure we'll have a robust debate and i am looking forward, mr. speaker, to as many cuts to this fund as the gentleman's side may offer and look forward to a robust debate on the issue. and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. let me ask again, because -- does the gentleman intend, once the committees are up and running, i understand in a transition it takes some time, that the cuts that you're going to propose on a weekly basis will have been subjected to committee oversight and hearings with the public having an opportunity to testify on the consequences of those cuts? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i say to the gentleman again, yes, it is our intention to have as full and open debate on all of these issues. as the gentleman recalls, this

process began last june or spring or so that we said we were going to redirect the focus to make sure that we are in line with the will of the people and that is trying to do everything we can to remind all of us of the import of cutting spending and therefore this process begins. but, yes, to the gentleman's question about hearings, we welcome that and would expect that. i yield back. mr. hoyer: good. i appreciate that response. lastly, i ask my friend, one of the significant issues that will be confronting us in the coming months will be the extension of the debt limit, to ensure that america continues to pay the bills that it has incurred and therefore maintain fiscal stability. not only in this country but throughout the world. mr. speaker, and you have both made, i think, very positive comments on the fact that as unwanted as such a vote may be

it is nevertheless, as the speaker pointed out, an adult vote, i took that to mean a responsible vote, to ensure that fiscal stability of our country. does the gentleman anticipate a clean up or down d vote on that issue -- up or down vote on that issue when it becomes timely to vote on that issue sometime in march or april? and i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman and i would begin by saying to the gentleman, as he knows, it's unclear when the federal government will actually hit the debt ceiling and we will be closely monitoring that date. but before we reach that date it is very, very important that we prove that this congress is willing to cut spending. and the house, as discussion today indicates, will be taking those necessary steps each week that we are here leading up to an eventual vote.

and in fact i will call on the leader on the other side of the capitol, mr. reid, to follow suit. the continuing resolution vote gives us the first opportunity, real opportunity, to demonstrate our commitment to cutting spending. the debt limit will be another opportunity for this congress to cut spending. and as i think the gentleman knows, i have said repeatedly that we will not accept an increase in the debt limit without serious spending cuts and reforms. and i look forward to joining with the gentleman, debate on this house floor, hopefully we can have the senate join us as well as the president towards that end. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. it's my understanding from the gentleman's response that if in the eyes of you or mr. boehner or your side of the aisle that serious spending cuts have not been affected, that would you oppose the extension of the debt

limit, is that what i hear you saying? i yield back. mr. cantor: i say to the gentleman this, we have been charged with an obligation by the people of this country to get our fiscal house in order. we intend to be very deliberate and focused on cutting spending while making sure we're doing all we can to grow the economy and the private sector jobs. and it is our intent to prove that this house and this congress, hopefully leader reid will follow suit, that we'll deliver on that commitment. the public, as the gentleman knows all too well, is tired of business as usual. they don't want to see this country to continue to incur debt as it has in the past without some indication that things are changing, without some indication that serious spending cuts have been implemented and reforms affected and that would be our intent. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that response.

but i hate to keep pressing him. if his hopes are not realized and i don't know the answer as to whether they will be, but if at some point in time we'll be confronted with an alternative on whatever the facts may be with respect to what we're payable able to pass for this house, the senate -- able to pass for this house and the senate, signed by the president, we will be confronted with the consequences of our past behavior and i underline our, o-u-r. spending that we have incurred. i don't want to go through the tired debate that you and always -- you and i always go through so i won't do it but we will be confronted with an adult moment as to whether or not we will in light of the consequences of past behavior take actions necessary to preclude america from defaulting on its debts and i simply ask the gentleman, will we have the opportunity to have an up or down vote on that issue

under the circumstances where we have reached, as the gentleman points out, we don't know the exact date, the extent of present authority? mr. cantor: i'd say to the gentleman, mr. speaker, that the vote on the debt limit comes within the context of our demonstrating a commitment to cut spending, to affect reforms and the president as well as the gentleman's side here in this house has said both that they would like to see and join us in cutting spending. this debt limit vote comes in the context of all that we're going to be able to do over the next several months and we've got to be demonstrating that or frankly the public will not want us to accept any notion that we're going to continue business as usual unless we've demonstrated that things are changing and that's why i continue to say to the gentleman, we will not accept an

increase in the debt limit without serious spending cuts in reforms. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the majority leader rise? mr. cantor: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at noon on monday next for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the majority leader. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 10, resolved that the two houses of congress assemble in the hall of the house of representatives on tuesday, january 25, 2011, at 9:00 p.m.

for the purpose of receiving such communication as the president of the united states shall be pleased to make them. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the regulationlusion is agreed to and the motion to re-- resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. hinojosa: mr. hoyer for five minutes. mr. van hollen from maryland for five minutes. ms. delauro from connecticut for five minutes. ms. woolsey from california for five minutes. mr. mcdermott from washington for five minutes.

ms. kaptur from ohio for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee, rise? without objection. mr. kildee: mr. speaker, today we will be saying farewell to the pages who have served this house so well, they're standing in back of the chambers here now, and we wish to thank you for your service. i've been on the page board for about 30 years. speaker tip o'neill appointed me to this board and this has been a tremendous group of pages. you've worked hard, yufpke worked well and you've worked -- you've worked well and you've worked honorably. you've seen history. you've seen a change of party control of this house.

you've seen our joyce -- joys and our sorrows. you witnessed the sorrow we all experienced and you experienced when a member of this house was attacked back in her district. there is a program called close up where people come to washington, people your age, to observe the congress. and they learn a lot. it's a great program. but no one sees the congress as close up as you do. and we appreciate the fact that you recognize that as a great responsibility and a great honor. and you'll go back home and tell others about this congress. i think you can tell them that

everyone who serves in this congress, even though we may have differences, sometimes very sharp differences, the one thing that does bind us together is that everyone here in this congress loves this country. go back and tell them that we are imperfect people trying to make a more perfect republic. i'd like to yield, mr. speaker, to my colleague on the page board, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, thank you. mr. kildee, i appreciate it. the young men and women who are standing behind the bar at the back of our chamber here today are great young men and women who have served us well over this past. we appreciate you. this is probably the best behaved group of pages we've ever had. i don't know if you want to take it further than that, but you've done a great job and we

appreciate you. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to have placed in the record the names of those pages who have served us for this last semester, the fall class of 2010. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. bishop: thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. kildee: thank you very much and i want to thank mr. bishop and ms. foxx also who served on this committee. we have enjoyed our work and you've made our work very enjoyable. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> take my five minutes at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the chair will entertain one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the

gentleman from rhode island approach? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. cicilline: thank you, mr. speaker. even as i speak the lan slides continue to ravage the country. this national disaster, ongoing for several months now, has taken more than 300 lives and damaged or destroyed more than 2,000 homes. in total more than two million victims have been affected by the flooding and some reports are calling this the worst natural disaster in colombia's history. my district in northern rhode island is home to many wonderful colombian families. in fact colombians make up the fourth largest latino group in rhode island, most of whom have loved ones in the affected areas. so on behalf of the people of the first district of rhode island i extend my sympathies. we remember those who have died

to those who have lost loved ones, injured, or lost their homes as a result of this destruction. i express my wishes for a rapid reconstruction of the damage to areas and return to safety for the families affected by this tragic natural disaster. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. are there further one-minute requests? the chair leaves before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. ruppersberger of maryland for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, and under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mr. poe from texas. mr. paul: i ask to take my five minutes at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. paul: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, perpetual war is expensive. we have been militarily involved in the persian gulf region now for 20 years. experts have predicted that the cost of this continuous and expanding war will reach $6 trillion. the hostilities in our overt involvement in iraq can be dated back to january 16, 1991, when the defensive operation desert shield became the offensive operation desert storm. though the end of the persian gulf war was declared on april

6, 1991, with a u.s. military victory, the 20-year war was just beginning. the u.s. and britain have had an intense interest in controlling the oil of the middle east dating back to the overthrow of the ottoman empire during world war i. this interest expanded during world war ii with f.d.r.'s promise to protect the puppet government in the persian gulf region, especially saudi arabia. though this arrangement never set well with the citizens in the region, a fairly decent relationship remained between the arab people and the american public. but animosity continued to build with our ever present military involvement in iraq. our military assistance to the mugea had a dean in the 1980's, now the taliban, help the muslim defenders, one of whom was osama bin laden, oust the soviets from afghanistan. at that time we were still not seen as occupiers and the radical muslims encouraged by

the u.s. were expected to direct all their efforts toward the munist threat. that all changed with the breakup of the soviet system and the end of the cold war , when as the lone superpower left standing, we named ourselves the world policemen. it was then that the resentment by arabs and muslims became directed toward the united states now seen as an invader and occupier. continuous bombing and crippling sanctions against iraq during the 1990's, the appearance that the u.s. did not care about the plight of the palestinians, and our military bases in saudi arabia led to attention getting attacks against the united states. the 1998 embassy attacks in kenya and tanzania and the attack of the u.s. cole in the year 2000 were warning that the war was far from over. the horrible tragedy of 9/11 shouldn't have been a surprise and many believe it was

preventable. currently the war has morphed into a huge battle for control of the persian gulf region and central asia. this involves iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, yemen, somalia, and iran. foolish policies lead to foolhardy conflicts. foolhardy conflicts lead to unsustainable costs and a multitude of unintended consequences. to name a few we have spent trillions of dollars based on the false pretense of defending freedom and our constitution. the notion has been further solidified that war no longer needs to be declared by congress and can be pursued as a prerogative of the president. we are now seen by the world not as a peacemaker but rather a troublemaker and aggressor. thousands of american service members have been killed and tens of thousands wounded with a sharp increase in service connected suicide.

over 500,000 veterans are seeking medical treatment and disability benefits. millions of citizens have been killed, wounded, and displaced in the countries on the receiving end of our bombs, droughns, sanctions, and occupation. the region has suffered huge environmental damage as a consequence of our military occupation. christians from iraq have suffered the worst route in the history of christian done. iron and iraq are now better allies than ever with strong anti-american sentiment. iraqi political stability is a joke. ending hostilities in afghanistan is a dream. china and iran have been drawn into a closer alliance against the united states. america's uncontrolled deficits are senselessly fueled by needless militarism. we are now much poorer and less safe. there was no al qaeda in iraq before we invaded in 2003.

today there is. no weapons of mass destruction were ever found in iraq. war always leads to government growth and the sacrifice of civil liberties. in the past 10 years this has been particularly costly to us with the acceptance of military tribunals, torture, assassination, abuse of habeas corpus, and patriot act-type legislation. senseless war and senseless destruction and death should not be rationalized as providing a great service in protecting our freedoms. our constitution or maintaining peace. the only value that can come of this is to recognize our policies are flawed and they need to be changed. without this history will record the sacrifices were all in vain. the speaker pro tempore: mr. hoyer of maryland. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i rise to honor the great american.

my friend, sargent shriver. a son of maryland who passed away this week at the age of 95. he was a public servant who lived a full life dedicated to promoting justice an opportunity in america and indeed throughout the world. as the first director of the peace corps, mr. shriver skillfully launched an organization that has strengthened respect for america across the world and has for half a century exposed a generation of americans to the world beyond their borders. sargent shriver also made his mark as the director of the important anti-poverty programs and is the leader of the special olympics movement. a movement that he joined his extraordinary bride, eunice kennedy shave, in heading. -- shriver in heading. in the words of his biographer, i quote, often the things that

sargent shriver accomplished, starting the peace corps, or getting 500,000 kids into head start programs, its first summer when the experts said that 10,000 kids was the maximum feasible, were things that everyone before him had said were not realistic or were down right impossible. he did. he had a gift for what one of the old war on poverty colleagues called, and i quote, expanding the horizons of the possible. i'm reminded of robert kennedy's quote that he used so often that some men see things as they are and say why. robert kennedy said i dream things that never were and ask why not? sarge shriver mirrored that quote. may we all learn from his example. may we honor his legacy of public service by expanding our

own horizons of the possible. by caring for those who need our help. here and around the world. sargent shriver brought to american life a singular commitment to service. his good work and his historic examples will long outlive >> this new law is the fiscal house of cards. >> has any child, any grandparent met a more bureaucratic system than the american health insurance system? >> watch the house -- watched the health-care debate from the house floor any time online with c-span's congressional chronicle. read transcripts of every house and senate session. congressional chronicle -- at c-

span.org/congress. >> in a few moments, today's headlines and recalls live on "washington journal" and we will be live at 11:30 a.m. eastern with a house democrats news conference in cambridge, md.. then at 12:15 p.m. eastern, the u.s. conference of mayors. and it about 45 minutes, we will talk about president obama's first two years in office with bill adair, editor of politifact. at a 30 a.m. eastern, the head of insurance plans, karen ignan i to talk about the health care debate and then at 915, chad