tv C-SPAN Weekend CSPAN January 23, 2011 1:00pm-6:00pm EST
1:04 pm
1:05 pm
monday, on washington journal, a look at president obama's look at federal regulation with furchtgott-roth.rau later, a look at the demographic of the aging. >> tuesday, president obama delivers the state of the union address to a joint session of congress. c-span live coverage begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern. then the republican response from house budget committee chairman paul ryan of wisconsin, plus your phone calls and reaction. that is live on c-span, c-span radio, and all my net c- span.org -- and online at c-
1:06 pm
span.org. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> house republicans introduced a resolution to have relevant committees, and with new health care proposals. this included an amendment provided by jim matheson dealing with the payment discrepancies for doctors treating medicare patients. following this one hour and 25 minutes debate, members approved the amendment and the underlying resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. dreier: pursuant to house resolution 26, i call up h.res. 9 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will port the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number one, house resolution 9, instructing certain committees to research legislation prere-placing the job-killing health care law. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 26,
1:07 pm
the resolution is debatable for one hour equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the committee on rules or their designees. the amendment printed in part b of house report 112-2 is offered by the gentleman mr. matheson or his designee shall be considered read and shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. . mr. dreier: i yield myself such time as i may consume. implementing health care reform is what we begin today. this resolution, h.res. 9, initialates the second step of a two-part process which as we all know with the vote last night saw repeal of the health care bill. having taken that action to wipe the slate clean, we are now moving on to the far more
1:08 pm
challenging task of crafting real solutions for the american people to ensure that we can drive down the cost of health insurance and health care. this resolution instructs the four committees of jurisdiction to draft legislation that brings about meaningful health care reforms. furthermore, this resolution lays out 12 clear guidelines that deline what real reform is. some of these guidelines are simply commonsense principles such as the need for reform spending. if there is one overarching principle for reform is we cannot pick winners and losers. real reform must be accessible to every american. if a family is forced to give up a health plan that is working for them, can we call that reform?
1:09 pm
if a small business must lay off employees to comply with new mandates, can we call that reform? if a doctor is forced to close her family practice because the cost of malpractice insurance is prohibitive, can we call that reform? if government bureaucrats make decisions that should be left to doctors and patients, can we call that reform, madam speaker? obviously not. our goal is to increase access to quality health care for every single american, including those with pre-existing conditions. h.res. 9 that we are going to be considering here today puts us on the path to do just that. as i said at the outset, this is a tremendous challenge. achieving the goal of meaningful health care reform which we all share will demand an open and collaborative process. the four committees of
1:10 pm
jurisdiction have a great deal of work ahead of them. this is a process in which we all must contribute, democrats and republicans alike. we have good ideas that are coming from both sides of the aisle and i believe that they will be considered through this deliberative process. these ideas must be shared, analyzed, and debated. if we all participate in -- if we all participate in this open and transparent process, i believe that we can address the health care challenges that we face in an effective and meaningful way. ultimately we all hope to arrive at the same place. we all share the same goal. that is access, access to quality care for all. that's what house republicans want a cheeve and that's what my democratic colleagues want to achieve as well. and that's what president obama wants to achieve.
1:11 pm
we all have our own views on how we get there. in this body alone we have 435 views on the best way to reform our health care system. we owe the american people nothing short of a rigorous and thorough debate. but if we conduct that debate in good faith, madam speaker, grounded in the recognition that we all hope to achieve the same outcome, i believe that we in a bipartisan way, democrats and republicans together, can come up with real solutions. now, we saw the day before yesterday that the president said that he is willing and eager to work with republicans on the issue of health care. that's the sentiment that i and i know my colleagues on this side of the aisle share wholeheartedly. this resolution, h.res. 9, puts us on a path towards doing just that. it will begin this critically important process. so i hope very much that we'll
1:12 pm
have strong bipartisan support for this resolution and we'll say that we have an amendment that will be coming forward, a democratic amendment, that the rules committee has made in order. i'm happy to say will add to that list that our friend, mr. matheson, has provided, and i will also say that contrary to the argument that has been put out there, that we don't have solutions, there are a wide range of proposals that exist and we look forward to having this committee process vigorously pursue just that. with that, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. mcgovern: i rise in very strong opposition to this resolution and very strong opposition to the very closed process in which we are discussing this resolution. once again i am deeply disappointed that instead of working to create jobs and strengthening the economy, the new republican majority continues to focus on reopening
1:13 pm
old wounds and fighting old battles. the resolution before us today is allegedly the replace component of the republicans repeal and replace strategy. i say allegedly, madam speaker, because this resolution is not a serious legislative effort. it is a series of talking points. it is a press release. what this resolution does is ask the committees of jurisdiction to hopefully, maybe someday, if they would be so kind, to report legislation to the house that meets certain vage goals. -- vague goals. instead of repeal and replace, this is repeal and relax. trust the republicans to do the right thing. no thank you, madam speaker. yesterday this house voted without a single hearing or markup, without a single amendment to eliminate the affordable care act in its entirety. the members who voted for that bill voted to return to the days when insurance companies could discriminate against people based on pre-existing
1:14 pm
conditions. they voted to eliminate the ban on annual and lifetime limits on care. they voted to eliminate the ability for young people to stay on their parents' insurance plan up to the age of 26. they voted to reopen the doughnut hole in medicare, basically they voted for a tax increase on senior citizens who need prescription drugs. they voted to eliminate tax credits for small businesses who want to do the right thing and provide health insurance for their workers. all of that, madam speaker, would have the force of law. all of that was done with real legislative language. but not the resolution before us today. instead of real language that would provide real benefits to real americans, this resolution is simply a collection of empty promises. and the ironic thing is that most of the provisions included in the resolution were actually addressed in the affordable care act. according to this resolution, we should, quote, lower health care premiums through increased competition and choice.
1:15 pm
well, the affordable care act already does that. many of us argued for a public option which would have lowered premiums even further with increased competition and choice, but my republican friends didn't want to have anything to do with that. this resolution -- the resolution before us today says we should, quote, preserve our patient's ain't to keep his or her health plan if he or she likes it. well, the affordable care act already does that. increase the number of insured americans, well, we did that by 30 million people. protect the doctor-patient relationship, we did that, and so on and so on. on the critical issue of people with pre-existing conditions, however, it's interesting to see the language my republican friends use in this press release that they call a resolution. they say, they support, and i quote, provide people with pre-existing conditions access to affordable health coverage, end quote. that sounds nice. but what we did in the affordable care act was to
1:16 pm
actually ban insurance companies from discriminating against those people. i'll be very interested to see how my republican friends handle that critical issue and how much influence the big insurance lobby has around here now that they are in charge. and the doughnut hole? the resolution absolutely silent on the doughnut hole. madam speaker, health care is a vital importance to every single american. it is a big deal. and to treat health i shurens reform as just another -- insurance reform as just another opportunity for happy talk and wishful thinking is not the way to do business in the people's house. i urge my colleagues to reject this resolution. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, i yield myself 15 seconds and i do so to say to my friend that i appreciate his very consill torrey -- conciliatory remarks. everyone has acknowledged this is flawed. we have had the courts already throw the mandate out.
1:17 pm
we need to deal with the problem even before this measure is being implemented. so it seems to me -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. dreier: we proceed with this work. with that i'm happy to yield two minutes to a hardworking member of our rules committee, the gentleman from lawrenceville, georgia, mr. woodall. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. chairman. madam speaker. i have been a member of this body for two weeks and two days and i could not be prouder to be on the house floor today in support of the chairman's resolution. for the entire last year in my district, we have been focus the on one thing and one thing only, since march of 2010, and that is the repeal of the president's health care bill. before march of 2010, my district cared about health care reform. we talked about tort reform. we talked about putting patients back in charge of decisions. we talked about ending the tax preference businesses get so we
1:18 pm
can purchase insurance on our own and own those policies. but the moment this bill was signed into law, the moment the president's bill was sign into law, that discussion stopped. and the repeal discussion began. and with the repeal yesterday, we now begin anew the discussion of how properly to reform the system. i'm anxious to have that discussion. we learned a lot in our time in the minority. one of those things we learned is that bringing simple straightforward resolutions to the floor is better for the process, better for the american people. the speaker's made that commitment. we continue that commitment today with these instructions to go back to the drawing board and bring things forward one at a time. i sat through 10 hours of hearings in the rules committee where folks came forward and said, go ahead and repeal the bill but save this one provision. let's have this one provision. keep this other one provision. we now have that opportunity. we have now repealed the bill here in the house and we have
1:19 pm
the opportunity to bring those provisions forward one by one. i'll tell you what. i'm not going to like those provisions. some will pass the house. and that's the way it ought to be. you shouldn't have a one-size-fits all take it or leave it kind of system. you ought to be able to have that discussion on both sides of the aisle. and i have no doubt that provisions are going to come forward from our committee that i'm going to vote no on, but my colleagues on the left and right are both going to vote yes on and it's going to pass. that's the way the process ought to be. one provision at a time. one idea at a time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. woodall: insurance reform. putting patients back in charge of those decisions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern:00 madam speaker -- mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i yield myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i think our objection is not with the idea of having a serious debate on these issues. there are areas we can come together and hopefully make
1:20 pm
this bill better. our objection is the fact my friends on the other side voted to repeal everything. voted to allow insurance companies to once again discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions. i yield 15 seconds. they voted to take away the been fit for senior citizens that we put in there to help try to close the doughnut hole in the prescription drug bill. and what do they do in terms of replacing it? they come not with an alternative a press release. that's not serious legislating. that's politics as usual. madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. pallone: thank you, madam speaker. i'm amazed, i listened to the gentleman from georgia who just spoke, and he said that in his district all of the focus is on health care and health care repeal. i don't know, when i go home all i hear in my district is jobs and the economy. people are concerned about the economy. they wanted us to create jobs. they want us to focus mostly on that issue. not on repeal of health care.
1:21 pm
the other problem i have with the gentleman from georgia's comments is because he seems to think because the house passed this repeal yesterday that the health reform is repealed. let me tell everyone, it's not. and this is just a ruse. this bill -- this health reform wasn't repealed. the senate isn't even going to take it up. the president has said he would never sign a repeal bill. so the republicans are just wasting their time rather than focusing on what we should be focusing on is the jobs and economy. they keep talking about this false repeal that is never going to happen. now, i also wanted to say something about what mr. dreier said before. he talked about increasing access, increased choices. that's not what goes on if this bill was ever repealed. the choices now for people who have pre-existing conditions, they can't get insurance. they can't -- they have to pay more if they try to get it. or the kids on the policies that would be taken off if we have repeal, or the people that would again face lifetime caps.
1:22 pm
you don't have choices under the old system because you were denied care through the insurance companies' discrimination. the only way you have choice and access is under the health reform that this house and this country put into law where you're guaranteed you get insurance even if you have a pre-existing qun. you don't have to worry about lifetime caps. you can put your kids on the policies. don't talk to me about choices and access. people don't have choices and access with those discriminatory policies that would be put back in place by the insurance companies as they continue to raise premiums, more and more people will not have access to health care and have access to health insurance. the only way you have access and choices is if we keep the health reform in place. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the dean of our delegation, mr. lewis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes.
1:23 pm
mr. lewis: i appreciate my colleague yielding, and madam speaker, i think the entire public knows that america has had in place, for a long time, one of the finest health care delivery systems in the world. it's the envy of many. that's not to say it's perfect. that's not to say we don't have major challenges, like pre-existing conditions and questions of portability. but indeed if the people who put in place a health care plan last year had their way, they would have taken the next step, to have a centralized, government-run health care system. that's the pattern of their future. at this moment, great britain, which has had such a thing in place for some time is attempting to back off their system and have more relationships between physicians and their patients. indeed, they're doing that because their system does not work. it's very important that we not allow the former majority to take their next step, that is, to have government-run health care and with that, yesterday we passed a repeal that will take
1:24 pm
us to conference with the senate and in turn, today, we're beginning the process of examine re-examining where we have been to make certain we put in place health care that is positive for all americans, not health care run by the i.r.s. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my friend from massachusetts, well, we could have a bill on the floor today that expands fair trade for american companies, but we don't. we could have a bill on the floor today that finds ways to stop sending a billion dollars to the middle east to buy oil every day and instead create jobs producing energy in america. but we don't. we could have a bill on the floor today talking about ways to regenerate our real estate market and get people buying and selling houses again. but we don't. what we have is an empty
1:25 pm
promise. that someday, somehow, the new majority will come to our floor with a bill that will fix the health care problem. and i quote, instead of focusing on new health care mandates that will increase costs and employers and swell the ranks of the uninsured, senate democrats should focus on providing access to health insurance for the 39 million americans who remain without health coverage. this should be our first priority. i'm quoting from speaker john boehner. he said this on june 18, 2002. so at a time when the republicans had a majority in this house, a president in the white house, and for most of the time, the majority in the senate, their first priority, which was to deal with the health care problem, they didn't do. that's the standard against which we should measure today's
1:26 pm
promise. doesn't leave for much -- doesn't leave room for much optimism. i would say instead of focusing on yet another empty promise, let's focus on putting americans back to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: everyone has acknowledged that the legislation that has passed is flawed. everyone has acknowledged that. the president of the united states, when he said that the 1099 issue imposing mandates on small businesses, needed to be rectified, in his first news conference after the election, recognized there are problems. we had, day before yesterday, the distinguished assistant majority leader, the former majority whip, mr. clyburn say, he believes republicans and democrats should work together to improve this bill. we've already had a federal court determine it is unconstitutional to impose this mandate. madam speaker, we need to work together to resolve the very, very great challenges that we
1:27 pm
have ahead of us. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. doggett: with last year's important health insurance reform law, we provided real guarantees to american families against insurance monopoly abuses. today, republicans tell these families, forget the binding guarantees. we have 12 platitudes for you. this isn't a republican prescription, this is a placebo and for the american middle class, it's a very bitter pill indeed. yesterday, house republicans in a remarkable measure, with one vote, decided to increase the national debt, reduce the solvency of the medicare trust fund, raise insurance premiums and charge seniors more for their health care. during the last 12 years that these republicans were in
1:28 pm
charge, six of them with near total come domination of government here in washington under the bush-cheney administration, they failed to enact one of these 12 platitudes in this flimsy, two-page excuse of a bill. 12 health care platitudes, missing in inaction for 12 years. they're broad platitudes that propose something they apparently kept hidden under a bushel for the last 16 years and now will unveil. i think it'll just be the same old tired rejected, retread, republican proposals to get more -- give more income tax breaks to those at the top and if you believe they've got something new to offer to genuinely reform the health care system in a way that will help middle class americans instead of health insurance monopolies, i think you'll want to buy some of that republican ice cream that helps you lose weight. our families don't need republican platitudes they need real help.
1:29 pm
i think the tea party types are right about one thing. there are dangers from soaring debts, dangers they forgot for a decade. there are dangers from big government. but you know, that's not the only threat our families face. they face threats from big banks. from big insurance monopolies. do you have another minute or half a minute? mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. doggett: our families face challenges from big pharmaceutical companies that charge more than any place in the world from the giant insurance monopolies and sometimes our families need government to come down on our side because otherwise those giant economic forces will take advantage of our families. by writing out the very protection the sick and injured need the most, protection they write into the fine print of an insurance policy that no ordinary person can understand, where they are told that they're
1:30 pm
not covered anymore. that they have a pre-existing condition. that you have reached your policy limits and cannot get the care that your doctor says is vital to sustain your life. that this policy just doesn't cover sick people or that it can be rescinded. i say we need to provide people genuine protection. that's what we did last year. that's what they want to eliminate this year. let's side on the side of the people, not the 12 republican platitudes to benefit the insurance monopoly. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, with that, i'm happy to yield one minute to one of the hardworking members of this brand new class that's come in carrying a strong message, the gentleman from columbus, ohio, mr. stivers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. stivers: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for
1:31 pm
yielding. i voted for the repeal of health care bill yesterday because i think doing otherwise would have been supporting the status quo and that's unacceptable. i believe there are some good ideas that were in the original health care bill that can be used and improved but, you know, some of those ideas are in h.res. 9 today. that instructs the committees on next steps on health care. however, there is one idea that i think we need to be -- need to add to that list. i think we need to add the allowing of young folks to stay on their parents' insurance to h.res. 9. in this tough economy, many students are unable to find jobs right out of school. as a member of the state senate, i sponsored a bill that would allow those up to age 30 to stay on their parents' plan and i just heard from a constituent whose 23-year-old son justin is back on his parents' insurance. moving forward, i'm committed to working with my colleagues in a bipartisan manner to support reforms we agree on like
1:32 pm
allowing young adults to stay on their parents' plan. this was included in the republican alternative last year and should be included in the replacement bill this year. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i want to thank the gentleman for his comments in recognizing the fact that the provision that allows children -- parents to keep their children on their insurance is a good idea but he voted yesterday along with all the republicans to take that away. this press release they're now saying is a bill on the house floor doesn't address that issue. i wish the gentleman would have actually voted the way he -- with his convictions yesterday and voted against repeal. because what he did, if this bill becomes law, will take no i will -- it will deny parents to be able to keep their their kids on their insurance until they're 26. i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from florida, ms. wasserman schultz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes.
1:33 pm
ms. wasserman schultz: i rise to oppose the republican cynical attempts to replace the health care reform law. yesterday's decision to repeal the affordable care act was dangerous to the american people, but today's actions to tout these provisions as republican ideas, is baffling. this these were the republicans' priorities, they would have left the affordable care act intact because all these provisions exist in the current law. if we all agree on the importance of keeping young adults on their parent's insurance, prohibiting insurance companies from dropping coverage for the sick and strengthening medicare this spectacle is a colossal waste of time we don't have. if they want to guarantee consume brother texts for the american people, they would not stage partisan antics. even when republicans had control of the entire government for six year, they did nothing to reform our nation's health care system. and during that time, premiums skyrocketed, the number of uninsured americans grew to 47
1:34 pm
million and those with insurance saw their benefits decimated. of course it would have been great to have the republicans as willing partners in the last two years as we work hard to pass the patient protection and affordable care act. no i will not yield. unfortunately, they insisted on being the party of no. even as we incorporated so many of their party's ideas into the law. rather than roll back the hard fought consumer protections and freedoms that unshackles americans from the whims of private insurance companies, as former republican senate majority leader bill frist said, republicans should be working with us to build on and improve the health care system. not to mention every potential minute spent in committee focusing on redundant legislation is another minute wire not spending working to get out of this recession. unfortunately, the republican majority's hasty vote to repeal the affordable care act failed on all such counts. the american people deserved and
1:35 pm
got real reform. this vague resolution stating so-called republican principles on health care reform is like giving the american people a wish sandwich. there's nothing between the bread but we wish there was. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's -- gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: the fact of the matter stherk republicans sent associated health plans to make sure small businesses could drive the cost of health insurance down to the senate and our friends in the other party killed that measure. we put in place access for affordable prescription drugs so we have worked dill jebtly to make this happy. i'm mape to yield a minute to my good friend from fort myers florida, mr. mack. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mack: i thank you, madam speaker. yesterday was a great day for democracy and freedom in this country. yesterday, the republican-led
1:36 pm
congress voted to repeal a health care law that was passed by the democrats that would mandate, that would force people to buy something, even if they didn't want to. it's unconstitutional, it's un-american, it is not what this country stands for. now we're hearing a lot of our colleagues on the other side talk about how we want to strip away this and we want to strip away that and we're playing games and this resolution is a game. let me remind you that it was -- the president of the united states in his state of the union talked about tort reform, which was not included in obamacare. we intend to include tort reform in the next -- in this congress. we also believe that association health plans are very important to ensure that more people have access to health care, something your side of the aisle failed to do. there is real ways to do common sense reforms. it is not by having government mandate what you have to buy as
1:37 pm
a citizen of this country, it is unconstitutional, it is un-american, thank you. . the speaker pro tempore: members are advised to address their comments to the chair and not members within the -- in the second person. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker, for maybe taining decorum in the house. at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. weiner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. weiner: madam speaker, we are seeing today that after 75 or so hours of markup, hundreds of hours of hearings, 16 months of long debate, thousands upon thousands of meetings and town halls the republicans come to washington and don't know what they want to do in health care yet. my constituents should understand and the speaker should understand that this resolution says go back and figure out what we want to do. ladies and gentlemen, i would remind you that last year
1:38 pm
during the health care debate the republicans had a chance to offer an alternative, they didn't. now they come to washington and say, oh, let's have the committees try to figure this all out. yesterday they were the party of no and today they are the party of we don't know how to go. who are these republicans? after months and months and months of the national debate, you can go into any coffee shop, any church basement, just about any card game in this country and people have solid ideas about what they think about health care, but not the republicans. they've got a resolution today that says, hey, committees, go try to figure this stuff out. it's complicated. by the way, i don't know, madam speaker, if i read it correctly, i don't think there are any deadlines. i don't think there are any deadlines. i will eat this rostrum if they come back with legislation that actually accomplishes the things that they just repealed yesterday. it's not going to happen. ands in the fundamental problem that i believe -- and this is the fundamental problem that i
1:39 pm
believe the majority party now has. they have the campaign slogans all down. i heard the gentleman from florida do one. unconstitutional. they have the campaign slogans, and i got to give them credit, they were successful with them. they came here we are against, against, against. now here it is. unlike past congresses come up geared up for the things they want to do, they are geared up with a resolution saying, hey, go figure out what it is we should do. the american people deserve a lot better than this. they deserve comprehensive health care that saves them money. that's what was repealed yesterday. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i yield myself 15 seconds to say to my friend from new york it's very interesting that the president of the united states the day before yesterday said that he was willing and eager to work with republicans to ensure that we rectify this flawed bill. the distinguished assistant majority leader, the former majority whip, mr. clyburn, said he's willing to work with republicans in a bipartisan way
1:40 pm
to address this. with that, madam speaker, i yield one minute to my good friend from allentown, pennsylvania, mr. dent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for a minute. mr. dent: yesterday the house voted to repeal the misguided health care law of 2010 which is seriously flawed both in its structure and practical implementation. i keep hearing discussion about the affordable care act. if one believes the affordable care act will not add to the deficit, i think one is apt to believe just about anything. today we have the opportunity to direct to the committees to produce practical and effective reforms. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution and commit to working together to enact meaningful reforms that will lower health care costs, expand access to affordable insurance coverage, and foster economic growth and jobs. the current law is simply unwise and unsustainable. i believe we must replace the misguided policies of the current law, reforms that will address rising health care costs, specifically i support medical liability reforms to reduce the practice of defensive medicine. i believe congress must provide
1:41 pm
americans with more options for affordable health coverage such as low cost catastrophic plans for individuals, patient centered health care savings account. cross state purchasing, and effective high-risk pools. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution and let's get on with this today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: 10 seconds to the gentleman from new york. mr. weiner: i want to respond to the distinguished chairman. the president did not say anything about thistardly flawed bill. he said we should implement and improve. that's the way we build important legislation. he didn't say look forward to republicans -- mr. dreier: would the gentleman yield five seconds? madam speaker, let me just say to my friend that the president did say that he is willing and eager to work with republicans to rectify the problems that
1:42 pm
are here. right after the election he said he wanted to correct the 1099 -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. members will suspend. who yields time? the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from maryland, ms. edwards. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maryland is recognized tore two minutes. ms. edwards: thank you, madam speaker. i'm actually disappointed i'm standing on the floor of the house of representatives today yet again defending and protecting the rights of the american people to health care. it's such a shame that yesterday and the day before for seven hours our members on the other side spent their time deciding for the american people to take away the ability of parents to provide health care for their young people up to age 26. they spent seven hours other than finding jobs, trying to make sure that small businesses who are providing health care don't get a tax credit anymore for the health care that they
1:43 pm
are providing for their employees. they spent seven hours trying to strip away the ability of our seniors to make sure that they don't have to reach into their own pocket, deeper pockets, not deep anymore, to pay for prescription drugs. yesterday they spent seven hours a and the day before debating whether it's a good idea for insurance companies to be able to deny people health care for pre-existing conditions when they know that at least 129 million of us, 65 or so percent of us, have pre-existing medical conditions. it's disappointing here we are yet again where the republicans say we took it all away in one day. and now we are going to think about some of it that we might replace again. well, we have created a health care law for the american people that's about affordability and accessibility. i know that the democrats are going to stand on the side with the president and implement the
1:44 pm
law. thank goodness for the american people, they should know that the republicans didn't do anything yesterday other than put a whole bunch of stuff on a piece of paper that has no chance of going anywhere. the paper is not even worth the ink that's printed on it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: thank you very much, madam speaker. the native of the show me state, i'm pleased to yield to my friend from st. elizabeth, missouri, one minute, mr. luetkemeyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. luetkemeyer: i'm proud in support of this resolution. a bill that would help committees and our country back into the right direction. it will entail more than tweaking the law, it means replacing the health care bill real reform. last august 71% of missourians went to the poll and said no. as i go about my district and talk to my employers, they tell
1:45 pm
me instead of premiums going down they have gone up 25% to 40%. instead of improving access to care we actually have doctors retiring in record numbers. true reform should be passing significant laws through reforms so doctors can perform their jobs ever taking their of their patient. i also support increasing access to insurance by allowing small business to pool together to get the best plan for the employees. all along republicans have offered a commonsense approach to approving our health care system in a way that controls costs and provides the quality of care that americans deserve. today's vote is important in realizing that goal. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: could i inquire how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts has 12 1/4 minute remaining. the gentleman from california has 16 1/4 minute. mr. mcgovern: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: at this time i'm
1:46 pm
happy to yield to one of the other new members who come with a very strong message here, she's a nurse and she's from tennessee, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mrs. black: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, i rise on behalf of the people of middle, tennessee, who spoke loud and clear this last year that they do not want the federal government dictating their health care. the plan that was signed into law by the president was supposed to increase access health care and lower costs for american families. however in the months since the bill passed it has been shown to do neither. we now know that the health care bill not only increases premiums for families, but hinders job creation and is filled with unintended consequences that not only diminishes the quality of our health care system but also do great damage to our economy and increase our deficit. this new congress was sent here to follow a more responsible
1:47 pm
path. through commonsense, market-based solutions we can replace a flawed health care bill to have the best health care system in the world. i'm eager to take part in drafting the new republican plan and focusing on rolling back the individual mandate, eliminating the onerous demands on small businesses, and actually lowering the costs for families and increasing access to quality, personalized health care. i also look forward to a thoughtful discussion that includes solutions that went ignored before like tort reform, increasing competition, and tax breaks instead of tax hikes. as a nurse for over 40 years, my top priority will be making sure our plan honors the doctor-patient relationship that is so sacred in medicine because there is no place for a government bureaucrat in an individual's health care decision. as a member of ways and means committee, i am excited to work
1:48 pm
with chairman dave camp and my fellow committee members on a new way to forward responsible health care reform. let's do the work that the american people sent us here to do. madam speaker, i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: we continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, may i inquire of my friend if he has any further speakers on his side? mr. mcgovern: we do have further speakers. but there is a time discrepancy. we'll let you catch up. mr. dreier: let me say we don't have other speakers here yet. we are others on the way over to the floor. so i'd like to reserve the balance of my time. i understand the disparity that exists in the timing, but -- i can talk for all that period of time but i don't want to have the gentleman suffer through that. mr. mcgovern: i'm happy to suffer through it if you use your time. at this time, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for two minutes. mr. garamendi: madam speaker,
1:49 pm
as i'm sitting here listening to this, i'm thinking this must be something like "alice in wonderland." this is the most bizarre debate i have heard in a long time. we need jobs. we need to be focusing on the american economy. this particular resolution has no sense of reality. i have heard debates here and discussions on the floor about association health plans. i know about association health plans. i was the insurance commissioner for eight years in california having to deal with these noninsurance programs that let hundreds indeed thousands of people holding the bag when the association health plans went belly up. it doesn't make any sense. california's had tort reform for 30 years. we have in the law today in america a protection for every individual in america from the
1:50 pm
onerous hands of the insurance companies that have continued over the years to deny benefits, to make the doctor decisions, and to literally put people's lives at risk. it's called the patient's bill of rights. it's the law in the land. and our republican colleagues want to repeal that? we have a law that's in place. it should be implemented. the cost issues that have been discussed here on the floor are really a discussion about what has taken place in the past. the law has yet to be implemented with regard to cost containment. the oversight of the insurance companies. all of those things are in the days ahead and a market system is available with the exchanges. you want to talk about market, that's how you get there with exchanges. replace, repeal, how bizarre is that? americans have a protection. yesterday our republican colleagues voted to remove their protections. they caved to the insurance
1:51 pm
companies once again the power to regulate their lives. we cannot allow that to happen. this step today is just "alice in wonderland." i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i'd like to ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on h.res. 9, and i'd also like to ask unanimous consent that my distinguished vice chairman of the committee on rules, mr. sessions, be able to insert a statement in the record at this point. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. dreier: i'd like to yield one minute to my hardworking colleague from lincoln, nebraska, mr. fortenberry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for one minute. mr. fortenberry: i thank the gentleman for the time. madam speaker, health care reform, the right type of reform, is important to me, important to every american. and the right type of reform will actually reduce cost and improve health care outcomes while we protect vulnerable persons. .
1:52 pm
however, this health care law is an -- is a complicated mess that will increase spending and reduce health care liberty. americans deserve better. i believe it's important to craft a new, commonsense policy that provides new insurance models for families, farmers, and small business owners, but any model we craft must continue to build upon a culture of health and wellness. allow newly insured persons to keep their current coverage, and also retain protection for pre-existing conditions. this will be important. so now the hard work begins. but this time, we have the opportunity get it right. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. moore. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. moore: thank you so much,
1:53 pm
madam chair and thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise as the incoming co-chair of the congressional women's caucus to talk to you a little bit about the impact that repealing this health care law will have on women. as you all may be aware, women are twice as likely to be dependent upon their spouses for health care and they're less likely than men to have employer-sponsored insurance. as single female heads of household, this has a devastating impact on the entire family when there's no health insurance. all of us have heard stories from our dict about how the repeal of this law will have on women and i heard such a story just yesterday. meet nicole lipski, she's 25 years old, working part time and
1:54 pm
going to school part time because because of the health care law was able to remain on her dad's insurance and lucky for her, because just last week, she had an infected pancreas and had to have her gallbladder removed in an emergency surgery which cost $13,000 that fortunately, was covered by her parents' insurance. you know this law outlaws gender rating, and insurance companies of course charge women higher premiums than men for coverage and it also has a disparate impact on women with respect to pre-existing conditions when you consider that being a victim of domestic violence is considered a pre-existing condition. now, you don't have to be a harvard economist to know that this law is not a job killer. but we do have a harvard economist to back us up. david cutler, professor of
1:55 pm
applied economics at harvard, released a study on january 7, finding that repealing the health care law would destroy 250,000 -- can you yield 15 seconds? mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentlelady 15 seconds. ms. moore: would grow 250,000 jobs annuallymark of them are women's jobs, x-ray techs, nurses, and even the cleaning person wo who cleans up the emergency room. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: at thistime i'm happy to yield one minute to my good friend from north carolina, many mchenry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. many mchenry: last night, house republicans took a major step in our pledge to america by passing a repeal of obamacare. now we must work to replace this
1:56 pm
budget-busting law with sensible, market-placed policies that lower costs for families and small businesses and expand access to affordable care. small businesses are the job creators that hold the key to our economic recovery. they cannot afford the hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes in the obamacare law and the new employer mandate as well. our small businesses need certainty in the tax code, certainty in regulations coming out of washington and obamacare only makes matters worse. i look forward to an open and transparent debate in this congress on alternative, affordable insurance. that's what the american people want and what my constituents desire. i would also challenge my friends on the other side of the aisle to listen to the american people and join our efforts to work toward better solutions to our nation's health care challenges. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield one and a
1:57 pm
half minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one and a half minutes. ms. jackson lee: thank you, madam speaker. thank you to my good friend from massachusetts for yielding. let me say the good news is that the only thing that occurred last evening was simply a vote because the law of the land is still the patient protection and affordable care act and i hope that the president's words are not twisted, because i agree with him, we are all willing to work together to do the right thing, which is to amend the bill. i don't understand the understanding of my friends on the other side of the aisle. repealing the law of the land has nothing to do with questioning the provisions. frankly they're not even listening to a distinguished doctor, senator fritz, the former majority leader who said this bill, our bill is the law of the land and it is a platform, the fundamental platform on which all future efforts to make that system better for the patients and
1:58 pm
families will be based. what is there not to understand? amend the bill, don't repeal. senator fritz said if the bill was on the floor, he would have voted for it. i spoke to some students the other day and they asked about doctors. this bill had in it scholarships for medical professionals, the bill that we have. the issue of course is one that you cannot dispute. this bill saves lives. so much so that the republican majority leader ran to the media to promise seniors that they wouldn't lose the $250 that our bill, the patient protection bill, guaranteed them so that they would have some cushion for their prescription drugs. so my friend, i know we're doing the right thing. we're all willing to amend. but how ridiculous it is that you would repeal the law of the land or attempt to do so and i know the president still has his veto pen. this law will save lives. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired this egentleman from california. mr. dreier: i yield a minute and
1:59 pm
a half to one of our new members from oklahoma city, mr. lankford. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one and a half minutes. mr. lankford: thank you, madam speaker. thank you for yielding time. the repeated diatribe from members on the other side of the aisle that somehow they're the only individuals in the chamber that care about the health of the american family demonstrates again the deep-seated partisanship that we must defeat. we all want to help the american people. the people don't like obamacare but they want something to be done. we must have tort reform to reduce the cost of defensive medicine. we must deal with the f.d.a. approval process that covers any new discovery in paperwork costing a billion dollars to get it through the process. we must open up more options for insurance carriers, allowing someone frustrated with their service to fire them and get a new insurance provider. we must reject price fixing as a
2:00 pm
cost-cutting solution. we must allow every american to choose their own doctor, even pay their doctor directly if they choose to do that. we must give senior americans more choices in physicians who accept medicare patients. we must provide states with greater flexibility and deal with portability, high risk and pre-existing conditions. republicans have friends and family dealing with the same medical issues the democrats deal. with suffering, disease, and pain have no respect fb political affiliation. we just believe that if you're sick and hurting, you should contact your doctor, not washington, d.c., to see what to do next. let's surprise america. let's work together and get something done. let's show them that even with the divided house and senate, we can reject the gravitational pull of hol picks and put aside our differences for the good of those most vulnerable. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i want to respond to the gentleman who just spoke.
2:01 pm
we hear distortions other and over again. we heard them during -- over and over again, we heard them during the campaign, that were perpetrated by our friends on the other side of the aisle and their friends in the insurance industry. that somehow what we passed was a bill that wouldn't allow you to keep your own health insurance. we passed a bill that provides competitions. i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. ellison: madam speaker, repeal and replace? what about protect and improve. what about improving the bill that is there right now, rather than repealing and replacing? you know, the fact is, the republican caucus is talking about replacing a bill and yet whether it's pre-existing conditions or filling in the doughnut hole, i've heard several of them say, we want to keep that. yet they don't want to protect and approve -- and improve, they want to repeal.
2:02 pm
why? to protect the insurance industry. i can't see any other reason why they're doing this. the affordable care act is a good bill. can it be bet her of course. but that's not what we're talking about today. we're talking about taking away benefits that americans have in their hand. the republican caucus is snatching away people who want to get their children on the health care insurance who are under 26 years old. -- years of age. snatching away. -- snatching away free preventive care for seniors, snatching out of the hands of families whose children are trying to be able to get care who may have pre-existing condition. snatching out oaf thnds half seniors filling in the doe -- out of the hands of seniors filling in the the doughnut hole. this is wrong and it's a shame. the fact is the democratic caucus, when we had the white house and the -- and both houses of congress, within two years, we brought to the american people a health care bill.
2:03 pm
when the republican caucus had the house for six years, between 2000 and 2006, they don't do anything other than do a big fat giveaway to pharma. this is what we get. mr. dreier: will the gentleman yields on that point? would the gentleman yield? mr. ellison: i think i'm out of time. mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield. mr. ellison: i'm out of time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i yield myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. dreier: the gentleman's time did expire. i yield myself 15 seconds to say, as i said to my friend earlier, it's interesting that they continue to say we did nothing. associated health plans which democrats and republicans like, designed to drive down the cost for small businesses to provide health insurance, was submitted from this republican house to the other body, the democrats,
2:04 pm
in fact, killed that measure, attempts were made to put into place real reform. with that, back by popular demand, the rules committee member from lawrenceville, georgia, for two minutes, mr. wood yawl. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. woodall: thank you for yielding, michigan. i return to the well because i wonder if folks have the same small business people in their district i have in my district? i wonder if folks are doing the same listening in their district i'm doing in my district? we are here today to respond to what folks have been asking for. to give credit where credit is due, last year, before the last congress expired, democrats and republicans came together to extend for one year, i would have like to see it extended longer, but to extend for one year the tax cuts our small business men and women were demanding. but the second part of the indecision there in the business
2:05 pm
community, the anxiety and uncertainty that was there, is what's going to happen with the health care costs? what's going to happen with the health care plan? we have not solved that anxiety. we have not solved that indecision. because we've only gotten half of it done. we've gotten it passed in the house. but we've still got to take it to the senate and to the white house. in the spirit of giving credit where credit is due, i told folks throughout my campaign that i thought the president identified exactly the right two health care challenges. rising costs and access. then came up with exactly the wrong solutions to those problems. we talk about what's going to happen to folks when the doughnut hole change goes away. didn't we have a chance last year? i'm new to congress, did we have a chance in the last congress to vote on that stand-alone doughnut hole closure? i don't believe we did. did we have a chance to vote on the pre-existing condition solution?
2:06 pm
i don't believe we did. did we have a chance in the last corning to talk about the kids up to 26 issue? i don't think we did. but now we have the opportunity to vote on this one by one. the only option congress had last time under democratic leadership to vote for a doughnut hole solution to vote for pre-existing condition solutions to vote for insurance for kids under the age to have 26 was to do it with the unconstitutional mandate a trillion dollars of new spending and hundreds of new bureaucracies. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expyred. the gentleman from midwest. -- from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i remind the gentleman, we could have had a chance to vote on those individually. he did have a chance to vote on whether or not we could vote on them on the floor but he and republicans voted each and every one of those protections down. they voted against protecting people against pre-existing conditions, they voted against
2:07 pm
people, putting people on the doughnut hole. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expyred. mr. mcgovern: they voted against everything. mr. dreier: would the gentleman yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time had expired. mr. dreier: i yield 30 seconds to our rules committee colleague in the name of comity and civil discourse to respond. . mr. woodall: i would say to my friend i absolutely voted no on every single one of those amendments in the name of repealing the bill yesterday. and now today i have returned to speak in favor of this resolution so that you can work with the committee leadership to bring each and every one of those provisions to this floor for a vote again for the very first time. for the very first time. i'm glad to support you in having that opportunity and i'm pleased to be here to support this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the chair must ask members to bear in mind the principle that proper courtesy in the process of yielding and reclaiming time in debate and especially in
2:08 pm
asking another to yield must foster the spirit of the comity that elevates our deliberations over and above mere argument. with that the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i yield -- i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: may i inquire of my friend if he has further speakers? mr. mcgovern: i'm the final speaker. mr. dreier: madam speaker, with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. mcgovern: may i inquire how much time i have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts has four minutes remaining. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i want to -- i have one additional speaker. the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran, would like to be able to speak for 30 seconds. mr. dreier: the gentleman told me he was the closing speaker. and now he has one additional speaker? mr. mcgovern: i was
2:09 pm
misinformed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. moran: i appreciate the lenience of the chair of the rules committee. thank my very good friend from massachusetts. what troubles me with this debate, and i would have particularly address myself to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, is that we took two votes yesterday. one was to provide coverage for ourselves, the next, really, to deny it to our constituents. that i find troubling because we all have the right for guaranteed coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions. we have a choice of easy to compare health insurance plans. we have coverage for early retirees. women have equal premium coverage. we have access to affordable care, low cost preventive service. all these things. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mrian: voted to deny it to our constituents. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: does
2:10 pm
the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. dreier: i don't seek recognition. i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself the remaining time, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: gnat is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. -- the gentleman is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. mcgovern: this is not a serious legislative effort. it's a series of sound bites that mean nothing. committees don't have to do anything. speaker boehner is quoted in the hill basically saying he's not going to hold any of these committees accountable. they can do it if they want to, whatever, if they don't, so be it. what we are dealing with here today is kind of a political ploy. not a serious legislative effort to replace anything. my friends on the other side of the aisle have got up over and over again said we are really with you on pre-existing conditions, on the doughnut hole, allowing parents to keep their kids on their insurance until 26.
2:11 pm
yet they are really not. because if they were they wouldn't have voted yesterday to repeal all those protections. and if they were really with us, we would be talking about today coming to the house floor with a series of initiatives that would actually continue to protect those benefits for consumers. but they voted to repeal all of that. i want to know how could anybody in this house, how can anybody in light of the protections that have been put in place, go back to an individual who has been -- who is now able to get health insurance because we prohibited insurance companies from discriminating against them for pre-existing conditions, how can you go to them and say we are going to change our mind, we are not going to do that anymore? how do you go to senior citizens who are struggling with that doughnut hole and we have begun to close it, how do you begin to say we are going to raise your taxes? how do you do that? how do you go to a parent whose child can remain on the health
2:12 pm
insurance because we have extended it to allow them to stay their until they are 22 to say that doesn't matter anymore? it doesn't make sense. that's not what people voted for. they didn't vote for you to repeal all those things. what they voted against was this distortion of a health care bill that you put out there, my friends on the other side of the aisle, that was very well funded by the most expensive advertising campaign funded by the insurance company in the history of our country. this distortion out there. everybody was against that distortion. that is not the reality. and as the months have gone by and the reality has become clear to people, as they have seen the benefits and protections, as people have been able to wrest control of their health care from the insurance industry, as consumers realize they have more and more rights, there are more and more protections built into the law to protect people of all ages, people say we don't want you to change that. we want that to be saved. i'll just say one thing, when
2:13 pm
my friends say we can do a little bit of this and little bit of that, you can't. because it's like a domino effect. everything has an impact. so this is a serious debate. and there's indignation on this side of the aisle it is because we no that this is a big deal and real people have -- who have real challenges affording their health care and dealing with the complexities of a health care system and the inequities of the health care system are getting some relief and they will be hurt by what you are doing. so let's be honest here. what happened yesterday was my friends on the other side of the aisle went on record as saying we are against everything. today they were -- we are going to pass a resolution, i guess, that doesn't do anything, doesn't even require committees to do anything, but just says we are for all these nice feel good sound bites. that's not a serious legislative effort. that's why people are cynical. we can do better. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california.
2:14 pm
mr. dreier: madam speaker, there was a very powerful and resounding message that came last november 2 and that is the imperative for us to create jobs and get this economy growing. the american people are hurting. in my state of california we have a 12 1/2 percent unemployment rate, part of the area i represent has a 15.5% unemployment rate in the inland empire in southern california. it is essential that we focus our attention on creating jobs. and i believe, i believe that the step that we are taking today is going to be very, very important as we pursue that goal. why is that? when we look at what passed last year, was signed last march 23 by the president, it was a measure that imposes
2:15 pm
mandates on small businesses. jeopardizing their ability to hire new workers. it's a measure that imposes dictates on doctors, on doctors, a regulatory structure which undermines their potential to hire new employees. it is a measure which in many ways jeopardizes our potential to grow the economy because it is a dramatic expansion of the entitlement programs which democrats and republicans alike say need to be addressed if we are going to create jobs and get our economy back on track. one of the things that i think is important to note is that people have said that repeal of the health care bill in fact is going to cost $230 billion based on those c.b.o. numbers that came out. only in washington, d.c., can
2:16 pm
one cut a $2.7 trillion expenditure and have it labeled as a cost. as a cost. why is it a cost? it's a cost because the measure that was signed last march 23 imposes a /4 of a trillion dollar -- 3/4 of a trillion dollar tax increase on working americans. now, what does that do to create jobs and get our economy growing? obviously it undermines, it undermines our shared priority of creating jobs and getting our economy back on track. we know that with the $14 trillion national debt that we have and deficits down the road, we need to do what we can to rein in that spending, tackling entitlements, and dealing with issues like the one that we are facing today. now, having said that we all
2:17 pm
know that democrats and republicans alike want to ensure that every single american has access to quality, affordable health insurance so that they can have access to quality health care. and i underscore the word quality because if one looks at the important research and development that takes place in the united states of america, i believe that the measure that was signed last march 23 and that we voted in this house to repeal yesterday, that that measure undermines the very important pursuit of research and development to deal with many of the diseases that are out there. so, madam speaker, i've got to say that we all say that we want every american to have access to quality, affordable health care, and everyone has acknowledged that that bill that was signed march 23 is flawed. in his news conference right after the election the president of the united states said he believed we need to
2:18 pm
address the so-called 1099 provisions that impose, again, and onerous mandate on small businesses. undermining their ability to create jobs. exactly what i was saying earlier. i quoted the distinguished assistant minority leader, the former majority whip, mr. clyburn, who on a program earlier this week said republicans and democrats need to work together to rectify some of the problems that exist with this measure. and as i said, it was two days ago that the president of the united states wrote his editorial in which he talked about in the "wall street journal" the need to reduce the regulatory burden that is imposed on the private sector so that we can get our economy going and create jobs and he also said on that same day that he is willing and eager, madam speaker, willing and eager to work with republicans to rectify some of the problems that exist in this measure. now, i heard my friend, mr. matheson, this morning on
2:19 pm
national public radio state that there was not a plan out there, and that's the reason having voted against the bill he did not vote for repeal because there is not a plan out there. i heard that at 7:35 this morning on wamu. and mr. matheson made that statement but the fact of the matter is, unlike the plan that was signed into law march 23 of last year, that did not include the kind of bipartisan participation that we believe is essential, i've got to say that we are planning to proceed with this direction to the four committees that will allow virtually every member of this house to be involved. we have 12 items and i'm happy to say that under this rule we have made in order, mr. matheson's amendment that we'll be considering in just a few minutes, that will add a 13th item to deal with the so-called doc fix. so that again underscores our desire to work in a bipartisan way to address some of the
2:20 pm
concerns that are there. what is it that we say needs to be done? and frankly the president of the united states has indicated some of these he supports. we need to make sure that people do have a chance to purchase insurance across state lines which is now denied. we need to make sure that we have put into place associated health plans. a provision that passed a republican house but was killed by democrats in the senate when we lats were in the majority. we need to do everything that we can to allow for pooling to deal with pre-existing conditions. we need to make sure that we expand medical savings accounts that provide incentives for people to put dollars aside to plan for their health care needs. and one of the things that the president of the united states said in his state of the union message one year ago right here in this chamber, we need to deal with meaningful lawsuit abuse reform so that we can have atension focused on
2:21 pm
patients and doctors and not on trial lawyers. so i would say to my friend from utah, those are five items that are part ever our plan that i believe can enjoy strong bipartisan support. so, madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to support h.res. 9 so that we can proceed with a bipartisan consideration of this very important goal that we share of creating jobs, getting our economy back on track, and ensuring that every single american has access to quality, afford and health insurance. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time for debate has expired. for what purpose -- for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. matheson: i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment printed in part b of house report number 112-2 offered by mr. matheson of utah. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 26, the gentleman from utah,
2:22 pm
mr. matheson, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. matheson: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. matheson: i rise today to offer an amendment to h. resolution 9. i did not support repeal legislation but i do believe there are bipartisan improvements that could be made to the existing law. and i think now is the time for all of us in congress to roll up our sleeves and work together. the goal of this amendment is pretty straightforward. it is set up to maintain adequate health care service to stabilize the business practice of doctors and to take into account the long-term economic health of this country. we all agree that the doctor-patient relationship's a fundamental part of quality health care, but we have found that we have a flawed formula when it comes to setting reimbursement levels and every year threatens the ability of doctors toer care for patients and threatens the ability of
2:23 pm
patients to see their doctors. . members on both sides of the aisle, stake holders throughout the health care community, citizens, have all recognized we have a flawed policy. how many times have we come together to provide a temp care -- temporary patch to this problem without fixing the underlying problem. in 2010 alone, congress took five different votes to delay a scheduled cut without stepping up and dealing with a permanent fix to the problem. by an overwhelming vote a few weeks ago, congress supported a one-year delay to a looming 25% cut in physician payments. my amendment is very straightforward and clear. it adds an additional instruction to the committees of jurisdiction over health care legislation to replace the flawed sustainable growth rate formula used to set medicare parmentes -- payments for doctors and instructs congress
2:24 pm
to find a permanent fix. it's the right thing to do on behalf of physicians as we look to make health care more sustainable and predictable and as we begin the yearing looging at this extremely complex yet highly personal issue, i think that adopting this amendment would be a good step to move in that direction. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment in a bipartisan way. i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. dreier: i'd like to claim the time in opposition to the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: i claim time in opposition to say i support the amendment, madam speaker. i believe that as you look at the list of 12 items that we have in h.res. 9, they are not to be limited at all. i think that by virtue of our making the matheson amendment in order to deal we the so-called doc fix issue, we have made it
2:25 pm
clear we are already beginning at this juncture to work in a bipartisan way in our quest to create jobs, get our economy back on track and ensure that every single american has access to quality, affordable health care. so this is again the beginning of a very important process. and i'm very pleased that mr. matheson has been able to play a role in fashioning h.res. 9 and i hope very much that with the president of the united states saying that he is willing and eager to work with republicans, to rectify the problems that exist with the past health care bill and the fact that mr. clyburn, the assistant minority leader said he wants to work in a bipartisan way to deal with these issues, will lead to strong, bipartisan support for mr. matheson's amendment and for the underlying resolution. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.
2:26 pm
the gentleman from utah. mr. matheson: i yield one minute to my colleague from new jersey, mr. pallone. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pallone: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in support of mr. matheson's amendment. i do want to point out, though, that the democrats, when we were in the majority, many times tried to pass a permanent fix and did not receive support, i believe, from many republicans, except i believe we did have dr. burgess' of texas, his support. we passed a permanent fix, the doctors fix but because we could not get any real republican support, we had to continue to rely on short-term fixes. we did, however, as you know, at the end of the last session, pass a one-year fix which is in effect now. i do think this is a commendable
2:27 pm
response that mr. matheson has and i certainly intend to support it, but the difficulty is, that the many years when the republicans were in the majority, they had the opportunity to pass a permanent fix and to deal with this issue and they always kicked the can down the road and did not cooperate with us on a bipartisan basis when we were in the majority to try to achieve a permanent fix. i certainly intend to work with the republicans to do that, but they are the reason we don't have it now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. dreier: the gentleman from california. i was mistakenly under the impression that the gentleman had exhausted his five minutes. i'd like to reclaim the remaining time i have. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? mr. dreier: i reserve the balance of my time. mr. mathston: i have no further speakers, i ask for the support of my colleagues, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: as we know, i have claimed time in opposition to
2:28 pm
the amendment but i will state once again, i am supportive of the matheson amendment. i urge my colleagues, democrats and republicans alike, to come together and vote for adding what will be item number 13, which will be the beginning of wide-ranging reform to ensure that every single american has access to quality health insurance so we can, again, get our economy back on track and focus on job creation and growth and with that, i again urge >> later that day, house majority leader kantor spoke about the house schedule and cutting the budget. this is about 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
2:29 pm
for one minute to inquire of the schedule for the coming week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: i thank the speaker ani 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 houseill meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour debate and noon for legislate business. the house will recess no later than 5:00 p.m. to low 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
2:30 pm
will be announced by close of business tomorrow. in addition we will consider h.res. 38, a resolution reduci 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.
2:31 pm
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
2:32 pm
progress that congressman giffords is making 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. r 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.
2:33 pm
mrspeaker, as far as the schedule's concerned, if you recall, the coitment 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 ming 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. hor: i thank the gentleman for his comment.
2:34 pm
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 frid. mr. cantor: the gentleman understands as the rules committee chairman presides ov 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
2:35 pm
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 upo 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
2:36 pm
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, famies, 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
2:37 pm
your second page it says, remainder of fiscal year 2011 that assumes nonsecurity spending at fiscal year 2008 levels or less. the implications 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 resolion says, 2008 numbers? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i say to the gentleman that the resolution provides the capping
2:38 pm
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 campaigneason 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
2:39 pm
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
2:40 pm
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 clearly as 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
2:41 pm
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 perso is, and i have great respect as the gentleman knows and ve 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
2:42 pm
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 termines 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. caor: mr. speaker, i just respond to the gentleman by saying we are in the position we are in because the majority that he participad 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
2:43 pm
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 theyhink that we ought to be saving taxpayer dollars. so, again, i disagree with the gentleman's sertion 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 spendin 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 a produce a spending
2:44 pm
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
2:45 pm
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 bconsidering 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 the may well be members on our side who want to
2:46 pm
join in making sure that we spend our money as effectively and efficiently as possible. but we also know ithe 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 ge 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
2:47 pm
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 mmitment that we are going to bring up a spending cut bill every wk, 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
2:48 pm
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 welthe 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 tim 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
2:49 pm
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 thatnd would expect that. i yield back. mr. hoye good. i appreciate that response. stly, i ask my friend, one of the significant issues that will be cononting us in the coming months wilbe the extension of the debt limit, to ensure that america continues to pay the bills that it has incurred and therefore intain fiscal stability. not only in this country but throhout the world. mrspeaker, and you have both made, i think, very positive
2:50 pm
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 unclearhen the federal government will actually hit the debt ceiling and we ll 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.
2:51 pm
and the house, as discussion today indicates, will be taking those necessarsteps 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 thinkhe 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, pefully 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'sy understanding fromhe gentleman's response that if in the eyes of you or mr. boehner or your side of the aisle that
2:52 pm
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 housand this congress, hopefully lder 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
2:53 pm
implemented and reforms affected and th would bour 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 payae 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 dot 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
2:54 pm
from defaulting on its debts and i simply ask the gentleman, will we have the opportunity to have an up or down voten 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 limivote 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
2:55 pm
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
2:56 pm
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.
2:57 pm
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 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
2:58 pm
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 at as a gre responsibility and a great
2:59 pm
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.
3:00 pm
this is probably theest 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 o 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.
3:01 pm
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 y, mr. speaker. even as i speak the lan slides continue to ravage the country. this national disaste ongoing for several months now, has taken more than 300 lives and damaged or destroyed more than 2,000 homes. in total more than twoillion 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
3:02 pm
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.
3:03 pm
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,
3:04 pm
when the defensive operation desert shield became the offensive operation dese 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 durg 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 animosy 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
3:05 pm
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 sanions 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
3:06 pm
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 dollarsas 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.
3:07 pm
thousands of american service members have been killed and tens of thousands wounded with a sharp increase in service connected suicide. over 500,000 verans 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
3:08 pm
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 constituti or maintaining peace. the only value that can come of this is to recognize our policies are flawed and they need to be chang. without this history will record the sacrifices were all in vain. the speaker pro tempore: mr.
3:09 pm
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 throughouthe 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 movent. a movement that he joined his extraordinary bride, eunice
3:10 pm
kennedy shave, in heading. -- shriver in heading. in the words of his biographer, i quote, often the things that sargent shriver accomplished, starting theeace corps, or getting 500,000 kids into head art 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 ght 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
3:11 pm
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 his >> congress returns to session this week to work on a number of items. the house plans to begin debate on a measure that would cut all discretionary not security federal spending until fiscal -- to fiscal year 2008 levels. a final vote on that bill is expected tuesday. see the house live on c-span.
3:12 pm
the senate returns to session tuesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. they will have time for general speeches before turning to a proposal that would change senate rules on the filibuster, which is used to block or delay action on legislation. the proposal aims to limit when and how the filibuster can be used. live coverage of the senate can be seen on c-span2. >> tuesday, president obama delivers the state of the union address to a joint session of congress. c-span live coverage begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern with our preview program, followed by the president's speech at 9:00, then the republican response from house budget chairman paul ryan of wisconsin. plus your phone calls and reaction, live on c-span, c-span radio, an online at c-span.org.
3:13 pm
>> in 2010, the army reported 343 suicides among soldiers, civilian employees, and family members. 69 more than in the previous year. now, army vice chief of staff peter chiarelli and other officials briefed reporters on efforts to address the problem at the pentagon. this is about 50 minutes. >> think you all for being here today. i am joined by the chief of the army reserve and major-general ray carpenter, the acting director of the army national guard. i would like to make a brief opening statement and then we will field any questions might have. in calendar year 2010 the army had 343 suicides. soldiers, the part of the army civilians, and family members. 69 more than in calendar year 2009. we achieved a modest success in reducing the number of suicides of soldiers serving on active
3:14 pm
duty. however, we saw a significant increase in the number of suicides of soldiers not serving on active duty, to include a doubling in the army national guard. the total number in any year, at least for the last 18 years has run between 700 -- 725 and 750,000 total folks. when i say active component, i also include members of the army reserve and the army national guard who were mobilized during that year. our challenge and your head is to keep building on the initial progress made in the active
3:15 pm
component. we will continue our efforts to replicate that progress in the reserve component. primarily by expanding the reach and accessibility of programs and services that are positively impact in the lives of soldiers serving on active duty. we attribute the modest decrease in suicides by soldiers serving on active duty last year to the programs and policy changes that have been implemented since the establishment the task force in council in march of 2009. we are in the midst of implementing the comprehensive soldier fitness program, focused on improving soldiers resiliency. we established a pain management task force to properly manage the use of pain medications and adopt best practices army wide. we initiated face-to-face post deployment behavior health
3:16 pm
screenings for all returning brigades in order to better identify at risk soldiers and ensure they receive appropriate treatment. looking ahead, we believe these and other efforts will take us from a leveling off of active duty suicides to a reduction in suicide attempts and other high- risk behaviors. the reality is, we are able to more effectively influence those older serving on active duty and help mitigate the stressors affecting them. conversely, it is much more difficult to do so in the case of individuals not serving on active duty, because they are often is geographically separated, remove from the support and were provided by military installations. they lack the ready camaraderie of fellow soldiers in the daily oversight and hands on assistance from members of the chain of command experienced while serving on active duty. in many cases, these soldiers have limited or reduced access
3:17 pm
to care and services. meanwhile, they are more vulnerable to the challenges of an adverse economy and a troubled labor market, especially for our young people. we have learned a tremendous amount and taken actions to support the soldiers over the last couple of years. we recognize we must be even more aggressive in determining how the programs and efforts are working effectively in support of our soldiers on active duty may be modified or expanded to better support sobers not serving on active duty. we must continue to find ways to replicate that progress and leverage army, but veterans administration's and community programs and services in order to deliver a similar effective level of care and support to individuals not living and working your a military installation. i can assure you this remains a top priority and we are working
3:18 pm
very hard by working with employees of guard and reserve soldiers in the private sector to mitigate economic stress on sorters by educating them and the public about the over use and abuse of prescription drugs, by improving families awareness of and access to training and resources, and by enhancing the quality and access to medical care and options and counseling services. we are encouraging communities and community-based organizations to get involved, recognizing that particularly for citizen soldiers not serving on active duty, family, pierce, and employers represent the bedrock of their support at work. this is a significant issue include there's much to be done. i am confident many of our nation's very best and brightest men and women from the medical community, dod, and government
3:19 pm
as a whole are working tirelessly in this single area. i assure you we remain committed to funding for the ways to promote resiliency, reduce the incidence of high-risk behavior, improve the quality of family and sober support programs, and eliminate the stigma associated with seeking and receiving help. across our force of 1.1 million and beyond to include are the part of the armed civilians and family members. again, thank you for coming, and we will be happy to answer any questions you might have. >> could you give us an example of a program change our policy change that you think made a difference, in some detail so that we can understand? >> the institution of congress is a soldier fitness will have
3:20 pm
even greater effect in the years to come as we continue to roll up the program. we know that resilience voters are less likely to try to commit suicide. we know that, and we have some real data from comprehensive soter fitness at the university of nebraska which compared psychological data collected on soldiers who later committed suicide with a group randomly selected. the researchers found that broadly speaking, resilience holders do not complete suicide. we know we can teach soldiers to that program to become more resilience. this is exciting to us. as you know, we have online modules and resilience trainers who are working to teach sorters to be more resilient.
3:21 pm
the confidential alcohol and drug treatment program, where if an individual at curley eight installations feels that they have a problem, they can refer themselves for counseling and is not reported to their chain of command. it receives a resistance were first implemented it, but all indications where it has been implemented, commanders really appreciate the program did they have had people come forward and seek help because of the stigma who would not normally do that. i think the increase in family life counselors is a huge one. i invite you to go out and talk to families. we are pushing them into schools and communities and they are just an unbelievable resources that is highly thought of by the field.
3:22 pm
>> [unintelligible] the drug program? >> if i could i would have it in every station. i cannot get enough drug and substance abuse counselors. there just are not enough of them. they are also being pulled out of that particular labor market because there is such a need for behavioral health counselors. many of them have the same credentials to allow them to become behavior health counselors, which it seems like every time i hired him, i lose 10. it is not that they go somewhere else, they become behavior health counselors or work their way into that field. >> marriage and lie counseling is the same program, but more of it. >> a lot more of it. >> report issued in july made a
3:23 pm
big deal about their doing a good job of reporting and tracking high-risk behavior. have you had any success in proving that, and have viewed [unintelligible] do it with trust we have almost turn that around. for us it was a pretty easy way to do that. when a soldier commit some kind of high-risk event that did him put on what many of you know is a blotter. there is a form that goes to the commander that he has to fill out within 30 days that says what action you have taken. it closes out the case and force is something to occur. prior to the publication of the report, in some installations we have less than 60% compliance in returning the report back. now we have gone well over 90%
3:24 pm
and in some places 100% in getting that back to authorities within 30 days. all that form does is ensure that we have a record of what has occurred so it goes from commander to commander. i will let jack and re answer how they do it. i can only imagine there's as much more difficult because they are working in individual communities. >> i will be an example of how we manage to identify the problem and improve upon that. one of the high-risk behaviors we see across the national guard is riding motorcycles. that is a high-risk behavior. to mitigate the risk, the roman is to wear the proper protective equipment and clothing, a helmet, leathers, those kinds of things. from a policy standpoint we have put out a policy to the states
3:25 pm
that says motorcycle riders will take the appropriate training and will wear the proper protective clothing and equipment if they are going to ride a motorcycle. we have seen a significant reduction in casualty's and injuries with motorcycles over 2010. we implemented the program in 2008 and executed in 2009 and 2010. with regard to this discussion with suicides and behavioral health issues, we have a program that is an online tool that is a self assessment for this over to go in and fill out what he or she does on a daily basis, identify the risk behavior and in conjunction with his or her leader, develop a process for how to mitigate that. it is not fully implemented yet but it is a way for us to maintain contact with the soldier.
3:26 pm
>> with the army reserve, one of the challenges we have in our forests is they are geographically dispersed. they may live in georgia but they -- their unit is in tennessee so they may travel is significant distance to get to that unit. having a link to them in the other 28 days of the mother is a challenge. part of what we have done this year is put a real emphasis on that first-line leader that he has to maintain contact with his soldiers throughout the month so he knows what is going on in their life, not just on that one weekend when they come into a drill, but what is going on at other three weeks of the month. we are looking at some types of devices that are out there but some system where we can maintain that contact even
3:27 pm
better. another key piece of it is, we have got to make the suicide prevention plan a family plan, because it is that family that is with the soldier the other 28 days of the month, and they are the ones who start to see those signs, that high-risk behavior and other things. when we talk about reducing the stigma, too often we focus only on the soldiers and say it is okay to ask for help. we have to reduce the stigma in that family member that says if i see my son, daughter, husband, wife doing something high-risk, something that may endanger themselves, it is ok for me to call their commander or someone in that unit and say i need some help. we are putting a big emphasis on our suicide prevention training, not just being about the soldier betraying the family as well. we have to figure out how to
3:28 pm
maintain contact and awareness of what is going on in the soldiers like the other 28 days that we do not see them. >> when i first put in front of you two years ago we started this whole process. we were focused on one single number. we were talking the active component. we have expanded that to include all the classes and we look at five different groups of individuals. we look at active component sobers, guard, reserve, and family members. we have only collected this data for about five years. whether that has anything to do with the numbers we see today or not, i don't know, but we know we have a problem that we did not recognize we had before.
3:29 pm
we have to figure out innovative ways to try to get the kinds of things that seem to be working now out to the guard and reserve, not only the couple of days that they are at drill, but in their communities and the environments that they live. [unintelligible] >> 3 talking about specific suicides that take place in afghanistan? we have not seen an increase in
3:30 pm
those numbers. they have basically remained. i am giving you a broad -- one- third were soldiers are deployed and one-third have deployment history and one-third have never deployed. those numbers over the years have changed a little bit, but we have not seen anything that is an alarming increase in afghanistan. every suicide that takes place, no matter where it is, is a tragedy. i cannot really point to anything that is going on in the theater. the kinds of things we have talked about in the past that would be causing that i could point to as the cause for suicides in theater. >> he didn't mention that your
3:31 pm
people are getting more and dwell time. do you think that is a factor at all? >> it is really important to understand that just because of a sudden you cannot you can project that someone is going to be home two years, if you go back and look at the iraq drawdown, no one is feeling the effect of the iraq brought down right now, if you understand what i am saying. there dwell time is what it is. i really believe that we put more time between deployments, that is going to be a huge factor in helping us get at a lot of these problems. i really believe that the well is one of the things we have to look at. has an impact on all kinds of problems, not just suicides but all the things from relationship issues to drug and alcohol abuse, all those things.
3:32 pm
the more time we can get between deployments, the better off we will be. but you don't experience that until you have experienced it. not just when the calendar says you were going to be home for two years. we hope by the end of this year across the board that the total number will be close, but we will still have military occupational specialty such as aviation. aviation right now is running at one you are deployed, 1.4 at home. -- one year deployed. >> what about women in terms of suicides? are all of these men, is there anything available on stress in women? there is a recent report that
3:33 pm
women should now be able to serve in online combat positions. how you feel about that? >> there was an article that came out in december in one of the very prominent journals a psychiatrist. the talked about a particular report about women veterans having a higher suicide rate than their male counterparts. i have not had an opportunity to look into that and the into it, but i did look at our numbers for 2010 in women who committed suicide. the numbers are very, very small. it is somewhere in the vicinity of 7%. 93% are males. we are not seeing anything in those numbers that would indicate the resiliency of women -- it seems to be higher,
3:34 pm
for whatever reason. that may be why we have a lower suicide rate in women, based on the number that we have deployed. we have women in combat today. >> but this recommendation that they would be in all positions, do you think it is time for that? >> let me get through all these other questions and maybe we can talk about that. >> what is the breakdown for the guard and reserve, and of the suicides in the guard and reserve in 2010, how many of those had ever deployed? >> 66% have deployment history
3:35 pm
or have deployed. >> for us in the army national guard, we had 112 suicides reported in 2010. we understand that 11 of those were on active duty. 11 of those are army national guard, soldiers who are on active duty. 17 of that 100 v-6 were guard and reserve soldiers who were on active duty -- 17 of that 156. >> as we look to that problem which has seen a dramatic increase in 2010, we have to obvious questions. first of all, what happened in 2010? we have to be able to respond and tell people what we are doing about it. the analysis for 2010 shows that it is not a deployment
3:36 pm
problem, because over 50% of the people that committed suicide in the army national guard had never deployed. it is not a problem of employment, because only about 15% of the people who committed suicide were without a job. part of it is a significant relationship problem because over 50% of those who committed suicide had some sort of a partner problem that they were dealing with, whether marriage, divorce, girlfriend, or from, that kind of thing. we know is a yawn, white, male problem. 103 of those were male and nine were women in the 112 we have inside the army national guard. 101 of those soldiers had other jobs, or going to school, were
3:37 pm
not full time in the army national guard. we are seeing improved reporting over the past four years since we started keeping data in 2007 through 2010. now we have a problem out there and we can deal with it. anecdotal, we know that society at large is seeing an increased trend in suicide. cdcyou look at the seize th statistics, we have seen a significant change in everything from economic to societal issues out there. we recruited -- we think the suicide rate we are experiencing right now is part of a national trend.
3:38 pm
our effort is to build resiliency in our soldiers, which i can talk about more in another question. the bottom line is, as we do the analysis, it is not a single thing, it is a combination of a group of things that come together. >> we are saying are suicides are not an employment issue, half of the personnel who committed suicide are employed create less than half of them had deployed. it is something else going on in their lives. it is interesting as we do the psychological autopsy of looking at the individual afterwards, in most of the cases, one of the most positive things they had going in their life is their military career. a lot of times as we do the psychological autopsy and we
3:39 pm
talk to family and friends, they will talk about that this individual so proud of being a member of the army reserve and felt so good about going to his drill and being part of his unit. it was something else in his life that was missing. that is what we have got to find out. that is what we talked about earlier, being aware of what is going on in the rest of their lives. it is a mirror of society, and we need to understand that. >> we are talking about 343 suicides here, but some of the numbers i have seen in the country last year, the numbers could be as high as 35,000. we are talking about less than 1% of that total number. it will be interesting when the cdc finally does catch up, to compare and then go back and look at what was happening in the military as we report these
3:40 pm
numbers to you 19 days after the end of the year, as we go back and compare it to what was really going on at -- in the country at the time when we get the numbers that are up to date. >> what do you mean by someone who is less or more resilient? >> this is my definition. the key is, an individual can be put in a tough situation and comes out the same or better for it, rather than individual who is put into a tough situation and deteriorates or has negative impact of water that situation is. some people are able to be put in some very difficult situations and come out stronger for it, learn from that situation and move on, where others cannot.
3:41 pm
i have been looking at this for two years and i think our underlying message is, if you think you know the one thing that causes people to commit suicide, please let us know, because we do not. you want to say it is relationship issues. is it the relationship issue or what caused the relationship issue? i don't think any of us in relationships wake up one day and say i am going to have a relationship issue. it could be anything from drug and out of use to anger management issues, and then the relationship issue happens. we are standing in front of you to tell you -- we are hoping that our partnership with the national institute of mental health will provide us with some
3:42 pm
opportunities to understand this better. as luck would have, i got back last night at least a couple hundred pages of analysis of the data we had given them that we have to work our way through in the next couple of weeks, but we should be able to understand a little bit more from the historical data we were able to provide them and start to put that to use here in the next month or so. >> last july you said 40% of suicides by active duties had never been deployed and how these numbers are saying the vast majority were not in active duty when they committed suicide. how much of an issue do you think it is in terms of mental health screening when you have new soldiers.
3:43 pm
>> we are going to look everything we possibly can. they indicated we are doing about as good as we could for screening, given some of the limitations that we all have. if you want to join the united states army, i can ask you do have never had any mental health problems, and if you say no, that is basically it. i do not have access to your medical records. you do not have to bribe them to me, and even if you did provide me one set of medical records, there is no guarantee that they are complete. there is screening that we can do, and we have been told that as much as we know right now, our screening is pretty good. but we will look at all the ways we possibly can to try to get at this. >> is mental health screening the same across the board for active duty army, guard, and reserve?
3:44 pm
>> i believe it is the same standard. >> can you give a couple of examples of how private industry is helping? >> employers of the guard and reserve is an area we have to get at. we are not pointing at the economy as the reason, but is one of the factors we have to look at in ensuring that when our soldiers come back, and i don't want to point to a single industry, that we understand what their job status is. i have had reports of units coming back and being demobilized and 30% of them coming home and not having a job. we need to know about that we need to look hard at what we can do to help them through that time. we cannot have done what we have done for the last 10 years if it had not been for the two gentlemen and the forces they command on my right and left.
3:45 pm
their contribution has been absolutely amazing. we are running into soldiers who have had three and for deployment. i am sure there is a little bit of employer critique that occurs. what they are looking for is predictability. we have had a rough time giving that to them in every single case before. we have to look at that as one of the ways, the kind of information that we would not normally think of trying to collect on soldiers. we have to do everything we can to get them back and having jobs. >> we started a program a couple of years ago partner and with
3:46 pm
employers in the army reserve. if we are going to be able to sustain the tempo we have, we have to have our families and employers. what we have turned that into, instead of going to the employers and talking about taking soldiers away from them we need them, we are turning the tables and going to them in saying tell us what you need, because we have this wealth of talent. when you read the statistics about only one out of three, and now i hear one out of four individuals qualify to even join the army because they have to be drug-free, physically and morally fit, employers are having the same challenge. we have this wealth of talent that is trained, that is drug- free, physically and morally fit, so we have started approaching the health systems of america. the transportation system -- we
3:47 pm
have 80% of the transportation assets in the army. we are finding there are a lot of employers out there that are viewing the reserve and guard in a much more positive manner of human capital that is out there if we just partner together and capitalize on the skills and values and ethics we have already instilled in them. as the general said, give them some predictability so they can plan around when we need that soldier in uniform and when they can use him in a civilian aspect. we started out with just a couple of employers and today we have over 1000 employers who have signed up with us as employer partners. we have incorporated the guard and other services into this program. it's everything from small mom- and-pop stores in middle america to places like walmart, target, general electric, those types of corporations.
3:48 pm
they are offering jobs to the guard and reserve soldiers as their first choice for employment. >> from the national guard perspective, we are proud of our partnership with the army reserve, but there are other areas. we have 54 states, territories, and districts that have agita and generals across the united states. each one of those leaders sponsors initiatives at their level in terms of trying to support various employment initiatives. the 81st brigade, which came back from iraq a year and a half ago calls the state of washington its home. and they came back they had an unemployment rate of about 33%. the state of washington put together a program of employment
3:49 pm
transition counselors. they acted as sponsors and to the soldiers who did not have jobs and help them fill out their resume is, went on a job search to make sure that those individuals found a job and that they were employed. that 33% unemployment rate is down to 10% in the state of washington. there are some good success stories out there. >> can you share your own personal reaction and level of frustration as the suicide numbers became clear over the course of the year, and also identify any particular installation that has taken particular steps to combat suicide? >> every year there will be one post has more than any other post. that is the nature of the
3:50 pm
business. ford could was our highest post this year. you immediately go back and say wait a second, we had the events of november 2009. the 21 suicides that we had at fort hood last year, we only know one individual who was even remotely associated with that a horrific event. that was an individual that was being seen in the emergency room for something totally different a the time people were being brought into the emergency room. we were watching for had very carefully and as the numbers started to go up, we were trying to see if there was any connection between those two events. there clearly was not. one thing that happened at fort hood this year, in july that they had 43,000 soldiers that were back at their home station.
3:51 pm
they have had one suicide in september through december. the suicides were basically front loaded on the front end of the year and into the summertime. it is the same phenomenon i saw last year with fort campbell. for campbell's numbers have gone down significantly this year and could's have gone up. have gone up. i received a report within 36 hours on each one. i see the similarities and differences. when you realize that we are taking a young american in the army today and putting them in under as much stress in six years as they would have if they
3:52 pm
lived to be 80 years old in seattle, washington. we are putting votes under a lot of stress. a positive thing i see, i really believe some of our programs are beginning to work, but more important than anything else, our leaders are fully engaged in this problem right now. we are getting people to help they need. i hope you are going to see these numbers go down significantly in the coming year. >> among the soldiers who committed suicide in 2010, at any of them taken the comprehensive soldier fitness tests? >> we have guard the confidentiality of the gap. however, it would stand to
3:53 pm
reason that -- somewhere in those 890,000 folks is an individual who would possibly commit suicide. that is not something i am going to go after, because we have promised sobers confidentiality with that instrument. we are determined to maintain that. >> even if the soldier is dead and you might be able to learn something from what they entered on those questions? >> we may look at data blindly, but the confidentiality of the gatt is of utmost importance to us and we will guard that to make sure people do not believe we are using an instrument for something other than what we said we would.
3:54 pm
>> do you believe in order to help and seek existence -- assistance, do you think you can do something else to help individuals to seek assistance? >> i think we are doing a lot. the new protocols have a secondary effect at getting at the stigma issue. i really believe that the force now understands that traumatic brain injury and posttraumatic stress are not leading injuries and they are seeking help. it gets people into be seen when have these issues. suicide is an ultimate act. it became clear to me as i started looking into this that there are a bunch of folks who
3:55 pm
will never contemplate nor commit suicide but who are hurting out there. we have to get at those folks. when you get at those folks, the far end of the spectrum will lower, because we are getting at problems when there are problems, before they come to a crescendo or someone feels that they have to take their life. that is just totally unacceptable. i really believe we are leading an effort to the stigmatizes -- destigmatize soldiers and civilians when they have these behavioral issues, that they are seeking help. there are injuries that must be taken care of. >> is set in the past in several cases that you could not help but think that the suicide
3:56 pm
increase is tracked with the army fighting to wars and you cannot help think they are somehow related. do you still hold with the national guard increase, given that their lives are mentally impacted, or is it possible it is more of factor that comes from the civilian world? >> i have come to the conclusion that there is no single factor. some of the initial data may show us that deployment and the deployment history of our soldiers has an impact on suicide. that is a factor among many factors that we have to take into account. it is not just the physical act of deploying, it is all the other things that happened. the relationship issues. it may be an individual comes back and relies on alcohol to a level that he or she had not
3:57 pm
relied on it before. maybe the person who has a rough time handling the prescription drugs that in some instances are all winnowed to prescribe for some of these things, or something that is a critical portion of treatment. we are doing our best to lower that as much as we can. i think it is all those things. i honestly believe that the numbers are going to show that the up-tempo we have been under is a contributing factor to the rate that we have experienced over the last seven years. we are reporting a number to you, over 50% of your soldiers
3:58 pm
had not deployed. >> that means that almost 50% had deployed. to say that there was minimal contact is really not an accurate description of the situation. understanding there is no single cause, understanding that we have to get all these causes, we have tried to focus on soldiers who have deployed and make sure that we meet their needs as they come back. we have a reintegration program that includes families, communities, and employers, called a yellow ribbon. has been hugely successful and there is a process where the soldier meets with counselors and various subject matter experts to identify how to reintegrate, what are the problems i will have, and how do i deal with them? beyond that we have a great partnership with the veterans
3:59 pm
administration. those tools are all out there for us to identify problems that those soldiers had while they were on active duty, to make sure they get what they are deserving of as they come back. for the soldiers who have never been deployed, it is a more difficult issue because they are not entitled to veterans administration benefits. we are encouraging them to be part of a program that provides health insurance and coverage for soldiers who were in the national guard, regardless of deployment. 3 that the new can provide medical support and care for them. there are upwards of 100 programs by the time the include what each adjutant general is doing out there.
4:00 pm
and so, this is an all-hands effort, if you will, to focus on what we think the problems of our and put efforts to each one of those particular clauses. even though it is a complex problem, we are going to deal with it with equal complexity. >> jack? anything? >> general, it sounds like you are saying on the active side, given all that you are doing, and the numbers could be higher, then they have been, the numbers are actually double what they were about five years ago, and you think that they may even have been higher without the efforts? >> i hate to assign a cause and effect to anything, but i have
4:01 pm
to believe that the involvement of our leadership in the programs that we have rolled out have saved people's lives. besides hearing about the suicides, what we have done is collect the stories that involve leadership and saved a soldier. i gave you a lot of those stories, where we know that we saved a soldier from, you know, committing or attempting to commit suicide, so, yes, and i believe unequivocally that there would be higher numbers if we did not have the focus of the leadership and the programs that we have rolled out to get at this problem, and we will continue to do that in the next year and beyond. >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]
4:02 pm
[captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> from today's "washington journal," a discussion on psychiatric and counseling services at u.s. colleges and universities. this is about 25 minutes. ngress. >> washington journal continues. >> in light of the shooting in arizona two weeks ago, a renewed debate on the issue of mental health. the president elect of the american college council association. let me begin with one figure i want to put on the table. according to "new york times" found that 44% of college students in counseling have severe psychological disorders up from 16% in 2000. and 21% are on medication, up
4:03 pm
from ten years ago. guest: we now have better treatment and better medication than we had 10 or 15 years ago. students are receiving treatment and therapy earlier. parents are more aware of issues and bringing teens in to receive help rather than waiting until they seek help on their own. we are able to receive college students that are better able to receive that therapy host: i understand that's 44% of college students overall. caller: it is simply self disclosure host: what leads to mental disorders, depression and anxiety?
4:04 pm
4:05 pm
a medical condition? guest: i think the stigma is slowing fading. it does make it more difficult to treat, there is that stigma. at the same time, medical doctors are some of our greatest referrals. they are understanding and being able to say that needs to be sent to a therapist or pyschologist. what are some of the signs parents should look for that could lead to potential need for therapy? guest: radical behavioral change. that same thing with parents.
4:06 pm
if you know the child one way and suddenly you see these changes of isolating, anger, depression, no ability to sooth or cope when something happens. those are all indications to pay attention and sit down and talk to your child host: 202-737-0001. 202-737-0002. also 202-628-0205. one of the reasons we wanted to invite you on was a r asry result of the shooting that took plays in arizona. the defense lawyers will be using his mental health what's
4:07 pm
your assessment of who he is and what he was like? guest: that's difficult to say, i don't have my hands on any of the clinical information to know what his state was. i would say clearly he was struggling. it was a tragedy for everyone involved including him. it's hearted to nail down quickly. the insanity defense is tough to prove and also difficult in a sense that if they send him off to treatment, once he is deemed stable, he will then be tried for those crimes host: what are the levels of disorders? guest: it has to do with each individual case. there's no global way to deal
4:08 pm
with it. for that individual, that depression is par liesing level is functioning is that decision morning the adult population, 25-26% claim to have some mental disorder. that's a huge number. that could be something that par lieses them in groups. individuals that are violent are a small percentage of of that group, even a smaller percentage would ever act on those violent
4:09 pm
4:10 pm
caller: my qualification to speak on these is that i live with a relative that suffers. one aspect i have not heard is the extremely hi cost of the drugs. i calculated it out, the anti-pschotic drugs for my relative cost $24,000 a year. this creates a huge issue. a lot of people are familiar with the problem of an old folk home but they can't afford it. if you don't have private
4:11 pm
insurance that will cover the cost of the psychologist and psychist and drug, the only thing do is get the kid on medicaid. if you have a psychotic kid, you have to drop them on the side walk to make them indigent, poor to qualify for medicare. i don't know what happened with the fellow in arizona but i bet that's the dill ema that the family faced. the parents haven't spoken yet. i bet they tried get help. they found out they didn't have insurance, made too much for the
4:12 pm
4:13 pm
idaho. good morning. caller: good morning. in light of the shootings in arizona, i guess this guy, and he was kicked out of school or his college, and he was not going to be let back in until he had a mental evaluation, so i am just wondering if it is a good idea to put the college -- the college could have notified the fbi or others, any of those entities who would have stopped him from buying a gun. i do not know if you get that done before or prior. -- if he had begun before or prior. -- the gun. your name should go on the fbi's list so you cannot buy a gun. host: thank you, steve.
4:14 pm
is the system prepared in these kinds of situations? as the caller pointed out, he was kicked out of the community college in tucson. out, he was kicked out of a community college but had committed no crimes. guest: right. i commend the community college for taking the time to document that. they requested that he leave and could not return to the community until he had an outside psychiatric evaluation. they took the extra step of calling the parents. he's over 18. in truth, they didn't even need to do that. we don't know if he refused that evaluation. we don't know what the results
4:15 pm
were. it's difficult but i think the community college went as far as they could within their authority to make sure their community was safe and make sure to offer him treatment. being able to say, i don't think it is a good idea for you to be here now. look at the status of the stu department at that time. they didn't have the ground to send police in or to get involved with the fbi list or any of those kinds of pieces.
4:16 pm
i'm not sure if it was a good part of the question. i'm not sure what part of names get moved to that list. if you have a record in public hospital, i don't know a whole lot of details about that host: do you believe laws enacts are in jeopardy because of the tucson incident? guest: that's a tough one for me to answer. i am concerned about that. i would pay attention to that. confidentiality and retekting those individuals is a foundation of therapy and treatment. it is hard for me to stand by and watch that get eroded in terms of this particular
4:17 pm
incident, other incidents that we've seen. the media is spending time on the very rare cases and enacting that violence. very small number that looks big in the media host: our guest is mary jane reilgh. next from maryland. caller: if i could add anything to thes first lady's conference about the parents double standard. you got a 22-year-old normal son, he moves away from the home and ends up with a bill of $50,000. no one comes back and says, you are liable for this bill because he's your son. when it comes to the mentally ill, they turn to the parents to
4:18 pm
be responsibly for their behavior. society can't make the connection. i'm upset about the media and how these people are talking about politics and guns. the manifestation there is of his mental sickness. he was around a college so it is pointed at the school situation. it's incredible, nobody has this conference.
4:19 pm
4:20 pm
school indicate they were are t it is not until the late adolescents, early 20's we start to see a clear sense of this come together. >> why not have people. interpreting to be a part of the reporting process. where would you story that data? how would you determine the cutoff. it becomes a bigger question there isn't a simple assessment. how do you deal with a system
4:21 pm
4:22 pm
4:23 pm
an fluke and a deef way of controlling somebody for job security. psychology is a bunch of intelligent people taking advantage of lesser intelligent or slower people. justice department and shrinks go hand in hand. psychologists have been popping up all over the country by putting fear into the public. district attorneys do the same thing.
4:24 pm
4:25 pm
4:26 pm
host: nooez had an article describes jennifer, not a real the pressure of school had overwhelmed her. she had thought about suicide. able to work through the system. the story is about how universities are training everyone to try to pinpoint some of the red flags suicide more than anything. who to refer to and who are the networks and resources if a
4:27 pm
friend talks about killing themselves take it seriously. i often say when they might be kidding around about killing themselves and they are surprised when they end up in my office for evaluation. it's kind of like saying bomb in an airport. maybe it's just one visit to say all right, don't do that again or maybe it's a more serious opening to talk about bigger issues. the more people we have aware of that sensitivity, the better out reach we have host: let me bring it back to the issue of stigma. has that changed ten years
4:28 pm
4:29 pm
decision to make host: a couple more of your phone calls. sg morning. caller: i'm calling about grade schools. they take young children. if they have any kind of a disturbance in a class or they don't function exactly how the teacher thinks then they start pill pushing. my one grandson, they said he needed to be on some kind of a medicine because he is hyperactive. they call him into the office to
4:30 pm
give the pills and all the kids want to know what's going on. they are looking at the use of psychiatric drugs. parents being as well informed as possible about the education and the style. you have to balance that out with quality of life of the child host: many callers have said many children need to be on ritilin. guest: that's something you have toway out. if the child is not doing well
4:31 pm
social socially it's a tough >> monday on "washington journal," a look at president obama's decision with diana furchogott-roth. also, francisco sanchez. and later, a look at the implications of the aging of the u.s. population with richard jackson, with the center for strategic and economic studies. that is live on c-span.
4:32 pm
>> on television, on radio, and online, c-span, bringing public affairs to you. washington your way. >> vice president joe biden talked about the situation in pakistan and afghanistan and the u.s. plan to begin withdrawing troops this july. he also commented on the political rhetoric in the aftermath of the tucson shootings. his remarks came at a house democratic caucus retreat in cambridge, md.. this is about one hour.
4:33 pm
friends, colleagues, this is an opportunity to give us to talk, to welcome our newest colleagues, our nine members, but at the same time, get ready for the work ahead, and we are very fortunate that each and every time we have had this conference, we have the highest level participation by our highest leaders in the land, and we are very fortunate that once again, the vice president has taken the time to be with us, but i want to introduce to you someone who has had many opportunities to work with the general -- gentleman from delaware named joe biden who is now our vice president. he had a chance to work with him when he was in the senate and do many great things on foreign policy. i know most of you have gotten to know howard over the years,
4:34 pm
and even those of you who have only been here a short time probably see him. he is a master at operating at low levels. he was stults before stults was popular at dod. the one thing about howard is the nose out to get things done, and it does not just pertain to foreign policy. those of you who watched him on the judiciary committee for many years, those of us who admired the work that he did on behalf of immigrants, for far too many years that he would like to remember, if you had anything to do with intellectual property, you know that howard had his fingerprints on making it possible for us to protect all of those international property rights. howard has done some phenomenal things. he has been around for quite some time. there are some things i would like to mention that you may be do not know about power. he was instrumental quite some time ago in making sure that a gentleman by the name of nelson
4:35 pm
mandela and many other members of the african national congress finally had their names removed from the u.s. list of terrorists. howard was instrumental in that. [applause] when most people were still avoiding uttering the words hiv /aids, and howard was making sure that we had $50 billion dedicated to try to deal with the ravages of aids and hiv, and so howard is done many things, and what we are most proud of is that he continues to do them with us and for us, and so, i would now like to ask our colleague and friend from california to please come forward to help us invite and welcome our special guest, some ladies and gentlemen, howard. [cheers and applause]
4:36 pm
>> a lot of things come to mind, but this is probably somewhat personal note to my own congressional experience, but i have to love a guy who has spent his entire years, his whole careers in the u.s. senate, both in foreign relations and the judiciary committees, but even more, you have got to love a guy who wrote other than perhaps anthony wiener tends to speak his mind more than most of us. [laughter] the vice president, all he has done in the senate, we are not going to go through all of that. his imprint is on so much.
4:37 pm
he is clearly, clearly a leading role in many of the obama administration's key foreign policy achievements. the effort, but laborious effort, to facilitate the creation of a coalition government in iraq, the whole guiding of the reset with russia, his deep immersion in both afghanistan and pakistan strategies, much, much more, but one particular recent experience i just want to highlight. in early december, when john kyl announced that the votes should be put off until the next congress, i would have bet a lot of money that we would never find the 67 votes necessary to ratify that treaty, but the vice president personally and painstakingly went to work with this master of arms control agenda and his intimate knowledge of the u.s. sent it,
4:38 pm
and he, one by one, gathered the votes, to defy the odds, and produced the results in my view has an importance that is far beyond the treaty in terms of u.s.-russia relations, in terms of non-proliferation goals, and in terms of america's leadership in global affairs. the vice president, the foreign- policy challenges that we confront our breathtaking, but to hear him talk about it directly is really an honor and privilege, to welcome the vice president of the united states, joe biden. [cheers and applause] >> thank you very much. thank you.
4:39 pm
i want to note one thing. 38 years of being a senator two of the president's, i have never heard say that a leading congressman actually love summer desserts in the senate for 36 years. this was worth the trip. this was worth the trip. i want you to know that those rumors that i do not stay on message are simply not true. this was the price that standing warrior paid to get me to come to maryland. nancy, you are a great friend and a great leader. it is great to be with you. steny hoyer, you are not much, but i love you. [laughter] steny and i agree on just about
4:40 pm
everything, which worries everybody. john, you are doing a great job, and javier, thanks for having me here. let me say before i begin, and i am sure you have all talked about it, let me just say a few words about gabby. you know, those of us in love with congress, we talk about it in ways that i think the public outside -- i am not sure they grasp or understand. one of the things about this family is that, you know, we live each other's losses. some of us are really close to one another, and i am sure there
4:41 pm
are those of you and the caucus and others that have gone to see gabby in the hospital and open her eyes, it had to make you feel both incredibly warm and good but also feel so sad, and i just want to say to all of you that this is personal, and i know it is personal for the vast majority of you know her. i had the privilege of campaigning for her this past year. what a courageous campaign she ran. in a phrase i used in other circumstances, she as a backbone like a ramrod. and i will say something out of the norm, which would not surprise you guys, but i had the
4:42 pm
great privilege of knowing a lot of neurosurgeons. over 20 years ago, i had two craniotomies because of aneurysms' that were in my cavity, and i learned an awful lot about what neurosurgeons know. they are incredible. also, what they do not know. how little we know about the brain. how little we know about its functioning, how little we know about its recuperative capabilities. how little note about being able to predict what is going to happen. i would give you a personal example of something i went through, where i remember asking the doctor, thinking i would never be able to function very well again, and i said, this has happened to me.
4:43 pm
why? and he said, "i do not know why it has happened, but i can tell you from experience what we do know. we do know that in a percentage of the cases, it gets better. we do not know why to grow and as devastating as -- we do not know why." and as devastating as gabby's injuries are, i am absolutely convinced that attitude and not character, but i do not know what the right phrase is, attitudes, determination is an incredible, incredible weapon in dealing with what you are facing, and i talked to my neurosurgeons, who i still keep in touch with. they are my friends and saved my life, so when something happens, and they are the guys i call and say, "interpret for me."
4:44 pm
they say they do not know exactly what happened, but there is every reason to believe based on the progress made so significantly that this possibility could be expeditiously greater. no guarantee. so i am for my own personal experience, i have no ability to give you any data to sustain what i'm saying korea i just look and a quick to she has moved, -- what i am saying. i just look at how quickly she has moved. you can get into a debate not between us but nationally about what caused a guy like this to do what he did, but i think one thing that has happened is that i think this is not about assigning blame, but there is sort of a generic recognition
4:45 pm
that we have got to change the way we talk to one another. [applause] and tone matters. words matter. and i am not saying a matter wh somebody who is already deranged does something like this but how we deal with the problems of this country, when we are actually going to respond to the needs of the american people, and they are significant, and so i want to compliment you, steny, and i mean this sincerely, for your suggestion. the sort of degradation of the way we talk to each other being small changes. we begin on the floor of the senate that the early 1990's in the way some senators referred to the president of the united states and derogatory terms. these things have a way of
4:46 pm
having eggs and flows. it might be small steps, but everybody stepping together is a symbolic, and hopefully, it is not arithmetics, it is geometry, it has an effect of is that the different atmosphere, because, folks, if we do not change it, we do not begin to get some type of cooperation among us, i am not sure how we deal with the dilemma. the american people have a right to insist on us doing that. so let me say that notwithstanding the fact what the press may think, i really am happy to be back. i want you to know that our discussion in caucus during the lame duck, i enjoyed. [laughter]
4:47 pm
by the way, for the press, they do not want to admit it, but when i walked in, they gave me a standing ovation, and where i come from in the senate, that is more than i ever got. i am glad to be back, and i am flattered that you have asked me to come and speak. there are a lot of other people out here who know as much or a lot more about foreign-policy then i do, so i want to make it clear to you. i am not vice president joe biden who had some sort of transformation in one and stand about the senate. i am not here to tell you anything. i am here to get your insight on what we are thinking about. when i get rid. -- get done, i am here to listen. i am here to hear what you think. i am here to have a discussion, because we all have to be on the same page korea these are really
4:48 pm
difficult, difficult issues we are dealing with. i was asked to speak about three areas of the world that i spent an awful lot of time on when i was chairing the foreign relations committee, in essence i have been vice president of united states. iraq, pakistan, and afghanistan. after spending the last week in those three countries, just last week, i thought i would try to be responsive to what the chief asked me to do and give you an update of the situation as it least i see it. and some of you may remember, before we took office, after the election, the president made a pledge. he made a pledge to bring the iraq war to a responsible end, to responsibly and the war in iraq, and as some of you know, at that time, the president asked me before we got sworn in
4:49 pm
to go to iraq and make a trip to afghanistan and pakistan as well and come back and give an independent assessment of what we were about to take responsibility for. at the outset of the administration, a surprise to me, the president in the one day in the oval office turned asked, "joe, will you do iraq?" and so i had the honor and also the responsibility for our objective of bringing the war to an end in a responsible manner. we have had some incredibly talented foreign policy folks. we had incredibly talented ambassadors, and there are two generals who really are quite frankly warrior diplomats. i mean, they are diplomats. doing an incredible job. we could not have gotten where
4:50 pm
we are politically. they are not literally war years. our diplomats. they are warrior diplomats. and then there was an opportunity to speak with an awful lot of you individually about this subject, and i know how deeply feelings run. i know when i was in the senate, deeply for me, as well, and it was just not here in the democratic caucus but all across the country. i also know about there were doubts about whether or not we would be able to do what we meant by bringing the war in iraq to an irresponsible and, whether we actually get it done, and to state the obvious, it has not been of -- easy. it has not -- there is the commitment and promised to end this war responsibly, and the key development in iraq over the
4:51 pm
past couple of years is that politics has broken out. politics has broken out. politics has largely replaced violence as a dominant form to resolve disputes and advancing interests. the bottom line is that all of the interests in iran, they got to have a piece of the action politically, and whenever they need done and what done, it cannot be achieved through violence. this is a continued effort. al qaeda and iraq or some of the extremist groups, to try to foment what we saw back in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, sectarian violence to blow the whole thing up, and while they still want to devastating attacks, as we saw last week, iraq today is
4:52 pm
undeniably safer and more stable than any other point in the war. back in 2006, there were about 1400 incidences a week. we are talking about still to a many between 101 hundred 50 per week. one-tenth of what we saw before, and in most cases, not consequential. when president obama and i took office, there were thousands of troops in iraq, and over the past two years, we have withdrawn forces in the cities. we ended the combat mission, and actually brought home 100,000 combat troops. [applause] i know there are doubts from some. "what about those remaining?" we are focusing on this. protecting our personnel, and we have a lot of american personnel there from the state department and others, and property,
4:53 pm
participating in counter- terrorism operations under our security agreement with the iraqi government. we are on track to remove the remaining 50,000 forces by the end of the year 2011. and last week, last week, was my 17th, 18th, 19th visit to iraq. i have lost count. it is starting to feel a little like a second home, which worries the heck out of me, but i have also spent over the last 20 months literally hundreds of hours literally hundreds of hours on the telephone with our personnel but also with al maliki and others, every major, major political player in iraq representing every single group
4:54 pm
except one, and i feel like i know their grandchildren. i always kid one that i know what should see where is and what size, and as you guys know, i know that one of the most famous leaders of the nine states congress, tip o'neill said all politics is local. i would commend that, and far be it for me to take issue, but i think all politics is personal. all politics is personal, whether it is the united states or iraq, so we were very, very engaged. we were able to build the trust of the iraqis said they got to the point where they were asking us to be an intermediary, and that is what i talked to several people, and this relationship built, and over time, and iraqi solution to an
4:55 pm
iraqi problem emerged. we did not dictate that solution, but the iraqis arrive at the solution but us being on the bridge. our present ambassador is really a great guy. our generals, a personnel there. they have done a great job. prime minister al maliki, prime minister talibani, president barzani, and others. i spent not a little bit of time but long meetings, one hour or two, in one case four hours, some of them with staff, have the least with me and each of those people. once again, i came away with the absolute conviction that come to state the obvious, the negotiations they have conducted since the election were very,
4:56 pm
very difficult. they took a long time, but the result is that it remains in iraq with iraqis. i was straightforward about it. we made clear to the iraqi government and to the region that, number one, every one of the leaders i mentioned and others i did not mention, one, that the government that they formed had to reflect the outcome of their election. it had to reflect the outcome of the election. out of a court, their parliament, which needed 362 for a majority -- hundred 67 i think it was total, three things had to exist. that the sunnis had to be represented.
4:57 pm
one is a secularist. he came along, and almost all -- and you had the party of prime minister maliki. they ended up one with 89 votes, one with 91 votes, another 53 votes. they had to work out a deal. this is not surprising. it took a long time. look how long it took the dutch to fop -- make their government is less time. this is a process. one of the things about the process that we're speaking about, that you all will get immediately, is that in this process of bringing about a new government, there have been benefits beyond the government being formed. some of you will remember, and i know how or knows, there was one
4:58 pm
man who was a sunni, and we almost went to war on two occasions. they almost went to war with the kurds. and you have him not being able to move within his own province, being confronted by another group, who supported him to be the speaker, and there was the leader of the kurds. they were trying to work of this combination. they spent hours together. the startling thing is that they went, and they went up to one area, sat down, and they had lengthy discussions. now, why is that important? in how to get them a government ". but it did one more thing. the flashpoints of meat in disputed internal boundary, an area claimed by kurds and claimed by sunnis, which is a
4:59 pm
flashpoint, all of a sudden, you get two leaders who have that relationship. it is a real serious prospect. so the second red light, each had to have a major role in the government. there could be no government, a third red line, no government could be in a position that it had to rely upon others to maintain a majority and a vote of no-confidence. al maliki could have formed the government. with an all shia bock, -- block which would have been a disaster. it could've been done any time along the way. another refrained. so not only did they listen.
5:00 pm
a phrase i use frequently, reality has a way of intruding." reality has a way of intruding. and this got off a process took place after the election. remember, we were told that there could not be an election. there was going to be a referendum in kirkuk and so on, and we picked up the newspapers, >> said the process has changed the whole dynamic, not just getting in government. i was convinced then that the leaders to stick to the commitments they made to me and to us, and they did, thanks to a
5:01 pm
lot of hard work and by top- notch american diplomats initiating this process -- the reason i go into so much detail with you all is that i know many of you well. i know that you know none of this matters unless the roots run deep and unless there is some reason to believe beyond the fact they work through an accommodations to form a core and form a government, that is not sufficient. i always kid that the first election a democracy does not make, it's the second election that plants the roots and its the third election that determines whether or not you'll really have a democracy. the roots are deeper because of d interaction which started out very, very rough period with a new government in
5:02 pm
place, iraqi leaders can tackle the significant problems that lie ahead, including conducting senses in kirk cook, integrating kurdish forces, resolving disputed internal boundaries, stabilizing the economy, generating a private sector with development and new sources of revenue beyond oil, passing a fiscally responsible budget. they are not anywhere near that yet, but there are more proven reserves in iraq than anywhere in the world except the saudi arabia. if democracy is sustained and they are not back a war, they will within a decade be producing more oil than saudi arabia. one part where i hope i don't come across as lecturing -- that is both a blessing and curse. almost every other nation has been so endowed, it has been a
5:03 pm
curse for them because it has allowed them to forgo making some really important decisions about their country. but i am hopeful. natural wealth will help to fund its needs and when data longer require our support which has no -- which has not yet occurred, iraq will be in very good shape. there is going to be a sustained u.s. american engagement on the civilian side. we will continue to train their police forces. you all know that. you have been on foreign affairs and intelligence committees, but it is going to be done by civilians through the state department. one of the things howard and i talked about down the hall is that gates and general car right, the vice chair and others
5:04 pm
in the military have said there is a disproportion ms. selleck -- disproportionate misallocation for funding the pet -- the defense department and the state department on the civilian side. it's going to be very hard with your new republican colleagues, but i warn you and you know it, i'm going to be back to help with strategies on how we can finish this without the military. itsmilitary, it's time for role to be done. the purpose now is to sustain these institutions so that they can become a stable and self- reliant nation. that's a civilian undertaking, but it still cost money. not nearly what it costs, and now lobbying and i apologize. but as we draw our forces down and responsibly and this war, our commitment is enduring. i run what we call civits once a
5:05 pm
month, not with military guys, but with civilians down in -- wolf blood sir is not the real guy in the situation room, but in the real situation room. -- the secretary of education, secretary of commerce, the attorney general, because now is the time to bring to bear the expertise we had at their invitation to help them sustain the institutions they have to build. we can do it without bloodshed, without overwhelming costs, but we can do it because they need it done. everybody wondered how in god's name they got a budget last time and how they were able to get the imf loans. there were seven high level
5:06 pm
treasury department personnel that were given to the speaker of the corps. providing expertise, they had never wrote a budget before. how to negotiate with the imf. how to deal with the world bank. it makes a big difference. we are establishing a diplomatic presence throughout the country. we are building a dynamic relationship across a wide range of non-military, non- intelligence sectors, including education, energy, trade, health, technology, law- enforcement, etc. the thaw that's why even in these difficult economic times, that's why we need to support these engagements at much lower cost while they work up their ability to maintain all of their needs as they build their revenue base, which they absolutely
5:07 pm
well. the question some of you are asking yourselves -- don't think i don't ask myself, is this worth 4439 fallen angels? is this worth 32,000 wounded? 16,000 needing care the rest of their lives, so long as they live? only history will answer that, but i tell you what, to go back and do it all over again, maybe we'd would not do it. i would not do it that way, but we were handed, you were handed, i was handed, the president was handed the circumstance. we intend on making good on to promises -- one, ending our military presence there and to,
5:08 pm
helping them as long as they want, to build and sustain a government that can actually function and not be a menace in the region and secure its own borders. that is the fundamental thing to redeem our sacrifices by preserving the gains that have been made and i believe we are on track to do that. that is my report on iraq. i apologize if i am taking too much time because you have to tell me if i'm going into too much detail or -- i won't be offended if you don't want this much detail. i mean that sincerely. just let me know. i will make the others shorter, but they're much more difficult. last week, i visited afghanistan and pakistan again. as i said during that time i was asked to go to afghanistan and
5:09 pm
pakistan by the president-elect and he asked me to give a firsthand analysis of what the situation one -- but the situation was. what i found that and what confronted the president when he was first sworn it was an absolute confusion over the strategic objectives. 10 people literally in iraq, civilian and military, american, you ask 10 people from other governments in iraq what our rationale for being there was, you got 10 different answers. today, you may or may not agree with what we have set as our goals, but there is absolute clarity on our core goals and they are clearly stated. they are, number one, we are there to disrupt, dismantle, and ultimately defeat al qaeda and it -- and prevent its return to afghanistan and its ability to
5:10 pm
destabilize pakistan. a nuclear power. no. 2, the stability of afghanistan's nuclear power is being challenged by extremists and we should do what we can to diminish that threat. number three, our mission in afghanistan -- listen to me closely, is in the service of those two objectives. it is not our purpose. it is in the service of those two objectives. let me say it another way. i can say what is not among our goals -- as the president has clearly stated -- we are not there to defeat every last threat to the security of afghanistan because ultimately, it is the afghans must secure their country. secondly, and that is the continuing -- it is not nation-
5:11 pm
building. because it is afghanistan that must rebuild its nation and the base from which they start building is determined by them. this is the second, third, fourth, fifth poorest country in the world. those of our friends to talk about houri are going to build a democracy there with an infrastructure -- that's not possible within any near-term possibility. but it is arguably possible that we haven't fact a government that is in fact sustainable, not in a position to be overthrown in the near term by the taliban while there is the ability to work on reconciliation and stability, maintaining our platforms to meet our first two goals. al qaeda and making sure
5:12 pm
extremists do not fully and totally destabilize pakistan. let me tell you a bit about what i found on my last visit. i have been there many times. in afghanistan, i had an opportunity to meet with cars i -- a k witharzai, who i've known since 2002. not -- i understand the separation of power. i understood them as senator and i understand that as president. we're co-equal branches of government. i went into afghanistan over the objection of rum celled trying to stop me. -- when rumsfeld trying to stop me. i told my military attache is in the senate, that if they wanted to go with me, it would be court-martialed, as i understand.
5:13 pm
so i got on the military flight and i flew in to the air force base, knowing that it was bad for a senator to be killed on their watch. i was given a couple of navy seals and i spent a couple of days living with no lights or no heat in the palace and no ability to pay anyone to help with karzai, so i go back along way with him and members of this government. our senior military leadership and the american troops serving in the country have been there in some form for a long time. it's the longest war in american history. it was a war totally unattended to, fundamentally neglected without a policy from the time of 2002 until we came to office. i know there have been rumors of discontent in the relationship between presidents karzai and
5:14 pm
me. i know none of you can imagine my being blunt with him. but this visit, i want to make it clear, it was actually productive. you play the hand you are dealt and he is the president, but also, a lot of things he has been worried about he has reason to be worried about. a lot of the policy, he has reason to be critical and we should listen. the afghan government has a long way to go in terms of improving its capacity as far as basic services and building a national security force, particularly police forces. but i have witnessed positive developments myself, including a training facility, i went to a place where traders were developing a generation of
5:15 pm
increasingly capable soldiers. it is a long and tough haul, unlike iraq, the literacy rate is the flip. in iraq, 87% literacy. in afghanistan, somewhere between 15% and 17% literacy. it is a tough deal. as a result of what we're doing, the new york top -- the "new york times" has an article, there is a consensus we're listening to grip of the taliban and hopefully opening up the possibility, hoping for accommodation and reconciliation. the truth is, success in this conflict, and this is joe biden, cannot be s -- cannot be achieved on the battlefield alone. there is no military solution. that's why we have substantially increased our civilian efforts
5:16 pm
with diplomats working side-by- side with the military and afghan soldiers and police. we have reached another pivot point in our policy with afghanistan. this year, nato is going to begin to transition, and i want to make it clear -- not maybe, this year, nato, the united states as well, is going to begin the transition responsibility of security over to the afghans starting in july and the united states will be drawing down our forces and, by 2014, it is our administration's policy that security for the entire country of afghanistan will be in the hands of afghanistan. that's the policy. [applause] everyone is clear on that point. nato, the afghan government, the united states of america. i know there are doubters because you see how daunting task is.
5:17 pm
but i tell you, this is what we are going to do. just as we kept our commitment in iraq, we are going to keep the commitment in this administration as it relates to afghanistan. there is a lot more to talk about and we will get to this in the discussion, but in interest of time, let me move to pakistan. pakistan has been buffeted by extraordinary high winds in the last month and year. turbulent political climate, the state the obvious. some of you remember, and i should have said at the outset, my apologies for not recognizing the new members. i'm glad you are here and you guys are going to love john carney. [applause] there you are. john, he will tell you, but he used to work for me. his wife, who is smarter than he
5:18 pm
is, worked for me. they're great, great people and i'm looking forward to meeting all of the new members and with the leaders permission, what have you all over to my house for dinner if you are willing to do that. but i can say to you veterans who are here, think about five or six years ago, there was a guy named musharraff in charge there. that was not viewed by the vast majority of the democratic caucus i belong to to be in our interest. we worked hard for an alternative, and we got one. the alternative is a very weak alternative. it has its own problems. i have known the political leadership of pakistan like somebody have for literally, in case of the president, for 20 or
5:19 pm
25 years. i'm not new to this. there's no reason anyone would remember, but i tried to win the nomination in all of those debates and i said the single most dangerous nation in the world was pakistan, not because they're bad folks, but the instability that exist in pakistan is significant and it is a nuclear power. it's not like worry about iran becoming a nuclear power, it is a nuclear power with deployable weapon. there is a significant, though small minority, a significantly radicalized portion of the population, not all that living in the fatah. in trying to put together a government, they have had to deal with extreme problems, including flooding that come as some of you in the humanitarian sense have gone to see. you saw the devastation, the brat, the consequence of it.
5:20 pm
-- the breadth of it, the consequence of it. that diverted resources that would have gone to other things and have not caught a lot of breaks. but despite the difficult circumstances, there has been some positive changes. the pakistan military in recent months has shifted a significant number of its forces from the indian border to fatah, but they had to begin to use that for the floods. reality has a way of intruding. reality intruded when some of the people had been supporting over the last 20 years, particularly the military, they invaded swat, the tourist area of the country, 60 >> from jalalabad. all of the sudden, they began to -- 60 clicks from islamabad.
5:21 pm
have they come to the conclusion that they have to hone their own security? no. but they did begin to confront the terrorists in that region and we have -- the one to be careful how i choose my words -- we have made progress in our goal of degrading al qaeda. those of you in the intelligence community know that israel. it's not enough to solve the end of the threat -- to know that it is real. but we have made significant progress in going after the leadership of al qaeda. if you go to afghanistan and ask our military and civilians how many al qaeda are there in afghanistan and the number you get is somewhere between 5150. it's still a problem. -- somewhere between 50 and 150.
5:22 pm
they are not defeated, but they are on the run. you can talk to leon panetta, but the bottom line is there has been some progress. progress does not come fast enough. so we're going to continue to insist to pakistan leaders that terrorist safe havens in their borders must be dealt with. but there are a number of extremist groups with distinctly different agendas. don't make the mistake of conflating the several different groups with the afghan taliban or al qaeda. a lot of folks out there want to convince you of that so that there is a need for us to do significantly different things. that's part of the problem. they are not the same. what pakistan views as their enemy is not who we view as an
5:23 pm
emmy in order. there is a disconnect. the pakistan government and the united states, understand there is al qaeda, a pakistan taliban, the afghan taliban and others. our priorities are not in aligned with the pakistani government. i will use the phrase again -- reality has a way of intruding. they are beginning to figure out that some of the folks they created are monsters. they are now becoming a target. some of us in this room worked very hard on colombian drug trafficking. i've been doing it for 22 years. they used to be my job in the judiciary committee as john and others in your will tell you. i remember going down the first time in the early 1980's and being told by the president of
5:24 pm
columbia, this is your problem. his aversion of the giant sucking sound was demand in the united states being pulled through ecuador, the upper amazon, through southern parts of colombia and the trade was going into the united states. i remember saying then, look, no nation can sustain itself as a transit point without being gobbled up by it. it took to the colombians along time to figure out. now they're working very hard. the severity of the threat that exists to pakistan, but brought home very painfully in stark relief just a couple weeks ago in islamabad. i offer my condolences on behalf of the american people and personally to the governor's wife who was the one
5:25 pm
assassinated by his version of our secret service. highly trained people, paid by the government, and this guy was a courageous public service who spoke out for tolerance and understanding. he wanted something done with the blasphemy law. so what happened was, as he's getting into his automobile, his chief guy takes a gun and blows his brains out. apparently with the knowledge of the rest of his security force. i sat with a general and it startled him. he gave me copies of newspapers and if i had more than one i would have brought it today, but it too hard to get around. what was the result? hundreds of thousands of people marched in karachi, the largest city, in support of the assassin.
5:26 pm
hundreds of thousands. was it 250? higher? more than 250,000 people. you should see the pictures. every nook and cranny in the street. it looked like our inauguration. i'm not being a wise guy. all in support of an assassin. who is identified. in the assassins home town, tens of thousands of people showed up throwing rose puzzles on the doorway of the family -- rose petals on the doorway of the family of the assassin. you say they're just a bunch of radical people at of a population of 198 million, that doesn't mean much. but guess what? no responsible voice, except the courageous but though has said anything -- a courageous widow
5:27 pm
has said anything. nobody. the lawyers committee guys? remember how we backed the lawyers committee? nobody. as i stated publicly what i dressed in a press conference that had scores and scores of pakistan press there, you know we are not very well liked in pakistan. it poll shows about for five months ago that al qaeda is more popular than we are. one poll, india was more popular than we are. that's bizarre. i made a speech on no uncertain terms, it was like a history lesson. i point out the history lesson is societies that tolerate political violence always end up being consumed by it. anyone who pays close attention
5:28 pm
to pakistan who read or watch is the media commentators and the extreme voices of the political discourse know our relationships is undermined by the deep misconceptions that are held by so many pakistanis. i thought was important to discuss with the nation and go to the head of the leadership to discuss exactly what we thought and received some of the most erroneous claims, such as the belief the united states disrespects islam or that our policies favor india. i explained islam is america's fastest growing religion and president obama told people in cairo that islam is part of america. i told them to go to los angeles and c one of the largest mosques in the world.
5:29 pm
bigger than mosques in their own country. i said americans want what people in pakistan want -- peace with itself and its neighbors, including india. another troubling misconception is the idea that the united states is violating pakistan's sovereignty when we support their pursuit of terrorists holding up in their borders. i made it clear we believe it is the terrorists who are violating pakistani sovereignty. our goal is to restore and strengthen that sovereignty in areas of the country being held by terrorists and totally undermining their credibility. the interesting thing was -- and this may be boring you all, but if any of you followed, the reaction to my remarks was incredibly interesting. i made several major speeches in pakistan, both
5:30 pm
it gave extensive and largely positive coverage just before president clinton took on our critics. the response was overwhelmingly positive in the press. when we show countries the respect of taking their concerns seriously and the debunking misconceptions about our intentions, we can open their minds. this has to be a 24/7/0365 day per year job. it includes increasing our emissaries in the country because ultimately we have to get it right in pakistan. you say, why do we not just walk -- washed our hands and walk away? i am not just talking about military interaction. there is no military solution to afpak.
5:31 pm
it is daunting. if you are making a buck in las vegas, i doubt you would get even nods. we do not have a choice. it is a nuclear country with deployable nuclear weapons. there's always a need for reconciliation in afghanistan with the members of the television -- taliban who renounced al qaeda. i have covered a lot of ground this afternoon, probably more than you wanted. i am sure there are plenty of topics you would like to discuss. i want to hear your views and be challenged on the assumption is that i have made. on behalf of the president and myself, let me think you again for the hard work -- let me thank you again for the hard-
5:32 pm
working have given the administration last year. many of you cast extremely -- [applause] you cast extremely difficult votes. i know what it is like from my time in the senate and it is not getting easier anytime soon. we went to strengthen this relationship with the 100th of congress. with that, thank you all for your courtesy. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> michelle laughlin was in iowa to speak in the morning -- bachman was in des moines. >> with your name continue to be in the list? >> i know it is shocking when a girl ghost i was that the
5:33 pm
speculation may come along. i am here to beat a part of the conversation for 2012. there has been no decision about candidacy, but i want to be a part of the conversation. >> watch her speech in its entirety today on a "road to the white house" at 6:00 27:30 p.m. eastern and pacific. -- 6:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. , returns. to o'clock p.m. eastern on monday have -- to o'clock p.m. on eastern star to legislative business. but it went to reduce spending to fiscal year 2008 levels. a final vote is expected on tuesday. see the house live on c-span. the senate returns to session tuesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern with time for general speeches
5:34 pm
before roles on the filibuster which is used to block or delay action on legislation. the proposal aims to limit when and how filibusters' can be used. live coverage of the senate can be seen on c-span2. >> connecticut senator joe lieberman has announced that he will not seek reelection in 2012. the former democratic vice- presidential candidate turned independent in 2006 after being defeated in the connecticut democratic senate primary. he went on to win the general election and is serving a fourth term as an independent. this is about 25 minutes. [applause]
5:35 pm
[applause] >> thank you so much. thank you, as i look around this room and as we've walked into the hotel, i am just overwhelmed to see so many faces and to look into the eyes of some many who go way back in a lot of memories. what i want to say to you today is that i am here to introduce a very, very special man and as i stand in front of our growing, brown family -- grown a family and a look at the grandchildren
5:36 pm
and i hope they are quiet and everything that, i want to introduce to you joey. [applause] >> thank you. hey, hey. thank you. [applause] thank you. wow. thank you. thank you very much. thank you dear friends. i look around this room and it is full of people have stood with me in good memories. thank you all for coming here on really short notice. it matters a lot to me. thank you for that introduction. thank you for sticking with me throughout that. is sinking back about one year
5:37 pm
into the senate -- i was thinking one year in the senate service with all the back-and- forth travel, and is not easy on the spouses. she said to me, "joey, how long will you state in the senate?" i said i would to making a promise. "i promise when -- sleeves television, i will leave the senate -- when regis leaves television." we wish our neighbor or regis philbin great years ahead. maybe we will be hanging out in little more now. 23 years ago in february 1988 i went to great day in the hartford i announced that would be a candidate for the united states senate. standing with me as i began that long-shot campaign was my wife, who was pregnant, and our three
5:38 pm
children. today, matt, bekah, and ethan are here with their spouses. jacob just left on child 30. these three couples are now the proud parents of their own children. 10 children, six of whom are here today. in order of age. tennessee, aiden, maddie, and in the hallway camilla. our young-child-- youngest child was born one month after enounced to come in the senate is here with her husband, daniel. as you can see, she is now pregnant. next month, with god's help him she would give birth to our 11th
5:39 pm
grandchild and her first child. talk about the circle of life. [applause] when i look back to 1988, i know what a lucky guy i am. i am privileged to be a u.s. senator and blessed since then to have this miraculously growing family. most of all, i want to thank my wife, each of our children, and grandchildren for the love, support, and inspiration they bring me every day of my life including on this special day. there is a personal reason why i wanted to make this announcement at this hotel and it, too, involves the life circle. during the first eight years of my life, my father, mother, one sister, and i lived in a cold water flat on the second floor
5:40 pm
of my grandmother's house at 42 hawthorne st. right here in stamford, conn. that house and the rest of the street was demolished in the early 1960 proxy for urban redevelopment but it was located right about where this marriott hotel is today. as i think about the journey that i have travelled from nine childhood home to this day, i cannot help but also think about my poor grandparents and the journey that they traveled more than one century ago as immigrants to this country. they came to america seeking freedom and they found it. they came to america hoping for opportunities and they got them. even they could not have dreamed that their grandson would end of a united states senator and incidentally a barrier-breaking candidate for vice-president of the united states. that is america. [applause]
5:41 pm
pretty extraordinary opportunities to serve our state and country that i have i had. i am personally grateful to the voters of connecticut whom i can never think and a friend -- i can never think enough. i do think you. i will tell you that as i look back, -- some of the most satisfying moments of service i have had are usually the ones that do not yet public attention. when my great staff and i have been able to provide support to one of view, a constituent, in a moment of need whether it was protecting your family from losing your home to foreclosure are hoping the parents of a sick child that the health care they need for ensuring that a world war ii veteran finally receives the medals he was due for his service decades before, those are moments our great
5:42 pm
satisfaction. i am also grateful for what i have had the opportunity to have accomplished in the senate itself or i have been able to protect our environment which has been a lifelong party for me. leading fights against air and water pollution, working hard to build coalitions to do something about climate change, cleaning up the long island sound, protecting the connecticut river, and treating connecticut's first and only national park site. i have been proud of what i have been able to do for connecticut businesses helping them to keep and add jobs in our state, particularly in the defense industries. i have worked with a lot of people especially on that thrilling day where i helped to save the submarine base, new london. [applause] i am grateful for the opportunity i have had to keep our country and people say in a
5:43 pm
dangerous world. as a senior member of the senate armed services committee supporting the best ever troops in the best military in the world and providing them with the best equipment we possibly could. and in the years since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, as the chairman or a ranking member of the senate homeland security committee, i have been privileged to be at the center of every congressional effort to strengthen our homeland offenses including the creation of the department of homeland security and the enactment of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission which together are the most sweeping reforms of our national security organizations since the end of a i world wari. -- of world war ii. i am proud of the work i've done across party lines of the strong bipartisan american and foreign defense policies carried out by the four presidents under whom i
5:44 pm
have been privileged to serve. president bush, clinton, bush, and obama which included policies that ousted the iraqi military from kuwait, ended the genocide of muslims in the balkans, and liberated by iraq, afghanistan, and the world from a brutally repressive anti- american dictatorship. i am proud of the work i have done to make the promise of equal opportunity and justice under the law more real for all americans including particularly, in my time of service, african-americans, women, and gay and lesbian americans. [applause] along the way, i have not always fit comfortably into conventional political boxes. maybe you have noticed that.
5:45 pm
democrat, republican, liberal, or conservative. i have always felt my first responsibility is not to serve a political party that my constituents, my state, and my country, and then to work across party lines to make sure that good things get done for them. whenever the partisan or policies is that divides us, they're much more important than the shared dreams of require rest to work together to make progress for all. to me, that is what public service and the leadership is all about. my interest in public service was inspired by president john f. kennedy who, coincidentally, 50 years ago tomorrow in his inaugural address asked us to ask ourselves what we could do for our country and challenged us to bear any burden to ensure the survival and success of
5:46 pm
liberty. the politics of president kennedy, a patriotic service to country, support of civil rights, social justice, pro- growth economics and tax policies, a strong national defense are still my politics. maybe it means jfk would not fit neatly into any of today's partisan political boxes either. one thing that has not changed over the years is my love for america. we are a unique nation with a unique mission -- to secure the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that were gods endowment to every person. to a remarkable degree, succeeding generations of americans have advanced that mission here and abroad. the truth is that no other nation in history can match our ideals and our accomplishments. i know that we have gone through tough times recently.
5:47 pm
i could not be more confident about their future. do not let anyone convince you that america's best days are over. believe with me that america's best days are ahead of us. [applause] the fact is that we, the american people, have repeatedly come together and it done but others said be could not do and we will do so again and again in the future. now i want to talk to you about my future. in two years, i will complete my fourth term in the u.s. senate. i have been talking with family and friends about whether i should seek a fifth term. now i would like to tell you, though it probably will not be a surprise, what i have decided and why. i have decided that it is time to turn the page to renew chapter and so i will not be a
5:48 pm
candidate for reelection to a fifth term in the united states senate in 2012. it was not an easy decision for me to make because i have loved serving in the senate. i feel good about what i have accomplished. i know it is the right decision and i must say, having made it, i am excited about beginning a new chapter of life with the opportunities. i know that some people have said that if i ran for reelection it would be a difficult campaign for me. so, what else is new? [laughter] it probably would be a difficult campaign for me. i have won many difficult campaigns before from my first one in 1970 against the incumbent democratic state senate majority leader to my 1988 campaign against the incumbent republican u.s. senator, to my campaign for reelection in 2006 at the height
5:49 pm
of the controversy over the war in iraq. in all three of those elections, most observers and pollsters thought i would not win, but with an awful lot of help from an awful lot of independents, democrats, and republicans including many of you here today, in each case i did win. i have never shied away from a good fight and i never will. [applause] the reason i have decided not to run for reelection in 2012 is best expressed in the wise words of ecclesiastes. "to everything there is a season and a time to every purpose under heaven peacoat at the end of this term, i will have served -- under have been." i will have served 24
5:50 pm
years. i have run 15 full-fledged campaign and that is just in campaign not including the national campaign that was involved in. for me, it is time for another season and another purpose under heaven. i do not intend to dave to be the end of my career in public service. -- i do not intend today to be the end of my career. this enables me to spend my next two years devoting my full measure of energy and attention to getting things done for connecticut and our country. i will keep doing everything in my power to build strong bridges across party lines, keep our country save, when the wars we are in, and make sure the american leadership on the world stage is principled and strong. i will do everything i can to get our economy moving forward and to put our national debt under control, to combat climate
5:51 pm
change, to end our independence on foreign oil, to reform our immigration laws. when my cynne chapter draws to a close in 2013, -- when mike said its chapter draws to a close, i the forward to continuing to serve and stay engaged in the causes i have spent my career working on and that i care so much about. i go forward with a tremendous sense of gratitude for the opportunities that i have been blessed with to make a difference. as it says in psalm 13, "i will sing to the board before he has treated me so kindly -- sing to the lord." i want to sing to everyone who has supported me over the years. my parents, my wife, who has been a steadfast soul mate and a
5:52 pm
life partner, our children, grandchildren, siblings, and extended family, all of the people who have volunteered in my campaign, and all of the voters in new haven, west haven, then throughout the state elected me to five terms in the state senate, two terms as attorney general, and four terms as a u.s. senator. the gifted and voted -- devoted people have served with me as staff and are exemplified by two people. i chief of staff and now the counselor who began working with me in 1978 and my state director and undefeated campaign manager who had started working with me in 1980. [applause]
5:53 pm
i do want to make it clear that both of them were hardly of of voting age when they began working for me. this is a day when it is natural when i try to step back and take a broader perspective. i come back to one of my favorite metaphors for the american spirit which comes from the great american novel written right here in connecticut by mark twain, "the adventures of huckleberry finn." in that book, huck and jim riding the rap along the big river that has always, to me, represented american history. in one sense, obviously by the way they looked, they could not be more different. in another deeper sense, huck and jim were both americans
5:54 pm
unified by a common humanity and by sharing a common national destiny traveling down the river. every time they would come to a band in the river, though they do not know and cannot see what lies on the other side of the dead, they were never -- never fearful or pessimistic. they were always excited and optimistic. this has always propelled us forward together. white and black heroes refused to accept the injustices of racial segregation. it is a spirit i have seen in our men and women in uniform, hero serving in afghanistan and iraq today.
5:55 pm
it is for a cause greater than themselves. i visited walter reed. they amazingly one nothing more than to go back to the battlefield to rejoin their brothers and sisters in arms. this inspires all of our american heroes, our first responders, educators, entrepreneurs, educators, several activists, civil leaders. it is a spirit that inspires hundreds of millions and seemingly ordinary americans, the unsung heroes, who work hard and play by the rules every day of driven by a dream, inspired to imagine a tomorrow that is better than today for themselves, most important for their children, for our country, and our world. that is the spirit that has
5:56 pm
defined the american people for 235 years now and then i know will continue to make is the greatest nation in the world. that, my friends, is the spirit that tells me today. thank you very much. god bless you and god bless the united states of america. [applause] >> congress returns to session this week to work and a number of items. the house will gavin -- gavel in
5:57 pm
at 2:00 p.m. eastern on monday. they plan to begin debate on a measure that will cut all discretionary non-security spending to fiscal year 2008 levels. the final vote is expected on tuesday. see across live on c-span. the senate returns tuesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern with a general speech years before turning to a proposal that would change senate rules on a filibuster, which is used to block or delay action on legislation. the proposal aims to limit when and how to filibuster can be used. live coverage of the senate can be seen on c-span2. this weekend on "road to the white house," two speeches. rick santorum and michele bachmann. she was speaking to a political action committee in iowa. >> you are aware of this i am
5:58 pm
sure and would like the discussion to continue? >> it is shocking when a girl goes to pie a left that the speculation may come along, but i am here to be -- when a girl goes to iowa that speculation may come along. there has been no decision about candidacy, but i want to be a part of the conversation most definitely. >> watchers speech along with mr. santorum boxer marks in south carolina today in "road to the white house" at 6:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. eastern and pacific. >> welcome to "newsmakers." thank you for being here, sir. >> will this be running opposite the nfc or afc championship game? >> it does not matter. everyone will be watching us. are two questioners today. gentlemen, thank you for being
5:59 pm
here. i will start with you. everyone is looking toward the tuesday vote on suspending the resolution in the house. the democrats are saying that this is just about a press release to preempt the news of the president's state of the union that the budget chairman has the authority and spending limits. what is the vote on tuesday all about? >> it is nice to be back with dolly. my one directive is to "be kind ." clearly, john boehner and the republicans have said that our focus is on job creation and economic growth. it is very important for us to reduce the size and scope of government to do that. we are on the path towards doing it. the resolution we are considering on tuesday is designed to get us where we said designed to get us where we said in our
196 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on