the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 188, the nays are 238. the amendment is not adopted. the chair: there being no further amendments, the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house said that the committee has had under consideration the bill, h.r. 1217, and pursuant to house resolution 219 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. the question is on engrossment

and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to repeal prevention and public health fund. >> mr. speaker. mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the gentleman from iowa. >> mr. speaker, i have to motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman from iowa -- is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed to the bill in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio -- the gentleman from pennsylvania. a point of order is reserved. the clerk will designate. the clerk: mr. loebsack of iowa

moves to recommit the bill h.r. 1217 to the committee on energy and commerce with instructions to report the same back to the house with the following amendment, strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following, section 1, preserving prevention and public health fund for activities for seniors subject to availability of appropriations, a, in general, section 4002 of the patient protection and affordable care act is amended. 1, and subsection a by striking, it is the purpose and inserting subject to subsection c, it is the purpose, two, in subsection b by striking and appropriated and, three, in subsection c-a by striking shall and inserting may to the extent and then the amount made available for use by any appropriations act and, b, by striking for prevention, well withness and public health activities including and all

that follows through the period at the end and inserting, for prevention, wellness and public health activities for individuals 65 years of age or older. b, precision of unobligated funds, of the funds appropriated by section 4002 before the date of the enactment of this act, the unobligated balance is rescinded. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. can everyone please clear the well please. clear the well, please. the gentleman from iowa is recognized for five minutes. mr. loebsack: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, while i oppose the underlying bill i am offering this final amendment on a topic that i know is important to all of us. our nation's seniors. our seniors have worked hard all their lives, many of them have lived through some of the most trying times in american history. including the great depression

and two world wars. they've also been part of some of our country's proudest achievements and moments like putting the first man on the moon. along the way our seniors have made incredible sacrifices for their families and for their country. my own grandmother helped take care of me while i was young, making sure that my siblings and i had a safe place to live and food on the table. >> madam speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. mr. loebsack: thank you. our seniors deserve the best care and treatment available as they age. i have visited seniors all across my district in iowa. delivering meals on wheels in cedar rapids, serving lunch at senior dining in marum and hosting events at senior centers and retirement communities -- the speaker pro tempore: will the gentleman suspend?

the gentleman may begin again. mr. loebsack: one of my proudest moments in congress in fact was when i met a a group of world war ii veterans who were here from iowa on an out of flight tour and i was privileged to thank them for their service. when i talk to seniors in my district, i hear far too often that many of them are struggling. and this is unacceptable. no senior should retire into poverty or have difficulty paying their medical bills. while we may disagree on the republican budget which would end medicare as we know it, i think we can all agree that we owe seniors access to the preventive health care and public health efforts that the underlying bill would repeal. i am determined to fight for our seniors and to make sure that we keep our promises to them. that is why this final amendment will ensure that the repeal of the prevention and public health fund will not apply, will not

apply to prevention, wellness and public health activities for individuals 65 years of age or older. this funding can be used for programs that promote wellness, that empower seniors to take personal responsibility for staying healthy as they age. it can also be used for prevention including screenings for cancer, heart disease and alzheimer's disease. the fund can also be used for public health activities, to ensure seniors have the information they need to make the best possible decisions about their health. these funds can also be used for research so we can find ways to prevent health problems associated with aging. what's more, by focusing on public health and prevention, this fund can reduce costs in the long run. we all know that early detection improves patient outcomes and saves money and successful public health campaigns have demonstrated that we can decrease unhealthy behaviors by

equipping people with good information. that is why i believe the underlying bill itself is pennywise but pound foolish. in the long run the underlying bill only serves to hurt the nation's seniors. it is unfortunate that some are choosing to make this short-sighted decision when the health of our seniors is at stake. mr. speaker, the american people , we should keep in mind, sent us here not to fight with each other over critical issues such as the one before us today, but to fight together for them. i urge all members to join me to make sure that seniors have access to preventive health care to remain active in their communities. we owe the seniors in our districts at least that much. the passage of this amendment will not prevent passage of the underlying bill. if the amendment is adopted it will be incorporated into the bill and the bill will be immediately voted upon.

i believe, mr. speaker, that now is the time to show the american people that we as a body can indeed work effectively for them, and i urge all of my colleagues to vote for this commonsense final amendment. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman from pennsylvania continue to reserve his point of order? mr. pitts: madam speaker, i withdraw the reservation and claim the time in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the reservation is withdrawn and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pitts: thank you, madam speaker. yesterday, we heard the house minority leader say that elections shouldn't matter as much as they do. i strongly disagree. members were brought here to get runaway spending under control, but rather than help us avoid a fiscal crisis -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. will the gentleman suspend? the house is not in order. will members take conversations

off the house floor, please? the gentleman may resume. mr. pitts: but rather than help us avoid a fiscal crisis, house democrats have the brought forward an n.p.r. that guts the bill and continues the runaway spending that the american people rejected. as we have pointed out, section 4002 gives the secretary of h.h.s. complete discretion to spend the slush fund with little limitation. any program within the public health service act, regardless of its merit or effectiveness, is eligible for funding under section 4002. will section 4002 help train doctors or will the money be used to build jungle gyms? will the prevention and public health fund be used to have soda tax increases in states? or build signs to direct people

to bike paths? all of these activities can be funded through this slush fund. this underscores the major problem with section 4002. rampant spending on the federal credit card cannot continue. the federal government is borrowing 42 cents of every federal dollar spent from this fund. we are facing a $1.6 trillion deficit. the president's irresponsible budget will double the national debt from $14 trillion to $26 trillion. this endless spending is fiscally irresponsible. it's morally bankrupt. spending today is debt that our children and grandchildren will pay tomorrow. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the m.t.r. so we can get our house back in fiscal order. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays in front of the house an enrolled bill. the speaker pro tempore: senate -- the clerk: senate joint resolution 8, joint resolution for the appointment of a citizen region of the smithsonian

institution. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to talk about national golf day. earlier today i attended an event and heard the story of one of our wounded warriors and how the sport of golf has helped him to overcome his traumatic brain injury and learn the sport of golf even with prosthesis and how much that's helped him. mr. long: the first small business i owned happened to be a miniature golf course. i also went to high school with payne stewart and none of his golf abilities rubbed off on me, unfortunately. golf is a $76 billion industry which provides two million jobs in the united states. golf courses are generally small

business owners own golf courses and i know the challenges that small businesses face today. the estimated economic impact of the government industry is over $200 billion. golf course superintendents are excellent environmental stewards of the land and among the best in the world as knowing how to care for the earth. being outdoors always improves one's quality of life, walking just a nine-hole course can give you a 2.5-mile workout or in my case seven miles. it is a sport that can be played by all ages and we should take time today to recognize national golf day. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. what started out as a small pirated radio show of two men running away from a law underneath the bridge, the

roman roper show has entertained people for a long time and today it's reached its whole one-year anniversary. while many increase listenership, the most illinoisans tune in to roman and roper from 2:00 to 6:00 every day. mr. kinzinger: both come with a very unique and admirable trade that make the show a success. one has a strong love of his community and was honored as the 2010 chicago area as the f.b.i. director community leadership award for unwavering support of law enforcement in general. richard is a fellow alumni of illinois state university and is a columnist, co-host with topics ranging from politics to entertainment. i'm honored to take this time

to recognize two successful individuals who provide an outstanding show on a daily basis but also two men i'm proud to call friends. congrats, gentlemen. here's to another year, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what reason does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. roe: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. roe: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to celebrate the great leader, minister and educator, dr. donald jeans, who is retiring this year from milligan university. he's a 1968 magna cum laude graduate from johnson city. first as a minister and then as a professor. he was announced 14th president of milligan college. it has consistently been named one of america's best colleges and has experienced phenomenal growth both in terms of the

fiscal campus as well as -- physical campus as well as the courses offered. i want to personally thank dr. jeans for his commitment to faith, education and community development, and i wish he and his wife the very best as he prepares for his retirement from the presidency of milligan college. i'd like to say to my friend, a job well done, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what reason does the gentleman from florida rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, it's been 25 days since the president began military action in libya without congressional authorization. he made this decision despite the fact that the conflict in libya did not represent an imminent threat to the united states. instead, the president sought the approval of the united nations and the arab league before taking military action and not congress. this sets a terrible precedent by seeking the u.n. approval,

the president is transferring authority that should -- that should rest with the american people. through their congress, not to an international community. the u.n. resolution is nice, but it is not a substitute for congressional authorization. under the war powers resolution, the president needs to seek congressional approval within 60 days. i've introduced a resolution expressing the sense of congress that president obama must adhere to the war powers resolution. whether you call it kinetic military action or war, this congress must authorizes it. if not we'll be setting the precedent that we are irrelevant and the president need only seek approval from international bodies outside of the jurisdiction of the american people. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what reason does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, today i rise

because i had the opportunity to attend the k.g.c. this last weekend. an event raising resources to battle depression. depression affects over 20 million adults in our nation. this is something that we all need to be paying more attention. i want to thank chairman bennett for his leadership. i also want to thank kevin hag art, andrew boyle, tom joyce for their generous contributions to the event. and i also want to extend my heart felt thanks to andrew boyle for his leadership for next year's event. mr. dold: with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there further requests for one-minute speeches? then the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of be a requested for mr. culberson of texas today after 4:00 p.m. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. garamendi: mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, thank you.

today, we've seen a remarkable event here on the floor of the house. during this discussion that so critically important to this nation about the deficit and how we're going to deal with our budget, this house passed a bill that will actually increase the deficit. a bill passed today with the support of the republicans to repeal a provision in the affordable health care act that will keep americans healthy. healthy americans don't need medical care, and i suppose the idea of the republicans here is that they ought to get sick. you take a look at the wellness issue. part of the affordable care act, it provided for numerous activities specifically designed to keep americans healthy.

blood pressure screening for adults, programs for children to avoid oboesity, public health programs for vaccinations so that our children and indeed our adults don't get sick, all of these programs in the wellness portion of the affordable care act would be repealed by the action that the republicans just voted on not more than a half-hour ago. what in the world's going on here? what's this all about? is it some sort of ideological spiritual thing to do what is not very smart? the affordable health care act, which they like to call obamacare, has many, many provisions in it specifically designed to reduce the cost of medical care in america. and if you are going to deal with the deficit, and we all talk about it here, you have to

deal with the cost of medicare. how do you deal with the cost of medicare? well, you deal with it by reducing the likelihood that seniors will get sick. you deal with it by reducing high blood pressure in seniors so they don't get strokes. one of the most expensive things that senior population will endure is a stroke. it's not just the immediate medical care. it's the long-term effect of a stroke. and so when we go out and we try to have seniors and those soon to be seniors have blood pressure checks, we reduce the cost of medical care in america. but i guess the republicans don't see it that way. they also see it in another way, and that is somehow they believe that we can reduce the cost of medical care in the

federal budget by terminating medicare. unbelievable that the republican budget would terminate medical care for seniors by terminating medicare, a program that was started in 1964 to deal with the specific problem that seniors had at that period and that was the inability to afford medical services. they would literally be into bankruptcy and poverty because they couldn't pay for their medical care. so in 1964 lyndon baines johnson and the democrats in this house and the senate passed medicare. one of the foundations of support for the senior population in this nation. and yet in the republican budget that will be on this floor later this week is the

repeal of medicare, the termination of it, and so i suppose this is the new way we ought to look at this issue. it's a tome stone. what had said, medicare, 1964-2011 created by l.b.j., destroyed by the g.o.p. unbelievable. fortunately today when president obama spoke to the nation he addressed this issue and i'll paraphrase what he said. he says -- i guess say it as a street fighter from california. no way, no how in his presidency medicare be terminated. are you listening, my friends on the republican side? the president said no, we're not going down the path of

terminating medicare. and i know that my caucus, the democratic caucus, will stand there with the president, we will find any attempt anytime, anyplace, anywhere that you or anybody else will put before this house a proposal to terminate medicare. we will not allow it. and thankfully the president has the veto pen. he ought to go back and pull out the pen that l.b.j. used to sign the medicare law in 1965 and put it to paper should somehow the republican budget arrive on his desk with the terminate of medicare in it. it should not happen, it cannot happen. we cannot subject our seniors to the kind of poverty that existed prior to the implementation of medicare in the 1960's. this is something that we will

stand and fight on. the president also said today as he laid out his solution for a $4 trillion reduction in the deficit that do not terminate medicare and don't privatize social security, laying it down. not a line in the sand but clearly a mark on the concrete. social security will not be privatized during his watch. thank you, mr. president. and you know this, that the democratic caucus in this house will stand firmly with you, and we will find every bill, every proposal to privatize social security. now, we know there's a budget problem. we know that there is a deficit problem here in the united states, and we know that it has to be addressed. the president has laid out two

chapters in the democratic proposal to deal with the deficit. in his state of the union speech he made it clear that federal expenditures needed to be frozen over the next five years, and today he took another step recommending specific reductions in various federal programs. all to the good. and we will stand there with him and we will work on reducing those federal expenditures. for me i've got one in mind, about $120 billion a year that we could save. $120 billion a year. now, that's four times 3 1/2 times what is in the republican continuing resolution that will be on the floor this week. how do you find $120 billion a year? end the war in afghanistan. end the war in afghanistan, bring the troops home, bring the money home, balance our

budget, use that to solve the deficit or spend that money on building those roads, those facilities here in the united states. but let's talk about the deficit for a moment. if you're going to talk about the deficit, you ought to understand where the deficit came from. it didn't just come out of the blue this year. didn't just appear in the obama administration. the deficit is something that has built up over a long period of time here in the united states. when they say the deficit is $4 trillion and is going to increase, it's not if the president and the democrats get their way. it will be reduced by $14 trillion. however the current deficit, where did it come from? where did it magically appear? let's take a look.

this right here -- here's the facts. who left us with huge deficits this fellow over here you may recognize him, ronald reagan. at the end of every year, the con fwregsal budget office makes an estimate of what is going to happen over the next 0 years. at the enof the ronald reagan period, his last year in office, the congressional budget office, nonpartisan congressional budget office, made an estimate, where's the deficit? they estimated that in the next 10 years, ronald reagan's budget and the programs that were put into effect in his period, would create a $.4 trillion deficit. now those of you that are familiar with the history of the united states would know that george w.h. bush, the

senior, followed ronald reagan. at the end of his four years in office, the congressional budget office made an estimate and they estimated that should the bush-reagan policy goes forward, the deficit would be $3.3 trillion. in the out years. then along came bill clinton. bill clinton put in place in the first four years of his administration policies that would, if extended forward, deal with the receive it -- deficit, such things as pay-go a word that's common in washington but i'm sure out there in the great american public, people have no idea what pay-go is. pay-go is -- was the law during the clinton administration and it required that any bill passed by congress had to be paid for. with either higher taxes or

cuts in some other program. in other words, could not create a deficit. could not add to the deficit. there were other programs put in place, part of which i was responsible for implementing, reinventing government. i was helping the -- i was the deputy secretary and we were told, you will reduce the expenditures of the department of superior and you'll continue to do the same things only do them better. effective and efficient government. we reduced the number of employees in the department of interior during those first four and a half or five years by some 15,000 people. from 90,000 to 75,000 people. and we performed all the previous services as well as and in many cases better. so it's possible to be efficient and effective in this process. anyway, bill clinton is now

president, puts all these policies in place, and at the end of his presidency, congressional budget office did what it always does, an estimate of what would happen in the next 0 years if the same policies were to continue. guess what would happen? what would happen is a $5. trillion surplus. $5.6 trillion surplus. enough to wipe out all of the american debt. no debt, no interest payments, everything paid off. however, bill clinton was followed by george w. bush and immediately in the very first queer of the bush administration, the clinton period policies, some of which were voted on by republicans as well as democrats were terminated. massive tax cuts put in place. not only in year one but in year two. two wars started, the

afghanistan war and the iraq war, neither of which were paid for, first time in american history that wars were not paid for but rather borrowed. who did we borrow the money from? china. other foreign countries. so now you had two massive tax cuts, two wars, and then the medicare drug program, again, about $700 billion a year, not paid for but rather borrowed. not one year but every year on into the future. thirdly, a whole set of policies where the government stepped back and let wall street do whatever it wanted to do. what they wanted to do was reckless profiteering. resulting in 2008-igget -- 2007-2008 with the crash of the american economy, the wall street crash of 2008. bringing down the american economy to its knees.

to the greatest recession since the great depression. now, those policies added up to this rather massive red zone here. $11357b9 trillion. $11 trillion -- $11.5 trillion. estimated by the congressional budget office, nonpartisan congressional budget office that would, that projected in the next 10 year, the same policies continued, an $11.5 trillion deficit. president obama came to office in january of 2009. the day he arrived in office, the budget he had to put in had ap $1,300 billion hole in it.

he didn't create it. but he had to deal with it. $1,300 billion. deficit. handed to him by george w. bush and his policies. that's the history. now we're trying to dig ourselves out of that hole. now, properly said, when you're in a hole, stop digging. wise policy. the president couldn't do that and this congress couldn't do that in the face of the most serious financial and economic crisis this state -- this nation had faced since the great depression. so the stimulus bill was enacted. some $750 billion. and it worked. despite all the rhetoric, economists looking at that today in the cool memory of the stimulus bill said it worked, it saved this economy, it saved

this nation and every other industrialized country in the world did the exact same thing. they stimulated their economy and together the american and international economy was stabilized. and we began slowly to grow out of that great recession. we're not out of it yet and we've got to put in place policies that end the deficit. that's precisely what the president talked about today. now the republicans have put a proposal before us and we'll vote on it this week but it is not a proposal that will help america retain its imminence as the most dynamic, most creative, most successful economy in the world because of the policies that are in it. it will terminate medicare and it will terminate -- it will significantly reduce those programs that create future economic growth. i'd like to just take a deep breath now and turn over to my

colleague from the great northeastern part of the united states, would you like to join us and carry on this discussion? mr. welch: thank you. there's two things i want to address, one, what are the policies that were part of getting us to that $11.5 trillion deficit? and number two, what do we need to do now to get to fiscal balance? the two policies were, one, a war of choice where the pentagon in its activities was not subject to the same scrutiny of actually having to pay as you go. so that cost of the war in iraq was $1 trillion. the war in afghanistan, as you mentioned, started out as a mission to dislodge o-- dislodge osama bin laden, it was transformed into nation building, and no matter how

necessary or debatable either of those wars were, you do have to pay for it. it's not as though because it's in the name of national security it can be exempt from fiscal responsibility. in fact, what's unusual is that this is the first time in the history of our couldn'ty -- country where we have been at war where we haven't asked for shared sacrifice by the taxpayers but made the entire burden be borne by our military. so we've got to pay and we didn't do it. as you pointed out. the second is a theory being advanced by many that if you cut taxes it will create wealth and create jobs. in some places, in some times, in some circumstances, that will work. in fact, many standard economists say that in a recession it's the time to cut taxes, not raise them. but the more that's focused on the middle class who are struggling, especially in a down economic time, to pay

their bills if they get a tax cut, they have discretionary income, or they have income liberated, that money is going to go right back into the economy. but every tax cut does not generate jobs and many tax cuts , what they end up doing is adding significantly to the deficit. the president bush tax cut in 2001, the president bush tax cut in 2003, added $ppt 3 billion to the deficit. you have a pentagon that is not subject to pay as you go, you have tax cuts that don't pay for themselves, and those are two major contributing factors to that $11.5 trillion deficit on the heels of a $5. trillion surplus. the debate we're having now in this house is enormously consequential to the future. the republicans won this last election and a major argument they made is that we've got to get spending under control.

they're right. i agree with that. we have to get to fiscal balance. the challenge is, if we're going to get there, do we need a plan that repeats those two policies of the bush administration, namely keeping the pentagon off the table, and increasing tax cuts, particularly to the high end, but keeping off the table pentagon savings, keeping off the table eliminating tax loopholes, keeping off the table the question of revenues. democrats in my view have to be willing to come forward and say, look, programs that we have been strong supporters of have to be re-examined. we have to reform them. we have to make them more efficient. if they're not working, we have to acknowledge that and move on. we have to do our share. and the president's proposal that would freeze domestic spending for five years is pretty dramatic but many democrats would be willing to

support tough medicine, as long as the plan had on the table other things that are major contributors to the fiscal situation we're in. that's, of course, revenues, that's, of course, the pentagon. and that's, of course, tax loopholes in the tax system. we can get from where we are to where we need to be. we saw that in recent years when it happened under president clinton. again, as you pointed out, in those years, tax codes matter. but you know, in the clinton years, when we had higher tax rate we created 20 million jobs. in the bush year, when we had lower tax rate, we created 600,000 jobs and incomes were increasing. this has to be reviewed by this body, in my view, as a practical problem for us to solve, not an ideological argument that every tax cut is -- is going to be beneficial, any more than every spending program is going to be

beneficial. you have to apply judgment to the situation at hand. the big challenge for us is restoring fiscal balance. i yield back. i thank the gentleman. mr. garamendi: let me thank my colleague from vermont, peter welch, for this presentation on the tax policy. i think we want to stay with that a few moments. i know my colleague from new york, mr. tonko, is here, perhaps you'd like to opine and share with us your thoughts on these issues of the budget and how to deal with the deficit. mr. tonko: sure, mr. garamendi. i compliment mr. welch for a balanced approach how to approach the debt situation, the deficit situation and how to move forward with a sound budget to invest in america at a time when other countries are investing in clean energy technology. we don't have the opportunity

to look only at budget carving that looks at impacts through cuts on our middle class families, working families, and the poor. what we have seen are trillions worth of cuts to programs, impacting the ability to pay utility bills, impacting the ability to send your child, your adult child off to college. to own a home. to have an affordable home budget. all these things are at risk here. we're putting people, most vulnerable, at risk. we have seen almost a flat curve for the growth in household income across america, just a slight pump upwards, with an exponential rise in corporate executive salaries. that's where the growth has been. the recovery has seen that happening with a downward spiral, a downward mobile quality to the comeback of our

efforts here in this country. . it is important to make certain there is a balance and calling on all tools in the tool kit to make it happen. and this chart tells the story. over the last 40 years, middle-class wages have stagnated and this tells the story. when people are talking about not wanting to visit a fairness in tax policy here, when we have seen the anger in america expressed in the many households, the great majority of people are portrayed in the middle class, they are the population that have express anger and rightfully so and that anger has to be addressed through fairness in tax policy, through an across-the-board impact of solution here that will enable us to do what is fair and correct. i watch the savings that they talk about here with the

republican plan. the republicans will talk about the huge savings that they produce all on cuts on domestic programs, affecting the poor and the middle class. those aren't savings, because to be savings, they would be in a locked box or assume to go after releaving the deficit. but they take these trillions in like amount and provide tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires, corporations, still continue to hand out mindlessly the subsidies to big oil conditions. that is what is most egregious instead of looking at revenues, the domestic programs that require investment. no they're going pall-mall on a attack on the middle class. instead of investments to

middle-class america and slide it over to the millionaire, billionaire, big oil company cloud, that community, what happens in the interim? we grow with this republican plan for a budget. we grow debt by $8 trillion. so where have we gained here? this sounds like a repeat of the pre-recession years where we were not acknowledging fairness in revenues, allowing for a falling apart of the system, at the same time we took the watchdog on the equation on the financial sector on wall street and allowed working families portfolio where we lost $8.3 trillion on 4011k's. this is what happened and we are going to repeat history. let's pick up on history of the best kind and invest in jobs as

we did in the f.d.r. years where we came out of tough economic times and saw projects built across america not the trickle-down theory that didn't work during the reagan administration and the second push presidency. and my question is and i can't help but ask, why would we revisit that scenario again knowing we are crawling out of the recession and growing private sector jobs to the tune of two million in just over a year? why would we disrupt that progress? i ask, why would we disrupt that? i think it's great we are bringing this information to the forefront and allowing it to be exchanged with the people we represent who have expressed anger about the burden, the unnecessary pain that has been placed upon their households on modest income means.

mr. garamendi: the chart that we shared a moment ago is next to me and it shows that which are seeing a middle class in america that has seen very, very little progress in the last two decades and instead, an enormous shift of wealth and income to the top 1% or 2% of the nation, 256% increase in income to the very wealthy. it trumps all of the income gains by the rest of the economy. those at the bottom saw 10%, 11% increase. the rest, very, very little. i look up and i see my colleague from the great state of oregon, mr. blumenauer, thank you for joining us. we talked earlier today about the upcoming debt limit, but please join us and share with us your thoughts on what we are doing here and what we shouldn't be doing or should be doing. thank you very much for joining us. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate

your leadership and your focusing on the issues that face us. having spent hours in the budget committee so far this congress, i must admit that i was shocked and surprised that with the profoundly negative approach that is being taken by my good friend, paul ryan, the chair of the budget committee, and my republican friends. first of all, there is, in essence, a refusal to zero in on the three areas of greatest increase in the budget. we see repeated charts that talk about medicare going through the roof over the next 50 years, and it's true. we need to get medicare spending under control, because the past

path is not sustainable. but ironicically, what is ignored is that the approach that is being offered by the republicans in their budget actually ignores the major provisions that have been placed in statute now that would actually reduce the rate of medicare spending in the future. we have taken every significant independently verified promising initiative to bend that cost curve, and they have been stripped away. we watched republicans attack democrats because there were provisions to be able to make a difference with medicare spending, claiming it would somehow slash medicare for senior citizens by half a

trillion dollars. well, congressman garamendi, you and i come from areas of the country that actually have been able to reduce health care costs. they're below the national average. and in both areas, we actually have higher performance. better health care, less costs. if the rest of america practiced medicine the way it is practiced in our two communities, there would not be a medicare crisis. well, what we have done with the reform act was embed those notions to be able to provide incentives to reward value over volume, not just pay for procedures, to be able to have accountable care organizations, bundling of services, to actually have some financial disincentives for unnecessary

hospital re-admissions. all of these, the experts tell us, could save over $1.2 trillion over the next 20 years. and, in fact, if we had the courage to actually improve and accelerate and enhance, there are greater savings, because the doctors, the nurses, the hospitals in our two communities have proven it's possible. but our republican friends have simply decided to turn their back on that. they're going to take the medicare savings and spend it for tax cuts for people who need it the least. and i can't help but turn back to you, because you have an interesting chart there on the floor that may say it all. mr. garamendi: well, i thank you. and just do a colloquy here back and forth. you have talked about ways in which we can bend the cost curve

for health care for all americans, not only those on medicare. it was in the affordable health care act, the health care reform. our republicans like to call it obamacare and i'm happy with that, because it would actually reduce the cost of medical services for everybody, whether you are in medicare or kaiser. and you mentioned four very important ways that does it. hospital re-admissions, otherwise known as hospital infections. our colleague, a week ago died -- likely died of a hospital infection. the affordable care act places a heavy burden on hospitals that have a high infection rate for re-admissions. deadly, deadly situation. it's just but one of several ways in which the affordable

care act reduces the costs. you voted no and i voted no that the republicans forced on this house that eliminates wellness. what in the world was that all about? why would you eliminate wellness, obesity, blood pressure, proper eating, nutrition, public health, vaccinations, all of these things to keep people healthy. healthy people don't cost money. they don't run up the cost of medical services. that makes no sense at all. you are actually increasing the deficit by doing that. and then they take it to the ultimate step of terminating medicare. this has become my favorite. it's the teamstone for medicare. in the republican budget is a proposal that would terminate medicare for all americans who

are less than 55 years of age today. if you are 65, maybe it would continue on, but if you look at the totality of their proposal, it is the termination of medicare, and this is what we have. medicare. 1965 to 2011, created by l.b.j., destroyed by the g.o.p.. unbelievable. and along with it, a significant reduction in medicaid, which in california we call medical. your expertise, mr. blumenauer, on the health care issue and the experience in oregon on how we can reduce the cost of medical care needs to be heard by every member in this house. if you would continue on and share your thoughts this issue of medical services and how we can deal with reducing the costs, saving medicare and at the same time addressing the

deficit. mr. blumenauer: well, your point is well taken in terms of what they would do terminating medicare as we know it for everybody under 55 years of age. we're talking about over 230 million americans. and as a result of this, it is -- it's clear, you can look at the congressional budget office, other independent experts, it's not going to reduce the cost of health care. in fact, it's going to increase the cost of health care in america, but what it does is it's going to put an ever increasing burden on elderly americans. it's going to have a gap for those, because ultimately they aren't going to enable people to have medicare until they're 67. they are going to have a small voucher that is given to the insurance company.

bear in mind the reason that l.b.j. in 1965 and the democratic congress enacted medicare was because america's elderly could not get good insurance coverage that was comprehensive and affordable. senior citizens, like it or not, are older, they are frailer, they are less healthy than americans and they're not working as much. they don't have the income. they need help. now, our republican friends would lead us to believe that all of a sudden there will be a private insurance market, which, by the way, sounds suspiciously like the exchanges that they said were bad in the health reform act and they would force people in that, but they would decreasing premium support. i think it's also appropriate to

just reflect for a moment about what happens to the 78 million baby boomers who are 55 or older who will be under medicare. that's going to continue for years. it's going to be increasingly inefficient. it appears as though there is some extra costs that are embedded for existing and soon-to-be future medicare recipients that are going to start, drive up costs and of course, nationally, we are all going to pay more for the privilege. i would suggest this tombstone is something people should consider carefully because it's going to mean and i sincerely believe not just the death of medicare, but going to provide profound shifts in dislocations within our health care system, hurt the providers and provide less effective health care for

our elderly citizens. . mr. garamendi: let me add to that. the republican budget we'll be voting on in the next few days has provisions that are harmful to seniors and wannabe seniors, people who want to live to be seniors, and that's medicare reductions. in the proposal they're bringing to the floor, the road to ruin proposal is a block grant to the states for medicaid services. in kale we call it medi-cal. these are for people who can't get services because they're

disabled, mentally disabled or seniors who cannot afford care in nursing homes. the block grant is less than what is now available to every state and it is scheduled to be reduced in the years ahead. the purpose of which is presumably to deal with the deficit but what it does is it takes that whole population of seniors, current seniors and others who are currently served by the medicaid program and puts them at risk. the effect will be to throw seniors out of nursing homes, seniors that are on medicaid and medi-cal in california. it is the most onerous and hard-hearted proposal i have yet seen. these are people who are in desperate need for services, services for mentally ill, for disabled, for seniors in nursing homes and cannot afford the cost of nursing homes.

that's another part of this provision in the budget. what's happening here is a shift a shift of costs from the overall american economy in the federal budget to the individuals. not to the wealthy, not to those who have income, but rather to those who have so little. and it's not the only shift that's occurring. i'd like to, if it's ok with you, mr. blumenauer, where does the money come from? mr. blumenauer: let's follow up on this for a moment, if we could, you are talking about something that ought to concern each and every citizen. medicaid, in your state medi-call, we've had the oregon health plan, there are other states with variations on that, it provides health care, as you say, for our most vulnerable populations. the elderly, disabled, extremely poor people. and the young. it is very cost effective.

there are complaints that the benefits under medicaid are actually very low and it's hard for physicians and hospitals, medical providers to deal with this. but by moving to a block grant that, as you say, is designed to go down over time, and unlike the current system, which is sort of countercyclical, where the federal government has given more money in times of distress, which it's done to your state and my state in the last two years, if we hadn't got the extra payments from the federal government to help with medicaid, i can't imagine what shape people would have been in in sacramento and salem, oregon, the legislature would have just melted down. well, what this proposal is, is to continue this ratcheting down, no benefits when times

are tough, states that are unable or in some cases unwilling to react, it's going to have a cascading effect. you mentioned the problem that's likely to emerge with people being literally tossed out of nursing homes. this is something that americans need to step back and look at what is being designed as part of this very pessimistic road map that is going to have very serious negative consequences. mr. garamendi: thank you for that i'm going to shift to another very, very important part of the republican budget proposal, that is their total unwillingness to deal with the realities of the revenues the federal government needs in order to continue to provide all the multitude of services that are part of modern society, everything from defense to homeland security,

as well as the medical and social services that we've been talking about. i'm going to put this up, it's a little cute, but i think it pretty much illustrates one of the profound problems in the republican budget. what does it say? it says, what do they all have in common? we've got the unicorn over there, we've got bugs bunny, then we have this thing that says the corporate tax rate 35% for large corporations like exxon. that's a fallacy. large corporations and small corporations in america don't pay 35% income -- corporate income tax. in fact, if one were to take a look at exxon in 2008 they had the largest profit of any company in the world. in 2009, they had a profit of

about $19 billion and their effective tax rate, that's how much they actually paid in taxes, was zero. not 35%. not 40%, not 25%, not 20%, not 15%, not 10%, but zero. it happens that they're not the only corporation. the republican proposal actually would make this situation worse. it would take this 35% and reduce it to 25%. what are we talking about here? why would we want to do that? aparently they want to do that because they want to take their savings, medicare, by terminating medicare, medicaid by reducing medicaid, and all of the other savings, the savings they presume they're going to get from apolishing the wellness programs, high blood pressure screenings and so forth, and on and on and on

and give it to the corporations. let's understand. that the american corporations currently get a tax break for sending american jobs overseas. american corporations currently get a tax break for oil drilling. the oil industry in the united states is the most profitable industry in the world. we just talked about exxonmobil. all the other oil companies in the last 10 years have had a profit of $947 billion. just under $1 trillion. yet, they continue to receive tax breaks in the order of $12 billion to $15 billion a year. [inaudible] and we pay $4 a gallon for gasoline.

what's that all about? it's all about the ability of the oil industry to maintain a subsidy, a tax break out of the american taxpayers' pocket, hand it other to the oil company, they've had that subsidy for nearly a century. i'm saying enough of that. bring that money back into the treasury. use it for green energy, solar, wind, renewble energy, research, use it for the things we need to do, include regular deucing the deficit. but oh, no. they don't want to do that. our republican colleagues want to continue to give to the oil industry the kind of tax breaks that they have and if that's not enough, our republican colleagues want to make sure that this fellow, donald trump, he wants to be president, probably to maintain the

extraordinary tax break he presently has. the republicans want to reduce the taxes for donald trump and for other billionaires, millionaires from 35% to 25%. you go, why should we do that at a time when we're taking money away from senior, at a time when we're forcing the middle class to pay more, at a time when you're shifting the cost of all these services to the middle class, at a time when you're going after the unions and trying to destroy the union movement in america, why in the world would you give donald trump, why would you give billionaires, why would you give those people at the very tiptop of the american economy, those people that now control over 25% of all of the wealth in america, the top 1% of wage earners in america, why would you give them a 10% -- not a 10%, it's about a 17%

reduction in their taxes? makes no sense at all. we talk about shared sacrifice. the republican budget proposal that'll be on this floor later this week will not be shared sacrifice. it is in fact giving to the top of the american heap of all taxpayers of all wealth even more. i suppose it must be the trickle down theory that if these folks if donald trump and the other billion mares and millionaires have more money, somehow jobs will be created. the fact is, it doesn't work. don't believe me. take a look at the american economy, 2001 to 2009. the george w. bush period. george w. bush started the very first year of his presidency with massive tax cuts that

created a $2 trillion deficit, plus, and very few jobs. during the clinton period, ended with a $5.3 trillion surplus and the creation of over 22 million jobs and the tax rate for mr. trump and other millionaires and billionaires was 39%. it is in fact the history of america's economy that proves that you're not going to create more jobs by reducing the taxes for mr. trump and the like. so what do these things have in common, a unicorn, bugs bunny and the corporate tax rate of 35%? they're all fictional. every one of them. i want to now move to another subject and i'll make this my last and i'll make it kind of

quick. if we're going to grow the american economy, we have to make the critical investments that are the foundation of economic growth in any and every country, whether you are singapore, whether you are china or any of the european countries, france or britain, the united kingdom or the united states, there are fundamental investments that the society has to make and many of these investments are made through the general public's government and let me just turn to those investments. this is part of our make it in america agenda. the democratic agenda of rebuilding the great american manufacturing base. if america is going to make it, we must make it in america. we have to rebuild the manufacturing base of america. we can do it. we can do it. but it's going to take critical

investments. i want to just point them out here as we go through this and then compare these to the republican proposal, the budget proposal we're going to be voting on. the first one is trade. now, the republican proposal doesn't deal with trade and goods because they're not going to do any more harm to it. but this is fair trade policy. this is a policy of trade where we do not give away our manufacturing industry to places like china. i am sick and tired of going into target or any other store in america and finding made in china, made in europe, made everywhere but in america. enough of that. we need to see made in america once again on the store shelves of america and when in california, the california government, not my responsibility, i wasn't responsible for it at the time, when they go out and they build a new bridge, a multibillion dollar bridge they buy steel

from china because it's 10% cheaper and i'm going, stop it. stop it. so today, in the resources committee, i introduced an amendment. it's drill, baby, drill, it's our republican colleagues who want to drill everywhere and anywhere and all the time. i think it's the wrong thing to do. we need to move to renewables but if we're going to drill then why don't we drill with american-made equipment? why don't we require that those drilling rigs, those pipes, those technologies, the drill bits, the blowout preventers be made in america? i introduced that amendment, the republicans brushed it aside saying they didn't want to go that way. ok, fine, but we need on trade policy to make sure that our trade policy does not disadvantage american manufacturers. taxes, i just talked about taxes, why in the world would republicans vote against a tax policy that actually is now

law, we passed this last december, why would they vote against a tax policy that would reduce nearly -- reduce, for the nearly eliminate, the tax breaks that american corporations get when they send jobs offshore? . why would you vote against that tax break that american corporations have? i don't understand it. it's over, at least partially over. and more needs to be done and my democratic colleagues and i and asking our republican colleagues to eliminate those tax breaks that corporations get when they send jobs overseas. last december, the democrats pushed through and obama signed a bill that allowed american corporations and businesses to write off 100%, year one, this year, 100% of capital investment so we encourage american manufacturers to invest in

america so they can be more productive. energy policy, extremely important. we cannot any longer put our economy and our national security at risk to foreign oil producers. so, i guess part of the drill, baby, drill is part of that. but that's not going to solve the problem. we need additional and new energy sources and that's where the green energy and future energy comes in. don't take it from me. talk to our american military, talk to the navy, air force, army, they know and they think way ahead, and they know that they cannot depend upon oil. they need to move to other sources of energy. they did it years ago. they had wind on their ships. then they went to coal. then they went to oil and they are now using nuclear power.

they also know many of their pieces of their equipment, a jet airplane isn't going to have a nuclear reactor, so they want to free themselves from the petro grip of the dictators of the world and have energy made here in america and this is advanced biofuels of all kinds. we ought to follow the lead of our military here and we must create energy projects that provide us with clean renewable energy, whether it's nuclear or green energy, solar, wind, biofuels and all the rest. labor, it turns out if one were to look at american economic history, you could track the rise of labor in the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, tracking with the rise of america. we saw the american middle class

grow right along with the labor movement. in the 1970's, we saw the decline of the labor movement and if you track the decline of the labor movement, you will find the decline of the american middle class tracking perfectly with the decline of the labor movement. and now we find all across the midwest in wisconsin and ohio and -- wisconsin and ohio, a major movement to yet take another shot at labor, to weaken labor or destroy labor. in the process, you will find the further decline of the middle class of america should they succeed at that. but this is just more than the labor movement. this is preparing the american worker to be competitive in a modern economy. this is education. this is job training, these are programs to retrain and to bring

into the workplace workers who are prepared to deal with the modern machinery and modern equipment that a well placed and well executed economy must have. i want to move to the next one, which is, in fact, education. earlier today, i met with the president of california state university east bay, part of my district in california. and the president, who happens to be an afghan, was talking about programs that they were putting in place in the east bay of california, san francisco bay, to encourage the education of children, modern technology, using i-phones, using techniques in computer technology, so the kids who are into these things in a big way will be able to

learn, not going out and buying textbooks that are out-of-date next year but online publications and bring to the student all of the world. i was going home last weekend and i got a call from my wife, she said, can you find a light bulb for the projector, it's out. we need a light bulb for the projector. and i said i don't know what i'm going to do. i punched up and looked for light bulbs and in a matter of moments, i found not too far from the airport a photo shop that had the light bulb. the whole world is here. the whole world is available for a student. you can't help but be curious. get online and find out everything about the world around us, everything in science. and it turns out that this

little piece of equipment, according to president kwame, it's also a tool for the teacher. a test can be taken on this. and the teacher immediately knows what the student does not know. the next day in class, that can be dealt with. i think i'm running out of time here. and i will finish quickly with intellectual property. this is the transition of all the research into the manufacturing sector. make it in america, we have to do this and can do this if we have the right policies in place. and so with that, i'm out of time. thank you very much. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from indiana, mr. stutzman, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

mr. stutzman: mr. speaker, i rise today to address a topic of enduring consequence. last month, the members of the constitution caucus came to the floor to commend limited government as the guardian of human dignity. tonight, our discussion would be -- we would like to continue that conversation by discussing one of the indispensible pillars of limited government. america's guarantee of limited government and bulwark of liberty can be attributed to federalism. federalism is a subject which we often forget here in washington, d.c. i believe this is a tragic irony because our great nation is the birthplace of this truly revolutionary concept. federalism is not an abstract philosophy but a separation of power, federal and state governments. one of the cornerstones of our american experiment in self-government.

it was unheard of before the american founding and unfortunately, is all but forgotten today. until our founding fathers devised our unique system of government, nations around the globe were dedicated to the faulty idea that power or sovreignty was indivisible. the great wisdom was to reject this notion and build a robust government with a system that carefully divided power on two different levels. yes, we are most familiar with the separation of three branches of government, legislative, executive and judicial, but too many in washington have forgotten there is another division within government, the division between states and federal government. mr. speaker, we have one of the greatest documents to govern our country that has existed for over 200 years and has been one of the documents that has guided

not only so many americans and people across this country into personal responsibility to -- the ability to take opportunities that we have been granted in this country. the 10th amendment sums up the structural integrity of the constitution and the dual sovreignty of the federal and state governments. the 10th amendment says this, the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution, nor prohibited to it by the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. as a former state legislator, i have seen this and been very frustrated at times as a state legislator in the powers that the federal government continues to assume and is basically overreaching the responsibilities and the powers of the state government. federalism, as you know, was a

huge debate and discussion as part of the founding of our great nation back when our founding fathers were discussing what should be in the constitution. you had the -- during the debate over states' rights and federalism, there needs to be a ball balance what the states are responsible for and the federal government is responsible for and the constitution defines those responsibilities very clearly. i believe it's very important for us as congress and congressmen and congresswomen to refamiliarize ourselves with the -- with our constitution and realize that the boundaries that have been laid out by our founding fathers are well-defined. and the intent and the vision that was laid out is one that is

still applicable to today. and i believe the federal government continues to overreach those boundaries, whether it's massive spending, whether it's an overreach -- the health care bill that just passed last year, whether it's the stimulus package which the federal government is assuming the responsibility to stimulate our economy rather than trusting in the american people. it does not add anything to the constitution that was not already there in its structure, but making the principle of federalism more explicit, the 10th amendment underscores the importance of federalism. to see it succeed, we must hold faith in the integrity of the constitution. a living document is an empty vessel and they make it a blank slate for the trends. as james madison wrote in federalist number 45, the powers

delegated by the proposed constitution are few and defined. those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. so, mr. speaker, as i would like to read again the 10th amendment of our constitution, the powers not delegated to the constitution arery served to the states and to the people. i submit to you, many of the programs that the federal government currently not only operates, but also is proposing under several different bills over the past several years really are overreaching into the state governments' responsibilities and into what they are fully capable of doing. many times, the frustration that we had of dealing with medicaid, and the mandates that were handed down to the states were

tying the hands of our state governments. coming from the state of indiana, i'm very proud of the fact what has been accomplished because of those who respect not only the simple economics of balancing budgets and realizing that you can't spend more money than what you have, as a member of the indiana house of representatives in 2005, i worked with our governor and our senate to see that indiana passed its first balanced budget in eight years. as many of you -- as we have discussed repeatedly here in congress already is what about balanced budgets, what about the responsibility of making sure that we do not spend more money than what we have. our federal government just closed its budget with a $1.5 trillion deficit. and that's hard to imagine that we could actually spend that much more money than what we take in. any hoosier family knows once

that line in the bottom of the checkbook hits red, there is a problem, and we need to re-evaluate what we are doing in our spending and our income. either you cut spending or you start increasing your income. and as we all know with the difficult economic times that we're in, increasing income is not always as easy as we would like it to be. what we need to do is control what we can control, and that is the spending. . today indiana is in the black and is home to the fewest state employees per capita in the united states. i believe the initiative was taken when times were difficult and realizing that we were falling on tough economic times.

as we move forward in this congress, i think we need to take the same principles and values that states have and local governments have and families and businesses who all realize you cannot continue to spend more money than you're taking in. progressivism is the greatest form of federalism. it's goth of, by, and for the experts, federalism believes in government of, by, an for the people and their unique communities. again, here i would argue that communities and people are much more capable because they know there are particular circumstances in how they are to manage not only their own dollars but their own lives. whether it's education or whether it's being involved in their church, giving to their

church or charity groups. but instead we're seeing a government that continues to intrude in taking more and more of those responsibilities but also the rights that we all have as citizens, in taking those away from americans and taking them to the federal government and we all know the federal government is never capable of fully meeting the needs that every individual has in our country. progressivism ends up elevating unelected experts to rule over the entire nation. rules promulgated by an alphabet soup of agencies choke out representative government an congress calls hearings to slow them down. we're seeing that repeatedly, mr. speaker, with hearings we are having currently in our committees and asking questions of the bureaucracies on the rule making decisions that they are making every day. it continues to choke out not only our freedoms and

opportunities that we enjoy as americans whether it's in business or as individuals, but also it is -- the bureaucracies are becoming much more powerful. now that the congress is not passing overreaching legislation, we're seeing the bureaucracies taking on that role. i believe that it is crucial for us as american it is step forward and to remind ourselves what our federal government's responseabilities are and the constitution clearly defines those responsibilities. i believe it's important that we all become more familiar again with our constitution and with the responsibilities that the federal government is responsible for. likewise, federalism today should not be confused with nullification or the idea of secession. federalism must be revived so that the rights of citizens might be upheld and their

duties fulfilled. federalcism the protector of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. i can only imagine at the time as our founding fathers were debating, creating a federal government with the state governments they had at the time, they never imagined that the federal government would become as large and bureaucratic and bloated and irresponsible as it is today. when the federal government exercises control over health care, welfare, housing, unemployment, and even the so-called stimulus of our economy there is less incentive for sints to act within their communities and states to fulfill the duties they once assumed. civic virtue suffers as power flows to washington, d.c. ordinary americans are neglected in this top-down solution. many argue that washington knows better, that bureaucrats

know better, that the experts know better. but i know growing up as a son of a farmer in northern indiana that my parents, my grandparents, they all knew what was important for our family. they knew what was important to our community, whether it was being involved in our school, whether it was being involved in our church community, whether it was being involved in our local economy, our government process. families and individuals can make those decisions, what's important, and make those priorities, pass those priorities on to their families. i believe that what's happening today in our country is that we're seeing less and less, not only interest but also responsibility is now being assumed by our federal government. because it continues to overreach and to continue to take away the responsibilities

of local governments, whether it's a school board, who would make much better decisions for their local community and their school, whether it's a county council that knows the challenges that they have with their counties. i know for us, we have a lot of lakes and rivers, a lot of sandy soil, sewer systems that need to be built to keep our environment clean and better for our children and grandchildren as we pass on the resources that we have. and we're starting to have our hands tied, more and more, because of the washington -- because of regulations coming from washington, d.c. i believe that that is what our founding fathers intended. they believed in ordinary citizens making extraordinary decisions for their communities and that the structure of our constitution protected that.

in short closing here, as i want to turn it over to my colleagues, i would warn those who are in congress that we think ourselves too wise if we believe that federalism espoused in our founding documents is an antiquated relic of the past. governments are the products of fallen men. human nature is the same today as it was in 1787 when the federal government grows beyond its original purpose, when it greedily claims power belonging to states and local communities, it arrogantly assumes that 535 federal legislators and hordes of bureaucrats can direct with perfect clarity the lives of over 300 million americans. i'd be amiss to claim i know the daily concerns of buckeyes or those from texas or oklahoma or california. but i know hoosiers because i am one. i know and believe these simple

truths, the rich diversity of our nation's 50 states impels us to greatness. there are legitimate concerns which must be abe dressed by a well balanced federal government. yet, the federal government ought to defer to the states in those matters that the states are best prepared for. thank you for the time, mr. speaker, and at this time i'd like to wreeled to my colleague, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett. mr. garrett: i thank the gentleman from indiana. first of all, first an foremost, thank you for leading this caucus tonight and leading this special order on tonight as we speak about federalism as a safeguard of limited government. so we come here tonight to

discuss that and think about it in the larger sense, to discuss basically the revolutionary principles that federalism is and its critical role in our system of government that makes individual liberties possible in this country. the founder of the constitutional caucus, i welcome a public discussion on federalism tonight, it's such a crucial discussion, a discussion of federalism and the role of government in our lives and it lies at the heart of the american social contract between the government and the people. it's federalism that keeps the federal government basically within its proper boundaries. oso it is crucial to an understanding of the american commitment to liberty and to freedom and how well it will safeguard this generation and future generations as well. while we think about these topics it's easy to take for granted our federal system of government and the freedom it

aforwards all of us but such a system is by no means preordained. if you go back 200-plus years, ordinary colonists armed with the desire to be free rebeled against the world's mightiest empire to obtain independence from an obtrusive, overcentralized and far-away government. what was in its place? in its place our founders established for the first time in history a national government of defined and enumerated powers that is basically prohibited from overstepping its confined jures dixes. so the federal government's powers were to be truly national in scope and the founders believed that because states and local governments operated closest to citizens, elected officials who were at that lower level, local level, would then be the ones most competent to make laws that would govern daily lives. this was a message espoused by james matson in federal number 45, he wrote back then, and i

quote, that the powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and they're defined. those which remain in the states, however, in the state governments, are numerous and indeaf fit -- indefinite. you establish this dual solve repity, sovereignty of federal and state governments, it's established in our bill of rights, the power is not delegated to the united states by the constitution nor prohibited to it by the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. and so the beauty of the 10th amendment is not at first easily recognizable. some would say on first blush that the 10th amendment is redundant. they'd say it offers nothing new to what has been written into the constitution. it is the littled powers of the federal government articulated throughout the three sections of the constitution. in fact, however, the founders

looking at the bill of rights initially believed they were not necessary. actually, they could be seen as potentially dangerous. why was this? both the federalists and anti-federalists understood that the bill of rights limited the powers of the federal government. but the perceived danger here of the bill of rights lay, where? at the potential for misunderstanding by future generations. this misunderstanding comes about by this. by forbidding the federal government from acting in certain areas which is what the bill of rights would do, it was argued that the constitution implied the federal government could, what? could act in all other areas it was not prohibited from engaging in. but the 10th amendment makes clear that the constitution implies no im-- provides no implied powers to the federal government. so it is here we see it for what it is, it is the cornerstone of the constitution. the most effective tool for the preservation of this, our

liberty. so the 10th amendment as a final amendment in the bill of rights is therefore no accident. rather, as one might say, it is the culmination, the culmination of the founders' vision of america's democracy. it reaffirms a commitment to a government strictly defined and with those limited powers. it is this institutionalization of armor, if you will, of liberty and the perpetual struggle against this federal government. this amendment is in short the realization of the principles of the american revolution. so we are as it comes to the floor tonight and every any tai here in the congress, we are heirs to with that resolution. today, america seems to have surrendered some of its birth right. the scope an reach oaf the federal government is growing at a disturbing place. the incessant expansion of -- eexpansion of government led to

rescuing the auto industry and the banking industry and rationing of america's economic productivity. the tentacles of the federal government if you will are tightly wrapped around housing, education, transportation, unemployment policy, you name it, in almost every aspect of our lives. the american people are controlled by the federal government and almost every single aspect of your life from morning to evening frsh what light bulbs we are allowed to buy, what health care we are allowed to buy, all required under regulations of the institution. today is the 268th birthday of thomas jefferson. if he was alye today i doubt he'd recognize the federal government as one that's remained true to the revolutionary founders of this cupry. rather, i would imagine he would see a centralized and bureaucratic form of government that resembles the one he and

he rest -- he and the rest of the founding father rebelled against. that's what the constitution, the amendments to it and other papers were meant to prevent. out of control spening may be the clearest sign of where we are today, that we have neglected the pins pls of federalism. what it's done is resulted in the unprecedented and unsustainable level of funding that jeopardizes the very economic well being of the united states of. our current path therefore threatens the american standard of living and our prosperity, the american dream and the american status as a superpower. by nationalizing every issue what we do is we deprive the american people of the benefits that thank federalism would normally bring. the founders intended that the states to serve, as often were called, the laboratories of democracy, which would compel the states to compete against each other, to athract

individuals and businesses, if you will, and this competition would result in innovations and innovative solutionses, greater accountability and transparency, public servants and this diffusion of powers that limits the reach of the national government. so, federalism, it's the constitutional guarantee of that good government. so we come here tonight, we must renew our commitment to federalism, to the constitution, and by allowing this, our constitution, to be interpreted by the whims of the judicial and executive branch we have undermined the structural integrity of this document. as well as the safeguards of limited government. so, members of this body at the beginning of the year take an oath to do what? basically to support and defend this constitution of the united states. so we owe it to the people that we represent to remain true to that oath, restoring adherence to federalism must begin where?

right here in this chamber. so i hope that my colleagues will join me as i do know the members are here with me tonight in re-embracing this idea and this notion and this practice of federalism. one with of the great pillars of the american founding principles. and with that i yield back to the gentleman from indiana. mr. stutzman: thank you, mr. garrett. at this time i'd like to yield to the gentleman from colorado's fourth district, mr. gardner. mr. gardner: thank you to the gentleman from indiana for yielding and, mr. speaker, thank you. i'm here tonight to talk about the proper relationship between the federal government and states and local governments. this issue of federalism, our nation's founding documents. when i was first elected i embarked on a listening tour right after november 2 during which i met with local officials from across my district to talk about issues that they were concerned about, what was on their mind, what thalings they were facing in their office --

what challenges they were facing at their office. at each stop local leaders talked about the problems facing their communities. and even though every county is different, every community is different, the federal government seemed to cause the same problems in each one with of them. in one county in my district i was told a story by a county commissioner of the time that the commissioner asked his staff to count all of the federal and state mandates that they placed upon their health and human services department at the county. to count up the mandates that they were under from national, state regulators, congress, state legislation, state legislatures. the county commissioner actually asked their staffer to quit counting when they reached 9,000 individual mandates that that one department at the county level was under. on this listening tour and since then, since being sworn in on january 5, at the town meet thags we have held it never

ceases to amaze me that one of the strongest moments of bringing applause to the town meeting is when we talk about what happened on this floor, when we first started the 112th congress. the time when we read both democrats and republicans the constitution of the united states before the american people right here on the u.s. house floor. when i talk about how we joined together reading the constitution people always applause because it matters to them, because they believe this country continues to be guided by that most fundamental document of our country. those 9,000 rules, though, that that county commissioner was talking about were created by federal, state regulators who don't understand the problems that each of our unique district faces. because they've never been there they don't know what it's like, they don't understand that each county, each city, each school board knows how to govern their jurisdiction better than anyone in washington ever could.

and they do not understand that an unfunded mandate imposed on the entire country does not work. each state and county in this country is unique and often has far better solutions than the people here in washington, d.c., candy vice. the founding fathers understood this -- can device. the founding fathers understood this very well and they focused on putting power closer to the people. our federalist system served and has long served as the safeguard of limited government. i'll never forget as a state -- in the state legislature, as a state legislator in colorado, the time that i received a call from a cabinet member during the previous administration urging me to vote for a particular piece of legislation because there was federal money involved and the only way that colorado would receive this federal funding was if we passed a bill that the federal government wanted, that they were dangled out in front of -- that they

were dangling out in front of us, money in order to pass a bill. that instant proved to me what we continue to see today. power shifting away from the states and to the federal government. but to what end? last congress, last year, this congress passed a health care bill that places increased to medicaid obligations on already cash-strapped states with no way to pay for them. regulations from agencies like the environmental protection agency continue to drive up the cost of energy and force american jobs overseas. just today we heard from senators, representative young testified before the energy and commerce committee about the need to pursue energy policies in alaska that allow them to access the resources of that great state, on a bill that could unleash as much as one million barrels of oil a day.

the state is supportive, the department of natural resources witnesses testified. unfortunately the federal government continues to block their progress. the founding fathers wouldn't even recognize our country today as one that they formed over 200 years ago. in policies like education present another opportunity for us to really distinguish the differences between a federal approach, between the federal government and our state government. another place where employing federalist principles like education, there's no better example where we can talk about what the differences are between the federal government and the state government really is and how the federal government continues to overstep its bounds in education. douglas county, colorado, has taken it upon itself, their board of education, to truly innovate in the area of education financing. the department with the system in the federal government is that it's a top-down approach. since when is the federal government able to better communicate the needs of

children in a community than that community itself? there are some good initiatives in congress out there like the act by mr. garrett from new jersey which would allow the states to opt out enough child left behind funding and use that money towards programs that they think deserve attention. now you see, mr. speaker, along with federal funding comes very precipitationive mandates. the more federal funding a school receives, the less it's able to listen to -- listen to its own community, to its teachers, to its parents and, yes, to its students. the more it is forced to listen to the federal government which says, you can use this money but you have to use it here, you have to use it this way, it's tough for a lot of states to say no to that in these cash-strapped times. i look forward to addressing some of these issues during the debates of re-authorization on no child left behind, but we must put power back in the hands of teachers and parents who know best how to teach their children. health care is another challenge this country faces.

congress imposing an individual mandate on citizens to purchase federally approved health insurance this mandate is contrary to the federalist principles that we're talking about this evening. the bill forces states to expand their medicaid eligibility standards. according to the kaiser family foundation, by 2019 colorado will see a 47.7% increase in medicaid enrollees as compared to the estimated national average of 24.7%. the health care bill was created by the federal government and the cost of its expansion is shifted directly back to state budgets. further, under the takeover of the health care bill, the secretary of health and human services has the authority to enact and execute rules and regulations that local administrators are required to follow. this takes the power way from state and local governments -- power away from state and local governments and rests it in the hands of the federal government. what's more important, though,

is ingenuity and progress in health care that's been established and accomplished by the states on a state by state level and through this process they've made significant improvements to our health care industry. unfortunately i believe the health care bill that passed this congress, that passed this past congress is a step away from that direction. last week i had the opportunity to take my daughter, 7-year-old daughter, to philadelphia to see the liberty bell, to visit constitutional hall, the national constitution center, to talk about the great symbols of freedom in our country. the people who worked at independence hall to write those founding documents, what it meant to talk about freedom. about liberty. about our great republic. and i'm reminded of the time when recent events in libya, egypt, my wife and daughter watching television, watching the news when the president

spoke on tv and they were talking about the fight for freedom that continues in the middle east. the president mentioned how we have to continue working for freedom around the globe and my daughter looks at my wife and says, but we are free. and to that my wife looked at her and said, yes, but we must always continue to work for it. to fight for it. and that's why we are here tonight, talking about how we can make sure that we ensure those fundamental liberties, those fundamental notions of freedom that are enshrined in our basic form of federalism. with that i yield back to the gentleman from indiana. mr. stutzman: thank you. next i'd like to yield to the co-chair of the constitution caucus, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop. mr. bishop: thank you. tom nevens who is a social archeology gave an interesting

discussion about ancient central america in which he said, in 1521 cortes led a group of spanish soldiers to what is today mexico city and there found an aztec society and an aztec capital with 15 million inhabitants. cortes gave a simple instruction to the man who was in charge of that time, which was, give us your gold or we'll kill you. for whatever reason montezuma gave him the gold and he killed him. the siege of what is today mexico city, approximately a quarter of a million aztecs died from starvation in that siege and within two years the aztec empire was totally controlled by the spanish. a decade later the incan civilization had the same thing happen to them led bypy czarow who said, give us the gold or we'll kill you. and also within two years the incan civilization was totally dominated by the spanish which

meant that both the aztecs and the incas were a highly centralized government, a highly centralized society, a highly centralized economic system and because of that they were easy pray for a smaller but very well-trained and well-organized spanish army. by the 1680's the spanish move into the deserts of new mexico where they move against the apaches. there's two things that are different about the spanish efforts with the apaches in new mexico. number one, there was no gold to be taken. and number two, the spanish lost. in fact, for almost two centuries the aztecs -- the apache were able to hold at bay the spanish. and one of the reasons they were is because the apache civilization was very decentralized. they had tribal leaders but as the tribal leaders were captured or killed, they got another tribal leader. with the greatest of all is the one we probably mispronounce the name and call it geronimo.

but as nev nembings, -- nevens said, this a apache organization had customs and traditions and a very sophisticated society but they also were decentralized. i am told that in the apache language, the word you should simply does not exist. whereas if we look at the thousands and thousands of pages that produces obamacare and cap and trade you find the concept of you should being repeatedly inserted over and over and over again. which means a centralized society has certain strengths, has certain weaknesses. its greatest strength is the concept of uniformity. everyone can be coerced into doing the exact same thing at the exact same time. a decentralized society has certain strengths and certain weaknesses. its greatest strength is creativity, flexibility and the opportunity of its people to have options in the way they live. now, i know, mr. speaker, you and probably mr. stutzman are

wondering what i'm doing here. i came into the wrong special order, like what does this have to do with the topic at hand? i think it does have to do with the topic at hand. because the idea of the constitutional convention was, do we have a centralized or a decentralized society and government here in this country? and indeed they tried to separate powers horizontally between the three branches of government, but more significantly, more importantly, virtualically between the national and state government as a specific way of trying to make sure that we had a decentralized system of government. one that put a greater emphasis on creativity, on flexibility and the ability to ensure that our citizens had what they called personal liberty, what i simply say, the options to make choices for themselves in the way they wish to do that. the founding fathers had a great fear of control, that's

high they rose up against great britain in the first place. they had a fear of bureaucracy. today we have in our government a federal government that apparently tries to vacuum up as much power, as much money, as much influence as possible. our government bureaucracy today in washington is one that is based on command and control style of leadership which builds a heavy emphasis on rules and obeying the rules and procedures is far more important than just coming up with a common sense solution to the problem which happens to be at hand. one of the questions that we had is, have we become in essence too big today? have we become more centralized than decentralized and does that give some apparent weaknesses to our society and our country that we have today?

one of the things we have to do is try to rethink this entire situation. tomorrow, members of this house will be inviting legislators from around the country who are back here an we'll have a conference in which state legislators meet with members of congress to discuss this very issue of what direction this country will be going in the future and to recognize very clearly that this is not an issue between the left and the right. the idea of federalism, of balancing powers, of creativity and a less centralized government is not a republican or democrat issue. it's an issue of the direction of this country. because it's about people. it's about whether people actually have options in their lives or whether we don't. when we recognize this, it becomes apparent that the only way to make sense of the situation to make sure that fewer decisions in washington are allowed to be directed toward the states and local

governments and the people, that they get more decisions in their life. as justice rehnquist said, sure think there can be no more important, fundamental constitution question than that as to how authority should be allocated between the national and state governments. that's the battle with which we still fight and struggle here. and it's the one in which we cannot afford for the future of this country to lose or to fail. if sometimes when i was teaching school my students didn't quite understand the significance of the follow the aztecs or the incas, that was an annoyance. but if we as members of congress fail to reck his the distinction between centralization of power and decentralization of power that was the foundation of this country, that's not an annoyance. that becomes a tragedy. i'm very grate to feel chairman garrett of new jersey,

representative stutzman of indiana for your leadership in organizing this, i'm proud to join my good friend from colorado, hopefully my good friend from new mexico, as long as he does not try to change any of my story about the apaches, that's my story and i'm sticking to it. but this is important. this is one of those key issues. this is one of the quintessential issues that will define where we go, either forward to a brighter future or forward to a less secure, dangerous future. i thank you for allowing me to be here for faw minutes. mr. stutzman: thank you, mr. bishop, for your comments. mr. speaker as i think about some of the comments made tonight from mr. garrett and mr. gardner as well as mr. bishop, it brings back a lot of thoughts and experiences serving not only as a

legislator but also a business owner and farmer, small trucking operation that we have a family business back in indiana and thinking about how the freedom that we have comes from not the constitution. it comes if god. the rights that we have are god-given, the constitution protects those rights and i know that many times in -- over the years, we look at the constitution as a dry document. it doesn't seem to be exciting. it doesn't seem to be one of great interest. but i can tell you today, mr. speaker, as we watch our federal government, as we start to the debates of budgets, of health care, of our military actions around the world, of the size and scope of our

federal government, it is crucial for us, for all of us to remind ourselves to reeducate ourselves on what our constitutional role is. as mr. bishop said, many times we talk about the horizontal separations of our government with the executive, legislative and judicial but also we need to remember the vertical branches of government and we need to remind ourselves that the states vail established the federal government. i can only imagine as our founding fathers were debating this and looking at the states that were inist eps an thinking of the challenges and facing the challenges of military action against them and how do they defend themselves, the discussion of taxation and to come together and to establish

a federal government that was designed to not only protect but to protect the rights, protect us physically, but to protect the rights of us as individuals, now looking back, federalism is that balance of a federal government that complies with the constitutional guidelines, whether it's our national defense, whether it's our borders, whether it's commerce, currency, the responsibilities are limited but as time has gone by, the federal government has continued to grow and to pursue and to take away those responsibilities from states and from our local communities. as mr. gardner mentioned the

different local communities he's visited, it reminds me of ones i've made as well in indiana, whether it's talking with the mayor in kendallville about the channels of fire and police, whether it's topeka town council and the challenges they have with economic development, whether it's sewer challenges or fort wayne, ain go la with streets and sewers -- angola with streets and stures and things they know what they'd like to do and accomplish, are all affected by federal government one way or the other. it drives costs up for -- ultimately for the citizens. spending continues to accumulate and increase and we have to remember that the american taxpayer, the american citizen, we as citizens are the ones ultimately responsible for paying that bill. as we come into our budget

process over the next couple of days, i think we should be reminded and would be remiss if we didn't take the opportunity to look through the scope and look through the eyes of what our founding fathers imagined and intended for our country through the constitution. as we face $14 trillion of debt. states, local governments, families don't have the ability to continue to borrow dollars, specifically states and local governments don't have the same ability that the federal government has, so they are disciplined and so they realize that the decisions they make affect local communities. the federal government and us in congress need to take on that same discipline and realize that the spending that we authorize today is going to affect our children and grandchildren.

i have two children, two sons a 9-year-old and a 4-year-old -- a 5-year-old. i know that they are going to have to assume the responsibilities and consequences of what happens today in congress. i refuse to stand by and to allow for more spending and for federal government to continue to deprow. i want to see a cupry that respects not only the individuals' live liberty, for our local communities, decision making at the local level and state level rather than a federal government that continues to believe that they can authorize and tell the american people what to do and what they cannot do. so with those thoughts in mind, going into the budget process, i believe that we have a responsibility, mr. speaker, to challenge the status quo. we hear a lot of comments on this floor about what the

changes are being pr posed in the budget that just passed out of the budget committee last week and it's going to be debated here on the floored tomorrow. i believe that we cannot demonize the situation that we're in and using scare tactics with the american people. we need to be factual. we need to be honest. we need to realize the realities that we are in as americans because we're all in this together. this is not a republican problem, this is not a democrat problem. we see finger pointing on this floor all the time. frankly, i know as a freshman in congress, that's not what i came here for. i came here to fix the problems we have because of a bloated government and because we've overstepped the boundaries of our constitutional role. if we do not, -- if we do not face the fact that we have trillions of dollars of debt that we are overspending, we have to also realize we cannot raise taxes on the american

people at a time when the economy is struggling, when american families are struggling and paying bills. by raising taxes we only drive the cost of doing business higher, we drive the cost of living higher. money can't be circulated through the economy and tick tated to where -- by the federal government to stimulate or drive our economy. the american people do that much better. so i believe as we again debate the budget, we need to realize that if we want to pass on a better future for our kids and grandkids, for our country, for ourselves, that's the way people need to look at it. i believe that we lay out the situation, whether it's with medicare, and realizing that we cannot continue down the road of current -- the program as it currently stands. if we want to hand that off to children and our grandchildren, that some modifications have to happen.

i believe some -- we as republicans and we as congress, specifically republicans in the majority here in congress, lay out the plan and we make this -- we make the case that something needs to be done. the merp people are with us. they realize the debt hanging over us. they realize the deficits hanging over us can in the be sustabed. we'll have to make chas. . we cannot do that if we continue to use scare tactics. i believe that going back and looking at the constitutional role of our federal government that all of us as americans realize as the many generations before us did in the challenges that they faced that we are up to the challenge system of mr. speaker, as we move into tomorrow, i believe that our constitutional responsibilities

db will be defined by what we do and what we say and what we vote on in the upcoming years. i believe that mr. gardner has a few more comments. i'd like to yield to him at this time. mr. gardner: i thank the gentleman for yielding. up with of your comments real reminds me of a story from a constituent years ago, talking about attending law school. they talked about how in their constitutional law course, starting with the bill of rights, they were going through the amendments, reading cases, and when they got to the ninth and 10th amendments of the constitution, because nobody really know what is they do anymore. so discussion tonight has been on -- hn on the -- had been on the issue of federalism.

and here we are dealing with law schools, public law schools, where this individual was told we're going to skip the ninth and 10th amendment because nobody knows what it means. i believe the american people have a great interest in what the ninth and 10th amendment means. i believe in many phones have opportunities and i believe that people who are interested in what's going on around the country and what students are being taught, what students are being taught regarding the constitution, they've got a right to audit that class and maybe they should stop by these classes pause, what? the ninth and 10th amendments of this great neigh. i thank you for the opportunity to share that story p with the gentleman from indiana. mr. stutzman: thank you. it's probably all too common, unfortunately.

and because this document i believe is, as i said earlier, one that doesn't appear to be exciting. but when you read it and when you realize what it does for our freedom, that it protects our rights as individuals of this great nation, it's so important for us to understand it. and if we don't know, to find out. to listen to others who have gone on before us, whether it's our founding fathers or whether it's those who have served in different capacities, whether it's in schools or whether it's in government. there is a reason for it. it's the ninth and 10th amendments and it's the ninth and 10th points of our bill of rights and i think that's what our founding fathers meant. they meant it to be at the end to give those responsibilities back to the state governments because they knew that the federal government wasn't going to be responsible. they couldn't absolutely take care of everybody with the role

and the size of the federal government at that time. and it's -- we're in a situation today where i believe many americans believe and they know in their heart what is right and that's the american -- our constitution protects those rights. and that we believe in freedom, we believe in that entrepreneurial spirit and that we can go out and make something of ourselves. as i said, i'm the son of a farmer and had the opportunity to serve in congress which is a humbling experience but at the same time knowing that we have a responsibility for our kids and for our grandkids, for our country, for the freedom that we have with, for the opportunity that we have and i believe that this is a perfect time for us to know what the constitution says, to understand it and to apply it , whether you're on the school board, which is one of the most

important positions i believe that any individual could run for, to be involved in our children's education. whether it's on the city council, town council, county council, state government, those are all such important -- township government are all so important because an engaged person involved in the community, involved in the government can make a difference. and that is what i believe to be so fascinating is that this document empowers us as americans. it doesn't take power away, it doesn't give power strictly to the federal government, it is one that believes in the american people and as i mentioned before with the budget debates coming forward, if we continue to go down the path of higher spending, higher taxes, of more regulations, that we only take away opportunity, we

take away the empowerment that was given to the american people and that we all should be grateful that we can go back to the constitutional -- to the constitution and have this discussion and have this dialogue about with the responsibilities of the federal government and making that case to those of us in congress and to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, the responsibilities and the opportunities that state governments, local governments -- not only can they do it but they can do it better because they can meet the needs of their local communities because they hear from local citizens. i believe that government that is closest to the people serves the people better. so with that i appreciate each of my colleagues this evening for being part of the constitutional caucus discussion here on the house floor and

looking forward to many more and know that each of us have great responsibilities in front of us and realizing what the federal government's role is according to this document and that we take these very seriously in the upcoming days and that we don't continue to grow the size and scope of government and with that, mr. chairman, i'm sorry, mr. speaker, thank you for the time and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 223, resolution providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution, house concurrent resolution 34, establishing the budget for the united states government for the fiscal year 2012 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for the fiscal years 2013

through 2021. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. mr. bishop: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? mr. bishop: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow for morning hour debate and 11 a.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pearce, for 30 minutes. mr. pearce: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the opportunity to address the body tonight. i was not able to hear the president's speech today but i was able to then get a transcript and read it. i note in the opening of that speech that he says, on page 1, that the debate that we're

having here in washington is about the kind of future that we want. it's about the kind of country we believe in and then he describes that's what his speech will be about today. now, as i read the context of the speech i realize that the president and many americans believe in very dramatically different models of country, the kind of future that we believe in is dramatically different. i find in the president's speech that he centers many of his comments around taxing and maybe it's taxing the millionaires and the billion airs and -- billionaires and so i think if we're going to talk about the kind of country that we live in, the kind of future that we want for the country, for our children and our grandchildren, it's imperative that we begin to

discuss this policy of taxation, this idea that we should and can tax the rich greater proportion shares and so it is that which i would like to address tonight. now, as we talk about the future we believe in, understand that economic growth and vitality are critical concepts and so one must then ask, how do we, how does a country achieve economic growth, how does it fail to achieve economic growth? that would be a key question. one of the core economic truths of economic growth is that when we tax the citizens more than approximately 23%, that we find an economy that will be stuck in stagnation. when we lower the taxation rate, then we find an economic vitality, creation of jobs. and so somewhere this in a

threshold of about 23% -- somewhere in that threshold of about 23%, we realize that every time we raise taxes we kill jobs and every time we lower taxes we create jobs. that was the essence of the argument that president kennedy levied when he said, we need to lower the tax rate in order to create more government revenues. now, i often talk about the economic chaos that we're facing in our world right now, in our country, and it begins at this point, looking at the chart, we have basically an imbalance. we are spending $3.5 trillion every year and we're bringing in $2.2 trillion every year. our economy is stuck in stagnation. we don't have the ability to create jobs and the president is talking about raising taxes in order to create revenue. president kennedy understood that when we raise taxes we actually diminish the $2.2 trillion figure, we lower the

$2.2 trillion because jobs are lost, productivity is lost and therefore those jobs don't pay taxes to the government and the government's revenues begin to decrease. now, i hear my friends on the other side of the aisle often describe the necessity to tax away exxon's profits, that we should take every single dollar they make and in fact we have one president saying we should tax exxon's profits and spend them. we heard the speaker of the house at that point using that same language, that we should tax the profits of exxon and spend them. now, let's take a closer look at that. exxon makes good profits, they have a good business, they have good investments. but almost every year exxon spends the majority of its profits reinvesting them in new drilling. as they drill wells, people are hired to work on the drilling rigs. they're hired to work on the logging rigs, on the cementing

rigs, they're hired to do the tasks of finishing the well, putting it into productivity before exxon can ever make a profit. so as we take away that profit from them, we take away the future drilling, we take away then the jobs from the economy and that is the reason that higher taxes penalize and kill jobs. another example that i have about job creation was from bill with. i asked, what does it take to create jobs? he holds up his hand and says, it takes me $340,000 to create one job. he says, that's because we drive bulldozers in our work. he said, they won't let me drive the bulldozer down through the main streets so i have to buy a pickup truck, too, so he said basically $400,000 i can create one job. and when we the government, when washington taxes away those obscene profits, those obscene profits in the eyes of some, then what happens is he takes

longer and maybe even never gets to the point of having the $340,000 in the bank in order to pay for that new bulldozer and hire one more person. and so as a president begins to tell us that his view of this country is one where we want to tax the people who are producing , then we have to wonder what we're going to get. what you tax you get less of. so if he's going to tax the producers, the millionaires and the billionaires, you're going to get less of them. i think that's a question we should ask, is that a course that we want to chart for our future? now, i recognize that my friend, mr. mccotter, is here tonight and maybe he has some insights, but i'd like to suspend my conversation on the idea that we can tax the rich and find prosperity if we're a nation, i think the rich should pay taxes the same as everyone else, but when we raise the tax level beyond that 22%, 23%, 24%

threshold then we need to understand the result is going to be economic stagnation, that's what we're finding right now. so when mr. obama concentrates his speech today on taxing, taxing the wealthy, that they would pay their fair share in a society, understand he's talking about a future that looks somewhat like cuba's. cuba taxes wealthy people and they haven't had job creation for decades. the soviet union taxed wealthy people, they didn't have jobs. europeans even tax at greater reyes rate than we do and they've had economic stagnation -- greater rates than we do and they've had economic stagnation until they've cut the size of government and lower taxes and found themselves creating jobs. so i'd like to recognize mr. mccotter at this point for comments that he might have. mr. mccotter: i thank the gentleman for yielding. we've seen throughout our

lifetimes the argument put forward that the way out of the fiscal mess is to raise taxes. and we've learned one thing. if they tax it and take it, they spend it. over and over and over again the same siren song. government must increase revenues. the hardworking american people are the problem because they don't pay through the nose for the federal government's overspending. i think the american people understand that we have not a revenue problem but a spending problem. so as we go forward, i think it is wise to remind many of our colleagues that if taxation is the road to prosperity, why do they not have 100% taxation? because they know that it does not work. they know that it's a short-term expedient that has long-term damaging consequences to the economy. and as you go forward and you try to punish productivity, you produce unemployment, you produce poverty indiana short, the cycle continues anew and as the cycle continues anew and as productivity drops, revenues