but listen to us, because we know of what we speak. don't make this mistake. don't go down this road. this is not the way to solve the medicare crisis and the insolvency that's coming very quickly by 2024. you say you can't accept the house republican budget, the so-called ryan budget, the path to prosperity, that includes some significant, i think, very thoughtful, adult, mature decisions regarding what we need to do on medicare, all right, let's get together and get in the room and let's talk about it, but you want to kick the can down the road and do nothing except slash medicare to pay for your new signature issue, obamacare, slash it by $500 billion, don't put it back into medicare, but create this whole new program, force more people onto medicaid, weaken medicare and then just hope for the future. .

i think the american people have seen enough of that. let me close. there are a number of my colleagues here that need time. i thank the gentleman from tennessee. on the house g.o.p. doctors caucus website, mr. speaker, and my colleagues, you can go to that website and your constituents can go to that website, it's doctorscaucus dot beginning re.house.gov. or doctorscaucus. fingrey.house.gov. we'll ask you to sign a petition and oppose the democratic cut board. visit the website and sign the online petition and oppose the democrats' medicare cut plan. and i yield back to my

colleague. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i would like to point out to our viewing audience tonight, when the house version of this bill was discussed through three committees, when this was debated two years ago, this was not in the house version of the bill. this house advisory board did not exist. when it passed through three committees and here debated on the house floor, went to the senate, we knew the bill couldn't pass so they brought one out that didn't go through a single committee hearing with this in it. and we have here the letter that many members, bipartisan members, dr. fleming, dr. beginning re-- dr. gingrey, myself, many others, bob filner, dr. mcdermott, jim mcgovern. on and on and on. that think this is a bad idea. why do we think it's a bad

idea? we believe the people's representative, that would be us, if there's going to be a cut medicare some nameless, faceless board shouldn't have the right to do that and congress would abdicate its constitutional right to control spending, so that's the reason that this -- we're having this debate now. this never should have been in the health care bill. just right here before i yield to my friend from louisiana. president obama said on medicare reform, now we believe the reforms we propose strengthen medicare and would be taking $500 billion out pifment have a hard time believing that's going to strengthen it when we have 35 million more people going into it to enable us to keep the commitments to our citizens. and if we're wrong and medicare costs rise faster than we expect, this approach, the ipab will give the independent commission, that's this 15 bunch of bureaucrats that will make $165,000 a year, i might add, the authority to make additional savings and savings means we cut the money so you

don't get care. let me interpret this for you by further improving medicare. you tell me how that improves medicare if you cut services to people and they don't get the care they need. i would now like to yield to my friend from louisiana, dr. john fleming, planning practice doctor. >> i thank the gentleman, my colleague and fellow classmate, dr. roe from tennessee. mr. fleming: what i thought i would do is take a moment and discuss the historical aspect of medicare and how we got to where we are today. you know, i began medical school only seven years after medicare began. in fact, my colleague dr. roe, i think you're probably of a similar age and station in life and also dr. gingrey who is here. some of us may even remember before that. but i watched medicare grow. and you know, the promise to physicians and patients that time is government, if this is passed, will not mess with

anything. it will be all between doctors and patients. however, by the time we got to the 1980's, we found that couldn't be true. the costs were exploding far beyond inflation. so the government, congress in fact, began to go through a number of cal es thenics and -- calesthenics and one was by a formula doctors would get paid rather than what the costs were and then the diagnosed related groups to tell hospitals exactly what they'll be paid regardless of their cost and then finally s.g.r., sustained growth rate, which we're struggling with now. and it basically means that if we miss budget targets doctors get across the board cut which would be up to 25% to 30% today and of course congress keeps kicking the can down the road because congress knows if we were to actually implement the cuts required by law that

physicians would stop taking medicare patients and we'd have serious, serious problems. so you know, if we fast forward to today, why is it that we can't control the cost of medicare? and i just have to bring it down to the bottom line here, you control health care costs from one of two methods. one is a market based patient centered method in which the patient is in the driver's seat working in partnership with his or her health care providers, making the decisions but also having the responsibility to control costs which means they have skin in the game which means through health savings accounts and things of that sort, they have an investment in controlling costs for them and therefore control costs to the rest of the system. fraud, waste and abuse is taken care of by the user, the consumer in that case, making this in fact the patient to be a savvy consumer. on the other hand, you've got a

command and control top to bottom which is what obamacare is and the only way that you can control costs, mr. speaker, by doing that is to use a system like ipab, this independent payment advisory board, 15 appointed officials who have absolutely no accountability to anyone. they're unelected and unknown for the most part. and if you have a problem with their decision, there's nobody to go to. no one is going to answer the phone. so what does this relate to ultimately? well, we get an inkling of where we're going with this through funds going into this comparative effectiveness board where studies will be determined to see how effective various treatments are, and for whom? and this comes down to what is already implemented in great britain. nice which stands for the national institute of clinical excellence. for a lot of people it's not so nice. how does it work?

it goes like this, there's a certain number of procedures, diagnostic or treatmentwise and there's so much money that can be spent on those and then there's the needs, the people who actually need these. and so a determination is made based on a graph, if you will, or a matrix whether or not someone's value to society, value of their life, in fact they actually have a numerical value each year for what one's life is worth. and they go to this matrix and determine in great britain whether or not it's worth that investment for them. that may mean hip replacement, it may mean renal dialysis or may mean your cancer doesn't get treated. in fact, if you look at the comparative statistics between survival rates of prostate and breast cancer, two of the main cancers we deal with in this country, against canada which also has socialized medicine and great britain, there's absolutely no comparison, the death rates are higher in those countries. i would submit to you, mr. speaker, today, that if you

continue down the obamacare road, the implementation of ipab which is controversial even among the left of the left and very concerning for everyone, i think this is sort of the last shoe to drop when it comes to the creating of a government-run socialized health care system in which bureaucrats will be making decisions about your individual life rather than you and your physician. so we very much want to repeal obamacare but even if for some reason we can't or until we do that, we desperately want to get rid of this ipab which we view to be toxic for our health care system and culture in general. with that i want to thank the gentleman for having this discussion tonight, and i look forward to many more and i yield back to the gentleman from tennessee. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i'd like to yield to the gentlelady, we're blessed to have not only physicians in our health caucus but registered nurses with years of experience in health care.

mr. roe: i'd like to yield to the gentlelady from north carolina for her comments. >> thank you, doctor row. my comments are coming to you as a nurse in health care. and i know you understand the situation we're discussing tonight as well. the situation at hand tonight, there are so many to choose from, you know, we are all vehemently against obamacare. and we know that it must be taken down. we voted to repeal it only to fall on the steps of the senate with nothing forward. so we're taking it apart piece by piece. this independent payment advisory board, let's think about that for a moment. mrs. ellmers: one of the points my colleagues have made is that this is an independent board that's going to make decisions about your health care. the american people's health care, if they receive medicare, a board somewhere in this country, i guess i would imagine here in washington,

will come together, your situation, your diagnosis will be sent in, and they will convene and decide whether or not you're going to receive the procedure that's being put forward or whether your physician will actually get paid for that procedure. so not only does this limit the health care that you might be able to receive, but it also dictates to physicians what they can and cannot do. imagine a physician sitting down with a patient and discussing the possibility of a hip surgery after a broken hip. only to find out a day later that that surgery cannot be done because this independent board has decided that that patient's age is too progressed, or maybe the patient takes too many medications, or they just feel this isn't going to be a positive outcome. imagine that patient, imagine that family looking into that doctor's eyes and saying you

cannot do my surgery? you cannot fix my hip? i was a normally functioning individual two days ago, and now i cannot have surgery? this is what obamacare has put in place. it's cut $500 billion out of medicare, and it's going to put a panel in place to limit the amount that can be spread around. $500 billion. that is an incredible amount of money. you know, i just want to elaborate on my comments. the board itself is just unbelievable. but let's face it right now, in america, physicians are closing their doors. physicians are dropping patients with medicare because they simply cannot afford to do business any longer. all of these things that we're facing right now, we talked about the s.g.r., we talked about how physicians are being

paid. there is so much uncertainty in the health care world because, directly because of obamacare. hospitals are scrambling to find out and figure out and crunch the numbers on how they're going to be able to continue to provide care throughout the years moving forward. we must follow through on this legislation because it is going to affect every american. it doesn't matter how old you are. this is just a start. this is just a foot in the door. a board like this is dangerous beyond all imagination, and i applaud you, dr. roe, for all the work you have done because this is the right step to take, and i thank you. mr. roe: before you leave, and i thank you for yielding back, let me point out a couple of things that concern me about this bill. again, back to my premise that health care decisions should be made between patients and their

doctor. you know, i've had patients in my practice who have been in their 70's or 80's who are much healthier than someone who may be 40 years of age. i've seen them. as a matter of fact at home, one of our folks that helps cut wood and clean and take care of the appalachian trail, he does trail maintenance, is 92 years old and is out hiking on the trail, a very healthy gentleman. and we see this over and over. this independent advisory board, and i'm going to run down it real quick just to let you know what authority this u.s. congress right here -- and i think this is a bipartisan agreement that we're doing away with. it's created under obamacare, the senate version, not from the house of representatives, you remember, but it creates targets and requires medicare to make those cuts when those targets are reached, not based on quality and access but just a specific number. and it targets only senior benefits and providers. and here's the other little thing that's not known.

we haven't even talked about tonight. this ipab will start out for the first five years affecting the prescription drugs and physician providers, but at the five-year mark, your hospital is also included in that, and that means they can cut the costs, cut the payments to hospitals and maybe many rural hospitals, we fear, where i live, in a very rural area in america, may close because of this provision right here. . there's no one they can go to to even complain about. this they can't go to their doctor and they can't go to their congressman because congress gave up their ability to control those. so that's one of my great frustrations, this congress right here is giving up its constitutional authority and we are beholden to the people who elect us to do what's right, not some nameless bureaucratic board.

i'd now like to yield to the gentleman from indiana, our new member here, dr. bucshon. he brings a great expertise in cardiovascular surgery. welcome to the floor. mr. bucshon: thank you for yielding. i was a surgeon last year prior to coming to congress. i helped patients and their families make informed decisions regarding the care they need and the care their loved ones needed. i provided a professional opinion based on the facts. and sometimes had to convey information and news to patients and their families that they didn't want to hear. mr. speaker, i came here to tell the american people the truth, that sometimes can be difficult to hear. but the american people deserve the truth about what's happening with health care in this country. the majority of my patients were medicare patients. we know that medicare is one of the main drivers of our long-term systemic debt.

i want to reiterate that on may 13, the medicare board of trustees rereesed -- released their annual report on the program's financial status in it the medicare trustees stated that the hospital insurance trust fund will become insolvent in 2024. that's within 13 years, mr. speaker. five years sooner than last year was predicted. and for a -- from a physician standpoint, according to the medical association, one there three primary care doctors is currently limiting medicare patients in their practice and one in eight physicians is forced to refuse medicare patients altogether due to the cuts already that have been made in the medicare program. and with the medicare population estimated to double by 2030 to approximately 70 million americans, imagine the access problems we're going to have then. today the average couple that turns 65 has paid in over $100,000 to medicare program and

-- but is receiving over $300,000 in benefits. mr. speaker, this is not a sustainable model. without significant reforms, beneficiaries in the future are going to be at risk with limited access to the care they deserve and count on and ultimately face rationing of care, waiting lists and dramatic cuts to current seniors based only on the cost, not based on what dr. roe has said, the quality of care, or what type of care they need, but based on the money alone. anyone promoting the status quo is dooming medicare to failure and soon. it's coming up in 2024. our plan doesn't affect anyone, any american, over age 55. they've counted on these benefits, but what it does, it preserves the program for future americans. again, the stat us kyo -- status quo is dooming medicare to failure and soon.

congressional democrats that convert currented a administration have offered no plan to date. except the independent payment advisory board in the obamacare bill, 15, again, i want to say again, 15 unelected washington, d.c., bureaucrats making decisions about medicare, making decisions about the future of health care for our seniors. i pad -- ipab was thought to be the silver bullet, if you listen to them tell the story, to control costs. what ipab really will do is will recommend cuts be made to the program, not savings, cuts we're talking about here, c.m.s. will then make those recommendations to congress, unless we get a 2/3 vote, they go and play, they start to happen. we have given up, as dr. roe said, our congressional authority to do something about

the future of health care for our citizens. this is a misguided approach that will again empower this group of unaccountable bureaucrats to determine the type of health care you may receive based on your age and your health. health care decisions are best made when left up to the patient and their doctor. you and your doctor and your family know what's best for you, not the government. and i want to finish by saying, for me personally, mr. speaker, this is about the future of health care for the american people. i fear for what the future may hold. access problems, waiting lists, rationing of care, look at other countries that have socialized medicine. all of these things are occurring. this may be based on your age, based on your health, we don't know what they're going to be based on in the future, it could be based on other factors. do we really want this type of health care for the american citizens? i would answer no on behalf of

my patients and on behalf of all americans and especially in the case of ipab on behalf of our american seniors and with that i yield back, dr. roe. mr. roe: let me throw this question at you a little bit. when you are seeing patients in your practice and basically those health care decisions are made between you and them, when you look at their relevant clinical data and their symptoms and you can see that there's a lesion, maybe a heart surgery that you can do to help them, and it's based on what their needs are, and i have never understood since i've been in this congress why health care has ever been a partisan issue. have you ever seen a republican or a democratic heart attack in your life? mr. bucshon: never. they're americans. mr. roe: and i've never operated on a republican or a democratic cancer in my life, pelvic cancer. why in the world -- so this is one where there is bipartisan support because both sides of the aisle understand this is a

very bad idea to get on this slippery slope where you allow washington bureaucrats, and they can be called experts if they want to be, but they're going to be making clinical decisions for people they never have placed an eye on or a stethoscope on their chest and i'm going to go down swinging on this because i believe this affects all the people in this country and potentially in a very negative way, including the president. because he will be under this same plan and unfortunately many people will probably try to opt out, we are already seeing all the opt out for the private insurance plans, but i as a 65 can't opt out, i'm in, i'm going to be part of this. and i know what my patients are going through and i wonder if you feel the same way about that. i yield to the gentleman. mr. bucshon: i feel exactly the same way, dr. roe. for me, again, i've never seen a democrat or republican patient, i see a patient. in fact, in my practice, as a heart surgeon, frequently i

didn't even know what type of health care coverage the patients have. for a doctor like you or me, for any health care professional, what matters is what's the right type of health care to provide for that patient, regardless of ability to pay. and what we're looking at here is the potential where these bureaucrats may tell you, dr. roe, that you cannot treat this patient based on their decision about whether or not it's affordable for the american people. they're going to make decisions based on money, not based on what needs to be done and with that i yield back. mr. roe: will the gentleman yield? what i believe will happen in that situation is that the federal government will have overpromised and what we as physicians will do is provide that care and shift that cost somewhere else. until there's nowhere else to shift it. because i know how -- if i see a patient that needs care and they are 75 years old, let's say, and

they have needed surgery and i can improve the quality of their life with that, we're going to do it some kind of way. you know you've done it. we figure out later how to pay for it. that's not the way to do this. i thank the gentleman. i'd now like to yield to the gentleman, my colleague, and good friend from tennessee, dr. scott, also a new member of congress and welcome to the house floor tonight. mr. desjarlais: thank you, doctor, i appreciate you leading this discussion. thank you, mr. speaker. i rise tonight in support of my many physician and other health care colleagues that are in the chamber tonight to discuss what i agree should be a bipartisan issue. it's been so disturbing to me after being in congress just five months to see some of the disrespect that goes on across the aisle on the floor, back and forth, but when it comes to our seniors' health care and health care in general is something i take very personaly, i think i

can speak for all of my physician colleagues, nursing colleagues, our dental colleagues that are in the doctors caucus, that none of us went to medical school and nursing school or dental school to become hol tigses -- politicians. we went into those fields because we care about people and we're now here for that exact same reason. and to sit in this chamber and listen to accusations about this plan of paul ryan's to help save medicare is just more than i can stand to not get up and at least share my thoughts. because the bottom line is, as some of my colleagues have mentioned tonight, the c.b.o. states that the cost of doing nothing is that medicare will be broke in nine years. we've also heard that 10,000 new medicare recipients are entering the pool each and every day. we also have talked about the fact that the average age of medicare recipient in 1965 in terms of life expectancy was 68. so at that time you would expect to be on medicare, dr. roe, for approximately three years. well, f.h.a. are thankfully due to advances in -- well,

thankfully, due to advances in medicine, people are living longer and i think it was mentioned that the average couple pays in about $100,000 per year or $109,000 into medicare taxes, but are extracting $343,000. so it doesn't take a mathematician or a c.b.a. to figure out that this program has been severely mismanaged. so when we step up as a conference and as conservatives to help save the medicare program, but yet we watch one after another, members from the other side of the aisle get up and use scare tactics on our seniors, saying that this plan is cutting their medicare, that's just simple undertrue and i think that we need -- we need to set the record straight and people deserve to hear the truth as has been spoken here tonight. so, i join you in my concerns that these are patients we're talking about, these are people, and seniors deserve to know the

truth, that if they are 55 and older, this plan does not affect their medicare. i know that the message has been unclear because i conducted a town hall just last week before the memorial day weekend and we had over 20,000 people call in and the majority of the questions that we were asked was, why is my medicare being cut? so i think that we need to reiterate the fact that if you're 55 and older there are no changes -- changes. if you're under 54, we're taking steps to make sure that your medicare will be preserved and saved and protected for future generations. anything else would be simply irresponsible. another claim that was disturbing to me was the special election in new york. some claim that the reason that the conservative candidate lost was because of our attempt to save medicare. and it was spun as the medicare -- cutting medicare is something you just don't touch politically. but i know a lot of us, including yourself, dr. roe, didn't come here to play politics, we came here to do the right thing.

and the right thing is to tell the american people the truth and what we're trying to do is protect that plan. the plan that is going to cut medicare, that has been mentioned already, is the obamacare plan. and that seems to have been pushed to the back burner and that's a dangerous thing. the ipab bill that you sponsored and i'm proud to co-sponsor is a great example of that. so we need to speak boldly and let the people know the truth so our seniors are not afraid and scared by political tactics so i'm proud to join you tonight in this discussion. mr. roe: would the gentleman yield? mr. desjarlais: yes, sir. mr. roe: let's go back to what you were saying just a moment ago. we've discussed tonight this independent payment advisory board in some detail about what it does. we've also discussed the ryan plan, about what is in the future. well, why are we having that discussion? we're having that discussion because we see medicare as it is being unfundable in 2024, 13 years from now, and that could

be a moving target and change. so we want to sustain this, i think both sides want to sustain medicare as it is. so we know that people are 55 and older, if you're 70 years old now, nothing changes for you. my mother is 88 years old and nothing will change for her. but if you're 54 what happens to you? and why do we think that will work? well, what happens to you at 54 is you're offered exactly the same health care plan that i have and you have right now, maybe you have, i have medicare part a, i would like to still have the plan i had, but you'll have exactly the same plan that you have and what plan is that? basically what the premium support is that a person just looks at -- when you turn 65, you'll look at your health care plan, the federal government is your employer. they pay that part of your premium. a higher income senior like you or myself, we're going to get a bigger chunk of that. it is going to be indexed based on what your income is. if you're 65 years of age and

let's say you have multiple health problems and you're going to have a more expensive plan, you'll pay less than that. if you're a low income senior, you'll pay less than that. why do we think that will work? we've heard all these things about insurance companies, why do we think that will work? well, the one single plan that has ever come in under budget that the federal government think a know of in health care is medicare part d. now, whether you believe in doughnut holes or not doughnut holes, but in the 10-year budget estimate medicare part d, which is the prescription drug plan, was estimated to cost about $630 billion or $640 billion over 10 years. it cant came in about $337 billion, a 41% decrease. so when patients have choices and people can go, it's not one size fits all, people have choices to be able to go out and pick out what kind of health care plan is best for them, for me i like health savings account, someone else may pick

another plan with a 20% co-pay. but those patients, those medicare recipients at age 65, will be able to make that choice. not some nameless board deciding what kind of care you get. . redo need to help control the costs and why we're having this discussion. but those who should be making those decisions are patients and their families and doctors. i want you to stick around a bit because i have more questions but i'd like to yield to ms. birkle, a nurse and attorney, i won't hold that against her. she's from new york and welcome to the meeting tonight. ms. birkle: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise here with members of the doctors caucus with such concern over what is being proposed in the health care bill and what is now law. i think we need to have a frank discussion with the seniors

because of the demagoguing and fear mongering that's gone on by proponents of the health care bill. ms. buerkle: the fact is this health care bill, mr. speaker, is law and if it goes on without being interfered with, medicare as we know it will be decimated, $500 billion in cuts. that's going to affects the seniors. that's the law. what we are proposing is a proposal, a place to begin the discussion about how we are going to save medicare and we must say over and over again to our seniors, this bill will not affect you if you're 55 years and older. you will retain the exact same benefits you have now. but we as health care providers, we as those who went into health care as advocates because we care about people,

we want to protect and preserve medicare. that's what this proposal is the republicans put forth in the budget. i think, mr. speaker, the irony in all of this is those who push this health care bill, organizations who push it on seniors and who said this is a great bill and vote for this health care bill, they now have waivers from the health care bill. they now are saying well, it's good for all of you folks but it's not so good for us. that should raise red flags so i'm so pleased to be here tonight with my colleagues to be able to have this conversation with the seniors, mr. speaker. they need to know the truth. they need to know that we want to preserve medicare. we want to make medicare better for us, for our children and their children and that's what this is about and i yield back and thank you for this time. mr. roe: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. and who more than anyone that the health caucus and physicians caucus wouldn't want to maintain medicare, and what

one of my frustrations i've had in this body is how do you solve a problem if you can't discuss it? and right now we're not even able to discuss in a logical way how we reform medicare. and those medicare changes, we've only mentioned a few of them, i might add. there are many others in here in 2012, that will be just next year. there will be medicare cuts to dialysis treatment. medicare cuts to hospice begin in 2012. and on and on. and it's one of the things -- it's one thing to have a problem, it's quite another not to be able to even discuss the problem. so let's just summarize it briefly here and i'll yield to you that are still here. we had a problem in this country with health care costing too much and a group of people that couldn't have access to care in a liability crisis. we did nothing with this obamacare bill to curb the costs. how we help pay for the affordable care act is we took money out of medicare and to

control spiraling medicare costs, we set up a board, this bill set up -- not we, but this bill set up a board called the independent payment advisory board. most people, including many physician friends of mine don't have any idea what this is. it is a very bad idea. it's not a good idea in england where it's being used, and that's where the group that wrote this bill got it. and you know why they want this, you know why the people that signed this, the senate and others? because they don't have to be accountable. they can blame somebody else when needed care isn't given. oh, it isn't my fault, this board did it. well, it is our fault if we give up that right, it's our fault if those cuts occur to our seniors and we cannot provide the care that they need. so while we're having this discussion is we've got a budget problem, we have got a $1.6 billion budget deficit in this country we have to close, and how do we do that? we look forward and see where are the costs going forward? as i mentioned, when the

president of the united states is 65 years of age, 15 years from now, four things will make up -- will take up every tax dollar that we take in, so it's mandatory that we begin now solving this problem. and i think the plan is a great plan, the ryan plan, it allows people to plan. it also, i believe, will allow you more choices. and i believe that's exactly what the american people want in health care is not someone up here in washington making those choices for us and our patients, but the patients and doctors making those choices. and i'll yield to the gentleman, dr. desjarlais, if you'd like to have some comment about that. mr. desjarlais: you're correct and i agree with everything you said. and a point a lot of folks made on the campaign trail is there is simply too much government medicine and undisobtainable costs. i know our colleague from new york, ann, as an r.n., probably crawls the -- recalls the day

she meant more on patient care than documentation and now they realize it's just the reverse and take more on paperwork and bureaucratic issues than taking care of patients. i think it's important that we remember just a short time ago when the affordable health care act, more commonly known as obamacare was being pushed forward, americans vehemently opposed this bill. and i don't want them to forget all the reasons why they opposed it. they didn't ask for it. we can't afford it. and we don't need it. there were approximate 30 million uninsured people, according to the president at the time, but yet up to 75% of people rated their health care as good or excellent. so we're taking a system that has flaws and excessive costs and trying to completely turn it upside down with this affordable health care act which we all know is going to lead to rationing of care, decreased quality of care, and increased costs. you can't add people to a

system and decrease costs without rationing care. so i think it's important that the people stay engaged and speak out and acknowledge that they want the relationship to be between themselves and their doctors and not between washington bureaucrats such as what the ipab is proposing. that's exactly what we're going to see and we need to stand firm, the american people don't need to forget why they were opposed to the obamacare bill in the first place. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman for yielding and yield to ms. buerkle from new york for closing. ms. buerkle: it's important to have this relationship with the seniors, you want to reserve the relationship with your patient. this ipab panel will disrupt that and come between you and your physician. it's so important we get the facts out, that we have this conversation with seniors, that you understand that we are fighting to preserve medicare,

fighting to preserve medicare as we know it, and medicare and the patient-physician relationship. with that i thank you for this opportunity and yield back my time. ms. row: i thank the gentlelady for yielding and will finish by saying i know the health caucus and the physicians caucus are totally committed to this bipartisan bill, this repeal of this ipab. again, to summarize what it is, it's 15 bureaucratically appointed people approved by the senate, the administration, not either a republican president or democratic president appointing these people. what they will do is make a decision based totally on cost. the congress, then,, it requires a 2/3 override to change, or they have to make the cuts, we have to make the cuts some place else, c.m.s. will be in charge of how those cuts are taken care of. i think that responsibility, that friday -- that fiduciary responsibility with the people. i thank the gentleman for being

here and the gentlelady for being here and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair must remind all members remarks of the debate are properly addressed to chair and not the viewing audience. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. cicilliney: i want to talk about the agenda we put together to put people back to work to support manufacturing and we'll have a good discussion on that but i'd like to yield to the gentlelady from alabama and i yield to the congresswoman ms. sewell. ms. sewell: i rise to talk about the disasters that

touched the people of this nation. there must be a commitment to rebuilding communities across this nation. my thoughts and prayers are with the people of joplin, missouri, who suffered the most recent wrath of nature. we in the seventh district of alabama suffered massive devastation during the april tornados. 9-12 counties in my district suffered tremendous damage. these pictures only show part of the story. homes were destroyed, schools, churched, businesses and communities were destroyed and many of my constituents lost the lives of their friends and loved ones. i want to thank the president and first lady for visiting my district and seeing the devastation firsthand. mr. president, you told us then you had not seen such devastation before. you also said that you would make sure we were not forgotten. thank you, mr. president, for your commitment to rebuilding alabama. i want to thank your administration for responding so quickly. within hours fema administrator craig fugate was on the scene

to survey the widespread damage. the emergency disaster declaration and the major disaster declaration were approved within hours. i also want to thank homeland security secretary janet napolitano, h.u.t. secretary shawn donovan and tom vilsack and s.b.a. administrator karen mills for traveling to my district days later. as a result of the april tornados, 67 lives were lost in my district alone and in the state of alabama, 238 people lost their lives. i want to extend my deepest condolences to those who lost their loved ones. i want to thank all the first responders who were on the scene to help so many of the victims. i also want to thank the volunteers who continue to work tirelessly to restore the lives of families who lost all that they had. the destruction and loss of lives has been absolutely heartbreaking. but out of this tragedy, we

will triumph. we will recover, rebuild, and restore our communities. we will be better and stronger than before. i am inspired every day by the resilience take my district in the state of alabama and the people have shown. neighbor helping neighbor. the response by the state and local government has been tremendous. i want to thank governor bentley of alabama for his leadership and timely response. the coordinated efforts of my local mayors has been amazing. i'd like to thank mayor william bell of birmingham, mayor walt maddox of tuscaloosa, mayor cunningham of geiger, your leadership and tireless efforts have been commendable. i'd also like to commend the alabama emergency management agency under the leadership of art faulkner. i would be remiss if i did not mention the incredible support and help of my colleagues within the alabama delegation. what we have learned is that what affects one of us, indeed

affects all of us. together i know we will work to rebuild alabama. i yield back the remainder of my time. thank you. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentleman and i know we all stand in support of the work that is underway in your district and all across this country and our hearts and prayers continue to go to families who suffered such tragic losses during those terrible, terrible incidents. and we compliment the first responders and the mayors and all those you have recognized tonight. i'd like now, mr. speaker, to turn to the agenda we announced several weeks ago that involves really a comprehensive set of -- pieces of legislation to really support american manufacturing. our country has a proud tradition of making things. we built the world's strongest middle class because in large part, so much of what the world

needed, we made here in america. and for millions of americans, our tradition of making things here has been a source of opportunity and great pride. and today, with millions of americans still out of work, with an economy which is still struggling, it's time to draw from that tradition to build a positive job-creating agenda. the american dream used to mean something, that if you put in a hard day's work, you could expect good american wages, benefits, and a better life for your family. . it meant that when products said made in america, people knew they were getting the highest quality manufactured goods money could buy. it's time working americans used our strength in numbers to reclaim the american dream. working people deserve a voice at the table and if we lose that voice, we lose what our grandparents fought so hard to leave us. and we should start with manufacturing. the number of americans involved in producing goods is still near

its lowest point since world war ii. but manufacturing is central to our economy. the national association of manufacturers tell us that manufacturing stimulates more economic activity than any other sector. it's time we started expanding opportunity and stopped shrinking the middle class. and so this effort to really understand that we have to start making things again, that manufacturing matters, and i want to yield to my friend, mr. garamendi, certainly our leader in this make it in america agenda and someone who has spoken so passionately and so forcefully about our ability again to lead the world in making goods. so we can start shipping goods that are made in this country all over the world instead of exporting jobs, let's export american-made goods. i tell my constituents and i hear from them all the time, go into a store and try to find something made in america. it's almost impossible. and it doesn't have to be that way.

we still have the best workers in the world, we still make the best products in the world and what we need are good public policies that support american manufacturing, that support job growth in american manufacturing, that give fair trade and tax policies, that give american manufacturers a fighting chance to compete in the global economy. and efforts to be sure that our trading partners, like the chinese, stop cheating and play by the rules and are held accountable when they do. and so we put together an ambitious agenda to really make things again in this country because when we make things in america, families can make it in america. and we have a series of bills which we're going to talk about tonight but i want to yield to the gentleman from california who has been such a passionate voice on these -- on the importance of rebuilding and strengthening manufacturing in this country and if you think about, you know, think of those days when you'd go into a store and you'd pick up an item and it would say made in the u.s.a.,

and the kind of pride we felt because we knew that was a product that was made well, built well, that would with stand the test of time and we could sell it all over the world. we can do that again. we are doing it, we have some great manufacturing in this country, we're seeing a real growth, particularly in new manufacturing, high-tech manufacturing, which requires innovation and entrepreneurship and the kind of investments in technology that will help us lead the world in this new knowledge-based economy. and so this effort is to really understand this is part of our history, it's part of the present day and it's part of our future as a great economic power and with that i yield. mr. garamendi: mr. cicilline, it does not surprise me at all that you have a passion for this issue. you come from part of the united states that really started the industrial revolution. the northeast. and your state in particular, the industrial revolution started there. and over the years it gave great strength to this nation and it was the manufacturing that

providing the economic underpinnings for the growth of the american economy. unfortunately your part of the state, perhaps for a variety of reasons, some of them having to do with national policies, began to lose its industrial base. but with your representation and your passion for this issue, i have absolutely no doubt that once again the northeast will find the resiliency and the right national policies to rebuild the manufacturing base there and across the rest of the nation. we're already beginning to see it as a result of the stimulus program and some of the specific laws that were built into that program are now rebuilding the manufacturing base in the midwest. specifically a requirement that for the high speed rail systems and the rebuilding of the american inner city rail

programs, those goods, trains, rails, electronic systems, control systems, have to be built in america. and guess what? international companies are establishing, re-establishing and building manufacturing facilities in america to take advantage of that money that was in the stimulus bill. simple little things, not an increase but rather using our federal money wisely. we can do it. we must do it. we will make it in america once again and it will be the great american manufacturing sector and when we do this america will make it. a lot of discussion here on the floor today about deficits. what are we going to do about the deficits? are we going to raise the debt limit? of course we're going to raise the debt limit. we have to. america stands behind its debts. we will pay. it will enjend ar debate, fine,

let's make this part of the debate. let's make this part of the debate. in dealing with america's deficit are we willing to put in place the policies that will rebuild the american manufacturing sector? and i know it is the democratic agenda to do just that. that we will rebuild the american manufacturing sector and in doing so we'll rebuild the american economy and provide one of the critical bricks in solving the deficit problem. without a growing economy, without a strong middle class, the deficit will never be solved. so we'll have to do it. how can we do it? well, how about our legislative agenda? why don't you start us off on a couple of the bills and see where it takes us. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentleman. i think one of the important investments that we need to make in supporting manufacturing that you just referenced is infrastructure. and one of the parts of the make it in america agenda is the creation of a national infrastructure bank which will create a public-private

partnership to finance the construction of roads and bridges and transit and the ability to move information and goods and services in the 21st century. if we're going to successfully compete in the manufacturing sector, we need to have an infrastructure that has the ability to move goods and services and information to be competitive and succeed in the 21st century economy. when you look at what other nations who are investing in manufacturing, are investing in their infrastructures to support manufacturing, in roads, in bridges, in transit, in information technology, and the ability to move goods and services exetively, they are racing by us, literally and figuratively. and what we need is an infrastructure that will support this growth in manufacturing and the infrastructure that will really allow american manufacturing to compete successfully in the 21st century. mr. garamendi: if you would yield. the infrastructure bank's a great idea and it's one that

allows us to build immediately and over time as those projects pay off, they repay the loans. it is a very, very wise investment to create an infrastructure bank. other countries have it and in the united states there are certain localities and states that also have it. another piece of legislation dealing with infrastructure actually is a bill that i put together that says, well, we -- spent a lot of money, it's part of the excise tax money that goes out to build highways, to pay for buses, trains, light rails and the like, and my bill's pretty simple. it's our tax money, use that tax money to buy american-made equipment. why would we send our tax money off to china? to buy a chinese bus? hey, we make great buses, we make a great bus in the bay area. a corporation makes a bus that is a superb bus and we need to spend our taxpayer money buying american-made buses, trains, light rails and the like.

we're going to spend billions, the money's going to be spent in america, or is the money going to be spent overseas? my legislation says, buy american-made equipment. pretty simple. after all, it's our tax money. one of several bills, the infrastructure bank. and this particular bill in building the american infrastructure. i yield back and i notice one of our colleagues here from the state of hawaii. mr. cicilline: yes. i know she's going to join the conversation. i think the point you made, mr. garamendi, is a really important one. these are not always pieces of legislation that require additional investments of resources. it's also about ensuring that the resources that we're expending are used in ways that support the growth of american jobs and american manufacturing. and your bill san excellent example of that. i think we also have as part of this package, as a beginning point, the development of a national manufacturing strategy, a legislation that would direct the president to convene the stakeholders in the industry, labor, manufacturers, to really

develop a national manufacturing strategy with benchmarks, with ways to hold ourselves accountability to meeting those bench marks. all of our competitors who are serious about growing manufacturing are doing it pursuant to a well-conceived and developed manufacturing strategy. we need to put the same kind of thoughtful consideration into the development of that strategy and then really hold ourselves accountable with good benchmarks and i think that's a grad great other piece. of course my favorite in the package is my very own make it in america block grant. mr. garamendi: if you would yield back, it's always good to talk about your legislation. but if i might talk about a tax -- mr. cicilline: absolutely. mr. garamendi: this is a great way to get things started. this is a great way to do it, it came from a fellow from the east coast, the great state of rhode island, and it basically is a block grant program to jump start the infrastructure programs all across the nation.

the thing that's really good about this is it's a competitive block grant. you are just not going to go out with earmarks because somebody has seniority but it's going to be based upon the quality of the program, the jobs that are brought, the necessity of moving people. i think it must have been a generalous out of rhode island. was it you that came up with this? mr. cicilline: i thank the gentleman for that excellent question. this legislation really grew out of my visits throughout my district to manufacturers in rhode island. some who have been very successful, some that are growing, some that are not growing and i said, what are the impediments, what would allow you to grow, what do you need as an american, as a rhode island manufacturer? and develop this idea of the make it in america block grant that would provide resources in a competitive process as you described for manufacturers to retrofit their factories, to make energy improvements in their plants, to train workers on new equipment, to buy new equipment, to engage in activities which will allow them

to increase their exports, but really a shot in the arm to help manufacturers compete successfully in the 21st century by identifying what they need and, look, we invest lots of resources in other areas of our economy, we don't do enough for american manufacturing. this would respond to many of the urgent issues that rhode island manufacturers, american manufacturers are facing, do it in a competitive way, with really measurement of outcomes but really invest again in making things in this country. and i know the gentlelady from hawaii has now joined white house is also -- has also been an important part of the america it in america agenda. i'd like to yield to the congresswoman. mr. hanna: thank you very much. it's very as if -- ms. hanabusa: thank you very much. hawaii doesn't have manufacturing like the traditional form of manufacturing. however, there is one part of our economy that is very critical and it's under fire and i'd like to discuss that because i have some statistics as to how when we protect what is made in

america, we are able to actually see the results. and i'm talking about the jones act. which has different ramifications for all over. but for hawaii, because we are in the middle of the pacific, what we tend to forget is that our oceans are our highways. and what people think is that, gee, if we had ships come in from foreign flag vessel, you know, we might have a reduction in the cost. and that is exactly where we do not want to go. let's talk about manufacturing -- manufacturing an how it affects us. first of all, ship building. the gentleman from california and i sit on the armed services committee and tomorrow in one of the subcommittees they're going to discuss the 30-year plan of ship building in the military. and the military i know from conversations with my own hometown people who are in the maritime industry that they have been called to washington

because the component wants them to continue to build in america. they want them to build the ships because we can't, the military can't continue to keep this industry alive. they need help from the private sector. so let's look at why wouldn't the private sector do this? and one of the pieces of legislation that has been there to keep the private sector in the manufacturing of ships has been the jones act. now, let's understand what it means for a state like hawaii and then maybe we can g by going through that understand what the ramifications are when we talk about make it in america, because people may not see that after connection to how we benefit from it. we have, for example, in my district alone 16,494 domestic maritime industry jobs. this is the second highest of

all congressional districts. this is according to a transportation institute survey or statistic that they did. now, the total growth economic output from domestic maritime activity is $3.389 billion annually for the state of hawaii. growth output is defined as the sum of receipts or sales and other gross income generated in this maritime seconder. -- sector. domestic and other workers receive total compensation of $785.9 million annually. the total value added for goods and services move big domestic water-borne transportation is $1.24 billion annually the state of hawaii is a top contributor to the domestic

maritime industry, ranking basically in the top eight of four categories. top eight, now. think about how small we are. jobs and economic output, labor compensation and value added. they're already -- there are over 23,000 domestic maritime jobs in the state of hawaii and the total gross economic jut put for the state is well over $4.7 billion annually. and the related labor compensation is $1.1 billion annually and the annual value added is about $1.7 billion. now, nationally, nationally, the domestic maritime industry accounts for about 499,6776 jobs. -- 499,676, $100 billion in

labor compensation, $45.9 billion in value added and $11.4 billion in taxes. there are more than 40,000 vessels in america's domestic fleet, one of the largest in the world, but remember, remember something and one of my senators made this statement and i was stunned by it. he said, after world war ii, in terms of ruling the high seas, america had over 90%, over 90% and we are in, now, i think the low 20's. what does that mean for us? think about the industry. think about the manufacturing. think about the high quality jobs that just the maritime industry represents and what are we doing about it? we know trade, we also know in terms of the military, that the

maritime industry is critical but the military alone cannot keep that industry alive that is why, let us not forget the jones act comes from the merchant marine statutes and what is it that's been done in the past? in the persian gulf war, for example and other types of areas where we don't have enough ships, we go to the private sector and we're able to do that because they are american flagged, american owned and american manned. manned not to be referenced to anything, either man or woman. that's what it's all about. we are, no matter what, the greatest power in the world. that's what we are. that's what we represent. and why would we not recognize that there are many things that we do best, and we ruled the high seas, as they said. now we're willing to sacrifice

that to other countries that should not -- to other countries? that should not be it. trade, maritime, is a major component of our success and our ability to continue to be independent and we know, the gentleman from california and i, as we sit through many of our hearings, that the new military is looking at the -- a marriage with the commercial areas, the marriage with using all of the different ships plus airlines to transport things. that's the future. but to make that future a viable future and a cost efficient future, we have got to continue to make it in america. i yield back. mr. garamendi: -- >> thank you.

another aspect that has to be discussed is the brilliant innovators and great new technologies and research. mr. cicilline: we need to be sure we're making investments in science and research to help protect those jobs of the 21st century so we cannot only develop the the ideas but manufacture the products related to it. i think that's an important part of it. mr. garamendi: i only want to take a second. i notice one of our colleagues from texas has joined us. she's a strong advocate of returning american manufacturing. i want to thank our colleague from the great state of hawaii for bringing to all of our attention the critical importance of transportation on the sea and the american flag. just for a moment, she caused in my mind a memory to return about an article that i read about where the ship is flagged. that is, where it's licensed.

and i recall that, i think it's from florida, the carnival vuse line, billion dollar operation with the ships actually flagged, i believe in panama, interestingly, the tax that they pay to the u.s. government, that is their corporate income tax, zero. nada. nothing. largely because they're able to avoid the american laws by flagging their ship offshore. we need these ships flagged in america for many reasons and certainly the issue that she raised about national defense. corporate tax policy, the r&d tax credit, another one of the bills the democratic caucus has put forward to permanently put in place the research and development tax credit so that we can expand the genesis, the beginning of tomorrow's manufacturing which actually

comes through the research. i could go on and on about that, representing california, we think research is really, really important. that's why we support it without any republican support -- we supported, without any republican support, the research, the stem program, science technology, which is also research, and the education that goes with it. many, many things going on here. one of the things i found so disturbing was the effort by our republican colleagues to back off the research, to reduce the research in america, when in fact that's where the future comes from. i'll yield back, mr. cicilline. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentleman from california. that point can not be stated often enough, part of our ability to make it in america and not only manufacture but invent and create and -- it's a -- make the new discoveries is understanding we need to maintain our investment in science and research to compete in this global economy. i thank you for raising that. i'm delighted we're joined by our colleague from the great

state of texas, someone who has been a forceful advocate for making it in america. i yelled to the gentlewoman. ms. jackson lee: it's my privilege to join the gentleman from rhode island, the former mayor of one of our great cities who understands when he looks at his constituents in city government, that job creation and manufacturing churns the economy of local government as well and i'm delighted to say to my friend from california, texas is right with you. i don't think any state can reject the value of research. we have the texas medical center, research in many different components but they all come together to generate jobs and a better quality of life. i am amazed at how astutely correct the gentlelady from hawaii was on this whole idea of shipbuilding and the flag that ships fly under and the loss of income but more importantly most of us grew up,

young that we are, with this country being the grand shipbuilder. we were proud of that. we loved those kristenings, but more importantly to see those great ships. i rise today to support you and join also if i might, with my colleague from alabama, having had the opportunity to join her there in birmingham and tuscaloosa, let me say to her and to those who have lost so much in alabama, throughout the areas surrounding alabama and to our dear friends in missouri in the tragedy of such high cost of life, let me say to them that we will never give up on helping you. my point is this. it's interesting that today we had an example of the lack of seriousness that my republican friends have regarding job creation. and no matter how we voted, i

voted aye on the debt relief or debt increase, we all know that our commitment is to save medicare and medicaid, but it is also to yen rate revenue how much do we generate revenue? we put the punch back in manufacturing. we manufacture and we create jobs. how does f.d.r., he put people to work, eventually the government got out of putting people to work and you saw this big manufacturing boom. shipbuilding, building homes, we all remember the massive home building that president eisenhower engaged in. manufacturing. making a whole bunch of things. let me tell you why this is so important, how sad i was that the debt relief was in fact a mockery, because if you commemorate a -- commemorate soldiers yesterday, let me tell you what the unemployment rates

are for veterans, 7.7%, and for those afghanistan and iraq veterans, 10.9%. how do you put these folks to work? put a boost and punch in manufacturing. let them come back and use the skills they gained working or soldiers, if you will in iraq, fighting for our freedom, and afghanistan and other places, and you say to these guys, i don't just mourn the loss of your comrades on memorial day but i listen to the voices of your family and yourself, when you come back, i have jobs for you. let me tell you how you do it. i am big on making things. one of the bills we are very interested in, h.r. 613. build airports, re23ur wish airports and make them better, fix our highways, we build or engage in high-speed rail, trains and transits, an we make it in america. but let me say this, we make sure the trains are made here in america. assembled here in america.

we go back to making the same trains we had to make when everyone said go west, young man. go west, young woman. that's how texas got here, that's how california got here. it saddens me that instead of spending the time today looking at h.r. 1730 that will be discussed or 613 or the research tax, or the ability to give incentives for research or to help the texas medical center or silicon valley, we did something where we didn't take seriously the need of america to pay her bills. then, of course, what does it mean when we talk about making it in america? boy, this is exciting to me. we begin to appreciate chemistry and physics because weir in the business of inventing and therefore making and this picture shows research and what happens when you get through research. it is extremely important that we in essence show the importance of -- of what

happens to americans, they get to work. my point is, there are a lot of americans that can be helped if we engage in job creation by making it in america. and as we have all committed to do, i am beginning to go round to my district and i am excited about all the manufacturers that i'm finding and i tell you, you just go round to say thank you to these manufactures, thank you to what's happening, if we were to invest in america and make it in america, it's a better deal, not only for america and those americans here, for our junge people graduating from college, from our soldiers coming back, so i want to thank the gentleman for i think the right approach to come right after the mockery of a debt relief that was not serious but for those of us who believed it was important to be serious, who may have voted aye, we really wanted to be discussing job creation and we wanted to be discussing having jobs and as well providing for those who

are real ready to work. let's see if we can get something done. i join with the gentleman in working on these important issues. i close by saying what an excitement to make ships again to build the trains for high speed rail, to make america's infrastructure in such a way using our manufactured products. what a way to put america back to work. so i hope we will continue to press this issue and i believe the democrats are going to be able to get this done. make it in america and creating more jobs for america and generating the revenue that will really bring down the deficit. i yield back. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentlelady for her passion. i am hopeful that this is an issue where we can build some bipartisan support. we put forth from the democratic caucus, a very ambitious and detailed agenda on how we can make things again in this country and rebuild manufacturing and lead the

world in the manufacturing sector again. i hope it's not a republican or democratic idea, i hope people understand this is good for our country, good for our economy and i hope we find support on the other side of the aisle to make it a reality. i know a big piece of this is supporting small businesses, that's an important part of the manufacturing sector. i would like to welcome the gentlelady from alabama again and thank her for being part of this discussion and yield to her. . ms. sewell: small businesses play a critical role in our economy. they provide jobs and spur innovation and strengthen our economy. mall businesses are responsible for generating half of our nation's gross national prouk and for employing half of its work force. that's why i've introduced the small business startup savings account act.

more folks would benefit if they were provided incentives to allow them to save money to start up a business. on average, an entrepreneur who wants to launch a new business spends $80,000 in first-year startup costs. entrepreneurs often go into debt, large amounts of debt to start their business. they may even save -- they may even try to save money ahead of time in order to start these businesses. many use their savings fund from retirement accounts to build the capital they need to run their businesses. this bill would allow entrepreneurs to save money tax-free so they can start their small businesses, similar to the retirement accounts, this bill would allow entrepreneurs to save up to $10,000 per year and grow that amount tax-free. once an individual starts their small business, funds from their savings account can be used for operating expenses. and in his state of the union address, president obama charged america once again to

spark its creativity and imagination. he reminded us that we're the nation that put cars in driveways, computers in offices, the nation of edison and the wright brothers, of google and facebook. in america, innovation doesn't just change our lives, it is how we make our living. the government can't guarantee a company's success but it can knock down barriers that prevent hard-working americans from starting their very own small businesses. innovation is the key to keeping america number one. and small businesses have always been at the forefront of american innovation. we can't expect to stay competitive in a global market without making the creation of small businesses a centerpiece in our playbook. in the seventh congressional district of alabama, and in this country, the number one issue is job creation. and an ordinary american with a dream of starting their own business will create most of

the jobs that will employ the workers in america. in fact, over the past decade and a half, america's small businesses have created 65% of all jobs in this country. as we continue to build our economy, we must again build things in america. and we can do that through innovation and job creation through small businesses. right here in america. i look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this legislation and to help make things right here in america. i want to again applaud the gentleman from rhode island for leading us in this discussion tonight. it is critically important to the people of alabama that i represent and this nation that we make things right here in america. i yield back my time. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentlelady and i think this is one of those issues where the american people are well ahead of the elected officials on this issue because i think most

americans recognize the importance of us making things again in this country, and this agenda, make it in america agenda is about two things, one, rebuilding our manufacturing sector so we can make products here in america and sell them from here all over the world. and secondly, about creating good jobs so that more families are able to make it in america. americans inherently know that manufacturing is critical to our nation. it's not just that manufacturing creates good-paying, middle class jobs, and fosters innovation, but we've also been incredibly proud as a country of the fact that we make things and we make the best products in the world. we need and want more success stories like general motors' recent announcement they'll be adding and preserving over 4,000 jobs across the united states, or ford's station to move 2,000 jobs back to the united states from japan, mexico, and india. and in fact, ford is planning to add another 7,000 jobs here

in the united states. we need more stories like that that recognize that we make the best products, we have the best workers in the world and we now would like to yield again to the gentleman from california. >> mr. cicilline, i was listening to you discuss the situation with general motors and crisis letter. mr. garamendi: that was a courageous move the democratic members together with president obama made when they made a decision to save the american automobile industry. many people, particularly the republicans here in this house said don't do it, government shouldn't interfere, let the good go and the bad die. this is 700,000 small businesses across the nation that are supply chains that would have died. but the decision was made, a very courageous decision by the president to support the foundation of one of the great industries in this world and one of the great industries in

america. and so general motors and chrysler did receive a bailout. and here we are today with two companies back at it making cars, making it in america and by golly, we're going to import from detroit. you know, that was one of the great advertisements there ever was but that's what this is all about. that's what this make it in america agenda is. there's another piece of this agenda that we really must pay attention to, and that is the future energy source of america are going to be renewables, together with gas and nuclear, but these new industries need support in their early days. this is a tax policy that's been in place about seven or eight years now, a very robust tax policy to support the new renewable industries, the production tax credit, when you put the solar panel on your roof and draw down the energy.

there is a tax credit availability to homeowners. those are very, very good. we need one more little twist to it. i saw this in my own district with those wind turbines down there. they were being made offshore and yet our tax money was supporting the -- appropriately supporting the energy, but if you add to it one additional fact, and that is the tax policy that supports a wind turbin made in america so that our tax money uses american made equipment, another piece of legislation that simply says in the green technologies, wonderful. we need to do it. but let's make sure that those solar panels, those wind turbines are made in america. mr. cicilline: if the gentleman would yield. one of the most frustrating parts of that is it you look at the technology that forms the basis of those products, it was developed in large part almost exclusively by the scientists and researchers at our great universities and then manufactured outside the united states and we're using public money to make those purchases

so you're absolutely right, having the requirement it be manufactured in the united states is a critical part of that and i yield back. mr. garamendi, pretty basic thought for me, it's our tax money, spend it on american-made equipment. the other piece is that these tax policies, these subsidies really work. i'm going to give you an example. about a century ago, nearly a century ago, america decided it needed a new energy source called oil. and over the years, subsidies were put in place to encourage investment in the oil industry. and it worked. it worked phenomenally. created the best, most profitable industry in america, the petroleum industry. let's see, not 10, 970 billion dollars just slightly short of

$1 trillion a profit after taxes for the petroleum industry. and after a century of being small businessesed -- of being subsidized by taxpayers, it's time for those to end. let that industry help us with the deficit. end the subsidy for big oil. we turn the money to the american treasury. bring down our deficit. there's a lot of money here depending on how you count it, somewhere between $2 billion to $12 billion in subsidies for this industry. let's end that. but unfortunately we're involved in a debate here in congress over whether we keep the tax subsidy for big oil and shift the burden of solving the deficit to seniors. an incredible, incredible policy put forth by our republican colleagues that would force seniors to pay more

for their medical insurance and literally terminate, end medicare for everyone that's not yet 55 years of age. terminate medicare, shift the tax burden to them, and keep the tax burden -- keep the tax subsidy for big oil. hello? what's that all about. big oil doesn't need any more help. the deficit needs the help. don't give the tax money tax breaks to big oil. and for heaven's sakes, don't terminate medicare and force today's seniors and tomorrow's seniors to add the burden while keeping the benefit to big oil. this is about choices here. this is about choices. how do we use our tax money for the future energy industries? do we use our tax money to benefit big oil and force seniors in nursing homes to pay

more? that's not out there 10 years from now. that's right now because the republican budget reduces medicaid. the biggest single part of medicare is to subsidize seniors in nursing homes. so seniors in nursing homes, their families would pay more while big oil is protected. mr. cicilline: if the gentleman would yield back. i thank you for raising that point. this is a very important question we have to decide in this congress. what are our priorities? what investments are we going to make to rebuild our economy and get people back to work, but also keep our commitment and the promise we made to our seniors. this proposal made by the republicans in this very chamber to end medicare for people 55 and under, end medicare. and at the same time to re-establish the doughnut hole today so it would make prescription drugs more expensive for seniors, making nursing home care available to many seniors, slash funding for medicare and really shift

control to the private insurance companies to make health care decisions for our seniors, a terrible idea. and at the same time you pointed out preserving tens of billions of dollars in subsidies to the big oil companies that have record profits, that don't need a check from the taxpayers, that adds to our debt and at the same time not making investments in the kinds of things we need to rebuild manufacturing and to make it in america. it's the wrong priorities. and we've got to protect our seniors, keep the promise we made to them, make the right investments here and get rid of tax subsidies for big oil, get rid of the waste and fraud, make cuts the right way but make the right investments at the same time. mr. garamendi: while we're on making it in america, it moves us away, but they were saying earlier in the health care reform, the affordable health care act, money was taken out of medicare. not true. money was taken out of the pockets of the insurance

industry who were given back in the bush era an additional subsidy. it terminated a subsidy of $500 million that the insurance companies had to participate in medicare. why in the world we would sbries the health -- subsidize the health insurance companies who this year are showing record profits? perhaps the republicans want to keep that there for the health insurance companies like they want to keep a subsidy there for the big oil rather than taking care of our seniors and shifting the subsidies to tomorrow's energy sources. these are policy choices. and the policy choice of the democratic party is to protect seniors, to make sure that medicare is there today, tomorrow, and for evermore. let me be very clear about this, if you want a fight on this floor, then you fight with us over medicare.

we will not tolerate the termination of medicare, period. and we don't want to shift costs to seniors. we want to make sure that those companies that are profitable, the oil industry pays its fair share and terminate the subsidies to them. i yield back my time. thank you. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i yield to the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: there's just a whole litany of things i think have been mentioned today that are so very important. one, i want to again emphasize when you invest in america, you create jobs. look what is happening to the auto industry. and i'm far away from the auto industry. i happen to be in texas. but i can assure you that i can point to a auto dealership who is alive today because we said yes to manufacturing and owning businesses and keeping the doors open. now these same auto

dealerships, which, by the way, is in american made cars, g.m. is expanding, is refurbishing, will be hiring new people and selling more cars because we were engaged. and i think the point about that we have to create jobs to reinvest in this community, points again to preserving medicare which is not being done by our friends, certainly the vote that we had today has nothing to do on debt ceiling, had nothing to do with preserving medicare and medicaid, and i truly believe there is a nexus, there is a connection, invest in america, create jobs, have revenue returned back to the economy, bring down the debt, and watch america churn like an engine that is purring and doing better. . we can make it in america, we can support our manufacturers and i think the importance of the auto industry is shown by

bringing jobs back home. let me end by saying american manufacturers, american corporations, bring your jobs back home an participate with democrats in their serious effort to enhance make it in america and creating more opportunity, you're better off here, you can watch your company grow and you can support the continued growth of america and opportunities for small businesses and young people who are now coming out of our many colleges and schools ready to work. i yield back. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentlelady and i thank you for your passion on this issue and restating the urgency of job creation and getting the american people back to work as our number one priority. the make it in america agenda will do that by restoring making things again and understanding it has to have a central place in rebuilding our economy, by building an environment in which american manufacturers can grow and

create jobs and making sure our businesses are competitive across the world. many of our make it in america bills have won bipartisan support. now we can win bipartisan support in the new congress when we work for making a fair playing field for exporters and holding china and other partners accountable for unfair trade policies. make it in america means recommitting ourselves to the future of america's middle class by ensuring we are out-educating and out-innovating our competitors. we have to cut paesful spending and make priority investments that are necessary to keep our nation competitive. as the gentleman from california has just put forth the issues that are part of the make it in america agenda, focusing on fair trade policies, the tax policies which support job creation and american manufacturing, that give american manufacturing the tools they need to succeed,

energy policies that will increase investments in renewable energy, clean energy to make american manufacturers more competitive. labor policies, educational investments, protection of intellectual property and investments in infrastructure. those are the outlines of what we know we have to do to support make it in america, to support manufacturing and support rebuilding and strengthening the middle class of this country. i yield back to the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: mr. cicilline, if anyone understands the history and importance of manufacturing, it's a gentleman from rhode island. the black river, down through rhode island, was the very first place that america started its manufacturing base using water as a source. today as we look at the future of american manufacturing, we d have to deal with energy issues. we should probably take a full night and talk about how the american economy can benefit

from a new energy strt jay -- strategy. tax policies we discussed here a little bit, one thing we didn't discuss was, we put forth a bill that took away $12 billion in subsidies that american corporations had when they shipped jobs offshore. i have no idea how such a -- such an incredibly stupid policy got into the tax code but it did. it's gone. it was the democrat agenda to eliminate tax subsidies that shipped jobs offshore. unfortunately, not one republican joined us in eliminating that crazy tax subsidy. that money is now back to help deal with the deficit. labor policies, education, and -- another full night could be taken on just education. we talked about science teblingnology, engineering, and mathematic the stem program, but it's much, much more, it's the re-education of our work force, intellectual property, research how you protect that, critically important. we did have a good discussion

about infrastructure. this is our agenda. this is the american agenda. this is the agenda about the future and it is so much an important part of dealing with the deficit. there's not an economist out there that tells us we can deal with the deficit unless we get people back to work. the people we want to get back to work is the american middle class, the american middle class needs to be rebuilt along with our manufacturing base and we can do it with a set of policies that we're putting forth here. we ask for the -- for our republican colleagues to join us on these smart pieces of legislation. mr. cicilline, this is your night, you've led us in this, i yield back my remaining time for your closure. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentleman from california for your leadership on this and your participation tonight aid -- and i thank the gentlelady from hawaii and beam and texas for joining us as well. rhode island was the birth place of the industrial revolution.

when you look at the role manufacturing played in the early days of our country's economy, of the industrial age, rhode island played an important role. from winsocket to providence to new port to pawtucket, we have great manufacturing facilities. we need to put in place the tools and policy to -- policies to rebuild that strength, not only in rhode island but across the country, that takes advantage of the great american ingenuity, the great american innovation and entrepreneurship to make the best products to solve the new challenges of the 21st century to build products and sell them all over the world to create jobs as we sell american made products all across the world and we can do it, we have the best workers, we make the best products, what we need are policies at the national level that recognize this is a key part to rebuilding our economy. a key part to the american -- the rebuilding of the american economy and understanding that we can make things again in this country and by doing so we

can ensure that american families make it again in america. i thank the gentleman again. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from alabama, mrs. roby, for 23 minutes. mrs. roby: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of my special order regarding the debt. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. roby: thank you. mr. speaker, we face a budget crisis in this country. america is broke. without bold action, our budget situation will get worse, not better. we also face a severe economic recession. the current national unemployment rate is 9.0% and

it has been as high as 10.1% back in april of 2009. with so many americans out of work, the federal government should be doing everything in its power to encourage economic growth, not discourage it. cutting spending is critical to creating a pro-growth environment. cutting spending is essential to free market job creation. house republicans are the only group in washington showing leadership on this issue. we have voted repeatedly to cut spending in the short-term and we have passed a budget that would reduce spending by $6.2 trillion over 10 years. by contrast, it's been more than 750 days since senate democrats have even passed a budget. recently, senator reid said there's no need to have a democratic budget in my opinion. it would be foolish for us to do a budget at this stage. that is a breathtaking statement for two important

reasons. first, the senate is required by law under the congressional budget act to pass a budget. second, working families all aross america live within their means every single day by following a family budget. it's simple. they don't spend what they don't have. so i ask, why shouldn't democrats in the senate live by the same rules? now the white house is asking us to raise the debt limit and secretary geithner wrote, never in our history has congress failed to increase the debt limit when necessary. the white house wants a clean increase in the debt limit. that means they want congress to approve more debt without cutting back on any spending. that is a failed policy. the vote we took tonight is a clear indicator that house republicans reject that approach. our message is clear. we will not vote to raise the debt limit without significant reforms to change the culture of spending in washington. if the white house wants us to

consider raising the debt limit, they should be at the table proposing significant reforms that yield trillions, not billions, in savings to the american people. so far, that hasn't happened. and tomorrow, the president has invited house republicans to the white house to discuss the debt ceiling. his request for a clean increase in the debt limit was rejected tonight. i hope that tomorrow, the president will offer serious proposals to cure washington's addiction to spending. no lip service. no gimmicks. no smoke and mirrors. the american people don't want more political posturing. real spending cuts a true commitment to that, is what will spur job creation and get our economy back on track. thank you, mr. speaker, and i now yield to the gentleman from kohl. for as much time as you consume. >> i thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on this matter and for the time to be able to talk about an issue that's

important to my constituents in the fourth district of kohl and around the country. there hasn't been a town meeting where somebody hasn't stood up and said, congressman gardner, what you going to do about this? mr. gardner: as we continue to focus on jobs and growing the economy, the only way this nation will be able to create long-term jobs and job growth is if we do everything we can to make sure we are cutting spending and reducing the size of government. in 2006, president obama talked about a failure of leadership. a failure of leadership to increase the debt ceiling and that he would vote against it. he did vote against it. he believed to continue to kick the can down the road. to continue to spend money. without a plan to reduce our debt, reduss -- address the deficit. ehe believed it was a failure of leadership.

tomorrow we have an opportunity to visit the president at the white house. i hope we hear from him why he believed that in 2006, an $8.4 trillion deficit, excuse me, $8.4 trillion debt was too much. why it was a failure of leadership to go beyond $.4 trillion in debt. because the president is now asking us to go beyond $14 trillion in debt. to pass a bet ceiling that would allow congress to spend even trillions more than $14 trillion debt we have today. the people in my district are concerned that there is no stop sign in place for the fiscal recklessness that this nation has seen. the failure of leadership continues from one congress to another without a plan in place. i've had the opportunity over the past several years to

attend high school financial literacy classes where we're teaching our eighth, ninth, 10th, 11th, 12th graders what it means to balance a checkbook, what it mean tots make sure they're keeping their records straight. unfortunately, this congress has failed to learn the same lessons that our high school students are being taught in kohl. what it means to be able to say no to spending. what it means to say no to spending money we don't have. mr. speaker, i can't think of anything more pressing facing this country at the moment than to make sure we send a strong message to the rest of the country that we have learned a lesson that we will create jobs in this country and we will do it because we said enough is enough to reckless spending, that we put in place policies to make sure we stop reckless deficits spending. we drew a line in the stand work a vote 97-318, this house

rejected the president's request to increase the debt ceiling. i yield my time to the gentleman from -- the plans of my time to the gentleman from illinois. >> i appreciate that. i appreciate the gentleman yielding. it's indeed an honor to be down on the floor with you talking about something that is certainly near and dear to my heart, and that's jobs. reining in the out of control debt we've got going on in our country today. the thing that i think is important, this my colleague pointed out, and something i want to make sure we emphasize is this is a washington problem. mr. speaker, this has been going on on both sides of the aisle for a long time. republicans had deficit spending the democrats' answer was to spend more. it's about time that we stand up and say, enough is enough. back in 2006, the president actually said leadership means that the buck stops here. instead, washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today

onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. america has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. america and americans deserve better. i couldn't agree more. we cannot continue to shift this burden onto our children and grandchildren. a $14 trillion debt. mr. dold: i went down today and saw the debt auction and in just a matter of minutes, we saw them in essence auction off another $50 billion of u.s. treasuries. most of that was auctioned off in under two minutes. . we cannot continue to spend the amount of money we're spending and provide the dream for our children and grandchildren. that's the american contract. we have to step up and provide leadership so our children and

grandchildren will have opportunities greater than the ones you and i know today. unfortunately, i fear if we continue down the path that we go down, that we're heading down right now, we may be the first generation of americans to leave our country actually worse. we're looking for leadership. i am here on the floor reaching out and telling the president we want to see a plan, not that we want to reject a plan, we want to see a plan. tell us why we need to raise the debt ceiling. tell us what spending constraints are going to be put in place in washington, both sides of the aisle need to just basically change the way that we're doing things so that we can provide some fiscal discipline for future generations. when i look at it, and i know we have some other small businessmen with me today, i look at it like we just purchased a small business. actually, it's a big business in the united states of america. it's also the greatest business on the face of the earth.

it has some debt. we know we're obligated to pay that debt. but we also know we have to restructure how the company, in essence, the united states of america, is taking on that debt. and until we're prepared to do that, we can't expect that we're going to continue to run the organization, the company, the united states of america, the same way it's been run. there's plenty of blame to go around. the time for leadership is now. and i welcome the opportunity to sit down with those colleagues on the other side of the aisle to come up with a solution so we can all march forward together and solve the big problems of our time. and with that i'll yield at least temporarily to my friend from new york. >> i appreciate the gentleman yielding but i believe the gentlelady from alabama controls the time. >> i'll yield to the gentleman from new york as much time as he would like to consume but we do have to be done in about 10 minutes. >> i appreciate that. i appreciate the gentlelady yielding. and i appreciate joining my

colleagues, fellow freshmen members of the republican class who have come here to washington, d.c. with the same philosophy i believe i bring to the table. and that is exactly the point that we have been articulating here tonight. we need to get our fiscal house in order. so many people ask me why is that so critical to our future. and when i go to my town hall meetings and talk to my constituents in new york, i tell them there's two reasons. one, we all know that if you run a business at the debt level that we run this government as, it will go bankrupt and we're talking about the bankruptcy of america. that is not acceptable to me. it's not acceptable to my colleagues here tonight and we'll workday in and day out to prevent that. but second and more on the short term, we need to get our fiscal house in order so we send a message to all the world markets that the america market is alive and well. mr. reed: and you can invest

your capital, you can invest your millions of dollars back here in america and put people back to work. it's not about creating jobs that are government jobs. it's about creating wealth. it is about creating a private sector that is strong, that is putting people to workday in and day out, putting food on their tables, feeding their families, providing for their education, and giving that way of life that we here have enjoyed to their children, to our grandchildren, and to generations that have not even seen the face of the earth. so for those two reasons, it is time that we honor the senator barack obama's quote, that we need to stop shifting the burdens on the backs of our children and grandchildren. america has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. americans deserve better. i call on the president to put forth a plan to deal with this problem once and for all. with that i yield back to my colleague from alabama.

>> thank so you much. i'll yield to the gentleman from illinois for as much time as he may consume. >> i would like to thank the gentlelady for letting me speak tonight. i don't believe the american sent us here to raise the debt limit to fix this huge mess we have. it's an honor to represent the people of the 17th district in illinois. and with great honor comes greater expectations. future generations are depending upon us to get it right. they didn't send us here to bury our heads in the sand. as one of the freshmen sent here to deliver a message to america that enough is enough. mr. schilling: when it comes to the failed policies of the past, i will continue to persuade my colleagues we must get this under control. we reached the statutory debt limit on may 16, 2011. secretary geithner has said we

have had -- we have enough to goat us through august 2, 2011. after that the debt ceiling is not raised, america will default on its obligations. secretary geithner said it would be insane not to raise the debt limit. i believe the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. the debt limit has been raised 51 times since 1978. and today we are facing a crushing debt of more than $14 trillion. the insanity must stop here. with that i yield back. mrs. roby: thank you so much. i would like to yield to the gentleman from arkansas as much time as he may consume. >> thank you very much. i'm glad to be able to join you here on the floor tonight to ultimately talk about jobs. i've heard some folks mention debt and other issues but it all relates to jobs. and i hear folks on the other side of the aisle say when are

you going to have a jobs bill? what i try to convey to my constituents and to my colleagues here is that when we're talking about the debt and getting our spending under control, we are talking about jobs. mr. griffin: this country has not seen job loss like we will see if we have a debt crisis. and if we want to be the country like many of us grew up in, a country that is innovative and leads the world in technology and advancement, then we have to deal with our crushing debt. and what has been striking on the issue of the debt here tonight is i've been listening to colleagues from the other side of the aisle, and i've heard about all these plans, i've heard about plans to pay down the debt, plans to deal with the deficit, i've heard about their medicare plan. the bottom line is, they don't have a plan.

this president and the senate controlled by senator reid, they don't have a plan. they don't have a plan for medicare, they don't have a plan in the form of a budget, they don't have a plan to get the debt under control. they don't have a plan. their only plan is to let the house lead. they will let us be bold while they are politically timid. they have no plan. it would be easy to have a debate between our plan and their plan. but they don't have a plan. so we are left with a situation , for example, on medicare, something that we want to preserve, something that is a big driver of our debt on the issue of medicare, the other side of the aisle likes to compare our plan, which reforms and saves medicare, they like

to compare our plan to the current plan. well, that's fiscal fantasy, folks. why? because the current plan goes away. the status quo goes bankrupt. so the idea that they can adopt the current plan, status quo, as their plan is nonsense. it's nonsense. we see it with medicare, we see it with the debt. i, like my colleagues here, simply call on the democrats and the president to propose something, something that we can discuss, something that addresses our problems. i can tell you, i can only speak for me and my constituents, but unless we see some serious structural changes to the spending, the out of

control spending in this town, the no that i voted on raising the debt limit tonight will be the same no over and over again until this president and the senate get their act together and give us a real plan. i yield back. mrs. roby: thank you so much. i want to take this opportunity to again thank all of my colleagues for joining me. i'll yield to the gentleman from illinois. >> i was struck by something the gentleman from arkansas said, and i appreciate the gentlelady for yielding. it is about jobs. and that i think is something we focused on here this evening but there are 29 million small businesses in our nation, and the thing that i hear from small businesses and businesses all around my district is the uncertainty. mr. dold: uncertainty out there is causing in essence paralyzing businesses and preventing them from moving forward. if we can create an environment here in washington that allows half of those companies to create a single job, think about the job growth we'll have then. and i'm just wondering if the

gentleman from arkansas or from colorado, the gentlelady from alabama has heard some of the same things become in -- back in their districts about uncertainty. mrs. roby: absolutely. everywhere we go we hear about the job-killing legislation that is keeping small business owners, even those who have the ability to create jobs are fearful to do so because they don't know which regulation they'll be hit from next, what legislation we're going to pass to find out what's in it is coming their way. so i hear it all the time. it is stifling to our economy. we need to create -- we need to make sure we are creating an environment so the private sector can create the jobs and not rely on the government. i yield to the gentleman from arkansas. mr. griffin: the stark contrast on what we're talking about here and what i hear from the other side of the aisle is this, our colleagues, our democrat colleagues talk about

the government creating jobs. they say we need to create jobs . i understand, and i think we understand that the private sector creates jobs, small businesses create jobs. individuals create jobs. people pursuing their dreams and exercising economic freedom. that's who creates jobs. it's our job to help create an environment where individuals and businesses can flourish and continue to lead the world. it is not the government's job to create jobs. we are here to create an environment for businesses and individuals and small businesses so they can flourish. mrs. roby: i'll yield to the gentleman from new york and then we're going to wrap this up. mr. reed: thank you very much, gentlelady from alabama. i was struck by something my colleague from arkansas said about a plan. let's be clear about the

proposed plans that have been allegedly floated by our president up to this date and what we voted on today. you know, we get knocked a lot for not engaging in a bipartisan practice, but let's be clear what the record showed in this chamber today and in the senate last week. president obama put forth and requested a clean debt ceiling on an unconditional debt ceiling, raise it $2 trillion. bipartisan support tonight rejected that proposal. that's the status quo proposal we can no longer afford. last week president obama's budget, 97-0 in the senate, soundly rejected. i believe president obama's quote from 2006 is completely accurate. his words predicted exactly where he's at. america has a failure of leadership. americans deserve better. and with that i yield back. mrs. roby: again, thank so you much to all my colleagues, mr. speaker. i just want to say that

allowing the federal government to take on more debt without cutting up our credit cards is irresponsible. and i'm margaret and george's mom and i represent families here tonight, we all have a responsibility to my children, to your children, to future generations of this country to lead this country better off than the way we found it, and it all starts with cutting spending and getting our economy back on track. so with that, mr. speaker, i thank you and i'd yield back. the speaker pro tempore: and now for what purpose does the gentlelady from alabama rise? does the gentlelady have a motion to adjourn? mrs. roby: i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomo

new and returning house and senate members with contact information including district maps and committee assignments and information on the white house, supreme court justices and governors. order online. >> the house of representatives has rejected a bill that would haven't -- increase the debt ceiling without any cut. it was considered under rules the required a majority to pass. but the legislation failed 97- 318. the debate was about an hour.

>> is putting the american dream at risk. it has become an anchor on economic growth, thingness jobs at a time when the unemployment rate has not been this high for this long since the great depression. the chair of the fiscal commission and chief of staff to president clinton has said the area of that denial is over. while it does not appear that all of his colleagues have gotten the message with the vote, this house will declare to the american people that the end of the -- that business as usual is over. not only is the area of that denial over, so is the out of control spending. we are making clear that republicans will not accept an increase in our debt limit without substantial spending cuts and real budgetary reform. this vote, based on legislation i have introduced, will and must fail. most are not happy when they bring a bill to the floor and

felt that i consider the feeding it to be a success. it sends a clear in critical message that the congress has finally recognized we must begin to rein in america's affection for spending. research by experts demonstrates that spending reform are the most effective task -- past two fiscal consolidation. together we must look for responsible ways to tackle our spending. the difficult, and not popular, it requires us to do with entitlement reforms that are the largest driver of deficits including health care programs like medicare. we know that failing to act would be very similar to defaulting on our debt. we would experience a significant downgrade in our credit rating which makes cars more expensive.

the greatest threat to the financial markets would be simply increasing the debt limit without cutting a penny of spending. this makes clear that deficit reduction would be part of any bill to increase the debt limit and is a necessary part of the process. a no vote today is a vote to put this on a path to what the market and american people are demanding. an america that is strong, reliable, and secure for the future. i urge my colleagues to vote on this increase. i reserve the balance of my time. >> mr. speaker, i yield myself one man and. this is so egregious to

republicans have spent the week pleading with altering not to take it seriously and risk our recovery. republicans were being truthful, they are looking for political cover. whole in our nation's economy. they'd acknowledge that the time something an effort to change the subject, less than a week after their plan to end medicare, they were dealt a major setback by with the voters whose democratic winner will be sworn in tomorrow. . to act in good faith. to solve our nation's fiscal problems, the republicans should focus on the employ, but on the budget notion -- ploy, but on the budget notions.

i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: at this time i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield to a member of our committee, a minute and a half. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and 30 seconds. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. eaker. we better not forget how we got here in the first place. the president, when he raised his hand in january of 2009 inherited a $10.6 trillion debt. let us not forget history. i know this is like a kabuke dance today. you are not only not sincere about this buthis is all process. the american people, the folks in my district are not interested in process, they are

intereed in results. what are the results? how does this help the guy or gal on main street? that's what we should be talking about. this bill we know is going to fail. you already told your wall street friends, don't worry about it, don't take it serious. it's just like a reality show. the republicans have warned their wall street friends and as "the wall street journal" said today, they're in on this, quote-unquote, joke. but as in poker, they're not all in. alexander hamilton founded my city of patterson, new jersey, understood that good credit is integral to being a world power. it is by no means a joke. failure to act will have immediate and dire consequences. now, the world is not going to collapse this afternoon or tomorrow when this thing goes down, this legislation goes down in a few hours. the majority is willing to risk all that is in order to play

political games, to force their failed economic policies. it didn't work in the last 0 years, it's not going to work -- 10 years, it's not going to work now. mr. speaker, this is serious business. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: i reserve at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemacontinues to reserve. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i now yield a minute and a half to another member of the ways and means committee, mr. blumenauer of oregon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon voiced for a minute and a half. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. there's no more important agenda item currently phasing congress -- facing congress than ensuring america pays its bills and honors its obligation. the accumulated choices of congresses and administrations past and present have created the debt and the need to honor the obligations. like an unfunded war with in

iraq that's going to cost trillions of dollars or unfunded medicare prescription drug program from our republican friends. we're not going to default on our debt. with over 100 of my collgues, i signed a letter calling for a kleenex tension and offering to work with the republican leadership so they wouldn't be held hostage to the most extreme members of their part -- party in order to push through draconian proposals that had no chance of being passed which would unsettle the markets and do damage to things that americans care about. like the reckless proposal for medicaid. and additional tax cuts that are unaffordable. unfortunately the republican leadership decided not to treat this seriously. they're bringing a bill to the floor, they're not supporting it, they've put it on the suspension calendar so it had no chance of passing --age and --

passage and they think somehow this is constructive. well with, it's not. mr. speaker, it's time for us to be serious, to avoid taking legislative hostages, maybe the chamber with of commerce thinks that wall street is in on the jo that is represented by their legislative employ here today but i'm not certain that the american public is. the speaker pro tempore: the ntleman's time has expired. mr. blumenauer: it is time to stop the games. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. mp, is recognized. mr. camp: i yield myself such time as i may consume. and i would just say during the eight years of the bush administration the debt limit was raised seven times for a total of 5 -- $5.365 trillion. according to the c.b.o., the congressional budget office, the nonpartisan c.b.o., the score of president obama's f.y. 2012 budget, the debt limit will have to be raised a total of $35.38 trillion during the four years

he's president. that means that president obama will have raise the debt limit at twice the pace that president bush did. i reserve e balance of my time. thspeaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i'll take 10 seconds. i think, mr. camp, s&p 500 did not down grade the threatened, let's be accurate. i now yield a minute and a half to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, mr. rangel. mr. rangel: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recogned for a minute and a half. mr. rangel: i think for those of us who are members of congress or within the beltway understand that this is political things that's going on during onef the most serious financial times that our nation is facing. i only wonder whether or not our friends and creditors abroad or those that respect the united

states and even try to follow our fiscal ways are they i -- thinking that this is the strongt country in the entire world. but for them to follow what we are doing, it is an embarrassment to the house as well as the senate, that the president of the united states of america would ask that our country be safe from a fiscal point of view by allowing the traditional increase in the debt ceiling. notwithstanding the political differences we had, we come together as a nation, not to play games on each other for political reasons, but we come together as a symbol for the free world with to understand that if it's the united states of america, you can depend on us. but now on the suspension calendar, which is an insult to those people who study the constitution in the house of representatives, which is reserved for noncontroversial controversial issues, when the

whole world knows that this is controversial but is certainly not the subject that should be on a calendar called a suspension calendar, so we still have some time to rehabilitate ourselves. i don't know how much more ridiculous we can get. t i do hope that we avoid- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the chairman of the trade subcommittee, mr. brady from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. brady, is recognized for two minutes. mr. brady: mr. speaker, mr. speaker, members, america is undergoing a terribly subpar recovery, one of the worst we've seen, three times worse than the economic recovery under president reagan, a worse recovery than even what president obama promised us when

he spent all those hundreds of billions of dollars of stimulus money. we have $13 -- 13 million americans ouof work, our unemployment rate sky high and it's only -- the only reason it's come down a little is we have fewer people working in the work force than we've had for a quart of a toer a of a century -- for a quarter of a century. one of the strongest signals we can send to consumers and families and businesses to restore their confidence is ma sure we understand america is going to get its financial house in order. republicans in congress are going to send a statement today that america will get its house in order. this vote today basically says we are not going to grant the president unconditional increase in how much america can borrow, here is a good reason why. we took a look at who ran up the debt for america over the years. this chart shows and we basically said, who controls the purse strings? congress. weake a look at all the debt that's been incurred since world

war ii and what it shows is that the debt held by the public, that's by people, by countries like china, like firms in the federal reserve board, 90% of the debt that's been run up since world war ii has been accrued by a democrat, 10% by a republican. that doesn't leave us as republicans off the hook. in fact, we're committed to lowering this debt and getting control of spending, but there is a special obligation by our democrat friends and the president to get this spending under control, to put discipline on the side of government, to restore some financial soundness , to in effect cut up the credit cards, that's what republicans are committed to do, that's what americans say we need to do as a nation, that's why a no vote on this unconditional debt increase is the right vote, not just for the country, but for our future. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back his time. the gentleman from michigan

reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: how much time is on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, has 14 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, has 13 minutes. mr. levin: we have 14 1/2 minutes? the speaker pro tempore: correct. len levin i yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland, the ranking member on the buet committee, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minute. mr. van hollen: i thank my colleague and, ladies and gentlemen, this is a political stunt. i just heard our friend from texas on the republican side say republicans wanted to tear up the credit card. it was just a few weeks ago when the republican buet passed this house all but four republicans voted for it. let me show you what that did to our credit card. here we are. we are aut $14 trillion in debt. the budget, all but four

republicanvoted for, takes us up towar $23 trillion, $24 trillion in debt. $8 trillion increase in the natial debt by passing the republican budget. so clearly this isn't about tearing up the credit card. what is this about? this is about threatening to default on the full faith and credit of the united states unless we put into place the republican budget, including their plan to end the medicare guarantee and to slash medicare benefits. that's what this is all about. they said, whoa, we're going to hold this whole thing up until we get our way. let me tell you what their way would do to seniors, a we've seen it before on the floor of the house. what it means is that seniors will be paying thousands and thousands of dollars more for medicare or getting their benefits slashed beginning in 2002 and it gets worse and worse and worse so that by the

year 2030 you're talking about seniors having to pay $12,000 more for their medicare because the support they're getting is going down while the costs in the private market, which the republican plan forces them to go into, go up and up and up. so while the cost they face go up and up and up, the help they get under medicare goes down, down, down and they're left holding the bill. what's been interesting the last couple weeks in connection with this debt ceiling debate is to hear these replican proposals to say, hey, don't worry about it. you know what? we'll pay china. we'll pay our overseas foreign creditors on their bonds. we'll take care of them, but guess what, we don't have to pay our full faith and credit and our obligations to america's seniors. we don't have to pay medicare. we don't have to pay social security, pay off the bondholders, take care of them. but let'follow through on

this plan to dess apate, decimate medicare. at the end of the day this is what it's all about. we all understand we have to get the debt under control. we're having negotiations with the vice president to have a balanced plan. but you're trying to force the republican plan, which newt impie rich acknowledged the other day was a right-wing piece of social engineering until, of course, he was bludgeoned by the right wing to withdrawal his statement. he was calling the shots as it was. he said, you know what, this isn't such a good idea. and what's really outrageous about this charade is you are now threatening the entire u.s. economy in order to get your way on a radical right-wing medicare plan that's bad for american seniors. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: at this time i yield

a minute and a half to a distinguished member from the ways and means committee, the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. black. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized for a minute and a half. mrs. blackthank you, mr. speaker. i came to washington bause i knew we had a de problem. but you know what, once i got here and i started getting all the facts, i realized that we didn't have a debt problem. we have a debt crisis. we are $14.2 trillion in debt, and you know what, that number is even hard to comprehend it's so large. over and over we hear from economists, both conservative and liberal, that we have less than five years to turn things around or the united states will sink under all this debt. we've se what happened in greece and ireland and i reject that future r the united states. the time is now to fix this because we're out of time and we have an opportunity to change for the good the way

washington is spending. but it doesn't seem the other end of pennsylvania avenue thinks we node to change anything. they are happy to keep kicking the can down the road, but you know wt, the road has run out. in fact, the administration and over 100 democrats in this congress want a straight up and down vote on the debt ceiling. well, that's what we're going to get today. and when this measure to raise the nation's debt limit fails, on the house floor tonight we will be sending the white house a message loud and clear, you will not get another blake check from us, mr. -- blank check from us, mr. president. that's why because i and 87 freshmen cleagues we sen to washington with strict orders, to change the spending cycle that is bringing our country down. and tonight the people back home will see -- mr. camp: yield an additional 30 second. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from tennessee has an additional 30 seconds. mrs. black: and we are acting for them.

the american people will reject the ideal to reject a clean vote and so will the house tonight. enough is enough. the gig is up, mr. president. so now is the time to get serious. get serious about ending this debt, get serious about ending washington spending addiction, and get serious about getting this country back on track. i yield back the remainder of my tim the speaker pro tempe: the gentlewoman yields back her time. members are advised to address their remarks to the chair and not each other. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, rerves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levi how much time is left, please? the speaker pro tempore: both sides have 11 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. levin: i now yield to a member of our leadership and to a member of ways and means committee, mr. becerra, a minute and a half. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. becerra: i thank the gentleman for yielding.

mr. speaker, the last thing we need right now is for our republican colleagues to play ssian roulette with a recovering economy by threatening to default on america's bills and triggering an escalation of interest rates and mortgage rates that will have repercussions on every single american family and certainly on every sector of our economy. yet, that's what we have today. republicans have presented a bill that they have said they are going to vote against. so this whole charade, which is costing taxpayers money because we have to pay for the lights, for the printing, for all the members of congress and our staff who are working, we have to pay for this we could simply send a message that we are going to vote no. "the nework time further tells us today that republican leaders have, quote, privately assured wall street executives that this vote is a show. furthermore, they cite that an executive from the u.s. chamber of commerce tells us that,

quote, wall street is in on the joke. the reality is that wh our colleagues on the republican side are trying to do is furiously try to deflect the public's attention from what they recklessly tried to do to medicare, by ending it, because that is in their proposal, in their budget. they are doing everything they can to try to get people to stop focusing on the fact that seniors are being asked to pay for this debt by getting less when it comes to medicare and certainly ery single american as they age into seniority as well. mr. speaker, every family in america has to balance its checkbook. they have to do so responsibly. they have to pay the mortgage and pay their credit card bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. becerra: congress should do the same and this is not the time to play jokes. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized.

mr. camp: before i yield to the gentleman from new mexico, i would just yield myself such time as i may consume and say that the medicare trustees have said that medicare goes broke in 2024. and so if you support an unconditional debt limit increase, as 100 democrats wrote to their leaders and ask be made a position of the democrat caucus, that does nothing about prerving and protecting medicare for the future. so i would say -- no, i will not yield. i will not yield. i control the time, mr. van hollen. and so i would say that by supporting an unconditional increase in the debt limit, as more than 100 wrote in to their leaders, again, it does nothing to preserve for the future. at this time i yield to the gentleman from new mexico one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pearce, is recognized for one minute. mr. pearce: i thank the gentleman for yielding. in my district people ask, what

this vote about, this debt ceiling vote? so i've created a simple chart that says it as plainly as we can. we're spending $3.5 trillion in the country each year and we're bringing in $.2 trillion. it doesn't work for your pamly. it doesn't work for your business, and the not working for the country. in order to make up the difference we ve to borrow that money, except that our bankers are saying no more, just as your bankers are saying no more. so we're printing the money to make this system work. it's a scheme that's not working. this chart in the upper right-hand corner says that the whole economy collapses about 2038. so o.m.b. and c.b.o. are saying that we must take care of the spending problem that we have in this country. that's what the debt ceiling is about. we have a law that says we can't borrow within a certain amount of money. if we just extend with know provisions with reform then we'll continue to spend this much money every year we don't have. let's take care of the

problems. let's do structural reforms in the way we're spending our money, let's do structural reforms in our budget. let's get it under control so we don't give our kids a failed economy. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, . levin, is recognized. mr. levin: it's now my pleasure to yield a minute and a half to a member of our committee, mr. neal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute and a half. mr. neal: he said, let me tell you what this is about. i came from a memorial. 278 veterans. i represent a veterans hospital. that's what this vote is about. the gentlelady from tennessee, i wish she was here on january 20 of 2001 when that political party spent their day and night saying, yes, mr. president, to george bush. they went along with everything he said. they never even bothered to read article 1 of the constitution. this vote is about one and one thing only. paying your bills.

they ran up the debt and now they don't want to pay their bills. january 19, 2001, bill clinton said goodbye to the country. a $5.7 trillion surplus onhand. $2.3 trillion in tax cuts, a war in iraq over weapons of mass destruction, a drug prescription benefit called part d, and they're talking about who es the bill. this is about responsibility. this is about those v.a. centers. this is about their men's and women in iraq that needs to be equipped with the best possible weaponry. this is about paying the credit card bill that has come in for what they did for all of those years. i would debate any member of the republican party, you choose the forum. in the house and the senate. and we'll go through what those eight years were about. unt me in.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: well, thank you. i'm certainly concerned about the last eight years but i'm more concerned about the last two. i thk we have the third year in a row of trillion-dollar deficit. d like to introduce in the record the standard & poor's report on the united states debt. and quote from that report. and without objection. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. camp: because, and i quote, a very large budget deficit and rising government indebtedness in the past to addressing these is not clear. we've revised our outlook on the long-term rating from negative to stable, end quote. the path to addressing these is not clear. . we think it's essenal we don't have an increase, that we have the structural reforms we so desperately need in this country. have 110 members of the other party wrote a letter

saying we want an unconditional increase in the debt. just keep spending. don't bring any spending reductions or long-term reforms, keep going the way we've been going. ed is and poors says if we don't -- standard & poor's says if we don't address this issue -- wt does it mean? it means buyin a car or house is more expensive. certainly our ability to sell our bonds around the world will be very difficult to do and make that much more expensive. a downgrade inur debt limit would have the same impact as not increasing the debt limit at all, financial markets would be disrupted, borrowing costs would skyrocket, the dollar would plunge, driving up the cos of imports like gasoline and causing higher inflation anwould wreak havoc on our economy. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, reserves, the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself five seconds. mr. camp, you were the ones that said just keep spending. we don't say that. i now yield 1 1/2 minutes to

the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett, is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. doggett: today's vote represents just one more step in the republican effort to dismantle medicare. this condrived procedure demanding an extraordinary 2/3 vote right after the republican majority announces they won't vote for it is just a gmick. you don't have to be much of a math whiz to know if you don't have half the vos in this body you probably are not going to get 2/3 of the vote. but it's not about the vote. it's about republicans who are withholding their support of an eventual necessary increase in the limit by demandg that any agreement on that include a weakening of medicare by imposing sothing like the ryan republican medicare voucher plan that they all voted for, or some other scheme to just let medicare wither on the vine. republicans are willing to jeopardize the full faith and

credit of the united states of america, exposing us to great potentl economic harm. they think the president will once again yield to their ransom, as he did last december, by yielding on more tax breaks for billionaires. don't yield to this maneuver, mr. president, say no to gimmicks and say yes to medicare, one of the best programs ever initiated by this congress to assure a little retirement security. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the chair would remind all members to address their remarks to the chair and not to the other party in the second person. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. we're not talking about what the other side would contend as a joke. this is a serious issue and rise in opposition to an increase in the debt sealing

that would give the president another couple trillion to keep spending the way they have the last two years. mr. scalise: i think the americans realize that wild spending spree the president has been on the last two years has to come to an end and will have to come on the house floor where we'll invoke fiscal discipline. the other members want a clean vote and want another $2 trillion to keep spending, money we don't have. in fact, if you look at their plan, theiplan not only will double the national debt in five years, which i guess they're ok with, but also allows medicare to go corrupt -- bankrupt. we're not going to sit by and let medicare go bankrupt or let them keep spending money we don't have. we're going to say enough is enough. we'll put spending controls in place and frankly would be irresponsible to increase the debt ceiling without reforms that actually start cutting spending and putting our country back on a path to a balanced budget. now, there may be some on the other side who don't want to

see us get to a balanced budget which is why they dramatically increased spending over the last four years up until when speaker pelosi was fired. but frankly, the american people said enough is enough, stop the spending binge. enough of giving the president this uncontrolled use of the american credit card. let's start reigning in spending. let's put those controls in place. let's get this country back on a path of fiscal sanity so we don't have groups like s&p saying they'll downgrade the bond rating of the united states. and maybe the gentleman on the other side might want to and during your time you'll have an opportunity to address that. >> i'd like to ask you a question. mr. scalise: we need to start installing fiscal discipline in this house and we're doing it now and it means no more blank checked and no more unbridled spending. the president will have an opportunity to join us in that debate but frankly it starts tonight and we're saying we're not going to keep giving the credit limit. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. levin: it's now my pleasure to yield to the whip, mr. hoyer from maryland, three minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding, unfortunately, this is a serious issue on which serious time has not been allotted because you put this on suspension. this is a serious issue. our country is in crisis from a fiscal stapoin i wanted the gentleman to yield because i don't think he has any idea what the facts are. 89% increase in the debt under ronald reagan. he could have vetoed every one of those bills. under george bush, 115% increase in the debt. unr bill clinton, less than 40%. ladies and gentlemen, this issue is an important issue that is being treated not as an

adult. this is not the adult moment of which speaker boehner spoke. and you didn't mention that the budget you voted for, i presume, i'm not sure, increased the debt by $1.9 trillion between now and october 1 of this year. ladies and gentlemen, this is not an honest debate. this is not an honest proposal. this is a serious issue. tarp is a serious issue and the american public didn't want to see it passed. and if not we uld have gone in depression. who said that, george bush and benefit bernanke, the appointed head of the federal reserve. it was a tough vote. what do we do for america? we came together, republicans and democrats. more democrats supporting the president's request than his own party, to save america from depression. we need to deal with this

issue, ladies and gentlemen of america, seriously. not in 20-minute debates on each side. not as a simplistic suggestion that somehow president obama caused this. $1.3 trillion in wars we haven't paid for, a drug prescription bill we haven't paid for, tax cuts that your party voted for, not mine, that we didn't pay for. should we have tax cuts? that's fine. but we ought to pay for them, not have my great grandson who was just born a week ago pay for it. that's what you're doing. ladies and gentlemen, i'm going to vote no on this. we ought to vote for this. we ought to have a clean bill. and we ought to have both sides coming together and saying america needs this for debts that we have incurred. what i tell town meetings is like you go to macy's and take out your credit cardnd charge $200 worth of goods and then you go home that night, your

husband or your wife and you sit down and say look, we've got too much debt, we need to have a debt limit, put a $100 debt limit on us and then macy's sends you a bill and you send back a letter and say no, i have a debt limit, $100. so you send them a check for $100 and they send back a letter saying hey, no more edit, and guess what, we're suing you. this debt limit extension is for what we have already incurred. this debt limit extension vote is about whether or not we're going to pay our bills. but i will tell you this, we'll see who votes for paying our bills. mr. levin: i yield another 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for another 30 seconds. mr. hoyer: i want to see how many of your folks say yes, we need to pay our bills. america, we need to be a good debtor as well as a good creditor. we'll see how many of your folks vote. i've got just a sneaky suspension -- suspicion it won't be very many if any.

it's a good demagogue vote, ladies and gentlemen. and if we vote for it, guess what? you're for raising the debt limit without any fiscal discipline. well, when we were in charge, when the president of the united states wouldn't let you do some of the things you wanted to do, bill clinton was there to veto things, we had a surplus for four years in a row and we didn't increase the debt limit once. under george bush we increased it seven times. i yield back the balance of my time and urge a no vote on this irresponsible piece of legislation that should have been handled. >> real order, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, reserves, the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. 114 members of the other party signed a letter to the leader who just spoke and asked for an unconditional increase in the debt limit. i know tt's not maybe a fact they want to acknowledge now, but it is so important that we

have a clear path for it on given what the rating agencies are saying about our debt. they're saying it's not clear how we're going to deal with our indebtedness. it's so importan that we set forward that when we address this issue, there is going to be the kind of spending reductions and structural reforms we need. that is going to have to be part of this discussion. we can't continue to have it clouded with this idea that we might have a debt limit increase without any of those. that's why it is so important to send this very strong signal today. i hope all of the members of your party join me in voting no on this bill. and at this time i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speak. i appreciate the gentleman for yielding me this moment to address thamerican people and the students who may be watching are in the gallery.

once again you see the problem we have in washington. we cannot have a fact-based conversaon with the american people which ty desperately want. i talk to a lot of students ba at home and i say, how many of you will have a summer job? a lot of them raise their hands and say, ok, we'll say you'll make $220 a week, they've got a problem. they take your credit card and say you're going to spend $370 a week. how long do you think you can do that as you're saving for college or that car or piece of computer equipment? can you do that all summer? the kid is looking at me says of course not, don't be dumb. you can't do that. then i say you know what, add 10 zeros to that and that's exactly what we're doing in the united states house of congress, what we'veeen doing repeatedly, both sides of the aisle with both administrations. it doesn't matter. we've got to get it under control. mr. huizenga: when you add those two zeros like my friend from new mexico was talking about, we taken $2.2 trillion a ye and spend $3.7 trillion a year.

it's time to tear up that credit card, mr. speaker. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: how much time is there from our minimum 20 minutes? how much time do we have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, has 3 1/2 minutes. mr. levin: i yield to -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, has 4 1/2 minutes. mr. levin: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: at this time i yield two minutes to the distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from north dakota. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> mr. speaker, every time i talk to north dakotans, washington is on an unsustainable path and it needs changed.

out of control spending is unacceptable. mr. berg: our rising debt is unacceptable. and allowing this debt to grow without reform is unacceptable. this country borrows $4 billion a day. fixing this mess will require real reforms. it requires a serious, honest conversation about where this country stands today and how we want to leave this country for the next generation. it's irresponsible to leave our children with a nation that has a mountain of debt. it's unacceptable to increase our debt without making any attempt to reduce it. we cannot expect to dohe same thing -- we cannot do the same thing over and over and expect different results. i've heard the north dakota people. and i will not support any debt

limit increase that does not contain significant cuts and budgetary reforms. it's time to stop the reckless spending. it's time to reduce the size of government. it's time to enact policies that will put arica back on track. thank you and i yield the remainder ofy time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north dakota yields back the remainder of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from vermont, mr. walsh. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. wal -- one, we must pay our bills. whether those were incurred for wars, whether it's for a

prescription drug program that you were for or against, bail incurred. an obligation incurred is an obligation that must be paid. that is the fundamental responsibility that i acknowledge as the citizen that i acknledge as an american, that i acknowledge as a congressman. this question of a long-term deficit reduction plan, we need it. yoare right. we understand that. where is it? you have the opportunity in this legislation to present your plan that will get us on a glide path to fiscal balance. it's not here. suggesting either you don't have a plan or the plan you've wanted -- present does not have the support of the american people. we are playing russian roulette with a loaded gun in the american economy, and the deficit clock is ticking. this requires a substantial response. the approach taken, a suspension vote trivializes our

short-term obligation to pay our bills and a long-term obligation to have a long-term deficit reduction plan. this bill being sponsored by folks who were against what they propose and then making phone calls to wall street saying they were for is washington business as usual that people are tired of and not solving our problems. the default clk is ticking. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i reserve. the spear pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, in levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i want to be sure of the time. we have two minutes, do we have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has two minutes. mr. levin: and the gtleman from michigan, mr. camp -- the speaker pro tempore: the geleman from michigan, mr. camp, has three minutes. mr. levin: i'd ask mr. camp, do you have other speakers? mr. camp: not at this time.

mr. levin: i now yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my marks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, if the treasury had a dollar for every time someone says they want to cut the deficit we wouldn't have one. so let's stop talking about cutting the deficit and talk about how we can cut the deficit. let's let medicare negotiate the price of prescription drugs rather than pay whatever the drug companies demand and save $300 billion over 10 years. let's stop occupying iraq and afghanistan and paying their bills to the tune of $110 billion a year and bring the troops home. let's stop giving $80 billion in tax breaks to the oil companies that made record profits last year. let's require people making over $1 million a year to pay just a little bit more to help

reduce this problem. and let's have sensible reductions in other departments of government. this is not a time for us to provide cover to a political party. it's a time for us to cover the obligations to our seniors, not by abolishing medicare but by improving it, to cover obligations to our veterans and cover obligations to the country. we will come back in a couple weeks and do what we should be doing tonight which is to raise the debt ceiling and prote our country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers. i will just reserve and close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. levin: thank you, mr. camp. you are going to close. i now yield a final minute to our leader who will close on our behalf, ms. pelosi from the great state of california.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you for your compliment to our great state of california. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, when i first heard that this legislation was coming to the floor i anticipated with some positive thought of, yes, this is the right thing to do. america must pay its bills. we know how to do that. we want to go forward assuring the american people that when we decide not to default on our debt that we are showing our strength even though it may be difficult for people to support that. then, i heard that it was going to come up like this on sunday. they said it would be up on tuesday. the bill is predated on a false premise. it says the congress signs tt the president's budget proposed, budget of the united states government, fiscal year 2012, necessitates an increase in the staffary debt of $2.4

trillion. -- staff wear debt of $.4 trillion. that's not the case. the bill never passed the house and never passed the united states senate. what passed was a republican budget which gives tax breaks to big oip, sending jobs overseas, weakens the middle class and does not create jobs and in fact increases the deficit by $1.9 trillion. $1.9 trillion increases the deficit. so what are we doing here today in what are we doing? the republicans have introduced a bill which have now resoundingly said they will oppose. where is the good faith effort here? we are, i believ in good faith effort, house and senate, democrats and republicans, with vice president biden, to find ways to make sure we don't find ourselves in this situation again. as a mother and grandmother i have absolutely no attention of

passing any bills, personal or official, onto my children or andchildren. and let me say the democrats know how to clean up the debt. we've had to do it before. the reagan-bush debt that president clinton inherited, it was a massive debt and because we took the vote for the economic plan and -- in 1993. we were on a path to fiscal soundness. the last four years of the clinton administration was in balance or in surplus. i believe the democratic whip, mr. hoyer, addressed these numbers earlier. i associate myself with his remarks and his passion on this subject. coming into the bush years, president clinton put us on a path of $5.6 trillion, a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. one of the biggest turnarounds in fiscal -- the fiscal situation in our country happened under president bush. so all this talk about deficits

and their immorality and the rest, i agree. but where was everybody when president bush was giving tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country which did not create jobs, was giving away money to the pharmaceutical industry at the cost -- a tremendous cost to the deficit and not paying for the wars? again, we place our men and women in uniform in harm's way. they make us the home of the brave, the land of the free. we want them to have what they need. they want us to pay for it. we owe them an obligation to build a future worthy of their sacrifice, and that future does not contain unlimited growing debt. unlimited growing debt. never before in the history of our country have we lowered taxes for the rich while we were at war. this is an all-time first. so here we are. we inherit this debt of the bush administration. that's why we're in the situation we're in. so as our colleagues try to

characterize this as we're raising the debt limit so there can be more spending, no, we're not. we're avoiding default of the massive debt created during the bush administration. that's why we're here. so to predicate this legislation, which i really -- coming out of last week thought something i would support. i'm incumbered legislation so we will pay our bills and not be a death beat nation. instead, -- and not be a deadbeat nation. instead they predicate it on a false premise. the facts is these-- the republican budget did -- they just want to change the subject to medicare. they just want to change the subject to medicare. let's drop this the first day from memorial day. the facts are these -- in their

budget, they abolish medicare. not only that, they make prescription drugs more expensive for seniors. they eliminate prevention services for seniors which make them healthier and lower costs to us. they do all of this while also, where their children are concerned -- cutting education for their children, making college more expensive for nearly 10 million young adults. all of this, a travty in terms of the hopes and aspirations of middle-class, low-income families in our country. and then tadd insult to that injury, they come in here with a bill that they have to bring up immediately so they can oppose it. well, even the chamber of commerce said we're all in on the joke. but it just isn't that funny if

you're a struggling family in america who are struggling to keep your job, your home, try to send your child to college, have some confidence about your economic security. if you're a senior and you depend on medicare, to have it abolished hurts your economic as well as your health security. so this is aut priorities. a budget should be a statement of our national lues. what is important to us as a country, the education of our children, the respect of the dignified retirement for our seniors, job creation that we have a moral obligation to create jobs so we can have jobs for our workers and they can have their better future as well as make our country more competitive. reducing the deficit. we've done it once, the democrats did. we can do it again. hopefully in a bipartisan way under the auspices that have been created for this purpose.

we're right in the middle of it. we come in and say, ok, let's introduce a bill based on a false premise and then let's all oppose it. well, i'm glad you're opposing it because you're voting a false premise in this bill. but let's get rious. let's get serious about this. the american people are crying out for help. do you know that the tax cuts on which this deficit has grown, the tax cuts of the wealthy, did not create jobs? they increased the deficit. they did not create jobs. more jobs were created in the second year of the oba administration in the private sector than in the eight years of the bush administration. so this talk that tax cuts or the high end are going to create jobs, it just didn't happen. so we want to talk about the past. we want to know what wre going to do in the future, but it's important to learn from the past so we don't do it again so we're not in this situation again. so as i said, the thought of an

unincurvered, if that would be the -- unincumbered, if that would be the bill before us, this bill isn't right and i'm glad that hopefully will have a big, strong vote against it. i want to commend my colleague, congressman welsh. he was -- in his letter, he did not demand anything. he's saying, let's get together and talk about how we can have a clean debt limit bill. why don't we follow his lead on that and get together and see how we can do this in a w that's clean and/or at the same time has a plan, a bipartisan plan to reduce the deficit so that we can do just that as we increase jobs and strengthen the middle class? that -- thank you, mr. welsh, r your leadership in that

regard. i know it has been mischaracterized here, but i salute you for your leadership on that score. so, my colleagues, you vote the way you vote. but the fact is that what's happening on the floor is not serious. it's not serious. but the subject it addresses is serious. it's time for this congress of the united states to get serious about debt reduction, job creation and to stop this assault on medicare which is the basis for this legislation today. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california, the nority leader, yields back her time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to