cuts because we paid for them. but we still had the $4 trillion in deficit reduction. if you want to know what deficit reduction looks like without revenue, you can look at the continuing resolution earlier this year. where they started out $66 billion, which annualized is about $100 billion and 10 years that would be about $1 trillion. and if you look at what was in that first $1 trillion that they wanted to cut it was so bad they couldn't get it passed, they ended up having to compromise, but we had cuts to the safety nets like community health centers, cuts in energy efficiency for low income seniors, cuts in community action agencies and we had cuts in investments in the future, head start, pell grants got cut, scientific research and nasa all got cut. . f.b.i. agents got cut.

we are sitting up in judiciary committee dealing with the problems we've got and we don't need more criminal laws but f.b.i. agents to investigate the cases. f.b.i. agents were cut, 4,000 fewer. clean water grants, environmental protection, all cut. air traffic controllers. they are working so hard that they are falling asleep on the job, they were cut. and the next rourned of cuts would be medicare -- and the next round of cuts would be medicare and medicaid. they could not get that passed. as a matter of fact, by the time they finished -- and now they are suggesting we need to cut not $1 trillion, bru $2 trillion or $3 trillion. if couldn't get the first trillion passed, clean water,

food inspectors, so few food inspectors in that budget some meat packing plants would have to close because they were obligated to have a federal meat inspector on site. they had so few meat inspector that they anticipated many of the companies would have to close down or at least close temporarily because there were so few. now they are trying to figure out how to do $3 trillion of cuts. they came up with this idea of the debt ceiling. the debt ceiling is something that recognizes the fact that we have already spent the money. and so you raise the debt ceiling not because you are spending money but because you have already spent the money. almost once a year over the last 50 years, we have had to increase the debt ceiling. democrats and republicans have had to vote for the debt ceiling

and the majority party has to cast the tough votes and the minority party grandstands a little bit but no question about whether the debt ceiling is going to be increased. you can make a speech about it. they are saying maybe we won't increase the debt ceiling. nobody knows what would happen if we defaulted. nobody knows what would happen. what would happen to the investments, to the interest rates. we had a temporary technical glitch a few years ago, checks going out a couple days late, because of that glitch, we paid half a percent higher interest rate for many years. 1% interest rate on the national debt now is in the range of $100

billion. so if you are looking at what would happen if you defaulted on the debt and people charged more interest, that's in the magnitude that we would be talking about. we shouldn't have to discuss what would happen if, because it could be anything. and who would want to find out? ought to go ahead and increase the debt ceiling and not use it as a threat that unless you do this, we'll blow up the economy. i would hope our leadership would not capitulate to those kinds of threats. in october they could shut down the government by not passing the appropriations bills. in a year or so, you would have to do the debt ceiling again. if you capitulate to these

childish threats, there will be no end to it and you will invite them back. what's going on now, they are slow-walking us through some cuts that never could have been made in the normal legislative process. last year in december, we extended the bush tax cuts. that cost $400 billion a year. now we're broke and we need to come up with about $400 billion a year, as if we had forgotten what we did last december. now when we extended those tax cuts, there is no mention of how it would be paid for. it would have been nice to know what the plan was, whether we were go to go cut social security or medicare in order to afford the tax cuts that were extended in december. now they are going to try to get some cuts that they couldn't otherwise get. and the legislative process is

about choices. if you want a program, you want to pay for it. not willing to pay the taxes, can't have your program. last year, we passed health care program. cost $1 trillion. we raised more than $1 trillion in taxes. if we didn't raise the taxes, we couldn't have the program. we aren't making as we go long now because the next step in this process will be not cuts, but caps. no program will be cut when we see any deal, $2 trillion deal, not a single program will be cut. there will be just caps. three months now when you try to appropriate under those caps, you can't afford any food inspector or f.b.i. agents because the caps are so low. and if you put them all together, if you had made your

choices and had known you were going to cut head start and f.b.i. agents and clean water grants, when you cut taxes, maybe you shouldn't have cut the taxes. and i'll -- ms. jackson lee: i think you said playing politics, is that the same as the school yard game as playing chicken and in the course of what you just said, is there any light for creating jobs in this approach that is being taken where you have no revenue and you have cuts with no plan? i see no opportunity for creating jobs? mr. scott: much has been said about the reason why you would not want to increase taxes in an economic downturn, because you would adversely affect the economy. that's true. but if you have spending cuts, the effect on the economy is not only larger, but more direct and

more immediate. increases in taxes don't hit until the following year. as soon as you cut spending, somebody's getting fired and jobs get lost immediately when you have spending cuts. for the same reason that they say you can't increase taxes during an economic downturn, a stronger argument could be made that you shouldn't have spending cuts. the estimates on some of the republican plans are that hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost if those plans had been enacted. one of the real tragedies about this discussion is sometimes talking about rhetoric and politics, some people are talking about this so-called balanced budget amendment as a condition of moving forward. well, one of the things about the legislation that we'll consider calls the balanced budget amendment -- is a bill

that has a misleading title. it says proposing a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. guess what that legislation does not require? mrs. christensen: would you yield? does it require a balanced budget? mr. scott: it does not. it requires a 3/5's vote to pass a budget that is not imbalance. every budget we considered was not imbalance this year. the ryan plan would have required a 3/5's vote. the republican study committee plan would cut discretionary spending 50% to 70%, would require a 3/5's vote. when we cast those votes, first

president bush lost. democrats lost in 1993 trying to balance the budget. i will guarantee there will be republicans losing their seats voting for the ryan plan because it will be a repeal of medicare and will lose their seats. they have lost one seat in upstate new york. when you vote on deficit reduction, people lose their seats. if you are a chief sponsor of a severe reduction plan, it will be harder to pass if you move it up to 3/5's. once you need 3/5's, there is no limit to how irresponsible you can get. the tax cut extensions, $400 billion in december, that got 3/5's. more tax cuts and more

additional spending totally out of control, all you need is 3/5's. mrs. christensen: the caps would be in place. mr. scott: that's another provision. the full provision -- mrs. christensen: but you couldn't raise any revenue. mr. scott: four provisions, 3/ 5's to pass the budget. 2 2/3 to raise taxes. if you are trying to balance the budget, having a 2/3 vote to raise taxes will obviously make it harder to balance the budget. this is called a balanced budget amendment. first two provisions make it harder to balance the budget. 2/3 to pass the budget -- if it's more than 18% of g.d.p.

we haven't been that low since we passed medicare. that will put pressure on the medicare program. if you put these things together with the pressure on medicare, we know we can cut the benefits with a simple majority. 2/3 in the house and 2/3 in the senate. there is another little insulting provision at the end, 3/5's vote to raise the debt ceiling. and this year, it has been enough of a spectacle and want it to be an every day occurance. you have this balanced budget amendment that would put pressure on social security and medicare by allowing those programs to be cut with a simple majority. but to save them with new revenue like increasing the amount, right now in social security, a little over $100,000, no more social

security tax, if we extend that like medicare, all of your income, we can pretty much solve the problem, you couldn't do that with a 2/3 vote. you couldn't save social security. but to cut the benefits, simple majority. and they want to inflict the balanced budget amendment in there to preserve their oil company-millionaire loopholes and jeopardize us and put in a tragedy. most people when they hear the title, they start to debate whether it is a good idea or bad idea to balance the budget every year. now, interestingly enough, the gentlelady from texas serve on the judiciary committee and we

heard the -- one of the representatives from arizona talk about the arizona balanced budget amendment and how that works on the state level. and then we did a little research to find out how did arizona balance the budget. they have billions of dollars of stimulus money to balance the budget but that wasn't enough. arizona state government has sold, sold their state capitol and sold their supreme court building and leased it back and got hundreds of millions of dollars in the kitty that helped them. by selling the state capitol and the supreme court. that's what the balanced budget amendment does for you, i guess. we can't get lost in the rhetoric about the misleading titles of legislation and actually read past the title in the balanced budget amendment. i yield back.

mrs. christensen: that happens so often with so many of these bills. thank you for taking us through the history of where wer because there's a lot of rhetoric that tries to hide how we got here, the fact that hard votes were taken in 1993. president clinton did leave a large surplus and by the end of president bush's term, we were in a deep deficit and then in a recession, a recession that was not created by this president, but inherented by this president. when they talk about yes, president obama has increased the deficit, what would he do, allow us to fall deeper into a recession? . mr. scott: what would the republicans have done to

decrease the deficit? are they talking about increasing the taxes? mrs. christensen: they have never -- mr. scott: and legislation is about choices. i mean, you know, if you want a head start program, you have to pay for it. if you want clean water grants you have to pay for it. and we need to be making these choices not in the context of threats about blowing up the economy, but make the rational choices about what kind of vision and what kind of future we think we want. some of us think that education is important, you have to pay taxes to get a good education. some people think that clean water grants are important, some people think that scientific research, food inspectors, f.b.i. agents, air traffic controllers, a lot of things we like in government, you have pay for them. -- you have to pay for them. mrs. christensen: thank you for joining us. i'm going to yield --

ms. jackson lee: if you'll yield one quick moment to add to what he said. we're also in a climate of fighting against terrorism. and in order to secure the homeland you have to make choices about how you invest and so i have a different opinion, i think if you invest money, you get innovation, you get jobs and none of what has been said by speaker boehner has anything about innovation, jobs and has no seemingly understanding of the importance of securing the homeland. i yield back to the gentlelady. mrs. christensen: thank you for adding that again. at this time i'd like to yield to the former chair of the congressional black caucus, congresswoman barbara lee from oakland. also chair of the out of poverty caucus. a lot of times, well, even up to this weekend we've heard that nobody's talking about the poor. but i thank you for lide leadinging -- for leading, for starting the out of poverty caucus, for leading us to an agenda that continues even today of pathways out of poverty and

for bringing us to the floor every day for the last couple of weeks to talk about how the republican policies, the bills that they're proposing, the way they're holding the debt ceiling hostage is hurting the poor in our country. i'd like to yield such time as you might consume. ms. lee: thank you very much. let me thank congresswoman christensen for leading this special order tonight. but also thank you for your leadership on behalf of really my constituents and on behalf of the entire country because it's so important that yourself as first vice chair of the congressional black caucus and chairman cleve who are chairs the congressional black caucus continues to be the conscience of the congress and to speak out and sound the alarm about the consequences of possible bad political and policy decisions. so thank you very much for what you are doing. it's so important that these issues be swept from under the rug. and discussed in an open forum.

and the debate and the discussion with congressman bobby scott and congresswoman sheila jackson lee was very important to have because i think that the public who are listening to this discussion will understand the history and the background and the technical aspects about this budget that really -- and this deficit reduction plan that the speaker's bringing forward which really does once again put the american people as pawns i think in a game that they were not responsible for playing. people cannot wait any longer, they're tired of having their futures threat understand by republican politicians playing games that put the entire nation and our economy at risk. and the ryan budget and now this debt ceiling plan put forth by the republicans, i tell you what comes to mind is when you look at it and when you listen to what's in it, it's a you're on

your own kind of plan. it's, you know, for those who are wealthy and those who are beholden to special interests and hedge fund billionaires and millionaires and all those who have benefited from the tax cuts, they'll be fine. but for those, as you mentioned earlier, who are poor or could possibly fall from middle income into the ranks of the poor this debt ceiling plan put forth by the republicans is morally wrong and it's fiscally unsound. and so we don't want to see the majority of american people on their own once again and so i'm glad we're here tonight discussing this. the republican default on our debt, this would devastate the retirement savings of millions of american seniors, just devastate. and we know that social security, medicare, medicaid, these government safety net

programs have provided for millions of our seniors to live a decent life in their golden years. and to not fall into the ranks of poverty and now all of these programs are on the chopping block. it makes no sense. a republican default on our debt s would weaken our entire economy and weaken our national security and we heard earlier that hundreds of thousands of jobs could be lost, even more jobs would be lost. we should be about creating jobs, not putting forth measures that would take us further down the road into a recession and for some a depression. in fact, it's very simple. america must play our -- pay our bills on time and we must do this in a way that does not devastate the safety net our senior citizens and our childrens a future. either you're on the side of the american people and want to safeguard vital human needs

programs like medicare and medicaid, social security, critical food benefits for families and children, or you're on the side of the billionaires, the bankers, financial services industry, subsidies for massive oil company profits, i mean, you're on one side or the other in this debate. the congressional black caucus continues to be on the side of our nation's most vulnerable populations who in these very, very hard economic times depend on these vital safety net programs for their survival day in and day out. meanwhile we keep hearing claims from the other side of the aisle that only misdirect attention. america really is not broke. we're the richest and strongest country in the world and we still have the best ideas, the best workers, the best schools and the largest economy in the world. but we won't be for long if the republicans have their way. you know, you often wonder, for those who say that default will not wreak havoc on the country, there's some who, you know, i

think could care less if we went into a default because if you listen to what they're saying it doesn't really bother a lot of members here and that to me is tragic. some tell us that the future is bleak and that the government cannot afford to invest in a prosperous and growing america but the truth is that raising the debt ceiling should be very simple. it should be a simple vote by all of us to allow the united states treasury to fund all of its programs and obligations and debts of the entire federal government that are already in the law. republicans in the house have already voted to support and pass a $9 trillion increase in the national debt and now again instead of working to create jobs and help our nation rise out of this great recession and depression for many, the republicans are really playing high stakes game of chicken with the safety net and with the security of every single american so that they can protect the massive and

congressman scott and yourself talked about this $400 billion tax cut that congressman scott warned us we'd have to pay for sometime soon, it came sooner rather than later, congressman scott, and we lisped to you and those of white house voted no, you know, tried. we tried. but here we are with your prediction coming true. you know, here we're asking once again, those who have been hurt the most vulnerable to pay once again and that is just downright wrong. a failure to raise the debt limit would mean an immediate stop to over 40% of the entire federal government. our sold woors not get paid, social security -- soldiers would not get paid, social security and medicare and medicaid payments would be delayed and the health and safety of every single american would be threatened along with the help of our very fragile economy. the incredibly irresponsible position that the republicans have taken, protecting tax breaks nor the super rich, wall street corporations, big oil, that seems to be more important than the united states government and preventing the

united states government from defaulting on our debts. and let me just remind those who want to cut medicare and dismantle medicare, that's basically what they want to do, medicare recipients did not create the national debt and that is unconscionable to even talk about balancing the budget or paying down the debt on the backs of our most vulnerable populations, including those who are facing living in poverty. and let me remind our republican colleagues again that the congressional black caucus under the leadership of chairman cleaver, congresswoman christensen, congressman bobby scott, already offered a budget answered mentioned it earlier, that would save $5.7 trillion from the deficit, protect our most vulnerable communities and would have ensured the stability of medicare, medicaid and social security and our budget was balanced. so the country's not broke am. we know how we got here. two wars, these massive tax cuts for the very wealthy, wall

street going amok. and so, you know, it's time to be real and it's time to be truthful, it's time to be honest and it's time to make sure that the decisions we make here will not dig us deeper into the hole. america really doesn't have any more time for these republican games. let me also conclude by talking about those who are unemployed. because if we don't do something quickly the ranks of the un-- rancor of the unemployed are -- the ranks of the unemployed are going to grow even greater. unemployment compensation is really survival funds, survival compensation, until we figure out how we're going to create jobs and incidentally the republicans haven't put forward any jobs plan since they've been in power. but these long-term unemployed americans who have run out of their unemployment compensation known as the 99ers, they continue to face uncertainty and hardship and the house must act

now to stand with these s. h.r. 589 which my colleague congressman scott and i introduced earlier this year, congresswoman christensen and many members of the congressional black caucus are co-sponsors, this would add 14 weeks of unemployment emergency compensation and would make these benefits retroactively available to people who have causted -- exhausted all of their benefits and are still unemployed. extending these benefits for long-term unemployed individuals will stimulate our economy, empower more consumers and create more jobs. so this extension should be in any deficit reduction plan because we know that not only is this the right thing to do, the morally correct thing to do, this is the economically prudent thing to do in terms of passing emergency extension. it really should be the first step in taking bold steps to create millions of jobs for americans. so we should be working to pass a jobs bill that would help

people find this pathway out of poverty, we should help keep middle income individuals from falling into poverty, we should be looking at a budget and a plan that, yes, will help pay down our debt, yes it is part of deficit reduction that incorporates deficit reduction as part of it, but, no, that does not cut medicare, social security or medicaid and we should really be trying to figure out a way to create some jobs for people. i mean, that's the bottom line, that's what we need to do. so thank you again, congresswoman christensen, for calling this special order today. we should make sure that the world knows that the congressional black caucus continues to call to the attention the games that republicans are playing that will threaten our national security interests as well as our economic interests and the fact that we're here working to try to create some jobs and to

help ensure that this debt ceiling is raised. that's the bottom line. thank you again. mrs. christensen: thank you, congresswoman barbara lee, and i just want to mention that when we had our jobs summit about a week and a half ago we passed out some information to those in attendance that added up to about 30 job creating pieces of legislation that just the c.b.c. has introduced in this year and i don't believe that the republican majority has brought any job creating bills to the floor and in this recovery that's what we need, jobs. and i know sometimes we were accuseded of class warfare but we're not pitting the poor against the rich or the middle class against the rich. we just think that everyone needs to be on the side of our country. we are calling for shared sacrifice and for fairness and really this ought to be a clean debt ceiling, raising of the

debt ceiling. the cuts we're talking about that are going to hurt the people of this country are too important for us to be rushing through and using to hold the debt ceiling hostage. so let's not hold such a critical thing as our ability to pay our bills, take care of our seniors, our children, our people with disability and reserve our credit worthiness, not only for americans but the whole world depends on us and we cannot let them down, with you cannot let the american public down, including my constituents, we cannot let our country down and all of the countries in the world who depend on us and with that i thank my colleagues for joining me, i want to once again thank the aarp for their petitions and for this strong advocacy on behalf of not only seniors but all americans in our country and i'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter a statement for congresswoman eddie bernice johnson into the

record this evening. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011,, the gentleman from virginia, mr. gingrey, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. . mr. gingrey: i thank you and i thank my leadership, the majority leader on the republican side, speaker of the house and our conference chairman, representative jeb hensarling, for giving us the opportunity, the house g.o.p. doctors caucus to have the special order hour this evening. it's convenient, my well respected members and friends from the congressional black caucus talking about the budget and what we're trying to do in regard to moving forward,

talking, of course, about safety net programs and entitlement programs, such as social security and medicare and that's a great lead-in about our topic this evening because it's going to be about the medicare program. we, on our side of the aisle in the republic cavern past, house -- republican past, we have solved the crisis which the trustees have said to all members of congress, not democrats or republicans, but all of us that according to the trustee report that by the year 2024, if we don't do something about the medicare program as it currently exists, as it's

currently funded, the amendment of spending that occurs year after year and will only increase as more and more of our baby boomers are reaching age 65, if we don't do something about that, then that medicare part a hospital trust fund is not supported by any recipient constituent premiums, it's going to go broke. it is absolutely going to go broke. i say to my democratic colleagues, the compassionate thing and i know they have compassion, the compassionate thing is to save the program to guarantee, preserve it for current medicare recipients, even for folks who are are 65 years of age today.

medicare as we know it would be protected, would be strength thepped for all of those individuals. and by the time those who are 55 years old today become 65 in 10 years, around 2024, mr. speaker, there would be something like 65 million seniors and a smaller number of disabled individuals in the medicare program as we know it. they would be in the medicare program as we know it for the rest of their natural lives. and because of good health care in this country, many people, women, are living to age 82 and men to 78, these 68 million people would be on medicare for a long time and what we do on our budget and my colleagues didn't mngs it, but what we do in our budget go forward with a

plan for younger folks and indeed for my grandchildren, 10 grandchildren, the oldest are two 13-year-old twins, but even 25-year-olds, 35-year-olds, 35-year-olds, we solve the medicare problem so it will be there for them instead of nothing come 2024 and maybe pay for 25 years, that fica tax that is taken out of their pay check. i say to my friends, this idea that president obama has and the leadership of your party of just simply kicking the can down the road doesn't get the job done. it's what we call sometimes and

i know all of us know the expression, whistling past the graveyard, pretending that a problem doesn't exist and that is an unconscionable approach. i'm pleased to have a number of my colleagues who have joined with us, some of them are part of the house g.o.p. doctors caucus and we are mostly medical doctors, and there are a number of registered nurses in our caucus. there are dentists. in the aggregate, the members of the house g.o.p., doctors caucus are medical professionals who spent a lot of their life practicing medicine and providing care, indeed, under medicaid and the medicare program, seeing those patients mostly at a financial loss, but

still, very willing to try to help those folks who need us to be there for them in these safety net programs. i think in the aggregate, the membership of the house g.o.p. doctors caucus may have over 350 years of clinical experience. maybe we are getting gray by the sideburns, but we are now members of congress and we are trying to do things for our constituents and the seniors of this great country of ours to make sure that we preserve and protect programs like medicare and medicaid. and that's what this is all about tonight. i want to first yield to my friend from tennessee, my co-ob-g ymp n doctor and dr.

phil roe has been a member of this body for four years and been a great asset. and i know that dr. r omp e has a bill that he wants to address concerning some problems that were enacted under obamacare. so i yield to dr. roe. mr. roe: i think, mr. speaker, i go back to when medicare first began about -- in 1965, there was a problem identified in america where we had a group of our citizens as they became 65 years of age and older that didn't have access to quality health care. so a plan was put in place to access quality health care. in 1965, mr. speaker, the medicare program was a $3 billion program. there was no congressional budget office at that time.

the estimates, that in 25 years, this would be a $15 billion program but turned out to be $over 100 billion. in 2010, $550 billion. we also as has been pointed out in our previous hour by our friends from the black caucus that we have a tremendous deficit, borrowing 42 cents of every dollar in this country. i came to washington -- i practiced medicine for over 30 years and i realized that we had a serious problem, not just in medicare but in health care. we came to work in health care reform and the doctors' caucus, not one of us was consulted with the affordable health care act. decades' worth of experience. over 200 years of experience in

the congress at that time and not one of us was actually consulted. the way i looked at the problem in our health care system was we had three problems. one is we had a problem where the system was too expensive. go to the doctor and costs too much money. we had a group of people who didn't have affordable health care coverage. maybe the husband is a carpenter and the wife worked at a diner and thirdly, we had a liability problem. so what did we do? we had a -- over 2,000-page bill that got to the house and senate and failed. the senate dusted the bill off that was 2,500-plus pages that didn't go through a hearing. and the three physicians all read that bill. and when i read that bill, mr. speaker, i found some things in

there, as did my colleagues, which greatly worried us and how they fund this bill, i want to go through that to let you know how the funding, only washington can fund anything like this. dr. gingrey has pointed out that we are trying to save medicare. medicare that the congressional budget office says it will be out of money. and there are four parts of medicare, medicare part a paid for by your premiums, hopizations. medicare part d, doctor services and lab services, funded by 25% from your premiums, 75 frs comes from the general fund, taxpayers. medicare advantage which was cut and medicare part d is only funded by 25% by our premiums. i'm a medicare recipient myself

as of last year. so what did the administration do and the senate do to fund this affordable health care act? they took out of an already underfunded program as i pointed out, $500 billion. and dr. gingrey pointed out moments ago that we're adding three million baby boomers per year. 10,000 a day. we are adding millions of recipients while pulling out $500 billion and we call this saving medicare. we aren't talking about the budget impasse. we are talking about what has already been passed. and one of the things i found in there, mr. speaker, was a very little known board called the independent payment advisory board. and before medicare had this board in there, which was strictly there.

medpac that said to congress, we have problems with funding and maybe we should look over here. congress would have the ability to make decisions. what ipab -- mr. gingrey: i would like to call my colleague's attention to this poster, because this is what dr. roe is talking about this, independent patient advisory board and i want all my colleagues to see this poster, because this is what dr. roe has taken us through to this point. mr. roe: mr. speaker, what i did when i read this, i looked at it and thought how is this created and why is it created. this board has 15 members that are appointed by the administration, by the president, and quite frankly, i don't want a republican or

democrat president doing that. they are approved for a six-year term and paid $165,000 a year and what is their charge? if medicare spending hits certain targeted limits that cuts occur first to providers and for prescription drugs and then later to homents. well, what worries me, right now we have a problem and dr. paul broun is here tonight, with our patients seeing their medicare, how finding a physician to take care of them. and what happens is, if you hit these targeted limits and physician payments are cut, access to care is going to be cut, quality of cut is going to be cut and the care to our seniors is going to go up. and what worries me is this board mimics the board that is in england called the national institute of clinical excellence and they make regionses about

what care is provided. president obama is going to use this and he wants to increase the power of it to help medicare costs down. what will happen when you have more demand for services is your care will be rationed and that's the fear that we have. our concern is that and i have gone to seniors in my district and been very clear and pointed this out at town hall meetings and have held town hall meetings with senior and said we want to provide you quality of access of care. and have them help us solve this problem. and i think that's the issue we have, mr. speaker, is how do we provide the care with the money we have and provide quality of care and access to our patients and i'm extremely concerned that the ipab will do the opposite of that. and i yield back. .

mr. gingrey: i thank the gentleman for his presentation on the ipab, that board which dr. roe describes, madam speaker, and my colleagues, and again, i'm going to refer back to a previous poster that i wanted to present as dr. roe got into talking about the democrats' solution to so-called save of medicare. you know, they can't, they wanted initially to ignore the problem, the fact that medicare is going broke. as i pointed out in my opening remarks, medicare today will be broke in less than 10 years. without action, the social security trustee reports that medicare seniors will either see a 22% benefit cut or workers will see a 22% hike in payroll taxes. so, basically not really

completely ignoring the problem but what the democrats want to do is create this so-called ipab board which dr. roe describes and they say there will be no rationing yet they're restricted in the recommendations that they can make in regard to cuts and those cuts will be to providers, they will be to pharmaceutical companies that provide the drugs that so greatly keep people alive today that in the past were ending up in the emergency room with strokes because of uncontrolled high blood pressure, needy amputations because -- needing amputations because of uncontrolled diabetes or needing to be on a dialysis machine because of uncontrolled region disease. all of these have been -- renal disease. all of these have been helped by medicare part d.

so clearly the plan that obama administration and our democratic colleagues have is not for saving medicare. at this time let me yield the floor to our colleague, my colleague from georgia, a fellow physician and member of the house g.o.p. doctors' caucus, dr. paul broun. mr. broun: thank you, dr. gingrey, appreciate you yielding a few minutes. i wanted to kind of break all this down so that the american people could understand very clearly what we're talking about tonight. we've got a little poster here that shows the democrats, president obama and the democrats' medicare solution. this is their medicare plan. they deny the problem, they deny the problem that, dr. gingrey, you were just talking about with this huge, huge problem where

medicare's going to go broke in a matter of just a decade. they want to delay any fixes, in fact medicare as we know it today exists no longer. obamacare took care of that. and they want to destroy it. they will destroy it by letting it go broke. so this is the democrat party's health care plan. deny it, delay it and destroy it by letting it go broke. just recently one of the government accounting groups released something that should scare every senior, every taxpayer, every american. they said that medicare within the next couple of decades, a lot of zeros in this, 63 and a lot of zeros. this is unfunded liability of medicare over just the next several decades.

mr. gingrey: that will be $63 trillion, if i'm not mistaken. mr. broun: i just try to make it so the zeros didn't confuse folks. the liabilities for medicare is $63 trillion. this is unsustainable. there's no way to take care of this. we need to shore up medicare, we need to make sure that it's strengthened so that our future generations, not only the senior citizens today can continue to get medicare but future generations also. now, what does $63 trillion of unfunded liabilities mean to everybody in this country? i mean, that's too big a number for everybody to really consider. so i broke it down to every family in the united states. every family's part of this $63 trillion of unfunded liabilities for medicare as it exists today

is over $500,000. per family. $500,000 per family. of unfunded liabilities for medicare just in the next several decades. now, i don't know about most families but my family can't afford to pay $500,000 and neither can the government. mr. gingrey: if the gentleman will yield back to me for just a second and i've got a post that are points out just exactly what the gentleman from georgia, dr. broun, is saying. the c.b.o., if you look, colleagues, at the bottom of this poster, c.b.o. estimates individual and corporate income tax rates would have to rise by 90% through the year 2050 to finance medicare and medcare cade. and if medicare is not fixed, millions of workers today will lose the money that they have

invested and indeed they have invested with that payroll tax over their many years of employment and i yield back. mr. broun: thank you, dr. gingrey. what the american people need to understand is that we need to strengthen medicare and social security for future generations. this picture right here is a picture of my two grandchildren. i love these two kids greatly. they won't see medicare and they're going to see an america that's quite different from the one we see today if we don't make some major changes, major changes in medicare and social security. if we don't strengthen them and make them economically viable for my grandchildren that are 6 and 7. my grandchildren won't see medicare. they won't see social security. and in fact people who are 45 or 50 today won't see social

security and medicare if we don't strengthen them, if we don't do the necessary hard work of bringing about those changes to strengthening medicare and social security, to make them economically viable. i hear our democratic colleagues all the time talk about it's the children. i've heard our former speaker talk about it's about the children so much that i wanted to throw up. but the thing is when you talk about it's the children and their future, we've got to deal with this debt. we've got to deal with social security and medicare and make them economically viable by strengthening them, by making them so that they're still available when my kids get grown. and we're going down a road right now, this president and the democrats in the senate, the democrats here in the house have

a three-word plan. their plan is a three-word plan for social security and medicare. deny the problem. they're denying it. they're delaying doing anything about it. and they're going to destroy it because both medicare and social security are going broke if we don't strengthen it -- broke, if we don't strength continue, if we don't make it economically viable, if we don't do the necessary hard work that this congress and republicans are trying to do. but what do we hear from our colleagues on other side? demagoguery. demagoguery. and trying to play politics. it's time to stop the politics. it's time to stop playing games. the american people deserve the truth. no more accounting gimmicks, no more playing with numbers, no more double talk, political speech.

this is the democrats' plan, deny it, delay it, destroy it for medicare, social security and this country economically. we've got to change it and that's what republicans are working very hard to do. i yield back. mr. gingrey: i thank, mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman very much and while we're on the d word, if will you, deny, delay , demagogue, i'll use another, i'll use another d word and it's really the softest thing i can say about the democrats' plan and that is disingenuous. disingenuous. for them to stand up or for the president to stand up and say that -- he's going to fix medicare -- say that he's going to fix medicare at the same time dr. roe talked about this earlier in the evening, i'm going to refer back to him in just a few minutes, but at the same time in the creation of a

whole new entitlement program in march of last year, we know it as obamacare officially, i guess i should say it's called patient protection and affordable care act. i think it's the unaffordable care act and that it costs $1 trillion. but where did the money come from to pay for this new entitlement program that really had nothing, has nothing to do with seniors? well, my colleagues, look at this poster to my left, your right. here's where at least half of the money came from, cutting medicare, cutting medicare by $575 billion. i mean, right out of the medicare program. that included home health care, it included hospice, but the biggest cut was $130 billion, that's bullet point number two,

$130 billion from the medicare advantage plans and my colleagues know this and i'm sure they'll want to comment on it, of the 47 million people, 45 million, 47 million people today who are on medicare, about seven million to 10 million of them receive their medical care on the medicare advantage option which gives them more benefits, more bank for the buck and it covers a lot of preventive services that are not given, not offered in traditional medicare as we know it. so that cut $130 billion, that's something like 14% cut out of that program. that means that at least half of these seniors are going to have to go back into medicare as we know it and get a lesser benefit. in fact, it's been said by -- in

fact, it's been said by the act wear of medicare -- actuary of medicare on april it 2, 2010, that -- april 22, 2010, that 15% of hospitals, nursing homes and home health care providers will close because medicare pays less under obamacare. mr. broun: will the gentleman yield? mr. gingrey: i want to yield just briefly to the gentleman from georgia before i yield some additional time to my colleague, our co-chair of the house g.o.p. doctors' caucus, the gentleman from pennsylvania. i yield back to the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: i thank you for yielding just a moment to me because i want to add to that statistics, 15% of hospitals, nursing homes and home health care will close because medicare pays less under obamacare. that's absolutely is -- absolutely true. a lot of those hospitals are going to be in rural communities because rural communities can be hit the hardest. i'm a primary care doctor as the gentleman knows, i'm a familiar

doctor. -- family doctor. done general medicine for almost 40 years now. the american academy of family physicians said right now today one in eight family docs will not accept medicare at all. only one in three doctors, according to the american medical association, -- excuse me, one in three doctors according to the american medical association limits how many medicare patients that they take. that is a marked rise. back in 2004 it was only -- it was only 6% of primary caust care doctors -- no, of all doctors limited their medicare patients. 2008 it went up to 8%. that's almost 1/3. limit the amount of medicare patients that they see. and one in eight family docs

don't take medicare at all. they can't afford to. because the low reimbursement rates and ipab is going to hit those folks that much harder. we said during our special order when we were discussing obamacare that -- i made a comment that somebody may have a free health care card in their pocket but it's going to be as worthless as the confederate dollar because nobody will take it and that's exactly where we're headed so i just wanted to add that and i yield back. mr. gingrey: i thank the gentleman from georgia. i now yield to my co-chair of house g.o.p. doctors caucus, the gentleman from pennsylvania, dr. tim murphy. . mr. murphy: i wanted to talk about an issue you brought up, the $535 million from the medicare program and forcing millions of seniors out of their current medicare plan unless they pay more.

i want to point out, while the president and others are saying we're trying to cut medicare and what it does, nothing could be further from the truth. what we're trying to do is show how if medicare is handled differently, not by ipab or a board of bureaucrats, but letting doctors work, they can drive down cost and improve quality. let me explain what happened in the health care bill passed out of the house. seniors are able to make choices with medicare they can get medicare part d drug coverage, supplemental medigap policies. what the medicare advantage plan does is allows some management of diseases as chronic illness, which is very different pr the current fee for service where people get paid based on the number of procedures they do. when medicare advantage -- under regular medicare fee for service plan, hospital

readmission rates, 30 days post treatment, was over 18%. but the average readmission rate across medicare advantage was 13.5%. why? it allowed physicians and nurses to talk to the patient, follow the patient, to work with the disease to make sure whatever complication they had, infection, heart disease, lung disease, orthopedic problem to pay that physician and staff to work for them. here's another breasting thing. the medicare fee for service rate of preventable emergency department have its was 15.5 have its per 100 beneficiary month in 2007. but the average across medicare advantage plan was two have its per 100. 86% lower. here's another point. actual costs for the drug plan medicare part d comes out 40% under budget because insurers are forced to compete with each other. imagine this. seniors can choose medicare

supplemental plans and those plans compete for seniors coverage, the drug plans compete for seniors' coverage, what happens if seniors are allowed to also choose their main medicare plan? listen to this additional issue about drugs. the intercontinental marking services this comes from the deloitte & touche website, the study concluded the average cost for drugs used by medicare part d beneficiaries declined since the implementation of the program for the top 10 therapeutic classes, part d drugs decreased by over 1/3 from $1.50 to $1. they predict it will continue to decline, reaching 65 cents by the end of 2015. that's a massive decline. why?

because plans are competing against each other. plans innovate they try to do things better and smarter with better quality and they ask seniors to choose their plan. seniors, by signing their name, can choose a plan that works for them. why not allow seepors to have medicare choice with their major medicare plan? why not allow seniors to have medicare advantage instead of gutting the program. this is the very thing we're saying. by improving efficiencies and qualities within the program a lot of costs can be reduced. it can't be reduced by the status quo. as you pointed out, dr. gingrey, keeping the status quo means there won't be medicare. there will be medicare for those currently on it, it won't be there for their children and certainly not for their grandchildren. we want to save medicare but you can't do that the way it's being done now. the system being done now, frighten senior, say if we done pass this debt limit increase without strings attached,

seniors won't have social security or medicare, this is such a falsehood. it's a serious problem in two ways. one, it's serious because it's telling a falsehood to seniors. two, it looks down upon seniors, thinking that they're susceptible enough not smart enough to figure out that this is false. it is so important and we want the american public to understand, we're trying to save medicare because we do want it to be there for the future. but it means make it more efficient and what's wrong with letting doctors be the ones that call the shots on improving care. i yield back. mr. gingrey: i appreciate so much the gentleman from pennsylvania, he spent his professional life in providing medical services to his patients just as so many of the doctors in the caucus. you know, talking about the cut to medicare advantage, and as dr. murphy described that

method of getting care, mr. speaker, you know, it is exactly what we continue to talk about today of wanting to reward health care based on quality and not necessarily quantity. just strictly fee for service, a number of times you go to see a provider and that provider getting paid, albeit a small amount, it's not a very efficient way. and certainly a much more efficient way and we continue to talk about this, is to provide quality of care and dr. murphy correctly pointed out, mr. speaker, that's exactly what medicare advantage does. it offers quality of care and a wellness provision and you know, were we paying these plans a little too much for

those services? i don't know. maybe, possibly. but if you're going to cut any amount, certainly 14%, $130 billion, is too much because that guts those plans but whatever savings you get out of medicare shouldn't they stay in the medicare program? if you believe the medicare actuary and the trustees that say if we don't do something by 2024, the trust fund, the hospital trust fund is depleted. there is no more medicare as we know it or in any other way. so if you're going to find savings in the medicare program, you don't take that money, $575 billion, and use it to create a whole new other entitlement program so that everybody in the whole country has health insurance whether they need it or not, whether they want it or not.

i can think of a lot of things in the medicare program that could be -- where this money could be well spent. how about long-term care, extended care facility coverage to keep that money in medicare. instead, what obama care comes up with is something called the class act, which is a classless act, mr. speaker, because it is a misleading program that can't fund itself. that absolutely can't fund itself. so you know, there's so many things about this obamacare and obama's plan to save medicare which really has dr. broun pointed out is no plan at all other than what dr. rowe -- dr. roe has pointed out in regards to this independent payment advisory board that is going to cut spending for the most

vulnerable seniors. those that are the sickest. those that incur the highest costs. and they say there's no rationing but it will indeed, as my colleagues have pointed out, mr. speaker, be denial of care. at this point, i would like to yield back to the gentleman from tennessee to talk a little bit more about that. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i do want to point out one thing that dr. gingrey pointed out, which is one of the reasons the american people don't trust politicians, the class act, maybe a good idea, the class act began this year, where you have some money taken out of your paycheck and put in a savings account over here. it's supposed to be about $87 billion in five years and we can't get it out until that five-year period of time occurs and this money has accumulated. at that time, it's supposed to pay for long-term care, about $50 a day. guess what happens, mr. speaker? what happens is that we borrow the money out and spend it on

current health care and call this an asset and call this an asset. we've counted that money twice, two times. we've done that with social security already. i find this absolutely offensive, when august 2, 10 days, whatever that is from now, about a week from now, we've had the audacity to tell people who paid into social security for 40 or 50 years that they're not going to be able to get their check, and why, because the federal government has spent that money. and we're doing the same thing again with the class act. there's already been legislation to perhaps overturn that. i'm going to get back just a moment to something a little more basic. that's to the examining room with the patient. the people who should be making health care decisions should be a family, the patient, and their physician, sitting around and talking about what their options are. not some 15 people appointed bureaucrats in washington, d.c.

we have -- by the way, dr. gingrey, mr. speaker, we've had over 190 co-sponsors, including a bipartisan co-sponsorship to the repeal of ipab, including every physician, every health care provider on the republican side, and dr. christian who is -- christensen, who was down here a moment ago on the democratic side, it's a bipartisan agreement that we should overturn this. the american medical association believes it should be overturned, over 270 major medical organizations see through this as a very bad thing for patients and the reason that we're worried about it, you've heard dr. broun speak about it, i've heard you speak about it, mr. speaker, is that ultimately it will affect the quality of care. why? if you don't have access to your doctor, the quality of your care will go down. the other thing i want to mention here is we talk about changing medicare. and quite frankly, i'm going to go through just a few of the

things that medicare has already been changed in this affordable care act, beginning in 2010, medicare cuts to hospitals, long-term care, in-patient rehabilitation services. in 2011, pest been pointed out already that medicare advantage plans, the seniors did get a $250 check to fill the doughnut hole. the wealthier seniors began paying higher premiums for medicare part d, that's in 2011. medicare imaging cuts, medicare reimbursement cuts when seniors get a c.t. scan or m.r.i., medicare cuts for durable medical equipment, ambulance service, diagnostic labs, durable medical equipment, wheelchairs, seniors prohibited from purchasing power wheelchairs until they rent for 13 months. in 2012, next year, elimination of the deduction of employer

expenses. that's huh they raise $4.5 billion. that's not to improve our current underfunded medicare plan, that's to create another entitlement. a medical expense deduction you raise the threshold for deducting medical expenses from 7.5% to 10%. that's a tax right there. hospice care is being cut. dialysis, medicare cuts to dialysis treatment will be cut in 2012. 2014, this independent payment advisory board begins and by the way, they're getting, i believe it's $12 million a year to fund this right new. if there's any way we can cut off funding to that board right now, it should be done. in 2015, a permanent cut to the payment rate for home health agencies, on and on, already these cuts, you haven't felt them because they haven't all come to fruition yet. what we're trying to do with

medicare is salvage the program for future generations and not -- a promise made is a promise kept. if you're 55 or older with social security or medicare, nothing happens. i hear all the time about a voucher. vouchers being made, this is a voucher system, and so forth. here's what a voucher is. voucher is when i go to my mailbox and shotgun comes that says, this has so much value. you take this piece of paper and purchase something with it. premium support is where the federal government, through its massive ability to go out and negotiate prices, exactly like they do for you and me, mr. speaker, in our health care plan here in congress they negotiate with numerous companies through the exchange, a federal exchange, our plans -- plan is called the federal employees health care plan, they negotiate the best price. what happens is, during the campaign the last two years i've heard seniors say and others say, congressman, i want exactly what you have.

that's exactly what we're trying to do. a higher income senior like myself and you and the others in this room will pay a much higher premium and folks with pre-existing conditions and lower income will pay much lower and they will have those choices as dr. murphy pointed out, why do we think that will save money? why are we doing it? it's been pointed out it is a catastrophe waiting to happen if we do not do something. with that, dr. gingrey, mr. speaker, i yield back. mr. gingrey: i thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from tennessee, dr. roe, and what he was describing, if i could elaborate a little bit more on that point to our colleagues, because i think some still are confused, possibly on both sides of the aisle, but clearly this plan that's put forth in the house budget, it's a republican budget because we're in the majority, it's sometimes

referred to as the paul ryan budget because he's chairman of the budget committee. . it is referred to as the path to prosperity. and the senate majority leader has deep-sixed it, if you will. in that budget plan, as dr. roe was referring to, taking the responsible approach based on the trustees' estimate of medicare program going totally broke by the year 2024, and that information is bipartisan. that's the medicare board of trustees, to ignore that as my colleague from georgia said in his remarks, the d-words to defund, to deny, what were some of the other ones, dr. broun,

delay, droy, demagog, and i added to those d words, their plan is rather disingenuous. but what dr. roe was describing is preserve and protect medicare as we know it, whether it is traditional medicare or salvage medicare advantage and hold harmless anybody that is is over age 55 through 65. they were 10 years away from being eligible for a medicare benefit. so that will be in those plans as we know it. but this approach that dr. roe so adequately describes, mr. speaker, this premium support program, not a voucher, as he pointed out, the premium support program, which, by the way,

would be administered by the office of personnel management, the same folks that talked to us and found out what kind of health care benefit we want, those members who are under 65 that you pick and choose and you negotiate, they will do the same thing for future -- those under age 55 today, future medicare beneficiaries, they will get the best bang for the buck, best care for their individual needs. now it's estimated that in 2022, that premium support amount on average will be $8,000. our democratic friends want to say that's not enough. that's not enough. seniors are going to have to reach in their pockets. what they don't tell you is that is premium will be higher, will

be higher for anybody who comes into the medicare program who's already sick, who already has several things wrong with them and that is possible when i got medicare eligible. i already had open heart surgery. so these people will have a higher premium than the average of $8,000 a year. and as they age, even if their health is perfect as they come into medicare, they may have the gene and may have wonderful health, three miles a day, don't smoke, don't drink excessively, don't sky dive but as they get older, that premium will go up because we know as you get older the chances of something happening are greater. the higher your income, the

lower your premium support. so that our seniors who need it the most will get a higher -- they won't get the average 8,000, but a higher premium support. i think it's a wonderful plan, mr. speaker. i absolutely do. and it shoice the responsibility -- and it shows the responsibility of the majority party of the house of representatives. and as my colleagues have pointed out, what's the plan from the democrats, from the democrat majority in the senate and from this president. deny it, delay it, destroy it, demagog it or as my colleague from tennessee has pointed out, kill it by creating this independent payment advisory board, ipab, which will, without

question, lead to denial of care and ration and i yield back to my colleague from tennessee. mr. roe: one of the things, mr. speaker, that i want to emphasize is that having no plan is a prescription for disaster for our country. we have a solemn obligation to provide health care for our seniors. we have made that promise and how do we do it. back to what i said, i do not want a board that is there that is appointed by a democrat, republican or any bureaucrat. what i want is i want health care decisions made by physicians, patient and their family. and the way that's going to happen where we use premium support to allow them make choices. not insurance companies and certainly not the federal government. from what i have seen up here in my two terms is, i don't want a bunch of federal bureaucrats in

charge of my bypass operation, gentlelady bladder operation, i want my doctor making those decisions along with my family. i think this is one of the biggest discussions we will have in this congress is how we do this right. forget the budget and forget all that right now, we are talking about people's lives and the care that they get. right now as i mentioned, these changes are already made. this is already in the current law that i talked about a minute ago. when you talk about medicare as it is, it has been changed big time. when this board kicks in and if there is an article, new england journal of medicine, one of our major journals, may, 2010, one of our majorsontive journals, this board would have kicked in

21 of the last 25 years had it been in place. if you look at what has happened, it would have happened 21 out of 25 times. what would that mean? as dr. broun pointed out, as these payments for physicians go down and down and down below their costs, they can no longer see. you lose access. mr. gingrey: if the gentleman would yield back to me for a second, what dr. roe is speaking about, on top of these cuts that our medical providers are currently facing under this so-called flawed formula sustainable growth rate, which i'm sure i'm correct on this in the past nine years, every calculation has been a cut to provider reimbursement to the point now that while we in congress have had the ability to

mitigate that, that if these cuts finally in the aggregate come due december 31 of this year, it's a 30% cut. so we haven't solved that problem yet for our providers, but yet we are adding on top of that this ipab board that can make additional cuts to provide a reimbursement without any ability of the congress, we, the members of congress, to stop that injustice. i yield back to the gentleman. mr. roe: peter orszag said this is one of the biggest losses of power that the congress has given up since the federal reserve. and that's been almost 100 years ago. and what we are doing is, congress fakes 2/3 to overturn what they recommend. we can do it if we get 2/3 vote. it isn't appealable.

mr. gingrey: we could overrule with a 2/3 vote. but we still have to find cuts in the medicare program somewhere else. mr. roe: we can make those cuts but have to be made somewhere else. and no where should congress give up its ability to do that. look, we are -- our house, the house side are the representatives of the people, closest to them. we have 700,000 constituents that we go talk to every time we get home and we ought to be beholden to those folks across this country and not to some board that is not accountable to anybody. and i yield back. mr. gingrey: i thank the gentleman. the gentleman from georgia is kind enough to have stayed with us and i would like to yield back additional time to him if he would like. mr. broun: the american people need to understand that the

purpose of obamacare, the bottom line really as expressed by the president himself when he said, he wanted everybody in this country in one pool. what does that mean for everybody? it means socialized medicine and that's what all these cuts and everything is geared to do is to force doctors out of private practice, make them employees of the federal government and make patients subject to some bureaucrat here in washington and tell them what kind of health care they can get. and the democrats' plan is to deny, to delay and to destroy medicare by letting it go broke. woy like to add to your other d, demagogry that we see. let me give three examples. the facts have been hid den from

the american people. aarp talked about all the places where the festd could talk about things like cutting treadmills, but that's not true. aarp and the democrats want to cut medicare by destroying it, letting it go broke. an ad by the gender project, liberal nonproject group shows an elderly women being heaved off the cliff and asked, is america better without medicare, ask paul ryan and his friends in congress. that is nothing but a lie, because we are trying to make sure that seniors get, as dr. roe said, a promise made, a

promise kept. we want to shore up medicare and social security. we want to strengthen medicare and not destroy it like the democrats are going to do. and let me give you a third example. president obama said in a speech at george university -- washington university university last month. if the vouch every isn't worth enough to buy the insurance, that's available in the open marketplace, tough luck, you are on your own. it ends medicare as we know it. end quote, president obama. demagogry. it's lies. bald faced lies designed to try to scare the american people, particularly senior citizens. we are trying to shore up medicare, we are trying to strengthen medicare from going

broke but the reid, pelosi, obamacare is to delay, destroy it and demagog it. mr. gingrey: and as i said earlier, the kindest thing i can say, it is disingenuous, stop the democrats' plan to end medicare. the medicare cut plan created in obamacare threatens seniors today as well as those who will come into the program tomorrow. so, colleagues, how do we stop democrats' medicare cut plan, but we have to support dr. roe's bill and medicare reform should not rely on restricting benefits and access for sick and disabled seniors in need. as we conclude tonight, let me

just say, colleagues, oppose the medicare cut board. visit the g.o.p. doctors caucus web site and sign the online opposition, oppose the democrats' plan to destroy medicare. doctors caucus.gingrey.house dth gov or doctors caucus .murphy.house.gov. i thank my leadership to bring to the american people and to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle the true facts of this case. we have a plan. the president has no plan and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair would be pleased to entertain a motion. gick

mr. gingrey: mr. chairman -- mr. broun: i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands

>> now house democrats on the debt and deficit plan in the house and senate. john larson begins this news conference with brief remarks to reporters. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> is everybody ready? thank you for joining us this afternoon. we have seen more than 200 days of republican control in the house of representatives without a jobs agenda. every week and we go home and travel back to our respective districts, what's uppermost in the minds of the citizens is job creation. what do they see down here? what they see is ongoing fear. a fear, quite frankly, that doesn't need to be. we commence the president for

continually reaching out to the other side and trying to get them to come to a compromise. each and every turn, they simply have said no. to focus on what we believe the american people desire and that is to put them back to work. we cannot continue down this path where not only the world economy, the national economy, but the household economies of every american is being held hostage by the republican majority. it's time to pass the debt ceiling. we could meet tomorrow and do a clean debt ceiling and move on and deal with the issues as they relate to, as we have work done and our caucus as we presented

time and again, the costs that are necessary to deal with our debt. let us be clear about the spirit 18 times under ronald reagan and ged 7 times under geor bush we passed a clean debt ceiling. ist is on americans' minds putting them back to work. she said, "how can you not agree that is comparable to a natural disaster, when individual lives are at stake. it's as if you have left to be swallowed by an abyss of uncertainty." let's pass the debt ceiling. but more importantly, let's put

americans back to work. let's follow the lead of steny hoyer anin making it in america. outinnovatte the rest of the world and out educate the rest of the world. how can we do that? by making it in america. >> i'm please to join the chairman of the democratic caucus. americans were very concerned. they expressed their concern at the polls. what they said is congress, pay attention to jobs and pay attention to the fiscal stability of our country. as the chairman of the caucus, we've been

you can take a district that is safe and make it not quite as safe and that representative will do vengeance to the party policy goals. it is not as if emanuel cleaver was in trouble. this is someone who was going to coast to a victory under the threat of a political storm. he was willing to through a colleague over the side to make it even safer. it makes this more of an interesting dynamic because you

cannot say the party will take the reins of power and always do what they want. it is always a balance. you may put some of your own in jeopardy. we know that even when you get an extreme -- as we had come a larger political ties can overwhelm that. you get an election, republicans may well be able to add one or two points to an advantage in these median districts. as it turns out, they overreached on medicare and the threats to shut down the government and to get an enormous public backlash. members lose by three points instead of by five or six points. we need to have a little bit of humility to project ahead. on the one hand there is start

-- stronger party voting makes it easier to draw partisan district but it makes them more vulnerable. they are based on reactions to the political parties nationally. as you are talking about the missouri case, i was thinking about the opposite experience in virginia where bobby -- said take away some of my minority constituents. i do not need to have this high of a percentage. he is saying you could create the second minority district with 40% african-american can spit -- constituents. it works in a variety of ways. before we turn to questions for the audience, let's have a

discussion about texas. it plays such an import role in our hearts over time. its history in -- n gerrymanderingn durini works agains the hispanic population. would someone be willing to look at that? you probably are very much involved in cases. >> it is true that we introduced maps that would give them two congressional seats and they have filed suit saying under section 2 it was a violation of that act not to -- they introduced maps that would add

another district to elect a candidate of choice for black voters. it would not be a majority but a combination of black and latino voters. that is what is at stake in some of the litigation. there is other types of legal claims that are being filed. >> how did they do it? what do those maps look like whereby some republican gains were realized, a potential latino district was not created? >> i could play with a man all day with a map if we had it. you might be better off asking an abstract artist. i do not think there is any question that latinos have been

underserved. even from a non-partisan point of view. this plan is an egregiously clever way of the living boats. i think it is significant in the dallas and fort worth area. also drawing a 70% district. that community has been split seven different ways under the republican proposal. that is clearly to elect republicans in suburban dallas and deny a democrat a seat in that central urban area. you can make the case that you could draw additional seats in

houston although there is question whether there would be over a citizen voting age population. it can certainly draw a latino majority district without splitting the county's 60 for ways as has been done. it is the map wade thought republicans might draw with one exception. i did think they were going to draw the district. not only to avoid a lawsuit, but also to shore up a lot of their members. republicans have gone one step further. that opens them up to a suit that could dismantle part of the map if not all of it. >> one last question.

which is do you expect plans at the congressional level to be ultimately written by judges. is there an opening for the public mapping to have some influence at that stage? >> the court prefer not to get involved in the redistricting process. their first instinct when there is a defect with the redistricting plan is to ask the legislature or redistricting authority, that will direct them to say we have identified these errors. you have a chance to rectify those areas. where you could have a map that

is drawn by a court or take ideas from the public, it is the voting rights issues -- they will be put back to the legislature to fix if there are not issues -- if there are issues discovered. we have a divided state government. you can get a legislative plan passed. the courts have to step in because you cannot delay redistricting. maybe it is possible to do that. generally the courts do not allow a redistricting to go by, an election to go by without redistricting. in some states there is an opportunity where evidence do this. i want to comment on something that david lynch and. in the dallas area, they gained

additional representation. a short-term strategy. the latino population -- that is the growing population. you may be able to keep the map out one or two election cycles that would be favorable to republicans in these districts. if you look at these populations and project what will be happening 10 years from now, i do not expect texas to turn blue. some of these districts will turn blue. this is kind of surprising. usually you want to drop some districts. you maintain your majority over a longer time. this is a short term sacrifice

for the long term. >> in terms of the court my hope is one of the reason the courts are reluctant to get involved is they have no expertise and if you ask a court to draw a plan, they will have to find somebody to do it. the public seeing mapping project is getting a raft of plans that meet the criteria and can do it in a powerful way, they can pull the plan off the shelf and that is the case in virginia, for example. if you do enough where a court has to make a decision, it will make it easier for them and be a better plan. >> now it is your turn. we have mics and we would like you to identify yourself and ask a question that is shorter than

the answer will be. let's start on the back. >> i am jeff white, i am districting recidivist. with this process going down the road, later in the decade in the courts, several states have filed in federal court and the justice department. there has been an notion among several republican attorneys general that the obama administration would politics with redistricting. unlike that -- there is a

question for an neda or others. >> we have challenges to the constitutionality oand what does that mean in two years. what does that mean if objections have been issued? there is uncertainty around the voting rights act. i was deputy assistant general in a prior administration. what i will say is from a public point of view, it makes it harder for individuals, people want to comment on the plan to have a role.

the justice department process ought -- there are so many other different things it up. we are here to talk about what this is doing. we're out there making sure that we are passing job-creating legislation consider of being m outired in political gains. it is not because democrats have been without ideas on creating jobs. we have had the agenda. under the umbrella of making america. and want to talk a second about legislation i champion for a long time. my colleague is doing this.

europeans are doing this. asians are doing this. if china is the 9% of its gross domestic product on bui lding. we need to create a bank that leverages cattrall. a concept that has broad bipartisan support. we will need to restore roads, bridges, water systems, energy. telecommunications. allow us to build the 21st century infrastructure, create jobs, that cannot be outsourced to my create them all over america. helps them to build the technology of the on the cutting edge of technology. these will be good jobs, well paying jobs. one more time, that we can build in this nation, we're a nation

that consumes all. we do not bill, we consume other countries. let's take this by the horns and introduce legislation, america and families are struggling. we do not have the luxury for political games. we need to get employment and standing legislation now. of that will create the jobs and rote -- we will rebuild america. let me introduce my colleague. >> jobs. let me introduce the man who never wavers from the progressive caucus. earmark earmark rockleigh >> the progressive caucus has been in up to now in a five city tour

where we have invited it in local communities to talk to us about jobs who and about what they see what and how it needs to be real buildand it hopes to rebuild. this needs to be serious discussion with with the unemployed and underemployed and people who aren't looking for work and cannot find it. i suggest day need to listen to the american people. we need to have a jobs agenda. it will need to look carefully upon as we cut the budgets of what it means. 100 billion. cut from medicaid. as we go forward, the agenda has to be number one. the way to get out of this deficit issue it, the way to deal with the debt is to put americans to work it so they can help us get ourselves out. thank you and let me introduce

woman.airma >> national unemployment is at 9.3% but for the pacific islanders it is 13.2% and some loans, 17.2% in asian american stay unemployed logger than any other group. people know jobs are a top priority but republicans are not getting the message. click passed 81 bills in 200 days and how many of those have created jobs? 0. in 200 days they have tried to put 2 million americans out of work. and now with the default negotiations, they're holding america's economy and the american people hostage to their agenda. loopholes that help them. we need people looking up for the american people and creating jobs, not cut them. we need strong leaders who will do something about the economy,

not just for corporate interests and the rich. and now i have the pleasure of introducing my esteemed colleague, the chair of the new democrats. >> thank you. joining my colleagues here. make a few of their member a couple of days ago i stood on the floor and gave the first speech. that was in reaction to the lack of any jobs built in the first 100 days of congress. to-how of no -- today i have no tabulated way. i am dumbfounded today. i am dumbfounded we have 200 days into this congress and we have not had a single bill that creates a single job in this country.

my question today is mr. speaker, where is the jobs bill? your caucus ran on creating jobs and not one single bill in 200 days to create a single job of. the american people are asking for jobs loudoun clear. in my district court, i hear it across the country. my colleagues, behind me are hearing them from the american people. they are asking for jobs. good jobs, jobs that pay well. of this as the chair of the new democratic coalition, we believe in innovation. we believe in investing in infrastructure. we believe in investing in education. we believe in making it in america. we call upon our colleagues on the republican side of the aisle not to leave this to that -- lead us to the brink of disaster. we cannot stand by and see what happens if we do not pass the

debt ceiling increase. i do not want to be around to see what might happen. we should not be putting those kinds of games, we should beginning to the business the people have sent us here to do. start focusing on putting americans back to work. with that, i would like to fromduce my good friend new mexico. >> thank you. rather it is said that after 200 days we have yet to see any commitment from our republican colleagues. what we can do to embrace -- america has always done well. making sure that we continue inventing things that we manufacture and commercializing that, with technology. coming from a state with national laboratories where the greatest research takes place. we cannot believe of our colleagues to abandon the notion

that we can close loopholes. to take jobs out of the country. rather than closing those and incentivizing these companies to come back to the country, to make it in america, to put people to work. across minute mexico and ... -- it is time to wake up. listen to the american people and let's make sure we get the job creation package moving. it has gone long enough. let's make sure we do what we can. i will turn at over. >> i will defer to my colleague. >> i want to thank the chairman

for organizing this and recognizing it as all democrats do that this is a three legged stool to answer and respond to our challenges. we need revenues, we need to cut our expenditures and create jobs. we have been here 200 days in not one single jobs program for jobs idea has gone through the floor. instead of giving incentives to end tax breaks to companies to move jobs overseas, we should be giving tax breaks and incentives to companies and bring jobs back or grow jobs in america. we need to solve and find common ground on this debt crisis situation. because it is causing it insecurity, causing a lack of moving forward with businesses. if you are a business and you do not know if there were going to raise the debt ceiling or not you would not go after hiring people. whinnied to find common ground and make a decision -- we need

to find common ground and make a decision and think about the future and innovation, transportation, and education. we need to solve this and move forward. the republican idea of having a series of defaults is plain wrong. it will hinder our already fragile economy. we need to invest in the future, we need to solve this default crisis, and make jobs and jobs creation for the american people our number one priority. thank you. >> thank you. i am pleased to stand with those in the democratic leadership and members of the belief in representing the people. i want to thank you and the democratic leadership and think president obama and chief of staff mayor lee for talking to our market leaders to ensure and to assure them that we are going to have this happen and make it

right. we are not -- we want of no defaults. and why you to look at this party. as the protector of the most gullible. we're proud of that. that is why we aren't talking about working americans. middle-class americans. protecting medicare and social security. and it keeps going up and up. that is why we are standing in the gap. do not walk out of any other meetings. stand as adults and fix this problem. if anyone does not understand why we do not need to move on short-term, watch the clock, up

in march because we are in this debate again. most americans do not know about the debt ceiling, but they know about the loss of jobs and they know about their families, protecting jobs and the most vulnerable americans. >> thank you, sheila. the bottom line is this -- we should be creating american jobs. meetings that are taking place should be focused on job creation. with that, time has run out.

i will take a few questions. yes? >> [inaudible] is the only motivation political for the next election cycle? >> hardly political at all. as i said in my opening comments, when i go home the lady that says to me that she is in the dark abyss of uncertainty, it has little to do with politics and everything to do with the situation she is currently in. this is a manufactured crisis to the extent that the debt ceiling has been lifted. the republican, ideological

agenda saying they want deep cuts in social security and medicare, and other programs, because of the problems we find ourselves in with the debt. there are problems that exist with the national debt. we have heard her say -- why are you putting it at the feet of the american people? the core programs that they come to depend on in these times, as well as creating the kind of anxiety that exists within this nation, adding that to the household concerns that every single american is now having a discussion over as republicans play beat the clock in washington. this is not taxes told them. this is not some kind of poker game. this is real in terms of what happens to people in their lives.

2008 was not long ago. people saw their 401k become 101 k. this is real. >> right now it looks like the republicans are going to put forward a plan tonight that will be voted on on wednesday. possibly a part of a bipartisan commission. could that not be seen as quieting the market? >> tavis that did the lady out of the abyss of uncertainty? if the problem is only kicked down the road and the the cloud hangs over the american public. democrats stand united behind the fact that everyone needs to be an adult in the room.

congress came together, whether or not it was president reagan and tip for a meal, they came together because they knew what was at stake for the american people. >> [inaudible] >> we do not know. what we do know is this. that my colleague was telling laurie last night that republicans walked out on the vice president, mcconnell, reid, the gang of six, they have walked away from their president twice. i think that she concluded by saying that if barack obama came up with a cure for cancer, they might walk away from that as well. they are saying to put politics aside. want to stand down on the deficit? there was ground that was made.

that has given them a great deal of confidence. moving on to the other issues. >> [inaudible] >> i would imagine that that plan in our caucus this evening, we hope we will be able to take a look at both of those plans. our understanding, based on the core principles, it does not include the ending the benefits of social security and medicare or medicaid. from that standpoint, yes, sir?

>> [inaudible] revenues added to fix the problem? >> if there is a balanced approach, we would like to see revenues. there is no economist that we know of on either side that has not said that you have to raise these revenues. what has been politicized is the president has not said that we would have to do that tomorrow. but they will have to be included in any kind of a balanced plan that is untenable. listen, thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> white house debt ceiling and budget talks reached a stalemate this weekend. today, harry reid unpeeled a plan to cut $2.70 trillion from the budget in 2013. on the house side, john boehner proposed a housing cut package for six months. next, president obama on both of those proposals. later, david walker on the u.s. debt and deficit. >> if you want to be informed about what is happening in the world, particularly by an american politics, it is not so hard. c-span has a digital online archive it goes back to -- what, 79? >> 1987. >> you can basically watch

anything that happened in the house and senate chambers right there on your screen. sources of information that are on the mansion -- that were unimaginable 20 years ago. >> instant access to events in the white house, the committee rooms, and house and senate chambers. the peabody award winning c-span video library. washington, your way. >> president obama called for a deal in congress that would raise the national debt ceiling. the president supports the plan for harry reid that includes $2.70 trillion in savings with no cuts to social security and medicare. the president spoke in the east room of the white house. >> in the year 2000 budget had

-- the budget was in a surplus. but the money was spent on tax cuts while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program was added to the nation's debit card. the deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the year that i took office. to make matters worse, the recession meant that there was less money coming in and it required us to spend even more. on unemployment insurance. on aid to states so that we could prevent more teachers, firefighters, police officers from being laid off. every family knows that a little bit of credit card debt is manageable. but if we stay on the current half, the growing debt could cost jobs and do serious damage to the economy. more of our tax dollars will go towards paying off our loans.

a country that cannot balance its books. interest rates declined for every one that borrows money. the homeowner with a mortgage. this unit. the corner store that wants to expand. and we do not have enough money to make investments in things like infrastructure. because neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem, both parties have the responsibility to solve it. over the last several months, that is what we have been trying to do. basically, the debate has centered around two different approaches. the first says that we should live within our means by making serious and historic cuts in government spending. cut domestic spending to the lowest level it has been.

cut spending at the pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars. cut out waste and fraud in health care programs like medicare. making modest adjustments so that medicare is still there for future generations. finally, ask the wealthiest americans and corporations to give up some of their brakes in the tax code and special deductions. this balanced approach as everyone to give a little without requiring anyone to sacrifice too much. reducing the deficit by $4 trillion, putting aside path to pay down the debt. the cuts would not have been so abruptly that they would be a drag on the economy. it would help middle-class companies get back on their feet right now. this approach is also bipartisan. many in my party are not happy with the cuts that have been made, but enough will be able to

accept them. while republicans might like to see deeper cuts with no revenue and all, many in the senate have said yes, i am willing to put politics aside and consider this approach because i care about solving the problem. to his credit, this is the kind of approach that john boehner was working on with me for the last several weeks. the only reason that this balanced approach is not on its way to becoming all right now is because a significant number of republicans in congress are insisting on a different approach. cutts only. an approach that does not ask the wealthiest americans to contribute anything at all. because nothing is asked of those at the top of the income scale, such approach would close the deficit only with severe cuts to programs that we all care about.

so, the debate right now is not about whether we need to make tough choices. democrats and republicans agree on the reductions that are needed, the debate is on how it should be done. most americans, regardless of party, do not understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for medicare before we ask corporate jet owners to pay for what they do not get. how can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask that fund managers to pay for taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries. how can we/clean energy and education before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks that we do not need and did not ask for. it is not right or fair. we want a government that lives within its means, but there are things that we have to pay for

as a country. things like new roads, bridges, satellites, services to veterans and medical research. keep in mind that under a balanced approach, 98% of americans that make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all. none. in fact, i want to extend the payroll tax cut to working families. what we are talking about, under a balanced approach, is asking americans whose income has gone up the most, to share in the sacrifice that everyone else has to make. i think that these patriotic americans are willing to pitch in. they have pitched in every time that we pass the deal to reduce the deficit. the first time that a deal was passed, a predecessor of mine made the case by saying this -- would you rather reduce

deficits by increasing the amount coming from those that do not pay their fair share? or would you rather have higher unemployment? i think i know the answer. those words were spoken by ronald reagan. today many republicans in the house, which used to consider this kind of balanced approach, pursued not only by president reagan, but by president bush, president reagan, myself, and many republicans and democrats in the united states senate. so, we are left with a stalemate. what makes this stalemate so dangerous is that it has been tied to something known as the debt ceiling. something that most people outside of washington have never heard of before. understand, raising the debt ceiling does not allow congress to raise more money. it simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that

congress has already racked up. in the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine. since the 1950's congress has always passed it and every congress has signed it. president reagan did it 18 times. president george w. bush did it seven times. we have to do it by next tuesday or we will not be able to pay all of our debts. unfortunately, republican house makers have essentially said the only way they will vote to prevent america's first ever the fault is it the rest of us agreed to their deep spending cuts only approach. if that happens and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of the bills. for the first time in history,

our country's aaa credit rating would be downgrading cup -- downgraded, leaving investors to wonder if the united states is still a good bet. interest rates would skyrocket on credit cards, mortgages, amounting to a huge tax hike on the american people. we would risk sparking a deep economic crisis. this one caused almost entirely by washington. the faulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate. republican leaders say that they agree we must avoid default. the new approach that speaker boehner unveiled today, temporarily unveiling the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, forcing us to once again face the threat of the fall just six months from now. in other words, it does not solve the problem. a six month debt ceiling

extension might not be enough to avoid a credit downgrade and the higher interest rates that all americans would have to pay as a result. there is no point in putting the economy at risk by kicking the can further down the road. but there is an even greater danger to this approach. based on what we have seen over the last few weeks, we know what to expect. the house of representatives will once again refused to prevent default on this cutts- only approach. they will refuse to ask the wealthiest americans to give up their tax cuts. they will demand harsh cuts to programs like medicare. once again, the economy will be held captive unless they get their way. this is no way to run the greatest country on earth. a dangerous game we have never played before and we cannot afford to play it now.

we cannot allow the american people to become collateral damage to washington's political warfare. congress has one week left to act. there are still paths forward. the senate has introduced a plan that makes a down payment on deficit reduction, ensuring that we do not have to go through this again in six months. i think that it is a much better approach, although serious deficit reduction would still require us to tackle the tough challenges. either way, i told the leaders of both parties to come up with a compromise that can pass both houses of congress and a compromise that i can sign. i am confident that we can reach this compromise. republican leaders and i have found common ground before and i

believe that members of both parties will put politics aside and help us to make progress. i realize that a lot of the new members of congress and i do not see eye to eye on many issues. but we were elected by the same americans for some of the same reasons. yes, many want government to start living within its means. many are fed up with a system where the debt seems stacked against middle-class americans in favor of the wealthiest few. do you know what people are fed up with most of all? a town where compromise has become a dirty word. they work all day long, many of them scraping by just to put food on the table. when these americans come home at night, tired, turning on the news, all they see is the same for you ring circus in washington. leaders that cannot seem to come together to do what it takes to

make life better for ordinary americans. they are offended by that. and they should be. the american people may have voted for divided government. but they did not vote for a dysfunctional government. i am asking you all to make your voice heard. if you want a balanced approach, let your member of congress know. if you believe that we can solve this problem to compromise, send that message. america has always been a grand experiment in compromise. a democracy made out of every race and religion where every belief and point of view is welcome. we have put this together as a proposition at the heart of our fat -- founding. out of many, we are one. fears and passionate debates over the issues of the day. from civil liberties to

questions of economic justice, we have tried to live by the words that jefferson once wrote. every man cannot have his way in all things. without this mutual this position, we are disjointed individuals. but not a society. history is scattered with those who held fast to rigid ideologies and refused to listen to those who disagree. but those are not the americans that we remember. we remember the americans that put country above self, setting aside personal grievances for the greater good. the americans that held this country together in its most difficult hours to form a most perfect union. the entire world is watching. let's seize this moment to show why the united states of america

is still the greatest nation on earth. not just because we can still keep our word and meet our obligations, but because we can still come together as one nation. thank you. god bless you. may god bless the united states of america. >> now we will get reaction from house speaker john boehner to the president's remarks. >> good evening. i am john boehner. i serve as the speaker of the house. millions have been looking for work and have been for some time.

spending in washington is one of the reasons why. i was amazed at how different washington, d.c. operated from every other business in america. most businesses make hard choices to live within their means, in washington more spending and debt is business as usual. those days are over. president obama came to congress, requesting business as usual. a routine increase in the national debt. in the house we said -- not so fast. asking for this debt increase on the heels of america's largest spending increase -- spending binge, here is what we got, a health-care bill that americans did not ask for and the stimulus bill that was better at producing material for late night comedians been jobs. sparking a crisis that has had no precedent in my lifetime or

yours. the united states cannot default on its debt obligations. the jobs of too many americans aren't state. we told the president that the american people would not accept an increase in the deficit without significant spending cuts and reforms. we have done our best to convince the president to do something dramatic to change the fiscal trajectory of our country. renewing a member of faith in the government, helping small businesses to get back on track. last week the house passed such a plan. it is called the cut, cap, and balance at. paving the way for a balanced budget amendment, the best way to stop washington from spending money it does not have. before we pass the bill in the house, the president said that

he would veto it. we were assigned to work with the president to implement the principles of balance in a mayor -- in a manner that could secure bipartisan support. i will tell you, i gave it my all. unfortunately, the president would not take yes for an answer. the president's demands changed. the president has often said that we need a balanced approach, meaning that in washington we spend more and you pay for it. i have noticed that tax increases will destroy jobs. the president is adamant that we cannot make the fundamental changes to our programs. i know that these programs will not be there for my children a less significant action is taken now. the president wanted a blank check six months ago and he wants a blank check the day. this is just not going to happen.

there is no stalemate in congress. the house passed a debate with bipartisan support. as the senate struggles to pass a bill filled with washington gimmicks, we will pass another bill. one that was developed with the support of the bipartisan leadership in the u.s. senate. it will be sent to the president for signature. if the president signs it, the atmosphere he has created will disappear. the debt limit will be raised and spending will be cut by more than $1 trillion. a serious bipartisan committee will begin the hard but necessary work of dealing with the tough challenges faced by our nation. the elected senators of the people will start to do the job they were elected to do. those decisions should be made based on how they will affect people who are struggling to get a job.

not how they will affect the chances of some politician to get elected. this is not about president obama, congress, or the white house. it is about what is standing between the american people and the future that we see for ourselves and our family. i have always believed that the bigger the government, the smaller the people. right now we have a government that is so big it is keeping our economy from running at full capacity. this solution is not complicated. if you are spending more money than you take in, you need to spend less of it. as we begin to liberate our economy, we liberate our future. we are up to the test and i hope that president obama will join us in this work. god bless you, your family, and the united states of america. let's harry reid laid out his

debt and deficit reduction plan. $2.70 trillion in spending cuts, including money saved from ending the war is in iraq and afghanistan. chuck schumer and senator reid spoke about the proposal with reporters for about 25 minutes. >> senators durbin and moynihan are on an airplane. unfortunately, they are not here. but they are on their way. i spent all weekend trying to work something out with republicans. instead of moving forward, we went backwards. one example -- our spending this

year for the military is that $700 billion. that is more money for the military than the rest of the country's put together. you would think that in this debate that we have, they could chip in a few bucks to cut some spending. this weekend, the republicans wanted to raise spending. something modest, something the pentagon could live with. over the weekend, lo and behold, more funding for the pentagon. so, rather than trying to work with us on something as obvious as this to save money, they

went their own direction. the economy has been forced to have the same debate on the same subject a few months from now. republicans and their short-term plan is a nonstarter in the senate and white house. certainly, democrats in the house agree wholeheartedly with us. the same dire consequences that would be triggered, as one market analyst said, today, there is a significant risk of a downgrade with an agreement that ties further cuts to another vote the few months down the road. it appears to me that at this stage, republicans are more interested in trying to embarrass the president and doing what is right for the country. so, today we bring to the floor a $2.70 trillion reduction

package that we hope will break the impasse and put the rest of the country at ease with respect to this default. this proposal satisfies a core democratic principles by going after medicare, protecting social security, and providing some -- providing the stabilization the market looks for. thus the major demands of republicans, regarding revenues and the amount of the cuts, that is what we gave them. now, all republicans have to do is say -- yes. unfortunately, republicans who used to run the congress during the caucuses are being driven by the radical right wing that is so in tune with the tea party.

they want their leaders to ignore the american people, as they are doing. they want the americans to ignore the chamber of commerce. even a majority of republicans that own this country want to see something happen. they would rather see taxpayer funded giveaways for billionaires and millionaires. the time for ideological extremism should end. we have got to break away from the extremists here in washington. senator schumer? >> senator reid, thank you for your leadership on this issue. it is unfortunate that the

weekend's negotiations were not able to produce an agreement, despite the president's warning. the speaker has refused to budge from his proposal and is going ahead with a vote in the house on this plan, although he knows it cannot become law. this is a dangerous waste of time, given that there are so few days between now and the deadline. make no mistake about it. the plan outlined is a dodge. it kicks the can down the road, resolving the debt ceiling for the next few months. after that we would be right back at square one all over again. as senator reid road yesterday, he can dress up the plan any way that he wants, it is simply a one step, short term plan. look at how difficult this crisis has been to resolve.

does anyone think it would be a good idea to do this all over again in six months? the speaker's proposal is both wrong and dangerous. it would lead a cloud of the fault over our heads, undermining confidence in the bond market. analysts have rejected the speakers approach, saying it could bring about some of the same bad consequences as the default itself and even cause a credit rating downgrade. a currency trader was quoted by bloomberg news this morning as saying that from the market's point of view, a two-part plan is a non-starter. there is significant risk of a downgrade with a deal that ties further to a vote given significant resistance to doing the right thing now.

also, muhamed erian, the ceo of pimco, expressed concern last night that political brown was being prepared for a short-term compromise, warning that this could lead the u.s. debt rating to being extremely exposed. these are the experts in the market. even republicans rejected short- term increases as recently as last month. the republican chairman of the house ways and means committee said that it does not give you certainty. ideally would like to get it rather than not have it as they continue in the over-hanging issue. the majority leader said that if we cannot make the tough decisions now, why would we make them later? i do not see how multiple votes

on a debt ceiling increase can help to get us to where we want to go. senator reid, myself, most of us agree with the majority leader on that point. republicans have apparently flip-flop on this point, but the short-term deal is still a non- starter in the senate. republicans continue to push a plan that will never fly. the senate plan offers real potential to finally break this impasse. it makes difficult choices for us. it includes $1.20 trillion in domestic discretionary programs, including defense. a serious belt-tightening that will have consequences for years to come. it includes savings from winding down the war in iraq and afghanistan. real savings scored at about $1 trillion at the cbo.

we know that some republicans will quibble over these savings, but they have no leg to stand on. the wars are the second biggest policy driver of our deficits after the bush tax cuts. if conducting these wards adds to the debt, it is undeniable that there will be savings. the administration tells us that with a wind down in place in iraq and afghanistan, they can prosecute the war is over the next decade. the cbo assumes $1.67 trillion through 2021 by adopting the lower number in the administration. we know that the republicans agreed with at this math, because they included the exact same savings in the rye and budget that passed the house. they never criticize the

accounting than. it is hard to see how they could do so now. lastly, senator reid in his proposal allows for deeper savings down the road. all in all, this is an offer that republicans cannot refuse. all of the cuts in the senator's proposal have been supported, at one point or another, by republicans. if they refuse this offer, it simply means they want to default for whatever reason. as the senator said, it meets the requirements that they laid out. cutts that they have supported. ask yourself, the american people will be asking themselves -- if they are opposed to this, why? we did everything they ask for? in the speech at the new york

economic club, the speaker laid out the main criteria. our proposal cuts more than the amount of the debt ceiling increase. the second that speaker mainers -- speaker boners said that it must be off the table and include no revenue increases, this is a hard decision for many on our side. our side knows that any serious debt reduction plans must include revenues. but in the interest of preventing defaults, we can have the fight on revenues later, when we pursue the grand bargain that the speaker could not bring himself to except from president obama. it is a tough choice. but for democrats we get an increase in the debt ceiling to 2012 and we succeed in preventing benefit cuts to

medicare, medicaid, or social security. meets the bottom line of both sides and is a good deal. at this point there is no alternative other than default and know it -- no basis for republicans rejecting this proposal, other than they want to fall. thank you. >> [inaudible] that your staff and his staff are putting this language in over the weekend. is mitch mcconnell lying to us about this?

>> i do not use words like that, as you know. we had good negotiations over the weekend. they could never get off the six month wheel. the leader could never agree to less than six months. as we were negotiating, we tried to come up with a v 302's something that senator mcconnell and i have tried to do. that is where they started going backwards. wanting more money for defense. i would say to mitch mcconnell, nice try, but do not blame it on the president. >> is this essentially a game of

chicken at this point? >> everyone listen to what senator schumer said in detail. just about everything in their plan, we have not agreed to it. especially the time line. everything in our plan, they have agreed to. these of the things they have supported in the past. this is not a game of chicken. this is a game of reality. one of the most serious things we could do would be to do something about this debt that is expiring. we are about to go over the cliff. as a short-term extension, the president and i have been on

record for weeks. saying that we agree with that. >> we have extended short-term a lot of times. never conditionally. and they, of course, want to do it with a lot of over-burdened, terrible conditions. >> what about the accusation that this was going to happen anyways? >> every republican in the house of representatives voted for it. it can be scored by the cbo. let's how can they say that it

is good medicine in our but -- in their budget but not our budget? let's how much of a cut would there be in 2012? >> i am not very good with numbers. you can get that from my staff. >> one of the things that they have said at s&p is that they want and long-term reduction in the debt to gdp ratio. with this plan, discretionary cuts, the entitlements being the long-term driver, does that not fly? >> it seems like acceptance all over. it was my idea to have a joint committee. where everyone is aware -- i should say that everyone should be aware, the only way to reach

those numbers is with revenue. that is why the only times that we talked, we talked about dealing with revenue. everyone knows that we will not touch entitlement until there is some movement on revenue. people shipping jobs overseas. still making billions of dollars, millionaires and billionaires that may not be able to get the same tax cuts they've got during the bush administration. what we are talking about is getting this country out of the fault for the next two years. >> republicans say the two are playing politics and that obama is trying to protect his campaign. >> we will be happy to do this longer, if they are interested.

this is an example of someone who is nice and polite. ok. [laughter] >> learning. [laughter] >> what about the alternative and the deadline? >> we are fast approaching the dead date. basically it is one week from tomorrow. that is why it is unfortunate that the republicans have taken so much time to send something. but they have. obviously they want to have a showdown we have been trying to work something out for several days now. the president has been working very hard. he had them down to the white house. he had us to the white house. every time it seems we are

making progress, they walk away. this is not recent. we know that an agreement was made between judd gregg and kent conrad. we know that they walked out of the biden talks. they cannot take yes for an answer. >> this idea that there is even handedness in the quality here is not fair. we have moved in their direction so many different times and they do not budge. no revenues, no revenues. you cannot get a grand deal without revenues. moving totally in their direction. that is why the american people are saying that the cause of the fall to end gridlock are the

republicans in congress. not the president, not the democrats in congress. it has not been even-handed. this proposal is crafted by senator reid with them in mind. they say no, you have two proposals. that is not really fair. what is happening is simple. there are 100 people in the house that do not care if we default. you have not seen the house republican leadership resist that. if you think it is even-steven to have a small group of people drive the debate on the republican side and democrats should give in? that makes no sense. it is terrible for the country.

>> did the president endorse it? [inaudible] >> you have -- of course. >> you have spoken to many centrist republicans. >> of would hope so. giving them what they want. >> [inaudible] >> we will have to see what the next step is. >> i am curious if we would have

the same issue again on september 30. >> thank you. >> [inaudible] >> sunday night. >> now we will hear from jeff sessions on the senate democrat debt ceiling bill. he spoke on the floor before senator reid brought the official legislation to before.

business with regard to the financial future of our country in the most troubling way, so far as i can tell. it's unlike anything we've done in our history. i would say, from a structural, systemic circumstance, this nation has never had a more serious debt problem. we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. yes, we do have a war going on that's costing $150 billion this year. the deficit this year will be $1.5 trillion. $1.5 trillion in deficit. it's not the war. it's only about 10% of our deficit, unfortunately. back in world war ii, we could see our way out of the war and our victory, and we had great growth in the future.

but the deficits we're accruing every day, every week, every month are significant because they're going to be hard to change. we're just spending more than we take in on a host of different programs, and we've got to change. and we can change. and if we do change and get this country back on a growth path, i think we'll be in the right, right way. so, i have repeatedly warned that by avoiding going through the budget process this year, a process required by law that this senate, under democratic leadership, explicitly refused to do. the majority leader said it would be foolish to have a budget. we're now about 820 days or so without a budget, over two years we've not had a budget for the united states of america, and they never even attempted to, even though a law says we should

pass one by april 15. it doesn't put anybody in jail. maybe that's what it should have done. maybe a bunch of people would be in jail today. maybe we'd have a budget if we had some teeth in the act. but it's a statute of the united states that requires a budget. we've not done so. so then we begin to hear the warning six months ago that we would be reaching a point where we need to raise the debt limit, the debt ceiling that we have. congress has said, mr. president, you can borrow money but only so much. you can't borrow more than the amount 14-some-odd trillion dollars. that's all. if you need to borrow more, congress will have to appropriate it. we have the power of the purse under the constitution. so this has been brewing. we've been heading to that. i've been warning since we haven't done our job, since the budget committee hasn't met about these issues, the

appropriations committee has not met about these issues, the finance committee has not met about the tax, tax and mandatory entitlement programs that are under their jurisdiction; no work has been done all year. none. but we're told not to worry, our leaders are going to meet a few times in secret. and this little group failed. and this group with the vice president met, and that didn't work. and then they're going to meet with the president, and that didn't work. and finally last night, as senator wicker said, it did appear an agreement was reached between the democratic leadership and the republican leadership on a bill that at least would get us past this debt crisis. so they had the leadership agreement. i haven't read it. i don't know what's in it. i'm going to want to know what's in the bill. i have a constitutional responsibility, as do the other 99, 98 senators here to make a

good judgment on it. but it is odd that after all of that and a bipartisan agreement was reached, the president walked away from it. he's going to blame now speaker boehner who produced a budget? the republican house produced a far-reaching historic budget that would actually change the debt trajectory of our country, put us on the right path, the path to restoring prosperity, the creation of jobs because this debt is so large, it's a wet blanket as speaker boehner said. i called it an anchor, a weight that is pulling down the economy because expert economists have told us so. experts say when you have this much debt, you lose a million jobs a year that would otherwise be created. so we've got a serious problem, and i'm not pleased about it. i just felt all along this is exactly what's going to happen,

somewhere in the back of the minds of the president or the leaders or somebody was the idea that they would bring up a plan at the 11th hour, the 11th hour, 50th minute, bring it to the floor of the senate, say if you don't vote for it members of the senate, if you don't vote for it members of the house, we're going to have a debt crisis and it will all be your fault. well, i'm not in that. i'm not going to vote for any kind of significant legislation as this is until i've had a chance to read it and think about it. and what's going to happen, i'm told, after the majority leader reid produced a one-page summary of his plan, this afternoon told us not to worry; he's got a one-page summary. trust us. he's going to introduce legislation tonight, and we'll vote wednesday morning. and it will be good for america. just do what i tell you and go

along and mind your manners, and we'll get this thing taken care of. trust me. the american people have been trusting washington too long. the american people know there is no justification whatsoever in this country that we are spending so much money at 40% of it has to be borrowed. they know better. they know we have no business spending $3,700,000,000,000 where we take in only $220,000,000,000. that's what happened in in last election. they say these tea party people, they are not good americans. they're angry. they're mad. that's not good. you're bad people. well, give me a break. if we had a recall election, we all ought to be voted out of office, i s