the chair: on this vote the yeas are 173. the noes are 244. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in part a of house report 112-296 by the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part a of house report 112-296 offered by mr. cohen of tennessee. the chair: a recorded vote's been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.

this will be a two-minute vote. a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 171. the nays are 248. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 4 printed in part a of house report 112-296 by the gentleman from michigan, mr. peters, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment in 4 printed in part a of house report 112-296 offered by mr. peters of michigan. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 178.

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 179. the nays are 243. the amendment is not adopted. the speaker pro tempore: the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-296 by ms. jackson lee on which further proceedings were postponed and the yeas prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-296 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is

ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 172 and the nays are 250. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in part a of house report 112-296

by the gentleman from jea, mr. johnson, on which further proceedings were postponed and the nays prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in part a of house report 112-296 offered by mr. johnson of georgia. the chair: a recorded has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 170 and the nays are 250. the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. accordingly, under the rules, the committee rise he. -- rises.

the chair: the committee of the whole house has had under consideration h.r. 527 and pursuant to house resolution 477, i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 527 and pursuant to house resolution 477, reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amended report to the committee of the whole? the question is on the adoption of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment, third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend chapter 6 of title 5, united states code, commonly known as the regulatory flexibility act to ensure complete analysis of potential impacts of small entities of rules and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewomanp opposed to the bill? ms. sanchez: i'm opposed to the bill. mr. speaker, the chamber is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order. members will kindly take their seats. they will clear the well, take

their conversations off the floor. those in the aisles will kindly take their seats and conversations are taken off the floor. members will kindly cease their conversations on the floor. the clerk will read. the clerk: ms. sanchez of california moves to recommit the bill to the committee on the judiciary with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendments. at the end of the bill, the

following, section, protecting incentives for small businesses to hire veterans. this act and the amendments made by this act shall not apply to rule makingses or revisions to rules if such are for purposes of providing incentives to small businesses as such term is defined in chapter 6, title 5, united states code for hiring veterans as such term is defined in section 101-2 of title 38. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady deserves to be heard from both sides of the aisle. the house will come to order and conversations on the floor will cease. the gentlelady deserves to be heard. the conversations in the back of the chamber, please be taken off the floor.

the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to offer a final amendment to h.r. 527, that if passed will allow the bill to be brought back properly, promptly to take a vote for final passage. mr. speaker, this final amendment is noncontroversial, and aims to do one simple thing, to protect the incentives that assist small businesses to hire veterans. this amendment comes at a very critical time for our small businesses and for our veterans. several weeks ago, this house did something that most of america doesn't believe anymore we do. we came together, all of us, republicans and democrats and we vote odd a bill and we passed the bill together, unanimously,

the vow to hire heroes act of 2011. the bill pushes key provisions, like providing small businesses incentives so that they will hire veterans who have been unable to find employment. as a new law, the tax credits that we offer in that vow bill would require additional regulations to be implemented in order for small businesses to begin to hire our veterans and our veterans need jobs now, not tomorrow, now. yet, this bill, the one we're considering right now, sets up many new hurdles and delays for new regulations, like those needed for the implementation of the vow to hire heroes act. in a little more than two weeks,

we went from a 422 to zero vote with that vow act to now potentially hindering our small businesses from hiring veterans. however, we have a chance to fix that. we have a chance to fix that right now. and we have a chance to fix it and to bring back this vote promptly, to bring this bill and vote it today. so i ask my colleagues, especially those on the other side what are your priorities? i know what my priorities are. my priorities are to small businesses and my priorities are to our veterans, who have fought for this nation. mr. speaker, if my colleagues on the other side truly believe that small businesses are what creates the jobs in america, then we can fix this bill by voting for my amendment.

. . if you believe that veterans should not have to fight for a job after having fought for our country, then we can fix this bill by voting for my amendment. if my colleagues believe that the over 250,000 unemployed veterans under the age of 35 deserve a job, then we can fix this bill by voting for my amendment. i know what this side of the aisle believes. we know what the choice is. it's about small businesses, creating jobs and hiring these brave men and women. we want our small businesses to have those incentives so that they can hire our veterans now, not next year or the following year. now. we need jobs now. the bill itself raises a lot of regulations and hurdles to new

implementation, but now we can fix the bill and we can help our veterans and our small businesses. it's our duty here in congress to look after those who have looked after the people of this country. so my final amendment does this by ensuring that we allow those regulations that are needed to be -- to protect these incentives for the small businesses who want to hire veterans. i would have no doubt, i would never doubt that my colleagues on any side of the aisle would intentionally want to hinder the hiring of veterans, especially after i saw that unanimous vote right before thanksgiving. remember that. we finally ask something together. so i ask all of you, let's do

the right thing. will you stand with our veterans and small businesses and protect those incentives that we voted for two weeks ago? if you believe it's the right thing to do, then you'll vote for this. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. sanchez: then you'll vote for this amendment. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in opposition of the amendment. mr. gowdy: the president said in this chamber that we don't need more regulation. mr. speaker, the president in this very chamber conceded overregulation has stifled innovation and chilled growth and jobs. professor sun said we must take

aggressive steps to eliminate unjustified regulatory burdens, especially in today's economic environment. mr. speaker, 43% of the payroll in this country comes from small business. 2/3 of all the jobs created in the last two decades come from small business. small business, mr. speaker, is the backbone of this economy and the single best way for all americans, veterans included, but all americans to enjoy the majesty of the american dream. so one would think our colleagues would storm the aisle to join us in providing relief to small business, including veterans, one might think our colleagues would rush to help us form something against an overreaching apparatus. so, mr. speaker, let's stop using veterans as political footballs and start helping americans, including veterans.

the regulatory flexibility improvements act of 2011 simply asks agencies to do the kind of preregulatory analysis they should have been doing any way. frankly, the bill seeks to enact much of what the president claims he wants with respect to regulatory reform. since small business creates most of our jobs and since regulatory compliance costs are higher for them than for larger competitors, congress passed the r.f.a. of 1980 requiring agencies to analyze regulations, mr. speaker, in advance, hardly a revolutionary idea, mr. speaker, know the consequences of your actions before you act, especially when it comes to having a chilling effect on job creation. but the experience over the last 15 years has shown the law needs to be reformed, mr. speaker, and updated because agencies aren't getting the message. this bill requires agencies to do what they should be doing any

way which is -- anyway which is to calculate and make sure all agencies follow the rules, not some of the time, not when they feel like it but all of the time. mr. chairman -- mr. speaker, our fellow citizens want to work. they want to meet the needs of their families. they want to meet their societal obligations. and we should be doing everything in our power to make sure regulatory agencies measure twice and cut once, and our job requires and this bill ensures that they get the message. for this reason, mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. sanchez: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote.

the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 and 10 of rule 20, this is a 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit and it will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage of h.r. 527, if ordered, and suspension of the rules with regard to house resolution 364. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 188, the nays are 233. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the -- the gentleman -- >> i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 263, the nays are 159. the bill is passed. without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from tennessee to suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 364 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 364, resolution designating room

h.b.c. as the gabriel zimmerman meeting room. the speaker pro tempore: question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 419, the nays are zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 479, resolution providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 10, to amend chapter 8 of title 5, united

states code, to provide that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law. and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 394, an act to amend title 28, united states code, to clarify the jurisdiction of the federal courts and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition?

without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this weekend the 10-2 university of southern mississippi golden eagles are going to be traveling to houston, texas, to win the conference u.s.a. championship game. as a fourth generation golden eagle, i would like to place a friendly wager with my colleague from houston, texas, a gallon of mary mahoney's famous seafood gumbo that we will walk away victorious. ms. jackson lee: i am a proud cugecuger and as you know cougars are silent, fast and deadly. we welcome southern miss to houston, texas. the 12-30 cougars -- the 12-0 cougars. and we plan to give you all the barbeque you can eat as we celebrate the victory of the great cougars. university of houston, academic

and athletic champions. it's a pleasure to place this wager with you tonight. cougars, ready to pounce on you. mr. palazzo: our golden eagles' talens are going to be out, they're going to be ready and sharp, we're going to rip to you shreds. ms. jackson lee: peace in the valley. victory for the cugers. thank you. mr. palazzo: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. and fiscal year 2011, the united states postal service brought in 65.dshes -- $65.7 billion in revenue but spent $70.6 billion, and to fund retiree benefits, the postal service ran a deficit of $10.6 billion.

in an attempt to cut costs, the postal service has announced its considering closing over 3,600 post offices, the large majority of which are rural, by the postal service's own numbers they would only save $200 million annually if they were to close each of these post offices. this is kind of like asking a family of four that makes $65,700 a year and adds $10,600 in credit card debt. mr. crawford: and then only cuts $200 from their annual budget to get their finances under control. last month i visited the grubs and sedgwick post offices, two of the 100 post offices that are being considered for closure in my rural district. residents in both towns told me about the important role that their post office plays in their communities. in order to prevent the post office from unfairly targeting rural communities i recently introduced h.r. 3370, the protecting our rural post offices act of 2011. the legislation will prevent the postal service from closing any

post offices that does not have an alternate post office within eight miles driving. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, it's bad enough that the people who control this body aren't interested in creating jobs for the american people but now if people want new leadership in the house, if they want a congress that will finally focus on job creation, they're foiled by restrictive election laws designed to suppress the vote. guess which populations are disenfranchised by strict photo i.d. requirements and other barriers to political pearpgs? it's not the wealthiest -- participation? it's not the wealthiest 1%, it's not the base of the republican

party. it's disproportionately communities of color and low income families who are having their rights undermined and even stripped away. these laws passing in state after state are an underhanded, they're an attempt to consolidate political power, they are unfair, undemocratic and voting rights are among the most precious, precious that we have as citizens. and they must be protected. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, as the university of georgia graduate and a lifelong bulldog fan, i'd like to pay tribute to a fallen legend in the bulldog nation. last week larry moneyson passed away at the great age of 89. from an announcer at major league baseball to a u.s. army medic during world war ii, he

was a hero. he'll best be known for his time spent as a radio announcer. mr. scott: his sports casting set him apart from any other sports broadcaster. many of his phrases have become a part of bulldog fan lore. from the 100,000-mile field goal, larry's radio calls are will live as some of the most memorable in college football. georgia bulldog fans will never forget the sugar falling out of the sky and the hob-nailed boot, thus will the l.s.u. tigers to scare off this weekend in the s.e.c. championship. i end with the words bulldog fans are used to hearing from mr. munson. let all the bulldog faithful rally behind the men who wear the red and black with two words, two simple words which express the sentiments of the entire bulldog nation. go dogs. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today is the second anniversary of the unfair and brutal incarceration by the cuban regime of allen gross, an american citizen and i urge his immediate release. allen gross is 62 years old and in a trumped-up trial was given 15 years in prison. mr. engel: allen gross has worked in international development in over 50 countries through the past several years and was in cuba to aid the tiny jewish community with telecommunications and internet services when he was arrested and accused of being an american spy. this is a new law even for the cuban regime. this is a new law even for the castro brothers. allen gross's wife and family need him. his mother was just diagnosed

with inoperable cancer and his daughter also diagnosed with cancer. they need him back. we demand him back. he is an american citizen and we are watching and the whole world is watching. allen gross should not be incarcerated for doing nothing except trying to help very tiny community in cuba and i demand his immediate release. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. . >> request permission to address the house and revise and stepped my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kingston: the four things that the united states of america needs to do to turn the economy around, we need to balance the budget. we can do this on a bipartisan basis just by reducing the duplications in government and overlap between state and federal functions and trimming off 1% over time to bring

revenues and spending at the same level. right now, spending is at 23%, revenues historically have been at 18%. number two, we need to get rid of the regulatory overload on businesses. change regulations from an i-gotcha mentality to one where i'm here to help and we are here. we can do a lot by changing the attitude of the regulators. number three, we need tax reform, tax simplification, so taxes are fair. the tax code needs to be half an inch deep and miles and miles wide so everyone is participating. let's get rid of the loopholes. we need to drill our own oil. we cannot keep importing 65% of our oil. we need to have an all

-of-the-above policy. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. murphy: i speak on behalf of the medicare beneficiaries and thousands of physicians who take care of them. we need to finally fix the flawed medicare sustainable growth rate formula. since 2003, physicians have been dealing with the uncertainty that comes with scheduled annual rate reductions. they are staring at a 28% reduction and $28,000 per year per physician. if this were to happen, this would happen at the worst possible time. there would be a lot of physicians who couldn't take medicare patients any longer and would have to lay off workers where we have 9% unemployment in connecticut. this is unacceptable and we have to do something about it.

over the next several weeks, let's fix this once and for all and stand together and put an end and give security for america's seniors and physicians. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mica: mr. speaker and my colleagues, it's time for the other body to act. the republican-controlled house of representatives have a plan for putting americans back to work. we have moved on more than 20 pieces of legislation that now sit idle in the other body. we have provisions that will empower small businesses. the great job creators of america. we have provisions that will fix

the tax code to help create jobs. we have provisions that will help manufacturing to have jobs in america, not overseas. we have provisions that will encourage entrepreneurship and growth and maximize american energy production and all of these measures sit in the other body. i call on the leadership of the other body and all members to get this legislation moving forward. there are millions of people without jobs. and they need us to act, not later, but now. and finally, i call on them to help finalize a 4 1/2-year-old with more than 21 extensions, f.a.a. bill that still languishes and time to stop the nonsense and get america back to work. let's pass these bills that are held hostage. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair now lays before the house the following personal

requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. doyle after 4:30 p.m. today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.

mr. ellison: mr. speaker, thank you. my name is keith ellison and co-chair of the progressive caucus and do claim this special order hour on behalf of the progressive caucus. right away, i would like to introduce my good friend from the great state of georgia, congresswoman who has served with me. congresswoman johnson is a whip of the progressive caucus. and we are going to be jobs and

income and equality and about this issue. our web page is right here at the bottom of this document that i'm showing, mr. speaker. we encourage people to sign up and get a hold of us. but right away in the beginning of this hour, i want to recognize my friend from georgia, so he can make some introductory remarks about the importance of jobs as soon as he is ready to take it on. but if the gentleman is prepared to make opening remarks about the importance of jobs, economic justice and the american middle class. take it away, congressman johnson. mr. johnson: i thank the gentleman from minnesota, my junior in the house. when i say that, i mean we are both juniors, having served now in our third terms. and we will be officially

recognized, i guess, if we are fortunate to make it back for the 113th congress, we will be our fourth terms and will be seniors and permanent seniors as long as the voters allow us to be and we want to do what the voters want us to do here. and what the voters of the fourth congressional district of georgia tell me over and over and over again, day in and day out, 24/7, is that jobs is the issue. and they want us to pass the president's job creation bill. they don't understand why similar the proposals that will create jobs and re-invigorate our economy is something we can't come to grips with here on the house floor.

and i tell them to keep the faith and i also tell them where the problem lies. it is not with the president. it's not with the democrats in the house of representatives, it's with my friends on the other side of the aisle, the tea party, grover norquist republicans who want to balance the budget -- their mantra or main issue is balancing our budget and certainly our budget needs to be balanced, but that's something we should do. it's not our first priority. our priority right now -- and i agree with the people of the fourth district -- it should be jobs. and if we don't create jobs, if we leave people on unemployment or having expired unemployment

having expired, that means less money circulating in the economy . if there's less money circulating, less economic activity, less job creation. and so there's a lot we can do, mr. ellison, to help the people, especially during this holiday season. mr. ellison: this is the holiday season and we should have a spirit of looking out for our fellow americans but have seen a no-jobs agenda. we have been here for 11 months and haven't seen any jobs bills out of them. they said tearing apart the e.p.a. is a jobs bill. damaging the national labor relations bill is going to bring

forth jobs, it will not. it boils down to two things, deconstructing health and safety rules and cutting taxes for people already are rich. and this is not a jobs bill. a jobs bill is taking taking care of our nation's infrastructure. today, the democratic caucus offered a motion to recommit to help support jobs for our veterans and get small businesses to hire them and didn't get any republican support, which is quite amazing to me. the fact is that yes, we are nearing the end of this year, nearing the end of 2011 and unemployment insurance about to run out and therefore some people will see the end of their unemployment insurance and other people will see an increase in their payroll taxes and just

shocks me that our republican friends are all for tax cuts. can't wait to vote for a tax cut, dying to vote for a tax cut whenever the recipient is rich. if the tax cut happens to go to somebody who works hard for a living, who goes to work and gets their hands dirty and comes home, they don't want to see a tax cut for that person, they want to see tax cuts for only some people. and you are right to describe our people as the grover norquist republican party. my father was a republican -- he is a republican and hasn't voted that way in a while and he said i remember you could talk, debate the issues, some of us wanted to pinch a penny a little harder and some of us wanted to emphasize and pull somebody by their boot straps a little more. you liberals want to help

everybody, that's what he says about me, but we could find a way to get along. today, the moderate -- i can't wait for them to show up because i cannot see anybody who has a spirit of cooperation that we can cut a deal with that could balance fiscal discipline on one hand and need to help and spopped to the needs of americans on the other hand. we see people who are carrying forth an extreme ideological agenda, tax breaks for the rich people, that revolves around unemployment being ignored, that revolves all around these things. and people shouldn't be confused, congressman johnson. you will hear them say jobs, but don't want to do anything about jobs. we could pass the american jobs act right away. we could help make sure those

payroll tax deductions and unemployment benefits are extended, but we aren't seeing any of that. what we are seeing is described on this board right here, which is the republican no jobs agenda. they've got no jobs program. they are saying get rid of the e.p.a. which protects the water and our lungs, to make sure we are subject to toxic hazardous waste and pollution and then cut taxes for rich people and somehow magicically end up with a job. and i yield to the gentleman to get your views on this issue. . mr. johnson: this won't give any jobs and there's a false perception that has been unanimously by my tea party

grover norquist republican friends and that is that deregulation somehow creates jobs. now, i know what kind of jobs are created when you deregulate health and safety of food, water, air quality, drugs, wal street. mr. ellison: right. mr. johnson: i know what happens when you don't have any regulations. it means you're going to have more people going to the doctor because of unsafe and unhealthy conditions, adult rated food, water. it means that you will have more -- mr. ellison: asthma. mr. johnson: people in the mortgage wear business -- mortuary business, trying to determine the cause of death for people. you will have more cleanup workers, workers who are

dispatched to clean up toxic sites. you'll create those kinds of jobs. but the kind of high-level, 21st century jobs that america needs to be the leader of the world economy in this global environment that we're in does not one measure that the republicans have introduced that will stimulate the creation of those kinds of jobs. and so what we're doing, congressman, is just creating conditions of great suffering so that people will vote against president obama next november. the stated goal of my friends on the other side of the aisle and the main central goal is to make sure that president obama is a

one-term president. no matter how much suffering they can inflict on american people, the 99%ers, and then 47% of them are millionaires, so they don't have to worry. but they don't care about the pain that they're inflicting just to serve a political purpose. mr. ellison: well, the gentleman mentioned that the stated goal of the republicans was to make president obama a one-term president. this is not just political rhetoric. mitch mcconnell, and anybody sitting in front of a google or computer can look it up, said that was their goal. to make president obama a one-term president. i think the goal of a member of congress ought to be to look at the welfare of the american people. i think a member of congress ought to be trying to figure out how to look after the best interests of the congressional district that they represent.

i think that ought to mean jobs, health, safety, education. try and defeat the president, it should never -- it should never be anyone's goal. i can guarantee you it was not my goal, my first goal was not to get rid of president bush even though i did not think that his administration was the best administration for america. it was never my top goal. my goal was to try to promote peace and justice, economic opportunity and prosperity, not try and defeat somebody else. the fact is that the republicans have neglected the economy, neglected the middle class and it really is too bad and i just want to say, you know, but on this issue of paying for the extension of the payroll tax deduction, you know that we -- there's $1,000 that americans don't have to pay in their paychecks when they get them every two weeks or every month because of the payroll tax cut. and that that expires, they'll

see $1,000 more over the course of the year they're going to have to pay. mr. johnson: starting january 1. mr. ellison: now, democrats are have -- have said, let's ask the most well-to-do american, the top 1% -- and they don't have to pay based on their first million, but after their first million, just toss it back to the american people so we can extend the payroll tax cuts for working class people. mr. johnson: but grover norquist doesn't want them to do it. mr. ellison: they signed the pledge. mr. johnson: 20 years ago. mr. ellison: they signed a pledge to not the american people but to grover norquist. mr. johnson: who does he represent? mr. ellison: you represent him? mr. johnson: i don't represent him answered doesn't represent me or the folks who predominate my district. i've got a 99er district. mr. ellison: i've got a 99er

district. the thing that really gets me is that if grover norquist lived in my district, i would feel duty-bound to at least listen to him because i listen to everybody in my district. but to sign a pledge to him, to subvert the interests of the 99% is an outrageous thing. mr. johnson: all the while, congressman ellison, all the while pitying -- pitting americans against each other. trying to stoke hatred and anger among the -- amongst the 99 percenters on any issue they can. mr. ellison: divide and conquer. mr. johnson: that's the way it is. so right now comes, mr. ellison, and i feel i have to say this because you're such a great example of a true american patriot who lives life in accordance with your inner ideals and we have the freedom

in this country to do so, but there are those right here in this congress who would try to turn the american people against you and people like you because of the religion that you have chosen to follow. mr. ellison: that's right. mr. johnson: they don't have any idea that your dad was -- or is a republican. mr. ellison: yep. mr. johnson: they don't have any knowledge of how you grew up and what kind of values you were taught and what kind of family you have. they just want to condemn you because you are muslim. they want to make you a threat to america, a threat to our military, for those engaged in the military who happen to practice the faith of islam, and it plays into this decision to put the americans through this suffering so that they will then

vote against president obama and the democrats, so that the republicans can then throw the welcome mat out like they have done for the large corporate interests and wealthy individuals to control public policy in america. mr. ellison: well, the gentleman makes an excellent point. i mean, let me put it like this. how are you going to get the 99% to vote for the exclusive interests of the 1%? well, better question, how are you going to get 50%-plus one to vote for the interests of the 1%? well, you've got to keep them divided. you got to keep them confused. you got to keep them asleep. you got to keep them disliking each other for no legitimate reason. so you hold hearings. mr. johnson: on issues that are false issues.

mr. ellison: yep. mr. johnson: you create controversy where there is none. mr. ellison: right. mr. johnson: and this is a game that certainly many people see is being played but i wish far more people saw and understood what is actually taking place in their house of representatives. i believe that there's one reason why we have two groups of 99ers, they occupy wall street and the tea party movement, who are dissatisfied with how things are going in america. mr. ellison: well, you know, i do hope that we could help the people understand that their interests lie with each other, right? so whether or not you're a muslim, christian, jewish, buddhist, hindu, a person who doesn't practice any faith, just spiritual, eighth yaft, whatever you may happen -- atheist,

whatever you may happen to be, the fact is we all breathe the same air, we all occupy the same small planet and we have to find a way to live here. whether you are black, white, latino, asian, no matter whether you're from the south or north, no matter whether you were born in america or you came here or whether you're straight or gay or no matter who you may be, you're an american and when you and i stand up in this very room every morning and we say the pledge of allegiance, we in that pledge of allegiance, with the very simple words, in liberty and justice for all. all. liberty and justice for all. all americans. and i urge americans to look for the common good, the things we all share. how can we come together around a common narrative of a shared reality as americans? so we don't look at each other as you're this and i'm that and i don't like you because of this historical thing and all this kind of stuff. let's find a way to unite our

people. because if we can unite our people, congressman johnson, we can stand up and advocate for policies that are to the best good of the american people. the american people will be wide awake and clear that our economic interests lie with each other. and we will not vote a program to give tax cuts to millionaires simply because we have been convinced that people of a different -- people who pray on a different day than we do or pray in a different way than we do or have a different appearance than we do are somehow our enemy. you know, we've got to build human solidarity. this is what we got to do. and the one thing i like about the occupy movement is, you go there and you see people of all colors, all cultures, all faiths, you go there and you see people, even people of different income groups. there was a group that we had at our hearing which we had just a few days ago, which there's videotape on, on our website,

uscongress.org, and they were calling themselves the patriotic millionaires. now, these are people who use the american free enterprise system, came up with a great idea, sold it, people bought it, and they did well in the marketplace. now, this is a good thing. but their attitude is not, yes, america, you had public schools which educated my workers, you have publicly funded roads which allow me to drive here and there you have the police department which predicts my -- protects my business, vut military which protects our whole country, yes, america, you've done all this stuff for me but all this money is just mine. and i'm not giving any to anyone. they didn't say that. they said, you know what? to rule much is giving much is expected and they don't mind doing their fair share for america. that's the patriotic millionaires. that's the spirit that helped this country become a great country and it's a spirit we need today. mr. johnson: i do believe that

you are 100% correct on that. and i want to give a shoutout to those millionaires who are socially conscious. there are so many people who are afflicted and who are just eaten up with greed and they have more money than they can possibly spend in this lifetime. but yet they have an insatiable quest for more and more and more . they are the ones who are supporting people like grover norquist and like dick army, who is -- mr. ellison: freedom works. mr. johnson: the pro opponent of the tea party movement, and -- proponent of the tea party movement, those are the people, the koch brothers, those kind of

interests that benefit from a system of government but then ironically they would support and encourage those who want to do away with government. they want to strip government of its power to regulate, they want to strip government of its power to protect and to create fairness and prosperity for all and it is just basic -- i don't care how rich you are, but if you're riddled with envy and with the need for more, you know, you just can't be satisfied, you're going to be unhappy and the person who is unemployed but doing their best to find a job and take care of

their family and despite all obstacles is willing to with a half a crumb that they have extend it to their neighbor because their neighbor's in the same shape, we're all in this together, those are the types of -- those are the types of ideals that we used to have in this country, we used to exemplify. but now it's this culture of greed and self-satisfaction, reminds me of those days of the roman empire. . mr. ellison: like the 1890's, this is a time when industry in america was young and there were no labor unions and no environmental protections, and people, if you lost your hand on

a punch press, you were out. and if you tried to get a fair wage from your boss, you could be arrested or thrown in jail or whatever. and if you got sick, based on the smog that the smoke stack was pumping out, you died young, i guess. america went through some changes and said, workers will have the right to organize. our air is going to be clean. companies are going to have to abide by environmental regulations and became an american consensus where we are a mixed economy, which means we have a strong public sector and a strong private sector. and the private sector, you come up with good products that people need, but after you do well, we need you to give back to the common good. and i don't care about the

common good, what they are saying. every man for himself. mr. johnson: only the strong survive. the speaker pro tempore: the chair must ask that the members yield and reclaim their time in a more orderly fashion so the court reporters are able to make the appropriate transitions. mr. ellison: they want to shrink government to the size you can drown it in a bathtub. that's what mr. norquist said. and his vision of america like the ko crmp h brothers do refineries and nothing good could be coming out of those smoke stacks and they want a

condition in america. if a person from the government says, you know what? there are a lot of people getting sick around here, you can't just spew that stuff out of that smoke stack. we are going to regulate that stuff and some of that stuff, you are going to have to pay for the costs and harm to people as you go making money on that factory that you have and they have a vision where that factory owner will say, mr. government. i gave a campaign donation to your boss and we are going to make you leave us alone. and if we can't get your boss to back off of us, we are going to sue you back and dump a bunch of paperwork and you don't have enough to defend the public interest and we are going to

drown you. this is the kind of condition they want to create. they want to create -- they want an environment where the government is too small, you cannot pollute the air or hurt the public interests and that's the condition you are creating and i yield to the gentleman. mr. johnson: i don't want to repeat what you said, when we do have a strong government, then government is there to protect the interests of all of the people, those who are the so-called job creators who haven't been creating a lot of jobs here lately, by the way. i don't know why they still have that title, because all the jobs have been moving offshore, out of america, and leaving these workers here without jobs.

we are doing ourselves a disservice by cutting government and cutting our ability to clean up the mess. it is closer to be a society what we spend more money on health care, but we are the sickest people in the industrialized world, among the industrialized nations. we've got a financial system that nearly collapsed because lack of regulation and in the same people who profited so well back during those winner-take-all days want to keep those days and make the big bonuses, the obscene bonuses

year end that they are getting ready to publicize now and they would rather collect those bonuses than create jobs for americans to clean up the environment, to reregulate wall street. they want to cut those jobs. so job creation -- it will actually result in the job creators or the 1%, being able to experience even more profit. people should understand that if you help someone else, it comes back to you. these are just simple concepts of living that we have gotten away from as a society. mr. ellison: if the gentleman would yield. what you're describing is a win-win situation. some people have a psychology of

a win-lose. they think in order for me to do well, you have to do poorly. but the truth about a strong economy, if i do well and i'm putting prosperity out there in the world through good products and services and i give you money and you will bring me value and we will see the economy grow and we can be prosperous. but some people think if you get something, that means i don't have something. and they just hoard. mr. johnson: if the gentleman would yield. what we do when we create job growth and spread the wealth, it means that we're able to pay down that deficit, that debt that we have. we are able to clear that out. america is certainly not in a crisis as far as debt is concerned. we borrow money at 2%.

you can't get it much cheaper than that. and while that cheap money is available, we should be borrowing that money and investing it in our own economy, in our infrastructure, in our research and development for medical care, health care delivery, energy production, our education system, from the buildings on down to the lowest piece of equipment that's in there, the teachers who teach our children. we should be investing in those areas. we'll see this economy turn around rather quickly and we'll see that debt disappear quicker than most people believe that it will. mr. ellison: if the gentleman would yield. i would like to say something very important here. it's common for our colleagues

on the other side of the aisle to say we are broke. it's one of their favorite things to say. we aren't broke. america's not broke. and this is a design to create a certain sense of crisis and urgency to scare people in favoring a program of austerity. but two third of american corporations don't pay any american taxes and i want to point out, that bank of america doesn't pay any taxes. they got a bailout from the government. the american people got a call from bank of america, oh, my god, we bought merrill lynch and countrywide, save us please and through the congress, the peoples' house, they got their bail out. now the assumption was, they

weren't going to pay the money back and then help people with their mortgages and help improve the economy. what they actually did is they didn't pay any taxes and laid off 30,000 people. bank of america didn't pay a single penny in federal taxes. i have more money in my pocket than they paid in taxes. boeing didn't pay a dime in u.s. federal taxes. citigroup, citigroup deferred income taxes and amounted to zero and at the same time zi group has paid its staff lavishly and the highest paid executive for the second year in a row with compensation of $9.5 million and paid no taxes. exxon mobil, they paid no taxes

and we give them money. they use offshore subsidies in the caribbean to avoid paying their fair share. and not a penny of it went to the american treasury. this is the same year that the company overtook wal-mart as a fortune 500. the total compensation of the exxon mobil is $29 million. we say we're broke. we aren't collecting enough revenue, because we think that corporations are job creators and of course, they aren't createic -- creating any jobs. general electric, 2009, the world's largest corporation filed more than 7,000 tax returns, still paid nothing to the government in taxes. g.e managed to do this with a

rigged tax code and allows them to set up tax havens overseas and avoided paying their fair share. who do the republicans blame? the middle class? they say the middle class is the problem. they say tax breaks for billionaires, tax breaks for huge -- bonuses for our big c.e.o.'s, who are our friends in the republican caucus are responsible for all the problems? public employees. and i want to point out something very important. the republicans have now said they will support a plan to extend the payroll taxes by cutting the federal government employee work force 10% and by giving, get this, congressman, a

means testing for medicare, food stamps and unemployment insurance benefits. that ought to get a lot of money. public employees they think should bear the brunlt of the refusal of the corporate elite. they say teachers should pay, cops should pay, firefighters should pay, job training programs should be cut, small business investment, no. investment in the national institute of health and research, we should cut back on that, schools, we -- they should have to pay, clean energy, we can't afford that. health care, can't afford that. infrastructure investment. i come from a city from -- where i-35 bridge fell into the river and several died and all because of deferred maintenance, infrastructure investment is not

just a job creator but a public safety issue and college affordability, we want to cut programs that make it more affordable to go to college. the brunt and the burden of balancing the budget is not and should not not be on our public employees. the people who look after our younger people, the folks who look after us, the police department, who are you going to call? firefighters. i yield to the gentleman. i want to say on the one hand they say we're broke, we aren't. we don't ask the wealthiest among us to help. and they want to cut people who are our public employees. mr. johnson: many americans watched in horror as the drama unfolded on the i-35 bridge

after it crashing into the waves of water below and taking out a muscle titude of cars and taking lives and causing people to be injured and also resulting in a economic detriment to that area that needed that bridge in order to conduct business. so it was -- and we can look at it on the tv, from a distant location, but we should realize that the same thing that happened to you guys in minnesota, can happen do us in georgia with our own bridges that are in disrepair due to deferred maintenance. .

this is something that can happen not just in georgia, not just in minnesota, but all across the land and it doesn't have to be that way. because as president obama has proposed in the american jobs act, or as a part of the american jobs act, there is money, a small amount, but any amount is better than none, for infrastructure. i think it's $50 billion. and that infrastructure, in addition to helping with our public safety issues, health, safety and well-being of the people, would also create jobs. so, you know, we're killing more than one bird with one stone by passing the american jobs act, not one of my friends on the other side of the aisle has been able to put forth any rationale

for not considering any part of the -- of that jobs act. we did, i'll give them credit, pass something last week having to do with veterans and they just could not find it within their hearts to avoid voting for that, but if there was some way that they could, they would have. they are insisting that the tax cuts to the working people of this country, the payroll tax, they want that to be paid for. but nobody said anything last year about paying for the extension of the bush tax cuts. mr. ellison: right. mr. johnson: nobody said anything and nobody is saying anything because they want those tax cuts to become permanent. while they at the same time would look to vote to impose a balanced budget amendment which really would just simply lock in

an unfair tax rate or a tax system that is unfair, would lock it in and make it much more difficult to change it. and so, congressman, these are issues that i'm pleased to sit here and discuss with you and i look forward to further dialogue from both people on this side of the aisle and along with my friends on the other side of the aisle, because when it's all said and done, we're all in the same boat together. mr. ellison: if the gentleman would yield back, i want to say that it's been a real pleasure, to spend this last hour with you, congressman johnson. we in the progressive caucus believe in what one america, -- believe in one america. we believe in promoting human solidarity, not making americans fear each other.

we believe in economic prosperity and justice for working and middle class people. we believe in environmental sustainability and we absolutely believe in peace with our nation and other nations and we are always going to promote diplomacy and dialogue and development over war. we are the progressive caucus and i will allow the gentleman to offer a final word. if i could just say that, my name's congressman keith ellison, the co-chair of the progressive caucus. after that we'll yield to the republican side. mr. johnson: i want everyone to know that even though i stand up and talk about the grover norquist tea party republicans, i admire the tea partiers because they got up off of their dust because they were upset about how things were going. now, they were misled in terms of thinking that the health care reform was not going to be good for them, it's good for them. and they will soon find out, they will continue to find out

that the things that we have done are good for them. and their attention will be diverted from this president to their pocketbook. and so i look forward, i admire them for their activism, i love them, don't take it personally, when i talk about you being a dick army, tea party republican of the grover norquist ilk, and with that i will close and i believe that my friends on the other side of the aisle are ready to delude you with some information. mr. ellison: we yield back the balance of our hour. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the

gentleman from louisiana, mr. fleming, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. fleming: thank you, mr. speaker. i come before this house tonight to talk about a very important issue, it's been important for years and it's going to be increasingly important and increasingly a part of the debate and that is health care. and particularly health care for our seniors. we've got lots going on, obamacare, of course, was passed in 2010 and we're running into all sorts of problems. of course i and my republican colleagues here tonight voted against it. i'm joined tonight by the way by

two of my colleagues, dr. phil roe, from the great state of tennessee, and dr. scott dess jar less, who is like me, a family physician. and we'll be talking tonight. i thought i would give just a brief introduction about medicare and how that fits into the budget. i know that dr. roe is going to talk in more detail about that. well, no speaker would be complete without a chart. and i have several tonight. and this is one i think it's important for everybody to understand. this pie chart breaks up spending for the federal budget.

and if you'll notice, the vast majority of this pie is in what we call permanent mandatory or so-called entitlement spending and interest. and what makes up a large part of mandatory spending is social security, medicare and medicaid and the size of this pie, this section of the pie is growing. in fact, if you recall that back in the 1990's we actually balanced the budget, the last time we balanced it i think was in the late 1990's. it it was a lot easier to do back then because entitlement spending, permanent spending, was not in place. to the extent that it is today. it was growing but not as big. what is the difference between mandatory spending and discretionary spending which is the other two pieces of this pie? mandatory means that if you

qualify for a certain type of service or payment, whether you're on medicare, medicaid, whether you earned it or not, if you qualify for it, the government must pay and no matter who shows up or how many people show up, the government must pay. so therefore the government cannot per se control that cost. discretionary costs on the other hand is split into two, defense, which is around $600 billion to $700 billion a year, and nondefense discretionary which is what we run government on. that we can adjust although we've got done a good job in controlling that. in fact, that's increased probably 25% just in the last two years under president obama. but i want to illustrate for you what the problem is and that is that the entitlement spending you, which we don't control, with an aging population and the fact that it's dependent on government spending is growing at a much faster rate than our

revenues and inflation. i have another chart. this is a chart that outlines where we are today with social security, medicaid and medicare. the part of entitlement spending. now, let me say first of all, social security is down here in the purple and you notice that it slants upward and then flattens out. social security is not our problem. let me repeat that. social security is not our problem and people who are on it or will be on it, in my opinion, have nothing to worry about. now, we may have to tweak it, we may have to adjust it. but you'll notice that the cost really rises relatively slowly and that's just a matter of demographics. and we can adjust this, as we have in the past, and make this a sustain -- make this

sustainable. there are other ways to do it in terms of allowing social security recipients to invest some of their money and so forth, but that's beyond the scope of discussion tonight. the next group in green is medicaid and other health care, you notice it's going up faster. medicaid is health care for the poor. and then finally in red you see medicare and you see how that explodes and it goes up continuously. medicare alone will completely displace all the budgetary spending eventually if we don't bring that under control. and that would mean we'd have to give up on government itself, we'd have to give up on the national defensering everything unless we began to control that. -- defense, everything, unless we began to control that. now, at the way things are going, medicare will run out of money, become insol cent, -- insolvent, by 2020. and that is straight from the c.b.o., the congressional budget office. another way to look at it is

that our spending is now equal to 15% of the total federal spending, is medicare. blowing out of control. what has made this worse is obamacare actually cut $500 billion, that is a half a trillion dollars, out of obamacare -- out of medicare to use for subsidy for middle class health care plans. so let me repeat, medicare is running out of money, it's exploding through the roof, and what is -- does obamacare do? the members who voted for it, it actually cuts money out of it and depletes it of money in the future. so that it becomes insolvent. and here's where the cuts are. $135 billion for medicare advantage, which is the private health care version of medicare, $11 billion, which was taken from hospitals, $39.7 billion from home health, $14.6 billion from nursing homes and $6.8 billion from hospice care.

these are very real cuts and the only explanation that the other side gave us, our democrat friends, is that somehow we'll cut out fraud, waste and abuse. well, let me warn you, any time a politician tells you he's capable of doing that, watch out, because i've never seen it done and i don't expect to see it done in the future. because you see, in order to cut out the massive fraud, waste and abuse, you have to spend even more money to find all the bad ams and the way to do away with depraud, waste and abuse is to make the system much smaller, perhaps even privatize it and make the system accountable, rather than a big government bureaucracy which wastes money, whether we're talking about department of defense or medicare. so that should give you kind of a beginning of where we are with medicare. let me just close my opening remarks by saying that there's basically two options when it comes to making medicare again

solvent and available for us in the future. there is the republican plan which would allow you, if you are currently on medicare or 10 years from becoming on medicare, to keep medicare as it is. and it is sustainable as far as the c.b.o. tells us, indefinitely. however, we would have to reform that for younger adults today who will be senior citizens by opening up the insurance system, creating a marketplace for seniors to buy insurance and then let government help them with what we call premium support and allowing competition in private care to drive the cost down and raise the level of service. in fact, that's what we in congress have today. is a very same thing. the democrats, their plan is this. goode goose egg. no plan whatsoever. under their plan or nonplan, medicare runs out of money in eight years and they fail to

present an idea, much less a bill, as we have, that would even solve that. well, that gives you an idea of some of our opening discussion. first tonight i want to introduce my good friend, phil roe, dr. phil roe. and i think he has some comments about the financing of medicare and other things as well and i pitch it to you, dr. roe. mr. roe: thank you. i appreciate the chance for to us discuss in detail the health care of this nation. . about four or five years ago, i made the decision, after 30 years of practice to think about running for congress. one of the reasons was i knew the health care issue would be huge in the nation's future. boy, did that turn out to be prophetic. second, the thing i noticed in my patients when i practiced was, the sing 8 biggest factor that both medicare patients and other patients had was it was

too expense i have. it costs too much to go to the doctor and go to the hospital. if it were more affordable, more of us would have health care coverage. second, we had a group of patients in my practice that couldn't afford expensive health insurance premiums. let's say it was a carpenter, perhaps his wife worked at a local diner or retailer that may not provide coverage and they make $35,000 or $40,000 a year but couldn't afford $1,000 a month for health insurance coverage. lastly, we had a liability crisis in this country. the other thing we'll get into, this is the absolute sacrosanct in health care is that health care decisions, and i'm going to say this a couple of times, health care decisions should be made between a patient an the doctor and that patient's family. it should not be made by an insurance company and it should not be made by the federal

government. we're going to talk later about the independent payment advisory board that will be making those dig in the future. do we need health care reform in america? absolutely. do we need this type of health care reform? absolutely not, it's a disaster. we'll go into what my major concern for my patients that i left in johnson, tennessee, how are they going to access a dr. roe or a dr. desjarlais, a family practice doctor, and the group i'm in have 80 primary care providers. how will they access that. let's go look at where we were in the 1960's when i was a young college student. we had a group of people, my grandparents and so forth, who would be retiring and at that point in time because their insurance was tied to their employment if they had health insurance coverage, they -- there was no way for them to get any coverage. they couldn't buy it.

there was no way it could be provided for. so the federal government got involved in this by forming medicaid and medicare in 1965. our medicare program in 1965 was a $3 billion program. there was no congressional budget office at that time but the estimates were that in 25 years, so in 1990, this program would be a $15 billion program. the actual number was $110 billion. they missed it by seven times. in your initial graph right here, if you had placed in that graph, dr. fleming, interest on the national debt, the one you show with medicare, medicaid and social security, even at current interest rates, it will absorb the entire federal budget. and that is why we're having this discussion today, is to save medicare. ept to mention just briefly, in the current health care bill,

there have been many changes to medicare. there have increased tags on medical devices. the president said the other day that -- and we're going to talk about next week, i think, debate the payroll tax, how he was a tax cutter. i would suggest the president read his observe health care bill. there are massive tax increases in that bill. there are a bureaucratcally appointed board, 15 people, i don't want a republican president appointing them or a democrat president appointing them, approved by the senate, do what? to look at medicare as we pointed out with millions of medicare recipients each day, as dr. flevpling pointed outers $-- mr. flemming pointed out, with $500 million going into the system, people looking -- living longer, we're look at atta it's a -- catastrophe if

we don't make proactive changes now. every member, all 435 members know this system is brecken. i'm a medicare recipient, i have a vested interest in seeing that this program works for current seniors. i was at fuhrman university, monday night, speaking to a group of college students on health care. i was privileged to be there. it's a great college. a big turnout of young people. and it was embarrassing for me to look at those young people who are just beginning their careers and to think that we're going to not leave the this -- leave them the same access to kear i have available to me right now. if you look at the numbers, dr. fleming, you see it is not sustainable. so we have to have this conversation. i want to thank you for holing this one hour. we have numerous other colleagues here tonight. i yield back my time to you.

mr. fleming: i thank the gentleman. i see we've also been joineding in addition to dr. scott desjarlais, dr. phil gingrey, nurse ann marie buerkle and ann hayworth, an ophthalmologist from new york. we have the full cadre. if anybody here has a headache or certainly a heart attack, they will be well taken care of here on the floor of the house. with that, i'm going to ask dr. desjarlais to talk to us. ic you have an interest on this cushion on ipab and some other thins, so i'd love to sea what you say on that. mr. desjarlais: i thank you for holding this tonight, i think there's so much confusion about what's really going on. there's a lot of misinformation

out this. i think it's good that we as health care providers can get together an help clear up some misinformation because as dr. roe said, we should never let the government or bureaucrats get between the doctor and the patient. that's a very important relationshipened i think most all patients would agree. how did we get into this mess? it's really kind of mind-boggling that it has come this far. as you stated earlier, the democrat plan is doing nothing and we know that the consequences of that, as per the c.b.o., the actuary of c.m.s., mr. foster, has said medicare will be bankrupt by 2020. so we cannot afford to do nothing. and we got into this mess really just by kind of the head in the sand approach that sometimes occurs here in washington. as dr. roe mentioned, medicare was initiated in 1965. at that time, the life expectancy for a male was 6 .

well, thankfully, through good medicine, good followup, good care, better drugs, better technique the life expectancy has gone up by at least a dozen years. but that being said, there really wasn't any planning for that increase. a program that was designed for on average three years of coverage is now 12 years more. and so that's part of the problem. a second big factor is we all knew about the baby boomers, every knows about them. bottom line is, they have started hitting the system at an alarming rate. 10,000 new members every day are entering the medicare system and again, something that we've all seen coming but it wasn't accounted for in terms of cost. dr. rowe explained how that it was -- dr. roe explained how it was ununderestimated what it would cost in the first place. we know people pay into medicare because that's going to be their health care plan when they retire. that's what was promised to them. so we can't do nothing an the paul ryan plan, we laid out

that those 55 and older won't so have to worry about it. we know we can't do nothing so these those 55 and under will have to make changes. for those seniors out there that are concerned the republican plan is cutting them off or killing medicare as we know it, it isn't true. we are trying to preserve, protect, and save it for future generations as well as take care of them. right now, you can take an average couple who makes $80,000 a year and they pay over a lifetime about $109,000 of medicare tax into the program. with health care costs the way they are now, the average extraction for that same couple is $340343,000. >> i want to make sure -- mr. fleming: i want to make sure that isn't missed. you said that through a lifetime a medicare recipient will pay in $100,000 and take

out on average $3,000,000 -- $300,000. so what we have with medicare is a subsidy system which does not subsidize according to need, necessarily. my point in saying that, warren buffett, today, because he's over 65, qualifies for medicare and if he gets care, i assume would get the same subsidized care, subsidized by who? taxpayers. middle class, working class people who pay the private insurance rates. and so in some ways, medicare has become not just help for the poor and elderly but just subsidy for people over 65 and so we're going to have to look at is there a way in the future that we can even this out where we're not necessarily subsidizing for those who are capable of paying some of their own costs.

mr. desjarlais: it's clear that $1 in for $3 out doesn't add up by anyone's math. those factors make it clear that medicare is on an unsustainable path. i find it frustrating that so many people are living in fear right now with this misinformation and this -- if any of the other members, i'm sure they experienced, as my office did, of aarp here a few weeks ago, had seniors calling congressmen to say, don't cut our medicare. they're referring to the s.g.r. cuts which per tapes to the doc fiction but the seniors are confused thinking their medicare would be cut 30% or 29%, 27%, whatever it is, so when they were calling my office i was glad to tell them, yes, we get it. that's a cut to physician reimbursement. what it does to seniors, more concerning is that it's going to limit their access to care because physicians right now are in a position where they can't afford the overhead to keep their practices open.

is i think it was good that the aarp brought that to their attention but it is great that we have the opportunity to clear that up for our seniors, that it's not a cut, a direct cut to their medicare benefit bus it is going to impact their access to care. mr. fleming: absolutely. i thank you for the wisdom of your experience, dr. desjarlais. i'd like to turn to dr. gingrey here, i believe he's joined us. of course he has conducted a number of -- i can't even count the number that i've participated in with dr. gingrey with respect to special orders that we've had and before doing that, just to follow up on what dr. desjarlais said about what the 100,000 -- about the $100,000 in, $300,000 back. i can recall in my own practice sitting there, thinking about

the patients i just saw. in room one, i saw a little lady on medicare who could barely scrape by by the end of the month. she's on medicare, getting the benefits of medicare. then i thought about the second room, a gentleman who is a multimillionaire. but you know what? my charge to both of them and what medicare did for both of them was precisely the same. and i just couldn't quite understand that, especially when i thought about the little mother in room three who is on private insurance, two-paycheck family, barely scraping by, paying far more in their premiums than someone on medicare and having to raise children. it was her insurance premiums that were subsidized both the little old lady who was poor and the multimillionaire. we're going to have to do something about that to make the economics of this system work. it is unsustainable as we know. so dr. gingrey, i would like to

ask you if you could give us a few words, sage wisdom, on what your perspective of where we are with health care or ba maw -- obamacare, all the other cares we're talking about. mr. gingrey: i thank the gentleman from louisiana, dr. fleming, for yielding, mr. speaker. i thang our leadership for giving us this hour to focus in on medicare and obamacare, formally called the patient protection and affordable care act, we know it to be the unaffordable care act. but i think it's very important, mr. speaker, and instructive, for folks back home, especially our seniors, look at this body an the other chamber as well, congress as a whole, and you look at the members who are health care providers and in this house of representatives, there are 435

members and 21 of them on the republican side are health care providers. nurses, doctors, psychologists, dentists on the democratic side of the aisle, three. and you look at the other body, you look at the senate, aen you see four doctors. on the republican side. none on the democratic side. so as we get into this season, this political season, and of course the presidential election cycle, mr. speaker, you know, we all know, that we are already seeing the ads, i think dr. desjarlais referred to this add about cutting medicare 30%, don't let congress cut medicare 30%. who cares more about seniors? and i think those statistics are pretty darn telling in regard to who cares more about our seniors.

many of us in fact have practiced so long that we're seniors, thank god we've got good health and vigor and enthusiasm, for giving up what has been a wonderful profession, whether we were nurses or doctors or whatever. but caring for people and the compassion that goes with it. to come to congress, come here inside the beltway, and really work on behalf of our seniors. work on behalf of getting the health care policy right. but particularly in regard to our senior citizens and the millions that depend on medicare because of either a disability or their age. and so it's the republican party, mr. speaker, it is the republican party that is really working on behalf of our seniors. what did the democrats do when they were in control for that brief period of time and ms. pelosi was the speaker? they brought us, brought the

country a whole new entitlement program. obamacare. it had nothing to do with seniors. it had nothing to do with the poor. who are covered by medicaid and the children's health insurance program, the schip program. in georgia it's called peach care. they did nothing to strengthen medicare. in fact, to pay for this new entitlement program, health insurance for all, young and healthy people, they gutted the medicare program. mr. speaker, the gentleman from louisiana has a poster before us right now, the first slide, if you will, and it -- we need, every one of us, on both sides of the aisle, to focus on that and as he points to the first bullet point, cutting $575 billion from the medicare program. and most of it, in the next

bullet, is from the medicare advantage program and of the 40 million to 45 million people that are on medicare, most of them because they're 65, maybe 10 million of them because they're disabled and yumminger, but so many of them -- younger, but so many of them, mr. speaker, get their care, get their health care on the medicare program through something called medicare advantage and that's a key word. why is it advantage? because it gives them comprehensive care, it gives them an emphasis on wellness, prevention, it's not just creating disease -- treating disease, it gives them a drug benefit, even before medicare part d was enacted by a republican congress, back in 2003. and what did the democrat does? they took what was it, dr. fleming, $135 billion out of the medicare advantage program over a 10-year period. that is a 14% cut and president

obama says, if you like what you had, you can keep it. well, you can keep it if it's still available but it won't be. and so, you know, we're here tonight to let the american people know, and let our colleagues know, and if we have to hit them over the head with a 2x4 to get their attention, we're going to do it because they are ruining a great program . and we're health care providers, it breaks our heart, we know, we see the patient, we are at their bedside in sickness and in health when they come to the office for routine checkups. but we're here now, i guess, as policy wands. it's our colleagues back home, we want could keep them in the medicare program, particularly primary care doctors seeing those patients. and it just breaks my heart to see what's happening and i thank the gentleman from louisiana for managing the hour tonight on behalf of our leadership, to make sure that these points are

made and made very clear to the american people, particularly our seniors and i thank the gentleman from louisiana and i yield back at this time i. -- time. i know he wants to yield to to other members -- i know he wants to yield to other members. mr. fleming: i thank the gentleman. dr. gingrey serves on the house, energy and commerce committee, a committee that has oversight and jurisdiction in this area, very important, looking at a lot of legislation. next i want to turn to another of our freshman. we've had a wonderful cadre of freshman we appreciate so much and a wealth of physicians, dentists as well, bringing in their years of experience, training in education. so next i'd like to recognize dr. hayworth from new york and would be very interested, as the viewers are, to hear what you have to say. ms. hayworth: thank you, dr. fleming. and i add my thanks to those of our distinguished colleague from

georgia in grat feud for your hosting and managing this session tonight. we just had a medicare telephone town hall today with our constituents in the beautiful hudson valley and one of the questions i was asked and most of the questions, we had a medicare administrator with us because it's open enrollment season for medicare riot that the country, i believe, up through december 7, so we were very grateful to have a medicare administrator with us who helped answer questions about some of the complexities of medicare because there are a number of them, as you might imagine. but we did get one question that was conspicuous because the gentleman asked me, and it's one that we've all been asked, as dr. desjarlais was saying not long ago, why are you, nan, why are you against medicare?

and i explained to my constituents that, you know, gosh, it's exactly the opposite. i want to preserve and protect medicare. i want to make it secure and sound. this is very important to all of us, to me as a doctor, i had the privilege of practicing for 16 years, i'm an op that mol gist. many of my patients were seniors. and i'm the doctor of two elderly parents, both of whom rely on their medicare benefits. so the last thing that i would want to do, the last thing that any of us wants to do is to harm medicare. we know how important it is and more specifically this nice gentleman was asking about our vote on the budget this past spring. and as all of us here know and as our listensers -- as our listeners may not be fully aware, we did pass a budget in the house of representatives

this past april. they may not have heard quite as much about it as they otherwise should have, if you will, because the senate did not pass a budget. they did give ours 47 more votes than the one proposed by the president. but nonetheless that was not enough to pass a budget. so we've been waiting now, the american public, for at least 2 1/2 years for the senate to pass a budget. but in our budget and dr. gingrey and dr. fleming have just been referring to the $575 billion that was removed from medicare by the massive 2010 health care overhaul, you know, our budget, we restore those funds to medicare. that is a very, very important fact. we all voted here, as doctors, as caring legislators, as representatives of our districts to restore funding to medicare, to strengthen medicare, not to

weaken it. that's the last thing we want to do and the last thing we can afford to do. so i think it's very important for the american people to understand that as things stand now, the medicare benefits that people are counting on are threatened in ways that they don't have to be. so, that's something that people should think about, people who cherish medicare, who receive medicare, and who have loved ones who depend on medicare, medicare is unfortunately, as our colleagues have discussed, it is running out of funds. when we think about payroll taxes and we hear a lot about payroll taxes in the news these days, payroll taxes go to pay for social security and for medicare. and the way these programs were set up, as we all know, but just so that everybody understands, the way these programs were set up, they were supposed to be,

people would contribute from their paychecks, the money would be kept by the federal government and then returned to them in their benefits, in their senior years, when they would need them. and, you know, that's actually -- that's -- that could be a very helpful thing. but as dr. desjarlais has pointed out, thank the good lord people are living much, much longer than they were when medicare was first made law. so we are facing a challenge because for several decades contributions to medicare from the payroll taxes were built up. people weren't taking out as much in their medicare benefits as they were paying in. and, you know, the baby boomers were not part of the medicare -eligible senior group yet. now they are. so between our seniors living many years longer, thank the good lord, i wouldn't trade a

day with my parents, nor with any of our seniors, but they're living a lot longer than they were, so medicare, and health care is wonderful in the united states, but costly for another reason. so, the medicare funds that were built up have now started to be depleted. and they're going to run out. it's projected anywhere from 2024 now to 2021. what we all know is that the estimates are probably off the mark. so to take an extra $575 billion out of medicare is the last thing we want to do. and it's very important for everybody to understand that. because although there are workers in this country who are contributing their payroll taxes now and those are going to help fund medicare, you know, when those folks become retirees medicare is going to be very different in terms of the funds it has. medicare is -- that trust fund

is going broke. so, folks have been thinking about -- and dr. desjarlais i think in particular mentioned it, they may have heard three letters, s.g.r., or about the doc fix and i'll finish up with this. what is that? you know, what does that mean? well, when doctors go to -- when patient goes to visit their doctors and they receive medicare, as dr. fleming was saying, our medicare parents -- patients have a certain fee schedule that we are obligated to follow. and in a lot of cases that fee schedule is far less than the fee schedule that is set up for our other patients. you know, depending on their insurance and other factors. so, medicare, it pays doctors and other providers, generally pays less than other programs do. we accept that when we participate in the medicare program. but, to provide medicare in the

united states is very expensive. we have staff that we have to pay, we have overhead, everybody who has a business, and i had my own prahm practice, a small business, i had rent and supplies and staff and insurance to pay. one of the unique aspects of america in terms of our medical care is that we do have a very costly, what's called a liability system, so lawsuits formal practice and we should indeed do everything we can to prevent malpractice but lawsuits in this country are very expensive. mr. fleming: if the gentlelady will yield, i think dr. gingrey has something he'd like to add. mr. gingrey: i thank the gentleman from louisiana for allowing me to take a little time, maybe just a minute to interrupt the gentlelady from new york. she's made such great points and the thing that i wanted to mention to my colleagues is that

if we do nothing and i think representative hayworth pointed this out, doing nothing is really not an option, because if we do nothing and she talked about those date, 2024, maybe, but probably closer to 2021, when part a becomes fiscally insolvent, then what will happen is our seniors under the medicare program would take a 22% cut in their benefit package. or else we would have to raise the payroll tax 22%. and i'll yield back after making this comment, and i think this is important. medicare was enacted as an amendment to the social security act in 1965. i guess it's title 18. we didn't have all the information we need back then, as representative hayworth points out, situations were different, people were not

reliant back then so much on medication. it was more surgery and that sort of thing and now we have medicare part d. the point is, things change. and if you don't change with the times, we would still be watching analogue television. and it's just as clear and as simple as that. and for people to criticize what the republican budget called for in regard to making changes to medicare so that it remains solvent for our children and grandchildren, and as representative hayworth, dr. hayworth pointed out, protect it, preserve it and strengthen it for those that are already on it, not do anything in regard to them, but a phase-in change for our children and grandchildren so they'll have it, like we have had it. and i thank the gentlelady for letting me interrupt briefly and i yield back.

mr. fleming: since we are beginning to run out of time and i want to make sure we get to all our doctors and nurses, i want to recognize representative buerkle, a member of the freshman class. ms. buerkle: thank you. i want to say what an honor it is to be here on the floor with my colleagues and members of the docs caucus. i stand here as a nurse and the daughter of a 90-year-old mother. medicare for her, i know how she depends on the system. one of the things we didn't talk about, one of my roles in life was as an attorney, an attorney who represented a large teaching hospital. about two weegs ago, i joined my colleagues on the house floor and we talked about what this health care law is going to do to our hospitals and when our hospitals and when our doctors are affected by reimbursements, by me care cuts, that really affects our

seniors. that reduces their access to care. so the first thing i want to do tonight as a health care professional and someone who cares deeply, and i think haas the beauty of this tonight, us getting together, people who have invested their life in health care who love people who care about people, this isn't a republican or democratic issue. this is an person somebody because health care affects all of us. this is a group of people who really believe there's a better way, there's a much better what i to provide access to health care in our country without jeopardizing that access and without jeopardizing the quality of care our country has to offer. the first thing i want to do tonight is reassure our seniors that what we are talking about is protecting and allowing the medicare system to continue on. but what they need to suns that the health care law has changed medicare forever. medicare is different now than it was before the health care law passed.

the health care law cuts, mr. speaker, $500 billion from medicare. and i just want to show on this graph i have to make it clear what happens to medicare reimbursements from 2012, you can see where we are, it's a minus, it's a cut of 9.7%. but here, in 2018, mr. speaker, the cuts to medicare and reimbursements to our hospitals is down 28.6%. i've had all the hospitals in my district come to me and say, this health care law, and they were proponents of the health care law, they want red form. they've come to me and said to me, this health care law is going to bank rupt us. not only is the health care law affecting their medicare reimbursements, it's affecting their disproportionate share reimbursements which keeps many hospitals afloat who treat indigent patients and it

affects their g.m.e. and i.m.e. eric we talked about this in the last essential order we had with regards to how we're going to keep our teaching hospitals, all our hospitals, viable and soluble. i want to leave the message to the american people tonight, we care about preserving medicare for our seniors. we are not proposing anything in our budget proposal that would affect our seniors and those back to age 55. we assure the american people, we love -- we care so deeply about health care and the quality of health care. but we are very concerned about this health care law. and why we voted to repeal it several months ago, one of the first things we did when we came to washington, was to repeal the health care law because we know what it will do to our seniors and health care providers. i thank my colleague for organizing our time on the noor and again we want to reassure the american peel, we care about our seniors and want to

make sure they have access to quality care and good health care. thank you so much. mr. fleming: i thank the gentlelady for a very compelling discussion both as a health care provider, a nurse, but also as a daughter of an elderly mother. those words are very heart felt an obviously it means as much to you that we protect o-- protect medicare and health care in general, than it would anybody. there's no reason why, just because you're a member of congress that you would love your mother any less system of enge that's important. we're going to move now from a nurse to a surgeon. dr. benishek from michigan has joined us this evening. let's hear from you. mr. benishek: it's my pleasure to be here this evening to join

my colleagues to talk about medicare. as you may know, before coming to congress, i served as a general surgeon in my district for the last 30 years. and many of my patients are on medicare. and as a practicing physician, i often expressed to my patients, and my understanding wife, about our broken health care system here in america. in fact, that's one of the reasons i decided to get more involved in the political process and run for congress of moe americans don't understand that medicare will be bankrupt within the decade if we don't do something to fix it. i didn't make this up. an actuary for the centers on medicare and me cade services provided this number. i think if you ask most 65-year-olds, just beginning to use medicare, they would be worried to learn that their primary health care provider was projected to be bankrupt within a decade. in fact, according to a recent

social security trustees report, medicare seniors should expect to see a 22% benefit cut or workers should expect to see a 22% hike in their payroll taxes unless some action is taken. the bottom line is, if action isn't taken today, seniors in the program today, not to mention those looking to retire in the near future, will begin to lose their benefits. despite these fact the other side of the aisle has spend the last six months attacking us. often saying that house republicans attempt to protect and preserve medicare was in fact destroying it. are you kidding me? accusing myself and my fellow physicians in the house of wanting to end medicare? we spent our careers caring for medicare patients. and are proud now to call them constituents. the real truth of the matter is that president obama was elected in 2008 with a promise

of hope and change. he did accomplish change in america's health care system but i don't think it's he kind of change that americans bargained for. mr. obama's health care law cut $5 5 billion from an already ailing medicare system. the name of mr. obama's health care bill is the patient protection and affordable care act. mr. speaker, i ask you, what type of patient protection cuts $14.6 billion from nursing homes? $112 billion from hospitals? and $135 billion from medicare advantage. well, i'm on the record extensively for balancing the budget, i do not believe that our health care system should be made apossible -- affordable on the backs of america's seniors. if the $500 billion in cuts

made by obamacare were not bad enough this bill did nothing to address the cuts to physician payments ski jude for january 1, 2012678 i believe in providing access for america's seniors, not taking it away. i'm happy to announce here tine that i'm working with members of the doctors' caucusing house leadership and members across the aisle to develop legislation that will solve this issue once an for all. mr. speaker, tonight i call on all my colleagues to work together to ensure america's seniors that america will continue to be there for them in their time of need. i have made a pledge to seniors in my district that i will not support any changes to medicare benefits for these 55 years of aim or over. it is my belief that for those age 54 years of age or younger, some reforms will be necessary to guarantee that medicare remain solvent in the long-term

for our chern and grandchildren. mr. speaker, we are here tonight to show that as physicians, we want to preserve medicare for the future. i thank dr. fleming for organizing this special order hour and i yield the remainder of my time. mr. fleming: we have fon from ob/gyns, ophthalmologists, family physicians, nurses, so much in the way of words of wisdom, so much on our side of the aisle with republicans as my friends points out, a dearth of available physicians, health care workers on me other -- on the other side of the aisle. it seems a shame we were completely closed out of the creation of and passage of the health care reform act which certainly suggests the need to go back and redo it.

well, we also are joined tonight by dr. gosar, who is a dentist, and very valued member as well of the conference an would love to hear from you, dr. gosar, what you have to say this evening. mr. gosar: thank you for organizing this hour and being able to have a fireside chat with the american public and health care, and what is coming about what is going on with the broken health care system. i also want to take the time to educate to understand how the american people -- to understand what it is about a vibrant economy that actually helps our medicare system. now, i know the holidays are coming up, and we're going to be discussing giving a continuation of a tax holiday for many americans about the thousand dollars for an -- of up to $1,000 for an individual but i also want to take the time to explain to the american public that there's a cost involved here.

part of that cost when withholding tax is taken out go into social security and part hi medicare. part of this is, particularly medicare part a, the hospitalization act, the closest one for ill solvency for all parts of medicare. we lost five years, morely on medicare part a, just from the careers of 2010. we have yet to start looking at the disastrous parts of the economy to 2011 to be added to the insol generalcy. what ends up happening, this takes a further hit in the numbers and amount of money that is part of the equation for our seniors and med car. it's going to get worse before it gets better. when you couple that with this administration taking, i call it stealing from the current medicare program to build another entitlement, that's not right. i came into congress because i was concerned about health carings as a dentist, i love seeing a smiling face because a

miling face tells me something about vie brancy, about healthy and participating in the greatest things that this life gives us. but it also tells me it has to be a participating sport an that what we have to have is a patient taking care of and being involved actively in the choices and decision processes in their health care. that's what i want to see. i'm flabbergasted, to be honest with you, that we see a program rectifying medicare or attempting to through obama care, but then we leave the s. f. r. fix an physician fix and it doesn't make sense why these aren't all integrated and part of the same equation. i want to remind the american people, this is not an easy discussion, we didn't get here overnight. we didn't do our due diligence. we didn't change with the time we named -- changed the

participation an age we had. we also developed technology, unbelievable things that no one in 1965 could have imagined. they could have dreamed but couldn't have imagined that's the other part work eff to look, i come pr a very rural district. what is happening back in my neck of the woods is the primary care doc who was the gate keeper, they're no longer around. they're either associated with the hospital or a federally qualified health center if you can get them to see you. that's the part that makes me also tell the american people, we've got another problem. we were involved in this joint committee that had democrats and republicans, 12 of them, trying to figure out some type of debt solution for $1. trillionment i want to remind the american people there's another consequence in this. not only to our military but to our health care providers as well. because the sequestration when because the sequestration when it goes through is also