republican electorate at large, send a signal, this is our no, ma'am thee. s the person we prefer to take on president obama. and so i believe you'll see that start to shift and change as we get into february and march a little bit. certainly something of which we have to be concerned. we need a united party, a party that comes together and gets mind one message and focuses on the things we can agree on, certainly representative of a party that is very diverse. about 10.5% or 11% of our voters here are his 357bic voters. -- are hispanic voters. we have a lot of active duty an retired military in this state. so you have jewish republicans in southeast florida who are very active. we have a very diverse electorate here and i think after florida you'll start to see the tone change and a shift toward the general election message. .

host: and why does it matter? and mitt romney is looking at the mccain terrain and ahead in every region with the race closest and spending time in tampa and newt gingrich is going north of the state and rick santorum is a large state with 10 very extensive media markets and uphill battle for rick santorum but on monday with polls putting him in third, he decided to refocus his energy on upcoming caucus states. ron paul is focusing on maine and other states. for the two gentlemen who are focusing there, where are they putting their efforts and why does it matter?

guest: we have a conservative electorate. so you do see a significant number of republicans considering themselves social conservatives or strong fiscal conservatives and this will be a true republican primary in that sense. there are four critical regions in the state running statewide or in the presidential primary. the first one you hear about is the all famous i-4 corridor and that is the area from hillsboro and tampa to orange county on the east coast, which is the orlando area all the way over to the space coast. 50% of the vote in the primary usually comes from the i-4 corridor and those aren't the three, four counties touched by the interstate but surrounding counties like pasco, seminole,

so you will see a significant concentration of the vote coming from that area of the state and gingrich and romney have spent a tremendous amount of time and resources in the i-4 corridor. and then there is the southwest and southeast area. treasure area, st. martin, stuart area and southwest coast which is congressman connie mack territory, sarasota and lee county, naples. and on the southwest coast, connie mack territory, that is an area that romney did well in 2008. he carried two areas of the state in 2008. that area of the southwest coast and jacksonville, which is another important region of the state and is typically thought of as a component of the i-4

corridor, jacksonville and i-4, make up 57% of the vote. panhandle, pensacola and panama city and tallahassee where there are few republican votes. the panhandle tends to have a lot of military retirees. john mccain trained at the naval air station there and had a significant turnout among military retirees in 2008. the romney campaign has had to focus time and energy into the panhandle and you have dade county, miami-dade county and broward county, tremendous amount of voters in the primary and general election. and the bulk of the hispanic votes. that area was carried 3-1 by mccain over romney and you have seen the romney mccain invest

resources and going after the vote in dade and broward counties. four critical regions of the state in the republican primary. 16 counties make up about 70% of the vote here. and you really see resources targeted towards those areas. host: we have been looking at a graphic by the "washington post" laying out the political geography of florida. marie is on the democrats' line. caller: i would like to make two comments to your guest. my first comment is social security is not a ponzi scheme. i'm so sick of republicans saying that. i was a lifelong republican until the second term of bush and then i switched. second of all, my question for her would be does she think that the republican field right now

will be alienating the hispanic vote in the general election with their nonsupport of the dream act? host: first to your point about a ponsey scheme, that's an issue that rick perry raised and to the previous caller who raised the issue because of the amount of amount that is taken out of the social security account to pay for other priorities in the budget, that is the point about the ponzi scheme. social security should be used for social security. the point about hispanic voters, it is an issue of concern. governor bush gave an interview to cnn where the issue was raised and given another interview. hispanics are the swing vote in a general election and no question that the hispanic community have concerns about some of the rhetoric that has been used by republicans on the issue of immigration. but hispanics are not monday

legitimateic voters. they are very concerned about the economy and jobs and economic opportunity and that is what you have seen republican candidates talk about here with respect to the hispanic vote. there is no question that as republicans we have to do better. we have to do a better job of taking our messages to latinos and tone down the rhetoric. immigration is an issue. board security is an issue. but we have to do a better job communicating our position on legal immigration and how to deal with the larger immigration problem in a way that does not alienate our nominee from hispanics and that will be a challenge for whoever is the nominee, i agree, on the republican side. host: a tweet from the press secretary for newt gingrich. just cost $5 million raised. the report will show $10 million raised in the last quarter of 2011.

guest: certainly as a result of south carolina the gingrich campaign has been able to raise more money and between their campaign and the superpacs and able to use those resources in florida but is it too late for the florida primary when you have a state that is paid-media driven, you have to have resources in all of those markets that we talked about where there are voters. a different example, in iowa and new hampshire and south carolina, earned media where candidates show up and generate money and a local news outlet reports that. those are important in the earlier caucus and earlier primaries. in florida, gingrich had 6,000 people attend a rally in naples but i can promise you outside of that southwest florida media

area, no one in pensacola knew that, no one in jacksonville knew that. it is not an effective tool in the state of florida because we are so big with 10 media resources. and has gingrich been able to devote enough resources in the state to have an impact on his numbers. host: let's hear from paul, an independent caller. caller: good morning. first thing i want to say i have been watching all of the debates very closely, and mitt romney and newt gingrich have not spelled out the details of their economic plans and that really concerns me. rick santorum has and has a very good plan and he is the only one i would back. i don't know how you can vote in florida without knowing what their plans are.

guest: i think they all have detailed economic plans. santorum certainly has been very vocal about his plans and so are the other candidates. what has happened in florida and particularly in the two debates is that we had two candidates where their roles were reversed. romney won new hampshire and went into south carolina. newt gingrich won south carolina and then we had a real contest and rick santorum won iowa. those of us in florida always thought what it should be, which is a tie-breaker and what happens, the candidates stray away from their talking points and talk about what is wrong with their opponent and that is what we have seen in these last two debates. a lot of time attacking each other. i thought rick santorum had his best debate at the last debate in jacksonville and most

articulate not only about what he believed but the difference in his platform and the other candidates. in a state like florida, resources matter and he has not had the financial resources to play at a level here that would put him into the top two candidates. host: let's hear from ed in maryland, independent caller. caller: thank you for c-span. you guys do a great service. i was a third generation republican and looking at the class of people that you have running for the office, highest office in the country, there's no way i could vote for any of them. we have two people who have no ethics. romney has accounts, had an account in switserland. no reason to have an account there and same thing for the cayman islands. no reason to have an account

there. you want to hide something. newt gingrich was booted in the ear by his own colleagues and then we have the religious crazies. i'm sorry, unless you have somebody that believes in science, i can't vote for any of them. guest: it's clear you aren't going to vote republican this year. host: let me ask you about some of the major political players in florida, governor bush has not weighed in. we have heard from senator marco rubio and a couple of others, but weigh in for us how significant the endorsements or lack of endorsements in florida are. guest: neither rubio or bush have chosen to endorse in this contest and my sense is they feel that floridians should be able to make a decision without the influence of endorsements at

that level. in 2008, our then current governor charlie crist chose to endorse senator mccain and helped senator mccain. but it did anger and alienate quite a lot of republicans the last-minute endorsement and they both respect the process here and respect the voters and feels it should play and the candidates will have to earn this. endorsements at that level perhaps send the wrong signal from their perspective. the candidates need to work hard and earn the votes of floridians and that doesn't preclude them from endorsing at a later date, with respect to the florida primary, they have chosen to stay out. host: why would we limit time for early voting and absentee voting. many might be turned away

because of long lines. you said there have been a lot of folks coming out in advance to weigh in. guest: we have an aggressive absentee and early program opportunity and i'm quite proud of what our state has done in that regard. you can vote 30 days out. this time for the first time, you have to rerequest an absentee. you could have been on the list where you received an absentee ballot. voters had to call. to see the number of absentees and early votes we have seen out there is significant. with respect to early voting, this is an expensive process and early voting locations have to be open and people have to be there to staff those locations and it would be difficult to have early voting available. we have had early voting available since the sunday after the saturday south carolina

primary. i'm very proud of the avenues we have for people to vote here. host: janet in winter park, florida. caller: don't you think that rick scott has done in florida will damage whoever the republican nominee is? you know down here -- host: tell us what you take issue with what the governor has done. caller: the republican legislators turned away millions of dollars in federal money that was meant to provide care for disabled and for hospice care -- captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> florida results tonight at 8:00 on c-span-12. the house coming in. it provides long-term health care services. live house coverage here on c-span.

the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule for a period not to exceed three hours. it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on energy and commerce now printed in the bill.

the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those received for printing in the portion of the congressional record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule 18 in a daily issue dated january 31, 2012, or earlier and except pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. each amendment so received may be offered only by the member who caused it to be printed or a designee and shall be considered as read if printed. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the

bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions, is recognized for one hour. mr. sessions: thank you very much, mr. speaker. for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for such time as he may choose, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sessions: during consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks . the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sessions: house resolution 522 provides a modified open rule for consideration of h.r. 1173. this rule allows for any

amendment prefiled in the congressional record which complies with the rules of the house to be made in order. that's pretty simple. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill, h.r. 1173, fiscal responsibility and retirement security act of 2011, which was introduced on march 17, 2011, by the gentleman, my dear friend from louisiana, congressman charles boustany, and was reported by the committee on energy and commerce by a vote of 33-17 on november 19, 2011. additionally, the bill was reported by the committee of ways and means on january 18, 2012, by a vote of 23-13. this legislation has been through regular order. members from both sides of the aisle on several committees have had the opportunities to submit perfecting ideas and those amendments have been considered. with a modified open process brought forward by the rules

committee, every preprinted amendment will be given full and fair consideration under this body. mr. speaker, the class act was a budgetary gimmick introduced by congressional democrats in the obamacare bill to fit a 10-year budget score, not providing reliable insurance coverage, and that was -- that is why we are here today. built on an unstable foundation, this long-term health insurance system was broken from its inception and yet was used to sell the obamacare to those who did not fully comprehend its future implications. let's review the facts of this case. the class act establishes a long-term health coverage program that would be operated by the federal government.

the program is a guaranteed issue, meaning no one can be turned away. . finally, it can use no government funding. isn't that a recipe for failure? i'm not sure how else you would design the program, giving reduced programs to some and mandatory coverage for all necessarily drives up the monthly premium. the department of health and human services services that the program as designed would cost $391 a month and could rise for those in the program. anyone who is healthy and above the poverty line would most certainly turn to the private sector leaving the program woefully underfunded. these are the facts. the program is not viable and

nonsustainable. secretary sebelius, secretary of health and human services finally agreed on october 14, saying and i quote, i do not see a viable path forward at this time, end of quote, in reference to the program. it makes you wonder what other sections of obamacare might not be fiscally sound given a closer review also. oh, by the way, this republican congress is doing that right now. in committee, under regular order, apparently, however, we had to pass the bill to find out about the class program and what was in it and how it might work. mr. speaker, we are not solving the problem by creating programs that are not sustainable. we continue to doubledown taking medicare and medicaid relentlessly. we are taking and taxing down

where they cannot pay for themselves. president obama and congressional democrats actually cut $500 billion in medicare in order to fund the class act and programs like it in the obamacare package. republicans, the majority of republicans in this house, are committed to protecting medicare, medicaid and social security for future generations, not passing empty promises, those that cannot sustain themselves and those that would be headed for failure since the inception. i believe we are abandonning the core mission of entitlement programs, which was meant to bring necessary to coverage to those who cannot provide for themselves. mr. speaker, i, like many americans, can speak from a personal basis about what a disappointment this is, not just the obamacare bill, but the

provisions laid out in that. you see, i'm not like unlike many americans. i have a disabled son at home. i have an 18-year-old downs syndrome young man who i and alex would count on the government perhaps at some point to do its real responsibility. and i believe government should have a mission statement and the government should have a role in lives of americans, but it should be one which is very narrow and well understood. i understand and believe that we should have a government that does help people who need help, that we do have a government that can give assistance. however, i believe that abled-body yeed people should not be included in these programs. i believe that the people who have you been a part of this government assistance should be those that have an intellectual

or physical disability. they should be those who are seniors, our parents, who because of their age and their service to this great country, they have earned their and should be given that help. and lastly, those who are poor. those, in other words, at or below the poverty line. i believe that what this bill has done and the philosophy of the democratic party, including this president is one that will diminish the real role that government should be providing, because, in fact, it has gone so far out of its intended purpose or its ability to sustain what it should be doing to where, in fact, it will be a sham system and not able to help those that it should be intended to help in the first place. i have seen this many times. i have seen it in professional sports whereas an analogy,

people will buy a season ticket and get a parking pass with it and there are sometimes 10,000 or 15,000 people who buy season tickets for 4,000 parking places. in other words, there may be 10,000 people that have the right to come to that parking place, but there's only room for a few. mr. speaker, our government and the leaders of this government, including secretary sebelius i believe recognized the limitations and the failures of this piece of legislation, just this one piece of legislation alone is what we are trying to highlight as republicans today. and dr. boustany is right in bringing it to us. we should not be creating a system that would be outside the scope of what the government should actually be doing to help those who cannot help themselves

or deserve that opportunity to have help. and by creating a larger than life -- in other words, a scenario which cannot be sustainable, they have, in fact, put the underpinnings of something that could be good at risk, selling too many parking places for the ones that need to exist. the parking places that need to exist need to be on a one-on-one basis for the people who need them the most. and that is what the government should be doing and doing well, not going outside of its mandate and not promising something that is nonsustainable and they cannot deliver on. mr. speaker, i would submit and suggest that some democrats will rise today to defend this bill, the class act, and they would defend what they thought it was about, but, in fact, the facts of the case are now known and well understood, that even the president and his administration

are walking away from this piece part of the bill. the program is fatally flawed and a full repeal is the only realistic way we should approach this. so, now's the time to be serious with the american people. now's the time that we say that should not have been a part of what this health care bill is about. it will surely not deliver what was sold that it was intended to do. and before we engage in that, we ought to be realistic and honest about what this is doing. now it's time to be serious with the american people about expectations from the federal government as related to this program. house republicans are committed to providing affordable, patient-driven solutions to the problems facing our health care system today and we recognize that this bill stands out as a prime example of what is broken

about the legislation that is law today. so, we are here today forthrightly through regular order to talk in a polite and sensible way about how we should handle what we now know and should have known then and failed to do. not reading the bill is just another example of the flawed process we were going through. i urge all my colleagues to vote for this modified open rule that allows consideration of all pre-printed amendments that comply with house rules of the house and vote for the underlying bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i thank the gentleman from texas, my friend, mr. sessions for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i urge my colleagues to vote know no on this rule. this is truly not an open rule. there is a pre-printing requirement and there is a cap, a time limit of three hours on the total debate for this bill. so if members have an idea about an amendment they want to offer and it bumps up against the three-hour time limit, they're out of luck. and i would remind my colleagues that this is an important issue. this is about long-term care, health care, mostly for our senior citizens. this is an important subject. we should be talking about this. we should be deliberating on this. and it deserves the necessary time to do this issue justice. and i guess i shouldn't be surprised because, you know, we can't get this leadership to bring up not only legitimate health care bills to help

improve the quality of health care for our citizens, but we can't get them to bring up jobs bills or get this leadership to bring up anything of any consequence or any significance to the american people or anything that will improve the quality of life for the citizens of this country. . mr. speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle wants to portray this as a very simple debate. they want them to say this bill ends, as they put, a problematic or a failed program, a bill that says we're going to run our government more effectively and more efficiently, a bill that says we're going to get health care right for the american people. but, mr. speaker, nothing, absolutely nothing could be further from the truth. and let me be clear. this bill is just one more example of how the republican majority in this house stands with big insurance instead of

the american people. it's another example of how republicans want to rig the health care system so insurance companies can continue to discriminate based on pre-existing conditions and can continue to reap big profits at the expense of our families. democrats stand for improving access to the best health care system in the world. we want americans to be able to take care of themselves and to plan for long-term care should they need it. the debate in the rules committee last week was a telling example of how my friends on the other side of the aisle view this critical health care issue. during that debate, one of our colleagues, republican colleagues on the rules committee compared long-term care planning to owning a swimming pool -- a luxury. saying that since the government shouldn't build a swimming pool for everyone in the country we shouldn't help for long-term health planning for the american people.

mr. speaker, this is where the discourse on health care has landed. we talk about increase access to health care and my republican friends talk about swimming pools. they are in over their heads which is why their poll numbers are sinking to the bottom. this bill may appear to be fairly simple but it will have a devastating impact on americans as they plan for the future. h.r. 1173, the so-called fiscal responsibility and retirement security act, would repeal the class act and defund the national clearing-house for long-term care information. the class act is a national volunteer insurance program for -- voluntary insurance program for things like nursing home fees. let me repeat that. it's a voluntary program. there's no mandate, no requirement, no obligation for anyone to participate. this bill also converts mandatory funding for the national clearing-house for

long-term care information into discrigsary funding. while they say -- discretionary funding. while they say this saves $9 million, the truth is americans will lose access to information to decide what type of long-term coverage they may or may not want -- may or may not need as they grow older. we need to figure out how to best address the cost and availability of long-term care in the united states. and the reality is that voting for this bill is the same as putting the fingers in your ears or covering your eyes. surely you may not be able to see or hear what's bothering you but it doesn't mean these problems go away. so why are we doing this today? why are we repealing this without any replacement, without any thought given to how we might help the american people? well, if you listen to the republican rhetoric you'd think some unnamed person will send

you to a darkroom in a nursing home and you won't have a choice to spend their -- your golden years. it's true that the obama administration has suspended the class act. they have done that to find a substantially responsible class program. unfortunately they do not see a way forward at this particular point, but that doesn't mean we should just give up, throw up our hands and walk away. while the class act is a sound premise it clearly needs more work if we're going to be -- if it was going to be a viable program. the problem with h.r. 1173 is that it repeals the class act. we need to fix the class act, not to destroy it. we need to engage on how to solve this problem, not to walk away from it, not to turn it into yet another piece of campaign rhetoric. but that's now how the republicans operate in this house.

their goal, it appears, is to tear down the health care system and prevent people from getting adequate health care. how else can you explain their actions to repeal the affordable care act and to end medicare? mr. speaker, the republicans began the 112th congress with an effort to, quote, repeal and replace, end quote, the affordable care act. while the house voted to repeal the new health care law but we still haven't seen their replacement. they voted for repeal without replacement. i should also point to my colleague from texas, it wasn't brought up under regular order, the repeal was brought up under closed rule. that's not unique in this house here. the republican-control of the house of representatives have brought bills to defund planned parenthood and national public radio and bills reaffirming our national motto. but in terms of improving the

quality of health care for the american people, the republicans on the other side of the aisle are strangely silent. it's important to look at the success of this law and explain why repeal, as they have advocated, would cause real harm to the american people. we know for a fact that the affordable care act is lowering costs and expanding coverage for millions of americans. the truth is crystal clear. 2.5 million young adults gain health insurance. 2.5 million young americans gain health insurance. americans are pre-existing conditions gained health care coverage. nearly 19,000 new jobs were created last year alone. americans are benefiting from greater protections from unreasonable private insurance premium hikes. more than two million senior citizens save more than $1.2

billion on prescription drugs in -- saved more than $1.2 billion on prescription drugs in 2011. let me repeat that. more than 2 million senior citizens saved more than $1.2 billion on prescription drugs in 2011. they want to repeal the bill, the health insurance bill, and senior citizens will see a tax hike the next time they look at their medical -- their prescription costs. seniors with medicare advantage plan saw their monthly premium decrease 14% from 2010 to 2011. millions of women, seniors and people with disabilities access preventative services. the department of health and human services and the department of justice stopped $3 billion in fraudulent claims in 2011. and we also know that the quality of care is improving because of the affordable care act. i'm talking about an expanded work force including primary care workers, better

coordinated care for medicare patients and improving in preventive hospital care just to name a view. in fact, the entire debate in the health care community is changing on how to better keep our citizens well. we know the health care industry is hiring more workers because of the affordable care county a. in fact 5,914 new health care jobs have been created since the affordable care act has been enacted more than a year ago. clearly, mr. speaker, the affordable care act is working and benefits will continue to grow as we move to full implementation by 2016. by opposing the affordable care act, republicans have made it clear they are against protections for people with pre-existing conditions, that they are against expanding coverage for 2.5 million young adults who can't get health care on their own, that they are against the new community health centers and they are against the new jobs created by the affordable health care act. and with this bill today, they

are announcing that they are against planning for long-term care. this makes no sense, mr. speaker. americans need to think about long-term care. they need planning options for the future. currently 10 million americans need long-term care and five million more will need long-term care over the next decade. yet, only 8% people have long-term care insurance. instead of putting people in medicaid, we should providing americans with the tools they need to plan for the future. that's what the intention of the class act and the purpose of the national clearing-house for long-term care information was all about. now, i know my friends will say, well, just trust us, we are going to come up with something down the road. would it have been refreshing in the spirit of bipartisanship if we had come up with something before they chose to just outrightly repeal this projigs? maybe this would have been an opportunity -- provision? maybe this would have been an opportunity for people to come

together. they say, no, we're repealing it. that fits in with our campaign rhetoric for 2012, we are going to repeal it and the american people, just trust us. take two tax breaks, call me in the morning. that's all you need to worry about. the american people expect congress to work each and every day to make this country better. like social security and medicare before it, the affordable care act is an example of responsible legislating that is improving people's lives. it is not perfect. we need to build on it. we're going to need to make crerkses, but there's not a -- corrections, but there's not a piece of legislation that we ever passed in every congress that needed to be adjusted and tweaked as time has gone on, but it's an important step in the right direction. and notwithstanding the rhetoric on the other side of the aisle, it has made a real difference in the lives of many millions of americans who otherwise wouldn't have access to health care. we must not and we will not let the republicans drag us down

with them on this issue. vote no on this rule and no on the underlying bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves his time. the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions, is recognized. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much, and i appreciate -- you know, i find it very interesting my friend's arguments, first of all, the health care bill hadn't even kicked in so millions of people haven't gotten the advantages of this bill yet. i would suggest to you -- mr. mcgovern: will the gentleman yield? mr. sessions: i will yield. mr. mcgovern: if i am not mistaken, the ban on -- the allowance to let families keep their kids on their health insurance until they're 26 years old has kicked in. mr. sessions: and that was a bipartisan agreement. mr. mcgovern: under your bill, your repeal bill, that would go away. that was part of the affordable care act. mr. sessions: reclaiming my time. reclaiming my time. mr. speaker, at the time the bill was passed, we agreed to a number of things that we did

think were good ideas. that was a good idea. the $500 billion of cuts in medicare that republicans talked about, we did not set that up for this election. they did that two years ago. that's one of the reasons why the american people, 50%-plus of the american people do not like this bill. to suggest that all of the advantages that are occurring as a result of this bill would be a misnoemer. as a matter of fact, it's -- bill would be a miss noemer. as a matter of fact, it would have them not to hire people for the future and is causing intense financial problems, not only upon small businesses but upon other businesses who don't hire people. it's causing a substantial problem on the amount of money we are spending on this government right now. oh, by the way, that

legislation, in certain pieces of it, said it's not review by judicial or congressional oversight, that whatever these panels do is the decision they would make. it is very restrictive. it is a government-run system and it it is causing enormous financial distress to this country. i appreciate the gentleman trying to take all the high attributes to it. it's a system that republicans will vote to repeal, and we will replace that with a system that is market based and that works. lastly, the gentleman talks about how cost-effective it is. insurance are raising 30% this year alone for people in the private sector, and that's not sustainable. mr. speaker, today, however, are talking about a larger issue and that is a piece part of that bill, the class act. and i'm very pleased today to have a gentleman who is a great member of our conference, a physician by trade, just of enormous consequence that we

have a person who understands why this piece of the bill, in particular, today must be repealed and i'm delighted to have the original sponsor of the bill, the gentleman, mr. boustany, and i would yield five minutes to him at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana, mr. boustany, is recognized for five minutes. ms. hanabusa: thank you, mr. speaker, and -- mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank my friend for yielding some time to me on this important debate. as a physician i know firsthand about the needs out there with regard to long-term care. i've treated hundreds of patients who needed it. this is a very important problem. it's an acute problem and it's something that this congress has to take seriously. . i lost my father three years ago and didn't have a long-term care policy and as a family, we came together and were able to take care of his needs. many families can't. that's why this congress has to get serious about dealing with

this problem. now, our friends on the other side of the aisle the last congress, or the two congresses tried to deal with this and they proposed the health care bill. yet, there was no debate on any other alternatives. this was a one size fits all and wasn't vetted in the house committees and it was added into the bill as a budget gimmick. that is not serious legislation and not doing justice to the american people who are faced with these problems every single day. washington should have learned from this mistake and there are three lessons, three basic lessons that we can learn from this class program that was added into obamacare. an unsustainable program by the administration's own admission. first, the first lesson, don't ignore reality. democrat leaders ignored actuarial expert warnings when

they used the class program as budget gimmick in obamacare. president obama cannot create a self-funded, sustainable program that prohibits underwriting unless he tends to force healthy americans to participate. most will be high risk causing premiums to skyrocket making class less appealing to healthy americans. the first lesson, don't ignore reality. second lesson, simple, don't break the law. the administration planned to break the law by excluding americans made eligible by the statute. and when congressional research attorneys warned of lawsuits i sent letters to secretary sebelius for her legal authority to make this change. subsequently, she and i think rightfully suspended the program, but this does not correct bad law, a bad statute written into law and unless we repeal class, the department of

health of human services will be in violation when it misses an important deadline for implementation in october of 2012 and again in 2014. the administration rightfully doesn't want to break the law, but we need to go further and repeal this, otherwise they are in violation of the law. and this is not my opinion. this is the opinion of c.r.s. lawyers. so, the first lesson, don't ignore reality. second, don't bake the law. and third, let's not compound our nation's long-term fiscal problems. a fromme in the event democrat wrote, and i quote, since the class program is a new, unfunded entitlement, it should be repealed, because it will increase the deficit over the long-term, end quote. pretty clear statement, from a democrat and former congressional budget office director. the president's own deficit

commission agrees with this assessment and our grandchildren simply cannot afford a new budget-busting entitlement when we already have entitlements we are struggling with. we need to solve problems and we need to get our budget under control and solve this problem of long-term care and there are many ways to do it. i'm working on legislation and i have it in draft form and i'm sharing it with fellow colleagues, democrats and republicans on the house ways and means committee. i believe firmly that we have to do the right thing here. and i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule. let's repeal the class program. support h.r. 1173. and this will give us i am pet tuesday to move forward on sensible legislation to solve this problem and not add to the deficit. i believe beyond class repeal we should make it easier for disabled americans and save for their future needs and better

educate americans and their ways to do this. there are a lot of good ideas on both sides of the aisle. i have had conversations with democrats on our committee. let's solve the problem and let's not add to the deficit. let's not put the administration by its own admission and by the analysis of c.r.s. attorneys, let's not put them in a position of breaking the law. that's not a good example to set for the american public. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: let me yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i want to point out to my colleagues in case they might have forgotten, the class act was debated in the energy and commerce committee and you want to know what the vote was passed by voice vote? i mean there were a lot of other provisions in this health care

bill that didn't pass my voice vote that my republicans insisted on an up or down vote. and on this one, it passed by a voice vote. i want to point that out so there is no misunderstanding. also, i think it is important, so there is no misunderstanding that nothing in the affordable health care act has kicked in, but a lot has kicked in already. blood pressure screenings for adults 18 years and older and annually for those with elevated results. child screening services, coal own screenings, diet counseling, ma'amo grams and they can avoid some of the debilitating results from not being checked. those are all being covered

under the affordable care act. and my colleagues over a year ago, over a year ago, now january 31, well over a year ago, you brought up on this floor under a closed rule, a bill to repeal the affordable health care act. and you said, we have some ideas of how to fix the health care challenges in this country. it's been a year. nothing. what have we been doing here? well, we had very vigorous debate on national public radio, something i'm sure everybody is concerned about all across this country. we had a bill brought to the floor on reaffirming the national motto of this country, in god we trust. there it is, in gold letters right above where the speaker sits. i didn't know we had to reaffirm it. but we came to the floor and had a vote on reaffirming our

national motto. we had votes on every hot button issue you can imagine, but when it comes to things like health care, improving the quality of life for people, you know, we can't find the time. and so, my friends say they have all these great ideas. it's been over a year since you voted to repeal the affordable health care act. do you want to repeal all these new services that are covered, all these tests, to help people stay well and in staying well, controlling health care costs? my grandmother used to say, an ounce of prevention keeps the doctor away. she was right. there is wisdom in encouraging people to seek out preventative care services and if we can provide people to take advantage, and more people can stay well, we will control health care costs in this

country. we are having discussion as a result of the owe forwardable health care act about results-oriented health care. not how we can have the best doctors to do heart surgeries and brain surgeries and all these very complex surgical procedures which we want to make sure we still have the very best in the world, but maybe there are people who can avoid getting to that point. and already, because of the passage of this bill, more and more people are taking advantage of these screenings. that's a good thing. and my colleagues, every one of them on the other side of the aisle voted to repeal outright all these things, all these things would have gone away. senior citizens will be paying more for prescription drugs today if their repeal bill made it through this process. you know, there are good things that are happening. i know it's tough to ever concede that this president has

do anything good, but on this, the democratic congress, with no help from my republicans on the other side of the aisle in this house and the president of the united states actually i think took a step in the right direction and as time goes on, more and more people appreciating what is covered in that legislation. so i would -- i point that out because my friends on the other side have a tendency to say no to everything. very easy to say no. you have no responsibility to anything. you said no over a year ago when you voted to repeal the affordable health care act. you are asking us to join you in saying no again in making sure that people have the ability to take care of their loved ones and themselves in the case where they need long-term care, you are saying say no to that and replace to that. trust us. we'll get ba back to you, don't

worry about it. you know, we are -- we know what we're doing here. well, again, it's very easy to say no. it's more difficult to say yes. and you have said yes on nothing when it comes to positive improvements in our health care system. and with that, mr. speaker, i would like to yield three minutes to the the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentleman from massachusetts and let me thank my colleague from texas. this is a very important debate and brings about a lot of emotion for two reasons for me. in that same year of our debate on affordable care act, i lost my mother. and she was in need of long-term

care. as i speak, there are two elderly senior citizen relatives who likewise are in the midst of long-term care. they are of a different era. did not have the opportunity to plan as much because of their economics, because of their station in life for their later life. but as i have watched the intensity of the care, i realized that we cannot make health care a political football. i remember distinctly that very emotional time in march of 2010, my recollection serves me not one friend on the other side of the aisle, not one republican in this house, voted to help save the lives of americans, provide them with a safety net of health care. my good friend from massachusetts has already given a litany of provisions that are

already saving lives, from the 26-year-old being on insurance, to not being kicked out of the hospital, and many others. but let us focus on long-term care, a very personal part of one's life. 21 million people in 2008 had a condition that caused them to need help with their health and personal care, many of them may be young people who had serious catastrophic illnesses or accidents. medicare doesn't cover long-term services and support. about 70% of people over 65. the real point, if you want to talk about money, let me tell you how many of the family caregivers or how much their kind of help is equated. some $450 billion comes out of the families either personal care or resources. this is not a throwaway. this is not throwing money away.

and we recognize that the administration has thoughtfully said it needs to look at this long-term care in order to do it right. so i agree with the gentleman from massachusetts that this should not be a throwaway, but should be a fixup. and one of the amendments i had suggested was the idea of letting the secretary come forward with best practices. so no one can intrude into the most personal time of your life, when you are desperately in need, when you are catastrophely ill or aged to the point that there are people who you need to do the most personal things in life, in essence, to clean you up because of personal hygiene. long-term care -- mr. mcgovern: yield the gentlelady an additional minute. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman. long-term care is projected to be needed by 15 million.

the real idea is personal hygiene getting dressed, using the bathroom. do you want to put in the sunset of life or in time of great desperation the idea that no one is thinking about how we can best do long-term care? this repeal turns the light out, closes the door, abandons those family caregivers who have given $450 billion of their time, their heart, the devastation. medicaid giving $101 million, but personal is $14 billion. mr. speaker, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water, let us not, if you will, pass this bill that denies, that america has a heart in the most difficult times of americans. who would raise their hand and say, i want someone to help me in my personal hygiene and someone to help me get to the

bathroom or something even more. this is not the way to do it. i demand that we vote against the class act repeal. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. . mr. sessions: mr. speaker the hireser tocal context of the united states congress is that people can come down and advocate for things that they see, things that they want. we go through -- have hearings, we pass bills. we're not here today to say what's good or bad or right or wrong in terms of how we help people. we're here saying the government cannot make this program work. to make the program work means that it has to have the underpinnings of an understanding. not just how it will work and who will pay for it, but really what are the services that are going to be provided? the gentlewoman from texas was very genuine in talking about

the needs of people. i deeply believe in those needs also. but it also goes back to this administration is the one that is walking away from the legislation. and it does us no good to try and act like it's ok, we'll just ignore that. the congressional budget office today released its viewpoint or the -- for the coming year and once again this administration, president obama, will have a trillion-dollar deficit on his hands. the prior record before president obama had been $459 billion. we are going to be a trillion dollars again in the hole. at some point someone needs to recognize we cannot sustain all these great and wonderful ideas because if you cannot pay for something you have set an

expectation of performance that will not ever come true. that is cruel. that is cruel and that is exactly what this obamacare bill and this class act is all about. it is about substantially telling the american people that something will be there when it never will be there because it's not put together where it's sustainable, the president's own people are saying it's not sustainable and we as members of congress are trying to work with the administration on how it might work and they're saying it can't and won't. so the reality base of this is that the republican party does recognize the need. i recognize the need personally. i think charles boustany, dr. boustany, who is the sponsor of the bill, recognizes a need. but the way that it is defined

and was defined in the energy and commerce committee was, it's a concept and an idea, let's voice both this or agree that we'll get something back later. the bill was not voice voted. the agreement that they would come back later and look at it was. in fact, republicans are not guilty as charged. we are people who primarily go back home every weekend. i've never spent a weekend in washington, d.c., in the 16 years i've been a member of congress. i go back out of washington and try and go home to listen to people about the concerns that they have. it doesn't take much of a person who goes back every weekend to recognize there are great needs in this country. but to try and put together a program that cannot sustain itself, that offers a false hope and cannot be met is cruel.

so today republicans, without calling anything bad, we're simply saying it cannot be sustained. it cannot be sustained by the government, the government cannot figure out a way for it to make it work, the managers of the business cannot figure out a way. so, we've heard today we should have and holdaryings -- hearings. we should. we should take up this issue. dr. boustany talked about the need to do that and we're going to. but the way the law looks right now, it's unsustainable and we should tell the truth about that. and that is what republicans are on the floor of the house doing today. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. first of all, i think it's important to make it clear that there was a voice vote in the energy and commerce committee. there was two days of debate on this class act. two days of debate.

and the language in the amendment was even changed before there was a voice vote. so to somehow diminish that there was even -- that there was some sort of a, you know, a real vote or not, there was a real vote. two days of debate and a real vote. secondly, just so there's no misunderstanding, my friends keep talking about the debt and the deficit we face. as a democrat i want to say that i don't need a lecture from my friends on the other side of the aisle about deficits and the debt. you know, we saw how this country went from surplus to deficit with the passage of the bush tax cuts, mostly for the wealthy that weren't paid for. every economist tells you that -- will affirm that they brut us into debt -- brought us into debt. two, the prescription drug bill that was much more expensive than my friends on the other side of the aisle told us was -- told us it was going to be and

then they didn't pay for it, on top of it. and then add to that two wars that aren't paid for. we're fighting the wars in afghanistan and iraq and we didn't pay for it. we didn't look for offsets in the budget, they didn't even go to the american people and say, we're at war, let's -- we have to have a war tax, we have to find a way to pay for the war. no. soldiers go fight, you know, their families suffer and we do nothing. so you want to know why we're in debt, that's why we're in debt. and just for the record, this class act, what we're talking about is not this taxpayer subsidized, you know, endless, you know, government funding type of a program here. i mean, it has to be self-financed by the premiums that people pay who volunteer to get into it. it says in the law, you know, that this cannot be funded by the dollars of taxpayers.

what this is is a framework, a framework to get us to focus on the issue that we need to address which is long-term health care in this country. now, i'm from massachusetts. and i may be a little sensitive on this issue because one of my heroes is the late senator ted kennedy, championed this issue. he understood that there was a need out there and he saw as we all have seen what families go through when loved ones can't afford or families can't afford to pay for the long-term care of loved ones. so, it took us decades to get here, to get to this -- where we have a framework. yes, it is true, this is not perfect. you know, it needs more work. but we have a framework here. and it's not a framework which calls for endless subsidies by the taxpayers. it says, we're going to call for a program that can self-sustain

itself. that is financed by those who want to be enrolled in it. why would you throw this away? why would you throw this away? my friend on the other side of the aisle talks about false promises. please, give me a break. false promises. you got up over a year ago and said, we're repealing this health care reform bill, the affordable health care act, and we're going to replace it with something. it's been over a year. nothing. nothing. not a single thing. you know, it's not like we haven't had time to do it or to talk about these issues or debate these issues. i mean, this has become a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. national public funding -- national public radio funding, we have to debate that on the floor. reaffirming our national motto, in god we trust, we had time for that. you know, issues on abortion and

every hot button issue you can think of, including we had a debate on making it easier for unsafe people to bring concealed weapons from state to state to state. now, i don't know about texas or other countries, but i got to tell you, you know, people talk to me about a lot of problems and about a lot of things that keep them up at night. some of the things that you brought to this house floor, they don't even -- it never even enters their minds. because what keeps them up at night are things like this. what happens if i get sick? will i be able to take care of myself? what happens if my spouse gets sick? you know, seriously ill, will i be able to car to -- care for her or him? what if it's my child? what if it's my mother? what if it's my father? will i be able to take care of them? you know, over a long period of time. those are real-life issues that real people worry about each and every day. and so i was saying to my

friends on the other side of the aisle, first of all, vote down this rule because i think it is insulting to bring a rule to the floor on shoot of long-term care and say we're going to cap debate at three hours. i think this is too important. this is more important than reaffirming our national motto. number one. number two, i urge my colleagues on this side of the aisle, understand that, you know, what this represents is a framework and understand how long it has taken us to get to this point, you know, and, you know, and i www.to tell you if, -- i got to tell you, if we throw this framework away, i doubt very much that any time in the near future that this congress is going to do any meaningful -- anything meaningful on the issue of long-term health care. so let's get serious about dealing with the real challenges that the american people are faced with. let's not say that this is going

to add to the deficit. it's not going to add to the deficit. in the law this has to be self-sustaining. if not it doesn't work. it says that we're not going to be subsidizing this program. that's what it says. so, this is not about any of the -- you want to get serious about the deficit, you know what, then, make sure warren buffett pays the same tax rate as his secretary. that's what you can do to help us deal with the issue of the deficit. but going after this, you know, with all these smoke screens, i think is unfortunate. so i'd urge my colleagues, vote no on the rule and vote no on the underlying resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts yields back his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i think what we've done today is fair and honorable. we've talked about a problem, we've talked about a potential answer. first of all the answer is that since we do not have a workable

program we ought to bring it back to the congress, we ought to work with the administration. but i think we've been responsible to hear feedback from the administration in a hearing that said, we can't make that program work. we cannot make that program work. and so i think that what we're doing today is to do the fiscally responsible thing and to end the program, to end a program that is not going to work and was not designed to work. and then start back over if we choose to and put it into a workable mode. but only to have a false hope out there of something that cannot be sustained and something that the managers of the government cannot make work is bad idea. -- is a bad idea. we have another trillion-dollar deficit that is facing our country. another $1 trillion. we know who that is. that's pin the tail on the donkey, mr. speaker. they are the ones responsible, they are the ones that are happy

with that and they are the ones that try and justify that. but i think that today we're coming together to find a solution to a long-hair issue in this country, by doing something that cannot be sustained and then admitting that we need to do something better and should not throw the idea today. but today we're going to vote on something that will do no further harm. i applaud my colleague, congressman boustany, for introducing the bill. i appreciate him coming forward. i respect and appreciate my committee, the rules committee, the gentleman from, mr. dreier, for bringing this debate here in such an open and transparent process. i encourage a yes vote on the rule and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it.

the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i ask nor the yeas and nays -- for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 further proceedings on this question will be postponed. .

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house

we'll bring you results from the florida republican primary. polls close at 8:00. we'll have results for you. the speeches from the winners and losers of tonight's primary. and all of that tonight on c-span 2 and c-span radio. and this morning on "washington journal" we were joined by bob to look back 15 years at speaker gingrich and the waning days of his term as speaker. host: who is the talk of the

2012 primary race. looking at the history of then house speaker nuthnuth. our last caller was saying it doesn't seem like in his opinion americans have much of a long-term memory. why did you decide to look back at the 1997 deal? guest: we decided to look back because it's been used on the campaign trail so much. what was going on in 1997. newt gingrich has been mentioning his record as speaker where he passed a balanced budget amendment as well as welfare reform around 1996 but we focused in on the attempted coup of newt gingrich because it's back in the news and m.i.t. m.i.t. and rick santorum have used that attack to -- against newt gingrich, basically saying he couldn't lead the house effectively so he cannot be the nominee, can't try to defeat president obama to lead the white house because of his management style. and we talked a lot about members that are still in congress and also former members that are around at that time.

host: take us through what happened, remind us of how things played out back in 1997. guest: there was a lot of frustration that was building. remember 1997 came after the government shutdown of 1995 and 1996. where newt gingrich went toe to toe with then president clinton and basically came out on the short end of the stick. so a lot of the rank and file republicans at the time, including joe scar borrow, now host of the msnbc show, "morning joe," they were frustrated. so they started to start to meet about their frustration. there was also some exasperation with newt gingrich about his record and of how he was running the house. i talked to congressman peter king, a republican from new york, who is not endorsed in the race but has been critical of newt saying his leadership style is all about him, he was a self-centered -- so this kind of

-- was boiling over until basically some rank and file members started to meet and started to talk about toppling newt gingrich and eventually that made it up the chain and leadership members of newt gingrich's team, newt gingrich's lieutenants started to embrace the idea and the plot was hatched to topple newt gingrich. host: you report that leadership has flipped with gingrich a month before the coup about how to handle a disaster relief bill. talk about the buildup and you mentioned the style of then speebling speaker gingrich but were there also policies debates at play? guest: yeah, there was. that was the problem. most of the problem was policy-oriented, that kind of -- in a similar way with republicans now in congress, they're frustrated that they've had to compromise so much with president obama on a range of

stuff. well back then they were they were frustrated that the republican congress had to find common ground with bill clinton and so there were these small bills that started to show that gingrich's hold on leadership was starting to crack, it started in the spring with a legislative branch bill that funded the government. that's when the rank and file members bolted and took that bill down and then later an emergency disaster relief bill, that's where gingrich and his lieutenants split and that was really just a precursor to the high-profile effort to get rid of him. gingrich eventually found out about this coup attempt and it didn't work. a lot of people in retrospect 15 years later say, it really wasn't well thought out, wasn't well planned. but it weakened him significantly and then the following year after the 1998 election he was gone from congress. he resigned as speaker. host: when you describe this

event, this scenario, this coup attempt, we're talking about a specific moment in time and you talk through why it perhaps failed and one of your sources calls it a keystone cops type of moment. guest: yeah, yeah. you're going to try to take down the speaker, you have to have a very well thought out plan and the major players that were involved in leadership at that time were tom delay, dick army and bill paxson all were gingrich's lubtes. they were leading the charge at the leadership level. but they didn't put together a very effective plan and the other interesting thing -- another reason why we looked at it was really to take a look at the role of john boehner. john boehner was in leadership at the time. he was the number four republican. and what we found out was that -- and going back to 1997, sandy human was the one who broke the initial story and his reporting

really stands up after 15 years. very consistent with what we found. but john boehner was aware of what was going on but he was not leading the charge. and that is something that a lot of sources told us. host: you report that of the 81 republican lawmakers who served with gingrich and are still in congress, only two have endorsed him for president. 22 are backing romney and the now speaker mr. boehner, who's remained neutral, last month denied he was part of a group of the rising republican stars who tried to remove gingrich from his post. has speaker boehner stayed relatively removed from this debate and from the campaign at large? guest: it's an awkward position for speaker boehner, especially as gingrich was surging because to lention i -- potentially gingrich could be the nominee and he would be the top republican in the house. so that would be a bit awkward. so he's tried to distance himself from that event saying, that was a rumor, just

speculation that he was involved. but he was well aware of it because he was in these leadership meetings plotting it. but once again, he was not leading the charge. however he was in the meetings discussing how to get rid of newt gingrich. host: bob cusack, thanks so much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> house coming back in about five minutes for a vote on the rule that would repeal part of the health care law. the house earlier today came back into session, senate's back in session today, too. and the congressional budget office today released its updated budget and economic forecast. we spoke to a capitol hill reporter about how that might shape the congressional agenda ahead. >> house lawmakers returning to the capitol today. what are they saying about the

latest economic outlook by the congressional budget office? >> it's hardly a surprise. c.b.o. came out with their latest debt and deficit and job projection numbers. over $1 trillion in federal deficits projected for this next year. it's a fourth year in a row that we've seen deficits over $1 trillion. nobody around here is surprised by that. everybody's pretty well aware of the deficit situation. that's been playinging not only congress but our -- plaguing not only congress but our national politics. so a lot of reactions an statements are fairly predictable. you're seeing political statements from republicans casting it as basically a failure of president obama's leadership. democrats of course see it a different way and you've seen the president do a little bit more pushback on the idea of debts and deficits lately as he's really gotten into campaign mode.

>> how will the c.b.o. numbers, though, the projections, when you take it back to capitol hill, how will they impact how the lawmakers approach the annual budget, the 2013 budget? >> it's a good question but the answer is hardly at all because those numbers weren't terribly surprising to begin with. also keep in mind all the big heavy lifts that were attempted on budgetary issues, debt and deficit, are done already. remember the debt limit deal which resulted in about $1 trillion in discretionary cuts and then the sequester on top of that which is controversial now, we're already done -- were already done, then talks with vice president biden, other talks with speaker boehner and the white house, debt limit talks, supercommittee talks all failed. everybody around here accepts that none of that is really going to get solved in any meaningful way until after the 2012 elections, either in a lame duck session after november or in 2013 when the new congress

and whoever's elected president are in there. so there's going to be some nibbling around the edges of this. the one part of it that might be important are efforts to undo what's called the sequester. remember when the supercommittee talks failed there were enforcement mechanisms that said, ok, you guys have failed, now you have $1.2 trillion in spending cuts that have to go into effect. there are already talks under way around capitol hill about how to undo those because a lot of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, particularly on the republican side, don't want to see the half of those cuts that hit defense. they're up in arms about it. the question is, the law says you have to get deficit reduction somewhere else so how do you pay for that? that's not going to get involved -- solved this week or next month or the month after. we're looking toward the end of the year. but those are the major budgetary considerations. all the big cuts have already been done. don't expect any major progress. >> on another issue, republicans are taking another run at the health care law. this time with long-term care

insurance. what are we going to see in the house this week? >> this is called the class act and house republicans want to vote to repeal the class act. it was a controversial part of the health care bill that basically gave people the option of paying some money out of their taxes to fund long-term care insurance later. the program is basically agreed by both sides, deemed pretty much a failure in the way it was designed. it frontloaded all of the savings up front and kind of hid the long-term liabilities and the costs in the back end. the obama administration has already said they're not going to implement the class act so nobody was going to have access to it anyway, even when the health care law's fully online in 2014 and beyond. so it's largely a political exercise by house republicans who see it as a big failure, they want to take a slap at the health care bill. they want to be able to tell votes that are even though they cannot repeal what they've called obamacare, disparagingly, that they've repealed as much of it as they can and this is one area they'll be able to vote to

repeal but it won't make any difference in terms of policy. >> lastly you attended steny hoyer's briefing earlier today. what's his take on the house agenda so far? >> steny hoyer as you can imagine as the democratic whip, he's quick to point out that republicans are not passing jobs bill, taking swipe at the class act or tinkering around the edges of sort of internal budgetary procedures here on capitol hill. another thing they're doing this week, don't do anything to create jobs. however, republicans today did just roll out a major jobs and infrastructure bill around the highway trust fund, $260 billion. it's going to take a while to process but the house is going to be acting on that under the leadership's egis later on this month so republicans are going to push back on that democratic charge, they're not doing anything directly to create jobs aside from cutting taxes and cutting spending. >> todd zwillich from p.r.i. and wnyc. thanks for the update. [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> by the way, you can see the briefing in the video library at c-span.org. here on c-span, waiting for the u.s. house to return. when they come back. and it will be momentarily. just one vote ahead and that's a vote on the rule for a bill that would repeal the health care law's long-term care program, the class act. one 15-minute vote coming up and that rule would allow for an hour of general debate and for three hours -- up to three hours of amendment debate. that vote coming up. to clause the unfinished business is the vote on the adoption of house resolution 522, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 106, house resolution 522, resolution providing for consideration of the bill, h.r.

1173, to repeal the class program. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. 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.] e 248 --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 251 and the nays are 157. the resolution is adopted. without objection, a the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the house will come to order.

the house will come to order. the house will come to order. the house will come to order. members, take their conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the

gentleman from maine rise? mr. michaud: under rule 22, clause 7-c i announce my motion to instruct on h.r. 3630, the conference report to extend the payroll tax, unemployment insurance and s.g.r. payments for doctors. i move that the manager's -- managers on the part of the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on the senate amendment to the bill h.r. 3630 be instructed to recede from section 2123 of the house bill relating to allowing a waiver of requirements under section 3304-a-4 of the internal revenue code of 1986, including a requirement that all money withdrawn from the unemployment fund of the state shall be used solely in the payment of

unemployment compensation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's notice will appear in the record. the house will come to order. members, take their conversation off the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> permission to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. members, take their conversations off the floor. the house will be in order. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: last thursday, the president's plans were revealed to cut almost 80,000 army troops

and 20,000 marines. this action will weaken us to protect us from increasing global threats. this is another prime example of how the president and his administration continues to put american families at risk. throughout our history, we have learned the consequences of downsizing our military, leading to surprise attacks. i look forward to working with house armed services committee chairman to stop the execution of these drastic cuts which will diss mate our military capabilities. i would like to offer my sympathy to the family of sandra rogers, who sacrificed her life while on duty saturday. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget our troops and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute

and readvise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. olson: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. please take your conversations into the cloakroom or off the floor. the house will be in order. please take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman is recognized. mr. olson: mr. speaker, over the past 50 years, engineers, scientists have made major advances in the design and implementation of artificial organs. however, despite these advances, the gap between the number of patients waiting for organ

transplant and the number of available organs is widening. the next great medical breakthrough will come from tue engineering where organs are growing in the laboratory, in some cases, the patient's own cells. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. please take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman is recognized. mr. olson: i thank the speaker. my wife nancy and i recently visited texas children's hospital, one of the amazing institutions in the texas medical center. by bringing scientists and engineers together who are developing tissue-engineered solutions with pediatric coalitions, they have more focused peet trick research. nancy and i proud of the work

that is being done at the texas children's hospital. we saw firsthand that they are leading the way on the most important components of this research. pediatric tissue engineering, new organs for kids. leaders lead and texas children is leading the way. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, today i rise to commend the girl scouts of the u.s.a. on its 52nd annual convention and its 100th anniversary. american girl scouts have contributed significantly to the advancement of women in our society. for generations girl scouts of america have actively promoted initiatives to help young women develop positive values, a sense

of service and other virtues that turn girls into productive contributers to their community, the country and the world. not only that, they've advanced the nation by instilling courage, confidence and character that young girls grow on to become leaders and make the word a better place. today there are 3.2 million girl scouts, 2.3 million members and 800,000 adult members working primary as volunteers. all dedicated to inspire generations of girls to reach for their goals and discover their full potential. i want to commend each girl scout of each generation for their hard work and inspiring accomplishments and i wish them well as the organization embarks on the next 100 years of service. congratulations, girl scouts. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. paulsen: thank you, mr. speaker. tomorrow is february 1 and i want to recognize the month of february as being american heart month. contrary to popular belief, heart disease does not discriminate by gender. it is the number one killer of both men and women and accounts

for nearly 1/4 of all deaths in the united states. every 34 seconds, every 34 seconds someone in america is stricken by a heart attack and every 60 seconds someone in this country will die as a result of a heart disease. as co-chair of the congressional wellness caucus, this is an issue that is near and dear to my heart. pun intended, mr. speaker. living a healthy lifestyle is one of the easiest ways to re deuce your risk of heart disease. it's as simple as abstaining from tobacco, maintaining your body weight, eating healthy and exercising every day as long -- along with regular visits to your doctor. we should all do our part to raise awareness about staying healthy and staying heart healthy. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: are there any further requests for recognition for one minute? the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leave of absence requested for ms. roybal-allard of california for february 1 and

february 2. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker,

thank you for giving us a moment to get ourselves organized here. i want to join with my colleagues this evening to take up an extremely important subject. and this is about the heart and soul and the opportunity for the middle class of america. this is about once again rebuilding the great american manufacturing machine. through the last century america came to prominence for many reasons but one of the most important was that we knew how to make things. this was the manufacturing heart of the world. just 20 years ago nearly 0 million american workers were -- 20 million american workers were employed in manufacturing and that gave rise to the great middle class and the stability of this nation. and the opportunity for an individual to get an education, go into the manufacturing sector as an engineer or as a line worker and earn enough money to buy a home, take care of their family, pay for the education,

lead and live that good middle class life. but that was yesterday. today we have about 11 million people in manufacturing. we've seen the decline of the manufacturing in the united states keeping pace with the decline of the niddle -- middle class. it doesn't have to be that way. tonight my colleagues and i are going to talk about policies that we can put in place here in congress, policies that we must put in place to rebuild the american manufacturing machine. joining me is mr. blumenauer from oregon and mrs. jan schakowsky from illinois and a couple of other colleagues who are coming later. what this is is all about government policy. we are ready on the democratic side have taken steps to begin the process of reversing this very awesome and dangerous trend.

for example, a year ago, december, we introduced and passed a piece of legislation that took away from american corporations over $12 billion of tax breaks that they received for offshoring jobs. i know it's hard to believe but they were actually getting a tax break for every job that they offshored. those days are significantly reduced. that's just but one example of what we have been working on. i'd like now to just point out to you this logo. those of us in the democratic party here in the caucus keep this on our desk, we've got it on our coughee cups, to remind -- coffee cups, to remind us that it is our mission in the democratic caucus to push for legislation, to create american manufacturing jobs. and we're going to talk about some of these tonight. mr. blumenauer from oregon, i know that you're very interested in an important piece of this --

of this. i see you have a bicycle on you. perhaps that was to do with transportation. i note that we do have a major transportation bill coming up here in the house later this week or later on the new transportation program for the next six years. i know you have some concerns about this, mr. blumenauer, so please share those with us. mr. blumenauer: thank you. i deeply appreciate your courtesy in permitting me to speak. i appreciate your leadership in coming to the floor this evening, focusing on the importance of our being able to make goods and services in this country, particularly manufacturing. there is an element as you referenced that is the quickest way to jumpstart the economy, that would be the largest source of family wage jobs and which would tie into a whole host of contractors and subcontractors, of people who make equipment

operations in this country. and you're right, our republican colleagues have offered up a proposal to re-authorize the service transportation act -- surface transportation act. i'm pleased to at least see something come to the floor because the act expired 850 days ago. the notion of our transportation legislation used to be an area of bipartisan cooperation. it was something that people from both sides of the aisle worked on, came together to focus on how we strengthened our communities, how we put people to work, how we improved the environment, transportation, mobility. sadly one of the casualties of the hyperpartisan environment was this notion that we work together cooperatively on the legislation.

my democratic colleagues did not see the legislation. at first i was concerned that they weren't brought in and be a part of this process, that i was enjoyed as a minority party member back in the day, but now when we see the legislation we understand perhaps why -- why it wasn't as open and transparent. this is a piece of legislation that for the next five years is going to dramatically underinvest in infrastructure. it is claimed that it is a $260 billion piece of legislation but the revenues that they anticipate from oil and gas, drilling in the arctic, are femoral. the c.b.o. tells us it's going to have a $50 billion to $60 billion shortfall. it guts environmental protections. it removes the power of local communities to plan

cooperatively on this legislation and to be able to make sure that it meets their needs. mr. garamendi, it is appalling to me at a time when we are looking for ways to make things in america, to strengthen the manufacturing base, to move goods and services and put people to work at family wage jobs that we are seeing a piece of legislation come forward that represents a failure of imagination, it doesn't even comport with what bipartisan commissions from the bush administration recommended that it be funded at. it loses a chance for us to be able to have americans deal with the steel, americans deal with the equipment, americans putting these pieces together. over the course of the evening tonight, we may be able to perhaps return to this, but i think it's important to look at this failure of vision, failure

of imagination in a way that's going to dramatically undercut the proposals to make it in america and put americans to work. mr. garamendi: thank you very much, mr. blumenauer, and your work on this has been noted for a long, long time. you've been a leader across this nation on providing all types of transportation, well beyond just the bicycle which you happen to have on. but this is a very important moment. this week this house in the transportation committee is taking up a long-term transportation bill, you've described all the shortcummings but i do believe there's -- shortcomings but i do believe there is an torn. our colleague, mr. altmire, would like to talk about an alternative which is basically the democratic alternative. so as we look at this transportation bill, is there some way that we can write a piece of legislation that would give us the infrastructure and the ability to move goods and

services and people and simultaneously enhance american manufacturing? mr. altmire, please share with us your thoughts. mr. altmire: i thank the gentleman from california for leading the hour and for yielding some time. and i come from a region of the country in western pennsylvania, the pittsburgh area and surrounding region, that knows a little bit about manufacturing. and just as important we know a little bit about the policies that have led to the loss of manufacturing. not just in western pennsylvania, but in this country. policies that have given a preferred tax treatment for countries that outsource jobs, that transfer physical assets overseas and then can claim a tax deduction for the cost of moving expenses. we understand that those policies have failed. they do not lead certainly to job and economic growth, it's quite the opposite. but they do not help america become more competitive in the global economy, which is what this house is debating right now. and, yes, i do serve on the

transportation committee and we are talking about a long overdue re-authorization of the transportation -- funding re-authorization. we also in western pennsylvania, we have dams, the roads and bridges that we have are in serious decay. our waterways infrastructure, just as an example, with damages average 85 years old. locks and dams that were built to with stand 50 years -- withstand 50 years before they needed to be replaced are now rated an imminent threat of failure by the army corps of engineers. on the transportation side, we in the state of pennsylvania have over 6,000 structurally deficient bridges and in western pennsylvania, my region, we have 1,000 structurally deficient bridges. our infrastructure is literally crumbling around us and we must do something about it. and that presents a wonderful opportunity for the make it in america agenda because when these roads and bridges and locks and dams are rebuild, we want it to be american workers and when the american tax dollar

pays -- the american taxpayer pays their tax dollar to fund infrastructure improvements we want it to be done here in america. and we're going to talk more about that tonight. i know the gentleman from california understands there's a bridge project which is leading the discussion on this across the country. i believe it's a $400 million renovation, the gentleman can correct me, -- the gentleman can correct me, but that's -- ok, $4 billion bridge project and the american taxpayer is funding the chinese to give the steel to california to rebuild this bridge and the infrastructure improvements that are being made certainly will see some benefit but those are american jobs and american tax dollars that are going overseas for something that could be done better and more cost efficiently here at home. so i know the gentleman wants to talk about that. mr. garamendi: mr. altmire, you're raising the san francisco bay bridge fiasco.

it's one that gets the adrenaline flowing in california . because the state of california decided they would put it out to bid and there were two bids that came in by the same contractor. one was a bid that said, the steel would be coming from china and the other was a bid that steel would be coming from america. so this is not just the steel but the formation of it and the structure itself. so the state -- excuse me, the bridge authority in its infinite willsdom decided to go with the 10 -- wisdom decided to go with the 10% cheaper. but be careful if it's too good to believe. in this case the steel was manufactured in china, the bridges distribute sections were welded together there and turns out that the rods were faulty, the inspections were faulty, the steel was not up to -- and the overruns were well more than the 10% savings. not only that, but several thousand steelworkers in mills

in china were revved up to get the deal going, and american steelworkers were out of a job. we cannot let that happen anymore. so as this transportation bill moves forward, one of the key elements in it, this is being prepared, as i understand it, by mr. rahall, i think you want to talk about it in more detail, associated with the program, not only is there more revenue and better dealing with the issues that mr. blumenauer raised, but also a very, very important policy that the money will be spent on american made products. please continue. mr. altmire: i thank the gentleman. i would say briefly, i am an original co-sponsor of that bill. i don't know that my colleagues are, i assume they're co-sponsors but it's very simple. it says we're going -- going to do this infrastructure and come up with the resources to rebuild america, invest in our

infrastructure, it's long overdue in this country. it says if you're going to do that, you have to seek out american workers an american products to do that. you have to use manufacturing from american workers to rebuild our infrastructure. it just sounds so simple. and our colleagues listening today and others might be surprised to know that's not already in the law. that we would have a preference in this country for american workers and american steel and american goods to perform our infrastructure improvements. >> that's exactly what we should do. about two months ago, the gentlelady from illinois spoke on the floor about a history lesson that i was unaware of. i'm not sure she wants to go into that today but it dates back to the presidency of george washington. if she doesn't cover it, i'll remind her and we'll have it covered, i know she wants to jump in here, illinois a great manufacturing sector of america,

ms. schakowsky. ms. schakowsky: i thank the gentleman, not only for yielding but for day after day, week after week, coming to the floor and talking about something that resonates with every american in the united states of america, it is time for taos bring jobs home and to have things that we make here stamped with made in america. i also want to thank my colleague, representative blumenauer came to chicago and convened, oh, it was maybe 100 people from all aspects of the transportation industry, contractors and actual workers, people who made the cement and people who are were -- who were the engineers, who would be involved in this project, americans who were ready to work and at the very dawn of this country, we had an industrial

policy. the president george washington made sure that we thought about and created a policy for not only importing from england, who we had just split from, but actually making things. he insisted on the suit he wore for his inauguration to be made in the united states of america. it wasn't that easy to find that suit, but he did, so that he would be wearing something made in america. mr. garamendi: if you'll yield to me a second, i want to complete the story you told, but he told alexander hamilton to develop an industrial policy for america. so those free traders who say get the government out of the way, need to go back to the beginning when president george washington told his treasury secretary, develop an industry policy for america so we can

make it in america. this is not new. ms. schakowsky: and understanding that the future of this country, if we are going to compete in a global marketplace, we cannot just be a service economy. we can't just have people working and making beds and flipping hamburgers and selling in retail stores. all these industries and jobs could be better jobs if they were better paid. we need to manufacture things. we are the center of innovation. we can educate our young people to become innovateors, in fact, i had a meeting this week with educators and the -- and the founder of the austin poly technical academy, teaching young people how to work in advanced manufacturing and the new kinds of metals and talking about ownership of those plants.

but i wanted to say just a couple of things about what the president raised at the state of the union address, about how we have a huge opportunity, he said, at this moment torque bring manufacturing back. we have to seize it. tonight, my message to business leaders is simple. ask yourself what you can do to bring jobs back to your country and your country will do everything we can to help you succeed. my message is simple, he says. it's time to stop rewarding business that shifts jobs overseas and start rewarding companies that create jobs here in america and i have a piece of legislation called patriot corporations of america that would reward those patriot companies that hire 90% of its workers as american workers. they would get tax breaks. they would be able to jump the line for government contracts. in order to -- and it would be paid for by taking away those tax cuts. but i want to return to the

issue of transportation that you raised, that my colleague, mr. altmire, mr. blumenauer, were talking about. and in fact, we have done something on transportation. my home state of illinois, along with iowa, michigan, missouri, california, washington state, received $782 million, my state did, for the purchase of 33 quick acceleration locomotives and 120 bilevel passenger cars that will run on rail corridors in our states. and those trains will be designed to travel at more than 110 miles per hour between cities, will follow high speed rail standards established by state-led next generation equipment company -- committee, sorry, the next generation equipment committee, the committee will provide manufacturers with consistent specifications, reducing costs for manufacturers and customers.

it's exactly the kind of coordinated government effort needed to address our transportation needs. mr. garamendi: that's called the patriot act? ms. schakowsky: no, this is high speed rail money that's gone to states. but i want to point out, we hear a lot from the republicans about how we, you know, the president hasn't created jobs, which of course, he has, three million new jobs, 22 consistent months of private sector jobs, but wisconsin, i would like to point out, refused to accept the money from the federal government for high speed rail. $810 million to construct a new high speed rail line between milwaukee and madison. and as a consequence, a company called talgo americas, which was

going to actually build trains in milwaukee, and the city of milwaukee invested over $10 million to prepare a facility for the company, and the company hired about 100 union workers, at 80% of -- and 80% of those had been out of work for more than two years. but that factory is going to close down this year. because governor walker told the federal government that wisconsin did not want the $110 million in federal investment. we're hoping that that company is going to move to illinois to build those trains where we are more than willing to move ahead. what i'm saying here is that in a partnership between government at all levels, federal and state, and partnerships with private industry like a company like talgo, we can create

millions of jobs and billions of dollars in economic activity in this country. and why we would see a reluctance, as mr. blumenauer pointed out, by the republicans torque fill this gap that we have between our need for infrastructure development and the millions of people who want to work, make our country so much better and stronger and safer, to we don't have the bridges collapsing, mr. altmire mentioned the thousands of bridges in his state that are ready to, you know, that are not safe. we have those in illinois, thousands of them in illinois as well. we can do this. we can do this together. why the reluctance to partner, i can't understand. we can make it in america and america can make it in the world

, continuing as a world leader. i thank you. mr. garamendi: don't leave us. we're going to go around on this subject again. mr. blumenauer, you were anxious to jump in here. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate what my colleagues are focused on, mr. altmire referenced, the society of civil engineers does a five-year assessment. the latest assessment gave american infrastructure dwradse of c, c minus, d, with a total unmet need over the next five years of $2.2 trillion just to bring it up to standards. they've done another interesting study, talking about the cost of not dealing with the improvements. hundreds of billions of dollars are going to -- of costs are going to be visited upon the american public because we don't

bring our water infrastructure up to standards. i see my friend from western pennsylvania. we leak from our under water pipes in this country six billion gallons a day. enough to build -- to fill 9,000 olympic-sized swimming pools that would stretch from the capitol, where we're standing, to my friend's district in western pennsylvania. we can do better. and the notion of talking about the consequences of not investing in american companies, i appreciate both of you talking about that bridge segment. because the $400 million that was invested for an inferior product was money that didn't deal with our manufacturing infrastructure here.

it meant not only were we giving money to our competitors, but there were thousands of american workers who didn't have the work and suppliers and subcontractors that would have been part of the manufacturing chain. in my district, we are constructing the first american built street car in 58 years. and these street cars are going to be running in portland, oregon, a new street car system. it's going to be in tucson, with our dear friends gabbie giffords a system she fought for in washington, d.c. and it's not just that these street cars are manufactured in portland, oregon. but there are dozens of subcontractors manufacturing operations throughout the midwest that get components to

build as part of this. it's part of the virtual soik -- virtual cycle where we focus, we invest on making it in america, rebuilding an renewing our communities, leaving vast, unmet needs that will not just re-- meeting vast, unmet needs that will not just revitalize our economy but make our communities healthier and safer. remember, each $1 billion invested in infrastructure creates 30,000 jobs in america. we can make it in america. we should start with rebuilding and renewing america. mr. garamendi: and the transportation structure goes with it. mr. blumenauer, you are rightfully talking about the glories of portland, oregon. however, i want to bring to your attention that street cars are being manufactured in sacramento, california, and i

will not let you get away with mentioning this without mentioning my own state. the reason both of these plants are operating goes back to a very important action that the democrats took here in the -- in scran of 2009, shortly after president obama -- in january of 2009, shortly after president obama came into office, the american recovery act was voted on, i wasn't here at the time but my colleagues on the democratic side did, you voted for the american recovery act. in the american recovery act there was a provision for street cars and rail systems, locomotives, that they be manufactured in america. the direct result of that, not speaking to oregon, but in california, the direct result of that is that one of the largest manufacturing companies in the world, siemens, came to sacramento, built a factory to manufacture street cars and now they're producing eight locomotives for amtrak vu as a

direct result -- as a direct result of a provision in the american recoughry act that said you get the money but you have to spend it in america on american-made products. that's what you need to do. i see my colleague, part of the east-west program, my colleague from new york, mr. tonko. welcome. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. garamendi, thank you for bringing us together for a thoughtful hour of discussion about the need to invest inmark's infrastructure. what i like about the comments made here are that we have the tools within our grasp to make a difference, to invest in the infrastructure, whether it's safety on the highways, whether it's dealing with environmental soundness as an outcome by promoting public transportation, or by enhancing energy efficiency at our water treatment facilities, which is something that i worked on when i was president and c.e.o. of nyserda. but prime in the focus of this

investment in infrastructure is an outcome that speaks to the reigniting of the american dream. and we have work to do. this dream should not be beyond a grasp of americans. certainly beyond the grasp of america's middle class. and the underpinnings of the support for reigniting the american dream, embrace small business, which is the pulse of american enterprise, that speaks to the moms and pops that raised a family based on a business that they developed, and they can feed this plan to rebuild america's infrastructure. s also driven by the -- it's also driven by the dynamic of entrepreneurs. the entrepreneurs, the doers, the believers, the dreamers. those pioneers that made things happen in this country are out there ready to respond to a

present-day, modern-day, cutting-edge retrofit of infrastructure in this country. and it speaks to empowering the middle class. those three legs of the stool are what reigniting the american dream is all about. and we have work to do. unfortunately it's not being done in this chamber. we need a progressive agenda, embraced aggressively to bring about an outcome that grows jobs. driven by reigniting the american dream. whether it's those highways dish respect a district in the upstate -- i represent a district in the upstate regions of new york that was impacted in 199 by the collapse of the inter-- 1997 by the collapse of the intertate highway bridge -- interstate highway bridge. equal to the flow of niagara falls. we lost i believe 10 lives in that incident. and we saw what economic crippling occurred in that given region.

you could not transport your products, the area lost volumes of visitors and there was an economic consequence to that failed infrastructure. caused by mother nature. that should remind us and there are samplings of that around the nation, that incident, and the data that are assembled based on similar experiences should motivate us, inspire us to invest in our infrastructure. water is essential for industry, for residents. water efficiency, energy efficiency, as you're dealing with water treatment facilities, can be upgraded in a way that addresses the bigger picture of energy policy, linked to the economic comeback linked to the grasping of the american dream. and when you look at a number of our communication and energy retrofits that are required to

provide for energy self-sufficiency, for enabling cottage industries to be developed in remote places, if you broadband out to those areas, great things can happen. so, representative gar mendy, my statement -- garamendi, my statement, let's reignite the american dream. we have work to do and we can do it through small business, entrepreneurs and a thriving middle class. the thriving middle class is the pulse of the nation and if the middle class do -- class is doing well, america does well. any democracy around the world is most effective, most strong if it has a thriving middle class and let's go forward with the agenda. it's possible, we have the intellect, let's embrace america's intellect, as an intellectual capacity, and let's get it done. mr. garamendi: you've used some very, very challenging words for us. reigniting the american dream. we have an opportunity, it's this week. this house is going to take up

in the transportation committee an extraordinarily important bill that speaks to the infrastructures, the transportation infrastructure. and the way that bill is currently structured, a, it's underfunded, it can only add to the deficit or not fulfill its mission or its purpose, and, b, has nowhere in it requirements that will cause jobs to be in america. for example, here's what we presently do. we presently use our tax dollars, we send them overseas to buy buses and rail cars and ferry boats and the like. when this bill leaves that committee and certainly if it were to leave this floor it must have a make it in america provision so that our tax dollars are spent on american-made equipment, buses, trains, steel, bridges, whatever . why in the world we would export our money and our jobs is beyond my understanding, but the bill

that's presently composed has no make it in america provisions. and it can be done. those ideas have been presented. i'm going to take just one more second and put up one more of my favorite charts. which happens to be my legislation. h.r. 613, it simply says if you're going to use american taxpayer money to do a high speed rail or build a bridge or a bus then it's going to be made in america. mr. altmire, you were talking about this earlier. let's reignite the american dream and build the middle class by making things in america. mr. altmire: i thank the gentleman and i wanted to -- the gentleman leads me directly into what i was going to talk about. i wanted to make a couple of points. one, is we talked about the transportation -- one is, we talked about the transportation bill which we're going to be debating in the transportation committee later on the floor of this house, maybe as soon as next week.

and funding is a key issue. we've all referenced funding. where is the money going to come from? that's a discussion we're going to have as a country. and justifiably we've had hours, days, months of discussion and debate, intense debate, in this chamber and in both sides of this capitol and of the country about spending, about what are our national priorities, have we been spending money inefficiently? are there things we could redirect spending towards or away from, whatever the case may be? but with regard to infrastructure, when i'm back home and i talk about spending, i talk about setting priorities and i use the example that any family in america is going to understand, any business in america, if you have a leak in the roof that you discover, that leak is not going to fix itself. and you have to find a way -- right. you have to find a way to pay

for it. because it's only going to get worse if you ignore the problem. now, you might say as a family, you know what? we can't take the kids out for that steak dinner. we can't go out to see the movies this month like we were talking about. but we have to find a way to fix this leak because it's only going to get more expensive, it's only going to get worse and it's only going to create more damage if we ignore that problem. i talked earlier about the state of our roads and bridges, the state of our locks and dams. and the gentleman's chart shows the first word on that chart is airports. and our aviation infrastructure in this country is as out of date d as any -- out of date as any other developed nation on the planet. our air traffic control system literally operates with 1950's technology. and one of the debates that we're having with infrastructure and aviation is this nextgen system where we would utilize

what's become commonplace everywhere else in the country, the system of satellites and g.p.s. and it just makes common sense, but the reason we have such bottle necks at the major hub airports in the country, that affects everybody in this country, even if you don't live in that city you're affected by it because that plane is going to be coming to your city and if it's delayed it affects you, we have those delays, worse than anywhere else on the planet, because of the state of our infrastructure with aviation and with airports. it touches every type of transportation infrastructure you can think of. waterways, rail, roads, bridges. it's critically important. this is a tremendous opportunity for america, using american workers, using american resources. we're all going to win from this and that's why i support the gentleman's plan. mr. garamendi: thank you very much, mr. altmire. it's about jobs, isn't it? at the end of the day it's about jobs and those jobs, if it's in the manufacturing sector, are going to be middle american jobs and it will reignite the

american dream. men and women can see the opportunity them. can see the opportunity to buy a house, educate their kids, take care of their families, put food on the table. i see -- that's the american dream. and i intend to reignite it. ms. schakowsky, if you would carry on here. you have some more things. we were talking earlier about them. so, please. ms. schakowsky: i wanted to go back to this team of a robust middle class -- this theme of a robust middle class. it's really about the manufacturing sector. it's really making it in america that built the middle class in our country. and yet there are people, and you hear that all the time, who say, you know what? these jobs are never going to come back. just forget about it. we're not going to do this kind of manufacturing in america anymore. and why would that be? that is something -- that's a myth that we have to bust. of course we can make it in america. we're not going to necessarily see factories where people are

doing those kinds of repetive jobs. we don't want to see those dirty smokestacks come back. but advanced manufacturing, the manufacturing for the 21st century and beyond, of clean jobs, of creating energy-storing batteries that we need and we can export all around the world, wind turbines that need to be built all over the world, the innovators are here. and we can turn that innovation, instead of over to some other country, china or some other country, to actually then make the stuff or create the supply chain, we should make it right here. with transportation costs going up as they have been, it's actually becoming economically advantageous to make it in america. and that's why manufacturers actually are coming back. we want to encourage that at

every step. so the idea that somehow factory work, that making it in america is in the past is absolutely wrong and that's what the democrats have been saying, that's what our make it in america agenda is all about. that we are going to be the creators, both the thinkers, the engineers, the factory owners. and you know what? i want to encourage our young people, instead of thinking in order to make it you have to go into the financial sector where absolutely nothing is made, we actually have a succession problem in the factories that we have right now. we have to encourage our young people, go into business -- into the business of making things, start figuring out how you can be a leader in a manufacturing plant, in a manufacturing process that is going to lead this country in the 21st century. it is all there waiting for us

if government will be a partner. not just creating the jobs but partnering with the private sector to make it all happen. thank you. mr. garamendi: that history of partnership goes back to the very first president of this nation. george washington set up an industrial policy with hamilton. mr. hamilton, go out and develop an industrial policy because we're going to make things in america. so at the very earliest day of this nation, government and the private sector became partners to make things in america. ms. schakowsky: and if we didn't, the president george washington knew if we didn't do that then we would not see the united states of america becoming a world leader or even putting its own people to work and being able to grow. mr. garamendi: mr. tonko, a few moments ago you talked about reigniting the american dream. so how are you going to do that? mr. tonko: well, i think there

are a great number of things that we need to invest in in order to make it happen. but let me preface that response with a description, if you will, of the 21st congressional district. as i stated earlier, we are a chain of milltowns given birth to by the erie canal. the waterways of the 21stst congressional district can be defined as the ink of a history that wrote the industrial revolution. they were the gateway to the westwood movement. and what you had there were ideas from people working in factories, oftentimes the immigrant patterns entering this nation, the very first stages of immigrants. and that american dream was ignited there in a scenario that was very much deemed rags to riches. people came here with nothing but an idea and the hope to build for their families. they provided the fuel that created the industrial

revolution. so america became this promised land. well, our best days lie ahead of us. we as a sophisticated society, based on our humble roots, developed some of the primary products that are now manufactured in other nations. but we need, as a sophisticated society torque step up to the plate and do those -- society, to step up to the plate and do those things that are not yet on the radar screen and we have it in our intellect to be able to do that. when it comes to infrastructure, we need capital, we need physical infrastructure and we need human infrastructure. that's what we're looking to do with our make it in america agenda, produced by the democratic caucus in this house. we need action on these legislative items in order to make things happen. let me close this with this statement for now. my district was ravaged by storm this is past august. in late august, we were hit with irene and lee. the infrastructure was

devastated. people lost homes, entirely swept into the waters. people are still repairing homes that we hope will be recoverable. the infrastructure these of taking a navigation channel like the erie canal and retrofitting it for flood design purposes so it can be there as flood control infrastructure san enormous mission. it's not scrust the engineers and the teams of construction workers that will put this together, you'll need hydrogeologists to determine what the best patterns are. if we're simply going to build bridges at the same height and span that currently exist when all the forecast show that you'll have greater amounts of water flowing, based on historic day that that are available. that's foolish government. we need smart government. people want thoughtful government. there's a way to embrace recovery for the flood torn areas and rebuild their

infrastructure by reaching out to all areas of manufacturing and intellect to build this nation. that's going back to our pioneer roots, a rags-to-riches scenario driven by the initial american dream. we need to reignite the american dream and do it with innovation, education, higher education, and research. research into how best to do things so we are ahead of the curve, not constantly reacting to issues with a band-aid approach. mr. garamendi: we have work to do. we need to put these things into place. we've had the northeast, new york, we've had the midwest, we've had western pennsylvania how much about texas. let's go to texas. sheila jackson lee, thank you for joining us tonight. ms. jackson lee: it's a pleasure to join the gentleman from california and my colleagues in the great state of oregon, great state of illinois and great state of new york.

i heard earlier this evening that it's ok to say happy new year up until the end of january, which happens to be today, an i certainly wanted to start the new year off right by joining you again and really, i just want to briefly talk about what my good friend from new york, reigniting the american dream, which i am se lousely advocating, real -- zealously advocating, really across my state and across the nation, building ladders and removing obstacles. i see the work of the gentleman from california as realy focusing in on an age-old problem. i want to call up a dear friend, the former chairman of the transportation committee, chairman oberstar, just a few years ago, he watched his own community have a horrific

incident that many of us in america continue to be shocked at, collapsing of a bridge. the literal collapsing of a bridge. of course there was loss of life, devastation, and fear. and an economic loss for people who could not be connected. that's not the america we know and love. so why this is so important, let me just suggest there are so many variables, there are thousands of soldiers coming home from iraq who are willing to sacrifice their life for us and those who have come back are now seeking opportunities. that's another component of individuals who want to work. although this administration, this congress has been excellent in veterans' preferences and seeking to employ them, any one of them will say they don't want a handout. they have been able to do massive work overseas that gives them skills to be engaged in the reconstruction, infrom structure

work at airports an high speed rails and transit. we know what we must do is bill on the working class and middle class. we must build on opportunities for young people who may choose a four-year college but as the president said last tuesday, may choose a community college that gets them into job skills. most economists will say this is not a time to be, in essence, scrooge. when times are hard, you invest in human capital. and as someone who represents one of the largest airports in the country, bush intercontinental airport, and is also in a community that has ellington air feel and hobby airport, it is truly key to be able to work on the infrastructure, someone who comes -- comes from the coastal areas, i want to present to the gentleman my legislation that talks about deficit reduction and restoration of coastal areas, using the energy

industry, but looking at it from a positive sense, all dealing with manufacturing, because manufacturing does matter. let me just say this in conclusion. our friends, or those who want to speak negatively, are absolutely wrong that we don't have the genius of manufacturing. i can document that factories are coming back to america. that the high cost of labor in our friend and sometimes challenging ally, china, is going up. that the cost of having factories there is difficult and there are obstacles that are now -- that now american companies that are thinking of going are looking at the agility and skills of american workers. you cannot underestimate the genius of american workers, the enthusiasm of american workers, the willingness to go into factory the ability to build them and i take on anyone who has acknowledged or suggested that our logistical or supply

chain does not work. and frankly, let some of our military personnel now coming back, going into civilian life, let them show you how to do a logistical supply chain. i believe that manufacturing is here to stay, just a news clip today, talked about an individual with tears in his eyes, bringing back manufacturing of furniture in the carolinas. i think in this instance it was north carolina. he was excited, he was emotional about the fact that his father had left him in this legacy and he was bringing it back. despite some of our friends who are talking up, they can't make certain iphones in the united states, i frankly believe our technology sector is alive and well that we are going to be building more and certainly the infrastructure begs out, in tribute to our dear friend chairman oberstar and many other who was talked for years as i joined him and as i gin my colleagues to say that i believe we live -- as i join my colleagues to say that i believe

we live in the greatest country in the world, i believe there's nothing better than eigniting the american dream and i believe that we'll be building airports, we'll be talking about high speed rail, thank you to this administration for not abandoning it. we'll be doing the trains, the train haveture -- infrastructure and we'll be putting people pack to work. i can't imagine a better way to start off the new year. iered that a pastor say, 2012 will be the year of uncommon favor, that's because we're not going to give up on the american worker and this great nation. i thank the gentleman for coming to the floor and allowing me to share with him. mr. garamendi: ms. jackson lee, thank you for joining us in these dialogues on how america can make it. certainly if we make it in america, we'll be well on our way. manufacturing does matter. just this last weekend, i was in one of the small communities in

california, the town of calusa, very small, 6,000 people, there was a a general motors, chevy, g.m.c. truck dealer who came up to me, he said, i just want you to know, i'm still in business. i thought about that, that's a strange way to start a conversation. i'm still in business. and he said, and i said, it was president obama that made a very courageous decision to bail out general motors. and in doing so, not only does general motors survive but maybe tens of thousands of the supply chain manufacturers survived and way off in california, a little town up in the sacramento valley, an auto dealer said, i'm still in business.

he would have been gone, along with tens of thousands of other manufacturers and hundreds of thousands of jobs, if president obama, together with this house, with the american recovery act, providing the money, president obama stood forward and said, i will not allow general motors and chrysler to die. not on my watch. those two companies are now in business and profitable. there's a partnership that needs to exist through time, beginning with george washington and carried through as you described the erie canal which was 30 years after that. a partnership of business and private sector working together to create opportunity. to create the american dream. our task is to reignite it. mr. tonko, why don't you pick it

up? mr. tonko: mr. garamendi, thank you again for bringing us together. when you speak to the history of the erie canal, it was devised because of economic tough times. this nation was struggling at the moment and we responded by building. we didn't walk away and out our way through, we built our way to prosperity. as we look at the present moment, reigniting the american dream begins with those underpinnings of support, investing in capital infratruck -- infrastructure so there are dollars available for retrofitting america's business community, its manufacturing base which was for far too long ignored, it also requires the investment in human infrastructure. it is totally unaccept to believe develop jobs in our nation that will grow as we develop automation with advanced manufacturing to not invest in the nurturing of skill sets

within the american worker. totally unacceptable to not do that. so i talk to people now as we tour with our round tables on manufacturing that, there are thousands of jobs across this country waiting to be filled because there's an automated process that has been engaged in for manufacturing. and i have, at my community college base, training that is den for automated manufacturing. and i have within my technical college base and grad school base in the region r.p.i. and hudson valley community college come to mind, but they allow through incubator programs to develop automated response to a particular manufacturer that we visited, kents plastic. they reminded us, he has been able to compete internationally, not necessarily doing it cheaper but smarter. that's what the tools we require

here are all about. it's putting capital, human, physical infrastructure demands into working order so we're realistic about providing hope to america's working families all by reigniting the american dream and yes, representative garamendi, we have work to do. let's do it in this chamber. mr. garamendi: thank you for your leadership and your steadfastness on this issue of rebuilding the american middle class. the president spoke here less than two weeks ago on the issue of manufacturing on the issue of -- on the issue of manufacturing, on the issue of jobs, an on make it in america. we need to follow up with that wefment need to follow up on it this week. i ask my republican colleagues to pay attention to what we're saying here, that in the transportation bill that should be marked up in the transportation committee, there's an enormous opportunity to put in place policies that allow the american manufacturing sector to thrive as we spend our