Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
MEMBERS PLEASE TAKE SEATS.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS
RISE?
MADAM SPEAKER, I AM ON THE
FLOOR OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES WHERE MEMBERS
OF CONGRESS GET SWORN IN AND I
HAVE A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.
THE
GENTLEMAN WILL STATE HIS
INQUIRY.
UNDER THE RULES OF THE STATE
CAN A COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE BE
PRESIDED OVER BY SOMEONE WHO IS
NOT A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES AND WHO IS NOT
A MEMBER OF THAT COMMITTEE?
NO,
ONLY MEMBERS MAY SERVE ON
STANDING COMMITTEES -- ONLY
SWORN MEMBERS MAY SERVE ON
STANDING COMMITTEES.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM CALIFORNIA RISE?
PURSUANT TO HOUSE
RESOLUTION 26, I SEND TO THE
DESK AS A DESIGNEE OF THE
MAJORITY LEADER A RESOLUTION
AND ASK FOR ITS IMMEDIATE
CONSIDERING.
THE
CLERK WILL REPORT ITS -- WILL
REPORT THE RESOLUTION.
POINT OF ORDER, MADAM
SPEAKER.
POINT
OF ORDER IS RESERVED, THE CLERK
WILL REPORT.
WHEREAS
REPRESENTATIVE ELECT SEGS AND
REPRESENTATIVE ELECT
FITZPATRICK WERE NOT SWORN IN
UNTIL AFTER THE COMPLETION OF
LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS ON JANUARY
6, 2011 AND WHEREAS THE VOTES
CAST BY REPRESENTATIVE-ELECT
SESSIONS AND REPRESENT-ELECT
FITZPATRICK ON ROLL CALLS 3
THROUGH 8 WERE NULLITIES, NOW
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT
VOTES FOR REPRESENTATIVE-ELECT
SESSIONS AND
REPRESENTATIVE-ELECT
FIPATRICK BE DELETED AN THE
ROLL CALL TOTALS BE ADJUSTED
ACCORDINGLY, IN THE JOURNAL AND
THE CONGRESSIONARECORD.
2, THE ELECTION O
REPRESENTATIVE-ELECT SESSIONS
TO A STANDING COMMITTEE AND ITS
PROCEED BEINGS RATIFIED.
3, THE MEASURED DELIVERED TO
THE SECT -- COMMITTEE BE
RATIFIED, FIVE, ANY CO-SPONSOR
LIST NAMING
REPRESENTATIVE-ELECT SESSIONS
OR REPRESENTATIVE-ELECT
FITZPATRICK BE CONSIDERED AS
VALID, AND SIX, ANY NONVOTING
REPRESENTATION BY
REPRESENTATIVE-ELECT SESSIONS
AND REPRESENTATIVE-ELECT
FITZPATRICK ON THE FLOOR BE
RATIFIED.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK IS
RECOGNIZED.
I RISE TO A POINT OF ORDER.
THE
GENTLEMAN WILL STATE HIS POINT
OF ORDER.
THE HOUSE IS NOT IN ORDER.
THE HOUSE WILL BE IN ORDER.
I MAKE A POINT OF
ORDER THAT THE CONSIDERATION OF
THIS RESOLUTION IS IN VIOLATION
OF THE HOUSE RULES THAT WE JUST
PASSED.
IN WHICH A NEW SECTION WAS
CREATED TO RULE 21 THAT
REQUIRED AT LEAST THREEAYS'
NOTICE TO CONSIDER LEGISLATION
THAT IT BE POSTED ON THE
INTERNET, WE HAVE A CHANCE TO
REVIEW IT.
IT IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT IN
THIS CASE SINCE 'RE DEALING
WITH A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE,
ONE THAT IS WITHOUT PRECEDENT.
I INSIST ON THE POINT OF ORDER.
THE
CHAIR MUST OBSERVE THAT THE
RULE CITED APPLIES TO BILLS AND
JOINT RESOLUTIONS.
POINT OF
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
PURSUANT TO THE RULE ALL POINT
OF ORDERS ARE WAIVED.
POINT OF
PARLIAMENTARY INQRY.
THSPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN WILL STATE.
MR. WEINE AM I TO UNDERSTAND
THAT UNDER THE RULES JUST
PASSED, THEY'RE ALREADY BEING
EXEMPTING THIS RESOLUTION WHICH
IS OF A QUESTION OF THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES THAT IT'S ALREADY BEING
WAIVED THAT THAT NEW RULE
REQUIRING THREE DAYS IS ALREADY
BEING WAIVED?
THE
RULE THAT THE GENTLEMAN CITES
ONLY APPLIES TO BILLS AND JOINT
RESOLUTIONS.
THANK YOU, MADAM
SPEAKER.
PURSUANT TO CTION 3 OF HOUSE
RESOLUTION 26, THE GENTLEMAN
FROM CALIFORNIA, MR. DREIER,
AND THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW
YORK, MR. WIENER, EACH WILL
CONTROL TWO MINUTE THE CHAIR
RECOGNIZED THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA.
THE HOUSE IS NOT IN
ORDER, MADAM SPEAKER.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS CORRECT, THE HOUSE
IS NOT IN ORDER.
THE ROYCE NEEDS TO BE IN ORDER.
MEMBERS ANSTAFF WILL TAKE
THEIR CONVERSATIONS FROM THE
FLOOR.
I'M GOING TO BE THE
ONLY SPEAKER ON OUR SIDE, SO I
WILL RESERVE THE BALANCE OF OUR
TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN RESERVES.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK.
I THOUGHT THAT THE
CHAIRMAN WAS GOING TO SAY HE
WAS GOING TO BE BRIEF.
ENOUGH CHOICE WITH THIS RULE,
IT'S A PRETTY SHORT ONE.
I JUST WANT TO SAY IN THE BRIEF
TWO MINUTES THAT WE HAVE HERE
THAT THIS IS A PRETTY IMPORTANT
ISSUE THAT WE'RE FACED WITH AND
I SHOULD SAY JUST AT THE OUTSET
THAT I HAVE THE GREATEST
RESPECT FOR MY FRIEND, MR.
SESSIONS.
I CONSIDER HIM TO BE A FRIEND
ANI HOPE TO GET TO KNOW MR.
FITZPATRICK AS WELL AND CALL
HIM A IEND AS WELL.
BUT WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH
TODAY IS PERHAPS THE MOST BASIC
TEST THAT WE HAVE ON WHETHER
WE'RE GOING TO TAKE LEGISLATION
SERIOUSLY.
TO THE GREAT CREDIT OF THE
MAKER OF THIS RESOLUTION WHICH
WE JUST GOT, IT STIPULATES
RIGHT IN THE FIRST COUPLE OF
SESSIONS, WE VIMETTED THE
CONSTITUTION ON OUR VERY FIRST
-- WE VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION
ON OUR VERY FIRST DAY.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT
FOR OATH WAS VIOLATED.
I GIVE YOU CREDIT FOR
RECOGNIZING THAT.
YOU SAY IT CREATED NULLITIES
WHICH IS A WAY OF SAYING, WE
OPERATED OUTSIDE THIS DOCUMENT
ON THE SAME DAY WE WERE READING
IT.
WHEN MR. SESSIONS AND MR.
FITZPATRICK STOOD UP IN FRONT
OF A TELEVISION SET AND HELD
THEIR RIGHT HAND UP, NOT UNLIKE
ABOUT 2,000 OF MY CONSTITUENTS,
I SUSPECT, THEY WERE VIOLATING
A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THESE
PROCEEDINGS, YET WE HAVE A
GRANDOTAL OF TWO MINUTES ON
EACH SIDE, MR. DREIER, AND TO
MY COLLEAGUE IN WHICH TO DEBATE
HOW TO FIX THIS -- HOW TO FIX
THAT INFIRMITY.
MR. SESSIONS PRESIDED OVER THE
RULE COMMITTEES DURING A LARGE
PORTION IN WHICH HE WAS NOT
EVEN A DULY SWORN MEMBER OF THE
UNITED STATES CONGRE.
YET WE'RE DOING NOTHING TO GO
BACK AND SEE WHETHER THAT
INFLUENCED OCEEDINGS AT ALL.
I STRONGLY URGE MY COLLEAGUES
TO VOTE AGAINST THIS
RESOLUTION, NOT BECAUSE MR.
FITZPATRICK AND MR. SESSIONS
ARE NOT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS,
THEY CLEARLY ARE AND I
CONGRATULATE THEM, BUT BECAUSE
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN AMERICAN
HIST, REFIRST TIME IN TH
HISTORY OF THIS BODY, WE ARE
GOING TO PASS A FIX OF A
CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY WITH,
WAIT FOR IT, FOUR MINUTES OF
DEBATE, WHEN WE DIDN'T HAVE THE
BILL UNTIL JUST NOW AND I
STRONGLY URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO
THINK ABOUT THE PRECEENT THIS
SETS.
I ASK THE CONSENT OF THE
CHAIRMAN FOR AN ADDITIONAL JUST
ONE MINUTE SO WE CAN HAVE AN
UNDERSTANDING.
I HAVE NO AUTHORITY
TO DO THAT.
IF THE GENTLEMAN
WILL YIELD.
WE'RE LIVING UNDER
THIS RULE.
THE GENTLEMAN MAY
YIELD TO A UNANIMOUS CONSENT
QUSM ONLY YOU, MR. DREIER HAVE
THE ABILITY TO YIELD TO A
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST.
DOES
THE GENTLEMAN ELD FOR THAT.
I HAVE MY TIME AND
I WILL BE UTILIZING THAT.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED, THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA IS RECOGNIZED.
MADAM SPEAKER, I
APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT MY
FRIEND FROM NEW YORK HAS STATED
HIS RESPECT FOR MR. SESSIONS
AND MR. FITZPATRICK.
THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS WERE IN
THIS CAPITOL, THEY WERE IN THIS
CAPITOL WHEN THEY TOOK THE OATH
OF OFFICE.
THEY DIDN'T HAPPEN TO BE IN
THIS EXACT ROOM.
UNDER THE STANDARD OF
COLLEGIALITY, IN JEFFERSON'S
MANUAL, IT IS INDICATED THAT
THEY HAVE TO BE WITHIN THE
PROXIMITY OF THE SPEAKER.
MADAM SPEAKER, ANY MEMBER, ANY
MEMBER WHO DOES NOT VOTE IN
FAVOR OF THIS RESOLUTION, ANY
MEMBER WHO DOES NOT VOTE IN
FAVOR OF THIS RESOLUTION IS
ALLOWING THE PROBLEM TO
PERSIST.
THIS RESOLUTION WILL ADDRESS
THE PROBLEM WHICH EWITH ALL
REALIZE HAS HAPPENED AND I
BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE A
RESPONSIBILITY TO THE
INSTITUTION, WE HAVE A
RESPONSIBILITY TO THE
CONSTITUTION, WE HAVE A
RESPONSIBILITY TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE AND THIS RESOLUTION
RECTIFIES A PROBLEM THAT HAS
EXISTED.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
ALL TIME FOR DEBATE HAS
EXPIRED.
PARLIAMENTARY
INCARERY, MADAM SPEAKER.
THE
HOUSE WILL BE IN ORDER.
THE GENTLEMAN WILL STATE.
UNDER THE RULES OF
THE HOUSE, ARE THE MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS NOT DUHLY SWORN
ENTITLED TO BE PAID FOR -- NOT
DULY SWORN ENTITLED TO BE PAID
FOR THE DAYS THEY WERE T
SWORN IN.
THE
GENTLEMAN HAS NOT STATED A
PROPER PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.
PURSUANT TO SECTION 3 OF HOUSE
26, THE PREVIOUS QUESTION IS
ORDERED ON THE RESOLUTION.
THE QUESTION SON ADOPTION OF
THE RESOLUTION.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
THE AYES HAVE IT.
THE RESOLUTION IS AGREED TO.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE MOTION
TO RECONSIDER IS LAID ON THE
TABLE.
I ASK FOR A
RECORDED VOTE, MADAM SPEAKER.
A
RECORDED VOTE IS REQUESTED.
THOSE FAVORING A RECORDED VOTE
WILL RISE.
A SUFFICIENT NUMBER HAVING
RISEN, A RECORDED VOTE IS
ORDERED.
MEMBERS WILLECORD THEIR VOTES
BY ELECTRONIC DEVICE.
THIS WILL BE A 15-MINE VOTE.
THE NATIONAL CAPTIONING
[CAPTIONING MADE POSSIBLE BY
INSTITUTE, INC., IN COOPERATION
WITH THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
ANY USE OF THE CLOSED-CAPTIONED
PRESENTATIVES.
COVERAGE OF THE HOUSE
COMMERCIAL PURPOSES IS
PROCEEDINGS FOR POLITICAL OR
EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED BY THE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.]
ON
THIS VOTE, THE YEAS ARE 257,
THE NAYS ARE 159, THREE VOTING
PRESENT.
THE RESOLUTION IS ADOPTED AND
WITHOUT OBJECTION, A MOTION TO
RECONSIDER IS LAID UPON THE
TABLE.
THE CHAIR LAYS BEFORE THE HOUSE
THE FOLLOWING COMMUNICATION.
THE HONORABLE THE
SPEAKER, HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, SIR, UNDER
CLAUSE 2G OF RULE 2 OF THE
RULES OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, I HEREWITH
DESIGNATE ROBERT REVIS, DEPUTY
CLERK TO SIGN ANY AND ALL
PAPERS AND DO ALL OTHER ACTS
FOR ME UNDER THE NAME OF THE
CLERK OF THE HOUSE, WHICH THEY
WILL BE AUTHORIZED TO DO BY
VIRTUE OF THIS DESIGNATION,
EXCEPT SUCH AS PROVIDED BY
STATUTE IN CASE OF MY TEMPORARY
ABSENCE OR DISABILITY.
THIS SHALL CONTINUE THROUGH THE
112TH CONGRESS OR UNTIL
MODIFIED BY ME.
SIGNED, SINCERELY, KAREN HAAS,
CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM MARYLAND RIDES?
I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT FOR PURPOSES OF
INQUIRING OF THE MAJORITY
LEADER THE SCHEDULE FOR THE
COMING WEEK.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
I YIELD TO THE
MAJORITY LEADER AND
CONGRATULATE HIM ON HIS
ELECTION AS LEADER OF THE
MAJORITY PARTY.
WE HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO
WORK TOGETHER OVER THE YEARS
AND IT'S BEEN A POSITIVE
RELATIONSHIP AND I LOOK FORWARD
TO CONTINUING THAT POSITIVE
RELATIONSHIP, ALBEIT IN MY
DIMINISHED STATUS.
MR. CAN SPORE SOUTH CAROLINA I
THANK MY FRIEND.
THE HOUSE IS NOT IN ORDER.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS CORRECT.
THE HOUSE WILL BE IN ORDER.
MEMBERS PLEASE TAKE THEIR
SEATS.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA.
THANK YOU, MADAM
SPEAKER.
I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MARYLAND FOR THOSE KIND
REMARKS.
I WANT TO ALSO REITERATE MY
PLEASURE AT BEING ABLE TO
DEVELOP A POSITIVE
RELATIONSHIP, WORKING
RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM,
UNDERSTANDING FULL WELL THERE
WILL BE DISAGREEMENTS BUT THERE
IS PROBABLY A LOT MORE WE CAN
AGREE ON AND I LOOK FORWARD TO
EXPLORING THOSE AVENUES.
THE HOUSE CONTINUES
TO BE OUT OF ORDER AND I CAN'T
HEAR THE GENTLEMAN.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS CORRECT.
THE HOUSE WILL BE IN ORDER.
THE HOUSE WILL BE IN ORDER.
MEMBERS AND STAFF WILL TAKE
THEIR CONVERSATIONS OFF THE
FLOOR.
MEMBERS WILL TAKE THEIR SEATS.
THE HOUSE WILL COME TO ORDER.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA.
THANK YOU, MADAM
SPEAKER.
MADAM SPEAKER, I PRISHTE THE
GENTLEMAN'S REMARKS, I WANT TO
CONGRATULATE HIM ON HIS
ELECTION TO A POSITION OF
DEMOCRATIC WHIP AND LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING THIS
RELATIONSHIP AND I KNOW THAT
THESE ROLES HAVE BEEN REVERSED
NOW IN THESE COLLOQUIES, I LOOK
FORWARD TO THAT AS WELL.
MADAM SPEAKER, ON MONDAY, THE
HOUSE IS NOT IN SESSION.
ON TUESDAY, THE HOUSE WILL MEET
AT 12:00 P.M. FOR MORNING HOUR
DEBATE AND 2:00 P.M. FOR
LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS WITH VOTES
POSTPONED UNTIL 6:30 P.M.
ON WEDNESDAY, THE HOUSE WILL
MEET AT 9:00 A.M. FOR
LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS.
ON THURSDAY AND FRIDAY, THE
HOUSE WILL NOT BE IN SESSION TO
ACCOMMODATE THE REPUBLICAN
RETREAT.
ON TUESDAY, WE WILL CONSIDER AT
LEAST ONE BILL UNDER SUSPENSION
OF THE RULES, WHICH WILL BE
ANNOUNCED LATER TODAY.
WE WILL ALSO P BEGIN
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2, THE
REPEALING THE JOB-KILLING
HEALTH CARE LAW ACT.
I EXPECT THE HOUSE TO COMPLETE
DEBATE ON H.R. 2 WEDNESDAY
AFTERNOON.
ALSO ON WEDNESDAY, MADAM
SPEAKER, THE HOUSE WILL
CONSIDER H.RES. 9, INSTRUCTING
CERTAIN COMMITTEES TO REPORT
LEGISLATION REPLACING THE
JOB-KILLING HEALTH CARE LAW.
MADAM SPEAKER, I YIELD BACK.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND.
I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN FOR OUTLINING THE
SCHEDULE.
THERE WAS AN INTERESTING
ARTICLE IN "THE WASHINGTON
POST" TODAY ABOUT YOUR
JOB-KILLING COMMENTS ALWAYS
BEING ATTACHED TO THE HEALTH
CARE BILL, THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY
SOME OF US WHO KNOW FULL WELL
THAT WAS NOT A PART OF THE
TITLE.
I'M SURE THE GENTLEMAN WOULD
ADMIT THAT AND IN FACT IT DOES
NOT DO THAT AT ALL.
IN FACT, WE THINK IT CREATES
JOBS BUT IN ANY EVENT, I THANK
THE GENTLEMAN FOR ANNOUNCING
THE SCHEDULE.
I WANT TO SAY WE'RE
DISAPPOINTED HOWEVER, AS HE WAS
IN -- WHEN HE WAS IN MY
POSITION, THAT WE ARE -- THAT
WE DON'T HAVE A COMMITTEE
PROCESS FOR THIS VERY IMPORTANT
PIECE OF LEGISLATION.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FROM
YOUR PERSPECTIVE AND IT'S
IMPORTANT FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE,
THOUGH WE MAY HAVE DIFFERENT
PERSPECTIVES ON WHETHER IT
SHOULD PASS OR FAIL.
BUT IT IS AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF
LEGISLATION.
THERE WAS NO COMMITTEE PROCESS.
NO HEARINGS.
NO OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC
TO BE HEARD ON THE BILL.
NO OPPORTUNITY FOR THE MEMBERS
TO TESTIFY.
WITH RESPECT TO THAT BILL.
NO WITNESSES WERE HEARD.
AND FURTHERMORE, UNDER THE
RULE, OF COURSE, WE HAVE BEEN
GIVEN NO OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND.
THE GENTLEMAN, WHEN HE WAS IN
MY POSITION, WOULD REPEATEDLY
INDICATE HOW DISAPPOINTED HE
WAS THAT THERE WERE NO
AMENDMENTS ALLOWED ON CERTAIN
BILLS.
I WANT TO REITERATE THAT
CONCERN AND GIVEN THE LACK OF
AMENDMENTS, I WANT TO CLARIFY
WHAT HE BELIEVES WILL BE THE
FINISHING OF VOTES ON
WEDNESDAY.
I UNDERSTAND DEBATE WILL BEGIN
ON TUESDAY.
IS THAT -- AND CONCLUDE ON
WEDNESDAY?
I ASK THE GENTLEMAN
TO REPEAT THE QUESTION.
WHAT TIME DO YOU
EXPECT TO CONCLUDE BUSINESS ON
WEDNESDAY?
I WOULD SAY TO THE
GENTLEMAN, MADAM SPEAKER, THAT
IT IS OUR INTENTION TO CONCLUDE
BY 7:00 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY.
I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN FOR THAT RESPONSE.
IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT YOU
HAVE MADE -- YOUR SIDE HAS MADE
A PLEDGE TO ALLOW AMPLE TIME
FOR MEMBERS TO READ AND
CONSIDER, AND NOTWITHSTANDING
THAT THEY'VE ALREADY NOT
PURSUED THAT AS VIGOROUSLY AS I
THINK YOU WOULD HAVE HOPED AND
PERHAPS WE WOULD HAVE HOPED AS
WELL, IN THE 112TH CONGRESS, I
WAS WONDERING IF THE GENTLEMAN
CAN ENLIGHTEN US ON WHAT HE
EXPECTS TO CONSIDER THE REST OF
JANUARY AFTER NEXT WEEK SO
MEMBERS MIGHT HAVE
OPPORTUNITIES TO ANTICIPATE
ISSUES THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE
BRINGING FORWARD.
I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN, MADAM SPEAKER.
AS TO THE INQUIRY ABOUT
OPENNESS AND THE ABILITY FOR
MEMBERS TO HAVE TIME TO READ
THE BILLS, AS WELL AS FOR THE
PUBLIC TO REALIZE ITS RIGHT TO
KNOW, WE ON OUR SIDE BELIEVE IN
MAKING SURE THERE IS THAT
ADEQUATE TIME AND WE POSTED ON
MONDAY LEGISLATION COMING TO
NEXT.
THE FLOOR FOR THIS WEEK AND
SO I WOULD SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN
FROM MARYLAND, MADAM SPEAKER,
THAT IT IS OUR INTENTION TO
CONTINUE TO UPHOLD OUR
COMMITMENT TO THE THREE-DAY
RULE, ALLOW FOR THE PUBLIC'S
RIGHT TO KNOW AS WELL AS
MEMBERS THEMSELVES TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS WE'RE
VOTING FOR.
AS TO THE GENTLEMAN'S COMMENTS
REGARDING THE UP OR DOWN VOTE
ON OBAMACARE REPEAL, IF THE
GENTLEMAN HAS LOOKED AT THE
POSTINGS ONLINE, HE'LL KNOW
THAT THE REPEAL RESOLUTION IS A
PAGE AND A HALF.
THIS IS A REPEAL OF A BILL THAT
WAS THE SUBJECT OF SIGNIFICANT
LEGISLATIVE TIME AND OTHER OVER
THE COURSE OF THE LAST TWO
YEARS.
IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PUBLIC HAS
LITIGATED AND IN ESSENCE HAS
DECIDED ITS POSITION ON THAT
BILL GIVEN THE RESULTS OF
NOVEMBER'S ELECTION.
AND IT'S -- IT COMES DOWN TO
WHETHER YOU'RE FOR OBAMACARE OR
AGAINST IT.
THAT'S WHAT THE VOTE IS.
AGAIN A PAGE AND A HALF.
THAT'S WHAT THE BILL IS.
SO WE HAVE COMMITTED TO
CONTINUING IN THE VEIN OF AN
OPEN PROCESS WHEN IT COMES TO
TRYING TO GET IT RIGHT AS FAR
AS REPLACING THE HEALTH CARE
STATUS QUO.
AND WE HAVE COMMITTED AND THE
SPEAKER HAS COMMITTED TO MAKING
SURE THAT OUR COMMITTEES WILL
GO THROUGH REGULAR ORDER,
MEMBERS OF THE MINORITY AND
MAJORITY WILL HAVE AMPLE TIME
TO ENGAGE IN PAR -- ENGAGE AND
PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSIONS
AROUND WHAT TYPE OF HEALTH CARE
AMERICANS DESERVE AND WHAT TYPE
OF HEALTH CARE THEY WANT.
WHICH IS HOW WE WILL PROCEED
WHEN IT COMES TO THE SO-CALLED
REPLACEMENT RESOLUTION AND ITS
IMPLEMENTATION.
I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND THAT
THE RULES COMMITTEE HAS
ACCEPTED THE AMENDMENT PROPOSED
BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM UTAH AS
FAR AS A SUGGESTION THAT HE HAD
REGARDING THE S.G.R. FORMULA
AND THE REIMBURSEMENTS FOR
PHYSICIANS UNDER THE MEDICARE
PROGRAM.
AGAIN, WE ARE TRYING TO WORK IN
A FASHION THAT OPEN, THAT IS AS
INCLUSIVE AS WE CAN, AS THE
SPEAKER SAID IN HIS REMARKS,
THE SPEAKER SAYS WE HAD, AND
WAS CORRECT WHEN HE SAID WE HAD
NO OPEN RULES UNDER THE LAST
CONGRESS.
WE INTEND FOR THAT NOT TO BE
THE CASE HERE.
I KNOW THAT THE GENTLEMAN JOINS
ME IN THE DESIRE FOR US TO BE
ABLE TO WORK TOGETHER AND WE
BELIEVE THAT THAT WILL PROVIDE
THE BEST WAY FORWARD FOR THAT.
AS TO THE GENTLEMAN'S QUESTION
ABOUT THE REMAINDER OF JANUARY,
MADAM SPEAKER, WE INTEND TO
FOCUS ON THE THEME OF THIS
CONGRESS, WHICH IS CUT AND
GROW.
WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT
WAYS TO CUT SPENDING, WE ARE
GOING TO LIVE UP TO OUR
COMMITMENT TO BRING A SPENDING
CUT BILL TO THE FLOOR EACH AND
EVERY WEEK, MADAM SPEAKER, WE
ALSO INTEND TO FOCUS ON WHAT IT
IS THAT IS IMPEDING JOB GROWTH
IN THE ECONOMY AND WILL BE
ASKING OUR COMMITTEES TO BEGIN
FOCUSING ON REGULATIONS THAT
ARE BEING PROMULGATED AND
PURSUED THROUGHOUT THE
ADMINISTRATION AND ITS AGENCIES
THAT ARE PRECLUDING JOB GROWTH.
IT IS OUR HOPE, THOUGH, MADAM
SPEAKER, THAT THESE COMMITTEES,
OUR COMMITTEES, WILL BE FULLY
ORGANIZED BY THE END OF THE
MONTH SO WE CAN BEGIN A PROCESS
OF REGULAR ORDER AND I YIELD
BACK.
I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN FOR HIS COMMENTS.
OBVIOUSLY THE HEALTH CARE BILL
HE SEEKS, HE AND HIS PARTY SEEK
TO REPEAL HAD PROBABLY MORE
CONSIDERATION, MORE OPEN
DEBATE, MORE TRANSPARENCY, MORE
AMENDMENTS, MORE HEARINGS, THAN
ALMOST ANY BILL THAT I HAVE
CONSIDERED AS A MEMBER OF THIS
CONGRESS OVER THE LAST THREE
DECADES.
FULL AND OPEN CONSIDERATION.
AMENDMENTS OFFERED FROM BOTH
SIDES IN COMMITTEE ON A VERY
AMPLE BASIS.
BUT I AM GLAD TO HEAR THAT YOU
AGREE THAT THERE HAVE BEEN
AMPLE DEBATE TIME FOR THAT.
THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY DEBATE
TIME IN COMMITTEES OR
AMENDMENTS ON THE REPEAL OF
THAT LAW.
I CERTAINLY AM HOPEFUL THE
GENTLEMAN DOES NOT MEAN TO SAY
THAT IF THE MAJORITY PARTY
CONCLUDES THAT THE AMERICAN
PUBLIC HAVE ALREADY DECIDED AN
ISSUE, THAT THERE WON'T BE,
THEREFORE, THAT WILL BE THE
EXCEPTION TO THE RULE THAT YOU
HAVE PUT FORTH IN TERMS OF FULL
AND AMPLE NOTICE, DEBATE,
AMENDMENT PROCESS AND
TRANSPARENCY.
I WOULD CERTAINLY HOPE THAT
THAT WOULD NOT BE THE CASE.
I DON'T EXPECT IT TO BE THE
CASE AND I HOPE IT WON'T BE LET
ME SAY IN ADDITION, THAT I'M
VERY PLEASED THAT THE MAJORITY
PARTY ALLOWED IN ORDER THE
AMENDMENT BY MR. MATHESON.
AS YOU KNOW, WE TRIED TO HAVE A
PERMANENT FIX TO THE
REIMBURSEMENT OF DOCTORS WHO
TOOK MEDICARE PATIENTS,
UNFORTUNATELY, THE MINORITY
PARTY IN THE SENATE WHICH HAD
THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT
PRECLUDED US FROM ACCOMPLISHING
THAT OBJECTIVE.
SO I'M PLEASED THAT THAT NEEDS
TO BE DONE.
WE NEED TO HAVE A STABLE
FUNDING EXPECTATION BY DOCTORS
WHEN THEY PROVIDE SERVICES TO
MEDICARE PATIENTS, TO SENIOR,
AS WE WANT THEM TO DO AND WE
I'M PLEASED YOU ATHRUDE
WANT THEM TO CONTINUE TO DO.
AMENDMENT.
I WOULD HOPE THAT MEMBERS ON
YOUR SIDE WOULD BE SUPPORTING
THAT AMENDMENT AS WE WILL ON
THIS SIDE.
LET ME ASK YOU NOW, MR.
MAJORITY LEADER, I AM VERY
CONCERNED, I EXPRESSED THIS ON
THE FLOOR, YOUR RULES IN MY
VIEW, PROVIDE FOR SOME $5
TRILLION TO BE INCURRED IN
.
ADDITIONAL DEFICITS.
THEY ALLOW THAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE
EXEMPTED ALMOST ALL OF THE
POSSIBLE REDUCTIONS IN REVENUES,
TAX CUTS, REDUCTIONS IN
REVENUES, NOTWITHSTANDING NO
REDUCTION IN SPENDING.
WELL, IF YOU REDUCE REVENUES AND
YOU DON'T REDUCE SPENDING,
COMMENSURATELY, INEVITABLY, YOU
WILL CREATE A LARGE DEFICIT
WHICH INEVITABLY WILL BE PAID BY
FUTURE GENERATIONS.
THAT'S BEEN THE EXPERIENCE THAT,
AGAIN, I HAVE HAD WHEN WE HAD
1980'S.
SIGNIFICANT TAX CUTS IN THE
AND LAST DECADE, THE DECADE OF
2000, 2001, 2003 WHERE WE
CREATED VERY LARGE DEFICITS.
MY PRESUMPTION IS YOU WILL BE
FINDING A COMMENSURATE REDUCTION
S IN SPENDING TO YOUR TAX CUTS
THAT YOU WANT TO CONTINUE.
IF YOU DON'T DO THAT, DEFICITS
WILL INEVITABLY FOLLOW.
THE MAJORITY PARTY HAS NOT DONE
THAT IN YEARS PAST.
IS IT YOUR EXPECTATION THAT THAT
WILL OCCUR IN THE FUTURE?
BUT THE QUESTION I WANT TO ASK
YOU AS WELL IS THAT YOU HAVE
PROVIDED IN YOUR RULES
ESSENTIALLY IGNORING C.B.O.
SCORES.
THE NONPARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL
BUDGET OFFICE WHICH SERVES US
HAS ISSUED A PRELIMINARY SCORE
FOR THE REPUBLICAN PATIENTS'
BILL OF RIGHTS, THEY BELIEVE IT
WILL INCREASE THE DEFICIT BY
$230 BILLION IN THE FIRST 10
YEARS BY REPEAL AND $1.2
TRILLION IN THE SECOND 10 YEARS.
MY QUESTION IS HAVING DEEMED IN
THE RULE TODAY A PROVISION
ALLOWING THE CHAIR OF THE BUDGET
COMMITTEE, MR. RYAN, TO IGNORE
THE C.B.O. SCORE, WILL THE
MAJORITY CONTINUE TO IGNORE
C.B.O. SCORES ON LEGISLATION FOR
THE REST OF CONGRESS OR WILL WE
BE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE N. MY
VIEW, AND ADHERE TO --
RESPONSIBLE, IN MY VIEW, AND
ADHERE TO THE ADVICE AND COUNSEL
WE RECEIVE FROM C.B.O.
I YIELD.
MADAM SPEAKER, I
RESPOND TO HIS FIRST QUESTION BY
SAYING THAT WASHINGTON DOESN'T
HAVE A REVENUE PROBLEM IT HAS A
SPENDING PROBLEM.
AND WE BELIEVE THAT IT IS BETTER
TO ALLOW FOLKS TO KEEP PORE OF
-- MORE OF THEIR HARD-EARNED
MONEY SO WE CAN SEE A RETURN TO
GROWTH IN OUR ECONOMY AND THAT
WE ARE DEDICATED TO MAKING SURE
WE DEAL WITH THE SPENDING
PROBLEM HERE IN WASHINGTON.
AS I SAID BEFORE TO THE
GENTLEMAN, WE ARE INTENDING AND
WILL BRING TO THE FLOOR EACH AND
EVERY WEEK A BILL THAT CUTS
SPENDING.
WE ARE VERY FOCUSED AS YOU KNOW
IN BRINGING SPENDING DOWN TO
2008 LEVELS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
ARE ABIDING BY OUR COMMITMENT TO
LIVE ACCORDING TO THE SAME RULES
THAT EVERYONE ELSE DOES WHILE
BUSINESSES AND FAMILIES ARE
LIVING WITHIN THEIR MEANS,
TIGHTENING THEIR BELTS, THERE IS
NO REASON IN THE WORLD WHY
WASHINGTON CAN'T AS WELL.
I'M SURE THE GENTLEMAN AGREES
WITH ME ON THAT.
AS FOR THE ISSUES SURROUNDING
THE C.B.O., THE ISSUE THAT WE
HAVE AND DISPUTE WE HAVE IS NOT
WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET
OFFICE.
C.B.O. SCORES WHAT'S PUT IN
FRONT OF THEM.
THE REALITY IS THE OBAMACARE
BILL RELIED ON SMOKE AND MIRRORS
AND BUDGETARY SHELL GAMES IN
ORDER TO PRESENT THE PICTURE
THAT IT PRESENTS OR ALLEGATION
TO REPRESENT.
-- ALLEGES TO REPRESENT.
MADAM SPEAKER, THERE IS NOTHING
THAT HAS CHANGED ABOUT THE
FLAWED ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING
THE OLD SCORE OF THE OBAMACARE
BILL, ONLY THE DATES HAVE
CHANGED.
THIS IS THE SAME GIMMICKS,
PRODUCING MORE FALSE DEFICIT
REDUCTION, AND IN FACT REAL
SPENDING INCREASES.
IN FACT, AS THE GENTLEMAN KNOWS,
MADAM SPEAKER, THE MEDICARE'S
CHIEF ACTUARY SAYS THAT THE
OBAMACARE BILL REPRESENTS A MAZE
OF MANDATES, TAX HIKES, AND
SUBSIDIES THAT WILL PUSH COSTS
UP.
THE BOTTOM LINE, MADAM SPEAKER,
IS WE NEED TO STOP ARGUING ABOUT
INSIDE BASEBALL BUDGET GIMMICKS.
THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT A NEW
OPEN-ENDED ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM
WILL GROW UNSUSTAINABLY FAST,
WILL DRIVE COSTS UP, AND COULD
POTENTIALLY BANKRUPT THIS
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS WELL AS
OUR STATES.
SO WITH THAT, MADAM SPEAKER, I
YIELD BACK.
I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN.
I WANT TO SAY TO MY FRIEND, THE
CONTINUING RHETORIC IS
WASHINGTON DOESN'T HAVE A
REVENUE PROBLEM IT HAS A
SPENDING PROBLEM.
AMERICANS IN EVERY FAMILY THAT I
KNOW UNDERSTAND THAT THEIR
REVENUES DIRECTLY IMPACT ON
THEIR SPENDING AND VICE VERSA.
AND IF THEY DON'T, THEY HAVE A
REAL PROBLEM.
THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH REVENUE
TO MEET THEIR EXPENDITURES, THEY
HAVE A PROBLEM.
AND IF THEIR SPENDING EXCEEDS
THEIR REVENUE THEY HAVE A
PROBLEM.
I TELL MY FRIEND, I UNDERSTAND
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND I HAVE
HEARD THIS RHETORIC ALL OF MY
CAREER HERE IN THE CONGRESS.
I TELL MY FRIEND THAT WHEN
PRESIDENT REAGAN WAS PRESIDENT
WE NEVER OVERRODE A PRESIDENTIAL
VETO OF AN APPROPRIATION BILL
BECAUSE IT SPENT TOO MUCH.
HE VEEYOTED IT SPENT TOO MUCH,
NEVER HAD A VETO OVERWRITTEN.
NEVERTHELESS WE INCURRED AN
ADDITIONAL $1.5 TRILLION IN
DEFICITS.
UNDER PRESIDENT BUSH, GEORGE
H.W. BUSH, WE DIDN'T OVERRIDE
ANY VETO OF HIS AND WE INCURRED
AN ADDITIONAL TRILLION DOLLARS.
THAT WAS $2.5 TRILLION PLUS.
UNDER THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION
, OF COURSE, ECONOMIC PROGRAM AS
YOU AND I BOTH KNOW THAT YOUR
PARTY UNIVERSALLY OPPOSED, WE
HAD A SURPLUS.
THE ONLY PRESIDENT IN YOUR
LIFETIME AND I THINK IN MINE,
WHICH IS SUBSTANTIALLY LONGER,
THAT'S HAD FOUR YEARS OF
SURPLUS.
NOW, I KNOW YOU SAY, RESPONSE
THAT MR. DREIER GAVE TO ME IS
THAT WELL, YES, WE TOOK OVER THE
CONGRESS IN 1995.
THAT'S CORRECT.
AND OF COURSE NOT ONLY DID YOU
TAKE OVER THE CONGRESS IN 1995
BUT IN 2000 YOU TOOK OVER THE
PRESIDENCY AS WELL AND
CONTROLLED THE HOUSE AND THE
SENATE AND THE PRESIDENCY.
AND DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME
WE DIDN'T PASS ANY APPROPRIATION
BILLS ON OUR SIDE.
YOU WERE IN FULL CHARGE DURING
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, FIRST
SIX YEARS, AND $3.5 TRILLION OF
DEFICIT SPENDING WAS INCURRED
MAKING A TOTAL OF OVER $5
TRILLION OF DEFICIT SPENDING
DURING THE TIME THAT YOUR PARTY
TOOK THE POSITION THAT WE DIDN'T
HAVE A REVENUE PROBLEM WE HAD A
SPENDING PROBLEM.
WELL, IT ENDED UP BEING A $5
TRILLION DEFICIT PROBLEM ADDING
TO THE DEFICIT FOR OUR CHILDREN.
AND FOR MY GRANDCHILDREN AND FOR
MY GREAT GRANDDAUGHTER.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
AND THAT IS WHY I'M SO CONCERNED
ABOUT STATUTORY PAY-GO.
STICKING WITH C.B.O. SCORES, AND
ACCOMMODATING OUR SPENDING AND
REVENUE.
THEY ARE BOTH RELATED,
OBVIOUSLY, AND TO IGNORE THAT --
ELIMINATING REVENUE WITHOUT
ELIMINATING SPENDING DOESN'T
CAUSE DEFICITS I THINK IS TO
IGNORE REALITY.
I'M SORRY, I HOPE MY FRIEND
WOULD TALK TO MR. RYAN, THE
BUDGET COMMITTEE, AND BRING US
LEGISLATION WHICH WOULD, IN
FACT, DO WHAT YOU AND I WANT TO
DO.
THAT IS ELIMINATE THE DEFICIT.
IF WE GOT TWO MESSAGES DURING
THIS PAST ELECTION, IN MY VIEW,
IT WAS, A, FOCUS ON CREATING
JOBS.
WE GOT TO GET TO WORK.
AMERICANS ARE HURTING.
WE HAD SOME GOOD JOB NUMBERS
THIS MONTH.
WE HAVE CREATED OVER $1.3
MILLION JOBS THIS PAST YEAR AS
OPPOSED TO LOSING ALMOST FOUR
MILLION JOBS IN THE LAST YEAR OF
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.
THAT'S PROGRESS.
BUT AS I HAVE SAID SO OFTEN,
IT'S NOT SUCCESS.
SUCCESS WILL BE WHEN EVERY
AMERICAN WHO WANTS A JOB LEARN
TO WORK, CAN -- WILLING TO WORK,
CAN FINE A JOB THAT CAN SUPPORT
HIM OR HER AND THEIR FAMILIES.
BUT WE NEED TO NOT PRETEND THAT
REVENUES AND SPENDING ARE NOT
INEXTRICABLY RELATED.
IF WE GIVE UP REVENUES BEFORE WE
DO THE DIFFICULT THING, THE
TOUGH THING, THE ADULT THING, AS
MR. BOEHNER SAID, AND CUT THE
SPENDING, THEN CUT THE REVENUES
IF AMERICANS ARE BUYING IT, THEN
WE OUGHT TO BE PAYING FOR IT AND
NOT PASSING ALONG THE BILL TO
OUR GRANDCHILDREN.
I WOULD HOPE THE GENTLEMAN WOULD
PURSUE THAT.
IF THE GENTLEMAN WANTS TO
RESPOND TO THAT, I'LL SAY
SOMETHING ABOUT HEALTH CARE,
BRIEFLY.
MADAM SPEAKER, THE
GENTLEMAN AND I HAVE GONE
THROUGH THESE DISCUSSIONS THE
LAST FEW YEARS AND WHEN WE GET
INTO DISCUSSING THE PAST, I
NORMALLY POSIT A QUOTE FROM
WINSTON CHURCHILL WHEN HE SAID
IF WE OPEN A KARL BETWEEN THE
PAST AND PRESENT WE SHALL FIND
WE HAVE LOST THE FUTURE.
AND WHAT MY RESPONSE IS, MADAM
SPEAKER, WE ARE LOOKING TO SEE
THAT WE DO TAKE THE TOUGH STEPS
AND CUT SPENDING.
I'M HOPEFUL WITH ALL THE RENEWED
ENTHUSIASM THAT ALL OF US HAVE
GAINED AFTER THE ELECTION
TOWARDS FISCAL SANITY THAT THE
GENTLEMAN AND HIS CAUCUS CAN
JOIN US AND VOTE WITH US IN
TERMS OF THE SPENDING CUTS THAT
WE'LL BE BRINGING TO THE FLOOR
EVERY WEEK.
REVENUES.
THE GENTLEMAN SPEAKS ABOUT
AND ABSOLUTELY AS AN ONGOING
BE CONCERNED WITH THAT.
CONCERN THIS GOVERNMENT HAS TO
BUT WE FIRST AND FOREMOST MUST
UNDERSTAND THAT I THINK BOTH OF
US REALIZE, MADAM SPEAKER, THAT
IN ORDER TO HAVE REVENUES, WE'VE
GOT TO HAVE A GROWING ECONOMY.
SO THERE IS A BALANCE.
AND THAT IS WHERE I PERHAPS OUR
TWO VISIONS DIVERGE.
IT IS MY HOPE THAT WE CAN WORK
TOGETHER BY PUTTING PRIORITIES
IN PLACE, CUTTING SPENDING,
GROWING THE ECONOMY.
THAT'S THE FORMULA BY WHICH WE
WILL BE OPERATING.
I'M HOPEFUL WE CAN OPERATE ON
THOSE FORMULAS AND THAT FORMULA
TOGETHER.
I YIELD BACK.
I APPRECIATE THE
GENTLEMAN'S COMMENT AND SIMPLY
IN CLOSING, MADAM SPEAKER, LET
ME SAY THIS.
I HOPE WE CAN COOPERATE, BUT WE
DO HAVE A DIVERGENCE AS MY
FRIEND POINTED OUT.
THAT'S THE NATURE OF WHAT THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DOES,
DEBATES DIFFERENTIATE POINTS OF
VIEW.
FRANKLY, MY EXPERIENCE AS I HAVE
SAID IS THAT WHEN WE DIVERGED IN
A POINT OF VIEW IN 1993, WHEN MY
REPUBLICAN FRIENDS TOOK THE
POSITION THAT ACCOMMODATING
REVENUES TO SPENDING WOULD, IN
FACT, FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE, BE
A JOB KILLER, THEY TALK A LOT
ABOUT JOB KILLING LEGISLATION.
THEY ALL VOTED AGAINST THAT
LEGISLATION IN 1993.
AND IN FACT SOME OF MY
COLLEAGUES ON MY SIDE OF THE
AISLE LOST THEIR ELECTION
BECAUSE OF VOTING FOR THAT PIECE
OF LEGISLATION.
IN FACT, HOWEVER, IT HELPED
CREATE THE MOST ROBUST ECONOMY
ANYBODY IN THIS CHAMBER HAS
EXPERIENCED IN THEIR LIFETIME.
IT CREATED OVER 22 MILLION JOBS
AS OPPOSED TO LOSING EIGHT
MILLION JOBS IN THE LAST
ADMINISTRATION UNDER PRESIDENT
BUSH SO THAT THERE WAS A
SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE WHICH YOU
CAN SEE, TOUCH, AND FEEL.
AND READ ABOUT AND KNOW ABOUT.
SO I TELL MY FRIEND, YES,
THERE'S A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION,
BUT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE OF
OPINION ON WHAT HAPPENED.
AND WHEN WINSTON CHURCHILL, YOU
QUOTED BEFORE, AND OF WHOM I'M A
GREAT FAN, ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT WINSTON CHURCHILL WAS MOST
KNOWN FOR WAS TRYING TO REMIND
HIS BRITISH FRIENDS, DON'T
FORGET WHAT DICTATORS AND
DESPOTS DO.
REMEMBER, AND I MAKE NO
ASPERSIONS, I WANT TO MAKE THAT
CLEAR, I'M SIMPLY SAYING HE
BELIEVED STRONGLY IN LEARNING
FROM THE PAST.
AND NOT CONTINUING TO MAKE
MISTAKES AND NOT CONTINUE TO DO
WHAT FAILED IN YEARS BEFORE.
SO I AGREE WITH THE GENTLEMAN.
LOOKING AT THE PAST IS FOR
INSTRUCTION ON HOW TO MAKE THE
FUTURE BETTER AND TO CREATE
THOSE JOBS THAT BOTH HE AND I
WANT TO CREATE.
AND AMERICA IS CERTAINLY LOOKING
FORWARD TO US TO CREATE.
I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR THIS
COLLOQUY AND I YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA RISE?
I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT WHEN THE HOUSE
ADJOURNS TODAY IT ADJOURNS TO
MEET AT 12:00 NOON ON TUESDAY
NEXT FOR MORNING HOUR DEBATE AND
2:00 P.M. FOR LEGISLATIVE
BUSINESS.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
THE CHAIR LAYS BEFORE THE HOUSE
THE FOLLOWING PERSONAL REQUESTS.
LEAVES OF ABSENCE
REQUESTED FOR MR. JONES OF NORTH
CAROLINA FOR TODAY AND MR. SMITH
OF NEBRASKA FOR TODAY.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION, THOSE REQUESTS ARE
GRANTED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA SEEK
RECOGNITION?
THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
FOR ONE MINUTE.
THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.
I RISE TODAY FOR THE FIRST TIME
TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE AND EXPRESS
MY STRONG SUPPORT FOR PASSAGE OF
A FREE TRADE AGREEMENT WITH
COLOMBIA.
COLOMBIA IS AMERICA'S FOURTH
LARGEST TRADING PARTNER IN LATIN
AMERICA AND THE U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF COMMERCE ESTIMATES THAT 9,000
AMERICAN COMPANIES TRADE WITH
COLOMBIA.
MOST OF WHICH ARE SMALL
BUSINESSES AND MANY OF WHICH
OPERATE IN MY DISTRICT IN SOUTH
FLORIDA.
WHILE 90% OF COLOMBIAN GOODS
ENTER THE U.S. DUTY FREE,
AMERICAN COMPANIES STILL PAY
PAIR RIFFS FOR U.S. GOODS TO
ENTER COLOMBIA.
THE COLOMBIA FREE TRADE
AGREEMENT WOULD ELIMINATE
OBSTACLES AND IMMEDIATELY BOOST
U.S. EXPORTS TO COLOMBIA.
BY PASSING A FREE TRADE
AGREEMENT WITH COLOMBIA, U.S.
G.D.P. WOULD INCREASE BY ROUGHLY
$2.5 BILL AN EXPORT BY OVER $1
BILLION CREATING THOUSANDS OF
JOBS IN THE UNITED STATES.
THE COLOMBIA FREE
TRADE AGREEMENT IS A POSITIVE
FOREIGN POLICY GESTURE TO ONE OF
OUR MOST RELIABLE ALLIES IN THE
REASONABLE YODGE AND OLDEST
CONTINUING FUNCTIONING DEMOCRACY
IN ALL OF SOUTH AMERICA.
IT'S TIME TO STAND WITH ONE OF
OUR BEST ALLIES IN LATIN AMERICA
AND CREATE THOUSANDS OF JOBS
HERE AT HOME WITH PASSAGE OF A
.
COLOMBIA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT.
THANK YOU.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DUDS THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM TEXAS RISE?
TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE FOR ONE
MINUTE.
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MR. SPEAKER.
I'M WONDERING WHETHER MANY
PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT WE DID
TODAY.
FRANKLY, WE GAVE PERMISSION FOR
MORE AMERICANS TO DIE FROM LACK
OF GOOD HEALTH CARE.
IN FACT, AS I PRESENTED MY
AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES
COMMITTEE LAST EVENING, I WAS
REMINDED, YOU WILL, OF THOSE
WHO REALLY SUFFER BECAUSE OF
LACK OF ACCESS TO GOOD HEALTH
CARE.
I OFFERED AN AMENDMENT TO
ENSURE THAT H.R. 2 TO REPEAL
THIS GOOD HEALTH CARE BILL
WOULD NOT ELIMINATE WHAT WE
CALL COMMUNITY HEALTH CLINICS
AND DENY RURAL AND URBAN AREAS
THE GOOD DOCTORS AND NURSES WHO
TREAT THE CHILDREN AND SENIORS.
THEN I ASKED THAT WE PROTECT
MIDDLE CLASS AND NOT HAVE THE
INSURANCE RATE GOES UP AND
FINALLY TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T
HAVE THE MEDICARE AND MEDICAID
FRAUD AND ABUSE AND TO PROTECT
THOSE WHO NEED MEDICAID AS MY
STATE OF TEXAS IS GOING TO
ELIMINATE IT.
SO PEOPLE WILL DIE AS WE
PROCEED IN THIS UNTIMELY AND
LUDICROUS PROCESS.
BUT I'M GLAD THAT SOMEONE FROM
MY DISTRICT WILL ASCEND TO
PRESIDENCY OF THE NAACP IN OUR
LOCAL COMMUNITY.
I BELIEVE WITH THESE
GOOD-THINKING PEOPLE WE'LL BE
ABLE TO RISE UP AND SAVE THE
LIVES AND OPPOSE ANY REPEAL OF
BILL.
THIS GOOD, AFFORDABLE CARE
I YIELD BACK.
ARE
THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS WHO
MINUTE?
WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED FOR ONE
IF NOT -- FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES
THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM OHIO SEEK
RECOGNITION?
I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT TODAY FOLLOWING
LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS AND ANY
SPECIAL -- SPECIAL ORDERS
ENTERED INTO HERETOFORE, THE
FOLLOWING MEMBERS MAY BE
ALLOWED TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE
FOR FIVE MINUTES AND REVISE AND
EXTEND MARE REMARKS, MR.
BLUMENAUER OF OREGON FOR FIVE
MINUTES, MR. MCDERMOTT OF WITH
WASHINGTON FOR FIVE MINUTES,
MR. AL GREEN OF TEXAS FOR FIVE
MINUTES MRKS KAPTUR OF OHIO FOR
FIVE MINUTES, MR. DEFAZIO OF
OREGON FOR FIVE MINUTES.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORD.
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM TEXAS RISE?
I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT TODAY FOLLOWING
LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS AND ANY
SPECIAL ORDERS HERETOFORE
ENTERED INTO, THE FOLLOWING
MEMBER MACE BE PERMITTED TO
ADDRESS THE HOUSE, REVISE AND
EXTEND THEIR REMARKS AND
INCLUDE THEREIN EXTRANEOUS
MATERIAL.
MR. FRANKS FOR TODAY, MR. PENCE
FOR TODAY, MR. BARTLETT FOR
JANUARY 11 AND JANUARY 12 AND
DR. PAUL FOR JANUARY 11 AND
JANUARY 12.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORD.
-- SO ORDERED.
UNDER THE SPEAKER'S ANNOUNCED
POLICY OF -- POLICY OF JANUARY
5, 2011, AND UNDER A PREVIOUSED
ORER OF THE HOUSE, THE
FOLLOWING MEMBERS ARE
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES
EACH.
MR. BLUMENAUER OF OREGON.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR
FIVE MINUTES.
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO
REVISE AND EXTEND MY REMARKS.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MR. SPEAKER,