Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
ABSOLUTELY UNTHINKING, IT IS
MINDLESS THING TO COME OUT HERE
WITH THIS REPEAL.
AND I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF
MY TIME.
THE
CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN
MADAM SPEAKER,
FROM GEORGIA, MR. GINGREY.
THANK YOU.
MY REMARKS WILL BE ABOUT SAVING
MONEY, BUT I CAN'T HELP BUT TAKE
AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE
PREVIOUS SPEAKER, MY GOOD
FRIEND, THE GENTLEMAN, THE GOOD
DOCTOR FROM THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON.
I WOULD SAY TO HIM, MADAM
SPEAKER, AND TO MY COLLEAGUES,
WHEN WE REPEAL OBAMACARE, THAT
WE'LL DO IN THIS HOUSE NEXT
WEDNESDAY, PARENTS WILL ONCE
AGAIN BE ABLE TO AFFORD A HEALTH
INSURANCE POLICY ON WHICH TO
INCLUDE THEIR ADULT CHILDREN.
THAT'S WHAT WE'LL BE DOING.
AS FAR AS THIS $110 BILLION
WORTH OF SAVINGS WE LOSE IN
REPEALING OBAMACARE, MADAM
SPEAKER, WE SPENT $1.1 TRILLION
TO SAVE $110 BILLION.
HEY, MADAM SPEAKER, IT'S TRUE.
YOU CAN INDEED GO BROKE TRYING
TO SAVE MONEY.
WITH THAT, MADAM SPEAKER, LET ME
GET ON TO MY FIVE-MINUTE
DISCUSSION AND I RISE TODAY TO
ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO
RECALL THE CONVERSATIONS THEY
HAD WITH THEIR CONSTITUENTS
DURING THE RECENT CAMPAIGN
SEASON.
AS WE BEGIN THE TELFT CONGRESS
TO REMEMBER THAT THE -- 112TH
CONGRESS TO REMEMBER THAT THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE SPOKE WITH A
RESOUNDING VOICE.
THEY TOLD US TO ABIDE BY THE
CONSTITUTION, CREATE JOBS, REIN
IN RESPONSIBILITY, AND END THE
CULTURE OF CRAFTING LEGISLATION
IN THE DARK OF NIGHT, 2,400
PAGES ON THE HEALTH CARE BILL,
OUTSIDE OF THE VIEW OF THE
PUBLIC.
IN ORDER TO FULFILL THIS MANDATE
WE MUST FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE
WASHINGTON.
WAY WE DO BUSINESS HERE IN
I HAVE TAKEN THE FIRST STEP BY
INTRODUCING SEVERAL LEGISLATIVE
INITIATIVES THIS WEEK AND THEY
ARE ALL CENTERED AROUND THE
PURSUIT OF MEANINGFUL GOVERNMENT
REFORM.
MADAM SPEAKER, TRANSPARENCY IS
AN INTEGRAL PART OF THIS PACKAGE
AND IT'S A NECESSARY ELEMENT FOR
REAL GOVERNMENT REFORM.
FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE
CONSTITUTION, A DOCUMENT,
CRITICAL TO UNDERSTANDING OUR
PARAMETERS AND RESPONSIBILITY,
IT WAS READ RIGHT HERE IN THE
HOUSE TODAY ON THE HOUSE FLOOR.
I'M PROUD TO HAVE INTRODUCED A
BILL AS PART OF MY INITIATIVE
STATING THAT ANY LEGISLATION
BROUGHT TO THE FLOOR MUST CITE
ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY.
MANY MAY FIND IT SURPRISING TO
KNOW, MADAM SPEAKER, THAT WHILE
VOTES TAKEN ON THE FLOOR OF THE
HOUSE ARE AVAILABLE ON THE NET
-- TO VIEW ON THE WEBSITE,
IN COMMITTEE.
THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE
THEREFORE MY PACKAGE ALSO
BILL.
CONTAINS A COMMEENT TRANSPARENCY
IT WOULD REQUIRE COMMITTEE VOTES
TO BE POSTED ON LINE, THE
COMMITTEE WEBSITE, WITHIN 48
HOURS SO THAT THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE ARE KEPT BETTER INFORMED
OF WHAT THEIR MEMBERS ARE DOING
AND HOW THEY ARE VOTING IN
COMMITTEE.
MADAM SPEAKER, REJECTION BY THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE OF DEMOCRATS'
RECKLESS SPENDING EMPHASIZES THE
IMPORTANCE OF FISCAL
RESPONSIBILITY, DOESN'T IT?
THIS IS A REASON I INCORPORATED
THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT INTO MY PLAN.
EACH YEAR MY COLLEAGUES AND I
RECEIVE A FIXED BUDGET FOR ALL
EXPENSES.
WE CALL THAT THE M.R.A., MEMBER
REPRESENTATIONAL ACCOUNTS.
THIS BILL WOULD CODIFY THAT OUR
UNUSED M.R.A. FUNDS MUST BE
RETURNED TO THE TREASURY FOR
DEBT AND DEFICIT REDUCTION.
ALONG THESE LINES I HAVE ALSO
INCLUDED WHAT'S CALLED THE
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT WHICH
WILL PRECLUDE ANY MEMBER OF
CONGRESS FROM BEING ELIGIBLE FOR
A PAY ADJUSTMENT, SO-CALLED
COLA, IF WE HAVE INCURRED A
BUDGET DEFICIT IN THE PREVIOUS
FISCAL YEAR.
WE MAY NOT HAVE A BALANCED
BUDGET AMENDMENT, MADAM SPEAKER,
BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN'T
BALANCE THE BUDGET.
FIRE.
I WANT TO HOLD OUR FEET TO THE
THIS IS YET ANOTHER WAY THAT WE
CAN DO THAT.
ALSO IN THE PACKAGE, MADAM
SPEAKER, IS THE BILL TO PREVENT
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES FROM ENGAGING
IN UNION ACTIVITY ON OFFICIAL
TIME.
IT'S AMAZING THAT THIS GOES ON.
BUT WE HAVE ESTIMATED THAT IN A
FIVE-YEAR PERIOD OF TIME WE
COULD SAVE THE TAXPAYER OVER
$600 BILLION -- I'M SORRY,
MILLION, AND $1.2 BILLION IN A
10-YEAR PERIOD OF TIME.
PUT SIMPLY, IT'S UNACCEPTABLE
THAT THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
PAID WITH, YES, YOUR TAX
DOLLARS, ARE CURRENTLY PERMITTED
TO SPEND TIME DURING THEIR
WORKDAY PERFORMING UNION
ACTIVITIES.
AND I HAVE ALREADY GIVEN YOU THE
SAVINGS.
EQUALLY UNACCEPTABLE IS THAT
LEGISLATORS IN WASHINGTON
COMMONLY ATTACH LEGISLATION THAT
CANNOT PASS ON ITS OWN MERITS TO
UNRELATED MUST-PASS BILLS.
LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION-V.A.
A COUPLE YEARS AGO WE PASSED
THAT OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH
ALMOST 100% BIPARTISAN VOTE.
THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY HELD
THAT BILL UP FOR 100 DAYS
BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO ATTACH AN
UNPOPULAR BILL.
SOMETHING LIKE THE DREAM ACT OR
DON'T-ASK, DON'T-TELL, SOME
CONTROVERSIAL BILL.
AND PUT OUR VETERANS AT
JEOPARDY.
LITERALLY HELD THEM HOSTAGE.
THIS BILL, MADAM SPEAKER, WOULD
SAY FROM NOW ON NO ATTACHING
UNPOPULAR BILLS TO GOOD STAND
ALONE BILLS, ESPECIALLY IF --
STAND-ALONE BILLS, ESPECIALLY IF
MILITARY.
THEY ARE FOR OUR VETERAN
MADAM SPEAKER, IN CONCLUSION
WHILE THESE MAY SEEM LIKE A
SMALL START COMPARED TO THE BIG
CHALLENGE WE HAVE AHEAD OF US,
IT IS A PATWAY TO -- PATHWAY TO
START CHANGING BUSINESS AS USUAL
IN WASHINGTON AND FULFILL THE
PROMISE WE MADE ON NOVEMBER 2 TO
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
MS.
KAPTUR OF OHIO.
MR. MCCLINTOCK OF CALIFORNIA.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES MR.
MCCLINTOCK FOR FIVE MINUTES.
THANK YOU.
MADAM SPEAKER, I RISE TODAY TO
EXPRESS MY HOPE THAT HISTORIANS
WILL LOOK BACK ON THE 112TH
CONGRESS', THE SESSION THAT
RESTORED AMERICAN PROSPERITY,
AND EXPRESS MY STRONG AGREEMENT
WITH THE NEW LEADERS OF THIS
HOUSE WHO DECLARED THAT EVERY
ACTION OF THIS BODY MUST BE
MEASURED AGAINST THIS GOAL.
WE SPEAK OF JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.
BUT JOBS ARE MERELY A BYPRODUCT
OF PROSPERITY AND PROSPERITY IS
THE PRODUCT OF FREEDOM.
GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CREATE JOBS
OR WEALTH.
IT MERELY REDISTRIBUTES THEM.
JOBS AND WEALTH CAN ONLY BE
CREATED THROUGH THE FREE
EXCHANGE OF GOODS AND SERVICES
IN A FREE MARKET.
GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IS TO CREATE
AND PROTECT THE CONDITIONS WHICH
PROMOTE PROSPERITY.
IF I GIVE YOU A DOLLAR FOR A CUP
OF COFFEE, WHAT'S GOING ON IN
THAT TRANSACTION?
I'M TELLING YOU THAT YOUR CUP OF
COFFEE'S WORTH MORE TO ME THAN
MY DOLLAR, AND AT THE SAME TIME
YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT MY DOLLAR
IS WORTH MORE TO YOU THAN YOUR
CUP OF COFFEE.
WE MAKE THAT EXCHANGE.
AND BOTH OF US GO AWAY WITH
SOMETHING OF GREATER VALUE THAN
WE TOOK INTO IT.
EACH OF US GOES AWAY RICHER.
THAT'S THE FREEDOM THAT CREATES
PROSPERITY.
THAT SIMPLE EXCHANGE WHETHER
IT'S FOR A CUP OF COFFEE OR
MULTIBILLION DOLLAR ACQUISITION,
THAT IS WHAT CREATES WEALTH.
BUT NOW SUPPOSE SOME THIRD PARTY
BUTTS ITS NOSE INTO THE
TRANSACTION.
NO, THE COFFEE HAS BETWEEN 110
AND 130 DEGREES, IT HAS TO
INCLUDE A SWIZZLE STICK,
CONSUMED MORE THAN 25 FEET FROM
THE POINT OF SALE.
EVERY ONE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS
REDUCES THE VALUE OF THAT
EXCHANGE FOR THE ONE OR BOTH OF
US.
THAT'S THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM
THAT WE FACE TODAY.
OUR GOVERNMENT IS NOT ONLY
FAILED -- HAS NOT ONLY FAILED TO
PROTECT THE FREEDOM THAT CREATES
PROSPERITY BUT IT'S BECOME
DESTRUCTIVE OF THAT FREEDOM.
TO CREATE JOBS WE MUST RESTORE
PROSPERITY, AND TO RESTORE
PROSPERITY WE MUST RESTORE
FREEDOM.
WE MUST RESTORE THE FREEDOM OF
CHOICE THAT GIVES CONSUMERS THE
ULTIMATE SALE OVER THE OUTPUT OF
OUR ECONOMY.
IN A FREE AND PROSPEROUS
SOCIETY, CONSUMERS VOTE EVERY
DAY WITH THEIR OWN DOLLARS ON
WHAT KIND OF LIGHT BULBS THEY
PREFER OR ON HOW THEY WANT TO
GET TO WORK OR WHAT FOODS THEY
LIKE OR HOW MUCH WATER THEY WANT
TO PUT IN THEIR TOILETS OR WHAT
KIND OF CARS THEY WANT OR
HOUSING THEY DESIRE.
THESE CONSUMER CHOICES SIGNAL
EVERY DAY WHAT THINGS ARE
ACTUALLY WORTH AND WHAT OUR
ECONOMY WILL ACTUALLY PRODUCE.
GOVERNMENT IS DESTROYING THE
ELEGANT SIMPLESTITY OF THIS
PROCESS AND CONGRESS MUST
REVERSE THIS DESTRUCTION.
WE MUST RESTORE THE FREEDOM OF
INDIVIDUALS TO ENJOY THE FRUIT
OF THEIR OWN LABOR SO THEY CAN
MAKE THESE DECISIONS FOR THEIR
SEMS -- THEM SELVES ONCE AGAIN.
THAT'S WHY EXCESSIVE GOVERNMENT
PROSPERITY.
SPENDING IS SO DESTRUCTIVE TO
IT DESTROYS THE FREEDOM OF
INDIVIDUALS TO MAKE THEIR OWN
DECISIONS OVER WHAT TO SPEND AND
WHERE TO INVEST THEIR OWN MONEY.
IT ROBS THEM OF BOTH THE ABILITY
AND INCENTIVES TO CREATE
PROSPERITY.
PRESIDENTS LIKE COOLIDGE,
TRUMAN, REAGAN, AND CLINTON WHO
HAVE REDUCED GOVERNMENT SPENDING
RELATIVE TO G.D.P. ALL PRODUCED
DRAMATIC INCREASES IN
PRODUCTIVITY AND PROSPERITY AND
THE GENERAL WELFARE OF OUR
NATION.
AND PRESIDENTS LIKE HOOVER,
ROOSEVELT, BUSH, AND OBAMA WHO
HAVE INCREASED GOVERNMENT
SPENDING RELATIVE TO G.D.P. ALL
PRODUCED OR PROLONGED OR
DEEPENED PERIODS OF ECONOMIC
RECESSION AND HARDSHIP AND
MALAISE.
OUR GOVERNMENT'S NOW EMBARKED
UPON THE LATTER COURSE AND THIS
CONGRESS MUST REVERSE THIS
DIRECTION.
GOVERNMENT HAS AN IMPORTANT ROLE
TO PLAY IN THE MARKETPLACE.
IT'S THERE TO ASSURE THAT
REPRESENTATIONS ARE ACCURATE AND
THAT CONTRACTS ARE ENFORCED.
YOU HAVE TO TELL THE TRUTH.
YOU HAVE TO KEEP YOUR PROMISES.
AND GOVERNMENT HAS AN IMPORTANT
ROLE TO PLAY IN ASSURING THAT.
GOVERNMENT EXISTS TO ASSURE THAT
THE CURRENCY IS STABLE AND
RELIABLE AND THAT PROPERTY
RIGHTS ARE SECURE.
WHEN IT FULFILLS THIS
FUNDAMENTAL ROLE, IT MAXIMIZES
THE FREEDOM THE BUYER AND SELLER
HAVE TO ASSESS THEIR OWN NEEDS
AND RESOURCES, AND TO MAKE THOSE
EXCHANGES THAT ALLOW BOTH TO GO
AWAY BETTER OFF THAN THEY WERE.
MADAM SPEAKER, LET US TOGETHER
REVIVE AND RESTORE THE FREEDOM
AND PROSPERITY OF THIS NATION
AND FULFILL THAT SACRED COMMAND
INSCRIBED ON OUR LIBERTY BELL,
TO PROCLAIM LIBERTY THROUGHOUT
ALL THE LAND AND UNDER ALL THE
INHABITANTS THEREOF.
I YIELD BACK.
MR.
DEFAZIO OF OREGON.
MADAM SPEAKER.
FOR
RISE?
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
I ASK PERMISSION TO
SPEAK FOR FIVE MINUTES OUT OF
ORDER.
TO REVISE AND EXTEND MY REMARKS.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
THANK YOU, MADAM
SPEAKER.
THIS COMING WEDNESDAY THE REALLY
FIRST ORDER OF REAL BUSINESS OF
THE HOUSE, WE ARE VOTING ON
HEALTH CARE REFORM REPEAL.
THE NEW REPUBLICAN MAJORITY HAS
DECIDED THAT THIS IS THE MOST
IMPORTANT ISSUE.
EVEN THOUGH THEY KNOW THAT IT'S
POLITICAL THEATER, CHARADE, IT
MAY PASS THE HOUSE.
BUT IT WON'T PASS THE SENATE AND
CERTAINLY THE PRESIDENT WOULD
VETO IT.
.
SO THIS IS NOT BECOMING LAW.
AT A TIME WHEN WE HAVE SO MANY
PRESSING ISSUES, I AM SADDENED
THAT THE MAJORITY WANTS TO
CONDUCT THIS POLITICAL CHARADE.
YOU KNOW, IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS
WITH THE HEALTH CARE LAW, WE
DON'T HAVE TO REPEAL IT, WE CAN
CHANGE PARTS OF IT, WE CAN
TWEAK IT, WE COULD PUT OUT OF
THE BILL WHAT WE DON'T LIKE AND
KEEP IN THE BILL WHAT WE DO
LIKE.
BUT, UNFORTUNATELY, THE
ATTITUDE, THE DECISION HAS BEEN
MADE TO TRY TO REPEAL THE WHOLE
BILL.
MY CONSTITUENTS UNDERSTAND THAT
AS WE SPEAK NOW THE RULES
COMMITTEE IS DISCUSSING WHAT
KIND OF AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW,
AND WE KNOW NO REAL MEANINGFUL
AMENDMENTS, IF ANYTHING, IS
GOING TO BE ALLOWED.
SO THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY
COMING IN SAYS THAT THEY ARE
GOING TO HAVE OPEN RULES AND
WE'RE NOT REALLY GOING TO HAVE
AN OPEN RULE ON THE VERY FIRST
BILL THAT THEY ARE GOING TO
ATTEMPT TO PASS WHICH IS A
REPEAL OF HEALTH CARE REFORM.
I THINK THAT'S WRONG.
I THINK THERE ARE MANY OF US
WHO FEEL STRONGLY THAT THERE
OUGHT TO BE SOME RULES THAT WE
CAN -- SOME AMENDMENTS WE CAN
PUT IN TO ENSURE THAT THE GOOD
COVERAGE THAT WE HAVE ACHIEVED
IN THE HEALTH CARE BILL IS
KEPT.
SURELY IT'S NOT EVERYTHING
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE HEALTH
CARE BILL WHICH MY COLLEAGUES
OPPOSE.
I WANT TO ASK THEM SINCE THEY
WANT TO REPEAL THE BILL, ARE
THEY AGAINST THE PART OF THE
BILL WHICH SAYS THAT YOU CAN
KEEP YOUR CHILD ON YOUR HEALTH
CARE BILL -- ON YOUR HEALTH
CARE COVERAGE TILL AGE 26?
I THINK MY CONSTITUENTS LIKE
THAT, AND I THINK THEIRS DO AS
WELL.
DO THEY WANT TO REPEAL THE PART
THAT SAYS THAT AN INSURANCE
COMPANY CAN NO LONGER DENY YOU
COVERAGE BECAUSE OF A SO-CALLED
PRE-EXISTING CONDITION?
I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT
ALL CONSTITUENTS LIKE AND
APPRECIATE.
DO THE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO
REPEAL THE HEALTH CARE REFORM
BILL WANT TO SAY TO INSURANCE
COMPANIES, IT'S OK TO PUT CAPS
ON PEOPLE SO WHEN THEY PAY
THEIR PREMIUM YEAR IN AND YEAR
OUT AND THEY FINALLY GET SICK
AND THEY ASK FOR COVERAGE THE
COMPANIES CAN TELL THEM, SORRY,
NOT ONLY DO YOU HAVE A
PRE-EXISTING CONDITION BUT
THERE'S ALSO A CAP ON BENEFITS,
EITHER AN ANNUAL CAP OR A
LIFETIME CAP, SO, THEREFORE,
AT ALL?
WE'RE NOT GOING TO COVERAGE YOU
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S
CONSTITUENTS WANTS THAT PART TO
BE REPEALED.
AND WHAT ABOUT THE DOUGHNUT
HOLE FOR SENIORS IN MEDICARE
PART D?
YOU KNOW, SENIORS HAVE FOUND IT
VERY, VERY DIFFICULT.
THEY GET PART OF THEIR
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS PAID FOR AND
THERE'S A DOUGHNUT HOLE WHICH
IS FOR A LONG TIME THEY HAVE TO
PAY FOR EVERYTHING THEMSELVES
WHILE AT THE SAME TIME STILL
PAYING THEIR MONTHLY PREMIUMS
TO THE GOVERNMENT AND THEN AT
THE END THEY GET THE GOVERNMENT
TO COME IN AND HELP THEM.
THAT HAS PUT A TREMENDOUS
BURDEN ON SENIORS, AND WHAT THE
HEALTH CARE BILL, WHICH WAS
PASSED BY THE LAST CONGRESS,
DOES IS IT EVENTUALLY REMOVES
THAT DOUGHNUT HOLE FOR SENIORS
SO SENIORS CAN GET BACK MONEY
AND IT STARTS RIGHT AWAY WHERE
THEY CAN GET BACK MONEY TO HELP
PAY FOR THOSE PRESCRIPTION
DRUGS.
SO I THINK THAT WE HEAR A LOT
ABOUT LAME-DUCK SESSION AND HOW
WE ALL WORK TOGETHER AND HOW
THE BIG QUESTION OF THE NEW
CONGRESS IS GOING TO BE, IS IT
GOING TO BE A STALEMATE, IS IT
GOING TO BE GRIDLOCK, OR IS IT
GOING TO BE PEOPLE COMING
TOGETHER IN A BIPARTISAN
FASHION TO TRY TO WORK
TOGETHER?
IF THE FIRST BILL THAT THE
REPUBLICAN MAJORITY IS PUTTING
ON THE FLOOR IS ANY INDICATION,
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THEY'VE
CHOSEN GRIDLOCK, AND I THINK
I'M REALLY SORRY ABOUT THAT
BECAUSE I WILL ADMIT THERE ARE
SOME THINGS IN THE NEW HEALTH
CARE LAW THAT SHOULD BE CHANGED
AND THAT WE SHOULD WORK ACROSS
THE AISLE TOGETHER TO MAKE
SURE THAT CHANGES.
BUT TO REPEAL THE PROVISIONS
THAT BENEFIT MY CONSTITUENTS
AND EVERYONE ELSE'S
CONSTITUENTS ALL ACROSS AMERICA
TO ME MAKES NO SENSE
WHATSOEVER.
THE BIG INSURANCE COMPANIES
HAVE HAD IT TOO BIG TOO LONG,
AND MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES,
UNFORTUNATELY, ARE RIGHT IN BED
WITH THEM, AND I THINK THAT IS
SOMETHING THAT THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE OUGHT TO SEE.
WHO DO WE CARE ABOUT, THE BIG
INSURANCE COMPANIES OR DO WE
CARE ABOUT THE AVERAGE AMERICAN
WHO IS STRUGGLING DAY IN AND
DAY OUT TO GET HEALTH CARE
COVERAGE?
WE HAVE ALMOST 50 MILLION
AMERICANS WITHOUT COVERAGE.
IT'S NOT ONLY THE PEOPLE WHO
ARE NOT COVERED NOW BUT IT'S
WORKING PEOPLE WHO WILL FIND
OUT IN THE DAYS AND MONTHS
AHEAD IF THERE IS NO HEALTH
CARE BILL THAT DAY WILL BE
ADDED TO THE ROLLS OF PEOPLE
WHO ARE UNCOVERED AND PEOPLE
WORKING HARD WILL FIND OUT THAT
THE 50 MILLION WILL SWELL TO 60
MILLION AND 70 MILLION AND
MAYBE EVEN MORE.
AND SO IT'S GOING TO AFFECT ALL
OF US BECAUSE THE HEALTH CARE
COSTS HAVE BEEN RISING WAY, WAY
BEYOND THE RATE OF INFLATION,
AND THAT'S WHY WE NEEDED TO
HAVE HEALTH CARE REFORM.
SO I SAY TO MY FRIENDS ON THE
OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE, LET'S
NOT POSTURE POLITICALLY.
LET'S TRY TO PUT OUR HEADS
TOGETHER AND WORK IN A
BIPARTISAN FASHION TO DO
PEOPLE.
SOMETHING FOR THE AMERICAN
IF THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE
BILL THAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED,
THEN WE SHOULD CHANGE IT, BUT
REPEAL IS NOT THE ANSWER.
EVERY MAJOR BILL FROM SOCIAL
SECURITY TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS
BILLS OF THE 1960'S TO MEDICARE
AND MEDICAID ALL HAD TO BE
TWEAKED AFTER THEY WERE PASSED,
ALL HAD TO BE CHANGED A LITTLE
BIT.
BILL.
THE SAME THING IS WITH THIS
WE SHOULD NOT REPEAL IT, WE
SHOULD FIX IT.
THANK YOU.
I YIELD BACK.
MR.
GOODLATTE FROM VIRGINIA.
MADAM SPEAKER, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO SPEAK OUT
OF ORDER TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE
FOR FIVE MINUTES AND TO REVISE
AND EXTEND MY REMARKS.
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MADAM SPEAKER,
EARLIER TODAY, THE HISTORIC
OCCASION OF THE FIRST READING
OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION HERE ON THE FLOOR
OF THE HOUSE TOOK PLACE, AND IT
WAS A VERY GOOD BIPARTISAN
OCCASION WHERE NEARLY 1/3 OF
ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES PARTICIPATED IN
THAT READING.
UNFORTUNATELY, DURING THE
READING ONE OF THE MEMBERS
WHILE THEY WERE READING FROM
THE NOTEBOOK AT THE PODIUM
TURNED TWO OF THE PAGES AND TWO
PAGES OF THE CONSTITUTION WERE
NOT READ.
AND SO I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT
THAT I NOW READ THOSE PAGES AND
IF THEY BE PLACED INTO THE
READING OF THE CONSTITUTION AS
IT OCCURRED EARLIER IN THE DAY
SO THAT WE HAVE A COMPLETE
READING OF THE CONSTITUTION.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
IT SHALL PROTECT
EACH OF THEM AGAINST INVASION
AND ON APPLICATION OF THE
LEGISLATIVE OR OF THE EXECUTIVE
WHEN THE LEGISLATURE CANNOT BE
CONVENED AGAINST DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE.
ARTICLE 5.
THE CONGRESS, WHENEVER 2/3 OF
BOTH HOUSES SHALL DEEM IT
NECESSARY, SHALL PROPOSE
AMENDMENTS TO THIS CONSTITUTION
OR ON THE APPLICATION OF THE
LEGISLATURES OF 2/3 OF THE
SEVERAL STATES SHALL CALL A
CONVENTION FOR PROPOSING
AMENDMENTS WHICH IN EITHER CASE
SHALL BE VALID TO ALL INTENTS
AND PURPOSES AS PART OF THIS
CONSTITUTION WHEN RATIFIED BY
THE LEGISLATURES OF 3/4 OF THE
SEVERAL STATES.
THAT IS THE PORTION THAT WAS
OMITTED EARLIER, AND THAT BY
UNANIMOUS CONSENT IS NOW
INCLUDED IN THE READING OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
BACK.
I THANK THE SPEAKER AND YIELD
MR.
BURTON OF INDIANA.
MADAM SPEAKER.
FOR
RISE?
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
I WISH TO RECLAIM MY TIME.
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
THANK YOU, MADAM
SPEAKER.
MORE BORDER AGENTS ARE BEING
SENT TO THE BORDER.
THE BORDER, AS WE ALL KNOW, IS
VIOLENT, DANGEROUS AND IT IS
NOT SAFE.
DRUGS AND GUNS AND PEOPLE AND
MONEY CROSS BACK AND FORTH THE
BORED -- BORDER BECAUSE TWO
NATIONS DON'T HAVE OPERATIONAL
CONTROL OF THAT BORDER.
THE BORDER IS DESLOATE, IT IS
HARD, IT IS A WAR ZONE.
BUT, MADAM SPEAKER, I AM NOT
TALKING ABOUT THE BORDER OF THE
UNITED STATES WITH MEXICO.
I AM TALKING ABOUT THE SOUTHERN
BORDER OR THE BORDER WITH
PAKISTAN AND AFGHANISTAN.
THAT'S RIGHT.
BORDER PATROL AGENTS FROM THE
UNITED STATES ARE GOING TO
AFGHANISTAN TO PROTECT THE
AFGHAN BORDER FROM THE TALIBAN
COMING IN FROM PAKISTAN.
IT IS A WAR ZONE OVER THERE.
AND THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, JANET NAPOLITANO, HAS
SAID WE ARE GOING TO CONTRIBUTE
BORDER PATROL AGENTS TO PROTECT
THE BORDER OF AFGHANISTAN.
THERE ARE ALREADY 25 THERE, AND
MORE ARE ON THE WAY.
MADAM SPEAKER, WHY ARE BORDER
PATROL AGENTS FROM THE UNITED
STATES GOING TO AFGHANISTAN?
THE MARINES AND OUR SOLDIERS
AND OUR TROOPS OVER THERE CAN
DO THE JOB, BUT MORE
IMPORTANTLY, WE NEED THE BORDER
PATROL AGENTS OVER HERE.
HOMELAND SECURITY MEANS THAT
THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND
SECURITY PROTECTS THE AMERICAN
HOMELAND, NOT THE HOMELAND OF
SOME OTHER NATION.
WE NEED THE HELP.
IN FACT, WE NEED THE MILITARY
ON OUR SOUTHERN BORDER.
OUR BORDER IS A WAR ZONE.
DRUGS AND PEOPLE AND MONEY
CRISSCROSS OUR BORDER WITH
MEXICO.
IT IS A VIOLENT PLACE.
IT IS THE THIRD FRONT.
MORE RECENTLY, WE HAVE HAD
SEVERAL PEOPLE MURDERED ON THE
BATTLE FRONT ON OUR BORDER.
LET ME RELATE THREE OF THOSE.
ONE OF THOSE WAS A 27-YEAR-OLD
FEMALE POLICE CHIEF IN MEXICO
RIGHT ON THE BORDER WITH THE
UNITED STATES.
CHIEF GARCIA WAS ON THE JOB FOR
51 DAYS AND SHE WAS SHOT DOWN
AND SHOT SEVEN TIMES BY THE
DRUG CARTEL.
RECENT HOMICIDE ON THE BORDER.
BORDER PATROL AGENT BRIAN TERRY
WAS SHOT IN THE BACK WHILE HE
WAS PROTECTING OUR BORDER.
IRONICALLY HE HAD BEEN TO IRAQ
AND AFGHANISTAN AS A SOLDIER,
AS A MARINE, AND NOW HE CAME
BACK HERE AND KILLED ON OUR
BORDER.
AND DAVID HARTLEY WAS KILLED ON
FALCON LAKE WITH HIS WIFE,
TIFFANY, SHOT AND KILLED BY THE
DRUG CARTELS.
OUR HOMELAND IS NOT PROTECTED
ADEQUATELY, AND IT'S TIME THAT
WE PUT BORDER PATROL AGENTS ON
OUR BORDER BUT ALSO WE PUT THE
NATIONAL GUARD ON OUR SOUTHERN
BORDER.
IT IS THE THIRD FRONT.
HOMELAND SECURITY SHOULD
PROTECT IT AND THAT'S JUST THE
WAY IT IS.
I YIELD BACK.
MR.
JONES OF NORTH CAROLINA.
THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
MADAM SPEAKER, TODAY
I HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH OF TYLER
JORDAN WHOSE FATHER, PHILIP,
WAS A MARINE GUNNERY SERGEANT
KILLED IN IRAQ.
I SAW THIS PHOTOGRAPH ABOUT
FIVE YEARS AGO IN A NATIONAL
PAPER, AND I FELT THAT I NEEDED
TO HAVE THIS PHOTOGRAPH FOR
MYSELF TO BE ABLE TO BE
REMINDED OF WAR AND THE PAIN OF
WAR.
ON TUESDAY I HAD THE PRIVILEGE
AND HUMBLING EXPERIENCE TO
VISIT THE WOUNDED WARRIORS AT
WALTER REED.
I SAW THE PAIN THESE HEROES
WERE EXPERIENCING FROM THE
SEVERE INJURIES THEY RECEIVED
FIGHTING FOR THIS COUNTRY.
THAT'S WHY TODAY I SHOW YOU THE
PHOTOGRAPH OF TYLER JORDAN'S
PAIN AS HE HOLDS A FOLDED FLAG
AT HIS FATHER'S FUNERAL.
THIS BOY'S PAIN AND THE PAIN OF
THE HEROES AT WALTER REED IS
THE REASON I JOINED MY
COLLEAGUES IN BOTH PARTIES IN
ASKING PRESIDENT OBAMA TO BRING
OUR TROOPS HOME.
MADAM SPEAKER, THIS COUNTRY IS
-- HAS MANY PROBLEMS AND MAYBE
I'M WRONG, BUT SADLY IT SEEMS
TO ME THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN
SEEMS TO BE ON THE BACK BURNER.
BEFORE CHRISTMAS I READ FROM A
"WASHINGTON POST" ARTICLE THAT
QUOTED PRESIDENT KARZAI SAYING
HE NOW HAS THREE MAIN ENEMIES,
THE TALIBAN, THE UNITED STATES
AND THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMUNITY.
HE SAID IN THAT ARTICLE THAT IF
HE HAD TO CHOOSE SIDES TODAY HE
WOULD CHOOSE THE TALIBAN.
THERE HAVE BEEN MANY ARTICLES
QUESTIONING THE SUCCESS OF OUR
TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN, BUT OUR
TROOPS HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL.
SO WHY KEEP THEM IN A COUNTRY
RISKING THEIR LIVES WHEN THE
PRESIDENT OF THAT COUNTRY
SUPPORTS THE ENEMY?
THE AFGHAN GOVERNMENT IS
CORRUPT.
NO ONE AMERICAN LIFE SHOULD BE
SACRIFICED FOR SUCH A
DYSFUNCTIONAL CORRUPT
GOVERNMENT.
IN MID-DECEMBER, PRESIDENT
OBAMA RELEASED A REVIEW OF THE
AMERICAN STRATEGY IN
AFGHANISTAN THAT PAINTED A
POSITIVE PICTURE OF THE
PROGRESS BEING MADE THERE.
THIS REVIEW IS AT BEST DUBIOUS,
AND I AGREE WITH TWO NATIONAL
INTELLIGENT REPORTS THAT WERE
ALSO RELEASED WITH A MORE
REALISTIC, NEGATIVE ASSESSMENT
ON THE STATE OF WAR AND OUR
CHANCE FOR SUCCESS.
AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE, WE ARE
SPENDING APPROXIMATELY $7
BILLION A MONTH, WHICH IS $IN
MILLION A DAY FOR A WINLESS WAR
FOR A CORRUPT GOVERNMENT.
WHY DO WE CONTINUE TO SPEND $IN
MILLION A DAY SO SOME OTHER --
$234 MILLION A DAY TO SOME
OTHER GOVERNMENT?
I ASK GOD TO PLEASE HELP OUR
MEN AND WOMEN IN UNIFORM.
I ASK GOD PLEASE BLESS OUR MEN
AND WOMEN IN UNIFORM AND THOSE
WHO HAVE GIVEN A CHILD DYING
FOR FREEDOM IN AFGHANISTAN AND
IRAQ.
I ASK GOD TO PLEASE BLESS THE
HOUSE AND SENATE THAT WE WILL
DO WHAT IS RIGHT IN THE EYES OF
GOD FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
AND I WILL ASK GOD TO GIVE
WISDOM, STRENGTH AND COURAGE TO
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES THAT HE WILL DO WHAT IS
RIGHT IN THE EYES OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
AND I WILL SAY THREE TIMES --
GOD, PLEASE, GOD, PLEASE, GOD,
PLEASE CONTINUE TO BLESS
AMERICA.
I YIELD BACK.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
.
MR. FRANKS OF ARIZONA.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM CALIFORNIA
RISE?
I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO SPEAK OUT OF ORDER.
SO
ORDERED.
FIVE MINUTES.
THE GENTLELADY IS RECOGNIZED FOR
THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
MADAM SPEAKER, THIS WEEK AS THE
112TH CONGRESS BEGINS, THERE IS
A LOT OF TALK FROM THE
REPUBLICANS ABOUT ENDING
BUSINESS AS USUAL AND DOING
THINGS DIFFERENTLY THAN BEFORE.
BUT FOR ALL THE SUPPOSED CHANGE
AFOOT, THERE IS ONE CRITICAL
MATTER ON WHICH THE NEW MAJORITY
IS FULLY EMBRACING THE STATUS
QUO.
THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN THAT IS
NOW NEARLY A DECADE OLD.
THIS WAR HAS BEEN GOING ON SO
LONG THAT 55% OF MY COLLEAGUES
WEREN'T HERE WHEN IT STARTED.
WE HAVE HEARD PLENTY ABOUT
CHANGING THE HOUSE RULES, ABOUT
CHANGING THE WAYS WE CONDUCT THE
NATION'S BUSINESS, ABOUT
CHANGING THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE
PEOPLE.
WE EVEN HEARD ABOUT HOW A NEW
LAW THAT WILL PROVIDE AFFORDABLE
HEALTH CARE TO ALL AMERICANS IS
SOMEHOW THE GREATEST THREAT TO
THE REPUBLIC AND THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER.
BUT ON THE SUBJECT OF WAR,
DISASTROUS WAR THAT HAS TAKEN
THE LIVES OF MORE THAN 1,00
AMERICANS IN AFGHANISTAN --
1,400 AMERICANS IN AFGHANISTAN
AND COST TAXPAYERS SOME $366
BILLION, THE NEW CONGRESSIONAL
MAJORITY IS INTERESTED IN NO
CHANGE WHATSOEVER.
IN HIS SPEECH YESTERDAY, SPEAKER
BOEHNER SPOKE OF GIVING
GOVERNMENT BACK TO THE PEOPLE.
IN HIS SPEECH HE TALKED ABOUT
HONESTY, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND
RESPONSIBILITY AND
RESPONSIVENESS.
LOOK, IF HE MEANT THAT, HE
SHOULD BE LISTENING TO THE 60%
OF PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THE WAR IN
AFGHANISTAN IS NOT WORTH
FIGHTING.
A CLEAR MAJORITY OF AMERICANS
REALIZE WHAT SO MANY WASHINGTON
-- IN WASHINGTON REFUSE TO
ACKNOWLEDGE.
THIS WAR REPRESENTS AN EPIC
FAILURE, A NATIONAL
EMBARRASSMENT, AND A NORTHERLY
BLIGHT ON OUR NATION.
-- AND A MORAL BLIGHT ON OUR
NATION.
ON THIS MATTER OF LIFE AND
DEATH, THE HISTORY WILL JUDGE
THE UNITED STATES, MOST OF THE
REPRESENTATIVES IN THE HOUSE, IN
THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE AT THAT, HAVE
TOLD THE PEOPLE THAT THEIR POINT
OF VIEW DOESN'T MATTER.
THAT WE KNOW BETTER THAN WHAT
THEY KNOW.
AS USUAL THE PEOPLE ARE WAY
AHEAD OF THEIR POLICYMAKERS.
JUST AS THEY WERE FOUR YEARS AGO
ON IRAQ.
THEY MAY HEAR REASSURING
PLATITUDES FROM WASHINGTON,
ABOUT HOW WE ARE ON TRACK, BUT
THEY CAN SEE THE NEWS FOR
THEMSELVES.
THEY CAN SEE THAT THE SECURITY
SITUATION IS IN DECLINE.
THE CASUALTIES ARE UP.
THE TALIBAN IS STRONG, AND THAT
AFGHAN GOVERNANCE IS INEFFECTIVE
AT THE VERY BEST AND CORRUPT.
AT THE WORST.
SO I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING
MORE PATRONIZING THAN TO TELL
THEM NOT TO WORRY THEIR PRETTY
LITTLE HEADS ABOUT THE WAR.
THAT US GROWN-UPS IN WASHINGTON
HAVE IT ALL TAKEN CARE OF.
WE ARE NOT BOWING BEFORE THEM,
MADAM SPEAKER.
WE ARE STICKING OUR FINGER IN
THEIR EYES.
DO WE TRULY BELIEVE IT'S ABOUT
THEM AND NOT US?
DO WE TRULY BELIEVE THAT WE ARE
CARETAKERS WHOSE ONLY LEGITIMACY
DERIVES FROM OUR EMPLOYEES WHO
ELECTED US?
IF THAT'S TRUE, THEN IT'S TIME
FOR REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
PEOPLE'S HOUSE TO START
LISTENING TO THE PEOPLE.
WITH THAT IT'S TIME TO BRING OUR
TROOPS HOME.
I YIELD BACK.
THE
GENTLEWOMAN YIELDS BACK.
UNDER THE SPEAKER'S ANNOUNCED
POLICY OF JANUARY 6, 2009, --
UNDER THE SPEAKER'S ANNOUNCED
POLICY OF JANUARY 5, 2007, THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM MISSOURI, MR.
BAKE -- JANUARY 5, 2011, THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MISSOURI, MR.
AKIN, IS RECOGNIZED FOR 60
MINUTES AS THE DESIGNEE OF THE
MAJORITY LEADER.
THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR.
I APPRECIATE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
TALK ABOUT A SUBJECT THAT I
THINK HAS BEEN ON A LOT OF
AMERICANS' MINDS OVER THE PAST,
PARTICULARLY THE LAST COUPLE
YEARS, AND IT'S THE SUBJECT OF
SPENDING CUTS IN THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
NOW, MOST PEOPLE ARE PERHAPS
TUNED IN TO SOME OTHER PLANET,
THEY REALIZE THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IS SPENDING MORE
MONEY THAN WE TAKE IN SO WE ARE
RUNNING ALL THESE DEFICITS.
THEREFORE THE IDEA IS THAT WE
NEED TO DO SOME SPENDING CUTS.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE WANTED TO TALK
ABOUT HERE FOR A LITTLE WHILE.
I'M JOINED BY SOME GOOD FRIENDS
AND VERY TRUSTED CONGRESSMEN ON
THIS SUBJECT.
JUST TO TRY TO FRAME WHAT WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT A LITTLE BIT, AND
I USUALLY HAVE SOME CHARTS TO GO
ALONG WITH THIS, BUT THE CHARTS
HAVEN'T BEEN PRINTED YET, IF YOU
TAKE A LOOK, THESE ARE PRETTY
SIMPLE NUMBERS, IF YOU TAKE A
LOOK AT THE SPENDING PROJECTION
FOR 2011, IT'S $3,834 BILLION.
AND THE INCOME PROTECTION IS $2,
567 BILLION.
THE TWO NUMBERS AREN'T THE SAME
AND BASICALLY WE ARE SPENDING
MORE THAN $1 TRILLION, CLOSE TO
$1.5 TRILLION THAT WE DON'T
HAVE.
AND THAT SUGGESTS FOR MOST
AMERICANS THAT HAVE SOME LEVEL
OF COMMON SENSE WE ARE GOING TO
HAVE TO MAKE SOME CUTS IN
SPENDING.
SO THAT'S THE OVERALL SUBJECT.
I THINK IT'S ONE THAT GETS
EVERYBODY'S ATTENTION AND THAT
WE NEED TO GIVE SOME THOUGHT TO.
NOW, OBVIOUSLY RIGHT OFF THE
BEGINNING OF THE BAT THE NEW
PARTY, REPUBLICANS, ARE RUNNING
THE HOUSE AND WE ARE TRYING TO
START OFF SETTING A GOOD NOTE IN
BEING FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE.
TODAY WE JUST VOTED TO CUT THE
CONGRESSIONAL -- THERE'S A FUND
THAT'S ALLOCATED EACH
CONGRESSMAN FOR THEM TO RUN
THEIR OFFICE, TO MAKE THEIR
AIRPLANE FLIGHTS, TO PAY PHONE
BILLS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
WE CUT THAT 5% JUST AS -- IN THE
SENSE AN INDICATION OF THE FACT
WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT DOING THIS
SPENDING CUT.
THAT CERTAINLY DOESN'T GET US TO
WHERE WE HAVE TO GO.
BUT AT LEAST IT'S A START.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT
WAYS WE CAN APPROACH THIS
SUBJECT, BUT ONE OF THE OTHER
THINGS THAT WE'LL BE VOTING ON
THIS WEEK ASIDE FROM THE 5% CUT
IN CONGRESSIONAL BUDGETS, IS THE
FACT THAT WE WANT TO GET RID OF
THIS TREMENDOUSLY EXPENSIVE
GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF THE
HEALTH CARE IN AMERICA.
KNOWN AS OBAMACARE, I SUPPOSE,
AND I'M JOINED BY A GOOD FRIEND
WHO HAS JOINED ME ON THE FLOOR
MANY TIMES IN THE PAST TWO
YEARS, MEDICAL DOCTOR FROM
GEORGIA, DR. GINGREY.
AND HE IS SOMEBODY WHO KNOWS
INSIDE AND OUT NOT ONLY THE
MEDICAL PROFESSION, BUT THIS
BILL WHICH HAS THE GOVERNMENT
TAKING OVER ALL OF HEALTH CARE.
NOW, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT
WOULD BE EXPENSIVE.
IT WOULD BE EXPENSIVE TO
AMERICAN CITIZENS.
IT WOULD BE EXPENSIVE TO
BUSINESSES.
AND EXPENSIVE TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
SO ONE PLACE WE CAN -- WE START
TALKING ABOUT SPENDING CUTS IS
WHAT WE'LL BE VOTING ON BEFORE
TOO LONG WHICH WAS TO GET RID OF
THIS GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF
HEALTH CARE.
AND FOR THAT REASON I WOULD LIKE
TO RECOGNIZE MY GOOD FRIEND,
DOCTOR, CONGRESSMAN GINGREY FROM
GEORGIA.
I APPRECIATE THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MISSOURI
YIELDING.
I KNOW THAT WHEN HE WAS
REFERRING TO MY MEDICAL
EXPERTISE IN REGARD TO KNOWING
THAT SUBJECT INSIDE AND OUTOUT,
NO PUN WAS INTENDED WHEN HE
MENTIONED THAT, I DO KNOW A LOT
MORE ABOUT HEALTH CARE PROBABLY
THAN I DO ABOUT GOVERNMENT
SPENDING.
ONE THING'S FOR SURE, MADAM
SPEAKER, AS THE GENTLEMAN
POINTED OUT, WE ARE SPENDING WAY
TOO MUCH MONEY AND I THINK THE
FIGURES TODAY, THIS YEAR, LAST
YEAR WE SPENT A THIRD MORE THAN
WE TOOK IN.
WE HAVE A REVENUE STREAM FROM
TAXATION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE,
AND YET WE WENT BEYOND THAT BY
$1 TRILLION OF BORROWED MONEY.
OF COURSE OF THE NONDOMESTIC
CREDITORS, THE LARGEST ONE IS
CHINA.
THEY HOLD A LOT OF OUR DEBT.
THEY HAPPEN TO BE NOW THE SECOND
LARGEST ECONOMY IN THE WORLD AT
$9 TRILLION G.D.P.
WE HAD ABOUT A $15 TRILLION
G.D.P.
BUT THE THING THAT IS SO SCARY
AND FRIGHTENING ABOUT THAT IS WE
OWE $14 TRILLION.
SO OUR DEBT TO G.D.P. RATIO IS
APPROACHING 100%.
SO WHEN WE STAND, MADAM SPEAKER,
AS WE ARE DOING RIGHT NOW AND
TALK ABOUT THIS ISSUE, WE ARE
ALMOST IN A PANIC.
AND WE SHOULD BE BECAUSE WE ARE
RIGHT ON THE PRECIPICE, RIGHT ON
THE EDGE OF BECOMING PART OF THE
PIG'S ACRONYM, PORTUGAL, ITALY,
IRELAND, GREECE, SPAIN, AND WE
POINT THE FINGER AT THEM, BUT
GOODNESS GRACIOUS, IT'S LIKE THE
BIBLE, THE SCRIPTURE THAT I'M
SURE THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM
MISSOURI PROBABLY KNOWS BY
HEART, IT GOES SOMETHING LIKE,
IF YOU'VE GOT A PLANK IN YOUR
OWN EYE, YOU SHOULDN'T BE
POINTING OUT THE SPECK IN
SOMEBODY ELSE'S.
WE GOT A PLANK IN OUR OWN EYE.
THIS IS WHY IN THIS 112TH
CONGRESS WE HAVE A HUGE
CHALLENGE, DON'T WE, MY
COLLEAGUES.
WE HAVE A HUGE CHALLENGE.
WE ARE UP TO IT.
I HOPE WE ARE GOING TO BE UP TO
IT ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE.
LET'S SAY THAT WE GET
WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN WORKING FOR
AND LET'S JUST SAY BY SOME GREAT
MIRACLE THAT WE WERE ABLE TO
STOP THAT OBAMACARE.
THAT WOULD SAVE A WHOLE, WHOLE
LOT OF MONEY, WOULDN'T IT, IN
TERMS OF --
RECLAIMING MY TIME.
ABSOLUTELY.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON,
OUR ESTEEMED COLLEAGUE
PHYSICIAN, MR. MCDERMOTT, WAS ON
THE FLOOR EARLIER TALKING ABOUT,
WELL, WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO
IN REPEALING OBAMACARE, FORMALLY
THE RECOGNITION OF THAT BILL,
PATIENT PROTECTION AND
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, SOCIALIZED
MEDICINE IS EASIER, BECAUSE
THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT IT IS.
THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE
FORMER MAJORITY PARTY WERE
PUSHING TOWARD.
BUT THE GENTLEMAN WHO SPOKE
SAID, WELL, IT'S A STUNT.
THESE REPUBLICANS KNOW THEY
CAN'T REPEAL OBAMACARE.
AND FURTHERMORE, EVEN IF THEY
DID, IT WOULD BE AT A COST OF
$200 BILLION.
AND WHAT I POINTED OUT TO HIM,
MADAM SPEAKER, AS HE WAS LEAVING
THE FLOOR WAS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S
REAL INTERESTING.
IT'S GOING TO COST US $IT00
BILLION IF THAT'S -- $200
BILLION IF THAT'S ACCURATE TO
REPEAL WHAT COST $1.1 TRILLION
TO ENACT.
SO YOU CAN LITERALLY GO BROKE
SAVING MONEY, CAN'T YOU?
AND BY GOLLY WE ARE GOING TO
REPEAL IT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT.
IF WE FALL SHORT IN OUR EFFORTS,
DESPITE 110% ON THIS SIDE OF THE
AISLE OR IN THIS BODY AND THE
OTHER BODY, WE HAVE A BACKUP
PLAN B.
I KNOW MY COLLEAGUES WOULD LIKE
TO TALK ABOUT THAT.
SO I'LL YIELD BACK TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MISSOURI AND LET
YOU CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION.
I APPRECIATE YOUR
MEDICAL EXPERTISE AND YOUR
OVERVIEW.
OBVIOUSLY IF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT ISN'T JUMPING IN AND
TAKING OVERALL HEALTH CARE,
PRIVATE SECTOR.
THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE IN THE
WE'LL GET INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT WHAT REALLY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE DOING AND
WHAT WE SHOULD ASK STATES TO DO
AND ALLOW THE FREE MARKET
ECONOMY TO DO.
WE ARE ALSO JOINED IT SEEMS LIKE
THE WAY THINGS ARE WORKING
TODAY, WE'VE GOT GEORGIA, VERY
WELL D,
CONGRESSMAN TOM GLAVES FROM
DWAFMENT -- GRAVES FROM GEORGIA
HAS JOINED US BEFORE.
THIS IS A PET TOPIC FOR A LOT OF
US THAT THINK THAT GOVERNMENT
ISN'T A SERVANT ANYMORE BUT IT'S
THE MASTER.
IF YOU SAY, HEY, LET'S START
CUTTING GOVERNMENT, THAT'S KIND
OF AN INTERESTING TOP ERIK.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO JOIN --
TOPIC.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO JOIN US.
YOU'RE RIGHT.
TODAY WHAT A BREATH OF FRESH AIR
TO HEAR THE SILL BALANCES OF THE
CONSTITUTION RECITED FOR MEMBERS
ALL THROUGHOUT THIS BODY.
LEADING INTO THIS TOPIC AND THIS
DISCUSSION BECAUSE WE REALLY
WANT TO ADDRESS SPENDING CUTS
AND THE PROPER ROLE OF
GOVERNMENT.
WHAT BETTER WAY TO START IT THAN
RECITING THE CONSTITUTION TODAY
AND HOPEFULLY MEMBERS OF THIS
BODY LISTENED AND HEARD.
THEY DIDN'T GET UP AND JUST READ
A SENTENCE OR TWO OR AN
AMENDMENT.
THEY ACTUALLY CONSUMED IT IN
THEIR MIND AND STARTING TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS,
BECAUSE FOR TOO LONG THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN KICKING THE
CAN DOWN THE ROAD ON SPENDING.
ELECT ME, ELECT ME.
WE'LL CUT SPENDING.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE DATA IT'S
CLEAR DEFICIT SPENDING HAS
OCCURRED AT AN AVERAGE IN THE
LAST FISCAL YEAR, PROBABLY $110
BILLION A MONTH.
DEFICIT SPENDING.
$110 BILLION A MONTH.
THAT USED TO BE THE DEFICIT IN A
WHOLE YEAR.
BUT WE ARE -- WOW, WE ARE SAYING
ALL -- SETTING ALL KINDS OF
RECORDS IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.
YOU'RE RIGHT.
THAT LEADS UP TO THE DISCUSSION
WE ARE HEARING NOW IN THE MEDIA.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY HAVE
BEEN IN THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS
TALKING ABOUT THE DEBT CEILING.
THE REASON WE ARE APPROACHING
AND ABOUT TO PIERCE THE DEBT
CEILING IS THIS DEFICIT SPENDING
THAT'S OCCURRED FROM THE
PREVIOUS LEADERSHIP HERE IN THE
HOUSE AS WELL AS THE
ADMINISTRATION WHO IS STILL
THERE, AND AS WE APPROACH THIS
DEBT CEILING, WE HAVE GOT TO
AND MORE.
PUSH SPENDING CUTS MORE AND MORE
AND I'M THANKFUL THAT I JUST WAS
SWORN IN FOR THE SECOND TIME
YESTERDAY.
WE ARE GLAD TO HAVE
YOU BACK AGAIN.
WE THANK THE GOOD PEOPLE OF
GEORGIA FOR MAKING A GOOD
DECISION THERE.
BEING APPOINTED TO
THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE, IT
IS CLEAR AND I HAVE MADE IT
CLEAR TO MY CONSTITUENTS, I'M
NOT GOING ON AS A SPENDER.
I'M GOING ON AS A SAVER.
IT SEEMS FOR FAR TOO LONG
MEMBERS WHO SEEK TO BE ON
APPROPRIATIONS BECAUSE THEY WANT
GUESS WHAT?
TO SPEND MONEY.
A NEW DAY, A NEW ERA.
IT'S A FRESH DAY WHEN YOU HAVE
MEMBERS GOING ON TO SAY, HERE'S
HOW WE ARE GOING TO SAVE MONEY.
WHAT A GREAT DEBATE WE'LL HAVE
IN THE NEXT SEVERAL WEEKS.
LET'S GO.
GET ON TO THIS MORE.
GET INTO THE DETAILS IN TERMS OF
PROCEDURALLY, OK.
NOW YOU'VE GOT A NEW CONGRESS,
REPUBLICANS ARE IN THE MAJORITY,
AND WE HAVE THE PROBLEM, WE LOOK
AT THE NUMBERS, AND WE ARE
SPENDING A THIRD MORE THAN WHAT
WE ARE TAKING IN.
.
SO WE KNOW WE GOT TO DO CUTTING.
ONE OF THE THINGS PEOPLE WANT
TO PIN US DOWN ON, WHAT ARE YOU
NOT GOING TO FUND BECAUSE THAT
WILL BE SOME GROUP THAT WILL
GET MAD OUGHT?
SO HOW DO YOU APPROACH IT?
I KNOW IN STATE GOVERNMENTS
THEY DO SOMETIMES IS THEY SAY,
WELL, WHAT WE GOT TO DO, WE'RE
10% OVERBUDGET SO WE HAVE TO
CUT 10% OFF OF EVERYTHING.
THAT MAKES IT SEEM TO BE FAIR.
AND THAT MIGHT BE ONE WAY TO
APPROACH WHAT WE GOT GOING ON.
I THINK YOU'RE
RIGHT.
WHAT WE HEARD ABOUT REPEALING
OBAMACARE.
YESTERDAY I INTRODUCED
LEGISLATION AGAIN TO DEFUND IT,
TO TAKE AWAY ALL AUTHORIZING
FUNDS GOING TO THE LEGISLATION
AS WELL WHICH IS ANOTHER STEP
FORWARD.
SOME CZARS?
YOU KNOW, WHY DON'T WE DEFUND
THAT'S A WHOLE OTHER DISCUSSION
WE HAVE SEEN.
AND THEN AS WE MOVE BACK TO THE
2008 LEVELS, THEN WE MIGHT EVEN
NEED TO GO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER
AND BEGIN CUTTING MORE AND MORE
AND MORE.
I MEAN, ARE THE DECISIONS GOING
TO BE DIFFICULT?
SURE THEY ARE.
LET MELEE OUT --
THAT'S WHY PEOPLE
ELECTED US TO COME HERE AND
MAKE THE DIFFICULT DECISIONS.
CONGRESSMAN GRAVES,
LET MELEE OUT TWO WAYS TO
APPROACH IT.
IF YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT TO
CUT, YOU MAY TAKE A LITTLE BIT
FROM EVERYTHING.
IT.
THERE'S ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT
WHEN YOU NEED TO CUT 1/3, YOU
CAN SAY, WHAT ARE THE ESSENTIAL
FUNCTIONS THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT HAS TO DO AND WHAT
ARE THE THINGS WE REALLY DON'T
HAVE TO DO BECAUSE THE STATE
CAN DO IT OR THE PRIVATE SECTOR
COULD DO IT?
YOU'RE RIGHT.
AND I'M NOT SURE --
EXCUSE ME -- YES, I YIELD.
IF THE GENTLEMAN
COULD SUSPEND AND IF
REPRESENTATIVE SESSIONS,
REPRESENTATIVE FITZGERALD --
PAT PATRICK -- SORRY -- FROM
PENNSYLVANIA, SHOWED THEMSELVES
IN THE WELL, WOULD BE HAPPY TO
SWEAR THEM IN AS NEW MEMBERS.
RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT YOU
WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES,
FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, THAT YOU
WILL BARE TRUE FAITH AND
ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME, THAT
YOU TAKE THIS OBLIGATION FREELY
WITHOUT ANY MENTAL RESERVATION
OR PURPOSE OF EVASION, THAT YOU
WILL WELL AND FAITHFUL LOEDIS
CHARGE THE DUTIES IN THE OFFICE
FOR WHICH YOU ARE ABOUT TO
ENTER SO HELP YOU GOD?
THANK YOU.
CONGRATULATIONS.
YOU ARE NOW MEMBERS.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MISSOURI MAY
RESUME.
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
SO WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT
NOW YOU GOT THE SITUATION WHERE
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS
SPENDING A THIRD MORE THAN IT
TAKES IN SO WE HAVE TO FIGURE
OUT SOME WAY, HOW YOU GOING TO
SKIN THIS CAT?
AND IN ONE WAY IS JUST TRYING
TO TAKE A CERTAIN 10% OR
WHATEVER PERCENTAGE -- ACTUALLY
33% OFF OF EVERYTHING OR
WHATEVER, OR WHAT YOU COULD SAY
WOULD BE, ONE OF THE THINGS WE
HAVE TO DO AND WHAT ARE THE
THINGS THAT MAYBE ARE NICE BUT
WE CAN'T AFFORD AND ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT MAYBE ACTUALLY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
AND I SUSPECT IN ORDER -- WHEN
YOU'RE 1/3 OVER BUDGET, IT'S
GOING TO BE HARD TO JUST DO A
SET PERCENTAGE ACROSS THE
BOARD.
I SUSPECT WE'RE GOING TO GET
INTO I THINK SOME VERY
INTERESTING QUESTIONS ABOUT
WHAT'S REALLY CONSTITUTIONAL
AND DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
REALLY HAVE TO DO THAT
FUNCTION.
MAYBE IT'S AN IMPORTANT THING
TO GET DONE, BUT MAYBE THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T DO
IT.
SO JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF YOU
WANT TO JUMP IN ON THAT
SUBJECT.
YEAH.
I'D BE HAPPY TO ADD A LITTLE
BIT MORE TO THAT.
A COUPLE OF APPROACHES.
IS IT DUPLICATIVE?
IS ANOTHER AGENCY OR DEPARTMENT
DOING IT?
THAT'S WHEN YOU GET OVER THE
HURDLE.
AND IS IT SOMETHING YOU CAN
GIVE BACK TO THE STATE?
YOU USURP THE STATES, WHICH
MANY OF OUR CONFERENCE WOULD
AGREE, IN WAY CASE THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT HAS OVERSTEPPED ITS
BOUNDS AND IT'S TIME TO REMOVE
OURSELVES FROM THE STATES AND
ALLOW THE STATES TO TAKE OVER.
YOU KNOW, FROM A BUSINESS
OWNER'S PERSPECTIVE, WHAT IF
YOU LOOK AT THE DEPARTMENT
HEADS OR THE AGENCY HEADS AND
YOU SAID, YOU GO BACK AND YOU
CUT 25% AND YOU BRING BACK GLUR
RECOMMENDATION?
AND THEN YOU SHOW US A BUDGET
ESTIMATE OF 20% CUT AND THEN
20%.
EMPOWER THOSE AGENCY HEADS TO
ANALYZE THEIR DEPARTMENT'S
INCOME'S BACK WHILE WE'RE ALSO
ON THE THEME OF PHYSICIANS,
WE'RE TAKING A SURGICAL
APPROACH AS WELL AS PULLING OUT
THOSE UNNECESSARY PROGRAMS AS
WELL.
SO THAT WOULD BE SOME
APPROACHES I WOULD TAKE.
THOSE ARE SOME GREAT
RECOMMENDATIONS HERE TO
REINFORCE WHAT YOU SAID, I
DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO GET SOME OF
THE CHARTS THAT WE NORMALLY
HAVE PRINTED, BUT HERE ARE SOME
EXAMPLES.
WE HAVE 342 ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS.
DO YOU THINK WE REALLY NEED 342
OF THEM?
TALK ABOUT DUPLICATIVE.
THAT SEEMS TO MAKE IT --
WITH UNEMPLOYMENT
AT WHAT?
10% OR WHATEVER.
130 PROGRAMS SERVING THE
DISABLED.
DO WE NEED 130?
MAYBE CONSOLIDATE, DO A COUPLE
OF GOOD ONES.
AND THEN 130 PROGRAMS SERVING
AT-RISK YOUTH.
AND SO THESE ARE ALL OF THESE
THINGS WHERE YOU SAY IT DOESN'T
EVEN MAKE COMMON SENSE AND WE
HAVE TO REALLY START GETTING
INTO ANALYZING -- FIRST OF ALL,
SHOULD WE BE DOING IT AND IF WE
SHOULD, DO WE NEED HUNDREDS OF
PROGRAMS DOING SOMETHING THAT
SHOULD BE DONE WITH ONE OR TWO?
I SEE THAT DR. GINGREY IS BACK
AT IT AGAIN.
HE JUST COULDN'T SIT STILL WHEN
WE TALK ABOUT CUTTING THINGS.
SO JUST WELCOME YOU TO THE
DISCUSSION.
GOIP MADAM SPEAKER, I
APPRECIATE THE GENTLEMAN --
MADAM SPEAKER, I
APPRECIATE THE GENTLEMAN FOR
YIELDING.
I CAN ONLY STAY FOR A FEW
MINUTES BECAUSE OF A PRIOR
ENGAGEMENT.
SO THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME AN
OPPORTUNITY TO KIND OF IN FRONT
OF THE CUE, IF YOU WILL.
BUT I TELL YOU, ONE OF THE
THINGS IN REGARD TO HOW YOU CUT
IS IT BY PICKING AND CHOOSING
OR IN ONE FELL SWOOP ACROSS THE
BOARD?
WE JUST PASSED A BILL, LAST
VOTE OF THE DAY, IN REGARD TO
OUR OWN BUDGETS AND THAT WAS A
5% ACROSS-THE-BOARD CUT, MADAM
SPEAKER IN OUR MEMBER
REPRESENTATIONAL ACCOUNT, OUR
EXPENSE ACCOUNT THAT WE'RE
ALLOTTED EACH YEAR TO PAY OUR
SALARIES OF OUR STAFF MEMBERS
AND TO HAVE A ROUNDTRIP FLIGHT
BACK TO OUR DISTRICTS ONCE A
WEEK.
AND THOSE BUDGETS VARY A LITTLE
BIT DEPENDING ON OBVIOUSLY
SOMEBODY FROM CALIFORNIA'S
GOING TO HAVE MORE TRAVEL
EXPENSE THAN SOMEBODY LIKE
MYSELF AND REPRESENTATIVE
GRAVES FROM GEORGIA.
BUT WE JUST BASICALLY VOTED TO
CUT 5%, AND I QUITE HONESTLY --
AND THIS QUESTION THAT HAS COME
UP, MADAM SPEAKER, AND MY
COLLEAGUES, HOW DO YOU DO IT?
I JUST THINK WE MORE AND MORE
NEED TO LOOK AT THIS THING AND
SAY, THERE ARE NO SACRED COULD
YOU SAY, AND LET THESE
DEPARTMENTS -- CAOS AND -- COWS
AND LET THESE DEPARTMENTS
SAYING WHERE SHOULDN'T THERE BE
AN ACROSS THE BOARD 2%, 3%, 4%
CUT?
I KNOW I VOTED EVERY TIME WE
COME UP ON THESE APPROPRIATIONS
BILLS -- WE DIDN'T GET TO VOTE
ANY IN THE 111TH CONGRESS
BECAUSE OUR FRIENDS DID HE TELL
LET US VOTE ON THEM.
MOST PEOPLE ARE RELUCTANT TO
TALK ABOUT CUTTING HOMELAND
SECURITY AND NATIONAL DEFENSE,
PARTICULARLY WHEN WE HAVE TWO
WARS GOING ON AND CERTAINLY NOT
WANTING TO CUT THE VETERANS'
BENEFITS.
THERE'S WASTE, FRAUD AND ABUSE
AND DUPLICATION OF THINGS
ACROSS EVERY SPECTRUM OF THIS
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
IF WE'RE GOING TO GET SERIOUS
ABOUT IT, WE NEED TO HAVE AN
ADULT CONVERSATION, AND, MADAM
SPEAKER AND MY COLLEAGUES, THAT
INCLUDES ENTITLEMENTS AS WELL.
BECAUSE IF WE DON'T ADDRESS
ENTITLEMENTS, WE'RE LOOKING AT
1/6 OF THE BUDGET AND WE'RE
NEVER GOING TO GET THERE JUST
ADDRESSING THAT PART OF THE
BUDGET.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK AND
CONTINUE TO LISTEN TO MY
COLLEAGUES.
I'LL RUN OVER TO
MOVING A LITTLE BIT FROM
GEORGIA TO THE WEST TO THE
GREAT STATE OF UTAH AND OUR
CONGRESSMAN BISHOP, YOU'VE
JOINED US ON THE FLOOR A NUMBER
OF TIMES.
AND ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT
-- LET'S SAY YOU WERE ON THE
BUDGET COMMITTEE OR SOMETHING
AND YOU'RE TRYING TO
PRIORITIZE, HOW ARE YOU GOING
TO -- GUNS AND BUTTER, HOW ARE
YOU GOING TO PRIORITIZE DEFENSE
VERSUS ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS
OR WHATEVER IT IS?
HOW DO WE CRACK THIS NUT ABOUT
TRYING TO REDUCE FEDERAL
SPENDING?
I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR
PERSPECTIVE.
LET ME TRY AND HIT
FOR JUST ONE MOMENT TWO
POTENTIAL AREAS TO ADDRESS THAT
PARTICULAR QUESTION.
AND IT GOES BACK TO THE FACT
THAT WE DID READ THE
CONSTITUTION ON THE FLOOR
TODAY.
YOU KNOW, IT'S AMAZING AS P.J.
O'RORKE ONCE SAID THAT THE
CONSTITUTION IS 16 PAGES WHICH
IS THE OPERATOR'S MANUAL FOR
300 MILLION PEOPLE.
THE OPERATOR'S MANUAL FOR THE
TOYOTA CAMRY IN CONTRAST IS
FOUR TIMES AS LARGE AND IT ONLY
SEATS FIVE.
BUT YOU ALSO CONTRAST THAT BY
WHAT WE DID IN THE LAME-DUCK
SESSION WHEN THE SENATE'S
OMNIBUS SPENDING BILL, NOT 16
PAGES, IT WAS 1,924 PAGES.
THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF ISSUES
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
AND I THINK IF WE REALLY WANT
AN ANSWER OF HOW WE MAKE THOSE
DECISIONS WE GO BACK TO THE
DOCUMENT THAT WAS READ THIS
MORNING.
THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE
TODAY PUTS THE EMPHASIS ON THE
WORD WELFARE.
WHEN THEY WROTE THAT THING THEY
PUT THE EMPHASIS ON THE WORD
GENERAL.
WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
SHOULD DO IS THAT WHICH AFFECTS
ALL OF US.
MONROE, MADISON, JACKSON VETOED
ROAD PROJECTS BECAUSE THEY SAID
THOSE ROAD PROJECTS DIDN'T MEET
THE GENERAL WELFARE.
WHEN SAVANNAH BURNED TO THE
GROUND, CONGRESS HAD A GREAT
DEAL OF EMPATHY FOR SAVANNAH
BUT DID NOT ACTUALLY
APPROPRIATE ANY MONEY FOR
SAVANNAH BECAUSE THEY SAID
GIVING MONEY TO SAVANNAH TO
REBUILD WOULD SIMPLY HELP
SAVANNAH AND WAS NOT GENERAL
WELFARE.
NOW, I MADE THIS SPEECH ONCE ON
THE FLOOR A COUPLE YEARS AGO
AND I GOT A NICE LETTER, KIND
OF, FROM A LADY IN ALABAMA WHO
TOOK ME TO TASK AND LISTED ALL
THE PROGRAMS THAT SHE THOUGHT
WERE VIABLE AND GOOD AND SHE
WANTED CONTINUED.
I SAID, MA'AM, YOU ACTUALLY
MISSED THE ULTIMATE POINT.
THE POINT IS NOT SHOULD THESE
PROGRAMS BE AVAILABLE FOR
CITIZENS, THE POINT IS WHO
SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
PROVIDING THOSE PROGRAMS.
NOT EVERY IDEA HAS TO
GERMINATE, BE FUNDED, BE
APPROPRIATED, BE REGULATED FROM
WASHINGTON.
THE STATES ARE EQUALLY COMP
TENT, AND IF INDEED WE DIVIDED
OUR RESPONSIBILITIES TOGETHER
WE COULD PROVIDE BETTER
SERVICES FOR THE PEOPLE FOR A
CHEAPER PRICE.
NOW, MR. AKIN, IF I COULD GIVE
ONE SECOND OF A SIMPLE EXAMPLE.
DAVID WALKER HAS WRITTEN A
GREAT BOOK CALLED "REBIRTH OF
FEDERALISM" WHERE HE MADE THE
EFFECT THAT DANGLING MONEY IN
FRONT OF CASH-STARVED STATES IS
NOT GOOD FOR BOTH LEVELS OF
GOVERNMENT.
FOR EXAMPLE, HE SAID, WHEN WE
PUT CONDITIONAL GRANTS TO
STATES WHICH BECOME REGULATIONS
AN MANDATES IT UNDERCUTS BOTH
THE INTERLEVEL COOPERATION
BETWEEN THOSE TWO BODIES AND
IT'S A TERM HE INVENTED
CREEPING CONVENTIONALISM WHICH
MEANS THE COST TO THE TAXPAYER
ACTUALLY INCREASES.
BY DOING HIS ESTIMATES, THE
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT OF 1986
COST THE STATES $2 BILLION TO
$3 BILLION THAN THE STATES
WOULD HAVE SPENT TO PROVIDE
THEIR OWN SAFE DRINKING WATER.
FROM 1983 TO 1990, HE ESTIMATED
THAT THE REGULATIONS IMPOSED BY
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS $9
BILLION TO $13 BILLION IN LOCAL
TAXES THAT DID NOT PROVIDE A
BENEFIT TO THE CITIZENS.
IT WAS JUST THE CREEPING COST
TO THEM.
SO THE -- OUR MANDATES,
SUPPOSEDLY WITH FREE MONEY
GIVEN STATES, ENDS UP COSTING
THE TAXPAYER NOT ONLY FOR THE
FREE MONEY WE DON'T HAVE BUT
COSTS THE STATES TO DO MORE
THAN THEY WOULD HAVE DONE OR
NEEDED TO DO TO ACTUALLY
ADDRESS THE PROBLEM.
TO BEAT THE MANDATES.
TO BEAT THE MANDATES.
INTERESTINGLY, AND I CAN'T HELP
BUT PIGGYBACK ON YOUR POINT,
GENTLEMAN, IT USED TO BE A VERY
BORING PLACE TO BE A
CONGRESSMAN DOWN HERE BECAUSE
THERE WERE ALMOST NO LAWS ON
THE BOOKS.
DO YOU KNOW THE FEDERAL LAWS TO
BEGIN WITH IN TERMS OF LAWS
ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG WERE --
ONE OF THEM WAS A LAW AGAINST
PIRACY ON THE HIGH SEAS.
ANOTHER ONE WAS AGAINST
COUNTERFEITING.
ANOTHER ONE WAS A LAW AGAINST
ESPY NAUGE.
THOSE THREE LAWS -- ESPIONAGE.
THOSE THREE LAWS WERE ON THE
BOOKS.
WHAT DO THEY HAVE IN COMMON?
PIRACY, COUNTERFEITING AND
ESPIONAGE AGAINST OUR COUNTRY
WERE AGAINST THE GENERAL
WELFARE.
THEY WERE LAWS THAT AFFECTED
EVERYONE.
SO LAWS AGAINST *** AND ***
AND STEALING AND ALL THAT KIND
OF STUFF WERE ALLSTATE LAWS
BECAUSE THE STATES MADE -- ALL
STATE LAWS BECAUSE THE STATES
MADE THOSE LAWS.
SO TO LIMIT THE JURISDICTION
FEDERALLY.
SO NOW WE HAVE THESE CREEPING
RED TAPE WHICH KEEPS COSTING IN
AN INSID WITH US WAY EVERYONE'S
COST OF LIVING KEEPS SLIPPING
UP BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHO IS
NIBBLING ALL THE MONEY OUT OF
YOUR WALLET.
BUT IT'S BECAUSE ALL THOSE
THINGS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT,
AND I APPRECIATE THAT
PERSPECTIVE YOU SHARED WITH US.
I PROMISED MY GOOD FRIEND FROM
LOUISIANA, CONGRESSMAN SCLUSE,
HE IS -- HAS BECOME THIS LAST
YEAR OR TWO AN EXPERT ON OIL
RIGS AND OIL SPILLS AND
EVERYTHING, BUT GOOD ON MANY
OTHER TOPICS AS WELL AND WHAT A
-- WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT
CUTTING GOVERNMENT, I GOT TO
LET YOU HAVE A PIECE OF THE
ACTION, MY FRIEND.
WELL, I WANT TO
THANK MY FRIEND FROM UP THE
MISSISSIPPI RIVER IN MISSOURI,
MADAM SPEAKER, FOR YIELDING TO
ME AND TALKING ABOUT THIS
IMPORTANT ISSUE BECAUSE THERE
SEEMS TO BE A LOT OF ENERGY AS
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ENERGY IN
THIS HOUSE.
I THINK YESTERDAY WAS SO
EXCITING TO SEE I THINK NOT
ONLY THE GAVEL CEREMONIOUSLY
PASSED FROM NANCY PELOSI TO NOW
SPEAKER BOEHNER BUT ALSO THESE
PRINCIPLES THAT ARE IN THE
CONSTITUTION BE RESTORED TO THE
PEOPLE.
THIS IS THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE, AND
IT SHOULD OPERATE AS THE
PEOPLE'S HOUSE.
AND I THINK NOW IT'S STARTING
TO GET BACK TO THOSE PRINCIPLES
THAT WE ARTICULATED TODAY WHEN
WE READ THE CONSTITUTION, A
REAL UPLIFTING EXPERIENCE, SAD,
UNFORTUNATELY, TO NOTE AS WE
LOOK THROUGH HISTORY THAT THIS
WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT THE
ENTIRE U.S. CONSTITUTION WAS
READ ON THE HOUSE FLOOR.
I THINK THIS SHOULD BE AN EVENT
THAT OCCURS EVERY NEW CONGRESS
SO THAT WE RE-ESTABLISH AND
REMIND OURSELVES JUST WHAT
WE'RE UP HERE TO UPHOLD.
AND AS WE TALK ABOUT THE
SPENDING ISSUES OF THE COUNTRY,
I THINK ONE AREA THAT SHOWS YOU
WHERE SPENDING HAS GOTTEN OUT
OF CONTROL IS IF YOU GO TO THE
10TH AMENDMENT, THE 10TH
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION,
AS I NOTE MY FRIEND FROM UTAH,
IS SUCH A PROUD POE OPPONENT,
THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE
UNITED STATES NOR PROHIBITED IT
TO THE STATES ARE RESERVED TO
THE PEOPLE.
THE STATES RESPECTIVELY OR TO
YET, IF YOU LOOK AT SO MANY
THINGS WE'RE DOING UP HERE IN
WASHINGTON THAT THIS FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT HAS GOTTEN SO
EXPANSIVE IN DOING HAVE
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH
POWERS THAT WAS DELEGATED IN
THE CONSTITUTION AND IN FACT
ONE OF THE BIG DEBATES WE ARE
GOING TO HAVE HERE THIS WEEK
UNDER THIS FIRST NEW WEEK HERE
IN THIS CONGRESS IS THIS
GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTH
CARE THAT A FEDERAL COURT JUST
RULED IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT
UNDER FEDERAL COURT RULING NOW
DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO
MANDATE THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
HAVE TO BUY A PRIVATE PRODUCT
AS A CONDITION OF CITIZENSHIP.
SO I THINK THE FACT THAT NOT
ONLY TODAY DID WE PUT OUR MONEY
WHERE OUR MOUTHS ARE BY VOTING
TO CUT OUR OWN BUDGETS, BECAUSE
AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CUTTING
ALL THROUGHOUT GOVERNMENT WHERE
THREES' DUPLICATION, WHERE
THERE'S DEPARTMENTS THAT
SHOULDN'T EXIST, THESE CZARS,
THESE 30 OR SO SHADOW
GOVERNMENT FIGURES THAT ARE
RUNNING THEIR ALMOST CABINETS,
LIKE A SECRET CABINET THAT'S
RUNNING OUT THERE, AND EVERY
ONE OF THEM HAS MULTIMILLION
DOLLAR BUDGETS AND STAFFS AND
THEY'RE NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO
ANYBODY EXCEPT TO THE
PRESIDENT, NOT THE PEOPLE, NOT
TO THE SENATE, WE ARE GOING TO
BE LOOKING AT ALL OF THOSE
AREAS TO MAKE SERIOUS CUTS BUT
THEN WE ALSO HAVE TO LOOK AND
THEN, OF COURSE, TOMORROW WE'LL
BE VOTING ON THE START OF THE
PROCESS TO REPEAL OBAMACARE AND
DO WHAT THE COURTS HAVE ALREADY
SAID, THIS ISN'T
CONSTITUTIONAL, IT SHOULDN'T BE
ON THE BOOKS AND GET RID OF
THAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE
WITH ALL THE BAD TAXES AND
OTHER THINGS THAT GO WITH IT.
BUT THEN WE GOT TO LOOK AT
CREATING JOBS, AND I THINK
THAT'S WHERE YOU GET INTO AN
AREA WHERE WE'RE CUTTING
SPENDING, WHICH WE NEED TO DO
AGGRESSIVELY, WE ALSO NEED TO
UNLEASH THE POTENTIAL OF THE
INDIVIDUAL, IT'S NOT GOVERNMENT
HERE IN WASHINGTON MA MAKES
THIS A GREAT -- MAKES THIS A
GREAT COUNTRY AND THE GREATEST
COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, IT'S THE
POWER OF OUR PEOPLE BACK HOME,
THE SMALL BUSINESS OWNER, THE
STAY-AT-HOME MOM WHO IS RAISING
A FAMILY, THE PEOPLE THAT
ACTUALLY MAKES THIS COUNTRY
WORK AND I THINK THERE IS NO
PLACE MORE EVIDENT THAN WHAT IS
WRONG WITH WASHINGTON THAN IN
MOY HOME STATE WHERE YOU HAVE
THIS THING GOING ON SINCE AFTER
THE B.P. DISASTER IN THE GULF
OF MEXICO.
IT'S THE PRESIDENT'S POLICIES,
NOT THE ACTIONS AND FAILURES OF
B.P. BUT THE PRESIDENT'S
POLICIES THAT PUT 12,000 PEOPLE
OUT OF WORK THROUGH WHAT'S
CALLED A PERMA TOMBINGS RIUM.
THE PRESIDENT SAID ALL THE
COMPANIES THAT DIDN'T DO
ANYTHING WRONG THAT FOLLOW THE
BEST SAFETY GUIDELINES IN THE
WORLD AND HAD IN PROBLEM THE
GOVERNMENT HAS SHUT THEM DOWN,
PUT THEM OUT OF WORK.
I CAN'T HELP BUT JUMP
IN A LITTLE BIT, IT KEEPS
COMING BACK TO MY MIND, AS YOU
TALK ABOUT THE PARTICULAR
SITUATION, THE JOB KILLING
MANDATES THAT ARE COMING FROM
THE ADMINISTRATION, I KEEP
THINKING, AN AWFUL LOT OF
AMERICANS MUST BE STARTING TO
FEEL THE SAME WAY I DO, THAT
THE GOVERNMENT'S NOT A SERVANT
ANYMORE, THAT IT'S A FEARFUL
MASTER.
WE WERE WARNED BY THE
FOREFATHERS THAT IF YOU LET
YOUR GOVERNMENT, YOUR FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT GET OUT OF CONTROL,
IT WILL BECOME A FEARFUL MASTER
AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT'S
KIND OF WHAT'S STARTING TO
HAPPEN.
I THINK THAT THE LAST ELECTION
WAS AN UNDERSTANDING ACROSS THE
WHOLE COUNTRY THAT THIS
GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO BE PUT BACK
IN ITS PROPER PLACE, BEING A
SERVANT OF THE PEOPLE, DOING
PROGRAMS THAT ARE
CONSTITUTIONAL INSTEAD OF
THINGS THAT PEOPLE THINK, WOW,
IT WOULD BE A GREAT IDEA IF WE
MANDATE THIS OR MANDATE THAT.
NOW YOU HAVE AN AREA THAT'S HAD
A TOUGH HIT FROM THE OIL SPILL,
AND WE'LL TAKE A BUSINESS
THAT'S DONE NOTHING WRONG AND
SHUT THEM DOWN BECAUSE OF SOME
MANDATE.
SOMEHOW OR OTHER, I DON'T SEE
THAT AS BEING GOVERNMENT THE
SERVANT, DO YOU?
IT'S THE OPPOSITE
OF THE GOVERNMENT BEING THE
SERVANT, IT'S THE GOVERNMENT
BEING THE OPPRESSOR.
12,000 JOBS HAVE ALREADY BEEN
LOST IN SOUTH LOUISIANA ALONE,