Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
TO BRING HOME THE ISSUE TO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE AND LET THEM
KNOW WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE THESE
PROBLEMS SOIRKS COMMEND HIM AND
AND I YIELD BACK.
I YIELD BACK -- SO I COMMEND HIM
I'M GOING TO WRAP
UP.
WE CAME HERE FOR A CAUSE.
WE DID NOT COME HERE FOR A
CAREER AND IF YOU CANNOT WIN THE
DEBATE BY USING FACTS, AND IF
YOU HAVE TO USE FEAR, THEN SHAME
ON YOU.
GO HOME, IF YOU DON'T
WANT TO FIX IT, IF YOU DON'T
WANT TO PLAY BY THE RULES, IF
YOU DON'T WANT TO MAKE AMERICA
SLEEP SAFELY AGAIN AND SLEEP
SOUNDLY, THEN GO HOME.
THERE IS A LEVEL OF FAIRNESS
THAT NEEDS TO BE PLAYED BY.
AND I WILL TELL YOU THIS, I HAVE
NEVER IN MY LIFE BEEN SUBJECTED
AND HAVE WATCHED SENIORS BE PUT
THROUGH SO MUCH AND IT'S NOT
NECESSARY.
IF IT'S ABOUT YOUR PARTY, IF
IT'S ABOUT TRYING TO CONVINCE
THEM, THEN YOU'RE USING THE
WRONG MESSAGE.
LET'S BE SURE WE FIX UP FOR THE
FUTURE AND IT'S THERE FOR OUR
CHILDREN.
I YIELD BACK.
THANK YOU.
I YIELD TO THE LADY FROM NEW
YORK.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I WANT TO COMMEND MY COLLEAGUES
FOR PUTTING TOGETHER THIS HOUR
WHICH IS OF SO MUCH VALUE.
I AM HERE AS A PHYSICIAN WHO'S
ALSO A MEMBER OF CONGRESS.
I'VE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF TAKING
CARE OF ELDERLY PATIENTS FOR 16
YEARS IN PRIVATE PRACTICE AND IN
HOSPITAL SETTINGS AND I HAVE TWO
PARENTS WHOM I CHERISH WHO HAVE
BEEN MEDICARE RECIPIENTS FOR
MANY YEARS AND THE FACTS OF THE
CASE, AS OUR COLLEAGUE FROM
PENNSYLVANIA HAS APTLY POINTED
OUT, WE HAVE TO GO BY THE FACTS
OF THE CASE AND AS A DOCTOR
THAT'S WHAT WE ALWAYS DID AND
APPROACHED THEM WITH COMPASSION
AND SENSITIVITY TO BE SURE.
BUT THE FACTS OF
THE CASE ARE THAT WE CURRENTLY
HAVE 10,000 AMERICANS, BABY
BOOMERS, NOW ENTERING MEDICARE
ELIGIBILITY EVERY DAY.
ON AVERAGE EACH OF THEM WILL
HAVE CONTRIBUTED APPROXIMATELY
$110,000 IN PAYROLL TAXES OVER
OF MONEY.
THEIR LIFETIMES AND THAT'S A LOT
THERE'S NO QUESTION.
BUT, MEDICARE WILL SPEND ON
AVERAGE, IT'S PROJECTED,
APPROXIMATELY $330,000 ON THEIR
CARE.
AND AS ALL OF US CAN TELL,
UNFORTUNATELY THAT'S NOT
SOMETHING THAT WE CAN SUSTAIN,
CHILDREN AND OUR GRANDCHILDREN
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT OUR
WILL BE ABLE TO PAY FOR.
THAT IS WHAT IS THREATENING THE
FUTURE FOR EVERYONE, INCLUDING
OUR SENIORS AND INCLUDING ALL OF
US WHO WILL BE SENIOR CITIZENS,
GOD LORD WILLING, BY AND BY.
WE KNOW THAT IN THE AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT, MEASURES WERE TAKEN TO
CONTROL THE COST OF MEDICARE.
ONE OF THE MEASURES IN FACT TOOK
FUNDING AWAY FROM MEDICARE.
THE
GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
THANK YOU, DOCTOR.
SO WE KNOW WE NEED TO DO
SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
THE WAY THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
APPROACHES IT IS TO HAVE IPAD
WHICH IS A BOARD OF BUREAUCRATS
IS GOING TO DECIDE HOW MONEY IS
SPENT ON OUR SENIORS' CARE.
I AS A DOCTOR AND AS DAUGHTER
WOULD MUCH PREFER TO SEE US HAVE
THAT CHOICE.
AND THAT'S WHY PREMIUM SUPPORT
THANK YOU.
MAKES SENSE.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
THE
GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
UNDER THE SPEAKER'S ANNOUNCED
POLICY OF JANUARY 5, 2011, THE
CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM NEW YORK, MR. TONKO, FOR 30
MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
THE OPPORTUNITY THIS EVENING FOR
THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS IN THE
HOUSE TO ADDRESS THIS BUDGET AND
TO GO FORWARD WITH A DISCUSSION
ON OUR STAND ON THE ISSUES AND
SOLUTIONS THAT WERE PROPOSE --
THAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS AN
IMPORTANT OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO
BE ABLE TO DIALOGUE HERE AMONGST
EACH OTHER ON THE HOUSE FLOOR
AND ALSO TO SHARE THAT MESSAGING
WITH THE VIEWING PUBLIC.
CERTAINLY THE GENERAL PUBLIC OUT
THERE IS WATCHING MANY OF THESE
PROPOSALS, THEY'RE CONCERNED
ABOUT THE STABILITY OF THE
MIDDLE CLASS, THEY'RE CONCERNED
ABOUT THE ECONOMY, CONCERNED
ABOUT JOB CREATION.
AND YOU KNOW, WE ARE NOW WELL
INTO THE 112TH SESSION OF
CONGRESS, WE WATCH AS MANY WEEKS
AND MONTHS HAVE PASSED WITHOUT
ONE SINGLE MEASURE THAT WOULD
INCREASE JOBS IN THIS COUNTRY
COMING BEFORE THE HOUSE.
NOTHING THAT DEALS WITH THE
ECONOMY, NOTHING THAT DEALS WITH
THE RETENTION OF JOBS OR THE JOB
CREATION SITUATION HAVE BEEN
PRODUCED HERE AS LEGISLATION.
AND VOTED UPON ON THE HOUSE
FLOOR.
A RATHER DISMAL TRACK RECORD
WHEN THE CLAARIAN CALL, THE
MESSAGE THAT RESONATED FROM THE
VOTING BOOTH TO THESE HALLS OF
CONGRESS ON THE HILL IN
WASHINGTON WAS VERY CLEAR.
START GROWING THE ECONOMY, STOP
SHRINKING THE MIDDLE CLASS.
AND PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT
THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT WILL BE
PASSED BY AND AS WE WALK THROUGH
THESE VERY DIFFICULT TIMES IT IS
.
ABOUT JOB CREATION AND RETENTION
THERE'S ALSO A CONCERN THAT
THERE HAS BEEN THIS VERY STRONG
ATTEMPT TO MAKE THE COMFORTABLE
EVEN MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THE
NEW REPUBLICAN MAJORITY IN THE
HOUSE.
AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT.
LET'S TALK ABOUT IT.
WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE PEOPLE
WILL ALLOW FOR CORPORATE
LOOPHOLES THAT COST OUR ECONOMY
MONEY, THEY'LL ALLOW FOR A
CONTINUATION OF MILLIONAIRES AND
BILLIONAIRES TO RECEIVE TAX CUTS
, THEY'LL ADVANCE THE REDUCING
OF MEDICAID WHERE 2/3 OF THOSE
DOLLARS GO TOWARD SUSTAINING THE
ELDERLY IN HEALTH CARE SETTINGS
AND WHERE THEY WANT TO END
MEDICARE AND ALL OF THIS IS
PROFESSED TO BE SOME SORT OF
SAVINGS IN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
WELL, THAT IS ONLY PART OF THE
STORY.
THE REAL TRUTH IS THAT THE
SAVINGS QUICKLY DISSIPATE.
THEY'RE GONE BECAUSE THEY ARE
USED AS PAYMENT FOR TAX CUTS FOR
MILLIONAIRES, HANDOUTS TO THE
OIL COMPANIES THAT SIT ON
HISTORIC PROFIT THAT HAS BEEN
REALIZED, $1 TRILLION NEARLY IN
PROFIT REALIZED BY THE BIG OIL
COMPANIES OF THIS NATION AND
THAT IS THE VULGAR OUTCOME THAT
HAS SO INFURIATED THE MIDDLE
CLASS AND AS I TRAVEL TO MY
DISTRICT, I HEAR REPEATEDLY
ABOUT THE CONCERNS TO END
MEDICARE.
THEY'LL SAY, WE'RE NOT ENDING
IT, WE'RE FIXING IT, WE'RE NOT
REALLY PROVIDING FOR AN END,
WE'RE OFFERING AT FIRST WHAT WAS
A VOUCHER AND NOW IT'S CALLED A
TRANSFORMATION.
AS WE SHIFT RISSFRK THE
GOVERNMENT TO THE INDIVIDUAL
SENIOR HOUSEHOLD, WE ARE ENDING
A BENEFIT THAT HAS LASTED FOR
SOME 4 1/2 DECADES, THAT CAME
ABOUT FOR THE VERY REASONS THAT
SENIORS COULD NOT ACCESS AN
AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE PLAN,
THAT THERE WAS CHERRY PICKING
GOING ON, THAT ONLY THE HE'S
CREST TO ENSURE WOULD BE COVERED
-- EASIEST TO ENSURE WOULD BE
COVERED, THAT ONLY THOSE THAT
COME WITH SOME PRE-EXISTING
CONDITION WOULD BE PASSED BY AND
WHERE THE AFFORDABLE NOTION OF A
HEALTH CARE INSURANCE PREMIUM, A
POLICY THAT WAS UNAFFORDABLE,
WAS JUST BEYOND THE GRASP OF OUR
NATION'S SENIORS.
AND SO THAT'S WHY THE PROGRAM
GREW IN STRENGTH AND POPULARITY
AND WHY IT IS -- IT HAS PROVIDED
STABILITY FOR OUR NATION'S
SENIORS.
NOW, WHEN WE LOOK AT WHAT'S
HAPPENING HERE, WE'LL TALK ABOUT
THE MANY DYNAMICS, BUT THERE ARE
THOSE WHO PROFESSED VERY BOLDLY
THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS
EXACTLY WHAT THE CONGRESS HAS IN
TERMS OF AN INSURANCE POLICY.
WELL, CONGRESS HAS ABOUT 72
CENTS OF ITS PREMIUM COSTS
COVERED.
WITH THIS PLAN, WITH THIS
VOUCHER PLAN, INITIATED IN THIS
REPUBLICAN BUDGET, APPROVED IN
THIS HOUSE, THE REPUBLICANS
SUGGEST WITH THEIR PLAN THAT IT
WOULD BE A 32 CENTS COVERAGE,
EVERY 32 CENTS ON A DOLLAR
COVERED WITH THEIR VOUCHER
PROGRAM.
AND JUST WHAT GUARANTEE IS THERE
THAT THE SENIOR WHO SHOPS WILL
IN FACT LAND A POLICY THAT WILL
COVER THEM?
SO IT'S VERY CONCERNING.
AND I WILL JUST HOLD UP, WE JUST
RECENTLY DID A MAILER THAT
INFORMED PEOPLE OF THE VARIOUS
REFORMS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED,
WE ALSO SOLICITED THEIR INPUT ON
WHAT PRIORITIES THEY BELIEVE WE
SHOULD HOLD IN OUR HEARTS AND
MINDS HERE AS WE MOVE FORWARD
AND WE RECEIVED A GREAT SUPPLY
OF INFORMATION ALREADY IN THE
VERY INFANT DAYS IN RESPONDING
AND AS THEY COME IN THEY KEEP
GROWING MORE AND MORE ONE-SIDED.
LET ME JUST HOLD UP JUST WHAT
THE FIRST FEW DAYS HAS PRODUCED.
. WE HAVE ONE PILE HERE
SPEAKING AGAINST THE MEDICARE
END.
WE HAVE YET A SECOND PILE.
ALL RECEIVED IN THE FIRST FEW
DAYS OF PEOPLE RECEIVING THEIR
MAILINGS.
.
THIS IS THE RESPONSE IN FAVOR OF
WELL BEYOND 90% OF THE RETURN TO
DATE IS DON'T MESS WITH
MEDICARE.
NOW MINDFUL, WHEN WE WERE
ADDRESSING THE AFFORDABLE CARE
ACT, HOLDING TOWN FORUMS, 3,000
TO 4,000 FORUMS ACROSS THIS
COUNTRY DISCUSSING THE HEALTH
CARE REFORMS, TO IMPROVE IT,
WHAT EXACTLY WAS INCLUDED, WHAT
THE PRIORITIES OUGHT TO BE,
THERE WERE COLLARION CALLS OF
ENDING MEDICARE, DEATH PAN ELSE
ACCESS.
AND RISK TO SENIORS AND DENYING
WE PROVED IT WAS NOT THE CASE.
THIS ONE WALKS INTO THIS
ARGUMENT BECAUSE IT ENDS
MEDICARE AND TURNS IT INTO A
VOUCHER SYSTEM AND HAS EVERYONE
SHOPPING IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR
COVERAGE.
INSURANCE MARKET TO GET THEIR
AND WE CAN'T ALLOW THIS TO
HAPPEN.
WE HAVE SEEN SINCE THE NIGS --
NIRKS OF MEDICARE THE GROWTH IN
THE MARKET AND THAT EQUATES TO
5,000%.
THERE ARE FRIENDS OUT THERE THAT
HELPED BRING ALONG CANDIDATES TO
THIS HOUSE AND IT IS TIME FOR
THEM TO COME FORWARD TO GET SOME
SORT OF RETURN ON THAT
INVESTMENT WHERE WE CANNOT
AFFORD TO HAVE THAT INVESTMENT
COME DOWN ONTO THE SENIOR
COMMUNITY BECAUSE IT WOULD BE
DEVASTATING.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO BATTLE.
TO END MEDICARE WOULD BE
DEVASTATING TO OUR NATION'S
SENIORS.
ABSOLUTELY.
CAN WE MAKE IT STRONGER?
CAN WE PROVIDE MORE STABILITY?
ABSOLUTELY.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK ON IT.
BUT SENIORS DID NOT TELL ME, AND
I TALKED TO MY COLLEAGUES AND
DID NOT TELL COLLEAGUES ACROSS
THIS NATION, GO BACK, GO BACK TO
PROGRAM.
WASHINGTON AND END OUR MEDICARE
THEY SAID ABSOLUTELY THE WORSE.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER
THINGS THAT ATTACK THE MIDDLE
CLASS, WORKING FAMILIES, WE WILL
MAKE CERTAIN THERE IS NOT AN
ATTACK ON THE MIDDLE CLASS, THAT
ATTACK THAT DRAINS WORTHY
PROGRAMS OF DOLLARS THAT GETS
TRANSFERRED OVER TO PAYMENTS FOR
HANDOUTS.
MILLIONAIRE AND BILLIONAIRE
WE ARE JOINED BY A VERY GOOD
FRIEND WHO HAS ENTERED THE HOUSE
THIS YEAR AS A FRESHMAN MEMBER,
AND FORMER MEMBER OF PROVIDENCE,
RHODE ISLAND AND REPRESENTS
RHODE ISLAND'S FIRST
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.
HE HAS BEEN AN OUTSPOKEN VOICE.
I'M IMPRESSED WITH DAVID
CICILLINE'S I AM PASSIONED
VOICE.
HE HAS BEEN OUTSPOKEN ON THE
HOUSE FLOOR AND IN OUR CAUCUS
AND IT'S A PLEASURE
REPRESENTATIVE CICILLINE TO HAVE
YOU HERE THIS EVENING TO TALK
ABOUT THIS MEDICARE SITUATION
AND PERHAPS WHAT YOU ARE HEARING
IN YOUR DISTRICT.
I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN FOR HIS KIND WORDS AND
FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY,
PART OF THIS DISCUSSION TONIGHT
AND YOUR LEADERSHIP ON THE
IMPORTANCE OF PRESERVING
MEDICARE FOR SENIORS IN THIS
COUNTRY.
I HEAR FROM CONSTITUENTS IN MY
DISTRICT ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF
STRENGTHENING AND PROTECTING
MEDICARE.
TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF HOW
IMPORTANT THIS IS IMPORTANT IN
RHODE ISLAND, 170,000 RHODE
ISLANDERS RELY ON MEDICARE FOR
RELIABLE QUALITY AND LOW COST
HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL INSURANCE
AS WELL AS PRESCRIPTION DRUG
COVERAGE.
65,000 SENIORS AND PEOPLE WITH
DISABILITIES IN RHODE ISLAND
RELY UPON MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR
LONG-TERM CARE.
WHEN I PARTICIPATED IN THE
DEBATE AND WHEN I LISTENED TO
THE DEBATE ON THIS FLOOR ABOUT
THE REPUBLICAN BUDGET PROPOSAL,
MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE AISLE SAID IT WILL
STRENGTHEN MEDICARE.
I THOUGHT HOW CAN THEY MAKE THAT
CLAIM BECAUSE I KNEW WHAT THEIR
PROPOSAL DID WAS END MEDICARE AS
WE KNOW, SO PEOPLE 55 AND UNDER,
AND ENDED THIS IMPORTANT SAFETY
NET.
AND TURNED IT INTO A VOUCHER
SYSTEM FOR OUR SENIORS.
NOW I KNOW LONGER HAVE MY
GRANDPARENTS, THEY ALL HAVE
PASSED.
BUT THE IDEA THAT MY GRANDMOTHER
AND GRANDFATHER IN THEIR LATER
YEARS WOULD HAVE TO GO INTO THE
PRIVATE INSURANCE MARKET AND BUY
INSURANCE BECAUSE THEY WOULD
HAVE LOST THE PROTECTION OF
MEDICARE IS SOMETHING NOBODY
SHOULD BE PREPARED TO ACCEPT.
AND WHAT IS EVEN MORE DISTURBING
IS WHAT THE REPUBLICANS PASSED
IN THAT BUDGET WHEN THEY ENDED
MEDICARE AS WE KNOW IT, ALSO
RESULTED IN INCREASED COSTS FOR
OUR SENIORS.
THE DIFFERENCE IS -- NOTHING IN
THEIR PROPOSAL WILL REDUCE COSTS
OF HEALTH CARE.
DO.
THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE NEED TO
WE DON'T NEED TO SHIFT THE COST
TO OUR SENIORS AND VISIT THAT
PROBLEM UPON THEM BECAUSE THEN
THEY HAVE THE BURDEN OF ENDURING
ADDITIONAL HEALTH CARE COSTS.
WE NEED TO ELIMINATE FRAUD,
WASTE AND ABUSE AND INVEST IN
WELLNESS AND PREVENTION AND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, ALL THE
THINGS THAT WILL DRIVE DOWN
HEALTH CARE COSTS.
BUT SHIFTING THE BURDEN TO OUR
SENIORS SHOULD NOT BE THE
ANSWER.
AND THE NONPARTISAN
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, NOT
REPUBLICANS OR DEMOCRATS, THIS
IS NONPARTISAN, THEY SAID THIS
REPUBLICAN BUDGET WHICH WAS
PASSED BY THE REPUBLICANS WOULD
ACTUALLY INCREASE HEALTH CARE
COSTS FOR OUR SENIORS, PROVIDE
LESS COSTS AND BE MORE
EXPENSIVE.
IT WOULD RESTORE THE DOUGHNUT
HOLE AND MAKE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
MORE EXPENSIVE FOR OUR SENIORS
AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, WHEN
YOU TAKE THEIR BUDGET PROPOSAL
IN THE AGGREGATE, IT WOULD ADD
$8 TRILLION TO THE DEFICIT OVER
THE NEXT 10 YEARS.
DEFICIT.
SO IT DOESN'T EVEN REDUCE THE
AND WE ALL RECOGNIZE, WE HAVE
GOT TO REDUCE THE DEFICIT.
WE HAVE TO CUT SPENDING.
WE HAVE TO BE SERIOUS ABOUT IT.
BUT CAN'T DO IT AT THE EXPENSE
OF OUR SENIORS, OF PROTECTING
MEDICARE, STRENGTHENING MEDICARE
SO OUR SENIORS HAVE ACCESS TO
QUALITY HEALTH CARE AND THAT'S
THE RESPONSIBILITY THAT WE HAVE.
THERE ARE LOTS OF WAYS WE HAVE
TO LOOK AT EVERY PART OF THIS
BUDGET, ELIMINATE FRAUD AND
WASTE, GET RID OF PROGRAMS THAT
DON'T WORK, LOOK AT OUR MILITARY
SPENDING, WHAT IS HAPPENING IN
AFGHANISTAN, $2 BILLION A WEEK
OR MORE THAN THAT NOW.
LOOK AT THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
THAT WE ARE GIVING OIL SUBSIDIES
TO BIG OIL COMPANIES, A BIG TAX
CUT TO THE RICHEST MILLIONAIRES
AND BILLIONAIRES AND ENDING
MEDICARE AS WE KNOW IT.
WRONG PRIORITIES.
WE CAN DO BETTER THAN THIS.
AND I THANK DISTINGUISHED THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE MY SHARE.
RHODE ISLAND SENIORS ARE
DEPENDING ON ME AND THIS
CONGRESS TO PROTECT AND
STRENGTHEN MEDICARE AND THEY
EXPECT US TO DEAL WITH THIS
DEFICIT IN A RESPONSIBLE WAY AND
BE RESPONSIBLE BUT MAINTAIN OUR
COMMITMENT TO OUR SENIORS.
THANK YOU,
REPRESENTATIVE CICILLINE AND
THANK YOU FOR YOUR OUTSPOKENNESS
AND AMERICA KNEES TO BE
INVOLVED.
WE CAN RAID ON THE MIDDLE CLASS
AND CUT DOMESTIC PROGRAMS OR DO
IT INTELLIGENTLY WHERE WE SHARE
THE PAIN AND SPEAK OF SHARING
THE PAIN, A BUDGET, AS YOU
INDICATE, IS NOTHING MORE,
NOTHING LESS THAN OUR VALUES,
OUR PRINCIPLES, OUR PRIORITIES.
AND WE HAVE SEEN WHERE THE
PRIORITIES LIE IN THE -- WITH
THE MAJORITY OF THIS HOUSE.
THEY HAVE SAID IT'S ABOUT BIG
OIL FIRST, CORPORATE LOOPHOLES
FIRST, MILLIONAIRES AND
BILLIONAIRES FIRST AND THE
PEOPLE SEE IT BECAUSE THEY KNOW
THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY
TWO TIMES WHAT THEY PAY TODAY
FOR MEDICARE COVERAGE OUT OF
THEIR POCKET.
IT'S SHIFTING RISK FROM
GOVERNMENT TO THE SENIOR CITIZEN
HOUSEHOLD AND SENIOR CITIZEN
INDIVIDUAL.
2030, TRIPLE THE AMOUNT OF MONEY
AND PLUS THE RISK OF GOING OUT
THERE AND FINDING A CARRIER THAT
WILL COVER YOU, BECAUSE THEY
WILL PUT YOUR COVERAGE IN THE
WHIM -- AT THE WHIMS OF THE
INSURANCE COMPANY, THAT THEY
WANT TO COVER SOME OF YOUR
HEALTH CARE NEEDS, THEY WILL, IF
NOT, THEY WON'T.
AND THAT IS WHAT WILL ACHE HERE
AND WHAT HAPPENED IS WE ARE
TAKING THIS MORAL COMPASS THAT
HAS BEEN EXPRESSED BY A PROGRAM
LIKE MEDICARE AND DENOUNCING IT
AND SAY FEND FOR YOURSELF AND
FIND YOUR OWNER PROGRAM AND YOU
KNOW WHAT I FIND IN MY DISTRICT
SENIORS, THEY ARE SAYING, YOU
KNOW, I'M JUST NOT TALKING ABOUT
MYSELF OR MY GENERATION, BUT MY
CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN.
WE KNOW WHAT COMFORT, SECURITY,
STABILITY, THIS BROUGHT OUR
HOUSEHOLD.
WHAT COMFORT DOES IT BRING TO
ADD UTILITY CHILDREN TO KNOW
THEIR RELATIVES, THEIR PARENTS
ARE SITTING IN A SITUATION THAT
IS RESPONDING WITH DIGNITY.
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE
PRINCIPLES AND THE PRIORITIES,
LOOK AT THE ROAD TO RUIN AND
THEY CALL IT TO THE PATH TO PROS
TERT.
THE ROAD TO RUIN TAKES MONEY
FROM OUR SENIORS, $4.3 TRILLION
THAT THEN GOES AND TRANSFERS
ITSELF OVER TO BENEFITS FOR BIG
BILLIONAIRES.
OIL AND MILLIONAIRES AND
THE SCALES ARE BALANCED IN TERMS
OF WHERE THE DOLLARSR BUT THE
REAL PAIN HERE IS THAT THEY GET
EMPTY FROM THE SENIORS' COVERS
AND THEN GET EMPTIED INTO THE
POCKETS OF BILLIONAIRES AND
MILLIONAIRES AND BIG OIL
COMPANIES.
REPRESENTATIVE GARAMENDI HAS
WONDERFUL AND INTERESTING
DISCUSSIONS HAS SOMETHING TO SAY
ABOUT BIG OIL COMPANIES AND
FLIPPING FROM ONE SCALE TO
ANOTHER, EQUAL AMOUNT OF MONEY
FOUND IN SAVINGS BY CUTTING OUR
SENIORS IS NOW GOING TO BE SPENT
-- IT'S NOT SAVING, BUT ACCRUING
THE DOLLARS NECESSARY TO
TRANSFER IN SOME SORT OF WAY AND
PAINFUL WAY THAT FINDS ITSELF
WITH OIL COMPANIES AND
BILLIONAIRES AND MILLIONAIRES.
THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING UP THIS CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT ISSUE AND AS YOU WERE
SAYING, NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT
THAN THE QUESTION OF WHO WE ARE
AS AMERICANS AND OUR VALUES,
WHAT IS IT THAT WE REALLY CARE
ABOUT AND HOW DO WE STRUCTURE
AND CREATE A SOCIETY THAT
REFLECTS THOSE VALUES.
BEFORE 1964, THE LARGEST SEGMENT
OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION THAT
WAS IN ABJECT POVERTY WERE
SENIORS.
THEY HAD NO HEALTH CARE AND
COULDN'T GET INSURANCE AND THEY
WERE BASICALLY THE POOR OF THE
POOR.
AS A RESULT OF THE FUNDAMENTAL
GOODNESS OF AMERICA, MEDICARE
WAS CREATED, A MEDICAL INSURANCE
PROGRAM FOR SENIORS SO THEY
WOULD HAVE AVAILABLE TO THEM
DOCTORSO SERVICES AND HOSPITAL
SERVICES AND IT WORK.
I WAS THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER
IN CALIFORNIA FOR EIGHT YEARS,
ELECTED STATEWIDE BY 34 MILLION
TO OVERSEE AND REGULATE THE
INSURANCE COMPANIES.
AND IN THAT PROCESS, WE WERE
LOOKING AND WATCHING THE
MEDICARE PROGRAM.
WASN'T A PRIVATE INSURANCE, BUT
IT WAS PART OF THE HEALTH
INSURANCE SYSTEM.
AND WE KNEW THAT IT WORKED.
IT'S EXCEEDINGLY EFFICIENT.
IT WORKS FOR LESS THAN 2%.
POLICY.
YOU GOT A NATIONWIDE INSURANCE
WHEREVER YOU ARE IN AMERICA, YOU
GET THE EXACT SAME INSURANCE
POLICY.
DOCTORS KNOW HOW TO BILL HEALTH
INSURANCE -- HOSPITALS KNOW HOW
TO BILL.
IT IS EFFICIENT.
IT IS EFFECTIVE, IT WORKS.
AND MORE THAN THAT, AS AN
EXPRESSION OF THE BASIC GOODNESS
OF AMERICA.
I WAS SURPRISED.
SHOCKED, ANGERED WHEN THE
REPUBLICAN BUDGET CAME FORWARD
AND PROPOSED THAT MEDICARE BE
TERMINATED FOR ALL WHO WANT TO
LIVE TO THE AGE OF 65.
TERMINATED, ENDED.
THAT WASN'T ALL THAT THE
REPUBLICANS PROPOSED.
THEY PROPOSED THAT NOT ONLY
WOULD IT BE TERMINATED, BUT THAT
ALL FUTURE MEDICARE ENROLLEES
WOULD BE GIVEN A VOUCHER WORTH
ABOUT ONE HALF THE COST OF
INSURANCE AND TOLD GO TO THE
INSURANCE COMPANIES AND BUY AN
INSURANCE POLICY.
WAIT A MINUTE.
REPUBLICAN.
WAIT A MINUTE, TIME OUT, MR.
TIME OUT.
WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?
TAKE THE
CONDITIONS.
POPULATION THAT HAS PRE-EXISTING
AND THERE ARE VERY FEW THAT ARE
65 YEARS OF AGE THAT DON'T HAVE
PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS AND
GOING TO TURN THEM OVER TO THE
SHARKS IN THIS NATION, HEALTH
INSURANCE COMPANIES?
NO WAY.
NO WAY.
THEY'RE GOING TO GET CHEWED UP,
SPIT UP AND UNINSURED OR ELSE
CHARGED A SMALL FORTUNE.
THIS IS THE MOST UN-AMERICAN,
THE MOST INHUMANE THING THAT
COULD BE IMAGINED FOR TOMORROW'S
SENIORS.
WE CANNOT LET IT HAPPEN.
AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT, IN THE
VERY NEXT BREATH, THEY PROPOSED
TO CONTINUE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
OF SUBSIDIES, TAKING MONEY,
LITERALLY OUT OF THE POCKETS OF
SENIORS AND WORKING MEN AND
WOMEN AND GIVING IT TO BIG OIL,
WHO HAPPENS TO HAVE BIG PROFITS,
JUST AS YOU HAVE ON YOUR CARD UP
THERE.
NOT ONLY THE BIG OIL, BUT THE
BIG -- THE WEALTHIEST PEOPLE IN
AMERICA, PEOPLE WHOSE INCOMES
ARE $10 MILLION, $1 BILLION IN
INCOME AND GIVE THEM ADDITIONAL
TAX BREAKS SO IN 10 YEARS, IT'S
$4 TRILLION IN TAX BREAKS TO THE
BIG OIL COMPANIES AND THOSE, NOT
MILLIONAIRES, BUT THOSE WHOSE
ANNUAL INCOME IS IN THE
MILLIONS.
.
WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?
YOU TALK ABOUT THOSE
BIG OIL, BIG PROFITS.
YOU TALK ABOUT THE TRILLIONS
THAT ARE WILLING TO -- THEY'RE
WILLING TO SPEND AND THEN THEY
HAVE THE YOU A DAFT -- AUDACITY
TO SAY IT'S A SPENDING PROBLEM.
WE'RE MAKING THE COMFORTABLE
WELL, WHERE ARE WE SPENDING?
MORE COMFORTABLE.
WITH THOSE BIG OIL HANDOUTS, UP
TO 90% ACCORDING TO STUDIES
RELEASED, UP TO 90% ARE GOING
THE OIL INDUSTRY.
TOWARD BONUSES FOR EXECUTIVES IN
UP TO 90%.
WHAT QUANTIFIABLE SOCIETAL GOOD
IS THERE FROM THESE HANDOUTS?
SO MINDLESS.
AND TODAY, TODAY SOMEONE FROM
THE INDUSTRY WAS QUOTED AS
SAYING TO NOT OFFER THESE
HANDOUTS IS UN-AMERICAN.
IT'S UNBELIEVABLE.
I THINK WHAT IS JUST SHOCKING
IS THAT THAT CLAIM WAS MADE
TODAY AND REALLY WHAT'S
UN-AMERICAN IS TO END MEDICARE.
THE REALITY IS MEDICARE REFLECTS
OUR VALUES AS A COUNTRY.
WE DECIDED AS A NATION THAT WE
WANTED TO ENSURE THAT OUR
SENIORS IN THEIR FINAL YEARS, AS
THEY LIVE THE LIFE AND PLAYED BY
THAT THEY COULD LIVE WITH
THE RULES AND DONE WHAT'S RIGHT,
SECURITY AND WITH DIGNITY AND
WITHOUT THE FEAR, THE ANXIETY OF
WORRYING HOW THEY WOULD HAVE
ACCESS TO BASIC HEALTH CARE.
BECAUSE WE
DECIDED AS A COUNTRY THAT THEY
WANTED TO ENSURE, TO GUARANTEE
THAT OUR SENIORS COULD LIVE WITH
CARE.
DIGNITY, WITH PROPER HEALTH
THE IDEA OF ENDING THAT AND
REQUIRING TO GO BUY A VOUCHER,
THAT'S UN-AMERICAN.
AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT
THE STATISTICS, THE MEDIAN
HOUSEHOLD SALARY FOR OUR SENIORS
IS $19,000.
$19,000.
THE AVERAGE INDIVIDUAL SALARY,
WHAT WE -- WELL, WE LOOK AT THAT
AND THE ONEROUS OUTCOME OF
HAVING TO REACH FOR THOUSANDS OF
MORE DOLLARS OUT OF YOUR POCKET
ON A BASE OF A MEDIAN OF $19,000
WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT
MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES
GETTING EVEN MORE ASSISTANCE,
THAT IS SPENDING.
SO LET'S NOT GET OFFTRACK HERE.
IT IS SPENDING.
WHERE ARE WE GOING TO INVEST?
INVESTING IN HEALTH CARE, A
BASIC CORE NEED?
WHEN PREMIUMS IN THE LAST DECADE
HAVE RISEN OVER 130% AND WHERE
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF THE
PRIVATE SECTOR AND INSURANCE ARE
HIGHER, WHERE THEY'RE MUCH LOWER
IN MEDICARE, WHERE THE AVERAGE
HIKE IN COSTS AREN'T THERE, AND
WE KNOW WE HAVE COVERAGE AND NOW
WE SAY, HERE YOUR VOUCHER
PAYMENT, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE
INDEXED APPROPRIATELY SO THAT
WITH TIME IT BECOMES LESS AND
LESS VALUABLE, THIS IS THE KIND
OF UN-AMERICAN BEHAVIOR THAT
WE'RE WITNESSING HERE AND THAT
PEOPLE GET UPSET SAYING THAT
THEY'RE LIVES, THE FEAR TACTIC,
THIS IS WHAT'S HAPPENING.
TENDS MEDICARE.
BECAUSE ONCE YOU REMOVE THE RISK
THAT FALLS WITH GOVERNMENT AND
TRANSFER IT OVER TO OUR NATION'S
SENIORS, YOU HAVE ENDED THE CORE
PRINCIPLE, WHEN YOU DENY A GIVE
AND BIT OF CERTAINTY AND
STABILITY TO OUR SENIORS, YOU
HAVE ENDED MEDICARE.
WELL, YOU'RE GOING TO INFLATE
THE COST OF HEALTH CARE, YOU
HAVE ENDED MEDICARE AND WE HAVE
NOW TAKEN THAT MONEY AND
TRANSFERRED IT OVER TO THE BIG
OIL.
THANK YOU FOR
YIELDING.
IF YOU ADD TO THAT DESTRUCTION,
TERMINATION OF MEDICARE, THE WAY
IN WHICH THE REPUBLICANS HAVE
ALREADY VOTED FOR ON THIS FLOOR
TO END THE AMERICAN -- THE
HEALTH CARE REFORM ACT, WHICH
REGULATED THE INSURANCE
COMPANIES AND SAID THE INSURANCE
COMPANIES COULD NO LONGER
DISCRIMINATE BASED UPON
PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS,
DISCRIMINATE BASED UPON AGE AND
WHETHER YOU'RE A WOMAN OR A MAN,
ALL OF THOSE PROTECTIONS THAT
ARE IN THE HEALTH CARE REFORM
LAW WOULD BE TERMINATED SO NOT
ONLY ARE YOU TAKING THE MEDICARE
PROGRAM AND ENDING IT, GIVING
THE SENIORS A VOUCHER THAT IS
PERHAPS HALF OF THE COST OF A
HEALTH INSURANCE POLICY, YOU ARE
ELIMINATING THE RESTRICTIONS
THAT WERE PLACED ON THE
INSURANCE COMPANIES FOR
DISCRIMINATING AGAINST PEOPLE
THAT HAVE PRE-EXISTING
CONDITIONS, SO YOU'VE
DELIBERATELY TAKEN THESE PEOPLE
AND THROWN THEM TO THE SHARKS.
AND ON TOP OF THAT, THE REST OF
THE PROPOSAL WAS TO TAKE THE
MEDICAID PROGRAM WHICH IS HEALTH
INSURANCE FOR IMPOVERISHED
CHILDREN AND GIVEN A BLOCK GRANT
TO THE STATE THAT'S WORTH ABOUT
HALF OF THE COST, $700 BILLION
CUT OUT OF THAT PROGRAM FOR
CHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE, YOU GO,
WHAT IS THIS?
THIS IS NOT US, THIS IS NOT
AMERICA, THESE ARE HARSH, CRUEL
PROGRAMS THAT ARE BEING FOISTED
UPON THE AMERICAN CITIZENS.
I YIELD BACK.
IF YOU WILL, THAT
MEDICAID CUT ALSO WILL IMPACT
THE NATION'S SENIORS BECAUSE
KNOW THAT ABOUT 66% OF THE
WITHIN INSTITUTIONAL SETTINGS WE
EXPENDITURE IS FOR OUR SENIORS
AND AGAIN WE UNDERSTAND THE
COMPASSION THAT IS REQUIRED.
WE KNOW THE AMERICAN SPIRIT.
TO RESPOND TO THOSE WHO HAVE
SERVED SOCIETY SO WELL AND IN
ASSISTANCE.
THEIR GOLDEN YEARS THEY NEED THE
BUT, YOU KNOW, EVERY ATTEMPT IS
BEING MADE HERE, WE HAVE TRIED
EVERY WHICH WAY TO INFORM THE
PUBLIC OF THE ATTACK ON
MEDICARE, THE ATTACK ON SOCIAL
SECURITY, TO PRIVATIZE SOCIAL
SECURITY.
THIS IS ABOUT GIVING BIG OIL,
BIG INSURANCE COMPANIES, BIG
BANKS MORE BUSINESS.
GOOD TO SOME PEOPLE HERE.
THIS IS LIKE CASHING IN ON BEING
THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS GOVERNMENT
-- HOW THIS GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE
GUIDED.
IT SHOULD BE GUIDED ON THE
PRINCIPLES OF PROVIDING THE
BASIC CORE NEEDS IN A WAY THAT'S
MOST EFFECTIVE, MOST EFFICIENT.
WE HAVE EVEN ATTEMPTED, THE
HOUSE WAS ADDRESSING THE
REPUBLICAN VERSION OF THE
BUDGET, I INTRODUCED AN
AMENDMENT ON THE BUDGET
COMMITTEE WHERE I SERVE.
AND PRESENTED IT BEFORE THE
BUDGET COMMITTEE AND IT WENT
DOWN BY PARTY VOTE TO STOP THE
ATTACK ON MEDICARE, TO END
MEDICARE.
THERE WAS AN ABSOLUTE AMENDMENT
THAT SAID, LET'S PULL OUT ENDING
MEDICARE FROM YOUR BUDGET PLAN.
IT WAS DENIED.
THEN I TRAVELED TO THE RULES
COMMITTEE AND ATTEMPTED ONCE
MORE BEFORE THE BILL CAME TO THE
HOUSE, LET'S STOP THE EFFORT TO
END MEDICARE.
IT WAS DENIED AT THE RULES
COMMITTEE AGAIN WITH THE
REPUBLICAN MAJORITY AT THE RULES
COMMITTEE.
SO NOW WE'RE VISITING THIS
SITUATION AND THE BUDGET WAS
APPROVED IN THIS HOUSE WITH THIS
ATTACK ON THE VALUES OF THE
RAID ON THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE
MIDDLE CLASS OF WORKING
FAMILIES.
IT IS REALLY DISTURBING THAT THE
MOST COMFORTABLE CONTINUE TO GET
THAT EFFORT MADE THEIR WAY AND
ESPECIALLY WHEN HISTORY SPEAKS
AND SPEAKS SO ABUNDANTLY WELL TO
US.
IT SHOULD RESONATE.
WHERE WE PUT PEOPLE TO WORK WITH
F.D.R.'S PROGRAMS, YOU KNOW,
BACK YEARS AGO, DECADES AGO, THE
RESULT WAS 8.5 MILLION PEOPLE
PUT TO WORK AND PUBLIC PROJECTS
BUILT THAT STILL SERVE US WELL
TODAY.
J.F.K. INVESTING IN GLOBAL
TECHNOLOGY TO WIN THE SPACE
RACE.
THOSE ARE EXAMPLES OF THINGS
L.B.J. PROMOTING A MEDICARE
THAT WORK.
PROGRAM.
NOW WE'RE REPEATING THIS DRIVING
THE CAR INTO THE DITCH SCENARIO.
REGOMICS AND ITS TRIPLE --
TRICKLEDOWN DIDN'T WORK AND THE
BUSH II PRESIDENCY AND ITS CUTS
DIDN'T WORK.
WHY WOULD WE REVISIT THAT AS WE
CRAWL OUT OF THE MOST PAINFUL
RECESSION AND PROPOSE ENDING
MEDICARE, ENDING MEDICARE,
DENYING DIGNITY TO OUR NATION'S
SENIORS AND AVOIDING THE
RESPONSIBILITY, FUNDAMENTAL
GOVERNMENT, EFFICIENT
RESPONSIBILITY, OF GROOD
GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS WHAT I
NOVEMBER.
THINK THE VOTERS ASKED FOR IN
NOT THIS SORT OF THING.
THANK YOU.
I THANK THE GENTLEMAN.
AND IN ADDITION TO THAT THE
OTHER PART OF THE REPUBLICAN
BUDGET THAT PASSED IN THIS
CHAMBER WAS ALSO TO RESTORE THE
DOUGHNUT HOLE, TO MAKE
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS MORE
EXPENSIVE FOR OUR SENIORS AND TO
ELIMINATE THE FREE PREVENTATIVE
CARE.
I KNOW FROM TALKING TO SENIORS
IN MY OWN DISTRICT, THERE ARE
TWO MANY SENIORS IN THIS COUNTRY
THAT ARE FACED WITH A CHOICE OF
DO I BUY MY GROCERIES OR DO I
BUY THE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS THAT
ARE NECESSARY TO KEEP ME
HEALTHY?
NO SENIOR IN AMERICA SHOULD BE
FACED WITH THAT CHOICE AND THIS
BILL, THIS BUDGET THAT THE
REPUBLICANS PASSED WILL RAISE
PRESCRIPTION COSTS FOR OUR
THANK YOU.
SENIORS.
WE HAVE FOUR MINUTES REMAINING
IN OUR ONE-HALF HOUR HERE OF
DIALOGUE.
I'LL TAKE A
LIGHTNING MINUTE HERE.
IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO A
QUESTION OF WHERE DO YOU STAND?
WHO DO YOU STAND FOR?
IT'S VERY, VERY CLEAR, IF
THERE'S EVER A DICHOTOMY AND A
CLEAR OPPORTUNITY TO SEE WHERE
YOU STAND, IT IS IN THE
REPUBLICAN BUDGET.
LET'S BE VERY CLEAR.
IT TERMINATES MEDICARE, GIVES
SENIORS A VOUCHER THAT WORTH
PERHAPS HALF OF THE COST OF
INSURANCE, TAKES $700 BILLION
OUT OF MEDICAID AND THAT IS, AS
YOU SAID, THAT'S THE LONG-TERM
CARE FOR SENIORS IN NURSING
HOMES, AND CONTINUES THE TAX
CUTS FOR PEOPLE WHOSE INCOME IS
MILLIONS, BILLIONS, CONTINUES
THE TAX SUBSIDIES FOR BIG OIL,
$4 BILLION, $5 BILLION A YEAR TO
COMPANIES THAT HAVE MADE OVER $1
TRILLION IN THE LAST DECADE.
AND JUST THIS QUARTER EXXON,
$10.7 BILLION, OXY, $1.6
BILLION.
THIS IS ONE QUARTER, THREE
MONTHS' EARNINGS.
BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS.
AND THEN THEY WANT TO CONTINUE
WHERE DO YOU STAND?
DO YOU STAND FOR THE WORKING MEN
AND WOMEN, THE SENIORS, THOSE
PEOPLE THAT NEED TO BE ABLE TO
GET HEALTH CARE OR DO YOU STAND
FOR THE VERY, VERY RICH IN THE
BIG OIL COMPANIES?
THE REPUBLICANS HAVE MADE IT
CLEAR, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE HERE
BETWEEN WHERE WE STAND AS
DEMOCRATS AND WHERE THEY STAND
AS REPUBLICANS.
I YIELD BACK MY TIME TO YOU, MR.
TONKO.
THANK YOU, AND I
APPRECIATE YOU AND
REPRESENTATIVE CICILLINE JOINING
IN THIS IMPORTANT HALF-HOUR OF
DISCUSSION.
BUT YOU KNOW, I CAN CLEARLY
STATE THAT NO ONE THAT I TALK TO
IN THIS HOUSE, NO REPRESENTATIVE
WAS HEARING ADVOCACY TO END
MEDICARE DURING OUR CAMPAIGNS
I DIDN'T HEAR ONE INDIVIDUAL
LAST YEAR.
TELL ME THAT, SENIOR, NONSENIOR.
I DIDN'T HEAR ANYONE ASK ME TO
GIVE MORE PROFITS, MORE HANDOUTS
TO THE BIG OIL COMPANIES.
I DIDN'T HEAR ONE PERSON SAY,
PROTECT THE CORPORATE LOOPHOLES
FOR CORPORATIONS OUT THERE.
I DIDN'T HEAR ANYONE SAY, HAND
MORE TAX CUTS TO MILLIONS AIRS
AND BILLIONAIRES.
I -- MILLIONAIRES AND
BILLIONAIRES.
DID I HEAR, MAKE MY BUDGET WORK
AT HOME.
I NEED THE BASICS.
I DID HEAR, I CABINET SURVIVE
WITH THE SITUATION AS IT IS -- I
AS IT IS.
CAN'T SURVIVE WITH THE SITUATION
I DID HEAR, WE NEED JOBS.
I DID HEAR, START GROWING OUR
ECONOMY, STOP SHRINKING THE
MIDDLE CLASS.
WELL, EVIDENTLY THIS MAJORITY
WAS NOT LISTENING.
THERE WAS ANGER, UNDENIABLE
ANGER, UNDERSTANDABLE ANGER THAT
EXISTED OUT THERE, BUT THIS IS
NOT THE QUANTITYFICATION THAT
THEY WERE LOOKING FOR.
THEY DID NOT WANT TO SEE THIS AS
A RESULT, AS AN OUTCOME.
AND I THINK WE NEED TO CONTINUE
TO FIGHT THIS EFFORT TO END
MEDICARE AND WE'RE GOING TO
CONTINUE THAT FIGHT.
WITH THAT I THANK THE GENTLEMAN
FOR JOINING ME IN THIS HALF-HOUR
AND WE YIELD BACK, MR. SPEAKER.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
UNDER THE SPEAKER'S ANNOUNCED
POLICY OF JANUARY 5, 2011, THE
CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM IOWA, MR. KING.
FOR 30 MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
IT'S MY PRIVILEGE TO BE
RECOGNIZED TO ADDRESS YOU HERE
ON THE FLOOR OF THE UNITED
STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
IN THIS GREAT DELIBERATIVE BODY
AND I CAME HERE TO TALK ABOUT A
DIFFERENT SUBJECT MATTER BUT
AFTER I LISTENED TO MY
COLLEAGUES FOR A LITTLE WHILE, I
BELIEVE IT'S PRETTY IMPORTANT
THAT WE SET SOME OF THIS RECORD
STRAIGHT.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY'D BE
SATISFIED, IT SEEMS AS THOUGH
THE ATTACK IS ON ANYBODY THAT'S
IN FREE ENTERPRISE AND THE
GOVERNMENT.
SUPPORT GOES TO ANYTHING THAT IS
ANYTHING THAT RAISES TAXES AND
GROWS GOVERNMENT IS GOOD AND
ANYTHING THAT TAXES FREE
ENTERPRISE AND ESPECIALLY
PROFITS, THOSE EVIL PROFITS ARE
BAD.
THAT'S THE THEME THAT I HEAR
FROM THE GENTLEMAN WHO SPENT THE
PREVIOUS HALF HOUR OR HOUR
DEMAGOGUING THE ISSUE OF BIG OIL
AND BIG INSURANCE COMPANIES.
THIS IS PARTICULARLY APPALLING
TO ME WHEN I WALK HERE ON THE
FLOOR AND I HEAR A STATEMENT
MADE BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA SAYING THIS, YOU'RE
GOING TO TURN THEM OVER TO THE
MOST VORACIOUS SHARKS IN THE
COUNTRY, THE HEALTH INSURANCE
COMPANIES.
WELL, IF IT HAPPENS TO BE THAT
THE HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES
ARE OPERATING WITHOUT
COMPETITION, KEEPING THEIR
PRICES DOWN, WHY DIDN'T THE
GENTLEMAN OR OTHERS THAT MIGHT
BELIEVE THAT ENGAGE IN THE
HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES MADE IT VERY CLEAR, HE
SAID HE WANTED MORE COMPETITION
IN THE HEALTH INSURANCE
INDUSTRY, HE WANTED TO CREATE A
GOVERNMENT-RUN, GOVERNMENT-OWNED
HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY AS
PART OF OBAMACARE.
AND HE DIDN'T REALIZE, I DON'T
THINK, WHEN HE UTTERED THAT
STATEMENT THAT THERE ARE, AT
LEAST BEFORE OBAMACARE WAS
PASSED AND BEGAN TO KNOCK THE
COMPETITION OUT OF THE WAY, THAT
THERE WERE 1,300 HEALTH
INSURANCE COMPANIES IN AMERICA.
1,300.
AND OVER 100,000 POLICY
VARIETIES THAT ONE COULD CHOOSE
FROM DEPENDING ON THE STATE THAT
YOU MIGHT LIVE IN.
THAT'S A LOT OF COMPANIES AND
THEY'VE ALL BEEN SHOT DOWN HERE
THEY'RE VORACIOUS SHARKS.
WITH THE BLANKET ALLEGATION THAT
HOW CAN THEY BE VORACIOUS SHARKS
IF THERE'S 1,300 COMPANIES TO
COMPETE AGAINST AND 100,000
POLICIES TO CHOOSE FROM?
CERTAINLY THERE'S SOMETHING THAT
THERE WOULD SATISFY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM THAT ARRAY OF
VARIETY THAT IS AVAILABLE BEFORE
THE PRESIDENT DECIDED HE WANTED
TO MAKE THE 1,300 INSURANCE
COMPANIES BE THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND PERHAPS GIVE US A
HALF A DOZEN OR SO POLICY
VARIETIES, WITH A COMMUNITY
RATING THAT COMPRESSED IT DOWN,
THAT RAISES THE HEALTH INSURANCE
PREMIUMS FOR THE YOUNGEST,
LOWEST INCOME PEOPLE AMONG US
AND SUBSIDIZES THE PREMIUMS FOR
THE HIGHEST INCOME PEOPLE AMONG
US.
THAT'S OBAMACARE, MR. SPEAKER.
AND IT CLEARLY IS.
AND THE GENTLEMAN SEEMED TO HAVE
FORGET WHAN THEY ALL WORKED
TOGETHER TO DO TO AMERICA OVER
THE LAST 19 MONTHS.
THEY WORKED TO IMPOSE OBAMACARE
ON 300 MILLION AMERICANS, 306 OR
SO MILLION AMERICANS AND THEY
COME ON THE FLOOR TONIGHT TO
TALK ABOUT THE EFFORT ON THE
PART OF REPUBLICANS TO TRY TO
SAVE THIS REPUBLIC FROM THE
.
VORACIOUS APPETITE OF GOVERNMENT
GOVERNMENT.
THE VORACIOUS SHARK OF
GOVERNMENT THAT FEEDS UPON THE
PEOPLE.
SUFTNENCE OF THE AMERICAN
THAT PUTS INTO DEBT EVERY SINGLE
PERSON, EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND
CHILD IN AMERICA AND PUTS THE
MORTGAGE ON THEIR HEADS THE DAY
THEY ARE BORN.
LAST FALL, I TALKED ABOUT MY
GRANDMOTHER, MY MOST RECENT
GRANDDAUGHTER, REAGAN ANN KING.
SHE'S ABOUT 6 OR 7 MONTHS OLD
NOW.
ON THE DAY SHE WAS BORN, HER
$44,000.
SHARE OF THE NATIONAL DEBT WAS
WELCOME TO AMERICA, WELCOME TO
THE WORLD, WELCOME INTO LIFE.
YOU OWE UNCLE SAM $44,000 AND
THE INTEREST IS BUILDING.
THE INTEREST IS BUILDING.
AND THIS YOUNG LADY IS GOING TO
HAVE TO WORK A LONG TIME TO PAY
THIS OFF.
I HEAR THE MEMBERS OVER HERE
TALKING ABOUT THE AVERAGE DEBT
THAT A COLLEGE GRADUATE HAS.
STUDENT LOANS ARE COSTING TOO
MUCH MONEY.
THEY HAD TO CONFISCATE ALL THE
ACCESS TO THE MARKETPLACE FOR
THE FREE MARKET ON STUDENT
LOANS AND TURN IT COMPLETELY
INTO A GOVERNMENT-RUN OPERATION
BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED SOMEBODY
WAS MAKING MONEY OFF THE
INTEREST.
THEY LAMENTED THAT AN AVERAGE
STUDENT LOAN THAT WAS --
SOMEONE GRADUATED FROM COLLEGE
WAS IN THE AREA OF MAYBE 20,000
$40,000.
TO DELSH OF MAYBE $20,000 TO
BUT IT DOESN'T BOTHER THEM THAT
THE THE SENATE LEADER, NANCY
PELOSI, PRESIDENT OBAMA, AND
SENATE LEADER HARRY REID,
DOESN'T BOTHER THEM THAT THEY
CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT TO
AMERICA, AN THEY HAVE DRIVEN UP
THE DEBT AN DEFICIT TO THE
POINT WHERE IT IS FISCALLY --
IT IS APPALLING TO THE FISCALLY
RESPONSIBLE AMERICANS WHO PAY
THEIR BILLS ON TIME WITH THE
AMOUNT THAT'S LEFT AFTER THEY
PAY TAXES AND PAYROLL.
AND THEY WANT MORE GOVERNMENT,
MORE TACKS, MORE
IRRESPONSIBILITY, THEY WANT THE
NONPRODUCTIVE SECTOR OF THE
ECONOMY TO FEED ON THE
PRODUCTIVE SECTOR OF THE
ECONOMY.
AND THEY STAND HERE AND TALK
ABOUT A COMPANY THAT THEY CLAIM
MADE OVER -- OR MAYBE THE
AGGREGATE OF THE COMPANIES MADE
OVER $1 TRILLION IN PROFITS
OVER THE LAST DECADE.
I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT DATA AND
PERHAPS IF THEY HAVE ANYBODY ON
THAT SIDE OF THE AISLE THAT'S
EVER ACTUALLY ENGAGED IN
BUSINESS THEY WOULD DO A
CALCULATION TO SEE WHAT THE
RETURN ON INVESTMENT WAS.
WHAT IS THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT,
THE RETURN ON THAT KIND OF
INVESTMENT IF THOSE NUMBERS
WILL HOLD UP UNDER SCRUTINY AND
I SUSPECT THEY WON'T.
THEN IF THEY'RE GOING TO DO A
LEGITIMATE MEASURE, THEY'LL SEE
WHAT HAVE BEEN THE WINDFALL
PROFITS OF THE AMERICAN
GOVERNMENT AND COLLECTING
ROYALTY OFFICE THE PRODUCT
THAT'S BEEN PRODUCED BY THESE
COMPANIES THAT ARE DOING HIGH
RISK EXPLORATION IN DEEP WATERS
TO MAKE SURE, YES FOR A PROFIT,
THEY SHOULD HAVE A PROFIT BUT
THEY'RE MAKING SURE THERE'S
CHEAPER ENERGY HERE IN THE
UNITED STATES, CERTAINLY, THAN
THERE WOULD BE OTHERWISE IF WE
DIDN'T HAVE THESE COMPANIES
EXPLORING FOR OIL IN THE PLACES
LIKE THE GULF COAST AND UP IN
THE OTHER REGIONS AND IF WE
DIDN'T HAVE SUPPORT HERE IN
CONGRESS TO OPEN UP OFFSHORE
DRILLING, DRILLING ON
NONNATIONAL PARK PUBLIC LANDS
HERE IN AMERICA, WE'RE AN
ENERGY-RICH NATION.
WE HAVE A LARGE SHARE OF THE
WORLD'S ENERGY AND A SMALLER
PERCENTAGE OF THE WORLD'S
POPULATION AND WE HAVE THAT
ENERGY, I SUSPECT, BECAUSE
WE'VE EXPLORED FOR IT,
IDENTIFIED IT, MEASURED IT AND
QUANTIFIED IT.
BUT OF COURSE THAT STUFF -- IT
ESCAPES THE PEOPLE ON THE OTHER
SIDE WHO ARE MAKING THESE
ARGUMENTS FOR POLITICAL REASON
THE TALKING POINTS OF THE
DEMOCRATS ARE NOW MAGOGUE THE
REPUBLICAN BUDGET, ATTACK THE
REPUBLICANS AND ACCUSE THEM OF
THREATENING SENIOR CITIZENS AND
THEY COMPLETELY DENY THE FACT
THAT PEOPLE 55 AND UP IN THE
REPUBLICAN BUDGET ARE EXPRESSLY
PROTECTED FROM ANY KIND OF
BUDGETARY CHANGES.
IT IS TRULY AN ENTITLEMENT FOR
THOSE 55 AND UP.
NOW I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THE
STAND THAT WE SHOULD THEN
TRANSFER THAT ALL THE WAY DOWN
AND GUARANTEE MY LITTLE
GRANDDAUGHTER, REAGAN ANN KING,
THAT HER ANTICIPATED MEDICARE
AN SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS
WILL BE WHAT SHE EXPECTS THEM
TO BE ON THE DAY SHE'S BORN
WITH HER $44,000 WORTH OF
NATIONAL DEBT SHE HIS TO PAY
OFF, ARE WE GOING TO GUARANTEE
HER SHE GETS HER RETIREMENT
BENEFITS UNDER SOCIAL SECURITY
AND THE AMOUNT -- IN THE AMOUNT
THAT'S BEEN CALCULATED IN THE
ACTUARIAL TABLES?
IS THAT AN ENTITLEMENT?
ARE WE GOING TO GUARANTEE HER
THE LEVEL OF MEDICARE?
ARE WE TAKING AWAY INCENTIVES
FOR ALL CHILDREN BORN IN
AMERICA TO ESTABLISH THEMSELVES
TO PLAN FOR THEIR OWN
RETIREMENT, THEIR OWN FUTURE AN
PERHAPS BE RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH
TO TAKE THEMSELVES OFF THE
ENTITLEMENT ROLLS SO THERE CAN
BE A FUTURE FOR AMERICA.
THIS ECONOMY COLLAPSES UNLESS
WE ADDRESS IT.
IF WE DON'T HAVE THE WILL, IF
WE'RE GOING TO LISTEN TO THIS
KIND OF TALK, AND COWER BEFORE
THAT, AND MISDIRECT THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE WITH STATEMENTS
THAT CLEARLY CANNOT BE
SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS, AND
THINK SOMEHOW THERE'S A
SOLUTION, MY QUESTION IS,
WHAT'S YOUR SOLUTION?
MORE DEBT?
MORE DEFICIT?
MORE DEMAGOGUERY?
FOR WHAT?
YOU'LL PUT AMERICA INTO DEBT TO
EXCHANGE IT FOR MORE POLITICAL
POWER?
WE SAW WHAT YOU DID WITH
POLITICAL POWER AND THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE REJECTED IT IN
A RESOUNDING ELECTION JUST LAST
NOVEMBER AND THE LARGE SUPER
DEMOCRAT MAJORITY IN THIS
CONGRESS TURNED COMPLETELY OVER
TO A LARGE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY
INSTEAD.
87 FRESHMAN REPUBLICANS.
SHOULD BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND,
NONE OF THEM GOT ELECTED
BECAUSE THEY WANT TO GROW
GOVERNMENT OR INCREASE THE DEBT
AN DEFICIT.
NOT ONE.
EVERY ONE RAN ON THE REPEAL OF
OBAMA CARE.
WHILE I'M ON THE SUBJECT, MR.
SPEAKERING I'D MAKE THIS POINT.
OF ALL THAT WAS SAID ABOUT WHAT
IT IS THAT ALLEGEDLY
REPUBLICANS WOULD DO WITH
SENIORS, HERE'S WHAT OBAMACARE
EXACTLY DOES WITH SENIORS.
IT CUTS MEDICARE BY $532
BILLION.
A DIRECT ASSAULT ON SENIORS.
A DIRECT ASSAULT ON THEIR
MEDICARE.
NOW, IT'S IN THE A DELAY, IT'S
AS SOON AS THEY CAN GET THIS
MONSTROSITY IMPLICATE --
IMPLEMENTED AND THEY BELIEVE
THEY'LL TAKE THAT MONEY AND
ROLL IT OVER INTO SOMETHING
ELSE, IT WAS PART OF THE SMOKE
AND MIRRORS TO COME UP WITH A
C.B.O. SCORE THAT THEY COULD
ALLEGE IT WOULD BE A MONEY
SAVER.
BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THREW A
LOT OF PEOPLE OUT OF OFFICE
LAST NOVEMBER BECAUSE THEY KNEW
WHEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, THE SPEAKER OF
THE HOUSE, AND THE MAJORITY
LEADER ALL SAY THE SAME THING,
WE'RE GOING TO ENSURE 30
MILLION MORE PEOPLE WITH
OBAMACARE AND IT'S GOING TO BE
AT NO COST, 30 MILLION MORE
PEOPLE INSURED AT NO COST, THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW THAT'S
FALSE.
AND IN MATTER HOW MANY TIME
IT'S REPEATED, THEY KNOW THAT'S
FALSE.
YOU CAN'T GET MORE FOR LESS,
THEY COULD UNDERSTAND THIS,
THINGS COST MONEY.
THAT IF YOU TAKE THE 306
MILLION OR SO AMERICANS AND IF
YOU'RE CONCERNED THAT THERE'S A
PERCENTAGE OF THEM THAT ARE
UNINSURED, WE SHOULD ONLY BE
CONCERNED ABOUT THE AMERICANS
THAT WERE UNINSURED AND REMAIN
UNINSURED, I MIGHT ADD, THAT
DON'T HAVE AFFORDABLE OPTIONS.
IF BILL GATES IS UNINSURED, I
DON'T HAVE ANY HEART BURN OVER
THERE, -- OTHER THAT, BILL
GATES CAN MANAGE HIS OWN HEALTH
CARE.
IF WARREN BUFFETT IS UNINSURED,
I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
HE CAN MANAGE HIS OWN HEALTH
CARE.
IF SOMEBODY THAT'S MAKING
$174,000 IS UNINSURED, I'M NOT
CONCERNED ABOUT THAT PERSON,
BECAUSE THEY'RE MAKING ENOUGH
MONEY TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR OWN
HEALTH INSURANCE.
AND ON DOWN THE LINE.
TO WHAT LEVEL.
BUT THE PEOPLE THEY'RE TRYING
TO ARGUE WERE UNINSURED, THIS
LARGER NUMBER OF AROUND 46
MILLION UNINSURED AMERICANS,
WHEN YOU START SUBTRACTING FROM
THAT, THOSE THAT ARE ELIGIBLE
FOR MEDICAID BUT DON'T BOTHER
TO SIGN UP, THOSE THAT ARE
ELIGIBLE UNDER THEIR EMPLOYER
BUT OPT OUT.
THOSE WHO ARE HERE IN THE
UNITED STATES ILLEGALLY, I
DON'T WANT TO COVER THEM, MR.
SPEAKER.
AND AS YOU BEGIN SUBTRACTING
FROM THE 46 MILLION AND YOU GET
DOWN TO THE NUMBER OF THOSE
AMERICANS THAT ARE UNINSURED
AND DO NOT HAVE AFFORDABLE
OPTIONS, THAT NUMBER TURNS OUT
TO BE NOT 46 MILLION BUT 12.1
MILLION.
THAT'S MAKING 75 -- MAKING
$75,000 OR LESS, THAT'S THE
MEASURE, THOSE WHO ARE
UNINSURED AND DON'T HAVE AN
AFFORDABLE OPTION.
NOW 12.1 MILLION IS STILL A LOT
OF PEOPLE BUT IT ONLY AMOUNTS
TO LESS THAN 4% OF THE U.S.
POPULATION.
AND OBAMACARE COMPLETELY
TRANSFORMS THE BEST HEALTH CARE
SYSTEM IN THE WORLD, THE BEST
HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM IN
THE WORLD AND THE BEST HEALTH
INSURANCE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD
TO TRY TO GET AT A SMALL
PERCENTAGE OF THE LESS THAN 4%
OF AMERICANS WHO WERE UNINSURED
WITHOUT AFFORDABLE OPTIONS.
WHAT DO WE HAVE TODAY?
DO YOU HEAR ANY DEMOCRATS
COMING TO THE FLOOR TO TELL US
HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE UNINSURED
IN AMERICA AFTER OBAMACARE WAS
PASSED?
I CAN OFFER THIS GUARANTEE,
IT'S MORE.
THERE ARE MORE UNINSURED TODAY
THAN THERE WERE ON THE DAY
OBAMACARE WAS PASSED BECAUSE
MORE EMPLOYERS BECAME MORE
DOUBTFUL ABOUT WHAT IT WOULD BE
THAT THEY WOULD BE -- THAT
WOULD BE IMPOSED UPON THEM.
THERE ARE FEWER EMPLOYEES TODAY
THAN THERE WOULD BE IF
OBAMACARE HAD NEVER PASSED
BECAUSE THE COMPANIES DON'T
HAVE THE CONFIDENCE THAT THEY
CAN OPERATE WITHIN THE
ENVIRONMENT OF AN IMPLEMENTED
OBAMACARE.
AND I LISTENED TO DEMAGOGUERY
ON BIG INSURANCE COMPANIES, BIG
OIL, BIG BANKS.
AMERICA IS SET UP ON
COMPETITION.
IF THESE COMPANIES HAVE SUCH A
MARKET SHARE AN SUCH AN
ADVANTAGE THAT NOW THEY CAN
TAKE UNREASONABLE PROFITS FROM
THE MARKETPLACE, SOMEBODY IS
GOING TO GET IN THE MARKET AND
THEY'RE GOING TO START A BANK,
AN OIL COMPANY OR INSURANCE
COMPANY.
BUT HERE'S WHAT I'M FOR WITHIN
THE AREA OF HEALTH INSURANCE.
I WANT TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO BUY
INSURANCE ACROSS STATE LINES.
I WANT THE PEOPLE OF NEW
JERSEY, THE YOUNG MAN THAT'S
BUYING A TYPICAL POLICY, IN
GOOD HEALTH, AT AGE 23, AT
$6,000 A YEAR, I WANT HIM TO BE
ABLE TO GO TO KENTUCKY AND BUY
A SIMILAR, A TYPICAL POLICY FOR
A 23-YEAR-OLD IN KENTUCKY FOR
ABOUT $1,000.
THAT WHEY YOUR 1,300 HEALTH
INSURANCE COMPANIES WE HAVE ARE
COMPETING AGAINST EACH ORRIN
STD OF BEING ISOLATED WITHIN
THE STATES AND OPERATING UNDER
INDIVIDUAL STATE MANDATES.
AND THEY CAN THEN AFFORD
POLICIES THAT COULD HAVE HIGHER
DEDUCTIBLES, HIGHER CO-PAYMENTS
AND SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER
PREMIUMS.
AND I WANT TO SEE PEOPLE GET
OFF THE ENTITLEMENT ROLLS, BOTH
OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND
MEDICARE.
AND THIS CAN BE DONE.
MR. SPEAKER, I'LL TAKE YOU
QUICKLY DOWN THE PATH OF HOW WE
GET THERE WITH MEDICARE AND
H.S.A.'S.
UNDER THE H.S.A. LEGISLATION
PASSED IN 2003 UNDER MEDICARE
PART D, A YOUNG COUPLE, LET'S
SAY THEY PRESUMABLY FELL IN
LOVE AND GOT MARRIED AT AGE 20
AND WENT TO WORK WITH THEIR
LIFE'S WORK AND OVER THE COURSE
OF 45 YEARS OF WORK THEY MAXED
OUT ON THEIR HEALTH SAVINGS
ACCOUNT, IT STARTED AT $100 OR
$150 A YEAR FOR THAT COUPLE, IT
GROWS BY COLA, IT CONTINUES AS
LONG AS THERE'S A COST OF
IT.
LIVING ALLOWANCE THAT INCREASES
AND IF YOU SUBTRACT FROM THAT
AMOUNT $2,000 A YEAR THAT WOULD
COME OUT OF THEIR HEALTH
SAVINGS ACCOUNT IN WHAT WE
MIGHT CALL TYPICAL EXPENSES OF
HEALTH CARE, GOING TO THE
DOCTOR, DOING THOSE THINGS YOU
DON'T WANT TO PUT ON YOUR
INSURANCE POLICY AND YOU
COMPOUNDED THE BALANCE OF THAT
HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT AT 4%
WHICH IS HISTORICALLY ACCURATE,
I DID THIS MATH BEFORE WE HAD
THE DUN TURN OVER THE LAST --
THE DOWNTURN OVER THE LAST 2
1/2 YEARS, THEY WOULD ARRIVE AT
MEDICARE ELIGIBILITY, AGE 65,
WITH A HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT
$950,000.
THAT HAD $950,000 IN IT.
NOW THE LINALT, THE PRESENT
VERY, THE -- THE LIABILITY, THE
PRESENT NEGATIVE VALUE OF AN
INDIVIDUAL THAT ARRIVES AT
MEDICARE ELIGIBLE AGE TODAY IS
ABOUT $270,000.
THAT'S THE AVERAGE THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT WOULD BE PAYING FOR
HEALTH CARE BENEFITS FOR THE D
DURATION OF THE LIFE OF THE
INDIVIDUAL AFTER THEY REACH 65.
$72,000.
MEDICARE ELIGIBILITY.
THE COUPLE WOULD BE AT
$144,000, YOU'LL HAVE TO ADJUST
FOR INNATION, I'LL GO WITHOUT
IT TONIGHT, SO YOU TAKE THE
$950,000, AND SUBTRACT $144,000
TO TAKE CARE OF WHAT WOULD BE
THE PREMIUM FOR A MEDICARE
REPLACEMENT POLICY, A PAID UP
MEDICARE REPLACEMENT POLICY,
SIMILAR TO AN ANNUITIZED HEALTH
CARE PLAN FOR LIFE.
NOW YOU'RE IN THIS AREA OF
LET'S JUST SAY $806,000 WOULD
BE THE BALANCE IN YOUR HEALTH
$806,000.
SAVINGS ACCOUNT.
WHAT'S THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S
INTEREST IN THAT HEALTH SAVINGS
ACCOUNT AFTER THAT POINT?
THEY WANT TO TAX IT AS REGULAR
INCOME AS IT COMES OUT OF THAT
ACCOUNT AS BEING SPENT BY THE
INDIVIDUAL OR THEY WANT TO TAX
IT AS A DEATH TAX LATER ON IF
THE PEOPLE -- ONCE THEY PASS
AWAY, TAX IT ON THE WAY TO
THEIR HEIRS, THE DEATH TAX.
WHY WOULDN'T THIS FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT OFFER TO THE PEOPLE
THAT HAVE THEIR HEALTH SAVINGS
ACCOUNT, WHY WOULDN'T IT OFFER
THEM THIS, BY A MEDICARE
REPLACEMENT POLICY AND YOU CAN
KEEP THE CHANGE TAX FREE AND
YOU CAN WILL IT TO YOUR
CHILDREN OR USE IT AS A PENSION
PLAN.
NOW WE'RE ALREADY SOLVING THE
SITUATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
MEDICARE, BY ALLOWING H.S.A.'S
TO GROW AND LET PEOPLE MANAGE
THEIR OWN LIVES.
THAT'S THE KIND OF THING WE
NEED TO HAVE GOING ON FOR
SOLUTIONS, NOT DEMAGOGUERY.
NOT TRYING TO CONFLATE THE
PHILOSOPHY OF A BUDGET THAT'S
DESIGNED TO GET US TO BALANCE.
WHERE'S YOUR BALANCED BUDGET
OVER THERE ON THAT SIDE OF THE
AISLE?
IS THERE A SINGLE ONE OF YOU
THAT WILL STAND UP AND TELL ME
YOU OFFERED A BALANCED BUDGET?
YOU DIDN'T EVEN OFFER A BUDGET
WHEN NANCY PELOSI WAS SPEAKER
THE LAST YEAR OR TWO YEAR AND
NOW YOU'RE HERE ATTACKING THIS
BUDGET, YOU DON'T HAVE A PLAN
YOU DON'T HAVE A PLATFORM TO
STAND ON TO CRITICIZE THIS
PLATFORM, YOU HAVE PLENTY OF
OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER YOUR OWN
BUT THERE'S NO BALANCED BUDGET
BEING OFFERED HERE ON THIS SIDE
OF THE AISLE.
THAT'S CLEAR.
THAT'S WHY NO ONE RESPONDS TO
ME, OR I'D YIELD TO SOMEONE WHO
WANTS TO ALLEGE THE DEMOCRATS
OFFER A BALANCED BUDGET.
IF IT THEY DID IT WOULD BE,
WHAT'S THAT WORD?
THE VORACIOUS SHARK OF TAX
INCREASES WOULD BE WHAT WOULD
HAPPEN, MR. SPEAKER.
I THINK PERHAPS WE'VE
DISPATCHED WHAT TOOK PLACE IN
THE PREVIOUS HALF-HOUR OR HOUR
AND I WILL THEN NOW WITHOUT
SEGUE TRANSITION INTO THE
SUBJECT MATTER I CAME HERE TO
TALK ABOUT.
AND THEN THAT'S THIS.
DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY I LISTENED
TO THE PRESIDENT'S SPEECH THAT
HE GAVE IN EL PASO, TEXAS.
AND IT WAS A SURPRISING IN A
WAS A POLITICAL SPEECH ON
WAY, A BIT SHOCKING IN A WAY, IT
IMMIGRATION, I MEAN, THAT'S
CLEAR, AND THE PEOPLE THAT
ANALYZED IT CAME TO THE SAME
CONCLUSION THAT I DID, MR.
SPEAKER.
BUT AS I LISTENED TO THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
WHO WAS STANDING IN EL PASO,
VERY NEAR THE BORDER OF THE
UNITED STATES, BEGIN TO RIDICULE
PEOPLE WHO WANT BORDER SECURITY,
WELL, FIRST HE UTTERED THE
BREATHTAKING STATEMENT THAT THE
BORDER FENCE IS, QUOTE,
BASICALLY COMPLETE, CLOSED
QUOTE.
MR. SPEAKER, THE BORDER FENCE IS
BASICALLY COMPLETE, UTTERED BY
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES?
I HAVE A FEW DATA POINTS I THINK
HE SHOULD GO BACK AND REVISIT.
ONE OF THEM IS, MR. PRESIDENT,
THERE ARE 2,000 MILES OF
SOUTHERN BORDER, ABOUT 4,000
MILES OF NORTHERN BORDER, BUT
JUST DEALING WITH THE SOUTHERN
BORDER, 2,000 MILINGS OF
SOUTHERN BORDER.
NOW, WHATEVER WAS THE JANET
NAPOLITANO TOLD YOU, MR.
PRESIDENT, HERE ARE THE FACTS ON
THE BORDER FENCE AS OF TODAY AS
CONSTRUCTED.
OUT OF THE 2,000 MILES, THERE
ARE 350 MILES OF PEDESTRIAN
FENCE, THAT'S CALLED PRIMARY
FENCING.
THAT'S A FENCE THAT YOU DON'T
JUST WALK THROUGH, IT'S A BIT OF
A BARRIER.
THEY GET CLIMBED ALL THE TIME
BUT IT'S A SINGLE FENCE, OFTEN
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE
IT'S A CHAIN LINK FENCE.
FENCE, I SUSPECT NOT BECAUSE
REFERRING TO THE BARBED WIRE
ACTUALLY I THINK WE'VE GOT A
LITTLE BIT MORE OF THAT ON THE
BORDER.
BUT EVEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
CLAIMS THE PRIMARY FENCING,
PEDESTRIAN FENCING IS 350 MILES
OUT OF THE 2,000 MILES.
NOW, THEY ADD THIS UP AWL UP AND
SAY WE HAVE ALL THESE MILES OF
FENCING BUT IF IT'S DOUBLE
FENCING OR TRIPLE FENCING, THEY
COUNT EACH MILE OF IT, EVEN IF
IT'S LAYERED.
IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WE HAVE
6,000 MILES OF FENCE, MR.
SPEAKER.
BUT THAT ISN'T THE CASE AT ALL.
HERE'S THE COMPARISON.
350 MILES OF PRIMARY FENCING OR
PEDESTRIAN FENCING.
NOW, WE KNOW THAT A SINGLE FENCE
DOESN'T DO US A LOT, IT SLOWS
SOME TRAFFIC DOWN AND IT GIVES A
LINE OF DEMARCATION.
DOUBLE FENCING SLOWS THEM DOWN A
LOT BETTER AND IT SETS UP KIND
OF A NO MAN'S LAND THAT WE CAN
PATROL AND SOMETIMES CATCH
ILLEGALS INSIDE OF THAT BEFORE
THEY CLIMB THE SECOND FENCE AND
GO OFF INTO THE UNDERBRUSH.
SO OF THE SECONDARY FENCING THAT
THEY HAVE, THERE'S NOT 350 MILES
OF THAT, REMEMBER, 2,000 MILE
BORDER, SECONDARY FENCING, 36.3
MILES.
NOW, REMEMBER THE PRIMARY
FENCING, 350 MILES, THE
SECONDARY FENCING, 36.3 MILES.
I'M GOING TO TELL THAT YOU WE
DON'T HAVE A LOT OF
EFFECTIVENESS UNTIL WE GET TO
THE -- AT LEAST THE SECONDARY
FENCING COMPONENT OF THIS.
SO OF 2,000 MILES OF BORDER,
36.3 MILES OF SECONDARY FENCING,
36.3 MILES IS KIND OF WHAT YOU
CAN SAY IS SOMEWHAT BUILT BUT A
LOT OF IT REQUIRES ALSO TRIPLE
FENCING.
AND I'VE BEEN DOWN TO VISIT THE
TRIPLE FENCING AND THAT EXISTS
IN A NUMBER OF PLACES TANNED
EXISTS IN A VERY EFFECTIVE WAY
IN ARIZONA, IN THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF ARIZONA, OF COURSE ON
THE MEXICAN BORDER.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE BORDER, OUT
OF THE 2,000-MILE BORDER, THE
FENCE THAT IS -- THEY CALL IT
TESH YEAR, THE THIRD LAYER OF
FENCE, YOU HAVE 350 MILES OF
FENCING, 36.3 MILES OF DOUBLE
FENCING AND 14.3 MILES ARE
TRIPLE FENCING.
THE TRIPLE FENCING, AS FAR AS I
ANYONE.
KNOW, HAS NEVER BEEN DEFEATED BY
THEY GO AROUND IT.
THEY MAY TUNNEL UNDER IT
SOMETIMES BUT THEY'VE NOT
DEFEATED THE FENCING AND IT'S
BEEN PRETTY EFFECTIVE.
BUT IF YOU'VE GOT EFFECTIVE
FENCING AT 14.3 OF THE 2,000
MILES AND WITHIN 220 YARDS OF
THAT FENCE, THAT TRIPLE FENCING
BY THE WAY, THERE'S THRIPPLE
FENCING IN EL PASO, THE
PRESIDENT IS STANDING WITHIN 220
YARDS OF TRIPLE FENCING IN EL
PASO, ARGUING THAT THE FENCING
IS BASICALLY COMPLETE AND
RIDICULING AMERICANS THAT WANT
BORDER SECURITY BY SAYING THAT
-- I'M JUST GOING TO INCLUDE
MYSELF IN THIS, THAT WE'D NEVER
BE SATISFIED, WE KEEP RAISING
THE BAR.
WELL, I ALWAYS SET THE BAR UP
PRETTY HIGH.
I DON'T THINK I NEED TO RAISE
IT.
REMINDS ME OF WHAT MARGARET
THATCHER ONCE RESPONDED TO A
STUDENT WHEN SHE WAS IN IOWA,
ASKED HER THE QUESTION, WHAT
HAVE YOU CHANGED YOUR MIND ON
SINCE YOU LEFT SNOFFS SHE
THOUGHT A LITTLE BIT AND SAID,
GOODNESS, I WAS IN OFFICE 11 1/2
YEARS.
MY PRINCIPLES WERE VERY SOUNDLY
BASED, I SAW NO REASON TO CHANGE
THEM.
WELL, THE PRINCIPLE THAT I'VE
LAID OUT FOR BORDER SECURITY AS
FAR AS INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE
BORDER IS THIS, WE'VE GOT 2,000
MILES ON THE SOUTHERN BORDER
THROUGH WHICH COMES 90% OF THE
ILLEGAL DRUGS CONSUMED IN
AMERICA AND I DON'T SUGGEST THAT
WE HAVE TO BUILD 2,000 MILES OF
TRIPLE FENCING, I WANT TO BUILD
A FENCE A WALL AND A FENCE,
THAT'S EFFECTIVE, IT'S COST
EFFECTIVE AS WELL.
I ONLY SUGGEST THAT WE BUILD
THAT, BUILD THAT FENCE UNTIL
THEY QUIT GOING AROUND THE END,
MR. SPEAKER.
THAT WILL BE THE MEASURE.
THAT'S HOW WE'LL KNOW IF IT'S
EFFECTIVE, IF THEY'RE GOING
AROUND THE END, WE'LL EXTEND A
FEW MORE MILES.
IF THEY KEEP GOING AROUND THE
END, WE KEEP BUILDING.
IF THE ILLEGALS ARE STILL
ENTERING THE UNITED STATES, THEN
WE'LL BUILD IT FROM BROWNSVILLE
ALL THE WAY UP TO SAN DIEGO.
BUT THE PRESIDENT SAID DEFENSE
IS BASICALLY COMPLETE AND HE'S
BASICALLY GOT 14.3 MILES OF
COMPLETED FENCING ON 2,000, I
DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S GOING TO
THINK THAT THAT'S A VERY BASIC
COMPLETION AND I SHOULD HAVE
PERHAPS DONE THIS MATH BUT IF I
JUST DO 14.3 MILES AND I DIVIDE
THAT BY 2,000 MILES, I GET, LET
ME SEE, .7% OF COMPLETION.
THAT WOULD BE THE PRESIDENT'S
IDEA OF BASICALLY COMPLETE, .7%
OF THE ENTIRE 2,000-MILE BORDER
AS TRIPLE FENCING ON IT AND 2
1/2 TIMES MORE THAN THAT, SO
MAYBE YOU'D HAVE, LET'S SAY,
1.9% COMPLETED IF YOU CONSIDER
THE DOUBLE FENCING INSTEAD OF
THE TRIPLE FENCING.
AND THE PRESIDENT'S MAKING FUN
OF PEOPLE THAT MIGHT WANT A
MOTE?
I HAVE A PICTURE HERE, I'VE
FLOWN THAT WITHIN THE LAST
COUPLE OF MONTHS IN A HELICOPTER
TO EVALUATE THE BORDER ALL THE
WAY FROM -- ALMOST ALL OF IT,
FROM EL PASO ACROSS ALL OF NEW
MEXICO AND ALMOST ALL OF
ARIZONA.
I KNOW I'VE FLOWN IT ALL ONE
TIME OR ANOTHER.
BUT IT OCCURRED TO ME THAT THE
PRESIDENT IS STANDING CLOSE TO
THE MOAT AT THE TIME, 220 YARDS
AWAY FROM RIGHT THERE AT THE
BORDER, NOT ONLY DOES IT HAVE
TRIPLE FENCING THAT JANET
NAPOLITANO MADE FUN OF, IF YOU
SHOW ME A 21-FOOT FENCE, I'LL
SHOW YOU A 21-FOOT LATTER BUT --
LADDER BUT HERE'S WHAT WE HAVE.
THE RIO GRANDE RIVER, MOAT
DOWN.
NUMBER ONE, WATER IN IT, FLOWING
YOU HAVE A FENCE.
YOU HAVE A PETROLEUM ROAD.
YOU HAVE ANOTHER FENCE.
THEN YOU HAVE A CANAL THAT HAS A
FAIRLY FAST CURRENT IN IT AND A
LOT OF WATER WITH A CONCRETE
SIDE AND BOTTOM.
THEN YOU HAVE ANOTHER FENCE.
SO YOU HAVE TRIPLE FENCING AND
IF ANYBODY'S GOING TO COME INTO
THE UNITED STATES, INTO EL PASO,
THEY'VE GOT TO GET ACROSS THE
RIVER, SOMETIMES SWIM, MOST OF
THE TIME WADE, CLIMB A FENCE,
AVOID THE PATROL THAT HAS A
PATROL ROAD AND STATIONS INSIDE
THE COLUMN OF THE TWO FENCES,
CLIMB A SECOND FENCE, GET INTO
THE CANAL, SWIM CAT NAL, GET UP
OVER THE TOP OF THE FENCE AND
INTO EL PASO.
WELL, MR. PRESIDENT, IT'S NOT
HAPPENING IN EL PASO BECAUSE
FENCES WORK AND BY THE WAY THE
NATURAL WATER STREAMS THERE HAVE
BEEN REALLY USEFUL AS WELL AND I
THINK THAT IF I HAD ANY STAFF
THAT STOOD ME UP WITHIN 220
YARDS OF A STRUCTURE LIKE THAT
TO MAKE FUN OF IT, I'D PROBABLY
HAVE DIFFERENT STAFF THE NEXT
DAY.
HOPE HE TAKES A NOTE ON THAT,
MR. SPEAKER, AND I MAKE THESE
POINTS THAT THE IMMIGRATION
SITUATION IN THE UNITED STATES
IS THIS.
WE HAVE A C.B.O. OR EXCUSE ME A
G.A.O. STUDY AND THIS STUDY THAT
WAS JUST EMERGED A FEW WEEKS AGO
I BEGAN ASKING THE QUESTION,
TELLS US THIS.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE
THAT DIE IN THE ARIZONA DESERT
SNEAKING INTO THE UNITED STATES.
AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE PERSONAL
LIVES IS A TRAGEDY AND IT'S OF
HIGH PROPORTION TO THEIR
FAMILIES BUT I BEGAN ASKING THE
QUESTION, HOW MANY AMERICANS DIE
AT THE HANDS OF THOSE WHO DO GET
INTO THE UNITED STATES?
AND THAT STUDY REPORT COMESOUS
AND TELLS US THIS, IN THE
PRISONS IN AMERICA, FEDERAL,
STATE AND LOCAL PRISONS IN
AMERICA, THERE ARE CURRENTLY
INCARCERATED, THIS IS A VERY
MINIMUM NUMBER, THIS IS A FLOOR,
NOT A CEILING, WE KNOW THE
NUMBER IS HIGHER, WE KNOW IT'S
NO LOWER THAN THIS, 25,064
CRIMINAL ALIENS THAT WERE
ARRESTED FOR HOMICIDE THAT ARE
CURRENTLY INCARCERATED IN THOSE
-- THOSE PRISONS THAT I
MENTIONED IN THE UNITED STATES.
THAT'S 25,064 HOMICIDE VICTIMS
AT A MINIMUM THAT WE KNOW OF AND
THAT'S SOME OF THE PRICE FOR US
NOT SECURING OUR BORDER.
IF WE HAD 100% ENFORCEMENT ON
OUR BORDER AND 100% UNFORCEMENT
OVER PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES
ILLEGALLY, THEN THEORETICALLY,
ALL 25,000 OF THOSE PEOPLE WOULD
BE ALIVE, THEY WOULD NOT BE
STATES.
UNDER THE GROUND IN THE UNITED
ONE COFFIN AT A TIME, OBSCURE
VILLAGE AT A TIME, ONE TRAGEDY
IN A FAMILY AT A TIME, MORE THAN
25,000 CERTAINLY, A NUMBER THAT
SOURCE WHEN YOU THINK OF IT, --
SOARS WHEN YOU THINK OF IT, AND
WE SIT HERE AND SAY, WELL, YOU
KNOW, IT'S ONLY PEOPLE THAT WANT
TO COME HERE TO MAKE A BETTER
LIFE.
WELL, IT'S NOT ONLY THAT TO THE
FAMILIES THAT HAVE LOST VICTIMS
TO THIS.
I JUST SAT DOWN AND HAD A
DISCUSSION WITHIN THE LAST
COUPLE OF HOURS WITH TIFFANY
HARTLY.
WHOSE HUSBAND WAS A VICTIM OF
THE VICIOUS *** OUT ON THE
JET SKIS ON FALCON LAKE JUST
NORTH OF MCALLEN, TEXAS,
SEPTEMBER 30 OF LAST YEAR.
THE TRAGEDY OF HIS DEATH, THE
UNWILLINGNESS ON THE PART OF
THIS ADMINISTRATION TO GO IN AND
INVEST -- INVESTIGATE HIS DEATH,
TO FIND THE PERPETRATORS THAT
KILLED HER HUSBAND AND COME TO
THE TRUTH ON THAT INCIDENT IS
INEXCUSABLE AND UNCONSCIONABLE.
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO
DRILL IN THIS, THEY NEED TO TURN
UP THEIR DIPLOMATIC PRESSURE,
HILLARY CLINTON NEEDS TO CONNECT
WITH THE MEXICAN COUNCIL, LET'S
GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS, LET'S
GET THE FACTS AS THEY STAND,
LET'S FIND OUT WHO INVESTIGATED
WHAT AND WHEN AND LET'S TAKE A
LOOK AT THE COMMUNICATIONS AS
THEY GO BACK AND FORTH SO WE CAN
GET A SENSE OF THE LEVEL OF
FOCUS THAT MAYBE EXISTED OR
MAYBE DIDN'T EXIST.
I'M CALLING UPON ERIC HOLDER,
TAKE A LOOK AT THE *** OF
DAVID HARTLY.
DO SO FOR TIFFANY.
HELP HER GET SOME CLOSURE.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, I YIELD
BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
UNDER
THE SPEAKER'S ANNOUNCED POLICY
OF JANUARY 5, 2011, THE CHAIR
RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN FROM
FLORIDA, MR. NUGENT, FOR 30