tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN July 17, 2009 1:00pm-6:30pm EDT
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 239, the nays are 185rk the bill is passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to house russ lesion 645 and rule 18 the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of the bill h.r. 3183. will the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. tierney, kindly resume the chair?
the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 3183 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for fiscal year september 30, 2010, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole house on the state of the union rose on wednesday, july 15, 2009, amendment number 4 printed in house report 111-209 offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, had been postponed and the bill had been read through page 63, line 12. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 111-209, on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. number 9 printed in part a by mr. heinrich of new mexico. number 10 printed in part a by mr. cao of louisiana. number 11 printed in part a by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. number 2 printed in part b by mr. campbell of california.
number 1 printed in part c by mr. flake of arizona. number 3 printed in part c by mr. flake of arizona. number 4 printed in part c by mr. flake of arizona. number 5 printed in part c by mr. flake of arizona. number 10 printed in part c by mr. flake of arizona. number 11 printed in part c by mr. flake of arizona. number 1 printed in part d by mr. hensarling of texas. number 2 printed in part d by mr. hensarling of texas. mr. number -- number 4 printed in part d by mr. helling sarling of texas. the -- hensarling of texas. the the unfinished business is the question on the amendment offered by mr. heinrich of amendment. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part a, amendment number 9 print the in house report 111-209 offered by mr.
heinrich of new mexico. the chair: those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 124. the amendment carries. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 10 fingerprinted pa part a of house report 111-209 offered by mr. cao on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will please redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in house report 111-209 offered by mr. cao of louisiana. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a record vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 423, the nays are one. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is on a request for recorded vote an amendment number 11 printed in part a of house report 111-209 offered byrs. blackburn on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part a, amendment number 11 printed in house report 111-209 offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes
by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for polical or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 167, the nays are 259, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a vorded vote an amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 111-209 offered by the gentleman from california, mr. campbell, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 2 printed in house report 111-209 offered by mr. campbell of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. -- those in support of the request for a vorded rote will rise and be counted.
members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
further proceedings were postponed, and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part c, amendment number 1 printed in house report 111-209 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 89, the nays are 338. the amendment does not prevail. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in part c of house report 111-209 offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, on which on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the chair: amendment number 3 printed in part c of house report 111-209 offered by mr.
flake of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning instute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 89, the nays are 335. the amendment does not pass. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote for amendment number 4 offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, on which further proceedings were post -- pone and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 111-209 offered by mr. flake of
arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 102, the nays are 318. the amendment did not prevail. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in part c of house report 111-209 offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, on which further proceedings were post and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part c, amendment number 5 printed in house report 111-209 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise
and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 125, the nays are 301. the amendment does not prevail. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 10 printed in part c printed in house report 111-209 offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part c, amendment number 10 printed in house report 111-209 offered by mr.
flake of arizona. the chair: those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 81rk the nays are 341, the amendment did not prevail. the unfin,ed business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 11 printed in part c of house report 111-209 offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part c, amendment number 11 printed in house report 111-2 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is
ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 111, the nays are 316, the amendment did not prevail. the unfinished business is for recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in part d of house report 111-209 offer by mr. hensarling on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: part d, amendment number 1 printed in house report 111-209 offered by mr. hensarling of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a vord -- recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of
are 133rks the nays are 2 0, the amendment did not prevailed. unfinished business is the request for vorded -- recorded vote on amendment number 2 fingerprinted in house report 111247b09 offered by mr. hensarling on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: part d, amendment number 2 offered by mr. hensarling of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 128, the nays are 299, the amendment did not prevail. the unfinished business is the request for a vorded vote on amendment number 4 printed in part d of house report 111-209 offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: part d, amendment number 4, printed in house report 111-209 offered by mr. hensarling of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has
been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their vote by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
yeas are 119, the nays are 308, the amendment did not prevail. the clerk will please read. the clerk: page 63, line 13, this act may be cited as the energy and water development related agencies appropriations act 2010. the chair: under the rule the the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 3183 and pursuant to house resolution 645 reports the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole.
under the rule, the previous question is ordered. pursuant to house resolution 645, the question on adoption of the amendments will be put en grosse. the question is on adoption of the amendments. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. ayes have it, third reading. the clerk: a bill making available funds for the energy and water related agencies for the fiscal year 2010 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. simpson of idaho moves to commit the bill to the
committee with the following changes, strike all that follows through page 40, line 8. on page 40, strike nuclear waste disposal and all that follows through page 49 line 3. mr. simpson: this motion to re commit strikes all funds for the yucca mountain depository. i think it's everyone to get on record about where we stand. this would fulfill the stated intention of ending yucca mountain, support speaker pelosi's desire to get rid of nuclear energy and make senator reid very happy. some may suspect a gimmick but it does exactly what i described.
it provides each of us an opportunity to show where we stand on a nuclear repository at yucca mountain. the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will sustain. mr. simpson: let me tell my colleagues what else this would do. first, most of our districts are either storing or using spent nuclear fuel. spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste is being storied on site in 121 locations across 39 states, sights -- sites that were never intended for long-term storage. these are sites in your districts. i personally know that this fuel is safe where it is today. however the secretary of energy has admitted that even with his blue ribbon panel a permanent geological repository will be necessaryful voting for this -- by voting for this amendment, we ensure that this material stays where it is for the next
25 to 50 years or perhaps longer. and it would add additional the lays and costs to the development of a permanent geological repository to be built in any state other than nevada. second, it would rob our constituents of potential jobs and tax revenue. for those of you who have metal workers, pipe fitters or others in your district, this would curb their ability to gain and secure high-paying jobs operating nuclear power plants that can sustain 700,000 jobs. our stilts needs these jobs and our country needs the power these ue neu clear plants create. 20% of the electricity is produced by nuclear power. 72% of the noncarbon emitting electricity is produced by nuclear power. third, killing yucca mountain would bring over $22 billion of
liability against the government. that's just an estimate, some estimate as high as $50 billion. this is money the federal government will owe to the industry because we have failed to live up to our responsibilities. >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: this is money which the federal government will owe the industry because we have failed to live up to our responsibility. we have signed contracts with these countries to take this waste off their hands and because of political deals like that between the president and senator reid, we have failed. as a result, the taxpayers will have to pay $22 billion or more in fines and penalties. colleagues, these are ramifications if you support killing yucca mountain. you see, the president and president reid's plan to kill yucca mountain has no alternatives. it is only a study. a blue ribbon commission. this project has been studied to death. we have spent $10.5 billion,
$1.5 million -- 1.5 million documents, over 50 studies by the national science foundation have been done on this yucca mountain. we know it is scientifically sound. the president's decision was a political bow to the senate majority leader, not one based on good science or good policy. i think this motion to recommit so none of us heren -- i make this motion to recommit so none of us can claim we don't know the facts. i want all of us to have the opportunity to be on record today. we can vote for the motion to fulfill the president and senator reid's plan to kill yucca mountain, keeping nuclear waste scattered across the country for the foreseeable future, potentially costing the taxpayers $22 billion or more in liabilities, lose jobs nnd tax revenues in our district and kick the can down the road on the location of a permanent geological repository that will
still have to be built. or we can defeat it. supporting good policy, ensuring that science, not politics rules the majority of our decisions here in congress. in 2002, this body voted overwhelmingly in favor of approving the yucca mountain site location. i'm not here to urge you to vote for or against this metion to recommit. the choice is up to all of us, but none of us can or should remain on the sidelines. mr. speaker, how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 15 seconds remaining. mr. simpson: i yield 15 seconds to the gentleman. >> i appreciate the gentleman yielding, i looked in the dictionary recently, what the definition of boondoggle was, it was a wasteful, impractical project or activity, it's a perfect understanding of what yucca mountain is. i urge my colleagues to support this, we've spent billions of dollars on a project over the
last 20 years and we'll spend billions and billions more for a project that will never happen. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman y arizona rise? mr. grijalva: i rise in opposition to this motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pastor: with the indulgence of my colleagues, i'll take a few minutes to explain why we're in opposition. mr. speaker, first of all, i want to correct a notion that was given to you by my dear friend from idaho, mr. simpson. for those of us, for those of us who support nuclear energy and want to see it go forward, as the ranking member knows, and i know, the speaker allowed that ts form of energy go
forward balanced with other interests that we have in the formation of alternative energy, etc. so the -- we're here with a balance bill today -- balanced bill today because of the speaker's leadership and willingness for us to go forward. when the secretary of energy appeared before us, he told us that yucca mountain was off the table. that the administration wanted a blue ribbon committee to be formed that would not include yucca mountain. well, this bill says that blue ribbon committee will be formed, but yucca mountain will also be considered with any other site being considered. i agree with my friend from idaho, when the secretary said that $197 million that is used to continue the licensing for
yucca mountain was not wanted, i wanted to zero it out. because that way, i would give my colleague from arizona more floor time by giving more earmarks. but the staff said, no, and they persuaded me. they said, we need the $197 million to be in this account so that we will not breach the contracts that we have, as my good friend mike simpson told you, because then what we would do, we would probably increase the -- we would increase the probability of billions of dollars being spent in liability, the likelihood the government would lose, you'd put this government further into deficit, it would povide an opportunity for all of us,
including my republican colleagues to provide more opportunities for trial lawyers , and so for those two reasons, i said let's keep the $197 million to continue the licensing, continue pushing nuclear energy as a form that we need in this country and that we protect yucca mountain to the extent that we don't create a greater deficit and we don't create a slush fund for more lawsuits system of with that, i ask you to vote against the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time having expired, without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question son the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise.
a sufficient number having risen, members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20 the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time of any required vote on the question of passage. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 30, the nays are 388. the motion is not adopted. the question is on the passage of the bill you understand clause 10 of rule 20 the yeas and nays are ordered. the members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 320, the nays are 97, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. speaker, earlier this afternoon on vote 576, i intended to vote yes and on 577, my intention was to vote
no. i ask unanimous consent that this explanation appear next to those roll calls. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on foreign affairs be discharged from further consideration of h.con.res. 156 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 156, condemning the attack on the amia jewish community center in buenos aires, argentina, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? the chair hears none. without objection, the bill is agreed. to mr. berman: i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the
amendment. the clerk: amendment, ament the preamble to read as follows -- mr. berman: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. berman: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be -- that the amended resolution be adopted. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the amendment is adopted. without objection, the concurrent resolution, as amended, is adopted. mr. berman: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the
gentlewoman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution, 658, permitting official photographs of the house of representatives to be taken while the house is in actual session on a day designated by the speaker. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the resolution? without objection, the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? from virginia? mr. cantor: i ask to address the house for one minute for the purpose of inquiring about next week's schedule. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.
mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman and yield to the gentleman from maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule. mr. moi hoyer: on monday, the house will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. on tuesday, the house will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business. on wednesday and thursday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for legislative business, on friday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. we will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. the list will be disclosed by the end of business today. in addition, we'll consider h.r. 2920, the stamp power tai as bow go act of 2009, the housing and urban development appropriations act, the health and human services and labor appropriationsct and possibly the food safety act --
enforcement act of 2009. in addition, members ought to be advised that on tuesday, july 21, we will take the official photograph for the 111th congress. we don't -- we don't have a time on that but we'll try to give members time for that as soon as possible. i imagine it will be sometime after the first votes. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i would ask the gentleman if he could give me some indication of the progress on the offer of compromise to move forward on appropriations bills to get us back closer to what has been the precedent of this house in terms of open rules and consideration of expending taxpayer moneys. i yield.
mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for the question. he and i discussed this issue. it's my understanding that mr. boehner and the speakerer having ongoing discussions with respect to that. i know the speaker is having ongoing discussions with the committee as well. hopefully whatever happens between mr. boehner and the speaker will be disclosed to you as well as to me. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i would note as we are nearing the end of the july session and with three appropriations bills left there is yet limited opportunity but still some, and the minority stands ready and willing to work with the gentleman with him and his desire, as is mine to return to an open process in appropriations rules. mr. hoyer: if the gentleman would yield briefly. mr. cantor: i yield. mr. hoyer: i want to say to the gentleman i want to continue to work with him whether on
appropriations bills or other bills so we can affect a degree of comity i know you and i would like to reach. mr. cantor: i would ask the gentleman if he can give us some sense of where we are in terms of the health care reform bill working its way through the committee process right now? as the gentleman know, i'm on the ways and means committee and we completed our markup on the bill last night or early hours this morning. the other two committees, i know, are hard at work in terms of delivering their products. but i did note that the gentleman was reported as having said in the press, i believe it was this morning, in his response to a question about the congressional budget office's commentary and analysis of the health care proposal, and if i could loosely paraphrase the gentleman's remarks, mr. speaker, i believe it was that he said we need to go back to the drawing board as far as the
scoring of the bill is concerned and was -- would like to inquire, mr. speaker, what the gentleman had in mind as far as that's concerned and i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. as you know, the president, the speaker and i and others have indicated that we fully expect this bill to be fully paid for. obviously scoring will be the test by which we determine whether it is paid for. and so when he made his statement before the budget committee and the senate, he was speaking more of the bending of the curve which is going to be longer term than whether or not we determine whether the bill is paid for. but in my view we need to do both. and so what i meant, if in fact and of course the bill he was talking about was the senate bill, the house bill has not yet been fully scored, but if in fact that score shows that it's not fully paid for, then what i meant by going back to the
drawing board, we will then have to assess how we can get the bill to a place where it is scored as a fully paid for bill consistent with pay-go. that's our pledge. that's my intent. that's the speaker's intent. and we will work toward that objective. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i know the gentleman does share all of our concerns as well as i'm sure the president's concerned that we actually do something to bring down health care costs, at the same time preserving the quality of care that the americans that do have health care coverage right now receive. i would like to ask the gentleman, mr. speaker, does he expect the house and the public, the american public, to have 72 hours to read the entire bill once the committee process has concluded and prior to the bill's come -- bill's coming to the floor for a vote and yield? mr. hoyer: i would think the members and the public would have more than 72 hours to read the bill.
now, obviously there may well be changes as it moves along. i served in the state legislature, the gentleman served in the state legislature. in the state legislature, the process was a little different and you got the bills on your disk -- desk and the amendments were either highlighted in i talics or underlined depending on what the stage of the contribution of the bills was. so that members could well have read the bills before they got there weeks ahead of time. and then see what amendments are made in the bills as it went through second reader and third reader. we have that here but the not as transparent a process because it's much more quick process as we go from second to third reader. the fact is that i think as i said members and the public have now got the draft of the bill as
introduced. as amendments are made and the gentleman referenced that the ways and means committee is a committee on which he served, completed its work, i think about 2:00 a.m. this morning, education and labor completedity work at 6:00 a.m. this morning -- completed its work at 6:00 a.m. this morning, energy and commerce which has a greater portion of the bill, will probably complete its markup, we hope on wednesday of next week. there will be markup on monday, tuesday and wednesday. we expect there to be a substantial number of amendments offered. i don't know how many will be adopted. changes in the bill. the point i want to make, therefore, is that when we say that this bill, however many pages it is, 500, 1,000, 1,500 pages, however long it is, essentially most of that bill is ready for review as we speak. there will be changes, there will be amendments as the process goes forward, but the
public really ought to have an understanding as i'm sure you would want them to have that. the bill is largely on the table now. so that what you're really going to be giving notice of is amendments as they occur, which are much shorter and will be able to be read much more quickly. now, having said that, the gentleman mentioned 72 hours. i certainly have indicated that we're going to have it in place as a final draft 48 hours in place. that's our intent. that's what i intend to do. that's why the committee's worked so hard this week and why energy and commerce is going to be working so hard and hoping to complete its work by wednesday, so that we will not be considering the bill itself until at least a week after that. so my expectation is there will
be substantial time available for review of the bill. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman for that and i know the gentleman shares my concern with the reality that took place around the stimulus bill, around the 300-some-odd-page amendment that were rushed to the floor, having come out of the rules committee with an extensive manager's amendment, without the ability for anyone in this house to read the manager's amendment and the bill in its entirety. i do think and i think the gentleman would agree with me that it is in the interest of the american public's right to know that we do give adequate time for the members to read the bill as well as for members of the american public. mr. hoyer: will my friend yield on that? mr. cantor: i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. there's been much talk about the 300-page amendment and very frankly i think that process was not one which was optimal. i would prefer not to repeat that process. obviously we were driven by the
fact that we were at the end of a session. we wanted to complete the bill so people would have an opportunity as we move forward to have plenty of time to work on the health care bill which we knew was coming. but i must say that about half of that manager's amendment was the so-called green act which had been introduced literally i think months before but certainly weeks before and was available for review. but the gentleman's point is good point and i want him to know that the speaker and i both are committed to making sure that we have at least a couple of days, we think it will be more, but a minimum of two days, full two days, to review both the bill and any amendments that might be attached to a manager's amendment. obviously that may not be the case of other amendments that
might be offered on the floor. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman for that commitment. and, mr. speaker, i would then turn to the issue surrounding the stimulus debate and really a related issue to what the gentleman had referred to as far as the scoring in the health care bill and that is the continuing concern over the exploding debt and what we are doing in this congress and the impact that expanding debt load of this country will have on america's families. i do know the gentleman has indicated a notice for a pay-go bill for next week and i would like to ask the gentleman whether this bill will be identical to that which has been introduced by the members of the blue dog coalition and i think the chief sponsor on this bill
might be the gentleman from indiana, mr. hill, and i yield. mr. hoyer: mr. hill, i was a co-sponsor of that, as a matter of fact i introduced the bill. mr. hill was a sponsor along with a number of others including mr. scott of virginia, your colleague from virginia. a co-sponsor of that bill. and mr. miller from california, a co-sponsor that have bill, and mr. welch from vermont, a pretty broad spectrum of our membership, indicating that there is a real commitment to pay as you go. we believe that's an important principle. we also, as i'm sure the gentleman knows, pay-go was first adopted in 1990 as a result of a conference that was held out at andrews air force baste. someone was representing president bush. he was then the head of o.m.b. and there was a bipartisan agreement to acosmopolitan cosmopolitan the stat toit -- to
adopt the statutory pay-go and we did that. in 1997 mr. gingrich and mr. clinton entered into an agreement on a statutory pay-go and then we passed in a bipartisan way in 1997. when it was to be re-authorized in 2002 and 2003 it was allowed to lapse. i think that was unfortunate. my premise is it was allowed to lapse because making the tax cuts that you wanted to propose in 2003 and indeed in 2001, you waived it in 2001, would have been impossible from your perspective to pay for those cuts. so statutory pay-go did not apply over the last six years. i think that, to some degree, has led us to the deficits. of course in the last
administration vice president cheney made the observation that ronald reagan had taught us that deficits don't matter. i think the vice president's observation was certainly not right in terms that ronald reagan had taught us that deficits don't matter but ronald reagan certainly told us that deficits add up and create large debt and so we went from, as you know i like to say it so often, a $5.6 trillion surplus in january of 2001, which president bush observed was the estimate in march of 2001, it to what is now an $11 trillion debt. unfortunately because of the status of the economy we've added to that. i believe and i think my colleagues believe that this is a critical problem and i know you agree as well that we have to address.
we believe this is one way to do so. it was helpful in 1990 when it was adopted in a bipartisan way, it was helpful in 1997 when it was adopted in a bipartisan way and i am very hopeful that it can be adopted in a bipartisan way this coming week. i yield back. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. without delving into a rehash perhaps of past fiscal practices or whether the vice president cheney's remarks may have been taken out of context, i would ask the gentleman again, is the bill that will be brought to the floor identical to that which he indicates he signed onto and is that which is being sponsored by the chief sponsor, by the gentleman from indiana, and i yield? mr. hoyer: i know exactly what it is, so, it's not identical and there have been some changes which will be included in the manager's amendment. i will make sure that that manager's amendment is available no later than monday.
essentially what it does is it ensures that it is consistent with the pay-go rule that we have here in the house. it does somewhat modify it as to the tax cuts that will be affected, that will mirror the budget that was adopted by this house earlier this year. it also directs the c.b.o. scoring be controlling so that we have a neutral arbiter, not an administration, whether it's a democratic or republican arbiter, as to what in fact the costs are. so i think those are the major changes that i think make it more consistent with what the house's position has been in the past. i yield back. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i would just end my colleagues -- comments by indicating that i have read some reports which say that perhaps inaccurately reported or not that the bill that you expect to come to the floor will not include a
discretionary spending cap. the cap certainly would be a necessary thing to limit the double-digit increases that we're seeing in spending in this congress and the appropriations bills that have been coming to the floor. so i would indicate to the gentleman that we certainly would be supportive of those types of spending caps. mr. hoyer: that's very interesting. they weren't in the 1990, they weren't in the 1997 and they weren't in any proposal you've made to date. i yield back. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. the gentleman knows we are in extraordinary economic times and we've got tremendous job loss and we've got a debt burden that continues to amass that may very well impact the ability for an investment-led recovery. so i would indicate to the gentleman, we stand ready to work with him in trying to return to some sense of fiscal sanity in this body and with that, mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman very much and i yield back my time.
mr. hoyer: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. monday next for morning hour debate and further, mr. speaker, when the house adjourns on that day it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on tuesday, july 21, 2009, for morning hour debate. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: i ask that in the engrossment of house resolution 649, i ask that the clerk be asked to strike the words born and from the first whereas quote on page 41. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence granted for mr. graves of missouri for today, mr. lucas of oklahoma for july 15 after
4:00 p.m. and the balance of me the peek, mr. gary g. miller for today, and mr. westmoreland of georgia for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the question are granted. the chair will entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. burton: there have been real tragedies because of the way the economy in general has been handled and how the automobile industry in particular has been handled. i received a letter from a lady named jane denny from what bash, indiana, in my district and she talk -- from wabash, indiana, in my district and she talks about how her family owned a automobile dealership for 25 years, her husband was
the service manager, general motors was sending all kinds of equipment and supplies urging, mandating almost that they guy bye that and mandating that they buy a pontiac dealership there and after they bought the pontiac dealership and the equipment, general motors contacted them and said they were going to do away with their dealership and did not indicate in any way they would make restitution for the expenses these people had to bear. they owe money for the dealership they owe money for the supplies, they owe money for all of this and the rug has been jerked out from under them. that's an american tragedy, something that should not happen. the way this government, this administration has handled this is a real tragedy. the speaker pro tempore: from there further one-minute requests? the gentleman from texas, for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. gohmert: i ask permission to address the house for one
minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gohmert: the economy is in a tough situation. 9.5% plus unemployment, 14.7 million people unemployed, actually higher than that. since january, 1.9 million foreclosures have occurred. people losing their homes. foreclosures are up 9% since this president took office. and today we take up the welfare for wild horses. that's right. we're going to spend $700 million for wild horses habitat, but how about the habitat for americans? we've got the health care effort to socialize medicine and you know who gets hurt? the seniors get hurt. we owe them so much better. we've got the bailout, goldman sachs had record profits the second quarter, isn't that special? looks like geithner's wrong. if it's good for goldman sachs it's not good for the country.
we owe the american people better than what we're giving them. we should take a plage -- take a pledge like doctors and do no harm. we're doing too much harm. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. are there further one-minute requests? for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address this house, reth rhett their remarks and include therein extraneous material. myself, mr. poe, for july 24, and mr. jones for july 24. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> two unanimous consent, mr. speaker, first i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on h.con.res. 156. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wexler: i also ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders tier toffer entered into, the following member -- orders heretofore entered into, the following members be allowed to address the house for five minutes, ms. woolsey of california, mr. wexler of florida, ms. captor of ohio, mr. defazio, oregon, ms. berkley of nevada. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previous order of the house, the following members of the house are recognized for five minutes each. mr. burton. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. burton: i ask unanimous
consent to address the house for five minutes and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. burton: i want my colleagues, mr. speaker, to listen to what ps when you have socialized medicine. this is a canadian story i'm going to tell you, there's more than one. this is from shona holmes, she said after suffering crushing headaches and vision problems, i was diagnosed with a brain tumor four years ago. she was told if it wasn't removed she'd go blind or die. american doctors at the mayo clinic said to me, you had a brain tumor pressing on your optic chasm and it needed to come out immediately. holmes was told in canada she had to wait four months to see an endocrineologist and six months for a neurologist. she said the doctors at the
mayo clinic got her right away because they couldn't get to her fast enough to canada. she ended up having to pay about $100,000 because they couldn't take care of the problem in canada as that health care system was supposed to do. she and her husband were forced to put a second mortgage on their ohm and -- home and borrow money from family and friends. there's another story, the kingston general hospital in ontario, they have staggering delays. senator mcconnell in the other body claims on average there's a 340-day wait for knee replacements and 196-day wait for hip replacements. the chief of staff at the hospital says, quote, in our canada health care system, we're looking at what we have to do to prioritize patients. they're on somebody's waiting list if they have a problem. they have to wait. another cade canadian has a heart condition that could cause a stroke but he has a three-month or more wait for an operation to correct it. socialized medicine,
government-controlled health care does not work. it costs a lot of money and you have to wait and they ration care. this is the program that the democrats are promising. and all of these white areas are new agencies of government that you're going to have to go through to get your health care and it's going to cost between $1 trillion and $3 trillion over the next decade. that's money we don't have and money we're going to have to print or borrow. it's going to cause inflation. we not only have a health care problem we're going to create, much worse than anything we face today, something that's going to be equivalent to what they're doing in canada and england, which does not provide care for those people and rations care and it costs through the nose. the american people need to know these facts. my colleagues on the democrat side are trying to rush this through before the august recess so the american people won't know what all this means. i think it's a tragedy. we need more time so the
american people can realize what they're going to have to experience if we get a socialized canadian-style health care program. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. ms. woolsey of california. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. wexler: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. wexler: thank you. i rise in strong support of the house democratic health care reform proposal. the united states currently spends, per capita, almost double the money on health care than any other industrialized nation on earth. despite all of this spending, 45 million americans languish without health care coverage. every day, 850 floridians and 14,000 americans are added to the ranks of the uninsured. since 2007 the number of floridians without coverage has grown by 15%. those who do have coverage face
skyrocketing premiums, co-pays, and fees. in recent years, the average premium paid for a family in florida has spiked by $1,400. if we continue down this path, by 2017, health care spending will consume 20% of our nation's gross domestic product. the staggering cost of health care in america is simply unsustainable. businesses cannot compete. millions of americans go without care or receive care in emergency rooms and hospitals that taxpayers pay for. for 60 years, americans have demanded health care reform and for 60 years, congress has failed to deliver on this most basic need. with president obama in the white house, the time for reform has come. we must not let the opportunity
to achieve comprehensive health care reform pass us by. this legislation will finally provide quality and affordable coverage to every american. this proposal will deliver all of the following. a guarantee of no insurance denials for pre-existing condition, a reduction in the doughnut hole in medicare part d to help seniors afford prescription drugs. a cap on out of pocket expenses so families will not have to go into bankruptcy as a result of medical emergencies. and finally, a robust public option that will drive costs down by competing with private plans. the skyrocketing cost of health care poses a systemic risk to our economy. the health care reform package with a strg public option is a much better deal for the american people than this unsustainable status quo.
we are on the verge of finally bringing health care costs under control. and improving the long-term economic health of our country. shame on us if we lack the courage to seize this historic opportunity. thank you very much, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. jones of north carolina. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: ski unanimous consent to claim the gentleman's time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the federal government has been running a universal nationalized health care system in the united states for over 100 years. just ask those folk this is a live on indian reservations. socialized medicine doesn't work and america has already proved it by the way it has mistreated native american intians. they are treated under the indian health services program. a universal government-run
health care system for indians. there are long waiting lines for service, doctors are scarce, think quality of medical care is poor, it costs too much and it results in rationed health care. when the government is running health care, people die. now the administration is forcing universal health care on everybody. let's look at some of our history on american-run health care. when stephanie little too heck -- took her daughter to the indian health service clin nick in the, which she was -- clinic in montana, which she was required to do, the doctor said cher 5-year-old was depressed. the little girl kept complaining that her stomach hurt. after going back to the government-run health care clinic 10 more times, deshaun's lung collapsed. she was airlifted to a private nongovernment hospital in denver where they told her mom
she had terminal cancer. the little girl who loved to dance and sing and dress up in indian costumes always wanted to see cinderella's world at disney world. a charity sent the whole family there but didn't get to -- but she didn't get to see the castle. the little girl tied in her hotel room. the mother cries when she remembers how her daughter was in pain before she die the doctors at the indian health run service told stephanie there was nothing wrong with her daughter, she just had all of this in her mind. this is a tragic example of medical health care run by the united states government. there's a big difference between good intentions and what really happens in the real world. when there are no doctors left and the taxpayer money is gone, when bureaucrats control health care, people die. is this what we are to expect under the new nationalized health care system? mr. speaker, they say on these indian reservations, don't get
sick after june, that's when all the federal money runs out system of they ration health care. the indian health service agency calls itself, get, a rationed health care system. how is that for truth about socialized medicine? rhonda sandelin lives in saging rock reservation in north dakota, she's had a terrible case of fross bite on beeth her hands and her hands turned purple. the pain got so bad she could not even dress herself. she visited the indian health service clinic over and over again. rhonda says she didn't get any help there until she threatened to kill herself because of the pain. the clinic then decided to cut off five of her fingers. lucky for rhonda, there was a private doctor that just happened to be visiting the reservation. he prescribed her medicine that she needed instead of cutting off her fingers. she's ok today. victor was not so fortunate. he felt real bad and went to this same government clinic as
rhonda. they misdiagnosed the fact that he had heart failure and gave him tylenol and cough syrup. he later died. mar sella has access to all the free government health care she can stand. once again she's required to go to the government indian health care services. she had stomach pains and went to the government clinic on her indian reservation for four years. she was given a whole host of reasons for her stomach pain, including the fact they said she might have a tapeworm. eventually she found out she had stage four stomach cancer and that it had spread all over her body. now she seeks treatment at a private provider. on another indian reservation ardell went to her government-lun clinic because she had chest pains. they sent her in an ambulance to a private hospital where she noticed that they had put a note on her chest in the ambulance. and the note read, understand that priority one care cannot be paid for by us at this time
because of funding issues. so they put a note on her, send her on her way to a private hospital because they can't take care of her. arde will, l managed to survive that ordeal thanks to private medicine but it was too late for harriet. harriet died when her hypertension medicine ran out. she tried five times to get an appointment to refill that medicine. government bureaucrats nowhere to be found. so she died before she could ask for that sixth appointment at that government clinic. mr. speaker, these are examples of government-run medical malpractice against the indians right here in america. government-run health care never works. even in america we've proven it doesn't work. and, mr. speaker, i will just close by saying this, if you love the way we run the postal service and you love the way that we run fema and you love the compassion of the i.r.s., you will love the new
nationalized health care system. just ask the american indians. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. schiff, california. mr. moran, kansas. ms. kaptur, ohio. mr. dreier, california. mr. defazio, oregon. mr. mccotter. ms. berkley, mr. franks. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. king: thank you, madam speaker. i appreciate being recognized to address here on the floor of the house of the house of representatives. this is often been described as the world's greatest
deliberative body and here in these chambers we engage in this debate and dialogue but the dialogue that comes to these chambers is a dialogue that's designed to be filtered through our committee system, through our subcommittees, through our full committee process, whether it be the appropriations subcommittees and committees and onto the floor or whether it be through our standing committees and what we've seen happen instead is that this process, it's under the process of a wrecking ball that's been taken to the traditions of this house and each day that goes by it seems that there's another one of those opportunities to expand this deliberative body and instead it's diminished by order of the speaker, by order of the rules committee, shut down the process to the point today where we had a gentleman from oregon, brought a privileged resolution to try to be heard on an amendment that would have otherwise been in order under 220 years of tradition of this house, but instead it was shut
down by the rules committee. the committee that serves up here in this little whole in the -- hole in the wall in a room so small that a few members can come in, once in a while there's room for their staff. i have in her seen a press in the room. there is no camera in the room and there will be no tourists that are allowed to go in there and watch the real debate that takes place, if it takes place at all in this congress, is in the rules committee. it's been changed that way in order to avoid the light of day, the press, the c-span cameras and in fact even some of the record keeping that is a little bit different there than it might be if it were up in front of everybody in front of the television cameras. and that is of great frustration to most members of congress to see what's being done to this debate and deliberative process. so these debates that take place here on the floor, we used to have some good debates, some engaging debates, times when people actually changed their mind, when they heard the other side of the argument. that's what makes this the greatest deliberative body in
the world. but now the debate's been reduced to something that takes place behind closed doors. i believe by order of the speaker, and amendments are shut down time after time after time. at least a dozens of mine were struck through just in the last couple of days. and i have sat up there waiting my turn to testify in the rules committee to the extent where i really want to bring up a laptop and other book work so i can make my time count and if you get up and go to get a bite to eat or something to drink, then you might lose your turn altogether. so i have, madam speaker, introduced legislation that if the business of this house is actually going to be conducted by the rules committee, then let's move the rules committee to the floor of the house of representatives. if you're going to change and usurp the genuine authority of the franchise of all 435 members of congress who have a constitutional right and duty to express the will and the wishes of their constituents by amending the process, offering
amendments, seeking to improve legislation, if the rules are going to be such that they usurp the authority of the franchise of each member and put it up behind closed doors, and the doors are closed, and as i sat there waiting my turn -- still this week, i had two of my own staff people waiting out in the hallway. they couldn't even get in to hand me a piece of paperwork. i have to send them an email on my blackberry and they'll pass the paperwork because there wasn't room. the business of the congress is being conducted either in the rules committee or behind the scenes, behind the rules committee. but it's not being conducted on the floor of the house. so when members are denied amendments that would be in order under the 220 years of the tradition of the house of representatives, but the ones that are allowed will be a whole series of amendments offered by the gentleman from arizona to strike a little funding here and strike a little funding there, most of which i voted for, by the way, madam speaker, it gives
the image to the public that there's a legitimate debate going on here but it is not the legitimate debate and in fact if you listen to the debate, there's no exchange of ideas. there's no clash of the contest of competing ideas. there'sot an exchange of dialogue. it's rare to have a democrat yield when asked to yield by a republican who simply wants to clarify a fact or make a point that would better bring out something in the debate that would be good for the american public to know. this process has devolved down to where it can't be called any longer a deliberative process. and the american people do care about whether their voice is heard in this congress and it's not being heard in this congress. as we've watched thingsing rushed through, the cap and trade bill, which i call the cap and tax bill, rammed through here to where a bill was hurried up and rushed and then to have an opportunity to amend the bill didn't exist for members of
congress, it did exist for the manager, apparently, because there was a 316-page amendment that was brought down here and dropped into the record at 3:09 in the morning to stack that on top of an 1,100-page bill that nobody red -- read. and the most colossal mistake in the history of the house of representatives was the passage of the cap and trade bill and temperatures done -- it was done so with no member of congress having read the bill. not one. and no member of congress read the amendment. not one. and if they'd read them separately they couldn't understand the composition of the bill because the 316-page amendment that was dropped on us at 3:09 in the morning was not integrated into the overall bill, it was impossible to do that. you've got a page forward and back and go back into the code and verify the references and rewrite to get this 316-pages amendment blended into an integrated the overall bill.
and when the question was asked of the speaker during the debate, is there a copy of the enrolled bill here in the house? there was no copy, madam speaker. there was no bill. we were debating something that didn't exist yet and we passed something that didn't exist yet. and members were required to vote on a bill that was 1,400-plus-pages in its aggregate form, not having ever had it integrated, but that anybody understood the pleat context within the context, the complete content of the overall bill in the amendment. but members voted anyway. and even though the speaker said that she was going to provide for, sometimes 72, other times 48 hours, to fully evaluate the consequences or the merits of the legislation that would come before the floor, that didn't happen, it seldom happens. this place is being run with an iron fist, not with the open
kind of a process that was promised when people put their trust in the current majority to run this congress in a legitimate fashion. it's not legitimate. we can't even put up the front that it's legitimate if we are debating a bill that no one, and i mean no one on the planet, has completely read, and an amendment that no one understands completely how it integrates with the overall bill and to be able to -- we stopped the process here for over a half hour while we tried to get a copy of the language that was being voted upon. and we never got it done. to the credit of the clerk, she was actively trying to integrate the amendment into the overall bill. but it could not be done within the time that was available. and even if it had been, it was only symbolic because still no one would have had a chance to read it and i'll even take this to this wild, outrageous step of we ought to understand the things that we're voting upon.
we should be able to get our hands on it, we should have time to read it, deliberate ate -- delnt it, consider it, and pass it out to our constituents and they should have access to it over the internet and they should give us input on how to affects their lives. we can't bring a wisdom of solomon in us and instantaneously make a decision and snap judgment on something that there's no opportunity to read and it was an embarrassment, i know, for the majority to be debating a huge bill, a colossal bill, a cap and trade bill, and not even having -- not even a symbolic version for somebody to point to and say, this stack of paper is what is going to save the planet, i think, is the position that the speaker took. and so the question was asked by the gentleman from texas, mr. goal earth, madam speaker, -- gohmert, madam speaker, can we message this bill over -- if this passes, this bill that was before us, if it passes the house, if we don't have a bill,
can we still message it over to the senate? or do we just tell them, we sent you over a bill that we passed but it's not ready for anybody to review, the not been reviewed yet. that's the fact of what we were dealing with when the cap and tax bill was passed and now its message to the senate, presumably somebody's put it all in its proper form, but i'm confident that not one member of this house of representatives has yet read that bill because now it doesn't pay. they can't strut themselves up and invest the time in reading the cap and tax bill because it's already passed the house, nobody having read it and no version of it being in its complete form available to any member, messaged over to the senate, i don't know if it was the stack of the bill and then plus the 316 pages and the amendment separately, or if it got messaged over there integrated in a fashion they could say that they received a complete bill in the senate. we don't know. and it doesn't really matter to
the house members because we now have another bill that's coming at us so fast and so hard that hardly anyone has a chance to read it. although i do know a couple of members that have burned a lot of midnight oil and tried to get through it. they have to break it apart and assign it to their staff and read the parts they can as fast as they can and others will read it and write their little memos on it. that's this health care bill. oh, my. you should see what we have here now that's been cooked up by the staff. this work was done urgently and i think effectively off of the components of the bill that were available and i think this might actually be representative of what we have today. this is the flow he chart, madam speaker, this is the ske matic of what is created by this idea of a public plan for health insurance and to provide health care for the people in america.
and i have to point out that these white boxes on this ske matic flow chart, places like australia, they would not call it a flow chart, they would call it a scheme, i'll stop a little short of that one, but the white ones are the existing agencies and programs that are there, but the colored ones are the new ones. you see a number here that's about an equal number of new agencies matching up with the equal number of existing agencies. as you read through this, there are all kinds of components to this that ought to scare any freedom-loving person. the one i direct your a-- our attention to is down here at the bottom they have left-hand circle is this, it takes the traditional health insurance plans, the white that's existing, and now they have to qualify, they'll have to qualify so they meet the obama standard for new health insurance companies.
so if you're an american citizen with a murns plan -- with a health insurance plan that you like and you want to keep what you have for a little while you can keep what you have, but it'll have to comply, the insurance company will have to comply with the new standards written by the existing or future health insurance czar, surely we have one or will have one, we have 32 czars or we couldn't have a nationalized health care without a health insurance czar that czar will be writing the rules. it's not in the bill, on what it takes for the traditional health insurance plans to qualify to bobbing the qualified health benefits plans. that's the private side. that's your health insurance if you're an american citizen that is a person who has a plan that's not either medicaid or medicare. they have to qualify. it changes every one of them potentially, meeting a new standard set by the health insurance czar. these will be the health
insurance companies, the one this is a survive, it'll be less than the 1,300 we have today, 1,300 competing against each other, insurance companies providing different models to -- models to try to get the investment doctor in there, the 70% of the people happy with the health insurance plan they have. we won't have 1,300 when they're done complying with the white house health insurance czar standard, we'll have less. i don't know how many less and nobody knows because we don't know what the standards will be. these private companies then will have to compete with the newly created, if this bill passes, public health plan. the public health plan will be the federal health insurance plan that's there to compete against the private plans. why would they want to do that? why would they create a whole plan for the government to run with taxpayers on the hook if they've got 13rks00 health
insurance companies today that are more than happy to get out and compete in the marketplace? what would be the meverrits? the only ones i can -- the merits? the only ones i can determine are if you want to establish a national health care plan that didn't have competition if you wanted everybody in a single payer plan, if you want nationalized health care, socialized medicine, you can't do that without first creating some kind of public health model. that's what the new public health insurance model would be. it would, over time, i believe, compete and push out of the marketplace every one of these health insurance programs we know today. because the government would subsidize and to give you an example of how this works, since we don't have an insight into this in the united states on competition, federal competition against private sector, within health insurance, here is a model. flood insurae. the flood insurance that we
used to have that was property and casualty insurance for people who were living in floodplains, afraid they were they would be flooded, they could buy their insurance and pay the premium. if they got flooded, the insurance company would come to their place, look at the damage, write them a check and settle it out. that's how it works in the insurance industry in a lot of way in plot and casualty, at least, it does. the federal government decided there wasn't enough competition in the flood insurance business so they set up federal flood insurance years back to compete against the private sector flood insurance plans that were there. today, actually, yesterday, i checked into this, i was not able to discover a single company in america that is selling flood insurance in competition against the federal government. the federal government has established a monopoly now in flood insurance. now two things can happen if
you have a monopoly. you can price it way out of the marketplace. if you have a captive market you can do that. or if you have a marketplace you're trying to market to, you can undersell your costs by lowering the premiums below the costs which is what the federal government has done. so today, the federal flood insurance program is a flood insurance program that's $18 billion in the red. that's $18 billion in the red. because it's government. we should not be surprised at this. government came into the marketplace with subsidized by tax dollars, hered the premiums -- lowered the premiums for flood insurance and took the private sector competition out of the marketplace and went off to do other property and casualty, they cleaned the field out and became the monopoly holder of all flood insurance in america and yet
still couldn't set the premiums at the risk they set the premiums at apparently what their bureaucrats thought they should be at, they're $18 billion in the red. imagine what that would be like if it were the post office and everybody these buy a stamp. we are critical of the post office when they can't hold their balance sheet in the black and they are marginally in the red today. that's a government program, flood insurance, running in the red at $18 billion in the red and that, madam speaker, i predict is what will happen with our health insurance in america. so when president obama says if you like your health insurance, don't worry, you can keep it. you can't keep it if it doesn't exist. how could anybody have kept their flood insurance if there are no companies selling flood insurance except the federal government flood plan. what if the health insurance czar writes the specifications for these companies to qualify at such a standard they can't
compete with the public plan. and why would not the health insurance czar, why would he not write those regulations so they're an advantage to the newly emerging public health plan. after all, they have to find a way to compete in a marketplace that's competitive system of the model is there. if people think that i just pulled a model off the shelf that happens to make my case, i would make the point that, show me a model where government has gone in and taken over where they didn't squeeze out the private sector. shall we talk about crop insurance for example or student loans for another model. student loans used to be private. then the government got into the business and now they've taken the student loan program down to where only about 25% of the student loans are private and the rest are government brokered student loans. and we have now the chairman of the education committee and
many others that simply want to eliminate any student loans except what are government student loans. when government step into the private sector, a number of things happen. the quality of the service goes down. the cost of the service goes up because you get inefficiency this is a come in with government that would be automatically erased by the competition from the private sector. when you either get rationing or you get rate this is a go up or taxes that are increased. in the case of the flood insurance, it was taxes increased to paycheck up the $18 billion shortfall that's there. and so, we know the pattern, we know the drill, we should know what this is. we've been through this before, madam speaker and to make the point we've been through this before, here is my deja vu all over again chart. the deja vu all over again chart is the schematic, the
flow chart, as the aussies would say, the scheme, from back in 1993. this is hillary care. i remember this being -- coming out during that period of time. i have a chart that must exist in my archives that hung on the wall in my construction office during those years. i would stand and look at that and study it when i was on the phone pacing back and forth, i'd walk by and look at the chart of hillary care, all these created agencies and the interconnectivity of them. it was something that chilled me and galvanized me and was -- it was one of the significant steppingstones along the way for me to go from the private sector of 28 years in the construction business into the legislative arena because i was so appalled by what i saw them doing to create more government that would be oppressive to the freedom that i so love and enjoy. this is about freedom.
this is about whether we're going to keep and maintain our freedom or expand our freedom or whether we trade that off for a dependency and accept the dependency that comes from a government plan that has a bunch of -- i want to say elitist liberal thinking people that think the american people can't make their own decisions so they have to make the decisions for us. it's the same kind of thinking that would take the deliberation of the house of representatives up in the hole in the wall in the house rules committee. let me rules -- let the rules committee take the orders from the speaker's office. they think they know. they think they're smarter than you. they think they can draft a proposal that is a utopian model of health care for the united states of america and they will tell you they can save money. they will tell you -- they don't actually tell you you'll get better service. this is the best health care system in the world. we don't wait in line.
we don't have to take a number. we don't get hurt and lay around waiting for somebody to come along and take care of us. we don't stand in line. americans should not stand in line. i can think of the times i have to do that, it grates on me. i don't like standing in line at t.s.a. to get on the plane. i remember who brought that about, that's the terrorists. i don't like to stand on line -- stand in line with my credit card to pay the bill. retailers know that. we will stand in line for a concert or ballgame when we're trying to cram in 50,000 people through those gates for a definitive time something starts. that's the only time americans stand in line. the canadians, british, europeans stand in line for health care. it's appalling the stand in line they do. russians stand in line as a matter of course. it's the living they make apparently. i think they wander around
moscow looking for another line to stand in, they've been so conditioned to stand in lines. hunch their shoulders, look down, wander around, look up once in a while, find a line, get in it and then find out what the reason is. americans don't do that. we have freedom. we are a freedom-loving people. it's our free markets and free enterprise and the entrepreneurial nature of this and the innovativeness of it and the property rights and the patents and the trademarks that we have. that makes this country go. we are the economic growth engine for the world. but here's an example of, if you look at the canadian model and -- they're our neighbors an we love them and get along great with them, but the canadian model would be this this came from senator mitch mcconnell on the senate side, the average wait time for someone who needs a knee replacement in canada, 340 days. can you imagine, you finally your knee wears out, you're on a cain or crutch or a
wheelchair or sitting around the living room, not going back to work and you've been to the doctor and he takes a look at your knee, schedules you for a knee replacement and they look on the calendar and turn the pages, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10 months, 11 months. 11 times they turn the page on the calendar to find the kate to right writhe your name in to go to 340 days to yet get your knee replacement in canada. we would just leap into the abyss of socialized medicine because the president's idea is the government can do it better than the private sector can and we just have to learn to do it better than the canadians, the british or the europeans? how about the average time for hip replacement in canada? according to mitch mcconnell, 196 days for a hip replacement. your hip socket wears out. that's a little tough to do that always with the cain, though it happens.
you're on a crutch or two crutches or a cain of orr a wheelchair, gimping around for 196 days. that's, you know, i don't know if you call that elective surgery. i don't think it is. i think at some point the quality of your life and the productivity and the necessity is to get the surgery done. that's rationed health care. i don't know the numbers of how many people died of something else when they were waiting to get the knee joint or hip replaced or how many lives were altered because of it or how much was diminished in the quality of life and people who had to wait in lines. that's just joint replacement. i had a meeting with a doctor who does orthopedic surgery in canada and the united states, goes back and forth across the border. he told of a patient who came in, had torn up his knee and he said torn meniscus and i believe he said a.c.l., an tier yore cruciate ligament. a knee wrecked, swollen, badly painful and he said, he was up
there and he did the examination, he said, fine, we'll get you into surgery right away and we can fix you, patch up that ligament and the torn mes any cause cust and we'll fix you. in america, that would happen the next day. they might elect to allow the swelling to go down that could happen, but it could happen also, the surgery could be same day or next day if the surgeon decided that was the best thing for the patient. that would be the criteria, by the way. in canada, he did everything he could to schedule him with the proper surgeon and this man had to wait six months to be further examined before they could evaluate whether they would schedule him to repair his knee. so they put him in a brace, sent him out of there on crutches and six months later, he showed up at the specialist who examined him and scheduled him for surgery six months later. a torn knee, a year wait,
almost a year to the day from the date of the injury to the date of the surgery. nene of course he has the rehab time on that before he's back and limbered up to go back to work. this individual wasn't productive for more than a year. lost more than a year's wages. why? why would we waste this human collateral that we are? the most precious resource we have in this country is our people. we need to become the most productive people on the planet, one of the jobs that we do here in the house of representatives, we should be doing here, to be enhancing the overall average productivity of all of our people in this country and if we do that, we'll also increase the quality of life for everyone in this country. . if we diminish it whether it's somebody who was injured who would be allowed to sit in the living room chair and not be going to work when they could be fixed in a short period of time and back into it again, that's what happens in
countries that have socialized medicine, national health care, a federal public player plan which has been devised in those countries that i mentioned, but not in the united states, in part because the american people from -- 16 years ago, 15 or 16 years ago saw this schemeaddic, and they were appalled and animated by it as i was and they got on the phone and called their congressman, they called their senator, and came to washington. they jammed the offices full of people and they went to the offices of members around the country and they wrote letters into the editor and letters to their members of congress and they got on the radio programs that existed at the time and some of them did. and the american people had a dialogue about how they wanted their health care to look and what they wanted to maintain. and they completely rejected this model, this old model from
the early 1990's, this alarming model of creating all of this growth in government that nobody can completely understand, maybe hillary understood what she wanted to do. look at this. the government agencies and programs, some of these i recognize, department of labor, don't know what pwba is or ngfshp, i think i knew at the time. but all of these government agencies created or interacted. look at this, the global budget. the global budget. this is part of the hillary care plan and i'll submit this scary hillary care plan is not as scary as the 3-d technicolor modern plan, the obama care plan, that has emerged in this congress. that has the idea that it's going to squeeze out the private health insurance in america. how about the bureau of health information? they'll aggregate your health information. the health choices
administration, h.c.a., health choices administration commissioner. i guess -- we know what's happened. america has run out of patience with czars and so we aren't going to see very many more czars i don't believe. 32 may be like our threshold, political throshe hold of the number of czars we have in america. so we start naming them commissioners instead. commissioners aren't as alarming as czars. commissioners weren't the precursors to marxism and the soviet union. so we are not as alarmed when we call them commissioners. we have the health choices administration commissioner. health choices, what does that mean? that means if the doctor doesn't make the choice that's consistent with the directive of the health choices commissioner, they are going to find the doctor. we don't know what that amount is yet, but it will be hefty. if the doctor, if the doctor then doesn't comply, a second time, not defies necessarily but just doesn't comply with
the health choices administration commissioner, the second time, the bill provides that he's faced jail time. are we going to lock up doctors because they keep their hypocratic oath and do no harm? and they order the kind of service that is protect people? are are we going to ration health care, are we going to let the government set this entire standard for the entire united states of america? and why would we do that? when we realize that in canada there are whole companies that have sprouted up in canada. just think of them as travel agencies that merged with health care services. they realize that the canadians, there is a long -- rule in canada that prohibits person from jumping in line. if you have a pad knee, you're going to wait, it's against the law to move ahead of the line. if you hurt your hip, 196-day
wait. but there are people in canada that can't wait. they can't wait for a hip, they can't wait for a knee, they certainly can't wait for heart surgery, and many do. and so some of the companies, canada, have a policy that's set up as part of their employment policy. when they recruit some of their employees, the package will be here's your salary package, retirement plan, by the way we have this plan for you if you need heart surgery we'll package this thing up and we'll fly you down to houston for heart surgery or ann arbor or the mayo clinic. this happens on a regular basis. the travel agencies that merge with the health care providing agencies provide the turn key operation. they take a look, let's just say you need heart surgery in houston. companies will set this up for the individual that can't wait in line, can't live for the line to get short enough that he can get the treatment. so they package this up. but it will be, here's your
roundtrip plane ticket from toronto to houston. here's the hotel room you will go to. here's your transportation on the shuttle bus from the airport to the hotel. and the clinic is next door. you'll go over for the examination at x time on this morning. if all of these things hold up and they are comfortable, then you'll go forward with the surgery at such and such a time. here's what it will cost for all of the items, the surgeon, anesthetic, operating room, the list of all of the incidentals that go into this, they package it all up, you write one check, and american health care saves your life. so does the entrepreneurial nature of the people that set up those businesses in canada to access american health care. but what a cruel thing to do to the canadians to adopt their plan, or a plan similar to them, obama care health care, where then do the canadians go when they need health care that's urgent?
that's lifesaving? or turns them back into productive citizens again. they've got the relief valve of the united states today. this scary multicolor technicolor will turn this into 3-d i hope one day model, says to the canadians it could be the end of their options. they could say to the american people it's a whole series of different things we never had to think of before. why would we give up our freedom? why would we give up our freedom when 70% of us like the health care systems that we have and the health insurance plans that we have and the argument that comes from the democrats consistently is, there are 44 or 47 or they'll often say almost 50 million people uninsured in america. well, i guess if there's a plan for canadians and they don't have to sign up for it, just show up at the emergency room, if they are not signed up, they are uninsured, too.
if you've got a program that takes everybody, whether they are signed up or whether they are not, i wonder how many people are actually signed up in canada. but if the number let's just say 44, maybe on the outside 47 million, i can take you this way, mr. speaker. that is -- madam speaker, and that is that out of those 44 or so million people, you got to subtract from that the illegals that are heren america. i don't think anybody seriously wants to provide a health insurance program for people that jump the border illegally and sneak into the united states and are are working here illegally and violating our laws. don't think we want to fund that. i don't think we want to give them the cadillac of what would be left of our health insurance program or health care program. so i'd sub tract those out of that list. and we can debate what the size of that number. some say 11 million. i have been here now, this is
halfway through my seventh year, we have been saying 11 million or 12 million illegals in america since i arrived here in this congress. i have gone on down on the border and watched them pour across the border in the night. participated in catching a few of them, including a significant supply of illegal drugs that comes with them. the numbers of border crossings we have had on average since i have been here, the illegal border crossings that -- where we catch them, average more than a million a year since i have been in this congress. so we have caught over six million, probably closer to seven mill -- million who were trying to cross the boardtory get into the united states. the border patrol when you ask them what percentage do you catch? some will say 25%. that's actually the official line and the testimony before the hearings. from the border patrol themselves. when i ask them that question, they will laugh at me. they will say, not that many. perhaps 10%. well, i'll take the 25% number.
and multiply that times the seven million illegal crossings that we have caught and just say that's three times that number. that have actually gotten into the united states successfully if we are intercepting only one out of four. you got four, three get across, one we caught. he goes back. that's how that works. and i guess three times the number. three times seven million is 21 million. that's 21 million that came in. some died. some wen back. but that's one way to measure how many illegals have come into the country since i have been in congress. if you add that number to the number that -- roughly the 12 million number, now we are up in the 30-some million category and it's easy, madam speaker, i think to understand why i think the numbers of illegals in this country are probably greater than 20 million. and we know that the numbers of those working in this country is a number that's over seven million working in this country at least.
that's a federal data point number. but if we cut the illegals out of that list of 44 million of the uninsured, and then if we subtract from that number those that are are just in transition between one health insurance plan to another, then we get down to a number that's a little more understandable and it's a number that comes from two penn state professors and did a study some few years ago, and if i remember correctly their number was there is about 10.1 million americans that are part of the chronically uninsured. now, we should be addressing not the illegals, not those in transition between their health care plans because they are going to find another one and they are going to likely stay on that one. there is always that happening while people are looking for the best plan. but if we really have something to fix, we should be fixing the chronically uninsured. that 10.1 million. i think i took that and divided
it by a population and rounded it up to the nearest percentage point. take 10.1 million, divide it by 300 million, and you end up with a number that's about a little over 3.5%. so let's give the benefit of the doubt to the liberal utopian people who draw up these scheme matics -- is he matics that are trying to fix something like 4% of the problem. 4% of the population is chronically uninsured, and we would tear apart the entire system to try to fix this 4%. what percentage of the 4% will be fixed? well, according to one of the estimates on how the result of those that would be recruited by this plan would work out, this plan pushes tens of millions off of their own private health insurance plan. puts them on the government plan. and in the end the result would be such that they ended up by one measure, 97% of america
would be insured. i don't think that includes, that may include -- i don't know how they address the illegals. we have now 96%, by the time you take out the chronically uninsured and illegals, 96% of america is now insured. i don't want to argue of the chronically uninsured this plan would only get 25% enrolled. it may not be. but if you want to look for a measure on what's likely to happen, one need go no further than the medicaid rolls in america. there it is, if you qualify, sign up for medicaid, it's a free program, you don't have any responsibilities except to sign up and you'll be covered, if you meet the standards of the lower income that's necessary, but of those that are are eligible for medicaid in america d.d. those that are are eligible for medicaid in america, just slightly over 60% ren rolled. why would we enrolled part of
the 4% chronically uninsured, why would we think we could get a higher percentage of them to roan roll in a government plan? or why would we want to? what is the upside? aren't there other solutions and bert solutions? -- better solutions? the answer is yes and yes. there are many better solutions than what's being proposed in this particular outrageous and scary skem matic -- schematic. we should do many things. expand health savings accounts. one of the best things we did with health care was pass health savings accounts. . and if a young couple say 20 years of age had to -- first year was $5,100 and it's index for inflation moving on up. i don't know the number today any longer. i lost track. but i did do the math on this
and build a spreadsheet. if that couple at age 20 invested the max in their health savings account and did so each year until they reached medicare eligibility and spent $2,000 of real dollars out of that account in legitimate health care costs each year and did that at a 4% at the time i did the math, that couple arrived at retirement age with more than $950,000 in their health saves -- savings account. now, why wouldn't we as a nation take a look at that, utilize that and give them a reward for their responsibility and see if we can find a way to make a deal with them that we'll get them off of the entitlement rolls because they have the assets to take care of themselves? and i would argue this, madam speaker. i would say to that couple, take your $950,000 and buy a paid up medicare replacement
policy and keep the change tax free. right now the intent of this congress is to tax those health savings accounts when either they are spent or when the people that own them die. they want to tax them. i say if they will take themselves off of the medicare entitlement rolls i want them to have the balance of that tax free and we can work out some formulas where we can actually help them buy that out. today, let's just say if a couple, a similar couple arrived at age 65 today and they wanted to do a things and not be part of the medicare entitlement, they could buy a medicare replacement policy for right at $72,000 per patient. so say a husband and a wife for $144,000 could buy a replacement policy. that would be the cost, i should say. i don't know if you can buy the policies these days because government has monopolized
health insurance for people past the age of 65. that's the risk, that's the average risk for the health care costs from 65 until natural death which would be $72,000 per individual. so it's reason to think we can set up a health care -- a medicare replacement policy that we -- that people could buy and let them cash the difference tax free. that would be a great incentive for a lifetime. it's one of the things we can do. another thing we need to do is increase the amount that can be deposited into the health savings account. in addition, medical malpractice, you can look through all of these schematics, this technicolor schematic of the modern day or one can look through this black and white version of the hillary care health care schematic and you can't find anything about the reform of the unnecessary punitive malpractice litigation that's
taking place all across this nation. we all know about the lady that spilled a cup of coffee from mcdonald's in her lap and she was awarded the initial decision around $3 million or $7 million or whatever outrageous number that w. and i know it went back under appeal and the number went down but that surely intimidates people. the case here in town, it wasn't medical, but it was a judge that sued the cleaners and took one or two of their stores out of business because they lost his pants. and we see businesses out because of litigation that's brought about in that fashion. how many tests are done in america because the doctor is paying a very high malpractice premium in order to protect himself from a suit, he has to run a bunch of extra tests because that's what you do in the industry to protect yourself from the lawyers. first take the oath to do no harm, go out to serve people in a profession that has great honor, and have it be framed by fear of litigation instead of
doing the right thing. that's the medical version of a good samaritan watching someone get run over on the street and not going to help them. well a formerly likely good samaritan is worried they will be sued in an effort to help someone, they get sued. and doctors run test every day by the thousands to protect themselves from litigation. and yet nothing in the old schematic and nothing in the new technicolor schematic addresses the medical malpractice insurance. now we addressed it in the judiciary committee a few years ago and we put a cap on the -- on noneconomic damages of $250,000. that is what they have in california. not a lot of good things happen legislative in california but that's one that did. proposition 209 was another, just to toss it in the dialogue. but we capped it at $250,000 noneconomic damages.
and let people be made whole. if they were injured by malpractice they would get the cost of their medical care, they would get real economic loss of income, they would even get a little pain and suffering. but the punitive damages, the things we consider to be punitive damages is not economic damages, would not be awarded beyond $250,000. why would you pay a lady millions of dollars for spilling a hot cup of coffee in her own lap in order to send a message that mcdonald's shouldn't serve hot coffee? how many things in this life do we no longer have access to because trial lawyers made a way to make a living and the others found a way to write the rules that we can avoid that kind of litigation? how many of us have climbed into a vehicle and gone down the road and decided i want to program my navigator and find out that your navigator doesn't work while you're moving because some lawyer decided you might get into a wreck for
programming your navigator and so they programmed -- and because of the lit -- and then sue the manufacture for being distracted for your driving? why is it their fault because of your irresponsibility? you have to pull off on the side of the road and you defeat the intent of having that kind of device. that's what goes on with health insurance as well. that what goes on with health care provider. a very high cost of health care in america because there are unnecessary tests being run in order to avoid litigation. so maybe if we had all doctors that were paid by the government, then they would have the sovereign immunity that would come from being federal employees so they wouldn't be sued? that might be a way where obama can save money on health care. i don't want to go threw, but it might be the only thing that might actually be legitimate as far as saving money. and then they'll argue they'll reduce some of these costs down
by providing efficiencies through technology. i'll support that. let's have better records, let's have those records be easily and quickly available to qualified people so if you live in kansas city and you end up in the hospital in san francisco, they can do a quick bar code off your driver's license, for example, and access your health care records so they know what you're on for prescription drugs, they know what kind of treatments you have. you might not be conscious. let's do that technology. do we have to do this in order to utilize more modern technology? we're moving that direction in the technology anyway. i suppose the health care czar will tell us just what technology we can use and set some mandatory parameters on how we get there. i am nervous about that. so there are some efficiencies. there is -- there are wellness plans that can be incorporated into health insurance programs that are incentives, and if we
have those incentives people will do the right thing. if you lower my health insurance premium i'll lose a few pounds and i'll exercise a little more and i'll go in for a checkup a little more and they'll diagnosis the problems earlier and we'll live longer and healthier as a people. that's the free market. that's not a one-size-fits-all socialized medicine plan. these are the things that we should be looking at to improve our health care systems here in the united states. but going down this path -- excuse me -- going down this path of creating the huge bureaucracy, the health benefits advisory committee -- imagine what that is. the public health investment plan, oh, how they manage your dollars while it's in there. what else do we have? we have the mandate by insurance that goes down to the consumers. the health insurance exchange trust fund. the clinical preventing services task force.
that's the one -- excuse me -- the clinical preventative services task force. so that's going to be preventative services. another thing that happens when you have socialized medicine -- i'll tell this in a narrative the way i heard it. when this plan went in in canada, at that time i had a good number of business relationships with friends in canada and they gave me the unfolding narrative. one of them was named peter, actually. said to me. here's what goes on. they passed the national health care plan in canada, the socialized medicine plan and the -- and they said you need to be responsible and go to the clinic for your checkups and don't overload the emergency rooms and treat your health care in responsible fashion and only go when you're sick, don't go when you need to except for your regular checkups, be a responsible consumer. that's how it was sold. by the way, they did the projections on the cost by
expecting the canadians to be responsible consumers. he said, so, the first year of the national health care plan in canada worked like this. people were respectful. they did go to the clinic. they didn't crowd the emergency rooms and this went along pretty well for the first year. by the second year, the third year and the fourth year people weren't willing to take time off from work to go to the clinic when it was convenient for the doctor. so on the weekends and at nights when they did have time in their schedule they just went to the emergency room and abused the privilege. and so peter explained it to me this way. he said it's just like for a company that for the first time was having a christmas party and they invited all of the employees in to have a dinner and a few drinks and to celebrate christmas together. and everybody comes and they have one or two drinks and they tell good stories about the boss and pat him on the back and everybody was just nice and full of love and responsibility and grateful that they had a
christmas party that they could celebrate together as a working family or a family of workers, to be more correct. but he said by the second or third and the fourth year of the socialized medicine plan in canada, it was like the second, third or fourth year of the company christmas party. they abused the privilege. they drank too much. they told nasty stories about their boss and they expected their christmas party and the bonuses to be an entitlement rather than a bonus. and so that was the attitude that he described to the canadians jamming the emergency rooms when they went at the times when it was convenient to them, not going to the clinics, not being responsible and they had abused the privilege and the cost went up and the service went down and the lines got long and people died in line. and that's the tragedy, that's the tragedy of socialized medicine. i met a man a few months ago in a home improvement center and he was an immigrant from
germany, and he told me about how his hip surgery -- and it wasn't a sad story. it was a matter of fact the way he delivered it. he had to wait about six months to get his hip replaced as a german, but he wanted it done badly because it was painful and it limited his options on how he could move around and what he wanted to do. so he had to travel from germany down to italy where the line was shorter and he was operated on in fewer days than if he would have been waiting in a line in germany. and i listened to that story. what would it be like to have to go to another country to get your health care because the lines are shorter? what would it be like to get your health care because there is a line? we're americans. we don't stand in line. we have freedom. we fought for that freedom. we've worked for that freedom. we paid for that freedom. we don't stand in line, and we don't make ourselves dependent upon bureaucrats to make decisions on what's better for all of our lives.
we go out and make our lives better. that's what we are. that's who we are. and this -- this color coded schematic threatens our freedom. it threatens your freedom. it diminishes the spirit and the character of the american people and turns us into dependents. it takes the safety net that we have today and it cranks it up a few notches and turns it into a hammock. and we take less responsibility and the psychology of who we are as a people is diminished. what about that american spirit, that can-do spirit, that idea that we can do anything, the idea that we can go to the moon if we decide we can go to the moon? what about what happened when the japanese took on pearl hashon? we put 16 million and women in uniform and came on it the other side a global power and the only surviving industrial power in the world and we set
the pace with our economy, with our politics, with our culture, with our faith and our values and an inspiration for the world. the rest of the world looks up to us. they do see what's been accomplished here. and we have taken the talent of every culture in the world and rolled it together in this great melting pot and come out of it with something that's a unique vitality, a unique vitality that doesn't exist in any people in the world in part because we've skimmed the cream of the crop off of every nation of the world. the people that came here came here because they wanted to have a chance at the american dream. they wanted to have an opportunity to become an american and an opportunity to have -- to be independent economically and carve up and pull up their own boot straps and provide for their family and sit down at the supper table tonight and be proud at what they accomplished.
for their day, for their week, for their month, for their life. and we should be proud of what's been accomplished in this country by the lives of all of those that have gone before us. . this isn't worthy of a proud and independent people that should be reaching for more freedom instead of giving it up in exchange for dependency. this is dependency. it goes the wrong way. it takes us to the left. it takes us to a dependency. it takes us to a my opic -- myopic image of a utopian version where they have always thought, let's just say in that part of western europe your ewe taupian thinkers -- utopian thinkers have observed. to find it on earth. they completely are opposed to the philosophy of adam smith and the philosophies that emerge in the old and in the new test.
. the independents that we have to have, the personal responsibility we have to have, the moral standards that have be to be part and parcel of the core of who we are as a people. diminished by this color coded schematic. and i pray, madam speaker, that the independence of the american people, the spirit within us, the inspirational responsibility we have for the world will cause us to rise up and reject this model, this model that's not for americans, it's not an american thought process to always be taking responsibility away from people and diminished their freedoms in the process. we need to be about expanding freedom, not diminishing freedom, and when we do that, our spirit rises up to thep top, our energy and our work ethic rises to the top and we are stronger economically, we are stronger as family, we are stronger as faith, we are stronger as a culture and people. and we need to do that to set the inspiration for the rest of
the world. somebody's got to lead. this is our time. and i challenge the people in this congress and this country to do the right thing by this policy. with that, madam speaker, i thank you for your indulgence, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time of the does the gentleman have a motion? mr. king: madam speaker, i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the aye vs. it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until, 12:30 p.m. on monday next for morning hour debate.
ñh"áátu budget year begins in october. among the bills, transportation, labor and health departments. live coverage is on monday at 12:30 p.m. for short speeches and at 2:00 p.m. eastern for legislative work. >> this weekend, the nation's governors take on critical issues facing their states. live coverage of the governor's summer meeting saturday, sunday, and monday on c-span. >> book tv takes you to the harlem book fair live saturday afternoon on c-span2. check out the entire weekend schedule at booktv.org. >> house c-span funded? >> taxpayers. >> philanthropy. >> fund-raising. >> the government maybe, partly. >> how is he spent funded? 30 years ago america's cable
companies greeted to stand as a public service. a private business initiative, no government mandates, no government monday. -- no government money. >> earlier this week -- now, a briefing along with the chair of each panel of house democratic leaders. it begins with remarks by house speaker nancy pelosi. >> good morning, and a good morning it is, indeed. our chairman have been of late and have produced historic results for us. the congress has made historic progress on health insurance reform that will put help put patients and doctors back in charge and provide quality and affordable health care for the american middle-class. three major committees of the house and senate have reported
out legislation already, two more to go. as you know, the health committee in the senate passed out its bill on -- was that when they, mr. miller? a couple of days ago. -- was that wednesday, mr. miller? a couple of days ago. and last night, mr. rainville was working into the wee hours of the morning and he will report on his success. they have worked very hard and very wisely on behalf of the american people. we're here to celebrate the success that they have had as we, again, make progress and move forward. the goals that we have our universality, affordability, and accessibility, and we want to do this in a way that as we continue to lower cost and strengthen the package.
as america's affordable health choices act goes through the legislative process, we continue to build more and more momentum. expressing -- the leading voice for america's physicians, the ama, wrote that the legislation includes a broad range of provisions that are key to effective, brands of health care system. if you do not have that letter, you should see it because it is an eloquent testimony to the merits of our house bill. and over the coming days, congress will continue to work with president obama to provide stable prices, secure coverage, and quality care for all americans. but we're pleased we have the support not only of doctors, of those whose job with president obama the other day, and the nurses and the support of the american people. with admiration and respect, i
now yield to the chairman of the ways and means committee. mr. rangel? >> thank you, madam speaker. i feel privileged to be a part of a great orchestra called the house of representatives with a great orchestra leader who has brought us together, sometimes in the afternoon, sometimes in the evening, and now in the beginning of the morning. but we were able to come together to get this great ship that the president wanted to get out, which is national health insurance. we feel so proud that we will be able to join the family of nations where we can show that we care about the health of people, we care about the quality of people, that we will be able to say that whether young or old, black or white, that in this great nation of ours, you are secured with health insurance. it is not just keeping down the insurance, but also making sure
that america can continue to be competitive. so, on this ship where we have been working with our friends on the other side of the capital is to make certain iwe have a system to be proud of, hospitals with quality care, nurses and people going into the health business not just to make a dollar, but to make life better for some many people. it is so important that we have done this on the outside because no matter what the president hopes and dreams are, must begin our ship out there as we all have working together, then we cannot perfect it. the things we still have to do, even when they are signed into law, the battle just begins. but thank you, madam speaker, for having the confidence in us, allowing us to work to reach the goal that we have and we look forward to pass his bill to
conference with the other body. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman for your excellent leadership and great success. i am pleased to yield to another distinguished chairman, the chairman of the education and labor committee. and pete stark has joined us, the chair of the ways and means committee. so much has happened. [laughter] members will come and go, as i want to be sure to acknowledge the leadership of our whip, mr. cochran.
>> thank you, madam speaker and thank you for your their ship that is so important to our nation and to our economy. i want to congratulate chairman rankled -- chairman rangel and pete stark for the success they had in the ways and means committee last night. it took us a bit longer. we had a very long, but exciting evening for the members of our committee. after some niemi -- so many years of talking about and working for universal health care, the members of our committee had an opportunity to vote for universal health care that will lower and reduce the cost in the future of health care to families and to businesses. the dramatic increases in the costs we heard over and over again from our members last night are crushing families and businesses and undermining our economy. last night, they got to vote for health care that would reduce those costs. they got to vote for health care that would be available for
families forever. no matter what happens to them, whether they lose their job or start new business or they get fired or they have a divorce or they have a terrible illness in their family, they will not lose their health care. never again will they be without health care. that is what it was about and that is what our members understood and that is what we recess excited to vote for. never again will people have caps on how much their insurance company's going to pay for them so that they are just one illness away from bankruptcy. this happens to thousands and thousands of families in this country. our members spoke out about the fear that families live in, that they may lose their health care, about the fear of whether or not their children will be covered. with those votes last night and the passage of the bill out of ways and means and out of our committee, we set a course for this nation that will protect those families, it will make it affordable for small businesses, that will assure us that our economy will not continue to
dedicate more and more of our resources to health care that is not giving us the kind of coverage, the kind of support that families need. that was the excitement of our boat. that is women got together at 6:00 a.m. this morning after the vote as a caucus and we just cheered. we were happy that we get to participate in this historic evening in the house of representatives that takes us on a major step forward to pass this legislation >> thank you very much chairman rangel, chairman miller, chairman waxman. we are having votes now, so we may have to go in and out. chairman starke, i thank you for your leadership. as we have seen today, there continues to beç great momentum
to pass health care reform. even at 6:00 a.m. in the morning. [laughter] it is also gaining momentum outside the congress, as we see from the endorsements of such important groups as the american medical association, which represents hundreds of thousands of positions -- physicians who know firsthand that health care is not an option -- the health care reform is not an option, failure is not an option. the american public is urging us to pass this bill and we are going to respond. they elected barack obama to pass this bill. they elected congress to pass this bill. still, there's no doubt that this bill is quite to have changes as it moves through the process. i would be shot as the legislators that were not the case. it is a work in progress, but we have made significant progress as of 6:00 a.m. this morning. mr. chairman, you moved things a lot faster. [laughter] but we will not waver in our
commitment to bringing down health-care costs because it is those high costs that make premiums such a burden on the middle class. i point out that there are 47 million people who get health care and they get sick, but they are not paying. middle-class american families are paying their bill. the need to be in the system. they need to be participating. we are moving toward that end. we want to make all americans have access to affordable, quality health care. we will need to build on the cost containment measures we already have in this bill and the substantial reforms that have been put in by these two committees and the energy and commerce committee. the american people are demanding a care reform because they know that we cannot go on much longer with such a truly broken system. do we have good health care in america? we do, but it is not accessible to many and it cost twice as much as most countries of the world.
it bankrupt, as george miller pointed out, middle-class families, and cast small businesses, drives as deeper into debt -- handicaps small businesses, drives us deeper into debt every year. stability and peace of mind is what americans deserve. no american family ought to go to sleep at night and worry about their child getting sick and not having access to health care. for all of those reasons, but we're going to pass health reform -- we're going to pass health reform. as the president said, we have been talking and talking and talking about fixing health care for decades. six decades. the other day, some of you were here and i said, at six decades of dingell's. john dingell is a leader in this effort. no one has led more for shalik -- more forcefully than our speaker.
these pivotal months will finally be our chance to deliver. and we will. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> i like that, "and we will." with all associate ourselves with his remarks. i think it is important to note that some of you know mr. dingell said yesterday that the endorsement of the ama is not only great for this legislation, but historic. he said, since the 1930's when the country began the debate on health care, the ama has never endorsed. the members are between their
committee and the floor. to the point, mr. dingell said the ama has never endorsed a health-care insurance reform bill and they have endorsed the house legislation. as they go forward, as i mentioned before, the endorsement of the nurses -- so many organizations and that list continues. we're very proud of the reforms in the package and we're very proud of the cost savings. of course we want more and would be pleased to take any clause -- questions. somebody new. u.s. the first question every time. >> [inaudible] >> but we try to handle part of that. the ways and means committee had one of the most civil discussionsç.
the amendment that the republicans raised for substantive and not political. it is unfortunate that they could not come together with one bill that we could negotiate. but this is just the beginning. we do not know what else is going on. if you listen to the three democrats that did not vote with us, they were does waiting for the our virginity to be able to do that. i felt very comfortable as republicans and democrats and recognize the need to get health care reform. we're not there yet. >> [inaudible] >> yes, we will. >> george, do you want to speak to that? >> i concur with what chairman riegle has said -- chairman rangel has said. throughout are very long 24 our market, we accepted a
number of amendments from the republicans. mix the to those that we thought had merit. the staff is getting ready to do that. i'm not sure that they ever ended up voting for the kind of health care that president obama has presented to the nation, the kind of security that he is presenting, the kind of cost-cutting that he is presenting, and getting rid of all of the exclusions and co- payments and the rest. but the point is this, our members are in full force to come to the floor and support this legislation and they will all report for duty at the time that that vote is taken. >> [inaudible] >> we are. we expect that mr. waxman will report his bill out in the middle of next week and then we will prepare for our role to take the bill to the floor. when the american people see what this means for them, and in each individual congressional
district, over hundred -- over 100,000 people in rural america will have injuries that did not have it before. over $100 million in meeting the needs of public health hospitals will be there. and just a very few people called upon to help with the revenue stream. it is pretty exciting. it is transformational. it will make a difference. again, we have members from across the political and geographic spectrum. their concerns are regional and we believe that they will be addressed as to go forward. >> [inaudible] >> do we have the letter? >> [inaudible]
>> the letter that you're referring to is the letter that peter sent to the three chairman when he said, "i wish to express the administration's strong support for the health care savings proposal in the triet committee -- in the triad committee helped reform discussion draft dated june 13. virtually all of those policies are consistent with those the board by the administration and are essential to our share -- shared goal of reforming health care in a fiscally responsible manner. adopting deficit neutral health reform that expands coverage is not enough because it would perpetuate a system in which best practices are than universal and costs are too high. i commend you for proposing delivery system reforms that will begin the process of
transforming our health system so that quality is improved, cost growth is contained, and waste is reduced pierre kempe it goes on to say some other things. -- waste is reduced." because of disease and other things. and then he said, "i urge you to maintain these policies pierre kempe is a very positive letter. -- these policies." it is a very positive letter. >> [inaudible] >> yes, you're talking about med pac, i think. that is and then we are discussing with the administration and the rest -- and i wish mr. wardahoyer were
back because we have task the staff to look atç this to thate get the savings and then the administration can have what they want. i'm not here to announce that this is final. i'm just saying that it is something that under certain as arms dances we would be receptive to. -- certain circumstances we would be receptive to. >> [inaudible] >> our plan is to move forward with a bill on the floor. >> [inaudible] >> well, we would have to see what the senate is going to do. the idea that we need change medpac and the rest is something that we would have to take up and it has not been taken up in the committees. perhaps it would be taken up in energy and commerce. but we are on our schedule to bring up the legislation before the break and we continue to be on that schedule. any comments from our chairman on that subject?
>> [inaudible] >> well, i have not seen the letter yet. but i have some many letters on my desk from some many, this is the giant kaleidoscope. you turn the dial and you get a new set of letters. i meet regularly -- >> [inaudible] >> [laughter] i do need - 8 with the freshmen and i know of their concerns about small business and some of those changes that have already -- i do meet regularly with the freshmen and i know they're concerned about small business and some of the changes that have already been made. but again, we will see what
people are putting forth, stipulate as to a set of facts to see what is really the case and then go forward. i have full confidence, no doubt that we will come to agreement on all of these issues. and this legislation -- if, for example, bakken russian aesch -- the congressional district are just mentioned, over $100 million went to the hospital and over 123,000 more people would be injured, 23,000 small businesses would be given tax credits -- 123,000 more people would be insured, 23,000 small businesses would be given tax credits. it is really historic. it is transformational. it is momentous. it is important and relevant to the lives of the american people and while we get everybody's letters and take into consideration their suggestions, they take in the
direction of lower cost, better quality, enhanced choices for the american people in a fiscally sound way. we're very receptive to what we feel comfortable -- we feel comfortable about that. >> [inaudible] >> yes, i know them. very happy about that. >> [inaudible] >> are you suggesting that i should be suggesting that the for the president to say? i would not even presume to go to that place. >> [inaudible] >> we are in very excellent shape. this is the legislative process, whereas the bill takes shape, people say, it is coming into focus and committees have acted upon it, here are seven suggestions and we have to go to the next step.
-- here are some suggestions and we have to go to the next step. this is the dynamism of what we do. many of us came here to pass health care reform for all americans, and we will do that and we will do it with a full -- with the full participation of our caucus and full consideration of suggestions that they may have. unfortunately, we have the votes. >> this weekend, the nation's governors take on critical issues facing their states. live coverage of the governor's summer meeting saturday, sunday, and monday on c-span. >> bubp t.d. takes you to the harlem book fair live saturday afternoon on c-span2. the check out the entire weekend schedule and booktv.org.
>>ç apollo 11 astronaut buzz aldrin takes recalls on sundays "washington journal" as we talk about the 40th anniversary of the first moon walk. >> in a speech yesterday, defense secretary robert gates defended his stand on killing certain weapons program, which some members of congress want to reinstate. he mentioned the issue of the economic club of chicago. this is just under an hour. [applause] >> if i may ask you all to please take your seats. welcome to this very special meeting. i believe our guest is the first sitting secretary of defense to ever address the economic club of chicago. [applause] some describe him as the
ultimate washington insider. but the truth is, his favorite place is the other washington where he has a lakeside home near mount rainier. what's more, he first came to the nation's capital more than 40 years ago only on a whim as a graduate student. he signed up for a cia recruiting visit mostly because it was a free trip. 25 years later, dr. robert gates was running the plates, the first entry level higher to ever become the agency's director. along the way, he has worked with democratic and republican administrations. he has managed to maintain his zanaty and reputation in a town famous for bureaucracy and backbiting. whereas he says the official model is, "i will double cross that bridge when i come to it." [laughter] i would say he has done pretty well. . .
so he has chewed up and spit out a few bureaucrats. he fought -- favors consensus. his ego is not entwined with his title. he is not afraid to put himself or his job on the line. his confirmation hearing in 2006, he told senators i did not want this job. i am doing it because i want this -- love this country.
he has retain that reputation for candor. he smiled and said what are they going to do, fire me? all his experience and skills are brought to bear on his current job. he is fighting insurgencies and terrorists and the bureaucracy is at the pentagon, not to mention them members of congress and the status quo. in real dollars, the defense budget has doubled in the last decade. now higher than any other time since the second world war, the u.s. spends more on defense than the entire world combined. this hasn't impact on our -- has a major impact on our economy. he has vowed to bring accountability to the budget process and he is working hard to make good on his word. he also is aware of the human cost of war. he has kept track of every soldier killed in battle and he writes a personal note to every
family. he has been called everything from the anti-rumsfeld. he sees himself as a public service -- servant with a duty to make a difference. in his eyes, there is no higher calling. it gives me great pleasure and honor to welcome the secretary of defense, dr. robert gates. [applause] thank you for that kind introduction. it is an honor to be at the economic club of chicago. i appreciate the special arrangements you have made to allow me to be here this afternoon and i want to thank all the distinguished citizens of this great city who are here
today. i am mindful that i am speaking in the home town of my boss and president obama sent his greetings as do rahm emanuel and the blood axelrod and the rest of the chicago crew. -- david axelrod and the rest of the chicago crew. there note that discovering that washington is the real windy city. [applause] the for those who trouble the high road of humility encounter little heavy traffic. [laughter] the only place in the world where you can see a prominent person walking down lover's lane holding his own hand. [laughter] the issue that brings me here today been central to the security of all americans. the future of the united states military. how should be organized,
equipped, and funded in the years ahead. to win the war as we are on hand, while being prepared for threats on or beyond the horizon. earlier this year, i recommended to president obama and he enthusiastically agreed that we need to fundamentally reshaped the priorities of america's defense establishment. and reform the way the pentagon does business. in particular, the weapons we by and how we buy them. above all, to prepare to wage future wars, rather than continuing the habit of re-army four previous ones. -- rearming for previous ones. the congress is as we speak debating the president's defense budget request for next fiscal year. a budget request that implements many needed reforms and changes. debating the president's defense
budget request for the next fiscal year, most of the proposals, especially those that increase support for the troops, their families, and the war effort have been widely embraced. by both parties. however, some of the crucial reforms that deal with major weapons programs have met with less than enthusiastic reaction in congress. among defense contractors and within some quarters of the pentagon itself. i thought it appropriate to address some of these controversial issues here in a place that is appropriately enough, not only the adopted home of our commander in chief but also a symbol of america's industrial base and our economic power. first, some context on how we arrived at this point. president obama's budget proposal is, i believe, the nation's first truly 21st century defense budget. it explicitly recognizing --
recognizes that over the last two decades, conflict has changed and much of america's defense establishment has yet to fully adapt to the security realities of post cold war world and the complex and dangerous new century. during the 1990's, the united states celebrated the demise of the soviet union and the so- called and of history by making deep cuts in the funding for and above of the size of the u.s. military, including a 40% reduction in the size of the u.s. army. this took place even as opposed cold world -- war world became more turbulent. the u.s. military has some advantages -- advances and became a small version of the
forces that held off the soviets in germany and expelled iraq. there was little appetite for interest in preparing for a regular warfare. campaigns against insurgents, terrorists, militias, and other non state groups. this was the bipartisan reality in congress and in the white house. of course, after september 11, some things did change. the base defense budget, not counting the spending for the wars increased by 70% over the next eight years. during this time, there were important changes in the way u.s. forces were organized, based, and deployed and investments were made in new technologies such as unmanned aerial vehicles. however, when all was said and done, the with the pentagon selected, evaluated, and paid for new weapons systems and
equipment did not fundamentally change. even after september 11. indeed, the kinds of equipment, programs, and capabilities needed to protect our troops and defeat the insurgencies in iraq and afghanistan or not the highest priority of much of the defense department. even after several years of war. i learned about this lack of bureaucratic priorities for the wars we are in the hard way. during my first few months on the job as the iraq surge was getting underway. the challenges i faced in getting what our troops needed in the field stood in stark contrast to the support provided conventional modernization programs. weapons designed to fight other modern armies, navies, and air forces. programs that had been in the pipelines for years and acquired a loyal and enthusiastic following in the pentagon and congress and industry.
the most pressing needs of today's war fighter of the war on the battlefield and the hospital or at home simply lacked place and power when priorities were being said and long-term budget decisions were being made. the most important shift in president obama's first defense budget was to increase an institution -- and institutionalize funding for programs that support this fighting america's wars and their families. those initiatives included more helicopter support, airlift, armored vehicles, personnel, and intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance assets for troops in afghanistan and iraq. in addition, we also increase the funding for programs that provide long-term support to military families and treatments for the signature winds of these wars. such as traumatic brain injury
and post-traumatic stress. while the world of terrorists and other violent extremists, the world of insurgents and i cdps is with us for the long haul, -- ieds is with us for the long haul, growing numbers and groups are employing the latest technologies to put the u.s. at risk in disruptive and unpredictable ways. other large nations known in pentagon lego as near peers are modernizing their military in ways that could pose a challenge to the u.s. in some cases their programs take the form of traditional weapons systems such as more and advanced fighter aircraft, missiles, and submarines. these other nations have learned from the experience of saddam hussein's military in the second
and first gulf war. it was ill-advised of not so subtle to fight a conventional warhead had against the u.s. fighter to fighter, ship to ship, tank to tank. they also learned from a bankrupt it soviet union not to try to outspend us or match our overall capabilities. instead, they are developing asymmetric means that take advantage of new technologies and our vulnerabilities to disrupt our lines of communication and our freedom of movement, to denies access and to narrow our military options and strategic choices. at the same time, and surgeons and militias are requiring -- acquiring or seeking precision weapons, server capabilities, and even weapons of mass destruction. the lebanese extremist group hezbollah currently has more rockets and high and division --
end missions that all but a handful of countries. in sum, the security challenges we now face and well in the future have changed. our thinking was likewise change. the old -- our thinking must likewise change. the old thinking wasis irrelevant. as a result, the defense department needs to think about and prepare for war in a profoundly different way than we have been accustomed to carry out the better part of the last century. what we need is a portfolio of military capabilities, with maximum versatility across the widest possible spectrum of conflict. as a result, we must change the way we think, and the way we plan. and fundamentally reform the way we do business and buy weapons.
it simply will not do to base our strategy solely on continuing to design and by as we have for the last 60 years only the most technologically advanced weapons to keep up with or stay ahead of another superpower adversary. especially one that imploded nearly a generation ago. to get there, we have to break the old habit of adding layer upon layer of cost, complexity, and the late to systems that are so expensive and so clever it that only a small number can be billed and that are then usable within a narrow range of low probability scenarios. we must get control of what we call requirements creep, where more and more features and capabilities are added to a given piece of equipment to the point of absurdity. the most flamboyant example of this phenomenon is the new presidential helicopter. what president obama referred to
as defense procurement run amok. once the analysis and requirements were done, we ended up with helicopters that cost nearly half a billion dollars apiece and enabled the president, among other things, to cook dinner while in flight under nuclear attack. [laughter] we also had to take a hard look at the number of weapons programs that were grotesquely over budget. we are having major performance problems. we're relying on unproven technology and become increasingly detached from real- world scenarios. as of september 11 had never happened. those of you with experience in the technology or manufacturing sectors have probably faced some combination of these challenges in your own businesses. in the defense arena, we faced an additional, often insurmountable obstacle, to
bring rationality to budget and acquisition decisions. major weapons programs regardless of their problems or performance, have the habit of continuing long after they are wanted or needed. recalling ronald reagan's old joke that the government press represents the closest thing we will see to eternal life. [laughter] there is the congress which is understandably concerned, especially in these tough economic times about protecting jobs in certain states and districts. there is the defense and aerospace industry which has an obvious financial stake in survival and growth of these programs. there is the institutional military itself within the pentagon and as expressed through an influential network of retired generals and admirals, some of whom are paid consultants to the defense industry and some who are often quoted as experts in the news
media. as a result, many past tense -- attempts to end feeling or unnecessary programs have gone by the wayside. nonetheless, perhaps in a triumph of hope over experience, i determined and the president agreed -- agreed that given the urgency of the wars we're in, the daunting global security environment we will inhabit for decades to come and our country's economic problems, we simply cannot afford to move ahead with business as usual. to this end, the president's budget request cut, curtailed, or ended a number of conventional modernization programs. satellites, ground vehicles, helicopters, there were either performing poorly or access to real world needs. conversely, future oriented programs where the u.s. was
relatively under invested or accelerated or received more funding. for example, we must sustain and continually improve our specialized trustee dick -- strategic deterrent to make sure we are protected against nuclear armed adversaries. in an initiative little noticed, the president's program includes money to begin its -- a new generation of ballistic missile submarines and funds to secure and assure america's nuclear deterrent. some are proposed reforms are meeting resistance. they are called risky. or not meeting a certain military requirement. or lacking in study and analysis. those three words, requirements, risk, and analysis are commonly invoked in defense matters if applied -- and booked in defense
matters. they often have become the holy trinity of that status quo. preparing for conflict in the 21st century means investing in truly new concepts and technologies. it means taking into account assets and capabilities which can bring to the fight. it means measuring this capabilities against real threats posed by real world adversaries with real connotations. not threats conjured up from enemies with unlimited time, and limited resources, and on limited technological acumen. bellair superiority and missile defense, -- air superiority and missile defense provide case studies. let me start with the controversy over the f-22 jet. we had to consider when we were preparing for future potential
conventional state on state conflict, what is the right mix of the most advanced fighter aircraft and other weapons to deal with the known and projected threats to u.s. air supremacy? we have unmanned aerial vehicles that can simultaneously perform reconnaissance and surveillance missions as well as deliver precision guided bombs and missiles. the president's budget request would buy 48 of the most advanced uav's. they can loiter for hours over the target. we will by many more are in the future. we also consider the capabilities of the newest manned combat aircraft program, the stealth at 35 joint strike fighter. the of 35 is 10 to 15 years newer than the f-22, carries a much larger suite of weapons, and is superior in a number of
areas, most importantly air to ground missions such as destroying sophisticated enemy air defenses. it is a first talha aircraft. it costs less than half what the f-22 costs. -- it is a versatile aircraft. some 500 will be bought over the next five years. more than 2400 over the life of the program. we already have eight foreign partners were committed to buying them along with us. the of 35 has had development problems to be sure. just like every advanced military aircraft ever built including the f-22. if properly supported, the f-35 will be the backbone of the fleet for decades to come if and it is a big if money is not drink way to spend on other aircraft that are leadership considers of lower priority or
access to our needs. the f-22 is a capability that we need. a niche silver bullets answer. the f-22 does not make sense anywhere else in the spectrum of conflict. supporters of the f-22 have promoted its use for an ever expanding list of potential missions. these range from protecting their homeland from sea borders mitchell's to as one retired general recommended on television, using f-22's to go after somali pirates who are in many cases teenagers with ak- 47s. a job already happened to know is better done at the rather less cost by a few navy seals.
these are examples of how far fetched some of the arguments have become for a program that has cost $65 billion and still counting to produce 187 aircraft. not to mention the thousands of uniformed air force positions that were sacrificed to help pay for it. in light of these factors, and with the support of the air force leadership, i concluded that 183, the program of record since 2005, plus four more added in the fiscal year 2009 supplemental, was a sufficient number of f-22s and recommended as such to the president. the reaction from parts of washington has been predictable for many of the reasons i described. the most substantive criticism is completing the f-22 program means we are risking the future of u.s. air supremacy. to assess this risk, it is worth looking at a real world
potential threat. and assessing the capabilities and other countries have now or in the pipeline. consider that by 2020, the united states is projected to have nearly 2500 manned combat aircraft of all kinds. of those, 1100 will be the most advanced fifth generation and 35's and aft -- f-35 and f-22. by 2025, the gap widens. the u.s. will have approximately 1700 of the most advanced fifth generation fighters versus and handful of comparable aircraft for the chinese. nonetheless, some portray this scenario as a dire threat to america's national security. correspondingly, the recent tests of a possible nuclear
device and ballistic missiles by north korea broad scrutiny to changes in the budget that relate to missile defense. the risk to national security has been invoked because the total defense budget was reduced from last year. where the threat is real are growing, off from rove states or from short to medium-range missiles that can hit are deployed troops or allies and friends, this budget sustains our increases funding. most of the cuts in this area come from two programs that are designed to shoot down enemy missiles after launch. this was a great idea. the aspiration was overwhelmed by escalating costs, operational problems, and technological challenges. consider the example of one of those programs, the airborne laser. this was supposed to put high- powered lasers on a fleet of 747's. after more than a decade of
research and development, we have yet to achieve the power to knock down a missile from the launch pad. requiring these huge planes to loiter in enemy here -- airspace to have a direct hit. that 10 to 20 aircraft needed would cost 1 billion and a half dollars each. plus tens of millions of dollars annually each. for maintenance and operations. the program and operating concept were fatally flawed and it was time to face reality. we curtailed the existing program while keeping the prototype aircraft for research and development. many of these decisions, like the one i just described, were more clear-cut than others. all of them in so far as the involved hundreds of billions of dollars and the security of the american people for treatment -- treated with the utmost seriousness by senior leadership
of the pentagon. an enormous amount of thought, study, assessment, and analysis underpins these recommendations including the national defense strategy in issued last summer. some have called for yet more analysis before making any of the decisions in this budget. when dealing with programs that were clearly out of control, performing poorly, and access to the military's requirements, we did not need more study, more debate, or more delay. in effect, paralysis through analysis. and what was needed were three things. common sense, political will, and tough decisions. qualities too often in short supply in washington, d.c.. all the decisions involved balancing risks and setting priorities. separating nice to haves from
have to haves. we cannot expect to eliminate risk for danger by spending more, especially if we're spending on the wrong things. more to the point, we all, the military, congress, and industry, have to face some iron fiscal realities. the last defense budget presented by george of bush for fiscal year 2009 was $550 billion for defense. in that budget, the bush administration proposed that my recommendation -- that my recommendation a budget of $524 billion. the budget just submitted by president obama to congress was $534 billion and so even after factoring in inflation and the costs that were moved from supplemental appropriations, president obama's defense request represents a modest but real increase over the last bush request.
i know, i submitted them both. [laughter] in total, as secretary daly indicated, our budget adds up to what the rest of the entire world spends on defense. only in the parallel universe that is washington, d.c. with that the considered gutting defense. -- would that be considered getting defense. if the defense budget had been higher, my recommendations would have been exactly the same. for all the reasons i have described. there is a more fundamental point. if the department of defense cannot figure out a way to defend the u.s. on a budget of more than half a trillion dollars a year, then our problems are much bigger than anything that can be cured by buying a few more ships or planes. what is important is to have a budget baseline with the steady,
sustainable, and predictable rate of growth that avoids extreme peaks and valleys, that are enormously harmful to sound budgeting. from the very first defense budget i submitted for president bush and -- in january 2007, i warned against doing what america has done multiple times over the last 90 years. by slashing defense spending after every major conflict. the war in iraq is winding down. one day, so too will the conflict in afghanistan. when that day comes, the nation will again face pressure to cut back on defense spending as we always have. it is simply the nature of the beast. the higher at the base budget is now, the more unrealistic, the harder it will be to sustain the necessary programs we have and the more drastic and dangerous the drop-off will be later. where do we go from here?
authorization for more f-22's is in both versions of the bill working its way through congress. the president has indicated he has real red lines in this budget including the f-22. some might ask, why threaten a veto and risk a confrontation over couple billion dollars for a dozen or so more planes? the grim reality is that with regard to the defense budget, we have entered a zero sum game. every defense dollar devoted to -- diverted to fund excess or unneeded capacity, whether for more f-22's or anything else is a dollar that will be unavailable to take care of our people, to win the war is we're in, to deter potential adversaries, and to improve capabilities in areas where america is under invested and potentially vulnerable. that is a risk i cannot accept and one that i will not take.
with regard to something like the f-22, regardless of whether the number of aircraft at issue is 12 or 200, if we cannot bring ourselves to make this tough but straightforward decision, reflecting the judgment of two very different presidents, to chairman of the joint chiefs of staff in the current air force secretary and chief of staff, where do we draw the line? if not now, when? if we cannot get this right, what on earth can we get right? it is time to draw the line on doing defense business as usual. the president has drawn a line and that line is with regard to a veto and it is real. i joined the cia was 40 years ago to protect my country. for my entire professional career and -- in government i have been known as a hawk on
national security. one criticism when i was that ca is i overestimate the threats to the security of our country. i have not changed. i did not mulch from a hawk into a dove on january 20 -- molt from a hawk into a dove on january 20, 2009. the world is and always will be a dangerous and hostile place for our country with many will do less harm and many who hate everything we are and everything we stand for. the reality is, the nature of the threats against us has changed. and so, too, should be the way our military is organized and equipped to meet them. i believe, along with the senior leadership of this nation that the defense budget we propose to president obama and he sent to congress is the best we could designed to protect the united states nella and in the future. the best we could do to protect
our men and woman in uniform, to give them the tools they need to deter enemies and to win our wars today and tomorrow. we stand by this reform budget and we're prepared to fight for it. a final thought. i arrived in washington 43 years ago this summer. of all people, i am well aware of the realities of washington and know the change -- i know that things do not change overnight. the influence of politics and parochial interests in defense matters -- in defense matters is as old as the republic itself. henry knox ended up with six frigates being built -- built in 6 states but the stakes today are very high. with the nation at war, and the security landscape steadily growing more dangerous, and unpredictable, i am deeply
concerned about the long-term challenges facing our defense establishment and just as concerned that the political state of play in washington does not reflect the reality that major reforms are needed for the tough choices and real discipline are necessary. we stand at a crossroads. we simply cannot risk continuing going down the same path. where spending and program priorities are increasingly divorced from the very real threats of today and a growing ones of tomorrow. these threats demand that all our nation's leaders rise above the politics and parochialism that has often played considerations of our national defense -- played considerations of our national defense. from one end of pennsylvania avenue to the other, that time has come to draw a line and take
a stand against the business as usual approach to national defense. we must all fulfill our obligation to the american people to ensure that our country remain safe and strong and just as our men and women in uniform are doing their duty to this end, we in washington must do ours. thank you very much. [applause] >> think you for those thoughtful remarks. it is the custom at the club to have a question and answer period and we appreciate your
willingness to participate. our committee has come up with some thoughtful questions. the first one is personal. what leadership or personal experiences as director of the cia have helped you in secretary of defense and how are the jobs similar or the major differences between the two? >> when i get out of this job, i want to write a book about the challenges of leading change in large public institutions. [laughter] whether it is cia or huge public university or the department of defense, they'll have some very important characteristics in common. first, they are all publicly accountable. second, they are all accountable to the legislature. third, they'll get their budgets from a legislature. fourth, they all have permanent cadre were there before the
leader comes and are there after they're gone. the most have the opportunity to outlast them. they all have either retirees or alumni who consider that they still should have significant influence over help the place gets run. the reality is, what i have learned at all three places is, particularly when it comes to leading change, the central strategy for me has been that it is my responsibility to set the goal, to set the vision, but then to incorporate the professionals in the organization and figuring out how we accomplish that goal. how do we get from here to where we need to be? the truth is, if they participate in it, if they help design the solution, then they will embrace it and defend its once you have left. i worked for too many people in the government who came in and try to impose change from the
top and by fiat and the change walked out the door that they left. the key is bringing professionals on board, working with them, establishing a productive and constructive partnership, and then you have the opportunity for permanent change. i learned that lesson that cia and i continue to apply that. >> you are the only secretary to ever stand with the newly elected president. what were the factors that went into your decision to stay with this president? what do you think -- how do we strengthen our civil servants? >> i spent most of the first six months of last year trying to build a wall very high that made clear i did not want to stay in the government, i did not want
to stay in washington and i wanted nothing more than to go back to washington state. part of the reason i tried and i talked a lot about my clock that was counting down the days, hours, and seconds -- minutes and seconds to when i could depart at noon on january 20, i knew myself will enough to know whoever was elected, if i was asked to stay, i would have to do that and i hoped would never get asked the question. i did get asked the question and i did not hesitate and immediately said that i would be honored to stay. i would say this about president obama. i was deeply impressed that his
vision for the country and his concern for the security of the country led him to ask me to stay, because it seemed to me -- the had never -- this had never been done before after an election. we were at war in two different places and major conflicts in two different places and other conflicts of a lesser scale, what was important for the nation was continuity. and so i had no hesitation in saying yes. >> what would be the major differences, stylistically and leadership or approaches to defense between president bush and president obama? >> journalists have asked me that question on a number of occasions. i have a stock answer. i have a really good answer to that question. i will answer it when i get paid
to answer it. [laughter] [applause] >> those 41 years in washington have taught you a lot. what countries, situations most worry you? there are enormous issues with pakistan, afghanistan, iran, or north korea or other countries you may want to talk about. >> i think this is option e, all of the above. the situation -- we face a number of challenges. i would tell you in all, this is the eighth president i have worked for and i do not recall a single time in my career that i felt the country faced as complex and in many respects,
dangerous a time as we do now. i grew up in the cold war. most of my cia career was spent during the cold war. we have a singular focus on the soviet union and virtually every problem in the world was seen through the prism of the cold war and the competition with the soviet union. it was a relatively simple structure that we were dealing with. there was also the danger of a nuclear catastrophe with the soviet union. the truth is through 45 years of the cold war, that possibility was really quite remote. the problem that we face now is we face a multiplicity of threats and while none of them are as potentially cataclysmic as a nuclear exchange with the soviet union, the likelihood of one or the other of them actually happening is, in my view, a significantly greater. we have a number of countries
where we have to be concerned and where in the past, i like to tell young officers this, in the past, crises would come out and be dealt with and go away. nothing ever seems to go away. i remember at the end of the bush administration and exchange with secretary rice and we looked at each other in the situation room. we were there for a meeting on piracy. who the hell ever thought we would be dealing with piracy? this is 18th-century stuff. these things keep coming up and just like piracy, they do not go away and we have to figure out a way to deal with them. all of these countries are of concern. the one i think is the most difficult and it was difficult in the bush administration and it is difficult in this administration. it is the problem of iran. it was iran's determination to
seek nuclear weapons. the inability of the international community to affect their determination to do that. and how you deal with that and where all the outcomes are -. if the chief one, the possibility of a nuclear arms race in the middle east is very real. if some action is taken to prevent them from getting one, the consequences of that are completely unpredictable. and likely very bad. the international community, not just the u.s. that faces this problem. after all, iran is going to have missiles that deliver nuclear weapon -- weapons to deliver in the region sooner than they can deliver to us. this is the message i delivered to the russians. they are closer than we are.
i think of all these countries, the one that concerns me the most because there don't seem to be good options that -- where one can have any optimism that a good option can be found. >> what are the steps and the time lines to closing the presence at guantanamo bay? >> the president as you well know has signed an executive order that would close guantanamo on january 22, 2010. the line of states and communities that are willing to have the folks at guantanamo come to their area seems to be a very short one. like nonexistent. as i said to somebody, i expected 535 separate pieces of
legislation in congress saying not in my district or state. nonetheless, we do need to find a place. there is no doubt that closing guantanamo is complex and it is difficult. the reality is, we have dozens and dozens of dangerous terrorists in maximum-security prisons in the u.s. and not one has ever escaped. as i said during the bush administration, interestingly enough, guantanamo is probably one of the best presence in the world today because of all the things that have been done to change it and improve it. nonetheless, it will, i believe, forever be tainted, and it is something that can be used against us by our adversaries. and therefore, i certainly agree with the president and i agreed with the last president that it needs to be closed. we are moving down that path and i think we will get it done.
>> what is the future for the do not ask do not tell policy? can it be altered successfully and be humane as you have said and made the original intent of the policy? >> this is a difficult challenge for us and there is no reason to soft pedal it. the fact is, the president has said he intends to change this policy. the key is to remember it is not a policy. it is a law. before we can change what we do, the congress has to change the law. once the laws changed, then we will do what the law says and what the president tells us to do. in the meantime, as i have indicated, i have our attorneys at the department of defense looking to see if there is a way in which we can enforce the law. we must enforce the law. we have taken an oath to do that
who are in public office, but is there a way to comply with their oath to enforce the law that finds some way in which we can apply it more humanely and one example of that might be, what if we did not take into account third party is trying to harm somebody -- third parties trying to harm someone who may be gay in the service. someone who may have a vendetta or hatred toward somebody and therefore, out them as a way to wreck their career. is there a way we cannot focus on those kinds of reports? to tell you the truth, i do not know the answer to that question. if there were an easy question i would have gotten an answer back from my general counsel several weeks ago. we are looking at it to see if
there is any flexibility in which we can do what we have to do, which is in force the law but do it in a way that at least brings flexibility to the process. until law is changed. >> what is the department of defense doing about the rise in military suicides and post- traumatic disorder cases? >> we had a -- every day we lose somebody in the department of defense is a tragic day but we had a particularly tragic day around the middle of june. at that point, we had lost 87 of our and men and women killed in action in iraq and afghanistan. on that date to date, -- year to date, we had lost 87 to suicides. this is a problem that every
person in the pentagon is taking seriously. none more so than the leadership of the army. we have made huge steps in dealing with the posttraumatic stress issue. we have put enormous resources into it. done an enormous amount of educational activity to try a and virtually -- try and virtually every soldier has been exposed to recognize the symptoms of post-traumatic stress. building the buddy system to see everybody is demonstrating symptoms, educating families, creating the capability to provide help and treatment to these people. we have done a lot to remove the stigma of reporting and i think we are -- of seeking help and we are making significant progress in those areas. the truth of the matter is, i believe the suicides are reflection of the stress on the
force. we will do everything in our power to try and have commanders and nco's and others recognize people who are in distress and seek help for them. my guess is, ultimately, the solution to this problem is where our soldiers have more time at home where there is less stress and where we are not putting people through four and five rotations in incredibly stressful situations, whether it is iraq or afghanistan. >> there has been much news about attempts to penetrate the pentagon's computer networks. what are your hopes for cy bercom? >> this is one of those worlds in which we need to make additional investments. one of the lines that i have used since january 20 is there
were a number of decisions from the air is forced -- air force tanker programs to several others that last fall i punted to my successor. [laughter] only to find myself on the 1 yard line receiving. i think that -- i got distracted. cyber is one of those areas. i made some preliminary structural changes last summer and last fall but i did not want to take the next step of creating a full cyber command. i thought that should be left to my successor. once it ended up with my staying in the job, i decided to proceed. the president had directed the 60 days cyber study by the white house. we participated in that.
i held off on my decision in creating cyber command until that was over and we could see how that fit with what the rest of the administration was going to do on cyber. this consolidates a number of different capabilities within the defense department and it puts us in a better organizational position to be able to defend ourselves, to defend the military networks against the intrusions from abroad and frankly, to exploit what we learn when people make those kinds of attacks on this. it is one of those areas i was referring to in my remarks where we need to make additional investments, and i would say that the civilian side of the government needs to do likewise. >> we are extremely proud of the number from chicago's starting with our president. let me acknowledged the
ambassador to the united kingdom. [applause] and mr. secretary, on behalf of the economic club of chicago, we thank you for being here but we thank you for your service to our nation and what you have sacrificed to make us better people. thank you. [applause] >> homeland security secretary general apologyto the nation's governors on sunday. live coverage of their meeting covers thru monday on c-span.
>> apollo 11 astronaut buzz aldrin takes your calls as we talk about the 40th anniversary of the first moonwalk. >> now discussion of the recently concluded supreme court term. this panel looks at how the court came to its decisions. this event from the heritage foundation is just over one hour. >> good morning, everyone, and welcome to the heritage foundation. we are proud to be sponsoring the annual scholars and scribes review of the supreme court term or we will talk about the supreme court term just completed. i am sure some of our panelists will want to look ahead and make some discussion of the term beginning next year. let me do a quick introduction of our moderator and that will turn it over to him for the rest of the introductions.
we have the director of legal studies and he is a commissioner on the u.s. commission on civil rights. todd has been here for number of years. before he joined us in 1997, he was chief counsel to the house representative subcommittee on regulatory affairs. he served in the office of legal counsel at the u.s. justice department and as a judicial clerk to the hon. edith h. jones and he has been here since 1997. i will turn it over to you. >> thank you, rich, for the introduction and for you in the communications department, helping us to organize this great event every year. i want to paraphrase, it has been a big week in washington. the cbo warned the democrats
that their health care will -- plan will cost more. and an aggressive driver was shot and killed by capitol hill police. is there anything else i am forgetting? he will lead our distinguished panelists decide whether anything else is worthy of adding or including in those four day hearings in the senate judiciary committee. my introductions will be brief to give them more time to discuss the important cases of the term. miguel estrada will go first. we are always delighted to have among this program for his credible wit and wisdom as well as his experience arguing 18 cases before the high court and participation in others. he was an assistant to the solicitor general when he began
his supreme court practice. he also served as u.s. attorney -- assistant u.s. attorney and deputy chief to the appellate division of the southern district of new york. he has in recognized by his peers in the appellate far as one of its most outstanding practitioners. his name has been invoked recently because his nomination to be a judge on the d.c. circuit did not receive a final vote in the u.s. senate. the relevance of this non-event today may be debated but i will remind our audience that lawyer john roberts suffered the same fate in 1992 and he was forced to make a lot of money for another decade before his time came again and given miguel's brilliance in the courtroom, i predict the same fate for him joining the federal bench. [applause] as for now, miguel i am sure
will have a smart remark but his firm's practice group was involved in several important cases this term as he will discuss. next on our program, the prinicciple deputy and acting solicitor general. he has argued several significant cases before the supreme court. . . supreme court both as private practitioner and for the government. since 1997 neil has been a professor of law at georgetown university law center when not in government service. in the late 1990s, he was special assistant to the deputy attorney general and an adviser on national security affairs including defending the constitutionality of u.s. military operations in kosovo. military operations in kosovo. while working law professor, neil defended guantanamo@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @a
he argued to of the most important cases, involving the austin utilities district and another involving a argument with convicted felons. glass, michael carvin is a partner in the law firm. he specializes in constitutional civil rights. he has argued several landmark cases before the high court himself. before his private practice, he served in the u.s. department of justice as principal deputy assistant eternal journey. -- attorney general.
of legal council and of relevance for some of the cases this term as deputy assistant attorney general in the civil rights division. one of his other notable appearances was before the florida supreme court in the leadup to the bush v. gore case. i should add that miguel estrada who completed the argument in that historic case, but mike has participated in several high-profile cases involving voting rights act in other apportionment issues including filing a brief in this year's case challenging the constitutionality of the provisions, for abbey thernstrom and others. mike is also a return guest and several people in the audience will know how shy and understated he is, so hopefully you all will help encourage him to tell us when he really thinks about the cases this term and
other matters that may affect the court next term. with no further ado, let's start with miguel. >> thank you for having me. i was going to start out when you made the very kind remark by responding that you have now ensured that my wife will take out a contract on your life, but i'll let that go. please, i'll start with three cases that make you think sometimes that you're not quite sure if the supreme court is actually running a court or, you know, the line, the tv lineup for the network. let's start with fox, fcc with the weighty issue with the court is the extent to which a no-name starlet can go on national television and say the "f" and the "s" word.
it used to be the rule for many, many, many years as the court got into these issues that you cannot use indecent language if you use the "f" word or the "s" word as mr. cheney made on the floor of the senate. you would not understand that the vice president was inviting -- and if that was indecent because as the fcc used to say this was only used as an intensifier than literally a description of sex or an activity. this change, i could not make my government up, okay? this is -- this change earlier in the decade when the fcc concluded that any and all words of the f word or s word were
indecent only to be said by their own assessment of the context. that got to the supreme court on the clear point of administrative law as to whether the fcc had enough grounds for flipping its definition and the court rheaumed for the fcc. what was interesting about the case is if you count nos, it is clear that the government will lose the next round on first amendment grounding with going so far as to say that he is -- and i'm sure people here will be shocked by this that he is now willing to overrule the whole rest of cases that have come up with different standards for television broadcasting than they're currently applied to newspapers and cable networks. >> the next -- that's the 7:00
p.m. slot in the television and then we move on to the pot boiler which is the case that has to do with whether you are the ceo of a company that has a very important case in the west virginia supreme court. you can devote your efforts to having one person that you would like to be on the court because you think he might vote for you and actually be on the court and having that person be elected after you raise a good $3 million. this is more than jon grisham, on that set of facts. the case is the supreme court and 5-4 with justice kennedy in the majority with the people that are usually considered the liberal wing of the court with him. the court found that this was too much to stomach and there was a violation of due process because the litigant wasn't sure of the impartiality of the court. it's the type of thing that makious think, joe, this really
does make me queasy, is the constitution the best way to deal with these questions and the members of the minority led by the chief justice had a list of 40 question which is may prove difficult to answer for the lower courts as we move forward as to what happens next. sure, you might think this case is easy, but there are any number of things that come up afterwards as to where you go from here and finally for the tear jerker, that's the 9:00 p.m. slot in the television is why there is levin. this is a very tragic case of an accomplished musician who lost her forearm, as i was told, of having acquired gangrene when a drug was injected through what's
called the i.v. push method. what's significant again it was 6- because justice thomas is willing to cast a whole preemption for the proposition that even though the label and the drug had been approved by the fda and ordinarily it would be very difficult for the drug manufacturer to change it that that was not a defense when she sawed sued the manufacturer in state court and effectively you could have a jury in the position of coming up with the additional warnings that also have been put on the label that the fda didn't think of asking the manufacturer to actually put on the label. this case is significant. it was a headline case. it was very important for the business community which, when it's convenient finds that
there's a lot to be said for the federal state balance, and it just points to a great deal of instability going forward in the preemption doctrine of the supreme court. there are many ways in which this case cannot reasonably be distinguished from the gire case which was some years ago and involved car safety, and that's going to be a very important area going forward. we don't know how the new justice will affect it? we don't know how it will affect it now that justice thomas is on the team given the leeway to the states in this area. that's all i have. >> on time. >> i'm watching the clock. >> good. good. neil? >> i want to begin by thanking todd and the heritage foundation for having me here. i'm privileged here. you heard miguel was assistant
general of 1992 to 1997 and in 1994 a young law student walked him and had him as his boss and that was me and miguel was an incredible boss. i don't know how he means that. >> i mean that. i mean that in giving the feed welcome back criticism and the really formative year. one thing stuck. i remember, miguel, who should i work for after i grad wait and he said one name, john g. roberts, g. for god and that was in private practice and i'm privileged to be here on the panel. part of my privilege as representative of the government is to not make any news so i won't make any news today. i'm talking to my personal capacity and maybe talking about a couple of supreme court cases, and i want to give you all for those that aren't familiar and the word for the solicitor
general's office and the united states before the supreme court. our office is very small. it's just 21 lawyers, but we're involved in roughly two-thirds of the cases of the supreme court and are arguing on virtually every day that the court is sitting. there's a great premium in our office placed on stability. we don't really change positions much from one administration to the next and unlike other parts of the justice department in which you have all of the deputies being so-called political deputies that is appointed by the president. in our office the majority of the deputies are career deputies and the one with the least experience, the supreme court has argued something like 60 supreme court cases. so that's not to say we don't ever think of a physician in a different way. we had the case of savannah redding this year. the 13-year-old girl who was strip searched for ibuprofen and traditionally the justice department because our main -- one of our main institutional
interests is representing the thousands of prosecutors who serve in our ranks. we generally come out on the side of not finding fourth amendment violations in the supreme court and there's only been one other instance in which i filed a brief statement which was a fourth amendment violation and here i did, we looked at the case and we thought this does go beyond the pail of what the fourth amendment permits. having said that we said the court should grant qualified immunity to the individual school officials who engaged in the search and that is what the court did on an 8-1 decision. it's a personal change for me being in the office in a number of ways. when i was doing these cases on my own with phil and others who are basically a bunch of students and brag tag team of people, i would do the table of authorities and contents myself. by the way, i never argued the med i en. i had nothing to do with that decision.
i argued hamdan with the guantanamo military tribunal, but medillen they had real lawyers and hamdan got stuck with me. our office, on a very small budget and the solicitor general's office and the office of $10 million a year were involved in all these cases and that is a budget that is in private practice that can spend on one case. this is what we do in a year and it's -- yeah. so it's a really quite remarkable thing -- >> it's what you charge for a case. . so it is really -- i think it's a very good dollar value in d.c. with that in mind, let me talk about two cases, the first is the voting rights case which i had the privilege of arguing in the last term in northwest austin. this is a case about the 1965 voting rights act preclearance provision and five of the voting rights act that for certain jurisdictions if they want to change their voting practices,
they need to get preclearance from the justice department and from a federal court to do so. this has been a landmark provision in the civil rights laws and there's obviously debate although it should be retained and i think both sides before the court and in both sides on the court recognize the historic importance of the preclearance provisions and the success we have in franchising millions of voters. northwest austin, the small municipal utility district challenged the voting rights pre-clearance provision and it's straight beyond congress and powers underhe 14th and 15th amendment and arguing a statutory argument that even if the court weren't to decide the constitutional question they should find a way for the small utility district to be exempt from the pre-clearance requirements to seek a bailout and be outside of having to be
pre-clearance for every voting change that they make. the decision came to the supreme court with a very strong court of appeals decision behind it. 121 pages written by judge tadel. they came to the court with a very extensive record in congress. they'd been reauthorized four times, most recently in 2006 after 21 different hearings spanning over ten months and with the @@@@@ @ @ @ @ ,8@ @ @ r many thought this will be an occasion for them to make a cut -- great constitutional pronouncement about the breach of the powers in congress. instead, the supreme court said that the bail provisions should be bred in order to permit this to bailout. it was a very tough argument.
i think the statute defines those that can bailout a certain way. the cord basically engages in creative writing -- the court a basically engaged in creative writing. creative re-writing of the statute in order to reach that result, and that might be the right result and one debate and that will be all we'll be having in the next year is whether or not in a multi-member court fidelity to principle is the most important characteristic. if it were, i think your answer for who the leading just oits supreme court is right now is very simple and it's justice thomas who stakes out in that case and in many other cases this term and others the clear, consistent position that is unmuted by kind of other considerations including getting other justices to go along with his position. chief justice roberts took a very different position in the case in which he built a
consensus. this was what he was prof sized to do at his confirmation hearings and this was a ringing endorsement of those who thought he might do so. maybe in my next set of remarks i'll talk about osbourne versus alaska because i'm out of time. thank you. >> mike? >> thanks. i'd like to peculiar up on the civil rights cases and not only the northwest case that neil just chatted about, but there were two others and one was the ricci case involved in the new haven firefighters that's gotten an awful lot of attention on this because judge sotomayor then on the second circuit and still on the second circuit upheld what new haven had done that said we don't have enough african-americans that passed the test in a way that would reasonably promoted to firefighters. we'll scrap the test and therefore disable all of the white and hispanic firefighters who werel ij for promotion. there's another case that's very important that hasn't gotten any media attention called the bartlett commission which involved section two of the voting rights act and basically
i'll describe these cases individually, but the main point i'd like to make today is there seems to be a consistent theme in this case, reflecting, in my view, the fundamental tension and dilemma in civil rights law for the last 20 years. and that is a conflict between a number of civil rights statutes that have the desperate impact test and the constitution's requirement that you can't disfavor anybody on the basis of race or not. i'll take a step back to explain what i mean. an effects test essentially means even if you have completely neutral motives never consider race, and if you have a high school diploma requirement that has this impact on african-americans and hispanics that is illegal under title 7 and there are similar provisions in the voting rights act which have a discriminatory results and the election schemes that's illegal even if you had no intent to disadvantage minorities. the basic point, i think that the media tends to miss and scholars tend to miss is they
think both the intent test, you can't discriminate intentionally on the basis of race and the effects test are two different ways of rooting out discrimination of the effects test being a more muscular version of an anti-discrimination principle. in reality the effects test is a mandate for discrimination against non-minorities. i think as justice scalia pointed out in 1989 when they were involved in title 7, an effects test is in effect, a quote or requirement. if you say that you need to hire -- it's illegal to hire fewer blacks than there is in the proportion in the relevant workforce or in the neighborhood, let's call it 30% for discussion sake. if you have 30% or higher that's a requirement that you engage in representational quotas. you hire or promote 30% blacks. that's a pure effects test. if you didn't have an excuse on
behalf of the employer or the government that said, okay, we're presumptively illegal to not have 30% blacks and we have some justification for why we did engage in this quota hiring and the fight over the quota in the last 15 years has been an effort since they understand -- >> pull the microphone. >> for the c-span audience, we want them to hear all of your brilliance. >> there you go. since you've made the justification standard incredibly demanding like business necessity, then in essence, you've mandated quotas unless you have a compelling government interest not to do it. if you've made the justification relatively weak, is it a reasonable thing that the employer did, then the employer would have a lot more discretion not to engage in the quota of hiring and not to discriminate against non-minority. so the debate and the congress got involved with the '91 civil rights act is how tough a just tication can you do this, can
you impose on people and how much is there between the esh effects test and the standard. ricci engaged in sort of a classic thing that public employers do all of the time. our numbers don't look right. we haven't met our goal and quota so we'll scrap the test and start all over again. when the court grappled with this issue, they had sort of two polar opposite justification -- rationales in front of them. the firefighters were arguinging, look, no matter how bad the impact and no matter how justified what the employers do, it's never a justification for them to intentionally discriminate with rich and i other hispanic firefighters just because you want to avoid an impact test and the court said no, there are certain circumstances that you can do it. the justice department and the descenter said the employers want to do it, let them do it. we'll call it a good faith belief and it's a meaningless test and the court quite rightly said for justice kennedy, that's
a de facto quota. they understood that these effects tests are a de facto quota requirement so they came up with the middle ground in the affirmative case chess is the substantial basis in evidence and the strong basis in evidence for thinking that their desperate impact is illegal and if they do, then you can engage in race-conscious efforts to, quote, cure the problem. you know, obviously, they're still trying to straddle the tension between the test with these sorts of things. the point i'd like to make here is they imported the constitutional standard into title 7. so the point is now that private employers also have to engage in a strong basis in evidence in terms to justify this sort of thing. no more sort of gratuitous feel good diversity efforts where we'll boost our numbers. we have to have some strong basis in evidence that you didn't engage in those race-conscious activities, we would face title 7 liability
against non-minorities and the other case in which we came up with is clearly the bartlett case which is a complicated thing and i'm not going to have time to describe the basic presence of it, but the gist of it was that the people arguing in favor of the broader interpretation of the results test under section two lost in front of the court and the reason the court gave for their loss was even if this is a district where a minority could win the lech, if they were either 30 to 35% of the relevant district, that doesn't give them any entitlement to winning the election, because it doesn't guarantee minorities that it will win the election and what it guarantees them is they'll have equal to other groups and no other group in society 30 to 35% of the electorate can expect to win the election and the other point they made was if you
expand section two in this way, you will inject race into every redistricting effort made by local and state governments and that is something that creates this incredible tension with the shoreline of case chess say you really can't engage in pure race-based redistricting. going forward, justice kennedy's consistent theme throughout every one of the last voting rights cases has been there is this inexorable tension that i was describing between this notion with what the justice department was imposing under section 5 and maximizing minority representation and the same result under section 2 and the constitution's command of colorblindness. i think i know i don't have time to discuss the case that neil discussed before, but the northwest austin case i thought was a clear signal to congress that they've got to reform section 5 or at least five of the justices are going to strike it down in the years to come,
principally or at least partially because of this dilemma i've been talking about where the statutes are mandating that the relevant governmental authorities include race and all their voting and employment decisions and constitution is trying to extricate those racial considerations. >> thank you all. lawyers staying relatively under or relatively on time. i won't take their time. we've agreed to at least one, probably two comment periods before we recognize audience questions, and i'm happy to be corrected by neil about which landmark wrong-headed decision he argued. it was the one that maybe is more con sequentially wrong that set the stage for the wrong headedness. so with that, we'll go back to -- >> should i respond to that? >> i'll give -- we'll give you an extra 30 seconds, but let's start with miguel, if you don't mind. >> well, i -- i -- i just don't know where to begin. i mean, it does seem to me, i
tend to agree with neil that what the court did in the section 5 case whether you being get out of the preclearance requirement was very difficult to justify. and the court, i think, recognized that and i think that goes to show that the court said you do have to have the southern states under the supervision of the justice department as you get decades and decades away from the forms of discrimination and as you get to the state side of the federal state balance and that becomes harder and harder to justify and i have, you know, i have no doubt that congress will do nothing about this, but this is a sign. the court is telling the congress you get one shot and you better fix this because it
ain't going to fly and i'm confident that there is nobody in the hill that will say let's take the constitutional role and look at this and see if we can come up with a more tailored approach and therefore the writing is essentially on the wall that that will fall on the next challenge that congress has done nothing. on the ricci case i tend to agree with mike. i find it hard to understand how this is a closed question. i mean, i understand the point that there has been discrimination in the past which, of course, you know, which is a compelling one, but in so far as nobody claimed that it was actually a remedy for actual discrimination that had occurred. the notion that you're going to take individual members of the public of any race to single them out on the basis of the race was really troublesome, and
if any of you have had time to read what justice alito had to say in his concurring opinion which was joined by two of the justices, this was not only troublesome, it was just ugly, ugly, ugly. if you get into what was going on in the new haven government about this is this it ran racial politics and vindictiveness and ugliness and one of the sad things is that they could be from the supreme court of the united states. >> a whole extra minute. >> so on the -- i appreciate the comments by both folks on this. i guess i tend to disagree a little bit, miguel. i don't read the court as saying that in 1965 it was appropriate to cover southern states and now it may not be because after all, the remedy that they dealt with that they provided in the case was not to give a remedy to
southern states like georgia and others covered by the act, but to give it to the little individual districts. what was animating the court's decision was the fear that there was a worry that the voting rights act had been expanded not to cover the states when they do say redistricting decisions or things like that, but rather it had been extended through court decisions to cover even these little tiny, itty-bitty utility districts or school boards or things like that, and if it is going cover them the court said if it is going to get out of the voting right it is act and if they have no history of discrimination. i think it is rather hard to read into that something with what the court is saying with respect to the future and whether they'll strike it down and for similar reasons i'll say that to mike and they've done powerful, important work and