REGULATING THE EDUCATION  
STANDARDS, JUST A FEW EXAMPLES  
OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S 
HANDS OVERREACH INTO THINGS 
WHERE IT SHOULD NOT GO. 
WOULD THE GENTLEMAN FROM 
GEORGIA YIELD FOR A MOMENT? 
8
00:00:17,000 --> 00:00:16,999
 I'D BE GLAD TO YIELD 
FOR A MOMENT. 
 FOR  
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN 
FROM FLORIDA SEEK RECOGNITION?
I SEND TO THE DESK TWO 
PRIVILEGE RED PORTS FROM THE  
COMMITTEE ON RULES FOR FILING 
UNDER THE RULE. 
 THE  
CLERK WILL REPORT THE TITELES 
OF THE RESOLUTIONS. 
 REPORT TO ACCOMPANY  
HOUSE RESOLUTION 218, 
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR  
CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL H.R.  
1417, MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE  
FISCAL YEAR SENDING SEPTEMBER 
30, 2011 AND FOR OTHER  
PURPOSES, PROVIDING FOR 
CONSIDERATION HOUSE CONCURRENT  
RESOLUTION 35, DIRECTING THE  
CLERK OF THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES TO MAKE A 
CORRECTION AND PROVIDING FOR  
CONSIDERATION OF CONCURRENT 
RESOLUTION, CONCURRENT  
RESOLUTION 36, DIRECTING THE  
CLERK OF THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES TO MAKE A 
CORRECTION IN THE ENROLLMENT OF 
H.R. 1473.
REPORT TO ACCOMPANY HOUSE 
RESOLUTION 219, RESOLUTION  
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF  
THE BILL H.R. 1217, TO REPEAL 
THE PREVENTION AND PUBLIC 
HEALTH FUND.
I THANK THE GENTLEMAN AND  
YIELD BACK MY TIME. 
REFERRED TO THE HOUSE CALENDAR  
AND ORDERED PRINTED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA. 
 THANK YOU, MR. 
SPEAKER.
OVER TIME IT'S BECOME THE NORM  
FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO 
KEEP EXPANDING IN BOTH SIZE AND 
SCOPE.
TAKING POWERS AND RIGHTS  
INTENDED FOR THE STATES AND 
PEOPLE. 
IN THE 10TH AMENDMENT OF THE  
CONSTITUTION, IT SAYS IF A  
RIGHT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY GIVEN 
TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY  
THE CONSTITUTION, IN OTHER  
WORDS, THESE THINGS IN ARTICLE  
1, SECTION 8, AND A FEW OTHERS, 
BUT THESE ARE THE THINGS WE CAN 
PASS LAWS ABOUT, IF IT'S NOT  
PROHIBITED FROM THE STATES, 
THOSE RIGHTS ARE RESERVED FOR 
THE STATES AND PEOPLE.
ONE OF MY PRIMARY GOALS WHILE 
SERVING HERE IN WASHINGTON IS 
TO SPEND THESE POWERS BACK TO 
THE STATES AND PEOPLE AND TO  
ENSURE -- DO EVERYTHING I CAN 
TO ENSURE THAT THE CONSTITUTION 
IS APPLIED AS THE FOUNDING  
FATHERS INTENDED. 
I'LL WORK VERY HARD TO TRY TO 
BUILD THOSE BRIDGES, TO SEND  
THOSE POWERS BACK TO THE STATES 
AND PEOPLE. 
THESE ARE THE POWERS CREATED IN 
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8. 
THE NECESSARY PROPER CLAUSE,  
THE SO CALLED ELASTIC CLAUSE, 
ALLOWS CONGRESS TO PASS LAWS  
ABOUT THESE OTHER THINGS. 
BUT THIS IS ALL THE FEDERAL 
GOVERNMENT, ALL THE HOUSE AND 
SENATE ARE POSED TO BE PASSING  
LAWS ABOUT. 
WE HAVE SOME SAY IN THE COURT,  
WE HAVE SOME SAY WITH THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH, BUT THESE ARE 
THE THINGS THAT CONGRESS IS 
SUPPOSED TO BE PASSING LAWS 
ABOUT AND NOTHING ELSE. 
NOTHING ELSE BUT THESE THINGS.
WELL, THE GENERAL WELFARE 
CLAUSE IS ONE OF THE MOST 
COMMONLY ABUSED AND MISAPPLIED  
POWERS THAT THE FEDERAL 
GOVERNMENT HAS. 
UTILIZED TO EXPAND THE SIZE AND 
SCOPE OF GOVERNMENT AND TO  
DESTROY OUR LIBERTY.
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 1  
OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, THE 
CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER 
TO LAY AND COLLECT TAXES, 
DUTIES, IMPOSTS AND EXCISES, TO 
PAY THE DEBTS, PROVIDE FOR THE  
COMMON DEFENSE AND GENERAL  
WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES. 
THIS IS THE SECOND PLACE I  
MENTIONED JUST A FEW MINUTES  
BEFORE IN THE PREAMBLE OUR  
FOUNDING FATHERS MENTIONED  
GENERAL WELFARE.
HERE IT IS IN ARTICLE 1,  
SECTION 8, CLAUSE 1, THE  
GENERAL WELFARE.
THIS CLAUSE GENERATED THE MOST  
DEBATE DURING OUR FOUNDING  
FATHERS' PERIOD BECAUSE THE 
TERM GENERAL WELFARE IS VAGUE.
IT LEAVES MUCH ROOM FOR 
INTERPRETATION. 
NOW WE HEAR JUDGES TALK ABOUT 
INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION.
JUDGES SHOULDN'T BE 
INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION.
WORDS MAKE A TINCHES. 
WHEN WE USE THE -- WORDS MAKE A 
DIFFERENCE. 
WHEN WE USE THE WORD  
INTERPRETING, SOMEBODY CAN  
APPLY THEIR OWN BIAS OR 
JUDGMENT ABOUT WHAT SHOULD OR 
SHOULD NOT BE CONSTITUTIONAL. 
YOU SHOULD BE USING THE WORD  
APPLY THE CONSTITUTION IN ITS 
ORIGINAL INTENT.
I'M AN ORIGINAL INTENT  
CONSTITUTIONALIST AS I JUST 
MENTIONED.
I WANT TO APPLY THE 
CONSTITUTION AS OUR FOUNDING  
FATHERS MEANT IT. 
ALEXANDER HAMILTON AND JAMES  
MADISON, FAMOUSLY DISAGREED 
ABOUT THE MEANING OF GENERAL  
WELFARE.
AND THE LIMITS TO CONGRESS' 
SPENDING. 
MADISON WANTED THE CLAUSE TO BE 
VERY NARROWLY INTERPRETED AND 
HAMILTON WANTED A BIT BROADER 
INTERPRETATION. 
NOW ALEXANDER HAMILTON WOULD  
WALK INTO THESE DOORS OF THE  
U.S. HOUSE TODAY, HE WOULD BE 
ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED AND  
CHAGRINED AT HOW MUCH LIBERTY 
WE'VE LOST BECAUSE HE NEVER, AS 
A FEDERALIST, ENVISIONED THE  
SIZE AND SCOPE OF GOVERNMENT  
TODAY.
I THINK IF YOU KNEW WHAT WAS -- 
IF HE KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON  
TODAY A LITTLE OVER 200 YEARS 
SINCE THE CONSTITUTION WAS  
PASSED, RATIFIED, HE'D BE 
ARGUING, JUST LIKE I AM TODAY,  
YET FOUNDERS, AS PTHALATER LAID 
OUT IN THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, 
NEITHER MADISON NOR HAMILTON  
WOULD HAVE AGREED WITH THE  
MODERN DAY VIEW THAT THERE ARE  
NO LIMITATIONS WHATSOEVER ON  
CONGRESS' POWER TO SPEND AND  
THAT GENERAL WELFARE MEANS  
WHATEVER CONGRESS, THE  
PRESIDENT, AND THE COURTS SAYS  
THAT IT MEANS.
EVEN THOSE FEDERALISTS WOULD  
NOT AGREE THAT WE HAVE AN OPEN  
INVITATION TO HAVE WHATEVER 
KIND OF GOVERNMENT THAT WE WANT 
TO HAVE.
TODAY, NO PROJECT SEEMS TOO 
LOCAL OR TOO NARROW.
WHICH IS A BIG PART OF WHY THIS 
COUNTRY IS BURIED IN SO MUCH  
DEBT. 
$14.5 TRILLION. 
THEN IF YOU LOOK AT THE FINANCE 
GAP, IT'S OVER $200 TRILLION. 
POWERS OF CONGRESS ARE NOT  
UNLIMITED.
WHICH IS WHY WE MUST GET BACK 
TO THE BASICS OF THE  
CONSTITUTION. 
WE'RE GOING TO TALK TONIGHT 
ABOUT THAT ORIGINAL INTENT OF 
THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE AND  
HOW -- JUST HOW FAR WE'VE MOVED 
AWAY FROM IT. 
JAMES MADISON NUMBER 41 IN THE  
"FEDERALIST PAPERS" WROTE THIS, 
QUOTE, SOME WHO HAVE NOT DENIED 
THE NECESSITY OF THE POWER OF 
TAXATION HAVE GROWNED A VERY  
217
00:07:35,000 --> 00:07:34,999
CONSTITUTION. 
PIERCE ATTACK AGAINST THE 
THIS SOUNDS LIKE TODAY, DOESN'T 
IT? 
ON THE LANGUAGE OF WHICH IT IS  
DEFINED.
IT HAS BEEN URGED AND ECHOED  
THAT THE POWER, QUOTE, TO LAY 
AND COLLECT TAXES, DUTIES,  
IMPOSTS AND EXCISES, TO PAY THE 
DEBTS AND PROVIDE FOR THE 
COMMON DEFENSE AN GENERAL 
WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
WE JUST SHOWED YOU THAT, THAT'S 
IN ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 
1 OF THE CONSTITUTION, THEN HE  
GOES ON, AMOUNTS TO AN  
UNLIMITED COMMISSION TO 
EXERCISE EVERY POWER WHICH MAY  
BE ALLEGED TO BE NECESSARY FOR  
THE COMMON DEFENSE OR GENERAL 
WELFARE.
NO STRONGER PROOF COULD BE  
GIVEN OF THE DISTRESS UNDER 
WHICH THESE WRITERS LABOR FOR 
OBJECTIONS THAN THEIR STOOPING  
TO SUCH A MISCONSTRUCTION.
THAT'S THAT OLD KIND OF LANG  
BADGE -- LANGUAGE.
BASICALLY, HE WAS SAYING THAT 
IT IS I NEIGHBOR TO THINK THAT  
THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE, 
THIS -- IT IS INANE TO THINK  
THAT THIS GENERAL WELFARE 
CLAUSE ALLOWS CONGRESS TO DO  
ANYTHING, CLEBLET TAXES, FOR  
ANYTHING, NO STRONGER PROOF 
COULD BE GIVEN THAT MEANS UNDER 
THE PROBLEMS THAT ARE GOING TO  
ARISE, UNDER WHICH THESE  
WRITERS LABOR, THE SUPREME  
COURT TODAY, THE PRESIDENT  
TODAY, THE LAST PRESIDENT,  
REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC 
PRESIDENTS FOR THE LAST MANY  
DECADES LABOR FOR OBJECTIONS  
THEN THEY'RE STOOPING TO SUCH A 
MISCONSTRUCTION.
HE WAS VERY, VERY CLEAR.
WE DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO DO  
SO. 
WE DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO DO 
SO. 
JAMES MADISON, FEDERALIST 45, 
THE POWERS DELEGATED BY THE 
PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE  
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE FEW AND  
DEFINED -- THEY ARE DEFINED.
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8. 
OTHER ARTICLES. 
STRICTLY INTERPRETED. 
STRICTLY DEFINED. 
STRICTLY ACCORDING TO WHAT IT 
SAYS, NOT A BROADENING OF THOSE 
POWERS. 
FEW AND DEFINED.
TO BE EXERCISED PRINCIPALLY ON  
EXTERNAL OBJECTS AS WAR, PEACE, 
NEGOTIATION, AND FOREIGN  
COMMERCE. 
JAMES MADISON IN FEDERALIST 45  
SAYS BASICALLY RIGHT HERE WHAT  
THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE  
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS.
NATIONAL DEFENSE, NATIONAL  
SECURITY, FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
. WE HAVE RIGHTS TO POSTAL 
ROADS AND POST OFFICES AND  
THINGS LIKE THAT TO ESTABLISH 
THE CURRENCY AND OTHER THINGS TO
MAKE THIS ONE NATION OF THE BUT 
THE PRINCIPAL PURPOSES OF THE 
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UNDER THE  
ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE  
CONSTITUTION IS NATIONAL  
DEFENSE, NATIONAL SECURITY AND  
FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED TO 
UNDERSTAND THAT FIRMLY. 
THAT'S FOREIGN COMMERCE.
WE SEE OVER AND OVER AGAIN THE  
COURTS DEFINING GENERAL WELFARE 
IN A DIFFERENT MANNER.
MUCH DIFFERENT MANNER.
IN FACT, THE COURTS HAVE HELD 
THAT ANYTHING THAT HAS TO DO  
WITH ANYBODY'S WELFARE, AN  
INDIVIDUAL'S WELFARE, IS OK 
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. 
BUT THAT'S NOT THE ORIGINAL 
INTENT. 
THE ORIGINAL INTENT WAS THE 
GENERAL WELFARE.
THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE  
NATION, NOT WELFARE OF  
INDIVIDUALS.
WE HAVE THIS BIG WELFARE SYSTEM 
IN THIS COUNTRY AND IT ALL  
STARTED IN EARNEST WITH 
PRESIDENT WOODROW WILSON AND  
FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT, PRESIDENT 
ROOSEVELT, EXPLODED THE SIZE AND
SCOPE OF GOVERNMENT THROUGH HIS 
NEW DELL. 
BOTH PROGRESSIVES AND BOTH HAVE 
SOCIALIST BELIEFS.
IN FACT, FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT SENT
HIS ADVISERS, HIS CLOSELY HELD  
FRIENDS, HIS CABINET PEOPLE TO  
GO VISIT WITH STALIN IN 
COMMUNIST RUSSIA TO STUDY WHAT  
STALIN WAS DOING THERE SO F.D.R.
COULD REPLICATE IT HERE IN THE  
UNITED STATES AND HE DID  
EVERYTHING HE COULD TO DO SO. 
HE PACKED THE COURTS BECAUSE THE
COURTS SAID THE WELFARE CLAUSE, 
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE COULD NOT BE
EXPANDED TO INCLUDE ALL THE SIZE
AND SCOPE OF GOVERNMENT.
THOMAS JEFFERSON, CONGRESS HAS  
NOT UNLIMITED POWERS TO PROVIDE 
FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE, BUT  
ONLY THOSE SPECIFICALLY 
ENUMERATED. 
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8. 
MY COLLEAGUES, REPUBLICAN AND 
DEMOCRAT ALIKE VOTE FOR THINGS  
THAT ARE NOT ENUMERATED IN THE  
ORIGINAL INTENT, THEY ARE 
VIOLATING THEIR OATH OF OFFICE, 
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US HAVE 
STOOD UP HERE AND HAVE TAKEN AN 
OATH OF OFFICE. 
FIRST TIME I DID THAT WAS WHEN I
WAS SWORN IN THE MARINE CORPS IN
1964, WHEN I CAME TO CONGRESS IN
A SPECIAL ELECTION IN 2007 AND  
AGAIN IN 2009 AND THEN AGAIN  
THIS YEAR, I STOOD RIGHT HERE IN
THIS CHAMBER AND HELD UP MY HAND
AND I SWORE TO UPHOLD THE 
CONSTITUTION AGAINST POWERS,  
BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.
ONE OF THE GREATEST DOMESTIC  
POWERS THAT ARE 
ANTI--CONSTITUTION, RESIDE RIGHT
IN THIS HOUSE.
RIGHT IN THIS HOUSE, BECAUSE WE 
ARE DESTROYING OUR LIBERTY. 
WE ARE DESTROYING IT BY THE 
PHILOSOPHY OF BIG GOVERNMENT. 
SEVERE SON, QUOTE, THEY ARE NOT 
TO DO ANYTHING THEY PLEASE, 
UNQUOTE.
IN A COURT CASE, UNITED STATES  
VERSUS BUTLER, WE STARTED MOVING
INTO THIS IDEA ABOUT THE  
CONSTITUTION BEING ANYTHING THAT
THE COURT SAYS THAT IT IS,  
ANYTHING THAT THE PRESIDENT SAYS
IT IS, ANYTHING THAT THE  
CONGRESS SAYS THAT IT IS, AND WE
HAVE SEEN JUST RECENTLY WHERE 
CONGRESS PASSED MCCAIN-FEINGOLD 
LAW NOW.
PRESIDENT BUSH SAID WE'LL LET 
THE SUPREME COURT TELL US 
WHETHER IT'S CON CONSTITUTIONAL 
OR NOT. 
THEY CAN'T TELL US WHAT IS  
CONSTITUTIONAL, NEITHER THE 
CONGRESS NOR THE PRESIDENT. 
WE, THE PEOPLE, ARE THE FINAL 
ARBITER.
WE, THE PEOPLE, NEED TO DEMAND  
THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE  
CONSTITUTION BY BECOMING  
KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT IT. 
THE FINAL ARBITER OF WHETHER  
SOMETHING IS CONSTITUTIONAL IS  
IN THE CONSTITUTION AND WHAT OUR
FOUNDING FATHERS SAID ABOUT IT, 
NOT WHAT SUPREME COURT RULING 
HAS SAID ABOUT IT, BECAUSE MOST 
SUPREME COURT JUSTICES HAVE NO  
CLUE WHAT THE ORIGINAL INTENT 
IS. 
THEY DON'T CARE.
THEY JUST DON'T CARE, I DON'T 
THINK.
UNITED STATES VERSUS BUTLER, 70 
YEARS AGO DISMISSED MADISON'S 
AND JEFFERSON'S NARROW VIEW OF  
THE CONSTITUTION. 
IT IS AN INDEPENDENT POWER AND  
THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE GIVES
CONGRESS THE POWER IT MIGHT NOT 
DERIVE ELSEWHERE. 
ANOTHER SUPREME COURT CASE, THE 
SUPREME COURT INTERPRETED THE 
CLAUSE CONFERING UPON CONGRESS  
THE POWER TO IMPOSE TAXES AND 
SPEND MONEY FOR THE GENERAL 
WELFARE SUBJECT ALMOST ENTIRELY 
TO ITS DISCRETION.
OUR OWN DISCRETION. 
EVEN MORE RECENTLY, THE COURT 
HAS INCLUDED THE POWER TO 
INDIRECTLY COERCE THE STATES  
INTO ADOPTING NATIONAL STANDARDS
BY THREATENING TO WITHHOLD  
FEDERAL FUNDS IN SOUTH DAKOTA 
VERSUS DOLE.
TODAY, THE HAM I WILL TONIAN -- 
HAMILTONIAN DEBATE AND THE  
COUNTRY'S DEBT. 
WE AREN'T CONSIDERING THE 
REPERCUSSIONS.
OBAMACARE IS A GREAT EXAMPLE. 
OBAMACARE IS A GREAT DESTROYER, 
GOING TO DESTROY JOBS AND 
PEOPLE'S BUDGETS, COMPANIES'  
450
00:17:44,000 --> 00:17:43,999
BUDGETS AND THE FEDERAL 
GOVERNMENT. 
WE HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL 
AUTHORITY AS A JUDGE IN FLORIDA 
UPHELD. 
JAMES MADISON, LITTLE LATER ON  
IN HIS LIFE, WROTE A LETTER IN  
1831 AND IN THIS LETTER HE SAID 
WITH RESPECT TO THE WORDS 
GENERAL WELFARE IN THE  
CONSTITUTION, I HAVE ALWAYS 
REGARDED THEM AS QUALIFIED BY 
THE DETAIL OF POWERS CONNECTED  
TO THEM, CONNECTED WITH THEM. 
IN OTHER WORDS, THOSE THINGS IN 
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 AND THE  
REST OF THE CONSTITUTION AS IT  
WAS INTENDED, TO TAKE THEM IN A 
LITERAL AND UNLIMITED SENSE 
WOULD BE A METAMORPHOSIS OF THE 
CONSTITUTION INTO A CHARACTER 
WHICH THERE IS A HOST OF PROOFS 
WAS NOT CONTEMPLATED BY ITS 
CREATORS. 
THE CREATORS OF THE 
CONSTITUTION. 
THOSE FOLKS WHO WROTE IT, THOSE 
FOLKS WHO RATIFIED IT,  
DESTROYING AMERICA, DESTROYING  
OUR ECONOMY AND DESTROYING  
EVERYTHING THAT IS GOOD.
WE NEED TO CUT OUT OUTRAGEOUS 
SPENDING FOR THE WELL-BEING OF  
OUR NATION AND APPLY THE GENERAL
WELFARE CLAUSE AS JAMES MADISON 
ORIGINALLY INTENDED.
IT'S GOT TO STOP. 
MR. SPEAKER, WHEN I COME TO THE 
FLOOR TO VOTE OR WHEN I WRITE 
LEGISLATION, MY STAFF AND I 
WRITE LEGISLATION, WE HAVE A  
FOUR-WAY TEST THAT I APPLY TO 
EVERY VOTE I MAKE AND EVERYTHING
I DO HERE.
THE FIRST QUESTION IS, IS IT  
RIGHT?
BY THAT QUESTION, I MEAN IS IT  
MORALLY RIGHT.
DOES IT FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLES 
THAT THIS NATION WAS FOUNDED  
UPON. 
AND A LOT OF LIBERALS ACROSS  
THIS COUNTRY WHO ARE WATCHING 
THIS WILL START BLOGGING AND  
SOME OF THE LIBERAL NEWS MEDIA  
WILL SAY I WANT TO SET UP A 
THEOCRACY AND NOTHING COULD BE  
FARTHER FROM THE TRUTH. 
FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND FIRST 
509
00:20:18,000 --> 00:20:17,999
AMENDMENT IS VERY NEAR AND DEAR 
TO ME.
BUT WE HAVE FREEDOM OF RELIGION 
IN THIS COUNTRY SO JEWS,  
MUSLIMS, ATHEISTS, HUMANISTS AND
YES, EVERY CHRISTIANS CAN MAKE A
PERSONAL CHOICE OF WHAT THEIR 
RELIGION IS.
CELEBRATE AND WORSHIP ON THEIR  
RELIGION AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T  
INFRINGE ON ANYBODY ELSE'S  
RIGHTS BECAUSE THIS NATION WAS  
FOUNDED ON BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES, 
PRINCIPLES OF FREEDOM AND 
LIBERTY.
WE HAVE GOTTEN AWAY FROM IT.
I BELIEVE SO MUCH IN THESE FOUR 
QUESTIONS THAT I HAD THEM 
PRINTED UP. 
IF SOMEONE COMES TO MY OFFICE,  
THEY'LL SEE THEM ON THE DESK OF 
ALL MY LEGISLATIVE PEOPLE.
THERE IS A COPY ON MY DESK. 
IT'S ON MY HOME PAGE OF BOTH OF 
MY WEB SITES. 
I WISH EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS 
535
00:21:23,000 --> 00:21:22,999
PRINCIPLES. 
WOULD APPLY THESE FOUR  
IS IT RIGHT?
IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL IN ITS 
ORIGINAL INTENT.
NOT THIS PERVERTED IDEA OF THE  
CONSTITUTION, THE PRESIDENT'S,  
CONGRESS'S AND THE FEDERAL COURT
SYSTEMS OPERATE UNDER.
IS IT NECESSARY AND CAN WE  
AFFORD IT.
FOUR SIMPLE QUESTIONS.
YOU SEE, WE HAVE GOTTEN AWAY  
FROM THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE 
CONSTITUTION. 
WE HAVE CREATED THIS HUGE 
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT HAS 
TAKEN OUR FREEDOM AWAY. 
IT'S KILLING OUR LIBERTY AND OUR
NATION AND IT'S BECAUSE OF A  
PERVERTED IDEA OF THE GENERAL 
WELFARE CLAUSE AS WELL AS THE 
COMMERCE CLAUSE THAT THE COURTS 
HAVE ALLOWED THIS TO HAPPEN,  
PRESIDENTS AND CONGRESSES HAVE  
ALLOWED IT TO HAPPEN. 
MR. SPEAKER, WE, THE PEOPLE,  
NEED TO STAND UP AND SAY NO TO  
TAKING OUR LIBERTY AWAY.
OUR FOUNDING FATHERS OVER AND 
OVER AGAIN DURING THE ORIGINAL  
PERIOD WOULD RUSH TO THE FLOOR  
WITH THIS BOOK IN HAND, THE HOLY
BIBLE AND THEY WOULD COME TO THE
FLOOR, THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE,
COME TO THE FLOOR OF THE  
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, AND  
SAY, LOOK WHAT I FOUND, WHAT OUR
CREATOR SAYS. 
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN PROPOSED  
PRAYER IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL  
CONVENTION. 
WE PRAY TODAY EVERY DAY THAT  
CONGRESS OPENS BECAUSE OF THAT  
PRAYER, THAT BENJAMIN FRANKLIN  
RECOMMENDED, AND IN HIS SPEECH, 
AND I ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO READ  
IT, IN THAT SPEECH, HE SAID, IF 
OUR CREATOR NOTICE THAT A BIRD  
FALLS TO THE GROUND, HOW CAN WE 
BUILD A NATION WITHOUT THE HELP 
OF THE PROVIDENCE, OF GOD, OUR  
CREATOR.
YOU SEE, THE CONSTITUTION WAS 
WRITTEN ON BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES. 
OUR FOUNDING FATHERS QUOTED THE 
HOLY BIBLE MORE THAN ANY OTHER  
SOURCE. 
DAVID BAFERTON, AS A MINISTER IN
TEXAS, CALLED WALL BUILDERS, HE 
HAS MORE ORIGINAL SOURCE  
DOCUMENTS PROBABLY THAN ANYBODY.
WROTE A BOOK CALLED "ORIGINAL 
INTENT."
I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THIS, TOO. 
THIS IS A GREAT RESOURCE OF WHAT
THE ORIGINAL INTENT IS AND WHAT 
OUR FOUNDING FATHERS HAVE SAID  
ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION. 
BUT, YOU SEE, BACK TO SOMETHING 
I MENTIONED EARLIER, GOD SAYS,  
MY PEOPLE ARE DESTROYED FOR LACK
OF KNOWLEDGE. 
I HAVE HEARD THAT BEGINNING LINE
PREACHED A NUMBER OF TIMES. 
SELDOM DO I HEAR A PASTOR GO  
PAST THAT A-LINE. 
THE WHOLE VERSE SAYS THIS, AND  
REMEMBER, THIS IS A PROMISE FROM
A WHOLLY RIGHTEOUS GOD THAT CAN 
DO NOTHING ELSE BUT FULFILL THE 
PROMISE.
AND HIS PROMISE IS THIS WHEN HE 
SPOKE TO THE ISRAELITES, HE 
SPEAKS TO US OOD. 
HE SAID MY PEOPLE ARE DESTROYED 
FOR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE BECAUSE 
YOU HAVE REJECTED KNOWLEDGE.
I ALSO WILL REJECT YOU FROM 
BEING PRIESTS FOR ME BECAUSE YOU
HAVE FORGOTTEN THE LAW OF YOUR  
GOD, I WILL ALSO FORGET YOUR  
CHILDREN. 
I GET GOOSE BUMPS EVERY TIME I  
SAY THAT, BECAUSE IT IS A 
PROMISE FROM A WHOLLY RIGHTEOUS 
GOD WHO -- WHOLLY RIGHTEOUS GOD 
WHO CAN DO NOTHING BUT FULFILL  
THAT PROMISE. 
WE, THE PEOPLE, THE MOST  
POWERFUL POLITICAL FORCE IN THIS
NATION BECOMING KNOWLEDGEABLE,  
BECOMING KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THE
CONSTITUTION, GETTING A COPY AND
LOOKING AT IT ON-LINE.
MY DISTRICT, MY PEOPLE CAN COME 
BY MY OFFICE AND GET A COPY.
WE GIVE THEM BY THE HUNDREDS OUT
OF MY OFFICE HERE IN WASHINGTON.
GET A COPY OF THE FEDERALIST  
PAPERS. 
IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ IT IN 
THE OLD-STYLE ENGLISH, GET IT IN
MODERN LANGUAGE.
. READ WHAT OUR 
FOUNDING FATHERS SAID.
YOU SEE IN THE FEDERALIST 
652
00:26:29,000 --> 00:26:28,999
FOR A STRONG CENTRALIST 
PAPERS, THOSE WHO ARE ARGUING 
GOVERNMENT, WE HAVE ENUMERATED  
VERY LIMITED AND FINE POWERS AS 
JAMES MADISON STATES. 
THOMAS JEFFERSON STATES.
FORMER U.S. SENATOR ONE TIME  
SAID, WHEN HE FEELS THE HEAT HE 
CEASE THE LIGHT -- HE SEES THE  
LIGHT.
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE HOUSE
AND THE SENATE NEED TO SEE THE  
LIGHT.
BY FEELING THE HEAT OF WE THE 
PEOPLE. 
YOU SEE, PSALM 11 GOD ASKS A  
QUESTION, IF THE FOUNDATIONS BE 
DESTROYED, WHAT ARE THE 
RIGHTEOUS TO DO?
GOD'S GIVEN US A FREE WILL. 
HE'S GIVEN US FREEDOM.
HE'S GIVEN US LIPT LIBERTY. 
UNLIKE ANY SOCIETY EVER IN  
HISTORY HAS EVER SAID, EVER SEEN
, EVER EXPERIENCED. 
BUT WE LOSE IT. 
AND THE ONLY WAY WE'RE GOING TO 
PUT IT BACK ON THE RIGHT COURSE 
IS FOR PEOPLE TO BECOME 
KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THE 
FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES SO THAT 
WE CAN PUT THIS COUNTRY BACK ON 
A SOLID FOUNDATION, SO THAT IT'S
NOT BUILT ON SHIFTING SAND, SO  
THAT WE CAN CHANGE THE COURSE OF
687
00:28:00,000 --> 00:27:59,999
HISTORY.
THE DIRECTION WE'RE HEADING 
TODAY IS GOING TO DESTROY 
690
00:28:05,000 --> 00:28:04,999
ABOUT THIS COUNTRY. 
EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN GOOD 
IT'S GOING TO DESTROY OUR 
LIBERTY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE
THE FREEDOM THAT WE'VE ENJOYED. 
EVEN IN THE PAST FEW DECADES, 
WHICH IS MUCH LESS FREEDOM THAN 
THEY EXPERIENCED IN THIS COUNTRY
100 YEARS AGO.
LOOK AT THESE QUESTIONS.
I THINK THEY'RE VERY REASONABLE.
IS IT RIGHT, DOES IT FIT THE  
JUDEO-CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES THAT 
THE NATION WAS FOUNDED UPON?
IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL IN ITS 
ORIGINAL INTENT?
NOT THIS PERVERTED IDEA THAT  
WE'RE OPERATING UNDER TODAY.
DO WE NEED IT AND CAN WE AFFORD 
IT? 
IF WE WENT TO THESE QUESTIONS,  
WE WOULDN'T HAVE $14.5 TRILLION 
DEBT. 
WE WOULDN'T HAVE ALL THE  
UNFUNDED LIABILITIES OF THE 
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHICH ARE  
TREMENDOUS. 
WE WOULDN'T HAVE THE LOSS OF  
LIBERTY AND FREEDOMS THAT WE SEE
GOING ON HERE TODAY.
WE WOULDN'T HAVE A LOT OF THE 
DEBATES THAT WE HAVE HERE IN  
CONGRESS. 
WE THE PEOPLE NEED TO START 
HOLDING EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF  
CONGRESS, EVERY PRESIDENT, EVERY
PUBLIC OFFICIAL, LOCAL, STATE AS
WELL AS FEDERAL, BECAUSE THEY 
ALL TAKE THAT SAME OATH, TO 
DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.
THE VAST, VAST MAJORITY ARE 
VIOLATING THAT OATH AND THE ONLY
WAY THAT WE THE PEOPLE ARE GOING
TO CHANGE THINGS, THE ONLY WAY  
WE'RE GOING TO PUT THIS COUNTRY 
BACK ON THE RIGHT COURSE IS FOR 
WE THE PEOPLE TO DEMAND IT. 
SO PLEASE CONTACT YOUR  
NEIGHBORS, YOUR FRIENDS, GET  
THEM TO READ THE CONSTITUTION,  
READ THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, READ
WHAT OUR FOUNDING FATHERS SAID  
ABOUT GOVERNMENT. 
UNDERSTAND HOW FAR WE'VE GOTTEN 
AWAY FROM THOSE ORIGINAL  
PRINCIPLES, HOW MUCH WE HAVE  
LOST OUR FREEDOM, HOW MUCH WE'VE
GOTTEN AWAY FROM LIBERTY AND HOW
CLOSE WE ARE BECOMING A 
SOCIALIST COMMUNISTIC NATION IN 
THIS COUNTRY, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE
HEADED, AND THE ONLY WAY IT'S 
GOING TO CHANGE IS IF THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL STAND UP 
AND DEMAND SOMETHING DIFFERENT. 
START THROWING PEOPLE OUT OF  
OFFICE THAT VIOLATE THEIR OATH  
OF OFFICE AND TO PUT PEOPLE IN  
OFFICE THAT ARE GOING TO STAND  
FIRM FOR FREEDOM. 
FOR LIBERTY.
I'M GOING TO STAND FOR THE  
CONSTITUTION AS IT WAS SBEPPED  
-- INTENDED AND I'M GOING TO  
CONTINUE TO FIGHT FOR THE 
CONSTITUTION AS IT WAS INTENDED.
THERE ARE PRECIOUS FEW HERE IN  
THIS BODY THAT WILL STAND AND 
EVEN VOTE THAT WAY, THE ONLY WAY
WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT, THE 
ONLY WAY WE'RE GOING TO SAVE  
AMERICA IS FOR WE THE PEOPLE TO 
STAND UP AND DEMAND IT. 
I BELIEVE WE CAN, I BELIEVE WE  
WILL. 
I BELIEVE THAT WE'RE AT THE 
BEGINNING RIGHT NOW TODAY OF A  
NEW DAWN IN AMERICA, A DAWN OF  
LIBERTY, A DAWN OF FREEDOM, A 
DAWN OF LIMITED GOVERNMENT, A 
DAWN OF STRONG NATIONAL DEFENSE 
AND NATIONAL SECURITY, A DAWN 
WHERE OUR CHILDREN AND  
GRANDCHILDREN ARE GOING TO GROW 
UP IN AN ECONOMICALLY PROSPEROUS
NATION WHERE THEY'RE GOING -- 
THERE ARE GOING TO BE JOBS IN 
THE PRIVATE SECTOR, WHERE PEOPLE
ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO OPERATE 
WITHIN THEIR SOCIETY WITHOUT ALL
THE CONSTRAINTS OF GOVERNMENT.
WE'VE GOT TO DEMAND IT. 
THE FUTURE OF THIS COUNTRY  
DEPENDS UPON IT.
YOUR CHILDREN AND YOUR  
GRANDCHILDREN DEPEND UPON IT. 
JOIN IN THE FIGHT.
MR. SPEAKER, I YIELD BACK.
 THE  
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE 
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
UNDER THE SPEAKER'S ANNOUNCED 
POLICY OF JANUARY 5, 2011, THE  
GENTLEMAN FROM KENTUCKY, MR.  
YARMUTH, IS RECOGNIZED FOR 60 
MINUTES AS THE DESIGNEE OF THE  
MINORITY LEADER.
 THANK YOU, MR. 
SPEAKER.
IT'S A GREAT HONOR TO BE HERE ON
THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES TALKING TO THE  
AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT ONE OF THE
MOST CRITICAL THINGS THAT THIS  
BODY DOES.
AND THAT'S TO DECIDE HOW MUCH 
MONEY WE ASK OUR CITIZENS TO  
CONTRIBUTE TO THE GOVERNMENT AND
HOW THAT MONEY IS GOING TO BE 
SPENT.
YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T COME HERE  
INTENDING TO RESPOND TO THE 
GENTLEMAN WHO SPOKE BEFORE ME,  
BUT HE CAST IN ONE RESPECT THE  
WHOLE DEBATE OVER OUR BUDGET  
VERY WELL.
826
00:33:07,000 --> 00:33:06,999
TEST. 
WHEN WE HAD MR. BROUN'S FOUR-WAY
AND THE FIRST THING THAT MR.  
BROUN PUT ON THERE IS, IS IT  
RIGHT AND MORAL?
AND I AGREE WITH HIM. 
BECAUSE WHEN WE DEBATE THE  
BUDGET OF THE UNITED STATES,  
WHEN WE DEBATE HOW WE'RE GOING  
TO SPEND THE TAXPAYERS' MONEY,  
THE FIRST QUESTION WE SHOULD ASK
IS, IS IT RIGHT?
AND IS IT MORAL?
AND THE CONVERSE IS, IF WE DON'T
SPEND SOMETHING, IS IT WRONG AND
IS IT IMMORAL?
TODAY I HAD THE GREAT HONOR OF  
VISITING WALTER REID HOSPITAL --
WALTER REED HOSPITAL ANDLY THERE
GOT TO SPEAK WITH SEVERAL OF OUR
-- AND THERE I GOT TO SPEAK WITH
SEVERAL OF OUR EXTREMELY BRAVE, 
COURAGEOUS SOLDIERS WHO HAVE  
BEEN INJURED IN BATTLE AND ONE  
YOUNG MAN WHO LOST BOTH LEGS, 
ONE JUST ABOVE THE KNEE, ONE ALL
THE WAY TO HIS PELVIS, AND LOST 
A LITTLE BIT OF A FINGER ON ONE 
HAND, WAS ON WHAT CAN ONLY BE 
DESCRIBED AS BIONIC LEGS WHICH  
HE SAID ARE EXTREMELY GOOD, THE 
TECHNOLOGY IS EXTREMELY 
ADVANCED, BUT THEY STILL DON'T  
HELP HIM WALK.
AND HE TALKED TO US FOR A LONG  
TIME ABOUT WHAT HE HAD BEEN 
THROUGH, THE PROGRESS HE HAD  
MADE AND WHAT HE HOPED TO 
ACHIEVE WITH TECHNOLOGY.
AND HIS PARTING COMMENT TO US 
WAS, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE  
867
00:34:44,000 --> 00:34:43,999
RESULT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
SPENDING MONEY ON MEDICAL 
RESEARCH. 
THIS IS HELPING PEOPLE NOT JUST 
IN THE MILITARY, KNOT NOT JUST  
IN THE ARMED FORCES -- NOT JUST 
IN THE ARMED FORCES BUT ALSO IN 
874
00:34:58,000 --> 00:34:57,999
AND I LOOK AT WHAT THE  
THE PRIVATE ARENA AS WELL.
REPUBLICAN BUDGET THAT WE WILL  
CONSIDER LATER IN THE WEEK HAS  
DONE AND IT SLASHES MONEY FOR 
MEDICAL RESEARCH. 
AND I SAY, LET'S APPLY MR.  
BROUN'S FOUR-WAY TEST.
IS IT RIGHT?
IS IT MORAL?
ALSO, DOES IT MAKE ANY SENSE TO 
CUT MEDICAL RESEARCH WHEN WE  
HAVE BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE
REACQUIRING SOME OF THEIR LIVES 
AFTER MAKING INCREDIBLE 
SACRIFICES BECAUSE OF THE MONEY 
THAT WE HAVE SPENT, THE TAXPAYER
MONEY WE HAVE SPENT, FUNDING  
CRITICAL RESEARCH?
IT WOULD BE IMMORAL TO DENY, DON
WAS HIS NAME, TO DENY DON HIS 
REQUEST THAT WE CONTINUE TO FUND
MEDICAL RESEARCH THAT'S GOING TO
HELP HIM REGAIN HIS 
CAPABILITIES, HIS PHYSICAL  
FUNCTION, AND THE THOUSANDS OF  
YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE  
SACRIFICED SO MUCH FOR US.
SO, AS WE ENTER THIS DEBATE THIS
WEEK ON THE REPUBLICAN BUDGET 
PROPOSAL, THE DEMOCRATIC  
ALTERNATIVE BUDGET PROPOSAL, WE 
HAVE CHOICES TO MAKE. 
THAT'S ALWAYS WHAT GOVERNMENT IS
ABOUT.
IT'S ABOUT CHOOSING.
HOW DO WE SPEND THE TAXPAYER  
MONEY THAT WE ASKED OUR 
TAXPAYERS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE  
GENERAL WELFARE OF THIS COUNTRY?
LAST WEEK WE SAT IN THE BUDGET  
COMMITTEE AND CONSIDERED THE  
REPUBLICAN BUDGET.
AND I'M SURE THAT MY  
CHARACTERIZATION OF THE 
REPUBLICAN BUDGET WILL BE 
DIFFERENT THAN THE REPUBLICANS' 
CHARACTERIZATION OF THEIR 
BUDGET, BUT I WILL SAY ONE  
THING, THAT WE ALL AGREE THAT WE
HAVE A FISCAL CHALLENGE IN FRONT
OF US.
WE HAVE ENORMOUS DEFICITS, WE 
927
00:36:56,000 --> 00:36:55,999
CAN ARGUE ABOUT HOW WE GOT HERE,
I'M NOT GOING TO SPEND TIME 
DEBATING THAT TONIGHT, BUT WE 
CLEARLY HAVE A CHALLENGE. 
AND THE FUTURE IS EVEN MORE 
CHALLENGING.
SO THE QUESTION IS, AS WE 
APPROACH THIS BUDGET DEFICIT, 
THIS FUTURE OF DEFICITS, A VERY,
VERY LARGE NATIONAL DEBT, WHAT  
IS THE BEST WAY TO APPROACH IT? 
NOW THE REPUBLICAN ANSWER IS  
THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE SIDE OF  
THE LEDGER. 
NOW MOST HOMES, MOST BUSINESSES 
HAVE TWO SIDES TO THE LEDGER. 
THEY HAVE AN INCOME SIDE AND  
THEY HAVE AN EXPENDITURE SIDE.
945
00:37:39,000 --> 00:37:38,999
AS FAR AS THE REPUBLICANS ON THE
BUDGET COMMITTEE ARE CONCERNED, 
WE ONLY HAVE AN EXPENDITURE 
SIDE. 
YOU'VE HEARD THE SPEAKER OF THE 
HOUSE SAY WE ONLY HAVE A  
SPENDING PROBLEM, WE DON'T HAVE 
A REVENUE PROBLEM.
YOU'VE HEARD MY SENIOR SENATOR  
FROM KENTUCKY, THE MINORITY 
LEADER OF THE SENATE, SAY WE  
DON'T HAVE A TAXING PROBLEM,  
REVENUE PROBLEM, WE HAVE A  
SPENDING PROBLEM. 
WELL, IN FACT IF YOU LOOK AT OUR
SITUATION RIGHT NOW, WE'RE NO 
DIFFERENT IN A LOT OF RESPECTS  
962
00:38:10,000 --> 00:38:09,999
THAN THE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD OR 
THE AVERAGE BUSINESS. 
IF WE HAVE A CHALLENGE, A 
FINANCIAL CHALLENGE, WE DO A  
COUPLE OF THINGS. 
WE SAY, OK, WHERE CAN WE CUT  
COSTS?
AND THEN WE SAY, HOW CAN WE 
GENERATE MORE REVENUE?
THOSE ARE THE TWO OPTIONS.
AS FAR AS REPUBLICANS ARE 
CONCERNED, THERE'S ONLY ONE 
OPTION. 
IT'S CUT EXPENDITURES AND 
UNFORTUNATELY MY  
CHARACTERIZATION, THEY CUT IT ON
THE PROGRAMS WHICH HELP THE MOST
VULNERABLE PEOPLE IN OUR  
COUNTRY.
ON THE OTHER HAND, WHAT DO THEY 
DO ON THE REF REVENUE SIDE? 
-- REVENUE SIDE?
THEY SAY, WELL, LET'S SEE,  
MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES 
HAVEN'T DONE QUITE WELL ENOUGH  
OVER THE LAST DECADE OR SO. 
20 YEARS AGO THEY ONLY EARNED 9%
OF ALL INCOME IN THE COUNTRY, 
NOW THEY OWN 35% OF ALL INCOME  
IN THE COUNTRY, THAT'S NOT QUITE
GOOD ENOUGH, LET'S GIVE THEM  
ANOTHER TAX BREAK.
THE BUSH TAX CUTS WERE OK BUT 
THEY WEREN'T QUITE LARGE ENOUGH.
SO INSTEAD OF CUTTING THEIR RATE
FROM 39.6% TO 35%, LET'S CUT  
THEIR MAXIMUM RATE TO 25%.
AND LET'S SEE WHAT THAT DOES FOR
THE ECONOMY.
WELL, I THINK MOST OF MY  
DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES WOULD 
AGREE THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO  
APPROACH THIS DEFICIT AND THE 
NATIONAL DEBT IN A RESPONSIBLE  
WAY, WE WILL LOOK ON BOTH SIDES 
OF THE LEDGER, WE WILL ASK  
PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE EXTREMELY  
WELL, WHO HAVE THE CAPACITY TO  
1010
00:39:38,000 --> 00:39:37,999
AND WE WILL MAKE RESPONSIBLE  
GIVE MORE, TO PAY A LITTLE MORE,
CUTS THAT ARE BALANCED ACROSS 
THE SECTOR. 
BUT THERE ARE SO MANY 
RAMIFICATIONS TO THIS DEBATE AND
WE'RE GOING TO BE DEBATING IT 
ALL WEEK AND I'M PROUD TO HAVE  
WITH ME TODAY TO HELP ME DISCUSS
THIS SOME MEMBERS OF THE BUDGET 
COMMITTEE FROM THE DEMOCRATIC 
SIDE, IT'S MY GREAT HONOR NOW TO
1022
00:39:59,000 --> 00:39:58,999
. 
1023
00:39:59,000 --> 00:39:58,999
YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW 
YORK, MR. TONKO.
THANK YOU FOR LEADING US IN THIS
DISCUSSION. 
IT'S INTERESTING TO HEAR YOU  
SPEAK OF THE APPROACH OF ONE  
SIDE TO THE LEDGER. 
WHAT IS THE MESSAGE ARE WHAT WE 
HAVE ARE THESE CUTS THAT  
TRANSLATE INTO SAVINGS SO WE ARE
GOING TO SAVE AT THE EXPENSE OF 
THE MIDDLE CLASS BUT CUT  
PROGRAMS FOR SENIORS, VETERANS, 
FOR CHILDREN, WORKING FAMILIES, 
FOR SMALL BUSINESSES AND YOU  
KNOW, THAT WILL PRODUCE SAVINGS,
PRO PENCITY OF TENS OF BILLIONS 
OF DOLLARS WORTH OF CUTS. 
A THURSDAY FOR CUTTING DOMESTIC 
1042
00:40:53,000 --> 00:40:52,999
-- A THURST FOR CUTTING DOMESTIC
SPENDING. 
WE SAW WHAT HAPPENED WHEN WE  
INVESTED IN JOB CREATION AND  
GAINED OVER TWO MILLION PRIVATE 
SECTOR JOBS IN THE LAST YEAR. 
WE KNOW THOSE INVESTMENTS WILL  
LEAD TO DIVIDENDS AND WILL  
RELATE TO PROGRAMS THAT ARE 
REQUIRED FOR OUR WORKING  
FAMILIES, OUR MIDDLE-CLASS  
AMERICANS ACROSS THIS GREAT OUNT
TRY AND ALSO IT -- COUNTRY AND  
ALSO IT PROVIDES OPPORTUNITIES, 
THE SORT OF MIX THAT DOWN 
PAYMENTS, THE PRIMING AT THE  
PUMP, IF YOU WILL THAT MAKES IT 
HAPPEN. 
YOU ARE CORRECT IN TALKING ABOUT
THIS AS A ONE-SIDED APPROACH. 
BUT WHAT TROUBLES ME IS THAT  
THERE THIS IS -- MESSAGING THAT 
WOULD TRY TO CONVINCE THE 
AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT IT PRODUCES
SAVINGS.
WHERE DO THE SAVINGS GO?
THERE ARE TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS  
OF CUTS TO THE MIDDLE CLASS IN  
THIS REPUBLICAN PLAN AND THOSE  
TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF CUTS  
THAT THEY DEEM SAVINGS, THAT  
FUEL, THAT PROVIDES THE 
RESOURCES TO CUT, YOU KNOW, THE 
TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF 
MILLIONAIRE-BILLIONAIRE TAX 
CUTS, TO PROVIDE FOR THE  
CONTINUATION OF SERVICES THAT 
CONTRACTORS WILL PROVIDE THAT 
HAVE BEEN DEEMED WASTEFUL OR AT 
TIMES FRAUDULENT WITH THE 
PENTAGON. 
THEY'LL CONTINUE TO PROTECT 
THOSE INVESTMENTS.
THEY WILL ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL  
RELIEF FOR CORPORATIONS.
SO IT'S SLIDING DOLLARS OUT OF  
THE POCKETS OF THE MIDDLE CLASS 
AND INVESTING THEM, THE SPENDING
THAT THEY DO, AS THEY ACCRUE  
THOSE SAVINGS, THE NEW SPENDING 
THAT THEY DO IS TAX CUT DELIVERY
FOR THOSE IN THE UPPER CLASS. 
AND TO ME, IT SOUNDS VERY MUCH  
LIKE THE PRE-RECESSION SITUATION
UNDER THE PRESIDENT BUSH  
ADMINISTRATION THAT LED US TO 
THIS DEEP, PAINFUL AND LONG 
TERMING RECESSION.
THEIR PLAN HAS BEEN DUBBED BY 
THEMSELVES, THEIR OWN MEMBERS AS
THE PATH TO PROSPERITY. 
I WOULD SUGGEST IT'S A ROAD TO  
RUIN FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS AND 
IT'S A ROAD TO RICHES THAT PAVES
THE STREETS WITH GOLDEN 
OPPORTUNITIES WITH THOSE WHO ARE
THE MOST COMFORTABLE IN SOCIETY,
THOSE ON TOP OF THE PERCH.
THIS IS AN INTERESTING SCENARIO 
THAT IS BEING PLACED BEFORE THIS
BODY AND ALL OF COCK CONGRESS 
FOR THAT MATTER AND WE NEED TO  
1114
00:43:33,000 --> 00:43:32,999
HAPPENING.
MESSAGE TO AMERICA WHAT IS  
YOU TAKE FROM THE POOR AND  
MIDDLE CLASS AND SLIDE IT OFF TO
MOST COMFORTABLE, CORPORATIONS, 
MILLIONAIRES, BILLIONAIRES, 
MINDLESS HANDOUTS, THAT'S HOW 
THEY PAY TORE THOSE, SLIDING THE
CASH DOWN THE SPLIPRY SLOPE,  
SPENDING ON TAX CUTS FOR THOSE  
WHO DIDN'T GET QUITE ENOUGH 
UNDER THE BUSH TAX CUTS.
AND I WANT TO GO TOWARDS THE  
MEDICARE SITUATION. 
THEY WANT TO END MEDICARE.
I WANT TO HEAR FROM SOME OF OUR 
OTHER COLLEAGUES. 
ROAD TO RUIN, ROAD TO RICHES, A 
COMPLETE SITUATION, A DICHOTOMY 
OF SPECIAL NEEDS COMING AT THE  
EXPENSE OF MIDDLE-CLASS AMERICA.
IT'S A RAID ON OUR MIDDLE CLASS,
PAVING THE ROAD FOR THE 
FORTUNATE AND RUIN FOR AMERICA'S
MIDDLE CLASS, WITHOUT A STRONG  
MIDDLE CLASS AND WITHOUT  
ENHANCING THE MIDDLE CLASS, WE  
HAVE A WEAKENED MIDDLE CLASS. 
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING US 
TOGETHER ON A VERY IMPORTANT  
DISCUSSION HERE IN THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES AS WE CONTINUE  
TO FIGHT FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS 
THAT HAS BEEN IMPACTED SEVERELY 
AND WOULD TAKE EVEN MORE HITS IF
1149
00:44:55,000 --> 00:44:54,999
THIS BUDGET WERE ALLOWED TO PASS
THROUGH.
 I THANK THE YEAH.
AND IT'S A ROAD WE HAVE BEEN  
DOWN BEFORE.
1154
00:45:03,000 --> 00:45:02,999
BEFORE. 
IT'S A ROAD BEFF BEEN DOWN  
BACK UNDER THE REAGAN 
ADMINISTRATION, THE THEORY OF 
TRICKLE-DOWN ECONOMICS WAS  
DEVELOPED.
THE IDEA WAS, PEOPLE AT THE TOP 
MAKE AS MUCH AS THEY CAN AND  
THAT WILL TRICKLE DOWN AND HELP 
EVERYBODY ELSE. 
AND THE MAN WHO WAS LARGELY 
RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT POLICY 
UNDER THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION,
DAVID STOCKMAN, HIS DUGGET  
DIRECTOR SAID IT LAST YEAR, I 
FIND IT UNCONSCIONABLE THAT THE 
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP COULD 
POSSIBLY BELIEVE THAT GOOD  
PUBLIC POLICY IS TO MAINTAIN TAX
CUTS FOR THE TOP 2%.
THAT WAS LAST YEAR WHEN THEY  
WERE DEBATING WHETHER TO RETURN 
TO THE CLINTON-ERA TAX RATES. 
THE CLINTON ERA WHICH RESULTED  
IN THE MOST IMPRESSIVE DECADE OF
JOB GROWTH. 
THEY WANT TO DOUBLE DOWN ON 
THAT. 
THEY DON'T WANT TO GO BACK TO 
THE CLINTON-ERA TAX CUTS, BUT 
CUT IT EVEN FURTHER.
AND THEIR THEORY IS BY CUTTING  
THE TAX RATE BY 10% MORE ON THE 
WEALTHIEST PEOPLE IN THIS 
COUNTRY, THAT THEY WILL CREATE  
MORE JOBS.
WHERE DO THEY GET THIS STUFF? 
THE ONLY SOURCE THEY HAVE FOR 
THAT THEORY IS THE HERITAGE 
FOUNDATION. 
THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION WAS ALSO
THE GROUP THAT SAID IF WE CUT 
TAXES IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
AND WE WILL HAVE THIS JOB GROWTH
AND SURPLUS, DIDN'T QUITE WORK  
OUT SO WELL.
THIS IS THE HARRY POTTER BUDGET,
YOU WAVE THE MAGIC WAND AND MAKE
ANYTHING SOUND TRUE.
CUT TAXES FURTHER ON THE RICH,  
SLASH SPENDING TO HELP THE LOW  
AND MODERATE INCOME PEOPLE IN 
THIS COUNTRY AND THE ECONOMY  
WILL BLOOM. 
WELL, I'M NOT BUYING IT AND MOST
AMERICANS WON'T BUY IT. 
IT'S A ROAD WE HAVE BEEN DOWN 
BEFORE. 
I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE AND 
YIELD TIME TO A GREAT NEW MEMBER
OF CONGRESS, GENTLELADY FROM  
CALIFORNIA, MS. BASS. 
 THANK YOU FOR YOUR  
LEADERSHIP IN THIS EFFORT.
AS A NEW MEMBER ON THE BUDGET 
COMMITTEE, WE HAD AN INTERESTING
WEEK LAST WEEK. 
WE COMPLETED A WEEK WHERE WE SAW
THE FAR RIGHT OF THE REPUBLICAN 
PARTY TAKE THEIR PARTY OFF THE  
LEDGE AND WAY OUT OF THE  
MAINSTREAM. 
THEY DECLARED WAR ON SENIORS, ON
THE DISABLED, SICK, CHILDREN AND
ON THE UNDERSERVED BY PROPOSING 
TO END MEDICARE AND MEDICAID AS 
WE KNOW IT. 
THEY CHAMPION THE BUDGET, 
ENTITLED THE PATH TO PROSPERITY.
THIS IS A PLAN THAT AT THE SAME 
TIME ENDS MEDICARE WHILE GIVING 
BILLIONS IN TAX BREAKS TO BIG 
OIL AND THE WEALTHIEST  
AMERICANS.
MR. TONKO CALLED IT THE PATH TO 
RUIN. 
I THOUGHT ABOUT CALLING IT THE  
RYAN RUIN PLAN AND GITCHES  
SENIORS A GIFT. 
AND THAT GIFT IS A VOUCHER TO 
PURCHASE HEALTH CARE. 
THE SENIOR CITIZEN THEN HAS TO  
IDENTIFY AN INSURANCE CARRIER 
THAT WILL TAKE THE VOUCHER. 
AND IF THE PERSON IS LUCKY, THE 
1249
00:48:18,000 --> 00:48:17,999
COSTS.
VOUCHER WILL COVER ALL THE  
I DO THINK THIS WOULD BE RARE 
AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENS IN
THIS PLAN IF AFTER A COUPLE OF  
YEARS OR A COUPLE OF ILLNESSESES
THE INSURANCE COMPANY DROPS THE 
PERSON OR RAISES THE RATES. 
IF THE RYAN PLAN DOES WHAT HE 
WANTS, HE WANTS TO REPEAL THE 
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND ALL OF  
THAT WOULD COME UNDER PLAY. 
THE PERSON WOULD HAVE TO PICK UP
THE REST OF THE COSTS UNDER THE 
RYAN PLAN.
NOW I BELIEVE WE ARE SIMPLY 
FOOLISH AND WE ARE FOOLING  
OURSELVES IF WE THINK ALL 
SENIORS WILL BE ABLE TO JUST  
WRITE A CHECK AND PAY THE 
DIFFERENCE. 
THEY'LL JUST PAY THE DIFFERENCE 
AND HAVE TO ABSORB MORE COSTS.
A MORE LIKELY SCENARIO IS 
SENIORS WILL NOT HAVE MEDICAL 
COVERAGE AND QUESTION WILL BE 
SENT BACK IN TIME TO WHEN 
SENIORS DID NOT HAVE COVERAGE 
BECAUSE INSURANCE COMPANIES 
DIDN'T WANT TO COVER THEM.
I SAY TO PEOPLE YOU CAN JUDGE A 
SOCIETY BY HOW IT TREATS ITS  
ELDERLY AND ITS CHILDREN. 
THE PATH TO RUIN PLAN HURTS BOTH
POPULATIONS.
YOU KNOW WHAT I WANTED TO DO IS 
SHARE A STORY AND TALK ABOUT THE
RYAN PLAN WHEN IT TAKES US BACK 
TO 2022, 11 YEARS FROM NOW. 
THE AVERAGE SENIOR WOULD RECEIVE
AN $8,000 VOUCHER TO BUY  
INSURANCE.
WHAT I WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU 
ARE THE YEARS THAT I SPENT  
WORKING IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM.
I WORKED IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, 
1295
00:49:53,000 --> 00:49:52,999
ONE OF THE LARGEST IN THE UNITED
STATES. 
AND THE EMERGENCY ROOM IS SO  
LARGE THAT IT IS DIVIDED IN 
SECTIONS. 
ONE SECTION IS CALLED AMBULATORY
CARE, THE WALKING WOUNDED.
THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN IN THE 
EMERGENCY ROOM, BUT THE REASON  
WHY THEY WERE THERE WAS BECAUSE 
1305
00:50:14,000 --> 00:50:13,999
INSURANCE.
THEY DIDN'T HAVE HEALTH 
THEY DIDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO CARE.
AND WHAT TYPICALLY HAPPENS IF 
YOU DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO CARE,  
BY THE TIME YOU EVENTUALLY SEE  
SOMEONE, YOU ARE MUCH SICKER  
THAN YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN. 
SO I REMEMBER A CASE WHERE A  
DIABETIC PATIENT WHO WAS NOT 65 
AND COULDN'T ACCESS MEDICARE AND
CAME INTO THE WALKING WOUNDED 
AREA WITH A SOAR ON HIS FOOT. 
HE TOLD ME IN THE HISTORY HE WAS
A DIABETIC BUT TRIED A SERIES OF
HOME REMEDIES AND CAME TO THE 
E.R. WHEN HIS HEEL STARTED  
TURNING PURPLE. 
HE TOLD ME HE HAD BEEN DIAGNOSED
WITH DIABETES YEARS AGO BUT 
COULDN'T AFFORD HIS MEDICATION  
AND TRYING TO WATCH HIS DIET. 
A PATIENT WITH A HISTORY OF 
POORLY CONTROLLED DIABETES WHO  
PRESENTS TO AN EMERGENCY ROOM IS
LIKELY TO HAVE A SERIES OF  
COMPLICATIONS.
THIS MAN ENDED UP AS AN A.M. PEW
TEE BECAUSE THE SORE ON HIS HEEL
DEVELOPED INTO GANGRENE.
THINKING ABOUT THE COST OF THIS,
THE TOTAL OF THIS VISIT WAS 
$12,000 AND HIS LEG, THAT 
INCLUDED A $2,000 FOR HIS 
EMERGENCY ROOM VISIT AND LAB  
TESTS, $6,000 CHARGE FOR AN 
AMPUTATION AND DETAIL CHARGE OF 
$1,400 FOR AFTER-CARE.
IF THIS PATIENT HAD ACCESS TO 
ROUTINE PREVENTATIVE CARE, HE 
WOULD STILL HAVE HIS LEGS AND 
$12,000 WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED.
WHY DO I SHARE THIS STORY?
WE ARE FOOLING OURSELVES IF WE  
DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT TURNING 
MEDICARE INTO A VOUCHER AND 
LEAVING SENIORS TO FEND FOR 
THEMSELVES IS SIMPLY DENYING  
ADEQUATE HEALTH CARE THAT IN THE
END WILL COST US MUCH MORE IN 
SUFFERING AND HOSPITAL COSTS  
THAT WILL BE BORNE BY TAXPAYERS.
TODAY IN MY OFFICE I MET WITH 
REPRESENTATIVES FROM SEVERAL  
HOSPITALS WHO ARE DESCRIBING THE
CHALLENGES THAT THEY FACE NOW.
SO THERE IS AN AREA IN LOS  
ANGELES COUNTY WHERE 600,000  
PEOPLE LIVED AND LAST TIME I  
CHECKED, THAT WAS AROUND THE  
ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE STATE  
OF VERMONT. 
600,000 PEOPLE, WHERE THERE IS  
NOT ONE TRAUMA CENTER, NOT ONE  
EMERGENCY ROOM BECAUSE ALL OF 
THE FOUR HOSPITALS IN THAT AREA 
HAVE CLOSED.
NOW THAT'S TODAY. 
UNDER THE RYAN PLAN, FOR  
SENIORS, VOUCHERS FOR SENIORS 
AND VOUCHERS FOR STATES, BECAUSE
THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE WHAT A 
BLOCK GRANT IS, IS A VOUCHER, 
VOUCHER FOR INDIVIDUALS AND FOR 
A STATE.
ALL WHO BORDER THIS AREA THAT 
HAS NO TRAUMA AREA OR NO  
EMERGENCY ROOM, THEY WOULD  
ESSENTIALLY HAVE TO ABSORB AND  
THEY HAVE BEEN ABSORBING THE  
POPULATION OF THESE 600,000 
PEOPLE. 
THEY WERE CONCERNED AND CAME  
INTO MY OFFICE TODAY CONCERNED  
THAT THEY COULD POTENTIALLY FACE
CLOSURE NOW GIVEN THE SITUATION.
IF WE WERE TO ADOPT THE RYAN  
PLAN, PATHWAY TO RUIN, HOWEVER  
YOU WANT TO DESCRIBE IT, WOULD  
SIMPLY BE SETTING THE STAGE FOR 
HOSPITAL CLOSURES TO CONTINUE,  
FOR MORE PATIENTS TO COME INTO  
THE WALKING WOUPPEDED AREAS OF  
EMERGENCY ROOMS, FOR PEOPLE TO  
BE SICKER AND EVENTUALLY COME TO
THE EMERGENCY ROOM WHICH IS 
INCREDIBLY SHORTSIDED BECAUSE IN
THE END IT COSTS TAXPAYERS SO 
MUCH MORE MONEY, BECAUSE THESE  
1404
00:53:57,000 --> 00:53:56,999
FOR.
PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE CARED  
SO WE ARE FOOLING OURSELVES IF  
WE THINK THAT SENIORS ARE JUST  
GOING TO BE ABLE TO MEET WHAT 
THE VOUCHER DOESN'T COVER.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR  
LEADERSHIP IN THIS. 
AND I YIELD MY TIME BACK TO MR. 
YARMUTH.
 I THANK THE  
GENTLELADY AND SOMEWHERE TOWARDS
THE END THERE, THE GENTLELADY 
MENTIONED JOBS, AND THIS IS 
SOMETHING THAT IS KIND OF AT THE
CORE OF WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO 
WORK TOWARD.
WE ARE TRYING TO DEVELOP A  
BUDGET THAT WILL STIMULATE THE  
ECONOMY, CREATE JOBS AND WE KNOW
THAT UNDER THE RYAN BUDGET, 
AGAIN, ACCORDING TO THE HERITAGE
FOUNDATION, THE WAY THEY GET TO 
SOME KIND OF PHYSICAL SANITY, 
THEY PREDICT THAT UNEMPLOYMENT  
WILL BE REDUCED TO 2.8% BY 2016.
I DON'T KNOW ANYONE IN THE  
COUNTRY WHO SEES THAT IS  
FEASIBLE PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU  
ARE SLASHING GOVERNMENT SPENDING
THAT SLASHES JOBS PARTICULARLY  
IN THE HEALTH CARE ARENA, BUT NO
ONE HAS BEEN MORE VOCKAL AND  
MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE AND MORE 
ARTICULATE ABOUT WHAT IT TAKES  
IN THIS COUNTRY TO CREATE JOBS  
THAN MR. GARAMENDI AND I WELCOME
1441
00:55:19,000 --> 00:55:18,999
. 
HIM TO THE DISCUSSION.
 THE REPUBLICANS  
HAVE SIMPLY ATTEMPTED TO RAM  
DOWN THE THROATS OF THIS  
CONGRESS A REALLY UNACCEPTABLE  
BUDGET, ONE THAT DOES DESTROY,  
DOES DESTROY OPPORTUNITIES. 
I WOULD LOVE TO TALK ABOUT MAKE 
IT IN AMERICA AND I WILL IN A 
MOMENT, BUT I WAS JUST LISTENING
TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM CALIFORNIA 
AND SHE RAISED THE ISSUE OF THE 
MEDICAL CARE HERE IN THE UNITED 
STATES. 
IT WAS 1964 THAT THE UNITED 
STATES SET OUT ON A VERY, VERY  
IMPORTANT MISSION AND THAT WAS  
TO PROVIDE HEALTH CARE TO 
SENIORS.
PRIOR TO THAT TIME, AND I KNOW  
FROM MY OWN COUNTY WHERE I GREW 
UP IN CALIFORNIA, IF YOU BECAME 
A SENIOR YOU WERE DESTINED FOR A
VERY, VERY ROUGH ROAD.
THERE WAS LITERALLY NO INSURANCE
AVAILABLE FOR YOU AND THERE WAS 
NO OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO GET 
YOURSELF OUT OF POVERTY UNLESS  
1470
00:56:15,000 --> 00:56:14,999
WEALTHY.
YOU HAPPENED TO BE AMONG THE  
IT WAS A TERRIBLE SITUATION.
SO DURING THE LYNDON JOHNSON  
PERIOD, 1964, THEY CREATED A  
PROGRAM CALLED MEDICARE,  
MEDICARE SO, THAT WHEN YOU  
BECAME 65 YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY
TO GET A SOLID HEALTH CARE  
PROGRAM AVAILABLE TO YOU. 
A DR. PROGRAM, A HOSPITAL 
BROTHER -- A DOCTOR PROGRAM, A  
HOSPITAL PROGRAM, YOU HAVE TO 
1483
00:56:41,000 --> 00:56:40,999
PAY A LITTLE BIT FOR A HOSPITAL 
PROGRAM, BUT IT WAS GUARANTEED  
AVAILABLE TO YOU AND EVERY  
AMERICAN 65 AND OVER HAD THAT 
POLICY. 
HERE WE ARE 40-SOME YEARS LATER 
AND WHAT'S TAKING PLACE?
OUR REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES ARE 
DETERMINED TO TERMINATE, KILL,  
STOP, ELIMINATE MEDICARE. 
THEY DO IT IN A SUBTLE WAY. 
THEY DO IT IN A SUBTLE WAY. 
BUT I WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW THAT
THIS YEAR, THIS YEAR IF THE 
REPUBLICAN BUDGET GOES FORWARD  
THIS WILL BE THE TOMBSTONE FOR  
MEDICARE. 
MEDICARE, 1965-2011, CREATED BY 
1501
00:57:26,000 --> 00:57:25,999
. 
L.B.J., DESTROYED BY THE G.O. 
HOW DID THEY DO IT? 
THEY DO IT BY SAYING EVERYONE 
THAT IS 55 YEARS OLD TODAY WILL 
NEVER GET MEDICARE. 
IT'S OVER.
AND FOR THOSE THAT ARE ON 
MEDICARE, THEIR LIVES WILL MOVE 
ON AND EVENTUALLY THEY'LL BE  
GONE ALSO.
AND MEDICARE DIES WITH THIS 
BUDGET. 
THIS IS A CENTRAL PART OF THE 
AMERICAN PROMISE TO EVERY SENIOR
AND THE REPUBLICANS ARE 
DETERMINED TO TERMINATE 
MEDICARE. 
AND PUT A TOMBSTONE DATED THIS  
YEAR, 2011, YOU'LL GET A VOUCHER
BUT AS MY COLLEAGUE FROM LOS  
ANGELES SO ELOQUENTLY SAID, THAT
VOUCHER WILL BE WORTH VERY  
LITTLE WHEN THE TIME COMES. 
AND YOU'LL BE THROWN TO THE 
INSURANCE SHARKS. 
I UNDERSTAND INSURANCE. 
THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER IN 
CALIFORNIA FOR EIGHT YEARS AND  
KNOW WHAT THE HEALTH INSURANCE  
COMPANIES WANT TO DO. 
THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY
INSURE SOMEBODY THAT WILL NEVER 
GET SICK. 
PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS, RAISE  
THE RATES, CHANGE THE BENEFIT,  
INCREASE THE CO-PAYS AND THE  
DEDUCTIBLES, ALL OF THAT. 
SO THE FUTURE POPULATION OF 
SENIORS IN JUST 10 YEARS WILL BE
THROWN TO THE WOLVES AND THEY'LL
BE AT MERCY OF THE SHEALT 
INSURANCE COMPANIES.
WE CANNOT -- AT THE MERCY OF THE
HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES. 
WE CANNOT LET THAT HAPPEN.
THIS IS THE FIGHT OF THE VERY 
NATURE OF AMERICA.
THIS IS A FIGHT NOT ONLY TO 
PROTECT SENIORS BUT TO PROTECT  
THOSE WHO WANT TO BECOME  
SENIORS.
I WANT TO KNOW WHAT AMERICAN OUT
THERE TODAY DOES NOT WANT TO  
LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO GET TO  
MEDICARE. 
THEY KNOW THAT TODAY, TODAY,  
BECAUSE OF THE DEMOCRATIC 
CONGRESS THEY HAVE AN 
1560
00:59:21,000 --> 00:59:20,999
HEALTH CARE REFORM ACT. 
OPPORTUNITY TO GET INSURANCE THE
BUT THEY KNOW THAT THE  
REPUBLICANS WANT TO TAKE THAT 
1564
00:59:25,000 --> 00:59:24,999
AWAY, TOO.
THE VERY FIRST PIECE OF 
LEGISLATION THAT THE NEW  
REPUBLICAN CONGRESS PASSED WAS  
THE REPEAL OF THE AFFORDABLE  
HEALTH CARE AC. 
THIS IS STEP TWO -- ACT.
THIS IS STEP TWO TO DISMANTLE.
I'M GOING TO TAKE ANOTHER 30  
SECONDS TO TURN IT BACK TO MY 
COLLEAGUES ON THE BUDGET SIDE,  
BUT HERE'S WHAT WE MUST DO. 
WE MUST GET TO THE ROOT CAUSE OF
THE UNDERLYING INFLATION IN 
HEALTH CARE.
TERMINATING MEDICARE DOES NOT 
STOP HEALTH CARE INFLATION. 
WHAT COULD STOP IT ARE THE KIND 
OF REPORTS AND THE KIND OF  
SUGGESTIONS THAT I MADE FIVE  
YEARS AGO WHEN I WROTE THIS 
DOCUMENT CALLED "PRICED OUT." 
43 SEPARATE THINGS THAT WE CAN  
DO SPECIFICALLY FOR CALIFORNIA  
BUT IT'S AM CABLE FOR AMERICA,  
43 SEPARATE THINGS THAT WE CAN  
DO TO BRING DOWN THE COST OF  
MEDICAL CARE. 
IT TURNS OUT THAT ABOUT A DOZENS
OF THOSE WERE IN THE AFFORDABLE 
HEALTH CARE ACT.
VERY SPECIFIC THINGS TO REIN IN 
THE COST OF MEDICAL CARE. 
TWO EXAMPLES. 
ONE, HOSPITAL INFECTIONS. 
NOT ONLY DEADLY, BUT COSTLY.
NOW EVERY HOSPITAL IN THE UNITED
STATES IS FORCED BY THE 
AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT TO 
PAY ATTENTION TO HOSPITAL 
INFECTIONS. 
IT'S PROBABLE THAT ONE OF OUR 
COLLEAGUES WHO WAS WITH US HERE 
IN THIS HOUSE LAST YEAR DIED AS 
A RESULT OF A HOSPITAL  
INFECTION.
JUST LAST WEEK. 
THIS IS SERIOUS STUFF.
IT'S IN THE AFFORDABLE HEALTH 
CARE ACT. 
HOSPITALS WILL BE PENALIZED.
SECONDLY, ELECTRONIC MEDICAL  
1616
01:01:03,000 --> 01:01:02,999
ELIMINATED. 
RECORDS SO THAT THE MISTAKES ARE
LET ME TURN THIS BACK TO MR.  
YARMUTH AND MR. TONKO.
YOU ON THE BUDGET COMMITTEE HAVE
SERVED SO WELL, SO HARD,  
FIGHTING THE INITIAL BATTLE TO  
PROTECT AMERICA'S SENIORS AND TO
PROTECT THIS NATION'S FUTURE. 
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
JOIN YOU. 
 I THANK THE  
GENTLEMAN FOR HIS CONTRIBUTION  
AND ALSO WANT TO SEGUE FROM WHAT
HE SAID BECAUSE HE TALKED ABOUT
