[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 65 (Thursday, May 12, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H3263-H3269]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  AMERICAN JOBS AND THE NATIONAL DEBT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the 
American people for watching today.
  I wanted to talk with my colleagues here today about jobs, how we 
create jobs in America, and what we are going to do about our national 
debt. We have a spending problem in America, and we have heard a lot 
from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They have been 
talking about jobs bills. I heard someone say that we haven't passed 
any legislation or taken up any legislation in this House that 
addresses jobs. Well, that puzzles me. Maybe they have been absent, but 
it seems to me since I arrived here in January, we have been focused on 
jobs, and I just want to give a few examples.
  Number one, this week we have been working on energy legislation that 
will open up drilling, open up drilling in parts of the country where 
right now it is prohibited. Those will be jobs. Those are jobs, good-
paying jobs in the energy sector. Not only will that allow for the 
creation of jobs; it will allow for our country to be more energy 
independent.

  We have taken up all sorts of legislation regarding health care since 
I have been here. We voted to repeal and to work on some legislation to 
replace the Obama health care law. Well, I talk to small businesses, 
business owners, all the time, and they tell me that the Obama health 
care law hurts them; that because of the increased price that they have 
to pay, that they can't hire as many people. That is a piece of 
legislation that directly addresses job creation.
  There was a provision that a lot of small businesses will tell you 
about; it was a 1099 provision that was included in the Obama health 
care law. We repealed that. We were fortunate enough to convince the 
Senate to pass it and the President to sign it.
  I am joined by my colleague from Indiana. I want to say this, and 
then I am going to turn it over to him. Every time that we deal with 
our spending problem in this House, every time that we deal with our 
debt problem and our deficit, every time that we try to get

[[Page H3264]]

our fiscal house in order and make this government live within its 
means, the way folks back in Arkansas do, where they live within a 
budget, every time we do that we are creating a better environment in 
this country for job creation.
  So don't let anyone tell you that there is the issue of the spending 
and the debt and then there is the issue of the jobs. They are all one 
issue. They are all one. If we want to see the kind of innovation and 
job creation that we are accustomed to in this country, if we want to 
see it continue, if we want to continue to be the leader in innovation 
and technological advancement and job creation, we better deal with our 
spending problem, or we are not going to see that kind of job creation.
  Furthermore, if we don't deal with the debt, and we have a debt 
crisis, we are going to see job losses that will make what happened in 
September of 2008 pale in comparison.
  I want to yield to my colleague from Indiana.
  Mr. ROKITA. I thank my friend from Arkansas, Tim Griffin. I know we 
are going to talk about Medicare, and we are going to talk about the 
debt ceiling, but I want to thank you for rising to address what has 
happened on the House floor this very last hour, because what you say 
is absolutely the truth. And if we have to, my friend, the gentleman 
from Arkansas, as new Members keep speaking truth to power, then we 
will do that.
  But the fact of the matter is every time, every time the government 
confiscates the property of the American people, which is their money, 
you are exactly right, you take away their freedom, their property, 
their ability to invest that dollar as they see fit. And when that 
private sector money is in the hands of a small business or a large 
business, an ice cream shop or an oil company, they have a better 
opportunity and know better what to do with that dollar in terms of 
investment, in terms of growing the government, than any government 
bureaucrat or anyone on the floor of the House ever can.
  I don't understand, Mr. Speaker, why every other industrialized 
nation on the face of this Earth understands that when you pull a lump 
of coal from the ground, when you take some oil from the ground, when 
you exploit in the best sense of that word our natural resources, you 
create wealth.

                              {time}  1730

  You raise the standard of living for all involved. Why is one party 
in this country so masochistic that they can't understand that?
  Thank you for your time.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I thank the gentleman from Indiana.
  I was thinking about some of what I heard, Mr. Speaker, a few minutes 
ago. I think that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe 
that if you leave the lid on a full cookie jar, that means you're out 
of cookies. I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, just because we have banned drilling and exploration for natural 
gas and for oil on the east coast and the west coast and Alaska and the 
gulf, just because we've banned it doesn't mean we're out of it. Just 
because you leave the top on the cookie jar doesn't mean you have run 
out of cookies.
  You have got to actually take specific steps to develop energy. We 
are an energy-rich Nation. I happen to believe in an all-of-the-above 
policy. I think we ought to be pursuing renewable energy, wind, and 
solar. But at the same time we ought to be pursuing natural resources 
that we can use right now. Natural gas. We have a lot of it in 
Arkansas, and we would love to continue developing it. It's interesting 
to me that at a time when this administration put obstacles up to 
energy development in the gulf and elsewhere around the United States 
that would help us be more energy independent, at the same time they 
were encouraging energy production in foreign countries. It makes no 
sense.
  I now yield to my friend from Indiana, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Thanks to my colleague from Arkansas. I appreciate his 
comments and what he is saying, and I agree with him wholeheartedly. I 
can tell you as a small business owner from Indiana, coming from a 
family farm background and having a small trucking operation, all of 
the talk here on this floor and in Washington doesn't make a lot of 
sense to a lot of Hoosiers. Growing up in the agricultural industry, 
it's hard work. And I know that my granddad and my father and other 
family members, my brothers, they're all willing to work hard. But I 
can tell you what: When the government makes it difficult, it's tough 
to go out there and say, I'm going to keep doing it. When the 
government comes in and says, We're going to make it harder for you to 
do your business, you start thinking twice, Do I really want to do what 
I love to do.
  Who creates jobs? Is it the government? I know some in this town 
believe that the government creates jobs. Well, how do they create that 
job? They take your dollar, my dollar, they collect it in taxes, and 
then they put it in a pot, and then we have this large entity we call 
Congress and bureaucracies, and our Federal Government decides we're 
going to pick and choose what type of jobs we're going to create. We're 
going to take those dollars that we've collected from the hardworking 
taxpayer and create a job.
  Well, that's not creating wealth. The folks in my district who build 
cars, they build steel, RVs, and medical devices that help enhance the 
quality of life. Agriculture. Boats. We're one of the largest 
manufacturing districts in the country. That's where wealth is created. 
That is where jobs are created. The government doesn't build any of 
that stuff. And they shouldn't. They can't do it as well as what the 
private sector can. But what the government does is spend money. That's 
why our jobs are looking somewhere else--because of the threat of 
higher taxes, the threat of regulation.
  We've got the EPA that comes in. Most of the folks that come into our 
office since I've been elected to Congress--this last year, I would say 
90 percent of them come in and start talking about the regulation that 
the EPA and the enforcement attitude that the EPA has on our small 
businesses. How can any small business grow to be a big business if 
they're going to continually be hampered by our own government? FDA, 
OSHA mandates. We're going to be talking about Medicare. What is that 
going to look like in the future? And taxes.
  We hear our colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about the 
way government can grow business. The best way is to get out of the 
way. Right now, America has the highest corporate income tax in the 
industrialized world. Look at the other countries, whether Japan, 
Greece. All these other countries are finally figuring out because of 
just natural economic laws that you can't spend more money than you 
take in. Why would we want to raise taxes even more when people are 
starting to say, I'm out of here. I'm tired of doing business here. I 
don't think my dollar is safe in this country. And they're going to 
start taking their money overseas. That's why our jobs are leaving.
  I believe it's important that we have a flattened tax policy--one 
that is fair to everybody across the country, one that is not going to 
pick and choose winners.
  I appreciate what you're saying because jobs are not created by the 
government, they're created by Americans just like Henry Ford. The 
government didn't subsidize Henry Ford in creating the combustion 
engine. They didn't go out and subsidize Henry Ford in creating the 
Ford Motor Company. How many other small businesses started? So many 
American businesses started in a garage or somebody's shop and grew 
into some of the greatest companies in the world. But our government 
now wants to go in and make it more difficult for them and for small 
businesses.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I appreciate the gentleman's comments.
  My colleague from Indiana was just talking about competitiveness. The 
question is, How do we compete? What is competitiveness? Well, we have 
to start with the premise that the private sector is the primary job 
creator in this country. They're not just the primary job creator--
they're the primary innovator. They are the primary source of 
technological advancement. And that leads to jobs. So the question is, 
Do we want businesses to be attracted to our country or do we want them 
to flee our country? That's the question.

[[Page H3265]]

That's the question of competitiveness. I want to live in an America 
that is attractive to job creators.
  You can talk about big business; can you talk about small business, 
you can talk about mom-and-pop shops. You don't even have to define 
each size business; they're all job creators. We've got in my district, 
the Second District of Arkansas, we've got all sorts of job creators. 
And I love them all equally. We've got small businesses, we've got 
Hewlett Packard, we've got Caterpillar. They all create jobs. When 
businesses look for a home somewhere on this planet, we want them to 
look at the United States and say, That's where I want to do business. 
I can do better there. My labor will be rewarded there. The taxes are 
not so burdensome there. The regulations don't crush my business there. 
That's where opportunity is. That's the America that we're trying to 
create.

                              {time}  1740

  The gentleman from Indiana referenced some of the conversations he 
has had with constituents. I have them every day. They come in my 
office and they say, This agency is not working with me; it's working 
against me. This part of government is an obstacle. Can you help me? 
Can you help me break through so that I can just do my business and 
create jobs and make a living?
  That's ultimately the America that we're talking about.
  Since we're talking about competitiveness and we're talking about 
jobs, that ultimately, as some of us were talking about earlier, leads 
us to a conversation about debt.
  I would now yield to my friend and colleague from Arkansas (Mr. 
Womack).
  Mr. WOMACK. I thank the gentleman from Arkansas. I appreciate his 
leadership and his friendship and his service to our great State, the 
great State of Arkansas.
  I am thrilled that we're having the conversation that we're having 
here, late in the day, regarding these types of issues that in my 
strongest opinion are impacting our ability to create jobs; and that's 
the prize that we all keep our eye on here in these Chambers is what 
can we do to strengthen our capacity to put people back to work, 
because I think at the end of the day that's exactly what people 
elected us to do last November is to come up here and change this 
climate, change this culture and put the entrepreneur back in charge, 
because that's where job creation comes from.
  A couple of points before I go to some notes that I brought 
specifically for this afternoon's presentation, and that is that this 
cloud of uncertainty that continues to hover over the economy of the 
United States of America is influenced by a number of things, but let 
me just take two or three of them.
  The threat of higher taxes, and not just the threat of higher taxes 
but the relationship of the threat of higher taxes to the issues of the 
deficit and the debt. I made these comments not too long ago on this 
very floor, that in private business, in business in general, your debt 
is usually tied to your assets, the assets of the company. Most 
businesspeople get that. But in government, your debt is tied to your 
capacity to increase taxes. So this debt and deficit issue that we 
continue to struggle with as a country and the prospect of that debt 
continuing to rise--and not too long from now we're going to have a 
vote on increasing the statutory limit on debt--influences, I think 
contributes to, this cloud of uncertainty that leads a prospective 
entrepreneur, a prospective job creator, to not do what that person 
would like to do, even with trillions of dollars sitting on the balance 
sheets of corporate America, the hesitancy to create these jobs 
influenced by the threat of higher taxes.
  And then I think also, fundamental to this cloud of uncertainty, as I 
call it, continuous overregulation by this government, that the 
prospective job creator cannot compute the input costs associated with 
more government regulation. Notice I haven't even mentioned the impact 
of the health care law, ObamaCare, as we call it. It's hard to compute 
the input costs of this health care law. And then more recently, the 
threat of higher energy prices and a flawed, if not almost nonexistent, 
energy policy of this administration.
  Just think about it. You're a prospective job creator, you've got an 
idea, you're a creative person, you want to live the American Dream, 
but standing in your way between your dream and your capacity to do 
something creatively and resourcefully, to put people to work, to 
contribute to society, are things like higher taxes, more government 
regulation and red tape, the impact of when I hire these people, the 
impact of ObamaCare, and then on top of all of that, the price at the 
pump and higher energy prices. I just don't see why the other side 
cannot understand why we're not creating jobs, why we continue to hover 
at the 9 percent level on unemployment.
  Just a couple of weeks ago, we passed on this floor a budget for 
2012, and in that budget immediately, before the ink was dry, we were 
being criticized because of what we were trying to do and what I 
believe is the reasonable approach to solving our Nation's fiscal 
problems, and that is finally delving into something that nobody ever 
wanted to touch, and that's the entitlement programs, the mandatory 
spending side of the house, where most of the money is.
  I just want to make a couple of these comments as it concerns 
Medicare, because I heard back from my constituents. A tele-town hall 
meeting the other night, the first phone call I got from Bella Vista, 
Arkansas, was a gentleman worried because he had heard that we were 
attempting to take his Medicare away. In 1965 when that program was 
created, baby boomers were teenagers, and now 10,000 baby boomers a day 
enter qualification for Medicare. When Medicare was created in 1965, 
the life expectancy of a human being was around 70, a little younger. 
Today it's close to 80 years of age. Medicare spending is growing at an 
unsustainable rate of 7.2 percent every year. Seniors are already 
facing access issues.

  Think about this. Under the current system, one in three primary 
doctors are limiting Medicare patients. One in eight are forced to deny 
Medicare patients altogether. If the Medicare program is allowed to 
continue without any change at all, the Congressional Budget Office 
projects it goes bankrupt in 9 years. Basically, if we allow Medicare 
to maintain the status quo, Medicare collapses.
  So we're leading. Our conference is leading. We're taking mandatory 
spending and entitlement programs and we're deciding that we're going 
to throw our cards down on the table. We're going to do something about 
it.
  The plan that we voted to approve just a couple of weeks ago 
preserves, protects Medicare for those 55 and over, not just those 
drawing Medicare but those nearing retirement, people that have planned 
their lives around that program. We don't change that for those people. 
That needs to be said. It needs to be repeated over and over again. But 
again we get demagogued about it because, at the surface level, it 
sounds like we're trying to just take it away. Let me repeat again. 
Those 55 and older, not affected by the proposed reforms that we 
support.
  Starting in 2022, new Medicare beneficiaries would be enrolled in the 
same kind of health care program that I have, that my colleague from 
Arkansas has, and my other colleagues who have spoken here tonight. 
Future Medicare recipients would be able to choose from a list of 
guaranteed coverage options and they'd be given the ability to choose a 
plan that works best for them. It's not a voucher system. It's premium 
support. No money changes hands between the government and the 
individual. It's modeled after what Members of Congress and Federal 
employees already have.
  The reforms are designed to decrease the fraud within the system and 
requires congressional oversight by requiring transparent pricing and 
minimum benefit and quality standards and instituting more competitive 
forces. My friends, that's what the free enterprise system is about, 
and I believe if it has worked for 235 years of this great country, it 
should be also the way forward.
  Let me finish by saying this. Like my colleague from Arkansas, he and 
I came in as freshmen together on January 5 in these hallowed Chambers. 
We didn't come here to do nothing. We didn't come here to kick the old 
can down the road, to ignore the facts. We came here to act with 
dispatch and

[[Page H3266]]

make a difference for our country. That's why I'm pleased to join my 
colleagues here of our great freshman class in providing this 
information to the American public. It's not only what we were elected 
to do; it is our moral duty to do it and to do it as soon as we can and 
to do it with the sense of purpose that I think defines the 112th 
Congress.

                              {time}  1750

  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Thank you to my colleague from Arkansas.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleague makes a great point, and I think what we've 
been talking about here over the last few minutes is that the jobs 
issue is not separate from the debt issue. We have to deal with the 
debt in order to create an environment in this country that attracts 
business and where jobs can be created.
  I want to take just a second here. We've heard a lot about Medicare 
and about the debt; and I think it's important to emphasize here, as 
this chart shows, that of our yearly spending, well over half is what 
we call mandatory spending. That is spending that doesn't have to be 
renewed every year, spending that's in the books, in the law. It just 
happens. That includes Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The bad 
news is, if we do nothing to this big chunk here called Medicare, we do 
nothing, Medicare goes bankrupt.
  This next chart shows that in just a couple of decades, the entire 
Federal budget at this point right here, the entire Federal budget will 
be consumed by Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
  What does all this tell us? Well, it tells us a couple of things. 
Number one, we have to do something to reform our system so that we 
don't have a crisis; and, number two, it tells us that if we don't 
reform Medicare, it goes away. It no longer exists.
  I tell folks all the time when they say, well, you're going to try to 
end Medicare as we know it, and I say, whoa, whoa, whoa, Medicare as we 
know it ends itself in just a short number of years. It ends itself. 
And I say to my friends when they mention something like that, I say, 
well, if someone really wanted to harm Medicare, they wouldn't propose 
a bold reform to save it. They would just quietly do nothing because if 
you quietly do nothing, you kick the can a little further down the 
road, Medicare goes bankrupt. With no action, Medicare goes bankrupt.
  What would that look like? Well, it would look a lot like the 
President's plan. I don't believe that the President wants to harm 
Medicare, but I'm certain that he's failed to take the steps necessary 
to save it. What would a plan look like that harms Medicare? It would 
look like the President's plan, a plan, a budget that doubles our debt 
in five and triples it in 10 and does nothing to save Medicare. It's 
silent on that and on Medicaid and on Social Security.
  I would like to yield now to the gentleman from Arizona. Thank you 
for joining us.
  Mr. QUAYLE. I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for yielding and for 
talking about these important issues, and one thing that I do want to 
talk about is something you just said: kicking the can down the road. 
We can no longer afford to do that because every year we do not address 
and solve the problems related to our mandatory spending, they add 
close to $10 trillion each year to our unfunded liabilities. Those are 
the liabilities that are going to be put on the backs of our children 
and our grandchildren. So kicking the can down the road is no longer an 
option.
  Now, I want to get back to something the gentleman from Arkansas 
talked about earlier, and that is about making America competitive in 
the global marketplace. We live in a global economy. Nothing is going 
to change that, but what America has to do and what we have to do here 
in the House is to make America the most competitive country on the 
face of the Earth. We need to make America the best place and the 
safest place to do business, and that's what we were charged to do when 
we came in in this 112th Congress, and that's what we've been doing 
from day one.
  Because when we came in here, we said we were going to do two things. 
We were going to get the American people back to work by creating jobs 
and pro-growth economic policies, and we were going to rein in our out-
of-control Federal spending. And we've been doing that.
  Since day one, week by week, we have been addressing our problem with 
out-of-control government spending. Sometimes it was millions of 
dollars here, other times it's billions, and still other times it's 
been trillion dollars of savings to be able to make our country 
prosperous again. That right there is the charge of my generation and 
our generation to return America's prosperity. That's what we're doing 
here in the House. That's what the Republican House majority has been 
doing since day one of the 112th Congress.
  One of the things that we did just a few weeks ago was we passed a 
2012 budget plan that sets our fiscal course on the right path. It sets 
us up so that we will have that prosperity, so that the crushing burden 
of government spending is not passed on to future generations. 
Immediately, practically before the vote was even cast, we heard from 
our friends on the other side of the aisle that we were starting to end 
Medicare as we know it. Funny thing how short their memory is, because 
Medicare as we know it was actually ended by the previous Congress when 
they passed ObamaCare.
  And Medicare as we know it was ended in two different ways. First, 
they took over $500 billion out of Medicare to fund their government 
takeover of health care, and the second thing and the most dangerous 
thing that they did was they established the Independent Payment 
Advisory Board. What this is, a lot of people don't really know what it 
is, but it's a bureaucratic 15-person panel that will actually 
determine how we are going to provide health care to our seniors. Now, 
these are not elected officials, these are appointed by the President, 
and they will be making decisions on how to reduce our Medicare costs 
by actually preventing certain treatments to our patients, to our 
seniors. This will get in the middle of the doctor-patient 
relationship, which is one of the most important relationships that 
there is. We need to have the trust between our doctors and patients 
and not taking dictates from a 15-person panel of bureaucrats here in 
Washington, D.C.
  The great thing is that there's really no oversight. Now, Congress 
can go in and say, well, we don't agree with the independent advisory 
board, but you know what it takes, it takes an act of two-thirds 
majority in the House to override one of their decisions. Now, I've 
only been here 4 months, but I can tell you, two-thirds majority is 
almost near impossible.

  So this is what we have to do: we have to educate and tell everybody 
and get the facts out to the American people because, like the other 
gentleman from Arkansas said, after the 2012 budget was passed, I, too, 
had a teletown hall and one of my first questions was from a caller in 
my district who was on Medicare and asked, Are you really getting rid 
of Medicare for me because I rely on it. That's when I had to tell her 
the facts that, no, absolutely not. Those who are in or near 
retirement, their benefits will not change because they have planned 
for those benefits to be there. However, we are going to save Medicare 
from the implosion that will occur if we do nothing because in 9 years, 
9 short years, Medicare will be bankrupt and the 2012 budget that the 
House Republicans passed will save Medicare bankruptcy, put us on 
strong fiscal footing going forward, and return America's prosperity to 
future generations.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Thank you so much to the gentleman from 
Arizona. I appreciate you making those clear points.
  I want to go to the gentleman from Indiana who has risen.
  Mr. ROKITA. Thank you. I want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas. I 
want to associate my comments with the ones just made by the gentleman 
from Arizona. They're excellent. I think they accurately stated, along 
with the other gentleman from Arkansas, why we're here as new Members: 
to grow this economy, make this in the 21st century the best place on 
Earth to grow a family, to grow jobs, to grow a business.

                              {time}  1800

  But you can't have that discussion if we're also not going to talk 
about how

[[Page H3267]]

big this government is, how much bigger it's going to get and who has 
to pay for it. The ``who has to pay for it,'' my good friend, is not 
necessarily us. It's our kids and our grandkids who are simply going to 
be left with the tab so that some of us can have more on our plates 
now. These were reckless promises made by politicians who came before 
us on this very floor, on that other floor and all around this town. 
The simple fact of the matter is they can't possibly be paid for.
  What I'd like to do, as I continue to work with you on the floor 
tonight and rise again a little bit later, is, as a member of the 
Budget Committee, simply put on the floor some facts and figures so 
that we understand where we are as we go about talking of solutions.
  We are $14 trillion, rounding, in debt right now--this hour, this 
day. If you look out into the future and you see our new red menace, 
the tidal wave of debt that is about to come crashing down on us, the 
total bill is nearly $100 trillion. The total cost year over year of 
waiting, of kicking that can down the road, as we've heard tonight, a 
road that's quickly coming to an end, is over $12 trillion. It's more 
expensive. Let's break it down, because I will be the first to admit on 
the floor of the House here tonight, sir, that I can't count to $1 
trillion. I can't count that high. I can't comprehend what $1 trillion 
means, not to mention $14 trillion, not to mention $100 trillion.
  $1 trillion is one thousand billion. $1 billion is one thousand 
million. Well now, maybe we're getting somewhere in breaking it down.
  Let's break it down by hour. In the hour we're spending in talking 
with the American people about this serious problem, this country will 
borrow in this hour over $170 million--just in this hour. For every 
dollar this Federal Government spends, we are borrowing 42 cents of it.
  Let's put it in terms of days. We've heard about Tax Day, that day 
every year when we find that Americans can finally keep what they earn, 
keep their own property and start working for themselves; but we also 
have a Debt Day now. Debt Day this year is July 27. Every day this 
Federal Government operates on and after July 27 it is operating on 
borrowed money.
  Let's put it in terms of speed. Let's say we're driving down a 
highway and our historical debt is a car. It would be going down that 
highway at historical speeds of 65 miles an hour, and that's probably 
bad enough if the car is debt, but it has gotten a lot worse recently. 
Let's say there is another car coming up in our rear view mirror and 
that we look and it's coming up fast. Maybe the license plate reads--
but we may not be able to read it--``hope and change,'' and it's coming 
up and it zooms right by us. How fast, sir, do we think that car had 
been going if the debt car that we'd historically been riding in had 
already been going 65 miles an hour? Would it be 70? 100? No. That car 
that just passed us by, that new debt car that we're currently spending 
on, is going over 7,000 miles an hour.
  That's the challenge we're up against, and the only help that we've 
gotten from the other side in tackling this challenge is name-calling 
and demagoguery. It's old tactics. Yet I'm hopeful, sir. I'm hopeful 
because, every day that we get to talk about this and every day over 
the last couple of years that we've gotten to talk about this, we are 
educating our fellow citizens more. We are doing a great job. We are 
winning the argument. I think, at this time, we are ready to tackle 
this debt problem if we talk honestly and directly with the American 
people.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Thank you for that. Thank you to the 
gentleman from Indiana.
  I think the point that you're making is that we first have to 
identify the problem, and the problem is a spending problem. We don't 
have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. We are spending too 
much money. We have made promises that the government can't keep. 
Saying that we just need more revenue is like a gambler who's sitting 
at a slot machine, saying, ``I don't have a gambling problem. I just 
don't have enough money.'' We have a spending problem, folks, and 
that's why we have to talk about all of the different programs, and I 
have been one who has been willing to say we've got to look at 
everything at a time like this.
  I want to yield to my friend from Illinois, but before I do, I want 
to point one thing out. You mentioned demagoguery. We're trying to 
responsibly address the spending problem in all parts of the budget, 
including Medicare, so I just want to run through a couple of attacks, 
a couple of misrepresentations that I've been hearing. Then I'd like to 
hear from my colleague from Illinois, but let me point this out.
  The first thing that I heard was that our plan in the House is a 
voucher program, that premium support, which is the core of our 
Medicare reform for those under 55. For those 55 and over, there are no 
changes, but premium support is the core of those under 55. I stood 
here on the floor, and I said, This is a program much like the one 
Members of Congress have, much like the ones that Federal employees 
have. The gentleman from the other side of the aisle said, It's a 
voucher plan.

  Is it or is it not? It's not a voucher plan, but you don't have to 
take my word for it.
  What's interesting is that, back in 1999, President Clinton 
recognized that we had a Medicare problem, a spending problem within 
Medicare. So what did President Clinton do? He appointed a Medicare 
commission. Who led that commission? One of the co-chairs was a 
Democrat Senator from Louisiana, John Breaux. John Breaux was an 
advocate for something called ``premium support.''
  So the plan that we're advocating, that we've passed in the House, 
was not created by a few in a back room last week or a couple of months 
ago. It's based on something that the Clinton Medicare commission 
discussed in 1999. I just want to point this out.
  This is an excerpt from an op-ed written by Senator Breaux. He says, 
``What exactly is a `premium support model,' and what does my 
particular version do? `Premium support' means the government would 
literally support or pay part of the premium for a defined core package 
of Medicare benefits.''
  Look at this. This is the Democrat Senator, Clinton's co-chair of the 
Medicare commission. In 1999, he says, ``This is not a voucher program 
but an alternative to the current system. My plan combines the best 
that the private sector has to offer with the government protections we 
need to maintain the social safety net.''
  It's pretty clear it's not a voucher program. No matter what you've 
heard, it's not a voucher program. I've said repeatedly that it's the 
type of plan that we have, and others have said, no, that's not true. 
Well, Senator Breaux thinks it's true. He says, ``I've proposed a 
premium support Medicare plan, modeled after the health care plan, 
serving nearly 10 million Federal workers, retirees and their 
families.'' So there is a lot of misinformation out there, and I ask 
folks to get the facts.
  I would like to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. DOLD. I thank the gentleman from Arkansas, and I thank my 
colleagues for coming down this evening to have this important 
discussion about the direction of our Nation.
  I can tell you I've had an opportunity to talk to a number of 
Congressmen, several of them in the freshman class and who come from 
different backgrounds. By ``different backgrounds,'' I mean that they 
don't come from the traditional political realm. They come from 
business: those who have met a budget, who have met a payroll and who 
have created jobs.

                              {time}  1810

  There's no question that some of the big issues that we face today 
are about jobs and the economy. How do we jump-start the economy? How 
do we create more jobs? I think that certainly the Federal Government 
is going to play a role, and the role the Federal Government can play 
is to create an environment that allows the private sector to grow and 
to thrive.
  We have heard tonight about our debt and our deficit. The deficit 
that we face right now is significant. We're doing about $1.5 trillion 
in deficit spending. The gentleman from Indiana talked about our debt 
and how fast we're mounting this debt. When I talk in my town hall 
meetings and I ask people does anybody have any idea what $1.5 trillion 
really means, I tell them that my daughter, who is 9, she knows what 
1.5 is. She says it's a little bit more than one and not quite two. And 
I say, You know what, Harper?

[[Page H3268]]

That's exactly right. But when we say $1.5 trillion, it works out to be 
about $3.4 million a minute. Another way to look at it is $58,000 a 
second. We can't even say it fast enough. $58,000 a second is what 
we're spending in deficit spending right now.
  Now, the chart that was up just a little bit before talked about the 
pie and what we were spending. The big thing that we're looking at in 
terms of the discretionary spending, our discretionary spending went up 
84 percent over the last 2 years, 84 percent. Now, I know household 
incomes across my district and across America did not go up 84 percent, 
but let's be fair. A significant portion of that was the stimulus 
package. So if we strip out the stimulus and say that we're not even 
going to include that, discretionary spending over the last 2 years 
went up 24 percent. That's still a heck of a lot more than families 
that have tightened their belts all across America have dealt with over 
the last several years.
  There is no question; we have a spending problem in Washington. We've 
had a spending problem in Washington for a long time on both sides of 
the aisle. And I'm here to say that we are prepared to say things have 
to change. I'm not here pointing my finger in any direction, but saying 
I know that my colleagues and I on both sides of the aisle are prepared 
to roll up our sleeves and get something done.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. DOLD. I absolutely will yield.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Would you agree with me that there is no way 
to address the debt issue without entitlement reform, and that 
entitlement reform must include Medicare?
  Mr. DOLD. There is no question in my mind. But the big issues that we 
face at this point in time have to be dealing with the mandatory 
spending, of which entitlement reform--and I had a town hall meeting 
just this weekend where somebody said that he doesn't like the idea of 
calling it an ``entitlement,'' seeing that he's paid into a system all 
of his life. He likes to, prefers to call it ``earned benefits.''
  The long and the short of it is that the mandatory spending that's 
going on needs to be addressed. What we've done in this budget is try 
to address what's going on in terms of the mandatory spending. There is 
no question that it's going to spiral out of control. It's growing at a 
rate of 7.2 percent each year. It's growing by leaps and bounds and 
will eventually take over the entire Federal budget.
  So we have to talk about Medicare. We talk about saving Medicare, 
which is critically important. In Lake County, part of my district, 
trying to find a physician that's willing to take additional Medicare 
patients is very difficult to find. The Mayo Clinic in Arizona is 
recently saying that they're not taking any more Medicare patients. 
This, to me, is alarming.
  What we need to be doing today is trying to come together to have a 
fact-based conversation with the American public so that we can solve 
the big issues of our time. I'm fearful that I may be the first 
generation of Americans that leaves our country worse than the one I 
received from my parents and grandparents; and that, to me, is 
absolutely unacceptable.
  We have to talk about how do we grow revenues. We're going to grow 
revenues on the backs of the private sector. We have to address the 
mandatory spending that's going on here in Washington.
  And everything must be on the table. That means that defense has to 
be on the table. It means that agriculture has to be on the table, 
every single department. But what we do need is we do need to have a 
willing partner on the other side of the aisle that is willing to come 
to the table and have this discussion about what it is that we need to 
do to put ourselves on the right course.
  We know that the attack ads have come in. They're saying that 
Medicare as we know it is going to end. Well, that's true. It's going 
to end because it's going to go bankrupt if we do nothing in 9 years. I 
believe that we have to strengthen Medicare for future generations.
  The plan that's been put in place says to those seniors, those that 
have paid into the system for years and years, that we must keep our 
promises. So for those 55 and older, there are no changes. For those 54 
and younger, many of them don't even believe that there is going to be 
a social safety net for them. I believe that we have to strengthen it. 
We have to strengthen it so that it is there for future generations.
  So what we want to do today is make sure that we are coming to the 
table to have a fact-based conversation about the problems that we 
face. And I know that we have to have that serious conversation now. I 
came to Congress to be part of a solution.
  The other night, I was tucking my 9-year-old into bed and she asked 
me quite simply, Why are you not here during the week, Daddy? And I had 
to tell her, It's because I am trying to make the country a better 
place for you and your brothers and sisters. She said, Is it working? I 
said, I certainly hope so. We're going to do everything we can to make 
sure that the next generation has a better and stronger America than 
the one that you and I know today.

  So it is time for us to have this conversation. It is time for us to 
step up. And I certainly want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas for 
putting this time together. I look forward to coming back up again and 
having some more conversations about it. But the time is now. We cannot 
wait any longer.
  Certainly taking time away from my business, from the employees and 
other family members, and one of the reasons that I decided to run--and 
I see my other colleague over here, a small business owner, one of the 
reasons he decided to run as well--is that the Federal Government was 
making it harder and harder for me to put the key in the door and open 
up my business each and every day. That's not what we want to do. They 
should be making it easier for us to put the key in the door. They 
should be making it easier to be able to provide benefits to those 
people with whom we work.
  So with that, I appreciate the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I just want to point out that the gentleman 
from Illinois mentioned some of the nonsense, some of the attacks that 
the other side has been making on those of us who are trying to save 
Medicare and responsibly deal with the budget. The Union Leader 
newspaper took a look at some of the attacks and said, ``Ending 
Medicare''--the idea that we're trying to end it--``is a big scary 
lie.'' And PolitiFact, which is a Web site that takes a look at 
political attacks--it determines how much validity there is--it gave 
our colleagues on the other side, it gave their attacks the ``pants on 
fire'' rating--as in, ``liar, liar, pants on fire''--on their Truth-O-
Meter. So there's a lot of misinformation out there.
  I would like to now yield to my colleague from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. KELLY. I appreciate that.
  To my friend from Arkansas and the rest of my colleagues that are 
here tonight, I have to tell you, it's only been about 4 months since 
we all came here, and I think we all came for the right reason. We came 
for a cause and not a career.
  I have got to tell you, the reason I am here tonight is because I had 
a telephone town hall today, and the folks that called me were seniors. 
The disturbing part about the conversations were that the most 
vulnerable folks out there, the people who lived within their means for 
the longest, made the most sacrifices, did the most to keep the promise 
that America holds for all of us, are the ones that are being attacked 
now. And they are not being attacked with facts; they are being 
attacked with fear.
  I have friends who are Democrats, but I would ask them to please, if 
you can't confuse them, then try to convince them. If you don't have 
the right facts, then quit using fear. And if they're going to use fear 
to make these people not able to sleep at night, to make it 
uncomfortable for them to lay their head on the pillow at night, the 
same people that have done so much to make the country great, if you 
are going to continue to lie to them and tell them, Those Republicans 
are going to take away your health care; they're going to take away 
Medicare; they are going to take away Medicaid; they're going to ruin 
Social Security for you, please, please, play by the rules. Play by the 
rules. Do what's right. Do what's right for America.

[[Page H3269]]

  This is not about Republicans. This is not about Democrats. This is 
about Americans. And this is especially about seniors. I am one right 
now. My birthday was just the other day. I am 63 years old. I don't 
think of myself as a senior. But you know what? The folks that I see 
after church on Sunday and who I have coffee with, they are seniors. 
They are in their seventies and they are in their eighties, and to have 
to sit there with them and tell them, We are not taking away your 
Medicare. We're the only ones that have a plan to save it.

                              {time}  1820

  We are not taking away your Social Security. We're the only ones that 
have a plan to make sure it's safe. If we can't be honest, if we can't 
look each other in the eye and say that we are here to fix it, that we 
are here to make America have the stability that it once had; if we can 
not tell our seniors, it's okay folks, we're not going to take anything 
from you, we're going to work together to get it fixed--and this is the 
thing that bothers me. After listening to those folks today on the 
phone, I am convinced that there is something seriously wrong within 
this House.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KELLY. I will yield.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. You know, you hit a point that seniors 
are thinking about. They're thinking that they're on a fixed income. 
They're looking at rising prices, whether it's at the gas pump--we 
talked today about solving American energy issues, but they're thinking 
about the rising commodity prices.
  I brought with me a bank note, this is an official currency note from 
the Bank of Zimbabwe. If you look at it, and I know it's going to be 
difficult, but it's a $100 trillion bank note. A Wall Street Journal 
article said, How to turn $100 trillion into $5 and feel good about it. 
It's worth about $5 on eBay. They quit printing them in 2009.
  It drives home the point that the policies of this administration are 
increasing the cost of commodities, the cost of fuel, devaluing our 
currency, and that applies to health care as well.
  Seniors are concerned. They've got every right to be concerned. One 
thing about the Republican budget, and one thing that the gentleman 
from Arkansas is trying to point out, that we're trying to solve the 
problems of this Nation here in this body. This Republican freshman 
class is taking the bull by the horns to bring home the issue to the 
American people and let them know we're trying to solve these problems. 
So I commend him.
  Mr. KELLY. I appreciate that. If I may, and I'm going to wrap up. We 
came here for a cause. We did not come here for a career. And if you 
cannot win the debate by using facts, and if you have to use fear, then 
shame on you. Shame on you. Go home. Go home. If you don't want to fix 
it, if you don't want to play by the rules, if you don't want to make 
America sleep safely again and sleep soundly, then go home.
  There is a level of fairness that needs to be played by. And I will 
tell you this, I have never in my life been subjected and have watched 
seniors been put through so much, and it's not necessary.
  If it's about your party, and if it's about trying to convince them, 
then doggone it, you're using the wrong message. Let's make sure that 
we fix it for the future, because it's there for our seniors, and it's 
there for our children.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Thank you very much for that.
  I now yield to the lady from New York.
  Ms. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleagues from South 
Carolina and from Arkansas for putting together this hour, which is of 
so much value.
  I am here as a physician who's also a Member of Congress. I've had 
the privilege of taking care of elderly patients for 16 years in 
private practice and in hospital settings, and I have two parents whom 
I cherish who have been Medicare recipients for many years.
  And the facts of the case, as our colleague from Pennsylvania has 
aptly pointed out, we have to go by the facts of the case. And as a 
doctor, that's what we always did, and approach them with compassion 
and sensitivity to be sure.
  But the facts of the case are that we currently have roughly 10,000 
Americans, baby boomers, now entering Medicare eligibility every day. 
On average, each of them will have contributed approximately $110,000 
in payroll taxes over their lifetimes, and that's a lot of money. 
There's no question. But, Medicare will spend, on average, it's 
projected, approximately $330,000 on their care. As all of us can tell, 
unfortunately, that's not something that we can sustain. That's not 
something that our children and our grandchildren will be able to pay 
for. That is what is threatening the future for everyone, including our 
seniors and including all of us who will be senior citizens, Good Lord 
willing, by and by.
  We know that in the Affordable Care Act measures were taken to 
control the cost of Medicare. One of the measures, in fact, took 
funding away from Medicare, roughly half a trillion dollars. So we know 
we need to do something about it.
  The way the Affordable Care Act approaches it is to have the 
Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, which is a board of 
bureaucrats that's going to decide how money is spent on our seniors' 
care. I, as a doctor, and as a daughter, would much prefer to see us 
have that choice. That's why premium support makes sense.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

                          ____________________