didn't have such large deficits or if the republicans were not targeting children's health services, then maybe we could have a debate over whether or not it's a good idea to give big oil companies taxpayer subsidies. you know, the american taxpayers, they pay when they go to the bump and then you ask them to pay again when they file their tax return. we don't have to do that in america. i would propose that the better -- the more important priority for american families is to look at eliminating those tax subsidies for the big oil companies rather than asking our neighbors to be able to -- to stop -- rather than ask our neighbors to put all the burden on middle class families and the seniors and the disabled in this country. at this i would like to yield three minutes to miss schwartz. >> well, thank you, and i want

to speak in support of this motion, and, again, to reiterate some of the really very important points that my colleague, miss castor, made in, really reflecting the choice that is being presented by the republican majority in this motion and understand it is a choice. they are choosing to cut millions of dollars, and it's always an interesting kind of millions of dollars, but these are services to our frailest seniors and our most vulnerable children instead of reducing taxpayer subsidies for not even all of our oil and gas companies, just biggest five oil and gas companies. instead of taking some of those taxpayer subsidies and eliminating them for the oil and gas industry, some of them at least, and instead maintaining the relationship that we now have with our seniors and our most vulnerable children and our states to be able to continue to

provide the needed services for our children. medicaid as was described by miss castor is understood mostly as health services for pregnant women and poor children, and it is, and those are relatively inexpensive services, and they make a huge difference in the lives of women and children in this country. saving one neo-natal complication can save not only huge personal costs and sacrifice and pain and suffering that could go over a lifetime but real desave huge dollars and that's what pre-natal services are all about and that's what getting health services to the most vulnerable children are. i'm sure all of you heard this, i hear stories over and over again about children who receive screenings for hearing and eye testing, who are able to get eyeglasses and perform well in school rather than waiting and missing that opportunity. so the choice is to deny

millions of children in this country those eye exams or hearing exams and instead to protect the largest oil and gas companies that really honestly don't need it. they don't need the taxpayer subsidies anymalcolm forbes and i know it's been a high priority of the republican budget and the republicans in so many of the motions this year, but the contrast is really one that is hard to -- to sort of swallow. let me just mention one other group that's going to be desperately hurt by this. medicaid not only pays those women in pre-natal care and children's health services but pays for nursing home care and home services for our frailest, sickest seniors. you're talking about 80, 85-year-old, 90-year-olds, some are frail and our most disabled seniors. after 90 days medicaid doesn't pay anymore. the two choices states will have either to pick up the cost

themselves or families will have to pick it up, or those seniors will no longer be able to get those kinds of services. that's the choice that they are making. these are cuts that sound like they are budget cuts. they are government cuts, what difference can it make? it makes an absolute difference to every one of those seniors, every one of those children that rely on these health services every day to meet the kind of -- to get the kind of care that they need, so instead of working on -- with us on how you improve health outcomes, how do you reduce costs of health care in the country in the right way, they are slashing spending for our most vulnerable seniors and our children and it matters in the lives of middle class families every day in this country so it's a very straightforward motion. choose to take a little bit of taxpayer money away from the oil and gas administration and make sure that our most vulnerable children and seniors in this country can continue to have the health care that they need.

i strongly support this motion, and would i hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would reconsider it and would as well, and i yield back. >> good. i'd like to yield three minutes to mr. yarmouth from kentucky. >> i thank my friend from florida. mr. speaker, today "fortune" magazine published its list of the fortune 500 companies for 2012. number one on the list, exxon mobil, $542.9 billion in revenues last year and an annual profit of 41 billion. number three on the list chevron, $246.6 billion in revenues, $26.9 billion in profit. number four, conoco phillips, $237.2 billion in revenue, $12.4 billion in profit. number 12, valero energy, $125 billion in revenue, $2 billion

in profit. just those four companies in the top 12, over $1 trillion in revenue and $82 billion in profit. taking the subsidy that we now provide to those oil companies away from them is like asking derrick jeetder to pay for his own gatorade. it's not going to affect his game. he's not going to get fewer hits. he's not going to try any less hard, but taking health care away from at least 300,000 young americans will affect their games, may keep them off the field permanently. it lernl wicertainly will cost far more because we don't detect problems early in their lives. these choices are so stark and so clear and so compelling that it's hard for me to understand how anyone could balance the

equities and say we should not take the subsidy away from the oil companies. indeed, the oil companies themselves don't argue for them. in 2005 the oil company executives, all the people were talking about testified before a congressional committee and said we don't need these. we've not asked for them. in 2005 also, president george w. bush said once oil gets beyond $50 a barrel, there's no justification for these subsidies. oil is now over $100 a barrel. so i'm hard pressed to find any substantial reason to continue these oil companies' subsidies even if they never cost human beings anything, but here in this particular budget reconciliation act we have to make choices, and the choices are the health of american children or taking derek jeter's gatorade away from him.

i think the american people given that choice would side with america's children, so i urge adoption of this motion to instruct, and i thank the gentle laid freflorida for propose tmpinproposeing is. i yield back. >> this time i'm pleased to yield three minutes to mr. dotting from texas. >> thank you. this motion like many other reconciliation matters is really just designed to place the burden on our most vulnerable neighbors for their effort to try to get our budget in better order. in giving the states much broader discretion the only way that we will save money is if that discretion is exercised

norodom sihanoin order to extend coverage to more people. while the affordable care act extended coverage to 30 million of the uninsured, the only way that that can be fully fulfilled is for medicaid to be accessible to those who need it the most. denying coverage to those in medicaid or setting up various and asundry phony restrictions such as frequent renewal of coverage to hope that some poor people will be unable to access the coverage just means that fewer children will get vaccinations, that fewer pregnant women will get the pre-natal care that they need, that fewer seniors will be able to access quality nursing home care or other times of long-term care, and it means that several of my colleagues have noted that we'll find 400,000 people losing their coverage. and like the republican plan to eliminate the prevention in

public health fund which we recently discussed, it really doesn't save our society money in the long run because these newly uninsured individuals, just as was one of the reasons for enacting the affordable health care act in the first place, they will still need health care, and many of them will receive the most expensive form of it by filling our emergency rooms. just like the chairman's plan to block grant medicaid, and we'll be hearing more about block grants with a motion that i'll offer later in the afternoon. they are really block and cut grants, but just like the plan to block grant medicaid, this proposal is down under the guise of giving the states more authority over medicaid programs. we've had some experience with this in texas. in texas in 2010 governor perry was given almost $850 million

extra at the same time we made some funding decisions concerning education for medicaid. i've yet to find one child or one senior who got improved health care services as a result of that near billion dollars of federal expenditures. in fact, texas within a few days of receiving this $850 billion, even though it was near the bottom of the states in its reimbursement to physicians, it took the near billion dollars from the federal government and then proceeded to cut those payments further using the money to plug unrelated budget holes. i have no confidence that the changes being made here today will result in anything other than substantial reductions in the quality of care and in the number of people who can access care in my home state. no one can doubt that we need to address our rising deficit. we have a way as the gentleman

from kentucky was just noting to ask not just miss lopez who is a senior trying to access long-term health care, but mr. exxon to contribute a little in this effort to find a fair and responsible budget. the republican way, just taking from the pockets of the elderly and cutting health services for children without adding a single -- without closing a single tax loophole is just the opposite of fair and responsible and reasonable. so i support the gentle woman's motion and hope that it can be adopted to add a tad of equity in what is a very inequitable reconciliation measure. i yield back. >> mr. chairman, i yield the remaining time to mr. ryan from ohio. >> i thank the gentle lady. i would just like to build on

the point that mr. doggett just made. these cuts in the short term are not only going to cost us some money in the long run and these folks will ultimately need to get on the health care system in some capacity, but the most recent studies now are saying that by not taking care of these young people at a very young age, you're literally changing the genetic makeup of their body to where it is going to increase their chances of being sicker and costing the health care system more money in the long run, so these are very, very wise investments to be made in the short term, and if we are all concerned with what the health care costs that are going to put pressure on the budgets, whether it's medicaid or medicare or just the health care system in general, let us recognize the most recent science and recognize that these early investments are going to save us billions and billions of dollars in the long run, so this may be penny wise and pound

foolish, and i think in the long term it's going to end up costing us a lot more money than the money we would be able to inject into the system now for preventive measures. i yield back to the gentle lady. >> the gentle lady yields back. does anyone wish to claim time in opposition? >> mr. chair, i oppose. >> the chair recognizes mr mr. akita 30 minutes in opposition. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i'll be yielding throughout to respond to the motion to instruction. i think the jeank the gentle la motion in the sense that no one here doesn't care about the issue that she and others who have spoken so far brought up, but as they were speaking, with the help of the gentleman from mr. new hampshire mr. begin tgi looked up some facts and figures and realized what we're really trying to do with this budget

and with the intendant savings n.2010 and forward, every day we went $3.5 billion more in debt. that's $2.5 million a minute. last month, april 2012, we paid interest to private citizens, other countries in the amount of $1 billion a day. how many children could we have helped with $1 billion a day? how many more? how many more seniors in nursing homes could we have helped if we didn't let $1 billion a day go up in smoke? $1 billion a day because we don't know how to live within

our means, because by listening to the claims like the ones we've just heard we try to solve everyone's problems all the time, and in fact no matter their situation, if we continue on that path, if we -- if we go to the path that this motion recommends, these programs won't be around for the most neediest of us, and that's what we're here to address. the current medicaid program is simply unsustainable. over the past decade, spending has increased roughly 50%, growing from $182 billion in fiscal year 2004 to $276 billion in 2013. over the next decade the congressional budget office estimates federal spending under current law will increase 125%, reaching 622 billion by 2022.

including all the medicaid reforms contained in the energy and commerce reconciliation submission, spending still reaches, this is with the reforms, that we've just heard quite frankly these ridiculous claims saying that people are going to be cut and genetic mutations are going to occur, even under our reforms, spending still reaches 616 billion, a 123% increase over fiscal year 2013. this increase is due in large part to the massive expansions in the medicaid and chp programs recommended under the president's health care law. cbo costs, $10 billion over the next ten years, and what do we have to show for all this spending. we have fewer doctors participating in the system every day. we still have frayed state budgets, and we have denied benefits for the most needy

patients. these restrictions prevent states or the restrictions placed on the maintenance of restrictions placed on the president's affordable health care now law these restrictions prevent states from managing their enrollment that meets the needs of their citizens, billions the budgets and made common sense measures to root out waste, fraud and abuse. flexibility is the key. allow the states to have the creativity they need to determine who the most needy are, who the most poor are in their populations, what kind of health care they need and how they should get it and allow them the flexibility to properly go after the abuses in the system, and there are abuses.

i know you hear about them every day just like i do. states could be much more effective in addressing these abuses going after the fraud that's in the system. one other point about the oil, quote, unquote subsidies. for the record, mr. chairman, i'd like to put into the record a march 14th -- march 14th, 2012 editorial from the "wall street journal." >> without objection. >> the federal energy information administration, according to this editorial, reports that the industry, the oil and gas industry, paid some $35.7 billion in corporate income taxes in 2009, the latest year for which data is available. that alone is about 10% of non-defense discretionary spending, and it would cover a

lot of solyndras quite frankly. that figure also doesn't count exorcise taxes, state taxes, rents, royalty and fees and bonus payments. all tolled, the government rakes in $86 million from oil and gas every day. $86 million, far more than any other business. not paying their fair share? here's a staggering fact. the tax foundation estimates that between 1981 and 2008 oil and gas companies sent more dollars to washington and to state capitals than they earned in profits with shareholders. with that i'd like to yield two minutes to the chairman. >> i might take just a little bit more than that if the gentleman doesn't mind. >> as much time as the gentleman wants. >> thank you. you know, i think around here we spend too much of our time in our intellectual effort measuring compassion for those in need by measuring inputs.

how much money are we spending? how much money are we increasing spending? how many programs are we creating, but we're not measuring outcomes. are these programs working? are people getting out of poverty, and we need to focus on that, because if we simply measure inputs, medicaid's phenomenally successful. a 50% increase in the past ten years and a forthcoming 125% increase in the next ten years, or if this passes into law, 123% increase over the next ten years, but surveys are telling us that doctors aren't even taking medicaid patients. one recent survey said that approximately half of all our doctors aren't going to take any additional medicaid patients because they lose money every time a medicaid patient walks into their office. omb told us that last year medicaid made $22 billion in improper payments. that means fraud, waste, $22

billion. that's more than my state's budget in wasteful spending, so the program is not working. one of the reasons why the program is not working, according to state legislators and governors, people in charge of putting the program in place is, all the strings they get from washington. they want flexibility. they want to be able to customize this program so that it works in their states for their populations so that they can get at the waste, the fraud, so that they can make sure that their doctors will accept their patients. it's been called stability requirement. that to me just means strings from washington. what we're doing with this policy is giving more flexibility to states so that they can fix these problems because they are closer to the people who are in need. we don't have all the answers in washington. if we did, this wouldn't be such a problem, but it is a huge problem. another point. i think we're going to hear this oil and gas pay for all day

long. been on ways and means for 12 years, gone through this quite a bit. dual capacity, okay. this provision basically says that unlike any other country, any other industrialized country in the world, if you're a u.s. company and you make money overseas by drilling for oil overseas or making something overseas or selling something overseas, in the only will you pay that foreign company tax, you'll pay the u.s. tax at the same time. you know what this will do? this will make sure that those companies that the gentlemen ja talked about, exxon, chevron, they won't be u.s. companies, they will be french companies. we tried this before. we did this to the u.s. shipping industries in the 1982 when we repealed the foreign tax credits and you know what happened, we don't have a u.s. shipping industry anymore. no way these businesses will continue to survive as u.s. businesses if they are going to be taxed twice, when every one of their foreign competitors is

taxed once. so on a spreadsheet and on paper, yes, it might say you're going to raise some money. you won't raise a cent from this policy because every one of these companies will have to quickly rush to be bought by a foreign company, so then we won't even have an american oil and gas economy or business or company that does business overseas. they can't survive in the global economy if we do that. 199, when we passed section 199, it was after lots of disputes with the world trade organization through an export tax subsidy first called disc, then fisk and then eti. without getting this, lloyd knows all of this, without getting into all the details of this stuff, we couldn't subsidize our exporters with direct export taxes because it violated the wto, so congress in a bipartisan basis, those who are -- many of the people who are here probably voted for it back in those days. i think it was '05, lloyd, crockett me if i'm wrong about

the date. we said, okay, if you make something in america, you'll pay lower tax rates than if you don't so specifically american manufacturers pay a 32% effective tax rate instead of a 35% effective tax rate. if you make a name plate, a microphone, a pencil, a cup, a clock or if you drill or produce oil or gas in america, you'll pay a lower tax rate. what this amendment says and what this rhetoric says is no, no, no, no. that's a huge giveaway and subsidy to oil and gas. no, it's if you make something in america, you pay a lower tax rate because we want to encourage things to be made in america. what they are saying is, no, set aside just this one industry and raise their tax rate, so if you make something in america, you'll pay the lower tax rate unless it's oil and gas. then you'll pay the higher tax rate. so all we're achieving with this policy is we're saying you're going to pay much higher tax rates than if you make something in america.

we're basically increasing taxes on american-made energy, making us more dependant on foreign oil and gas, raising the price of oil and gas which does nothing but damage to our economy, so i realize these are good poll-tested sound bites that might make for great campaign fodder, but all they will end up doing is chasing oil and gas out of this country, making us more dependant on foreign oil and gas, raising the price of oil and gas in order to try and keep more strings on a program that is failing our poor. we want poor kids and families when they go into the doctor's office to be able to be seen by a doctor and that's not happening. we need to address that, and we ought to empower those who are elect the at the local units of government to be able to do just that. with that i yield back to mr. rokit sgla thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to yield five minutes to mr. langford. >> thank you. it is interesting in my state that the president recently came to oklahoma, stood in curbing,

oklahoma in front of a bunch of empty green oil pipes and celebrated increased domestic production, but at the same time we're talking about while we're increasing domestic production on private land, trying to now raise taxes on them, which will slow down domestic production on private land. increasing jobs in american energy is a good thing for us, and we don't need to say, okay, we can either have jobs in energy or we can have this. we need to be able to find a way to do both, and the way you do that is through increased efficiency. i understand the optics are good to say that the republicans are against children and women and elderly but they are for energy companies. just the facts don't line up with that. the facts really are that, yeah, we don't have a problem with domestic energy production. we do like to see lower prices at the gas, at the pump. we think that it does disproportionately hurt the poor when the price of gas goes up. those that have a fixed income

have a very difficult time when gas moves from $3 to $4 a gallon. that may not affect people that are wealthy very much. that affects the poor a tremendous amount, and so to increase production and to continue to provide a mechanism that we have greater and greater american jobs in the energy segment and that we have more and more production here to keep the price down with supply high, that's a good thing. that's a good thing for all of america and all of our production and to continue to come back to what was a bipartisan agreement, things like the 199 agreement back in 2005, that, yes, there were members of this committee on both sides of the aisle that voted for that now to be able to come back to it and say, no, just kidding. you look at the oil energy, for instance, in that -- in the manufacturing tax credit, it's already hit. it's a 6% tax credit for oil production. it's 9% for starbucks. it's a 9% for apple computer. it's 9% for the "new york times," so to be able to look at some companies and say, you know what, for all companies that do

manufacturing in america except for oil, they will get hit 3% has already occurred. now there's a statement saying come back and say, no, just kidding. we ewant to hit them even more at this point begs the question of why. it also pushes us back to look at what's really happening. this is not a statement to say let's end medicaid, let's end the chp program. let's slash -- the changes that were made here were just made two years ago or three years ago, this is not some dramatic shift to say we're shifting what's happened since 1965. this is taking us back to how we functioned in medicaid since 1965 and didn't add the additional mandates that were added on with the recent health care law. it's also not 300,000 children going out on to the streets without insurance. if you look at what cbo reported, according to current law, this change it will take those children and put them into the exchange program. they are looking at only what cbo can lo