to assure economic growth and a continued recovery. the american people are sick and tired of political antics. let me point out this bill is so flawed, it leaves out the veterans who come home and can't get work and are lined up with their families at food banks across this country. this resolution leaves out decisions regarding food supplies to those pantries so essential to holding life together for our veterans and for millions of other americans. what about those vets lined up to exercise their g.i. benefits at local community colleges? this resolution turns its back on those veterans' educational funding at community colleges. . what about those vets with disabilities? this resolution turns its back on them and those adjudication judges that also get paychecks from the government of the

united states to do their job. let me urge the majority to do what the american people sent us here to do and that is to govern. to govern for all. not leave anyone out. not leeven or -- leave our veterans out. not leave the vast majority of americans out. i ask my colleagues to defeat this flawed resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield one minute to a member of our committee, and a good one, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. dent, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. dent: thank you, madam speaker. passing this measure is absolutely the responsible thing to do. we are on the brink of an affordable and potentially disrupted shutdown. first and foremeese we ensure our troops are funded for their service to the nation. let's get that done. but the american people elected us to ensure the federal government runs effectively and efficiently and allowing even a

temporary shutdown is a failure of our most basic responsibility as members of congress. let's not forget the reason we are here today and this in predicament. it's the inability of the democratic leadership last year to pass a budget, didn't even try, and they failed to complete any of the appropriations bills. senator schumer has made it quite clear that a government shutdown is in his political interest. perhaps that's why the senate isn't doing anything. you overwhelm have two paces over there, slow and glacial. today was a new day in the senate. they started slowly and winding down from there. i wish they get to work and pass an appropriations bill. we passed an appropriations bill. they passed nothing. we either get this done. it's important to fund the troops, keep the government opened. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. dicks: how much time do we have on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington has eight minutes remaining. and the gentleman from kentucky has 10 1/2 minutes.

mr. dicks: would the gentleman like to go ahead with a couple more speakers at this juncture? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield one minute to a brand new member of our committee and hardworking one at that, the gentleman from ohio, mr. austria. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. austria: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the chairman for yielding and his great leadership. just a reminder why we are standing here again debating another c.r. on this floor is because the democrat leadership in the last congress did not fulfill the most basic function that we have in the united states congress, and that is passing a budget or a single appropriations bill. as a member of this appropriations committee, i am pleased that today we have a c.r. bill that will have another $12 billion worth of cuts. and that as importantly will fund, fully fund the department of defense for the rest of this

fiscal year. 47 days ago that we passed a bill in this house that would have kept government opened, that would have cut $100 billion from the president's 2011 budget and fully fund our troops through the end of 2011. any bill we pass must include full funding for our men and women serving in our military. i represent wright patterson air force base, one of the largest air force facilities in the contry, they can be forced to furlough many of its 27,000 military civilians and contractors. we have to pass the c.r. budget. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. is the gentleman from washington continuing to reserve? mr. dicks: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i yield one minute to another new member of our committee and a new member of congress, he's doing a great job, the gentleman from mississippi, mr. nunnelee,

one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized for one minute. mr. nunnelee: thank you, madam speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. we are engaged in a budget battle for the future of our country. but we have the freedom to engage in that battle because of the brave men and women that have their lives on the line fighting for that freedom. have we forgotten? only 10 years ago there are those who would have destroyed this very building and disrupted these proceedings by an act of terror. and we have men and women today fighting to make sure that those acts of terror are never repeated. that's their mission. and it's unconscionable that we would send men and women into harm's way and not fund their efforts. that's why we need to pass this bill because if we do, we will have the liberty to pursue our mission while our men and women in uniform have the liberty to pursue theirs.

thank you, mr. president. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. dicks: i yield myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. dicks: i remind the gentleman that if we had a clean c.r. the troops would also be taken care of, and a clean c.r. would be signed into law by the president of the united states so it would be effective. what is being proposed today will be vetoed. the president has already sent a statement. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. dicks: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from texas, sheila jackson lee, who is a distinguished member of this institution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the ranking member and i thank the members on this floor today. i believe that this is one of

the most serious debates that we will have in the history of this congress. it is whether or not america belongs to all people and not special interests. coming from the state of texas, i can tell you that statistics will say that we probably have the highest number of men and women serving in the united states military, a large number of bases, a large number of veterans, and we well know of the values of those men and women who sacrifice and lead their families -- leave their families and go overseas. but i said yesterday on the floor of the house we have values. as my colleagues have said, can we say it one more time, we will support a clean c.r. to pay our troops, to pay their families, to keep the doors of our hospitals opened, to provide medicare for our seniors and medicaid, and education for our children, but, no, friends on the other side are strangled by

special interests, pickett signs, and loud shouts about shut it down. the president has already said he will veto this silly legislative initiative. why are we in the midst of a serious budget debate, by the way the ryan budget that has been put out by the republicans will deny 66% of citizens -- seniors off of medicare. they will be off. we will not balance the budget under the ryan budget until 2040. it will cause $8 trillion more debt. it's hard for america to understand this complicated process. it seems confusing, but my friends, we are talking about last year. where people have already committed, making commitments to pay their bills like you would make commitments, then in the middle you would be shortchanged or cut off. where's the heart on the other side? yes, yesterday i said shut the government down. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. jackson lee: this is

wrong-headed, misdirected. i ask you to vote it down. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield one minute, madam speaker, to the gentleman from alabama, a member of the armed services committee, mr. brooks. one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for one minute. mr. brooks: thank you, madam speaker. let's remind everybody why we are here. we are here because we are trying to save our federal government from unsustainable budget deficits. during the regime, the regime of nancy pelosi as house speaker and majority leader over in the senate, harry reid, we have had four consecutive budget deficits that average $1.2 billion a year. those are unsustainable. they threaten our federal government solvency. we are facing a national bankruptcy. so what are we trying to do today? we are trying to protect our troops who are in afghanistan and iraq so that they don't have to worry about whether their homes are going to be foreclosed on as they are off doing battle

and their kids and wives are at home. that's what this bill -- no, i will not yield. we have people from alabama who are -- a lady who has two young children age 3 twins and she's fighting on behalf of our country. we have soldiers that i met in afghanistan and iraq that are fighting on our behalf. and i ask that this house and this senate do what we should do and that is protect our troops by funding this. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. brooks: don't believe them in the position where they are not able -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. dicks: madam speaker, does the gentleman from kentucky have further speakers? why don't we -- why don't you go ahead.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. dicks: i reserve my time. mr. rogers: may i inquire of the gentleman how many more speakers? mr. dicks: i have one speaker. that's me to finish. last speaker. you have the right to close as i understand it. mr. rogers: i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from indiana for three minutes, mr. pence. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. pence: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pence: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of the department of defense and further continuing appropriations act. this one-week continuing resolution will fully fund the department of defense for the remainder of the fiscal year and reduce government spending by $12 billion and it is worthy of the support of every member of congress. look, no one wants a government

shutdown. but if we don't take a stand for fiscal discipline in washington, d.c., we are going to shut down -- mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield? mr. pence: i respectfully will not. to be honest with you, i'm frustrated that we are here again with another stopgap measure. i'm frustrated that liberals in the senate continue to resist efforts to accept even modest budget cuts in this year's budget. we are talking about a 2% reduction in this year's budget. that's unacceptable to the liberals down the hallway. it seems like liberals in the senate would rather shut the government down than accept a 2% cut in the federal budget. it seems like liberals in the senate would rather shut the government down so they can continue to borrow money from china to fund the largest abortion provider in america. but in this moment i'm going to support this resolution because the troops come first. we cannot put fiscal battles

ahead of support for those who are currently engaged in america's real battles. this c.r. reaffirms our commitment to our troops. it fully funds d.o.d. for the balance of the year and reaffirms our commitment to our most cherished ally, israel, during these uncertain days. earlier this week senator reid said the biggest gap in negotiations is between republicans and republicans. nothing could be further from the truth. the biggest gap in these negotiations over a possible government shutdown are between liberals here in washington, d.c., and the american people. that's where the gaps lie. the american people want to restore fiscal discipline and provide for the common defense and they know we can do it. today senator reid took to the floor of the senate and called this very resolution, quote, a sure-fire way to shut down the government. and astonishingly the commander in chief has threatened to veto a bill that would fund our troops at a time of war.

astonishing. look, we are going to pass this continuing resolution. we are going to fund our troops in harm's way and stationed all across the world and all across this nation. and if democrats here in washington would rather play political games and shut down the government, than support our troops, defend our treasury, and respect our values then i say shut it down. and i'm certain the american people are going to know who to blame. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i have one remaining speaker and i would yield to the gentleman. mr. dicks: somebody besides yourself or is it yourself? mr. rogers: i have one speaker

on the way over. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman from washington prepared to close? mr. dicks: how much time do i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington has 5 3/4 minutes. mr. dicks: i want -- i yield myself 4 3/4 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington has 4 3/4 minutes, is recognized for 4 3/4 minutes. . mr. dicks: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dicks: i want to make sure that everyone heard the statement of administration policy that was submitted today. the administration opposes house passage of h.r. 1363, making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year 2011 and for other purposes. as the president stated on april 5, 2011, if negotiations are making significant process

-- progress, the administration would support a short-term clean continuing resolution to allow for enactment of a final bill. for the past several weeks the administration has worked diligently in good faith to find common ground on the shared goal of cutting spending. after giving the congress more time by signing short-term extensions into law, which by the way many of us voted for, the president believes that we need to put politics aside and work out our differences for a bill that covers the rest of the fiscal year. this bill is a distraction from the real work that would bring us closer to a reasonable compromise for funding the remainder of fiscal year 2011 and further disrupting a government shutdown that would put the nation's economy, economic recovery in jeopardy. the administration will continue to work with congress to arrive at a compromise that will fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year in a way that does not undermine future growth and job

creation and that averts a costly government shutdown. it is critical that the congress send a final bill to the president's desk that provide certainty to our men and women in military uniform. therefore, families, small businesses, homeowners, taxpayers and all americans. h.r. 1363 simply delays the critical phenomenal outcome. if presented with this bill -- critical final outcome. if presented with the bill the president will veto it. i think the president is right. what i suggested yesterday in the rules committee and to our chairman was that we go forward with a clean c.r. which we have done many times that would allow the president to sign this and us to finish our work. i would much have preferred if the clean c.r. was at a point when the president, the speaker and the majority leader had all agreed and, you know, said we're done, we needed a little more time to do the paperwork. but that is not the situation that we're in. i also want to reiterate with a

clean c.r. the troops will be paid and they will receive -- they will receive their checks as they should. and this -- the defense part of the bill i worked on. it's a good piece of legislation. when you throw in the district of columbia abortion issue it really shows that you're not serious, and that's why -- and that's why the american people i think believe that this is ideology and not people working together in a commonsense way to get this thing resolved. and do i still have time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has about 3/4 of a minute. mr. dicks: again, i'm worried what we're doing in terms of economic policy that, again, the magnitude of these cuts are going to have a negative effect on the economy. we need to create more jobs to lower the deficit and put people back to work.

i urge us to defeat this bill and i reserve the rest of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: may i inquire of the time remaining on my side, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has 4 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. rogers: and am i correct, mr. dicks, you have no further speakers? the speaker pro tempore: and the gentleman from washington has two minutes remaining. mr. dicks: i believe the democratic whip may want to propound a question to the chairman. so i'm not going to yield back my time until he has an opportunity to do that. mr. rogers: i think it's that time if it's to occur. mr. dicks: do you want to do it now? mr. rogers: i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. dicks: i yield one minute to the distinguished democratic whip, my good friend, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: i thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to ask the chairman if he will yield to me for the purposes of making a unanimous consent request that we proceed with what we would call a clean c.r. which would provide for the funding of the troops, provide for the funding of all government agencies at the levels of that we are currently at which, of course, involve all the cuts that have been made to date in the last two c.r.'s that we passed and for which i voted? this will provide, i tell my friend, the reason i want to profound this unanimous consent, it will in fact provide for a document, an act to pass this house that i believe will in fact pass the senate and will in fact be

signed by the president. as a result, we will protect our troops and we will protect all other services that government has available for the american people. and i ask my friend if he will yield to me for that purpose. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland's time has expired. mr. dicks: i yield to the gentleman another 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. hoyer: i think i have concluded, madam speaker, in asking the chairman whether he will yield to me for purpose of making that unanimous consent so that we could in fact have an act pass this house that we know would be signed by the president and will protect the troops and will keep the government open. i thank the speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: madam speaker, what the gentleman is asking if we would -- we will continue the status quo. we do not and cannot accept the status quo. mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield?

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is out of time. mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield simply for me to clarify my request? mr. dicks: i yield my remaining time to the gentleman from maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky controls the time. mr. hoyer: i understand that. will the gentleman yield for me to clarify? the speaker pro tempore: will the gentleman -- mr. rogers: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from new york, a new member of this body, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: will the gentlewoman yield? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for one minute. ms. buerkle: thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, madam speaker. i rise in support of this bill, the bill to fund our troops. the last congress failed to pass a budget and that's why we're here, that's why we're debating these c.r.'s. this continuing resolution is

the right outcome, not only for the american people but for our military. this isn't a democratic or a republican issue. this is what's best for the american people and most importantly what's best for our troops. give them certainty, give them what they need to keep us safe and allow us to be here today with this debate. i thank you and i yield my time back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized in place of the gentleman from washington. >> madam speaker, if the very distinguished chair of the committee wants to yield back we'll yield back as well. mr. moran: in the spirit of comity. i yield -- mr. rogers will

close. mr. rogers: if the gentleman will yield, i have one other speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i recognize the gentleman from arkansas, mr. griffin, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for one minute. mr. griffin: thank you, madam chairman. thank you, mr. chairman. brave men and women are in harm's way taking the fight to our enemies around the world. for families here at home they're doing all they can to keep a brave face and keep their family going. sadly, because of the senate's inaction, these families face an even greater challenge. unless the senate changes course and listens to the american people, our u.s. military families will soon not receive their paychecks. for my home state of arkansas we have over 5,000 active duty service members as well as 246 army national guardsmen deployed to afghanistan and

iraq. my district is home to little rock air force base where we have 5,500 airmen and over 15,000 military family members. think about this, ladies and gentlemen. the men and women facing our enemies every day don't want -- know whether they'll get paid. as the standard barrier for the free world, it's unacceptable and really embarrassing that america can't pay their troops for their service. this is not the time for service members and families to worry about when the next check will ariff. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. griffin: i support this bill. thank you, madam chairman. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. dicks: do i have any additional time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has one minute. mr. dicks: i'll reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman from kentucky prepared to close?

mr. rogers: i am prepared to close. i'm the remaining speaker. mr. dicks: well, let me say again -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. dicks: i yield myself the remaining time. i just want to summarize again, i'm urging a no vote on this continuing resolution. we have voted twice. many of us on this side for reasonable continuing resolutions that have gotten us to this point. this one is unreasonable. the president has made it clear that he will veto this bill. i believe what the gentleman from maryland was attempting to do was the smart and pragmatic thing and that was to go with a clean c.r. that would have kept the government open, that would have protected the troops, made sure that they got paid and would have passed the senate and would have been adopted by the president, signed into law. but they have chosen to put in a highly controversial writer

on abortion in the district of columbia which is ideological. this is not -- this is not something that a serious appropriations committee would do in the middle of a government crisis. and i hope the marn people understand that. and i yield -- and i hope the american people understand that. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. for 2 1/4 minutes. mr. rogers: how much time? the speaker pro tempore: 2 1/4 minutes. mr. rogers: thank you, madam speaker. let's try to summarize here. the democrats left us when we took control of the house in a mess. you hadn't passed a single appropriations bill. you had passed the c.r. until march 4. we prepared and put in play and passed in the house a continuing resolution that would have funned the government entirely for the balance of the year including

the military. sent it to the other body, and they've said nothing and that's been two months ago. when that time ran out in march , this body passed a second c.r. for two weeks. sent that to the senate. we haven't heard from them since. that time ran out. we passed a third c.r.. passed it to the senate. not a peep, nothing. and now a fourth time. mr. dicks: mr. chairman, you well know -- will the gentleman yield? you well know -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky controls the time. mr. rogers: now, our fourth c.r. where we're going to give the senate another chance to come forward with what they propose in a c.r. they've yet to pass anything, and i have to say this too. the white house has been late in coming to the aid of their

party. the white house has been absent from the battle until the last few days. and now you come to us and say, look, here's what we complain about on your cleaning up our mess. and i say to you, this bill takes care of our military, our young men and women fighting in three wars on the other side of the world. and the commander in chief of the military is saying, i'm going to veto the bill that pays their salaries and supports their families back home. i find that inexplicable. inexplicable that the commander in chief would put an end to the pay of our soldiers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. rogers: the failure of the senate to act and the failure of the white house to act when

we passed this bill means a shutdown of the government. vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 206, the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2011, and for other purposes. . the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? miss hoyer: yes, ma'am, i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. hoyer of maryland moves to recommit h.r. 1363 to the committee on appropriations

with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment, strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following. that the continuing appropriations act 2011 public law 111-242 is further amended by striking the kate specified in section 1063 and inserting april 15, 2011. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's motion. the speaker pro tempore: a point of order is reserved. pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from maryland is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. hoyer: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank the chairman as well. i understand he's giving me the five minutes and i appreciate that. first of all, i want to say to my friend from kentucky, he is my friend and we work together for many, many years, he told the story about the gentleman who was in court. he was in court for killing his

two parents and he pled for the mercy of the court because he was an orr -- orphan. i tell my friend from kentucky, particularly appropriate because he's from kentucky, because the mess that we have was created because some folks from kentucky would not give some votes to put appropriation bills on the floor. to that extent i think that analogy is apt. the gentleman complains of a mess that frankly was of the republican members in the united states senate refusing to allow bills to come to the floor. madam speaker, this motion to recommit if adopted, a, will take care of the troops. b, will keep the government opened. and c, importantly i would presume, from all of you who have protested how you want to protect the troops, it will pass the senate and be signed by the president. so it will become law. and it can become law by

tomorrow night. before 12:00 midnight when the government's authorization ends. so it should commend itself to all members of this house as a viable document to protect the troops, keep the government opened, and getting signed. as the great legislator, henry clay, who was elected speaker the first day he served in this house, henry clay was from where, mr. chairman? from your great state. and henry clay said this, if you cannot compromise, you cannot govern. henry clay, let me repeat that to my friends on your side of the aisle, if you cannot compromise, you cannot govern. too many of our republican colleagues have refused to compromise. now you bring to the floor a resolution and say, if you only do what we tell you to do,

things will be fine. my, my, my. what a definition of compromise. then you say, if the senate would only do what we say, we would be fine. the first time, the second time, third time, now here we are on the fourth time. now, i supported you as you know on the second time and third time because i thought it was reasonable to give that opportunity and the cuts you were asking for, yes, i thought would be included at some point in time. the senate, by the way, passed those two resolutions. as we indicated they would. and the president signed them as my chairman is telling me. i'm getting a little help over here from my ranking member and i appreciate it. but now we are on the brink of bringing the government to a halt. that makes no sense and anybody here knows that to be the case.

my friend, mr. simpson, for whom i have a great deal of respect, knows that it makes no sense. in fact, many of your folks who said shut it down in the past are now saying we don't want to shut it down. because they know the american people think that makes no sense. republicans show their priorities when they passed a spending bill that cuts billions in scientific research, kicks 200,000 children out of head start, and cuts college aid for millions of middle class students. yes, we don't agree with those priorities. they are not our priorities. we think we need to invest in growing this economy and growing jobs. we think we need to invest in young people so that they can have the educational opportunity that ronald reagan said head start worked, george bush the first said it worked, george bush the second said it worked. we don't want to cut 200,000 children out of that program. we think it's important.

to make sure the future of our country is secured by educating those children. you have shown your priorities when they threaten government shutdown over divisive social policy riders. governor daniels, a candidate for president i understand, governor of indiana said, take the social issues and consider them on another bill. let's get the finances of our country in order first. that's what you say you want to do. we want to help you do that. we'll work with you on that. we have been working with you on it. that's why i voted for the last two c.r.'s, the senate passed, and president signed it. madam speaker, this motion to recommit will allow for our troops to be taken care of as they should be, and, by the way, they will be taken care of even if we have a shut down because they are critical to our national security. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hoyer: i thank the speaker. i urge the adoption of this

motion to recommit that will be signed by the president of the united states. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i wish to speak on the point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may state his point of order. mr. rogers: madam speaker, the amendment -- or motion proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. the amendment is not in order under section 3-j-3 of house resolution 5-112th congress which states it shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2-f of rule 21. the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill in violation of that section. i ask for a ruling from the

chair. the speaker pro tempore: does any other member wish to speak on the point of order? mr. hoyer: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank the speaker. madam speaker, this motion to recommit speaks directly to the funding of government. the continuing resolution offered by the gentleman from kentucky, he has repeatedly said its objective is to fund the government and keep the government open. this is an alternative which argues for the fact that we want to pass a piece of legislation that the president of the united states says he will sign. it is simply for one week. it is simply a short period of time while we negotiate. and i urge the speaker to find this motion to recommit consistent with the rules and consistent with the objectives

of the legislation that is under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the chair is prepared to rule. the gentleman from kentucky makes a point of order that the motion offered by the gentleman from maryland violates section 3-j-3 of house resolution 5. section 3-j-3 establishes a point of order against an amendment proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill. the chair has been persuasively guided by an estimate from the chair of the committee on the budget that the motion proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. therefore the point of order is sustained, the motion is not in order. mr. hoyer: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i appeal the ruling of the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman appeals the ruling of the chair. mr. rogers: i move to table the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the house. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. rogers: i move to table the

motion. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to table. those in favor please sigh aye. -- please say aye. those opposed please say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. hoyer: madam speaker, i ask for a roll call vote. the speaker pro tempore: ask for the yeas and nays? mr. hoyer: yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to table will be followed by five-minute vote on passage of the bill if arising without further proceedings in recommittal. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the ayes are 236. the nays are 187. the motion is adopted. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laidpon the

table. the house will come to order. the house will come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i he a motion to recommit -- the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. members will take their seats and cease their conversations.

please vacate the well of the house. the house will come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. owens of new york moves to recommit the bill h.r. 1363 to the committee on appropriations with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. mr. owens: i move to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection in -- objection? the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. rogers: i wanted to reserve a point of order on the gentleman's motion. the speaker pro tempore: point of order is reserved.

is there objection to dispensing of the proceeding? -- reading? no objection, so ordered. pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. owens: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in support of this motion because this motion will ensure that the members of the armed services will be paid in the event of a government shutdown. there is no group who deserves our support more than the members of the armed services. as a veteran myself, i recognize the implications of failing to pay those members of the armed services who have given their time, their energy, their blood and in many cases their lives in support of our freedom. the freedom that allows us to be here today and to have this heated debate over the direction of our country. when i look around at what will happen if we fail to pass this

motion, we know that the president has indicated he will veto the current underlying legislation. which means in effect we will be unable to pay our military men and women. the economic consequences to the communities in which our military men and women reside in my case, fort drum as well as many active reserve units in my district, would be horrific. they will not buy gasoline. they will not buy groceries. they will not buy clothes. there are tremendous economic consequences to the actions that we have failed to take. i have supported the continuing resolutions previously which have saved $51 million from the budget. i am not a person not in support of cutting but we must do cutting and the decrease in the federal budget in a responsible way not one which injures our

men and women, particularly as i said before, those who reside at fort drum and in and around that community. i think it's very important as we move forward with this discussion that we keep foremost in our minds the men and women in the military. i think we have not acted in large measure responsibly in this process. we need to move to a continuing resolution which is economically based, which will allow the recovery to continue, which will allow job growth to move forward, and not be focused on ideology or the slashing and burning of programs which are highly inappropriate. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman cannot reserve his time. mr. owens: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. rogers: madam speaker, i withdraw my reservation on the point of order. the speaker pro tempore: reservation is withdrawn. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i rise in opposition --

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: i rise in opposition. this procedural motion is nothing more than a dilatory tactic which comes at a time when we can least afford those types of things. now is the time to act not partake in political games. our debate should be not about procedure. it should be about doing our job. it should be about funding our troops. about keeping our government running. and saving the taxpayer money. the measure before us provides the essential funds for our men and women who are in harm's way on three battlefields around the world. those who sacrifice so much for us should not be held hostage by washington's inaction. while providing -- while providing for our national defense, the measure also gives

us one more week for the senate and the white house to come to resolution on funding the activities of the government and it cuts $12 billion in wasteful spending. the american people expect us to stop the partisan bickering and get our work done. the time for idle talk is over. enough is enough. this motion is purely a political gesture and should be defeated. i think all members should know, madam speaker, all members should know this bill is not a political tactic. the real fact is that if you vote against this bill, you are voting against the troops who are engaged in three wars. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

house will be in order. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. >> on this final amendment i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman requests the yeas and nays. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: this vote, the yeas are 191, and the nays are 236. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill under clause 10 of rule 20, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 247 the nays are 181. the bill is passed. without objection a the motion to reconsider is laid upon the

table. pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further proceedings will resume on h.r. 910 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: bill to amend the clean air act prohibit the administrator of the environmental protection agency from promulgating any regulation concerning taking action relating to or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. please take your conversations off the floor of the house.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. mcnerney of california moves to recommit the bill h.r. 910 to the committee on energy and commerce with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. at the end of the bill add the following, section 5, protection of health affordable children and seniors. nothing in this act shall limit the authority of the administrator of the environmental protection agency under the clean air act according to u.s.c. 74401 prior to the date of enactment of this act to protect the health of vulnerable children and seniors, including children with asthma and lung diseases from the effects of air pollution by large sources that emit 75,000

tons or more of carbon air pollution per year. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman from california deserves to be heard. please take your conversations off the floor. pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. mcnerney: mr. speaker -- >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will be in order.

members and staff will take their conversations off the floor. mr. mcnerney: i rise to offer an important motion to recommit to h.r. 910. my motion is a straightforward amendment to guarantee that america's most vussnerble children and seniors, including children with asthma and lung disease, can be protected from the nation's biggest polluters. the clean air act became law at a time when our cities were enveloped in smog and since then the act has stopped the most egregious polluters and improved public health. this motion is a substantial important amendment and if passed the motion allows the vote to immediately proceed on the final passage of h.r. 910.

we can reduce air pollution in a way that will create jobs, strengthen our economy, bolster our national defense, and improve the health of our children. i'm gravely concerned that h.r. 910 will threaten the health and safety of our most vulnerable americans. there is a cleern connection between air pollution and respiratory disease and the motion i'm offering makes sure that our children can lead healthy lives. asthma is an especially serious threat to america's children. this problem is national in scope but my home state is uniquely affected. i'm honored to represent a part of california san joaquin valley, but unfortunately the air quality is a persistent problem in our communities. in fact, as many as one in five children in the valley have been diagnosed with asthma. my own son and daughter developed the condition when they moved to an area of california's central valley with hot temperatures and poor air quality. i know from personal experience

how vitally important it is to make sure our kids have fresh healthy air. i'm confident that every member of this body shares my desire to reduce the incidents of asthma among america's children. keeping our children healthy is not a partisan issue. fighting for the health, happiness, and well-being of our children unites us as citizens, as parents, friends, and as neighbors. but the statistics are sobering. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house is not in order. the gentleman from california deserves to be heard. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcnerney: but the statistics are sobering. according to the american lung

association, asthma affects more than seven million children, more than four million of those children suffer from an asthma attack each year. asthma kills 5,000 people each year in the united states and causes 14 million missed school days annually. and treating asthma costs our country more than $20 billion a year. in fact, every day in america 40,000 people in this world shall have asthma, 11 people die from asthma. these are real children. these are real people. that's why i'm offering this simple straightforward amendment to recommit today. my proposal is a commonsense improvement that makes sure that our country preserves the ability to protect the air quality for our children and seniors. the text of the motion is clear. and explicitly says that our goal is to protect children with asthma and lung disease from the effects of air pollution. i also want to make one other

point clear, just as i know that every member of this body cares about the health and well-being of america's children, i also know that we care about our country's economic recovery. many in this chamber feel passionately we should do everything we can to make sure that small businesses and family farms can grow and prosper without facing unnecessary regulatory burdens. i'm proud to represent a district with a rich agricultural history and i want everyone to know that this motion protects family farmers and small businesses. this motion is explicitly limited in scope to large facilities that emit 70,000 tons or more of carbon annually. in closing i ask my friends and colleagues in the majority to reflect on what this amendment says and what your vote will mean. the amendment simply says, nothing in the act shall limit the authority of the e.p.a. to protect the health of vulnerable

children and seniors from the effects of air pollution. what could be more simple than that? i can my colleagues to do the right thing for our children and seniors and support this motion to recommit. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. upton: i would ask for the five minutes in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. upton: i would remind my colleagues that this is a procedural vote. h.r. 910 does not impact asthma. frankly, our side would have liked to have debated this amendment. it was not offered to the rules committee. it was offered in committee where it was rejected on a voice vote. if you read the endangerment finding, you'll see that asthma is mentioned one time. as to asthma, e.p.a.'s endangerment finding refers only

once to the term asthma and then only in the context of wildfires and particulate matter which is already regulated. so it doesn't change that. if you care about jobs you're going to vote yes on the bill. if you care about not inincreasing gas prices beyond the $4 where they are in much of the country today, you are going to vote for the bill. which means you ought to vote no on the motion to recommit and yes on final. the clean air act regulates 188 different pollutants. h.r. 910 doesn't change one of those. so please, my colleagues, vote no on the motion to recommit. yes on final. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have t the motion is not agreed to -- have it.

the motion is not agreed to. the gentleman requests the yeas and nays. a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 175 and the nays are 251. the motion to recomm is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposedno. the ayes have it. the bill is passed. >> madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. waxman: on that vote i call for the yeas and nays, a roll

call vote. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

the speaker pro tempore: on this ve the yeas are 255, the nays are 172. the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk to change the long title and make it more accurate. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. polis of colorado. amend the title so as to read, a bill to increase pollution, endanger the public health and not address taxes in any way. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the amendment is not adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourns to meet at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow for morning hour debate and noon for legislative business.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute

speeches. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. april is autism awareness month, autism is a disorder that impairs an individual's social interaction and communication skills with others. sadly autism is one of the fastest growing developal disorders in our nation. it is estimated that a child is diagnosed with autism every 15 minutes, while some autistic children will grow up to function in society, others will need some level of professional care for life. groups such as the autism

society of miami-dade in my congressional district are committed to providing support and opportunities to enchance the lives of individuals within the autism spectrum as well as their families and caregivers. i urge all americans to become involved in supporting families with children and adults with autism. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? does any member seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: today we are engaged in a debate about out-of-control government spending. but there should never be an issue about fulling funding our military. they should never worry that congress will not provide them the resources to defend this nation. so this house just passed a c.r.

that fund fuly funds the military and also cuts $12 billion. but the white house has issued a veto threat with no explanation. why? does the commander in chief intend to command a military with no money? doesn't he know we are engaged in three wars? i just received an email from one of our troops, he says, how would the citizens of america feel if the military did not defend the nation because we went on strike? but we won't go on strike, we will live in tents, eat m.r.e.'s and hope our family can survive without pay, food or shelter. the senate needs to pass this bill, the president needs to sign up to support our troops. are you in, mr. president? and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> request to speak to the house for a minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize a

texas a&m university women's basketball team on their remarkable run in the 2011 ncaa tournament and their victory over notre dame to claim the first ever national championship in school history. i have the privilege to represent both baylor university and texas a&m. i don't think that there are many members here in this house that have the opportunity to represent two schools that advance to the elite eight in the ncaa women's tournament. however i do and one of them went all the way and won the national championship. also as a member of the texas aggie class of 1976, i'm especially thrilled that the battle score was 76-70. mr. flores: coaches blair and schafer and their staff should be commended for their leadership in guiding the texas aggies to their sixth straight ncaa tournament and their first ever national title. and let me add that dan yell adams, the aggies -- danielle adams, the aggies senior all-american, scored the second most points in aggie history. i'm glad to stand in front of my

colleagues and say there is no other coach, team orphan base that deserves this more than coach blair, the texas aggie women's basketball team and the loyal fans that texas and -- a&m university. glood job. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the house will be in order, please. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? the gentleman from louisiana, for what purpose does the gentleman rise? without objection. mr. fleming: mr. speaker, with respect to the possible shutdown, i have to say that this is directly as a result of a distinct lack of leadership. former speaker pelosi showed no leadership in not even attempting to submit a 2011 budget in the 111th congress. senator reid has been totally

unwilling to submit an alternative 2011 budget and the president until this week has totally checked out of the process. this country desperately needs leadership. speaker boehner has been providing that leadership as he has been fully engaged and has submitted a number of excellent 2011 budget proposals. but he can't do it by himself. mr. president, senator reid, it is not too late to step up and provide the kind of leadership this country wants and desperately needs. do the right thing now, agree to this legislation that will help get this country back on sound fiscal footing and i yield back the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

>> today, this house did the right thing, stanning up for our men and women in the armed forces. however, senator reid and the president announced before the vote was taken it would be dead an arrival. senator reid said it's fantasy. senator reid, let me give you a reality. the reality is our men and women in the armed services risking their lives for us deserve better than the politics of usual. senator reid, we call on you and we call on the president of the united states to stand with us who are standing for the american people, our men and women in the armed forces, our parents, grandparents, and our future generations as well. mr. tipton: we have to not only protect our present but build for our future, have actual fiscal responsibility in this country, you can no longer allow to be -- you are no longer allowed to be the party of no, no ideas, no solutions,

simply saying no because you're bankrupt of ideas. now is the time for action. the american people are counting on it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. are there further one-minute requests. the chair lays before the house the following -- following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. frelinghuysen for today and the plans of the week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.

mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to turn your attention to the issues before us today. and see if we can have a better understanding of what is taking place. we heard a little bit about honoring our troops. let's be very clear about this. the democratic caucus in this house, the president, and the senate will always and have always honored our troops. we're in the midst of a very serious budget crisis for this year with very, very serious issues at stake. and the republicans chose to attach to the funding bill numerous cuts that devastate important programs that affect the well being of every man,

woman, and child in this nation and indeed around the world. because of those cuts, as well as certain language that was added to the bill, we chose not to vote for the funding and the president has said stop the games, stop playing around, give us a straight fund, up and down, on funding the government without all these add-ons and dep games that are being played by our republican colleagues. the president has asked for a clean bill. we should give him a clean bill and carry on oto fund the government and provide for our troops an our military families. we will do that. now, let's understand what is at stake. not only in the current year's

budget, the next seven months, but in the year beginning october 12. the republicans have put together a proposal that would devastate seniors and those who are unable to care for themselves and provide themselves with medical services, in other words, depending upon the medicaid program. very straightforward. the proposal that was put out by the republican caucus two days ago would terminate and stop medicare as we know it today. medicare is a program in which every working american pays into it and when they become 65, they expect to receive the medicare health care benefits that are guaranteed, or at least have been guaranteed for the last 40-something years. that's a uniform benefit package across this nation. it is a very successful

program. it's one that americans literally live long enough to get into. and yet the republican caucus is proposing to terminate it, to end the medicare program. and instead turn over the $400 billion a year that goes into medicare services, turn it over to the private health insurance companies. the bige gift ever given to the private health insurance companies. i know those companies. i was an insurance commissioner in california for eight years. i spent most every day of those eight years chasing after the health insurance companies, forcing them to pay claims and stopping them from discriminating people with pre-existing conditions and developing programs and policies that were underfunded, underpaid and underperformed.

that cannot happen to our seniors but that's what the republicans want to do. we need to stop it. and we will. because seniors of this nation already sense what is at hand. they already know that the republican budget proposed would devastate one of the two pillars of the social safety net that every senior in this nation at one time or another depends upon. the second pillar, we already have seen the path this is going to go on. in 2004, the republican caucus, together with the republican president, george w. bush, proposed to privatize social security. fortunately, the revolt that started on the democratic caucus in this house and carried across the nation stopped that from happening. we know what's coming down the train track here, that is

another effort to privatize social security, to take these hundreds of billions of dollars and turn them over to wall street so wall street can play additional financial games. it will not happen. americans will not give up. social security and medicare to satisfy the whims of the republican caucus that seems determined upon destroying effective government in this nation. i'd like to call upon my colleague from the great state of oregon, mr. defazio, if you'll join me in this conversation and we'll see where it takes us. mr. the fazio: i thank the gentleman. certainly it's extraordinary and ex-tense -- certainly his extraordinary and extensive experience as insurance commissioner enables him to comment on what's going to happen when the republicans kill medicare and instead force future seniors into private

insurance plans, presumably sold through some sort of exchange. now of course the republicans just spent the last year reviling obamacare, which creates exchanges for people who are uninsured. they said people who are uninsured should not be forced to go to exchanges and buy good, standard policies. now what they want to do is force future seniors to give up medicare and force them to go to exchanges and buy private policies. with some premium support. now there's a few problems with this issue. among the things they repeal are the reforms of the insurance industry. and one of the most critical reforms as far as seniors or older workers or oler americans go, or americans who have ever been ill or had an ill kid is is removing the condition that an insurance company can have a pre-existing condition exclusion.

that is, you were sick once they won't sell you a policy. maybe they'll sell you a policy but they'll exclude that condition and other conditions they think you might have and they're going to charge you four, five, six, 10 times as much for your policy because you're a risky person. they only want the gracie. -- gravy. it also repeals one of the other little tricks, one of the most horrific things the insurance industry has done, pay your premium every week, your employer pay yours premium, this happened to a woman in texas, joe barton's district, she had breast cancer, needed serious treatment. the insurance industry, the insurance company put a team on her case. isn't that great, they want to help her out. now they want to find a way to throw her off the plan. they found once she had gone to a dermatologist and didn't tell them about it. that might have been related to her breast cancer so they threw

her out of the plan. the dermatologist wrote a letter sand aid tissue and said no, she had a skin condition that has nothing to do with cancer and you know, you can't do this and they did. and finally to give them credit, joe barton intervened, call the president of the company and said you're getting one big black eye here, give this woman back her health insurance. she got it back. but quite a bit later her cancer had advanced and it hurt her chances for a full recovery. that's called rescission. under the republican proposal, rescissions are back. you get sick, your company's got to comb through your life and find out a way not to pay your policy and by the way if you're sick now and your policy lapses at the end of thier they won't have to renew it because they're doing away with that reform too. we'll take away those horrible reforms the democrats put on the anti-competitive insurance industry, and by the way, the insurance industry is exempt from antitrust law so the insurance industry can and does

and has discriminated in this way, it can and does fix price, can and does share or divide markets to drive up profits. all those things are back under the ryan proposal. isn't that great? how is this going to serve seniors? here they are, they're going to get a little premium support, that is, the federal government will not let them have the money, they don't even get a voucher so they can just say, well, i'm going to go do something on my own. they have to buy one of the health care plans the republicans would dictate they can buy, presumably through an exchange and they'll get a little premium support. the government will give them money directly to the insurance company. the insurance company can charge them whatever premium they want. this is problematic. around here, the republicans are a little schizophrenic. some days they love the congressional budget office, when it gives them results they like, other kays -- days they hate the congressional budget

office when it gives them answers they don't like. in this case, the congressional budget office said under the ryan plan, seniors who today pay 25% of their health care costs in the aggregate, under the ryan plan in the future, will pay 68% of their health care costs. guess what that means? that means we are back to 1964. now there's not many people around here old enough to remember 1964. i certainly wasn't serving here but i know what happened then. congress passed, lyndon baines johnson signed medicare. one of the principal drivers of that was, we had a poverty rate for seniors at twice the poverty rates they are today because of medical costs. nobody can save enough money to provide for medical care. if you can't buy insurance, which most seniors can't and couldn't and you get sick, you're bankrupt.

you lose everything. the principal thing that drove seniors into poverty and bankruptcy in those days was medical costs. medicare was establish. now the greatest legacy proposed here by mr. ryan, the chair of the budget committee, is to end medicare. and he's doing this under the guise of the path to prosperity. the question would be, whose prosperity? not the seniors, perhaps the insurance industry. i'd be happy to yield time back to the gentleman. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. defazio. i heard you toss out two numbers. one number was the amount of medical -- the percentage of the cost of medical care that seniors now pay. did you say 28%? mr. defazio: about 25% on average of all their medical costs. the seniors eligible for medicare. mr. garamendi: if the republican proposal goes forward, seniors will wind up

paying how much? mr. defazio: 68% of their health care costs. mr. garamendi: so we're shifting the cost to the seniors. mr. defazio: right. if the gentleman would yield, we're not going to do anything about the costs of medical care or the premiums charged or the egregious practices of the insurance industry, we'll just shift the cost to future seniors and many of these people, if they're 55 today, they've been paying into social security and medicare for 35, 37 years, and now suddenly, oh, sorry, can't have it. mr. garamendi: game's other. mr. defazio: if i could, just one other -- the other thing, since the republicans seem to want to roll back the clock, is they're going to bring back the doughnut hole. now, the doughnut hole is this bizarre construct of the republican prescription drug benefit. remember, instead of designing a low-cost prescription drug benefit that was uniform and available to all seniors on

medicare, we could have done that, at a very, very low cost, the republicans said let's subsidize the pharmaceutical and insurance industries and create a confusing mix of plans and that's what we'll do for seniors. three quarters of a trillion dollars, $750 billion over 10 years to subsidize the pharmaceutical and insurance industry and give seniors a doughnut hole. last year, we began to close the doughnut hole and this year the pharmaceutical industry has to give discounted prices to seniors in the doughnut hole. mr. ryan would undo that, no more discounted prices for seniors in the doughnut hole, that's eating into the obscene profits of the pharmaceutical companies. the doughnut hole is back. make the world safe for doughnut holes, that's the ryan path to prosperity. mr. garamendi: i don't think so. it seems to me to be the path to poverty for seniors and it goes way beyond that. i notice that our colleague from

texas, sheila jackson lee, has joined us. ms. lee, if you would care to comment, i know this is an issue you are deeply concerned about. ms. jackson lee: well, i spent six or seven hours on the floor of the house some years ago, i guess the 1990's, when we were fighting against the inevitable doughnut hole, we held a vote open, i shouldn't say we, the republicans held the vote open for at least six or seven hours, i think we voted at 5:00 a.m. when the last arm was twisted. i think someone had a broken arm in order to ensure the doughnut hole was in. we of course have come back, democrats, and created the affordable care act and i tell you, every senior center think a have gone through since the famous passage of the affordable care act, seniors have said, thank you, thank you. if anyone has an 84-year-old mother, i just lost my mother, but our conversation centered around the enormous course of prescription drugs and how relieved she was to at that time to have had some relief from the

doughnut hole. now as we watched our friends just a few -- maybe about an hour or so ago, i hope there was some camera view of the glee that was shown when there was a suggestion that we would shut the government down and in essence implode, if i can use that on the floor of the house, any budgeting conversation that makes sense. such as the fact that what we're doing now with the c.r. is dated and old, it is cutting into profiting -- not profiting but funding for a present year, what it's doing tomorrow, which is what the groundwork is being laid, is literally destroying the systems as we know it. 66% of the seniors don't like this plan. but i want to throw something out. let me let them understand what the plan is. the plan is block grants. block grants given to desperate state governments which we have

no control over to be able to manipulate and play with medicare. what sense does that make? block grants that will in fact be able to be used for whatever we want to use. the state of texas, for example, received $3.2 billion in education funds through the american re-investment and recovery act. -- reinvestment and recovery act. where is it? it is in the rainy day fund. never used for schools. you can imagine block grants for medicare? consider imagine the nursing homes that will be -- can you imagine the nursing homes that will be closed through medicaid and then of course seniors getting medicare? and then they shout for joy, not only for shutting down the government over the next two days, but they shut for joy for the kind of budget that they believe they will be able to whet their appetite, that they'll be able to do for 2012. they will implode this country as we know it. we want budget cuts.

we don't want to see the government shut down but there's a morality and a character and an integrity and there's something called a heart. and i like what you're saying there. the republican budget would destroy medicare and i just want to say this, we've been around this block before. i heard one republican leadership say some years ago, over my cold, dead body. the opposition to my president who is a great here o'of texas, lyndon johnson, even when he tried medicare, there were those who said how it would destroy america, how it was going to undermine america. and look where we are today, how many lives have we saved because seniors had medicare? and i see that there is this effort to bury this program that has kept the grandmothers and granddads of america's children alive, for them to be able to see their grandchildren grow up, because they've had good health care. where is the morality? mr. garamendi: well, we seriously question the morality of the proposal that's being put

forward by the republican caucus. you said something that i want to focus in on. the details are important. we talked about medicare and the end of medicare as we know it. and basically as mr. defazio was saying, it's a program in which medicare becomes privatized, the money's turned over to the insurance companies, our future, our seniors' future turned over to the insurance companies and the whims. but you also raised a very important point. that is, all across this nation there are millions of americans who are in nursing homes, who have -- who now depend upon the medicaid program, medicaid program for the payment to the nursing homes. in the budget program there is the block granting of the medicaid program and therefore the likelihood that the payments to the nursing homes will be reduced and those people will

not be able to get care in the nursing home. i'm going to stop for a moment, yield back my time and, mr. speaker, i yield -- i -- ms. jackson lee: reserve. mr. garamendi: reserve my time. the chair: the chair -- the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i'm directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california may proceed. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd love to see what that message is. i think we got some sense of it earlier in the day and it speaks to the issue, i suspect it speaks to the issue of the continuing resolution and it is the promise he made earlier in the day that should the legislation that passed here about an hour and a half ago, two hours ago, that is the continuing resolution, should it arrive on his desk, he will veto

it. i haven't seen it but i'll bet that's what in that envelope. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman for the clarification, i want to add something. the medicare is a program that is going to be wholly privatized and income-driven without any basis and substance. meaning plainly if you are more wealthy, this has nothing to do with how you would do medicare today, if someone suggested that you staggered the amount on income. this has to do with if you can even get medicare it will be because you have enough money to get medicare because it will be in that system. and then of course there's some little secret backroom corner where they throw something out about a public system that is not even defined. but you make a very good point about nursing homes which i have a lot in my district. in fact, we are always hearing from them regarding maintaining

their status and certainly we are very keen to make sure that these nursing homes meet their own standards, but they provide refuge and rest, if will you, for not only the seniors but the frail and the disabled. and i just want to paint this picture for you. i just want to paint the picture of no room at the inn. lights out, doors wide open and the drum beat playing as people are being rolled out of nursing homes in wheelchairs, with crutches, some on beds, maybe we can just imagine the tragic scenes of hurricane katrina when nursing home residents were being pouring out of nursing homes in the wake of the disaster of hurricane katrina. well, let me tell you, we've got hurricane ryan and it's a disaster coming and frankly with all good intentions of our good friends on the other side of the aisle, if we had sat down at the table of compromise and projected how we can best serve

america by reducing the deficit, the debt and recognizing that we have morality and we have values that will help this country, and might i just say, we're talking about seniors, but don't forget there are many, many families that take their children to pediatricians on medicaid. and their primary care provider -- they're a primary care provider, just like medicare. i would just add this word, that i'm not ready to bury medicare now. and i believe there's a rejuvenation, there's a rebirth coming and that is the american people saying, no, not on my watch, this is a nonstarter and i am glad to be standing here with you today. mr. garamendi: you think maybe this particular gravestone here doesn't have to happen? ms. jackson lee: i believe if we stand tall -- if the gentleman will yield -- if we stand committed to educating the

american public, it doesn't have to -- it should not happen. mr. garamendi: i'm going to take this down because i know that the american public, whether they are seniors now or will be seniors in the future, understand incredible importance of medicare to the american society. whether you're young or old, you know that medicare has always been there, since 1964, to provide medical services to those people 65 and over and some who are younger than 65 that have gone through terrible medical circumstances and are unable to care for themselves. so, we're going to take this tomb stone and we're going to bury it -- tombstone and we're going to bury it, along with mr. ryan's proposal to terminate medicare as we know it. so let's be aware, american public, what is at stake here with the proposal that's coming down from the republican caucus and from mr. ryan? i want to take up another

subject and cover it briefly or maybe not so briefly and this has to do with the subject matter at hand which is the deficit. we need to understand where the deficit came from. the deficit didn't just get created in the last couple of years. certainly the great recession had a lot to do with it, the stimulus package made up of two parts, one part was the bank bailout, the $700 million or more, almost all of that has now been repaid to the treasury so we don't have to worry about that being a big part of the deficit. a little bit remains but most of it has been repaid. the second part was the stimulus. some $750 million. that was borrowed money, that is part of the deficit. but that also created or maintained well over two million jobs here in the united states.

those people that stayed at work were continuing to be employed and to pay taxes. you can imagine what would have happened had the stimulus not been there. but nonetheless it is part of the deficit. but that doesn't account for all of the deficit. let's go back to where ronald reagan was president. at the end of each year, the congressional budget office takes a look at the status of the budget of the united states and says, here's what's happening today and here's the projection for the future. they do a 10-year projection. at the end of ronald reagan's term, the congressional budget office, nonpartisan, not democrat, not republican, looked at the budget. looked at the economy and said, well, the way things are, we can project for the next 10 years that the budget will have a deficit of $1.3 trillion. so ronald reagan left office

with a deficit. he was followed by george w. bush and the same projection was made every year and every year the deficit grew so that at the end of the george w. bush administration, before bill clinton took office, there was a projected additional deficit of about $3 billion additional dollars -- $3 trillion additional dollars. bill clinton came into office, changes were made, balanced budget act went into effect, pay-go, which required laws to be paid for with new taxes or with cuts, no more deficit financing for new laws, came into effect and at the end of the clinton administration the normal process took plait place at the end of that year, what will be the deficit going forward? whoa. you mean there is no deficit? yes. the congressional budget office estimated at the end of the clinton period that there would

be a $5 trillion surplus, literally paying off the entire debt of the united states. policies were put in place during that presidency, democrat and republican votes on both sides, that would in the 10 years, 2001 to 2010, terminate the american debt. however, in 2001 george w. bush and the republicans in control of the congress and the senate passed a massive tax cut that immediately turned that projected surplus into a projected deficit of well over a trillion dollars. the next year, the afghan war was under way and the iraq war was begun. two wars. first time ever in america's history that a war was under way for which there was no way

to pay for it except to borrow money. in previous wars, world war ii, world war i, the civil war, the government raised taxes to pay for the war. but not these two wars. this was entire libor roed. all of the cost of it. and right now, the afghanistan war is costing $100 billion to $120 billion a year and we just voted today, not more than an hour and a half ago, for a $157 billion for the afghanistan and libya and iraq wars. $157 billion. now, again, all on borrowed money. despite efforts by the democratic caucus to raise money, raise taxes to pay for those wars, taxes on the highest, most wealthiest americans, those votes failed. now, the rest of the story is this. my friend, mr. defazio, talked

about the medicare drug doughnut hole. the medicare drug doughnut hole was added during the bush administration, well over $600 billion a -- $600 million a year, not paid for but rather borrowed money. and then the great recession of 2008 and 2009. that great recession added to the deficit because employment plummeted along with tax revenues. so that at the end of the george w. bush administration, the congressional budget office did what it had done every year in the past 50 years, did a proex, in the next 10 years, what will be the deficit? guess what the number was. $11 trillion-plus. so during the 2001 to 2010 period, an enormous growth in

the american deficit, barack obama came into office in january of 2009 and the day he took office, he had an annual budget deficit handed to him of over $1,300 billion. the george w. bush legacy was handed directly to barack obama the day he took office. over $1 trillion. we have to work ourselves out of this hole. s that deep, dangerous hole and we've got to work our way out of it. we have to do it with wisdom. we have to do it with intelligence. we have to always keep in mind where we need to go. two paths, one, bring the deficit down, and two, provide those services that are desperately needed by americans, medicare, medicaid, education, services that

provide people the opportunity to get jobs. those are fundamental investments we must make, research and the like also included. simultaneously, we must always achieve efficiency and effectiveness in every governmental program. wherever it happens to be. we know that the medical systems in the united states are inefficient. so the proposal put forth by our republican colleagues to privatize, destroy medicare, does nothing to deal with the inefficiencies of the medical system. there are three parts to the medical system. the collection of money, the payment of claims, and the provision of services. medicare happens to be the most efficient delivery in the collection of money the pame of claims, and the -- the payment of claims and the delivery of services of any of the medical

services and systems out there. the private insurance companies, however, are the least efficient. the least efficient. created because of the numerous policies that they offer, confusion, to the purchaser of the policy, whether it's an individual or a business, and to the provider of services. go into any hospital and one of the biggest sections in the hospital is not the emergency room, not the operating room, not the intensive care unit, it is the administrative unit. why? because they have to deal with thousands of different policies, different deductibles, different co-pays, different policies from different companies. is this going to be paid? who is going to pay that? and so forth. creating the least efficient medical delivery system in the world a full 30% of all of the medical costs are in administration.

keep in mind that the medicare on the other hand is the most efficient. spending no more than 3% in collecting the money and paying the bills. so, the proposal that we have before us by the republicans to terminate medicare and handing over the insurance company will create even additional costs. more efficiency in the system. less effectiveness. that's not the way to go. we talked earlier about the drug doughnut hole for medicare seniors. why was it that the republicans refused to allow the federal government to negotiate prices with the insurance -- with the pharmaceutical companies. it is the most ineffective, inefficient, stupid thing in the world to spend tens and hundreds of billions of dollars a year on drugs and not be able to negotiate but simply to be a price taker.

in the a negotiator. not to use your purchasing power to negotiate. i don't understand -- well, i do understand. i know exactly what it is. it happens to do with the effective lobbying and contributions of the pharmaceutical industry. wrong, wrong, wrong. we can and we must go to the medical system and seek efficiencies. and it can be done. i spent a lot of my time as insurance commissioner looking at how it can be done. and we'll go into that at another time. i'll give you a couple of items along the way. a doctor goes in to a hospital and scribbles on a piece of paper the -- what he believes to be wrong with the person. writes on a piece of paper in illegible handwriting what the pharmaceutical will be. medical errors abound wem know infections occur in hospitals. we know readmissions occur in

hospitals. all those things need not exist in america. we can significantly reduce the cost of medical services by instituting electronic medical records. that can be done. in fact, in the health care reform bill, the affordable care act, it is done. republicans want to repeal that. somehow they think that's going to reduce costs. i don't think so. but nonetheless that's what they want to do. there are many other things that can be done. infection rates, readmissions, we need to be in front of illnesses, we need to have public health services but yet in the c.r., the continuing resolution that passed this house, just this day, not more than two hours ago, the clinics in america are reduced and people will wind up in the emergency rooms. we know that's the most expensive place in this nation to get medical care yet we get

this kind of c.r. that comes through here this continuing resolution, to fund the government that reduces clinics all across the nation. well, i think i need a glass of water. i notice that my colleague from colorado, mr. perlmutter, has arrived to join us in this moment. thank you for coming here, i'm going to get a droif water and you're going to carry on. mr. perlmutter: i thank my friend from california, i hope you don't go too far for that water. i want to express my concern about the way the republican party, the majority in the house, is providing for running this country. it's a pretty frightening set of circumstances that we have when this country is run on a week-to-week basis. the funding for our troops, the funding for transportation, the funding for medicare, for social security, for health care of all kinds is on a

week-to-week basis. it's very difficult for a family to operate on a week-to-week basis. it's nearly impossible for a business to operate on a week-to-week basis. but apparently for my friends on the republican side, it's ok for a nation to run on a week-to-week basis. so today, in what they, i think believe was a great accomplishment, provide for another week of funding so that the various parts of our government, whether it's education, transportation, homeland security, the military, veterans' affairs, all those kinds of things are just operating on a one-week basis. that is no way to run a railroad or a country. we got to do much better than this. and there's no question that we

have budgetary issues that this nation has to confront. but my friends on the republican side of the aisle, they'd like to take it all out, deal with the whole budget, but only in a very slim parts. in effect, punish a very tiny part of the budget for the ills that i would say occurred under the bush administration. big tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, prosecute a couple of wars without paying for them, then allow wall street to run amok without any police. that's what caused the debt. energy efficiency didn't cause the debt in america. preschool programs didn't cause the debt in america. you know, the national institute of health didn't cause this debt in america. we really do have to deal with today, no question about it, but those are the things they'd like to blame for the debt. it's across the board. there's got to be a shared

sacrifice, both millionaires and billionaires have to, you know, put up as part of their approach to all this, there's got to be a revenue component to this, as well as an expense. i say to my friend from california, this one-week approach to managing something as big as america is crazy and it's got to stop. we need to have a real budget, real appropriations, so that people that do business with the government can have solid expectations for their contracts, people that work in the government know that they're going to get paid, people that receive benefits in one fashion or another know that next week, things will keep going. because this country is great and it is strong and it will be here a long time after any of us. but this month-to-month, day-to-day, week-to-week

approach to management is just bad news for america and i hope it changes very soon. i'd return the mike to my friend from california. mr. garamendi: if i might, mr. perlmutter, you talked about several issues. let me put some numbers on those issues. two hours ago, the republicans in this house passed, without democratic support, a continuing resolution for a while. and there were cuts in those. we don't talk about -- for the most part, there was no debate on the floor about specific cuts, but you raised these issues. i'm going to put some numbers to what you talked about. do we know the women, infant and children's program, the w.i.c. program, these are for mothers, pregnant mothers at risk dug their pregnancy and after their pregnancy so they have adequate nutrition an health care so they have a healthy baby. saving us money. if that baby is not healthy, it's going to cost us a lot of

money. the w.i.c. pam, $2 hushes million reduction in it. we like to fight crime, right? $149 million out of the construction account so that there can be police stations and other facilities for the police across the state. you mentioned environmental issues. $192 million from the department of energy's environmental cleanup. what are they cleaning up? they're cleaning up the nuclear waste material from the previous cold war nuclear programs. we know a lot, all of a sudden, about nuclear contamination. oh, good, we'll take $192 million out and just leave that nuclear waste out there to do what it's going to be do and it won't with good. also there's another, you mentioned the banking tri-. we know that between 2001 and

2008, the bush administration and the federal reserve just said, they'll regulate themselves. we don't need to police the banking. so we wound up with the great crash. well, we passed the wall street reform. we put in serious policing. we're going to police those characters. we're not going to let them get away with greed is good and rip off the public. we need policemen. but the republicans don't believe in this, so they take a total of $590 million out of the financial services programs. these are the policemen that protect america's financial future. we got a call from the two big california pension agencies who came to congress and said, do not do this. . i'm going to go a couple more. how about clean water and drinking water, $700 million out of the clean water fund.

this is communities to build water systems so there is clean water. you go through this and say, what are they thinking? ok, your turn. mr. perlmutter: i say to my friend, look, i wish we were not here. i wish that going back to 2001, 2002, president bush had the country take a voluntary pay cut. we were on a road to a surplus. we were almost done getting rid of the debt. but, no, we're just the opposite right now, because we took a voluntary pay cut to this country. and then we prosecute two big wars to the tune of $1 trillion and under the bush administration, had those wars on a whole set of different books. didn't really account for it as part of the debt of this country. now under president obama, we have real accounting so we know how bad the books look and then

we had this crash on wall street. now those things all add up to a lot of debt, no doubt about it. and when the country hit the crash, the income to the country dropped. and the expenses went up. now, i don't think we should ever forget how we got here, but we're here and have to deal with this. so i respect people who want to confront this, but the values and the priorities that are being expressed by the republican party in how to deal with this are just so misplaced. they want to maintain the tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires and want to maintain tax cuts that encourage people to send jobs overseas. and they want to maintain tax cuts for oil companies when we are at $105 a barrel. don't need much encouragement to

start drilling at that high a price. those kinds of things need to be looked at very closely when all of a sudden, you are taking it out of a number of programs and people you talked about, early childhood, health care, education, transportation. we're going to have to share the sacrifice, no question about it. as democrats, we are prepared to do that. isn't going to be fun. it isn't a lot of excitement when you have to manage those expenses, but you have to have the revenue to deal with the budget that we have in front of us. my friends on the republican side of the aisle would like to say, well, you know what, nobody really has to pay for these tax cuts. nobody really has to pay for sending jobs overseas. they're wrong. they're just flat wrong. we have to change this. and i wish -- they're in the majority and running the show

here in the house. this one week at a time, that's a joke. nobody can really manage and people doing business with the government, with the country, they need to have some firm confidence in what's going on. my friends on the republican side of the aisle keep undermining the confidence of people doing business in this country. we have a lot of work to do and will take both sides of the aisle. i appreciate the president rolling up his sleeves to get this done and the senate, but there are some on the other side of the aisle don't understand what the word compromise means, which is to get this budget under control. and i yield back to my friend from california. mr. garamendi: you raised the tax issue. in the proposed budget, not the c.r. today that funds the government for another week, but rather in the proposal for the next year and beyond, the republicans propose to continue

the bush era tax cuts of 2001 for the super wealthy in america. now that's about $700 billion added to the deficit. not only that, that tax rate is 35%. they are proposing to lower that tax rate to 25%. so for the super wealthy in america, millionaires, annual income that is $1 million and people whose income is $1 billion to give them a lower tax rate. are we talking about shared sacrifice here? i think not. i want to talk about this chart that was handed to me by one of our colleagues who is on the president's deficit commission and she said, the facts are pretty clear, not pretty clear, crystal clear. she said between 1974 and 2009,

there has been a shift in the wealth and the income of americans. and what's happened is that the rich have gotten really rich and everybody else has been treading water, not really going anywhere. if you take a look at this, you'll see that over that 20-year period, for those at the very bottom, they have seen their income go up by $200 a year. as you move on up, as you get to the top -- those in the 80 percent, they have $100,000. 1/10 of 1%, 1/10 of 1% of the population, their average annual income has gone up by just under $600 million a year. for the top 1/10 of 1%.

another chart, i don't have have it with me that would show, the top 1%, they now have 25% of all of the wealth of america. go back. go back to 1974, they had 7% of the wealth in america. 1974, top 1%, 7%. 2009, the top 1% control 24% of all the wealth in america. an enormous shift has taken place here. the middle class has been left behind, basically stagnant and treading water. now, understanding that reality of america, the stagnation of the middle class, the struggle for not one family earner, but two, husband and wife, out working trying to keep the family together in the home,

kids going off to school, that's the struggle of middle america. so what do the republicans propose? their proposal will shift the tax burden away from the super rich to the middle class, because they want to reduce the taxes on the super rich from 35% to 25% and that is going to raise the taxes for the middle class to make up the difference. we will not let that happen. i notice that my colleague from the great midwest has joined us. and i suspect you may have something to say about this. mr. ryan: i wanted to come down and take part. last night we did the budget for next year. democrats consistently all day and all night offered amendments to try to correct this idea of there not being any shared sacrifice. as we sit through and we go through the budget line item by

line item and there are millions being cut, if not billions being cut from head start, early childhood programs, pell grants, veterans' health, all of these things that that get re-invested back into our people, the rand corporation and all of the studies, for every dollar we invest in early childhood, $17. every dollar in head start, 7 to $9 and those who say we ought to run government like a business, should look at these statistics. these are critical investments that we need to make in the united states if we are going to be competitive. we have only 300 million people -plus in the united states and we are competing against 1.3 billion in china and in indian. we have to have our people

playing on the field for the united states of america. and we have to invest into their health care to make sure kids are healthy and make sure they're educated. this is not the time to make college more expensive by cutting the pell grant from the top rate that we have had, that democrats put in when we were here. the top pell grant is $5,500. if you are sending your kid to college, you are only going to have $2,100 as maximum pell grant . to me, if we are trying to get more people in college, more people doing research, more entrepreneurs, we need to invest in these kinds of things. and yesterday, all of our friends on the other side of the aisle had the opportunity to come down in public with a vote, one side or the other, and in each and every instance, they voted against those investments. in fact, we even offered a few amendments, one saying, if you

make more than $1 million a year, which where i come from is a lot of money, let's raise the taxes on those people who make $1 million a year or more. and try to offset some of these deep cuts into head start, into the pell grant , into the medicare program. and you know, you were talking about -- the gentleman from california was talking about wages. we have seniors now who over the past 30 years, whether they worked in the steel industry in youngstown, ohio or rubber industry in akron, ohio and throughout the industrial midwest, many lost their pension. my grandfather retired in 1979, his pension was $379 and when he died it was $392. the new road map for the

republicans does says for these people who are 55 and in the industrial midwest who have seen the diminishment of their wages over the last 30 years while the top 1% was going up, they're saying now they want to take the medicare program and just give some support to let the senior go out into the free market and buy their own medicare. so medicare is medigone. so now if you are a senior citizen in the united states under the ryan road map, not this ryan, the ryan from wisconsin, under his road map, the medicare program will give you money and it will not increase with the level of health care inflation, which is 10% to 15% a year, so they'll give you some money to go out and get your health care, but

won't keep up with inflation and there will be no where else to go. these same people, these same people who over the last 20 or 30 years and projected into the future, have been stagnant. so you're going to go into the seniors' pockets so they have to pay for their health care. so we have this made up, medicare, 1965 to 2011, created by l.b.j., destroyed by the g.o.p. now is not the time for us to make these cuts and tell the seniors who have paid into the system and planned on this system and the people under 55, they are on their own and do nothing to try to rein in the health care costs. and that's the real issue here. mr. garamendi: thank you very much, mr. ryan. why don't you take a minute or

two, mr. colorado, and then we'll wrap it up and wrap it up on one of our rebuilding themes, which is rebuilding the american manufacturing sector. mr. perlmutter: we are confronted with a budgetary issue we have to deal with, can't run away from it, can't forget how we got here, tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, prosecuted a couple of wars and then a crash on wall street all under the bush administration. but we're here and have to deal with it. i asked my friends on the republican side of the aisle, that sacrifice has to be shared. why is it? it isn't just against early childhood education or medical research or medicare and medicaid or education and transportation. you can't just get this will budget balanced on a very narrow slice. let's share the sacrifice and

get the country back on track and keep it going. and i return to my friend from california. mr. ryan: one of the amendments last night in the hearing, in the budget markup was to implement the framework from the debt commission, which said 2/3 of the savings should be cuts and 1/3 should be revenue from the top 1% of the people who had benefits. every single republican on the committee voted against implementing that framework which was heath shuler's amendment and it is to be noted they had the opportunity to vote for that and they shirked their responsibility. . mr. garamendi: i want to wrap up with this. every time i come to the floor i want to make sure that we fix

the manufacturing basis. a lot of reasons for it. but these are the kind of investments you were talking about, mr. ryan, that we need to make. we really need to make sure that our policies on trade are fair, that they don't harm our manufacturing industry. we've been talking about taxes here. we need to make sure those taxes encourage growth. couple of examples on taxes, we put out a tax bill without any republican support last year to bring back, to end the tax breaks that corporations had to offshore jobs and we gave corporations and businesses an immediate write off of all capital gains. so we're serious about tax policy here, to encourage manufacturing. energy's a huge issue. it will be a discussion on another day. labor policies, let's understand that it was the labor unions that built the -- and you go down through the line, education, intellectual property, research and, again, infrastructure, building the great infrastructure.

these are things we can do. these are critical investments. in our budget we should be doing these things. i'm going to turn it over to my friend from colorado, mr. perlmutter, you get the last word. mr. perlmutter: i wasn't looking for the last word. i notice the speaker has arisen by means that our time is just about out. but i would just reiterate, if we make it in america we will make it in america and with that i think i'll turn it over to mr. ryan and he'll have the last word and then the speaker will come down with the gavel. mr. ryan: we yield back the balance of our time. mr. garamendi: we yield back the balance of our time, mr. speaker. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, section 202-d of the national emergencies act provides pour the automatic termination of a national emergency unless prior to the anniversary date of its declaration the president

publishes in the federal register and transmits to the congress the notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. in accordance with this provision, i have sent to the federal register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency declared in sdemreck tif order 13536 of april 12, 2010, is to continue beyond effect beyond april 12, 2011. the deterioration of the securities situation in smolia and acts of pie are a is i off sea off the coast of somalia which have been repeatedly the subject of security council resolutions and violations of the somalia arms embargo imposed by the united states -- united nations security council continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states. for these reasons i have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency with respect to somalia and related measures

blocking the property of certain persons contributing to the conflict in somalia. signed, barack obama, the white house. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. >> mr. speaker, i believe i scheduled the time for the special order. the speaker pro tempore: then, under the speaker's announced policy, the gentleman from new york, mr. reed, is recognized for 60 minutes as designee of the majority leader. mr. reed: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise today to talk about an issue that i believe is a game changer when it comes to america's future. as we deal with the dependency on foreign energy supply and we

come up with hopefully in this congress a national energy policy that once and for all will put us on a path that will lead to our independence from our dependency on foreign energy supplies across america, one issue i'd like to talk about tonight is the exploration and development of our national gas supplies right here on our domestic lands. as i come and hail from the great state of new york, we have located under our great state a formation known as the marcellus shale natural gas formation. that natural gas formation has been identified by many experts across the field as containing one of the world's largest supplies of natural gas. that supply of natural gas is located within our continent, within our borders and will take off the table those risks to our future that are demonstrated by the upheavals that we see in the middle east that supply our energy supplies on a constant basis.

so i am proud to be joined tonight with colleagues from the great state of pennsylvania on both sides of the aisle to talk about the issue of marcellus shale natural gas. at this point in time i'd like to recognize my good friend from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, to offer some comments in regards to this issue. mr. thompson: all right. first of all, thank you, mr. speaker. thanks to my friend and colleague from the great state of new york where our congressional districts join at that new york-pennsylvania border. it's just really proud to be with you on the floor today to talk about this game changer, you know, as you refer to. mr. speaker, we are facing critical times. record debt, $14 trillion. skyrocketing gas prices, somewhere -- some places over $4 a gallon and climbing. energy dependence and addiction to middle eastern oil. and a volatile middle east.

all those things tie together. frankly, we're here to talk about something that's part of the solution on how to get out from underneath each one of those critical issues that's just piling on this nation, the united states of america. and that is the marcellus shale natural gas. and we're proud to have marcellus shale underneath much of pennsylvania. we have new york and pennsylvania, west virginia, parts of ohio, parts of virginia. the marcellus is just a tremendous natural gas play. it's something we've known that's been there for a very, very long time, but the technology to access it is more recent event. it's exciting to talk about all aspects of this tonight. you know, over the last month, the marcellus has been given national attention. hydrolic fracturing, a process

utilized in oil and gas production for almost a century and regulated now for decades. oil and gas workers have completed nearly a million tracking jobs nationally. -- fracking jobs nationally safely and without an environmental impact. and over these years these practices have been refined and improved for more environmentally safe use. mr. speaker, i find that the rapid increase of technology as it comes to the natural gas industry right now is just incredible. as this is just an industry that is literally very solid but always looking for the new opportunity to do things better. recently "the new york times" discredit the wealth of experience employed by the industry over the years in the successful -- and the successful work of government officials to properly regulate natural gas industry.

through quote shopping "the new york times" made unsubstantiated claims on fracking on water quality and the environment. they repackaged old stories with sensational new headlines and they rehashed allegations against development of natural resources vital for our country's energy future. now, immediately following these story the pennsylvania department of environmental protection who has frankly jurisdiction over the drilling of natural gas in the keystone test responded saying that water supplies downstream of marcellus gas drilling is safe. this testing has addressed misinformation related to water quality in the commonwealth and validated with scientific data that municipal drinking water is safe. mr. speaker, each day in my district there's news regarding the marcellus shale worthy of a national headline. through this resource and these

technologies 70 million homes and thousands of small businesses are paying the lowest gas prices in years to heat their homes. the lowest. let me repeat that. when you have gas prices, petroleum gas prices that are at record high, volatile high for our vehicles, natural gas prices at the same time are at a record low. that's worthy of a national headline. that's all because of one thing, natural gas in this country is largely domestically produced, it's produced by american workers and it doesn't have that volatility that you see when you become reliant on the countries such as the middle east -- in the middle east. thousands of jobs are being created. i have two counties in particular at the epicenter, actually they adjourn your congressional district -- the lowest unemployment probably in history, much lower than the national and state averages and there's nothing better that you

can do for a person than to create an environment that provides them a good-paying job and that is happening as a result of the natural gas industry. each day a local economy in my district gets a little bit better. the notion of an energy secure america is easier to grasp. i define that as shutting off the pipeline from the middle east. i recognized that the largest amount of our oil that we import is from canada. canada is a good ally. i don't see any threats from canadians other than maybe when we get around the hockey season between the teams. but when it comes to the middle east, i think when we look at the volatility in the middle east today and what was in egypt and obviously libya, in yemen, i mean, we should end that addiction immediately to middle eastern oil. and that achieves energy security. now, when it comes to safety there can be no shortcuts, no loopholes and no exceptions.

but sensationalism fails to serve any good for anyone. scare tactics are dangerous when dealing with such complicated and technical matters as this. and that's what we see with many of the headlines that we've been reading. articles written with half truths. and i'm glad, so very pleased that the chair hosting this hour today because we can talk about facts and put the facts out there. there's the same goes with dealing with our nation's energy security. we need to talk about facts. so i'm pleased to be with you and i'll yield back at this time. mr. reed: reclaiming my time. i thank the gentleman for his comments and i thank the gentleman for participating in this this evening. when i first came to congress back in november of last year after we took office after our special election, one of the issues and a priority to our office is the marcellus shale natural gas development. one of the things i noted back in my district back at home is there's a lot of misinformation, as the gentleman identified in his

comments. one thing that we sought to do is to establish the marcellus shale caucus, a caucus of members of congress who represent districts, that overlay the marcellus shale formation so we can come together as a body, as a representative body and bring the best scientists and bring the best data and bring the best information, not only to the floor of the house but back to our districts. and i'm pleased to be joined tonight as a co-chair in that caucus as we've established in this congress my good friend from pennsylvania, mr. critz, who i believe has some comments that he'd like to share on this issue before we get into the presentation of the facts and the development of the marcellus shale. mr. critz: well, thank you, mr. reed, and, yes, serving as co-chair for the marcellus shale gas caucus is truly an honor because we do have such an opportunity before us. and as mr. reed mentioned earlier, mr. speaker, this

isn't a democrat or republican issue, this is a bipartisan issue because it's about economic opportunity for all of our regions. mr. speaker, i'm joining my colleagues to discuss the significant economic potential that the marcellus shale natural gas play has to our country. as you may know, the marcellus shale is the largest unconventional natural gas formation in the united states. the shale's estimated to hold almost 500 trillion cubic feet of extractable natural gas currently valued at nearly $2 trillion. as with most economic activity, the impacts of the natural gas affect more than just specific firms directly involved in the industry. there are also important employment and income effects on local businesses who supply the industry such as oil field service companies, restaurants, retailers and hotels. in addition to effects that results from employees spending their money locally. in pennsylvania, 70% of the natural gas it uses every day is imported currently. this is just pennsylvania.

the marcellus shale formation that runs along the appalachian mountains so goes up in new york, comes down into pennsylvania, west virginia, virginia, as mr. thompson from pennsylvania mentioned earlier, goes into eastern ohio and down through the appalachian mountains, is really an opportunity for this country because as mr. thompson mentioned as we watched the unstableness in the middle east we're talking about the natural gas industry which is just a booming in our region of the world. and it's sort of interesting because in a conversation with some of the folks from industry about a decade ago, the industry, natural gas industry was told that they start -- they better start building processing plants on ports and on the shorelines because there was going to be a need for this country to import natural gas. well, now that equation has flipped, and this country is really on the verge of producing so much natural gas

just through the marcellus shale that we will exceed the needs of this country and will actually could be on the verge of becoming an exporter of natural gas to foreign -- to foreign economies. . high paying jobs available in the marcellus shale gas industry are expected to multiply. meeting the needs for increaseed drilling. in pennsylvania alone, it estimated more than 110,000 new jobs have been created because of the development of this shale. mr. reed mentioned earlier, mr. thompson reiterated that this is a game changer. as i said, this isn't a democrat or republican issue, not a new york, not a pennsylvania issue. this is an issue for our country. this is an issue that bodes well and and i'm excited to be co-chair with mr. reed. i use a lot of football

analogies and by game changing, what we are doing is we are moving our economic football down the field. and there is an opportunity here. and we need to take care of it. and one of the things that has been alluded to earlier was environmental concerns. and let me tell you, growing up in western pennsylvania, we grew up with the steel industry and coal mining industry and we had a lot of problems as those industries wound down. as in years past, there wasn't a lot of environmental protection and we had streams that were fouled, we had huge slag piles from steel production. over the last 20, 25 years, pennsylvania has done incredible work in cleaning up the slag piles and the streams and now we had streams that were dead for decades, now you can fish in them and have trails in pennsylvania. from a pennsylvania standpoint,

what i can say is government working with industry, working with local officials, working with people in environmental interests, we all came together in pennsylvania and are moving our way forward and we do a very good job of it in pennsylvania. this marcellus shale has created an opportunity for us that is really second to none. and that's from a pennsylvania's perspective. but i just can't end with saying it's just pennsylvania. as we talked about, it goes through new york. there is so much opportunity for the future for this country and economic development of this country. and i thank mr. reed for inviting me to be his co-chair, because working together, we can get a lot done. and i applaud him on his efforts and look forward to working with him and mr. thompson and the 17 other members doing the right thing for this country and this country's future. i yield back.

and i appreciate the time to talk. reed reed as both of my -- mr. reed: as both of my colleagues articulated, it is a game changer. and everyone realizes that the development of this precious resource needs to be done in a safe and responsible manner. nobody that i talked with in my travels on this issue have ever expressed the desire to just drill at any costs. what we have to do is responsible, safe drilling, and that's what we are about and that's what this caucus is all about, bringing together, both sides of the aisle. in a city in washington that we get chastised quite often about being partisan and dividing and not coming together to solve our nation's problems. i see this as a game changer. we can come together on both sides of the aisle to promote this issue and come up with a commonsense regulatory basis at

the state level, and develop this precious resource domestically so we can have energy that is projected to last over 90 years, 90 years of domestic supplies of energy coming from this natural gas formation not only in marcellus shale but in various shale across the nation. i would like to go through a little history of what we're talking about here when it comes to natural gas in america. many people think oil and natural gas in america is something that is relatively new. in the western portion of my district district, i'm proud to have the first natural gas well that has ever been drilled and that well is located in the late 1800's, just outside the district and an oil well in the pennsylvania area that i believe is located in migrate colleague's district, right across the pennsylvania state

border, located in the late 1800's. carnegie was able to generate wealth developing the oil fields that are right here in america. natural gas and oil production in america is not something that's new. it has been around for many, many years. actually, the first commercial frack job or the job of developing natural gas well with the technology, concept that we call hydraulic fracturing with the marcellus shale formation, which is a new development, that actually has been around for quite some time. the first commercial frack job occurred in oklahoma on march 17, 1949. as my colleague indicated, over one million wells have been fracked right here in america without an identified problem. that is over 60 years of

success. and what has happened with the marcellus shale and new shale formation development potential, they have taken the hydraulic fracturing and created an update to it. they have come up with new technology of using existing technologies and combining them to come up with new techniques that combine the concepts of hords tall drilling and hydraulic fracturing into one combined technology that makes the development of our north american shale natural gas formations economically viable and that includes marcellus shale formation here in pennsylvania, west virginia, and new york and across the northeast area. we have heard about this issue and i see we are joined by another colleague from the great state of pennsylvania. i yield to my colleague from pennsylvania. >> i thank my friend and neighbor from pennsylvania as well. it's good to have a bipartisan

discussion on an issue that is critical to this country, our energy independence and using our domestic reserves and in pennsylvania, we have a unique circumstance that $4 million is used in producing marcellus shale wells and wells produced just in pennsylvania, we are talking about $10 billion invested in marcellus shale sites, that is money coming back into pennsylvania and new york, if the gentleman had his way, which i would support and when you talk about natural gas, and we are going to get into the details of marcellus shale and what a great find this has been for the country, but think about ways we can use the natural gas that results from marcellus shale, things like natural gas-powered vehicles. we will have discussion later on

the year in congress and natural gas is going to be a critical part of our nation's energy future. mr. altmire: think about the great work that scientists are doing on development of natural gas vehicles, production, purchasing and conversion in the country and finding a way to give tax credits to consumers so they can convert their vehicles into natural gas operating and you have the chicken and egg situation of who is going to go first. do you have the filling station before the car or car before the filling station. we have to do both together and incentivize the stations to put natural gas pumps and incentivize the conversion of natural gas vehicles with the price of gas exceeding $4 in the country. this will help our energy future. when you think about north america in particular, this is so exciting, because gas

resources are much larger and the cost of producing gas is much lower because of the find of the marcellus shale. if you are in a household in this country that doesn't get your electricity from natural gas, your electricity bill is still going to be lower because of the resources that we have, because of the abundance of natural gas. we are talking about cheap energy because of the volume that we're talking about, unprecedented reserves that exceed the oil under saudi arabia, as the gentleman was discussing earlier. the ability of the united states to store natural gas has improved dramatically over the years. so now we are in a position where we can produce the gas and use it to bring down the cost of electricity, we can store it and we're going to export some of this gas as well. the market for natural gas around the world is increasing because of the marcellus shale find in pennsylvania, new york,

west virginia, virginia, ohio. this is a wonderful thing for this country. and the total u.s. natural gas production in 2010, just last year, was at its highest level ever. in 2010, the natural gas production in this country was at its highest level ever, compared to oil consumption, which dropped 5% -- has dropped -- since 2005 has dropped more than 5%. and natural gas use has risen 10% in that time. but that's preceding the big find of the marcellus shale. so we are keeping energy prices low. we are making ourselves energy independent, which is critical. there is a national security issue and economic and jobs issues which we are seeing firsthand and there is an energy issue to that, how we are going to continue to grow our energy

resources. i congratulate the gentleman for loading the discussion tonight and look forward to continuing beyond tonight because this has to be part of our energy future and it was the cover of "time" magazine. when you talk about that, this is something that is going to benefit everybody in this country. and i yield back. mr. reed: i thank my colleague for his comments. i agree with your comments, that the economic potential we see not only with marcellus shale but all of the shale formations when it comes to natural gas and oil, it is huge. i had the opportunity to come to your great state and tour many of these rigs we have seen in operation, you see the workers there and see the people that are employed that are being serviced by this industry that are putting food on their table and putting money aside for

their kids' college education. the prosperity. i went back on multiple trips and i stopped and toured some of your downtown areas where this development is going on and i have talked with residents and heard the success stories of how the restaurants are filled and how the hotels have no vacancy signs on their doors and one thing that struck me, a family farmer was talking about until they came along they were struggling along to pass the family farm onto the next generation. when i heard this story, it is continuing a tradition when it comes to our farmers and people that we share in common in our districts, being able to pass that on because now they have the revenue from the land. i'm proud to be here today. before we get into details as to what we are talking about, because one of those issues we have indicated is getting the

information out to the american public, so the american public can have the correct information based on science and data. and when our elected officials at the state level deal with the regulatory oversight that goes into this process, that we have the true science and data before them to make sure the regulations are appropriate and getting the job done. because we all agree on both sides of the aisle that we want this resource to be developed if it can be done in a sound and environmentally safe fashion. i yield to my colleague, mr. thompson. mr. thompson: i thank my good friend from new york and it's an honor to be joined by congressman altmire from pennsylvania as well, congressman critz was here, because this marcellus natural gas certainly is a game changer for pennsylvania and i think it is a game changer for the united states of america. and it is important we educate. that's a vision of this caucus,

make sure we get the science and the data out to people, because there is a debate. most game changers, you should have a debate but it should be based on facts and science and not on a notion or myth. let me share just some economic -- more economic information, a couple facts. you have heard some of this before. marcellus contains upwards of 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. that is an amazing amount of natural gas. my colleague from pennsylvania described that it is more energy than the oil in saudi arabia. it really is just -- and it's clean energy. there is enough gas to meet this country's current gas demands for at least 100 years. because we have the marcellus formation and under that is frankly the utica formation.

so there is tremendous vast resources. . according to the university of pennsylvania, in 2008, natural gas production had a 2.3 -- in 2008, one year, a $2.3 billion direct impact on the pennsylvania economy adding more than 29,000 new jobs and $240 million in state and local tax revenue. frankly, the budget in pennsylvania is hurting right now, it's like here in washington. but in pennsylvania there's a blessing here with this revenue that's coming in by all the companies and all the individuals that are doing business in this natural gas industry of what they pay in taxes and, again, in just 2008 they paid $240 million in taxes to the state and local government. another report also suggested

that in 2009, quote, slightly more than 10 years the marcellus industry could be generated nearly 175,000 jobs annually and more than $13 billion in value added. and more recently in 2011, more recent data, facts, planned spending by marcellus producers could generate more than $10 billion in value added. nearly $1 billion in state and local revenues. this is just pennsylvania. i know that if we -- new york could use that type of tax revenue as well, as well as west virginia, virginia and ohio. i'm just sharing you the figures about pennsylvania. more than 100,000 jobs. this is not a short-term development. this is not a fly by night. this is not going to come in and leave in a matter of years, frankly. this resource means development for at least 50 years and beyond.

when you start to take into account the utica shale it really mult plies out. the economic benefit is tremendous. according to penn state, the marcellus could make pennsylvania the second largest producer of natural gas in the united states by 2020. you know, there are pipelines that were installed decades ago from the ports in the northeast coast because we were preparing to import natural gas from russia, from overseas. today, there's work to convert those pipelines so we can export natural gas, that pennsylvania, in particular, could be an exporter. that's good news. mr. reed: will the gentleman yield? mr. thompson: certainly. mr. reed: that's the great potential that we see the marcellus shale. it's located opens it up the development -- the densely populated around new york city

up and down the northeast coast, the manufacturing hub ofiester year, this opportunity that has this infrastructure and the potential to invest in this infrastructure to deliver this to a vast number of people and to a vast number of small businesses that are going to put people back to work. i think that further articulates the game changing nature of this find in northeast america. i yield back. mr. thompson: thank you. i thank my friend for yielding back. you mentioned the history of drilling, and i very proudly represent titusville, pennsylvania. it's drake well 150 years ago colonel drake drilled down 37 feet and hit oil. and so this is not -- drilling is not new to pennsylvania. as you said, the first natural gas is just within oor just

outside your district. in terms of marcellus wells, and i think it's important we talk about that. i think you have a great chart there that demonstrates exactly what we're talking about when we're talking about the marcellus geological formation which is -- which is not a shallow formation. this is a deep well. this is 8,000 to 9,000 feet. well below when you think of a water table in our area, maybe 1,000 feet, this is 8,000 to 9,000 feet below that. the horizontal drilling or lateral -- horizontal drilling that was developed, directional drilling, there's been 1,900 of those wells already on the ground they put in. so i think it's maybe good to take the opportunity to talk at some point about that, exactly how those wells work. i yield back. mr. reed: i yield to my colleague from pennsylvania. mr. altmire: i was going to actually segue into that exact point because i know the

gentleman from new york was going to talk about the process and it's important to keep in mind there, of course, are always going to be concerns with doing the drilling as safely as possible, limiting any impact on the drinking water. and i know we're going to talk about the process. consider the fact that we're talking about drilling that has been done for decades safely. thousands and thousands of wells drilled in this process without any repercussions, any negative impact all across the country and now beginning in the marcellus shale area. we're talking about a water table, the drinking water, at approximately 500 feet. and the drilling takes place a mile below that, 5,000, 6,000 feet below the water table and it has been proven in the decades and decades and thousands and thousands of wells that have been drilled that if you do it correctly, if the company is diligent, if they follow the proper procedures they can do it

without harm. it's been proven. now, yes, as happens in any industry, energy or otherwise, if you have bad actors and you have people that don't follow the right procedures, that cut corners, then the potential would exist for bad outcome but that happens in any business, in any industry. so we do need to make sure that the drillers and by and large they have shown the ability to do this safely to continue to do that and pay attention to the rules and regulations but we can't in any way put a burden upon the drillers that exceeds the risk factor. we need to make sure that we are cultivating the resources, we're doing it in the appropriate and proven safe way as we have done for decades. and i would turn it over to the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: well, i thank my good friend from pennsylvania. i do want to get into the process and i have a chart here on the floor of the house to kind of go over exactly what we're talking about.

i thank my colleague for joining us this evening. to talk about what we're dealing with here, this process of tapping into the shale formations and in particular the marcellus shale formation. really what we're talking about is kind of the combination of the existing technologies of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. that's kind of the game-changing combination of existing technologies that have been joined together to in an innovative way come up with a way to tap these deep, large natural gas reserves in an environmentally safe way that will allow this gas to be recovered in an economically viable way. and so with that being said, i have a chart here and as many people know, there's the old traditional vertical well drilling which is represented -- before we go into the horizontal well -- it's straight down. it's to punch a hole in the ground 37 bit with a wooden

bit. one of the original oil fines finds in your district. that's what we're talking about. the horizontal drilling, the change in the horizontal drilling techniques that we're talking about is the ability to go down very deep into the earth's crust. we're talking at this formation, the marcellus shale is about 6,000 to 8,000 feet below the surface. and what happens is they drill from the surface down to that formation and then what they are able to do is to -- and i've seen this with my own eyes and i'm sure my colleague from pennsylvania has seen it also, they're able to turn that drilling bit, to turn the drill horizontally so they go down vertically and then as they get fought point where the formation is located and where the natural gas has been identified and the marcellus shale formation and the natural gas supply we are talking about and they turn that drill bit and go out horizontally. they go out thousands of feet and they go out and drill and open up that formation, that

shale formation to potential development for natural gas recovery. and after they turn that drill bit and they take that horizontal turn they go out and then they engage in the process which is called hydraulic fracturing. now, hydraulic fracturing has been around for quite a long time. essentially what that means is they go in, they drill the well and then they detonate some small explosives in order to crack the formation. in order to open up the formation, open up this shale rock that is not shale or slate that you're accustomed to on the surface of the earth. i held it the other day. the gentleman came into my office, had a piece of shale in the midwest area, and it's as solid as granite. there's natural gas molecules that are trapped into that granite formation, that shale formation. what they have to do is they have to detonate small fizzures

and open up cracks in that formation so that the natural gas molecules have a path to go back up the bore, up the well site and be recovered at the surface. mr. thompson: will the gentleman yield? mr. reed: i will. please. mr. thompson: those fractures, sometimes folks will be scared by that. they envision these huge caverns that are opened up in the ground. these fractures or fizzures, i think they're best described and you've probably seen and portrayed as spider webs. in fact, they're so small that they're held open by a grain of sand. that's the prop that's put down into with water and put in to hold the fractures opened, just a grain of sand. i think talking facts, so people have a vision of what exactly we're talking about when this -- i yield back. mr. reed: and my colleague's exactly right.

if you can join me in this conversation because by no means am i an expert in this technology. what i've read and researched and what's been presented to me makes sense because you're absolutely right. what happens is then they take some fracturing of the formation of the shale. there's a hydraulic fracture, hence the hydraulic fracturing, the hydraulic portion of that technology name. what they do is pump volumes of water and primarily water and sand down the well site and into that horizontally drilled well site and boor and pump in water at high pressures. we're talking high pressure when we're talking about this process and technology that not only pump into those frizzures, those microscopic fizzures that we're talking about that's the result of that process, as they pump that water and sand into

those fizzures when they withdraw the frac materials, those propettes keep those fizzures open so that natural gas has the ability to have a natural by way of pressures ability to migrate through the well, through the boar site, to the hole, if you would, and flow back up to the surface and be recovered and developed and put into our pipeline system to supply the energy that we all have become dependent upon. does my colleague have anything to add to that process? mr. thompson: sure. absolutely. i think if my good friend would go ahead and put that other board that's up because when you're talking about the fluid, there's a lot of discussion sometimes about hydrofracking fluid. this is i think a great poster that really captured what exactly is in that

hydrofracking fluid sometimes called brine, sometimes called slick water. really what it does is -- mr. reed: will the gentleman yield for a question? mr. thompson: certainly. mr. reed: and that's one of the great myths. i heard this myth throughout my travels and throughout my district and down here in d.c. that the hydraulic fluid that there's some secret, they don't want to talk about it, they don't want to disclose it. it's truly a myth. i see here today on this chart kind of identified the ingredients, would you agree? mr. thompson: yeah. if the gentleman will yield, absolutely. it's 99.5% is water and sand. the other half a percent is made up of basically ingredients that you would find in many household items as referenced on the chart, you know, there's some things there such as sodium. there's things used to reduce friction going down into the pipeline. it t