[applause] >> your majesty, thank you for the extraordinarily generous remarks come up for the invitation you extended for our first state visit to europe and for the warm friendship that you have shown michelle and myself in buckingham palace. i bring warm greetings of tens of millions of americans of british ancestry including me from my mother's family. i'd bring greetings from my daughters, who adored you even before you let them ride in a

carriage on palace grounds. distinguished guests, it is a great honor to join you again in this great country as we reaffirmed the a during bonds between our two nations and reinforced this special relationship. there is a humbling reminder of the fleeting nature of presidencies and prime minister ships. has spanned's rain about a dozen of each and counting. that makes you a living witness to the power of our alliance and the chief resource to its resilience. our alliance is a commitment that speaks to who we are. as was -- winston churchill said on a visit to the united states, above all on the english- speaking peoples, there must be a union of parts based upon

convictions and common ideals. while our challenges have changed since churchill's time when we fought to preserve our democracies, our adherence to those values are not. we have a common language, a common history,, and adherence to the rule of law, the rights of men and women, the very ideals born in this nation. yet this relationship never rests. as we approached the 10th anniversary of 9/11, i appreciate the solidarity that england had shown to the united states over the past decade. you have been our closest partner in protecting ourselves from terrorists and extremists around the world despite very sort -- a very heavy sacrifices here. allow me to pay tribute to your

military forces, who have stood shoulder to shoulder with us for decades. as we confront the challenges of the 21st century to gather, we can have confidence that the partnership that are to appeal countries have shared based on the foundation built during queen elizabeth's what time and her extraordinary service to her nation and the world. ladies and gentlemen, please stand with me and raise your glasses as i propose a toast. to her majesty, the queen, the vitality of the special relationship between our peoples and in the words of shakespeare, to this blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this england, to the queen.

[applause] >> tomorrow, president obama joins british prime minister david cameron for a press conference. we will have live coverage on c- span2. later, the president returns to westminster to give a speech on a joint session of parliament on

the u.s. british alliance. he will also go to a dinner at the home to the ambassador to the united kingdom. up next on c-span, the head of the federal aviation administration testifies about air-traffic control safety. then, debate on health programs for 2012. later, netanyahu addresses a joint session of congress. over the three-day memorial day weekend, commencement addresses from across the country. leaders of politics and entertainment all offering their insights to the graduating class of 2011. memorial day weekend on c-span. the transportation department's inspector general said that air traffic controller errors are up 53% from last year. he testified at a subcommittee

hearing investigating these issues. we will hear from the head of the federal aviation administration. this is an hour and 45 minutes. >> good afternoon. we are having a hearing on air- traffic control safety oversight. we are joined by the u.s. inspector department of transportation. the president of the air traffic controllers association, and the

director of sleep and performance research center at washington state university. thank you all very much for being here. today, the aviation committee is holding an oversight hearing on air traffic control and safety. i know that my colleague will be here soon. i want to recognize him in his new role as the ranking member for the subcommittee. the two issues that we are going to focus on are basically at an advent of recent incidents when air-traffic patrollers fell asleep during night shifts and the increase in operational errors by air-traffic controllers. there have been a number of incidents of air traffic controllers the bullying on duty. i am deeply concerned about these incidents. some are clearly examples of unprofessional behavior on the part of an individual comptroller. their actions are unacceptable.

controllers do have the responsibility to come to work rested. some have used those incidents to try to tarnish a group of dedicated men and women who do work to make sure our airspace is the safest in the world. air traffic controllers monitor 35,000 flights daily. nearly 2 million air passengers come into contact with air traffic control each day. we can talk about how the next gen technology is going to help us improve the system. at the heart of our air traffic control system are approximately 15,000 air- traffic controllers. the incidents do serve to highlight the the jet and the safety issues of air traffic controller fatigue, particularly those working on the midnight shift. there is no escaping besides that shift work has the potential to disrupt the circadian rhythms of the body

and asa -- often leads to fatigue. distance seriously impair the -- and this can impair the readiness of air traffic controllers. this raises concerns for safety operations of the air-traffic control system. i applaud secretary lloyd and babbit for taking swift actions. hopefully, this improves the spirit the national safety board has done studies on air traffic controller fatigue. it took until 2009 for the faa to get their fatigue work group under way. they have made a dozen recommendations to get air traffic controllers under

control. they can allow air traffic controllers to recuperate during their project. historically, the question of allowing air traffic controllers to take a break or knapp has bank political rather than scientific. there are decades of science on this issue and we look forward to hearing more about it today. thank you for coming all of the way from the west coast from washington state university. we look forward to hearing more about beastly performance research center and the sciences behind it. i am concern about a 53% increase in operational errors between fiscal year 2009-2010. operational errors are situations when planes come too close to each other in the air. it increased from 1200 in 2009 to 1900 last year.

the errors were of varying degrees. on march 2, the committee asked them to conduct an assessment of the faa's current categorization of errors to understand the impact and implications of this. in the last decade, they identified the problems with how most facilities south reported operational errors and expressed concern that there was a significant potential for underreporting operational errors. beginning in 2008, the faa made a series of changes. they initiated the confidential reporting system to encourage air-traffic controllers to come forward with these reported errors. they're rolled up an automated reporting with the new software system. the committee is trying to understand if the reason that

more errors are being reported is because the faa finally having a more objective and reliable process, or because we are seeing an increase in errors. i thank you all for being here today and for coming up with answers on how to continue to improve their transportation safety. i would like to call on the chairman of the full committee if he would like to make a statement. >> you said everything i was going to say, so there is no reason to repeat it. >> i look forward to working with you on faa reauthorization

which has ben hotlined for the 19th time to be extended. i hope we can come together in the next month. this is now in conference. this will be a major mission for your subcommittee. your topic today is very timely. i appreciate you all being here. i do think that we have had such a safe aviation safety performance. in general, the air-traffic controllers have done a superb job. we have 790 million people through our system. there are 29,000-30,000 safe flights every day. that is in our favor. in the past months, we have had

alarming lapses. not only the air traffic controllers that went to sleep, but apparently one was watching a movie during the time he was on duty. i think the air traffic control incidence and near misses have cause reason for us to have a hearing. this catches any kind of weakness in the system. you are going to be putting 11,000 new controllers in place by the year 2020. there is the turnover. i hope we will hear that you are going to be looking at the teague factors, training,

scheduling, and professionalism as we are going into this transition. madam chairman, i have a 3:00 introduction of a federal judge candidate. i am not going to be able to stay for the whole hearing. i will look at the record and be interested in the results. >> thank you for your leadership for moving the bill through the process. centre nelson, would you like to make an opening statement? >> and extraordinary number of f -- air-traffic controllers to an exceptional job under extraordinary circumstances. the subject of today's hearing underscores why we need to move to the next generation of air traffic control. we are operating off of a constellation of satellites.

there will be in the cockpit updated information for the crew to konw situational awareness at all times in addition to what they're being told from the controllers on the ground. we keep dithering and not funding the steps that we should towards the next generation. it has happened in a lot of our states. in april, we had a controller asleep in miami. in march, we had two controllers that vectored a southwest airlines to a private aircraft. the next generation of air traffic control what help that situation. in the meantime, we have a problem that we can address. if you can figure out fatigue

and sleep on air traffic controllers, and applied to a lot of other professions as well. i look forward to it. >> thank you, senator nelson. you do have a very unique perspective on this. we look forward to your questions. thank you for being here today and thank you for your testimony. thank you for your leadership during this period of time. >> good afternoon, the ranking members of the subcommittee and ranking member hutchinson. thank you for the opportunity to be here to discuss the issues facing the federal aviation administration. i know that today's hearing will focus on the safety of our air traffic control system. i will probably get some tough questions from you about some

recent incidents. i welcome the opportunity to ensure you and the traveling public that we remain the safest and most efficient transportation system in the world. we are taking a substantial number of actions to improve the level of safety. before i address these actions, i would be remiss bank i were to appear before you and not mention the need for multi-year reauthorization. we have a tremendous need to enhance this from the radar based system of the last century to the satellite based system of tomorrow. to accomplish our goals, the faa needs a multi-year authorization with sufficient funding levels. the faa has not had a steady source of funding for over 3.5 years. we relied on 18 short-term extensions of our spending authority. i am pleased that the house and

senate have passed reauthorization bills. this is an important step forward. if authorized levels that were in the house bill, they were well below what the president proposed, if the levels were appropriate, it would downgrade the safe and efficient movement of traffic. if we delayed the infrastructure investments of today, the long term prices will long exceed going forward with the costs of the technology and infrastructure improvements that we need for tomorrow. i would like to turn to the reason for today's hearing. last month, i have the pressure -- pleasure of travelling with the head of the air traffic controller organization to facilities all over the country. we were on this tour for a call to action, promoting safety and

a call to action among the controllers. we have a work force that is committed to safety 20 force by seven. the incidence of the employees falling asleep says that we have to make changes and we have. we have made changes to long time scheduling practices that will reduce the level of fatigue and including establishing a minimum of nine- hours between ships. we have changed management in critical decision -- positions to make sure we have the right people in the right places. we found it was necessary to terminate three controllers that were asleep on the job. this type of behavior is completely unacceptable. we have got together with outside experts to have three recommendations regarding fatigue. i also want to address your

concerns today regarding the rise in reported operational errors we have seen over the last few years. i share your concerns. everybody at the faa is committed to the safety of our system. any upward trend in errors is deeply troubling. we believe this trend largely reflects the changes we have made in recent years that encourage the reporting of errors. we are gathering more information than we ever have previously. that will allow us to make more informed decisions moving forward to enhance the safety of the system. our voluntary reporting program encourages air-traffic controllers to report operational errors in exchange for the agency addressing the errors in a non communicative manner. these reports have given us information about everything from windows fogging up to

problems with radar equipment. in albuquerque, they were missing and old short line. it became a solutions instead of an incident. while the incidents are not counted as operational errors, i believe that this program has helped us create a culture of reporting within the faa. this is ultimately a very positive change. they will enhance safety by enabling us to identify risks and to spot trends. in addition to this cultural transformation, we have rolled out new software that automatically detect errors and reports them to the quality assurance program for analysis. nobody likes to see operational errors, especially me. we are getting the data that we need to improve safety. the american public trusts us to perform our jobs and makes

safety the highest priority every day year in and year out. we are committed to making what ever changes necessary and to provide the safest and most efficient air transportation in the world. that concludes my opening statement and i will be happy to answer questions when that time arises. >> we will look forward to that opportunity. you can press the red button there. >> mr. chairman, madam chairman, thank you for inviting me to this time the hearings on air-traffic control systems. recent incidents including several high-profile operational errors underscore the need for this system. i will discuss longstanding concerns about the process of reporting operational errors and managing the controller work force. over the past decade, we in the office of the inspector general

previously raised concerns on the operational general to report errors and operating inaccuracies. our investigative work has shown that some air reports for miss classified as non- events, while others were intentionally manipulated to cover up their words. we should help reduce these weaknesses. concerns remain about faa's effort to accurately count the number of errors. it is clear how the fate will use another recently implemented to will. it is unclear how they will use the index to assess the risks. without reliable reporting systems and processes, the operational data have little value. operational errors increased

substantially in the last year. faa officials say that this is likely to the increase in reporting practices. we have recently initiated two audits to explore these issues in depth. this makes it difficult to identify the root causes of operational errors. first, ntsb identify controller fatigue as a contributing factor. faa investigations do not always develop adequate data on controller fatigue. our development on the air traffic control facilities in the chicago area say that it scheduled overtime may contribute to fatigue. in june, 2009, we recommended

that the faa determined to the extent that fatigue could be causing operational errors. ntsb and a work group have made recommendations to the book -- to help sleep debt. the faa faces challenges to return -- replace retiring controllers. in large part because requirements in the training contract were not well defined. the contract costs exceeded the first two years estimates by 35%. because the costs were so far above estimates, the faa was not able to implement programs to increase the timeliness of comptroller programming. they need to make needed adjustments. at our recommendation, the faa

established more complete metrics. the control replacement progress does not adequately assessed skills and knowledge when assigning them to the facilities. as we reported, faa assigns them to facilities based on their choice and vacancies. as a result, faa is assigning new candidates to a some of the most complex air traffic control facilities with little thought about whether they have the skill sets for those facilities. more than 20 facilities where they have been as critical to have a significant number of their controller work force in training. we reported that southern california faced the prospect of having over 100 controllers in training. more than 40% of its work

force, potentially overwhelming the facility's training capacity. we found that denver has 43% of its work force in training. laguardia airport has 39% in trading. we are currently reviewing plans to provide the them with legitimate staffing and hope to report later this year. i want to commend faa for ramping up their efforts to tackle these challenges. we must ensure an alert, confident, and certified work force. this concludes my prepared statement. i would be happy to address any questions that you are members of the subcommittee might have. >> thank you for your testimony. >> thank you. >> is your microphone on? >> chairman rockefeller, members

of the committee, the president of the air national traffic controllers organization represents the air traffic controllers within the faa. our controllers are dedicated professionals with the passion to run the safest, most efficient system in the world. you are safe for on a commercial airline in this country than you are on an escalator. last year, we had over 9 million commercial flights with zero fatalities. that is something that we are very proud of. we can always do better and make the system safer. i would like to address three topics. one would be the professionalism in the air traffic control system. one would be fatigued in the air traffic control environment. i need to be very clear. air traffic controllers are very professional. we worked day in and day out,

365 days a year to run the safest, most efficient system in the world. in an average day, we run 70,000 operations. we save lives. we make emergency situations look routine. that will never find its way into the press. we are very fortunate not to have these situations that have found its way into the press. we are not satisfied with it or happy with it. we are proud professionals and dedicated to safety of the flying public. i, along with the other half of traveled around the country to address these issues with controllers. to be sure the professionalism as first and foremost and the safety of the flying public is first and foremost and it stays

on the safety of every air traffic controller in the system. we started working with the faa to start the joint standards program. this instils that we need to stay focused on the safety of the flying public. i have heard statements that there is a great interest in the increase in operational errors in the air traffic control system. the vast majority of errors are really not safety risks. we do not believe comparing 2010 numbers to previous years is appropriate. we had a big change in the faa and a change for the better. they brought a just culture of reporting every incident, from the lowest, the deepest procedural issues so that we can address every safety issue in the system so that we can

enhance the system every way that we can. fatigue is real in our work environment. we have tried to work with the previous administrator. we have been working with the administrator for the last 12 months to try to put together 12 recommendations along with nasa scientists and the faa to address fatigue. it is a high stress occupation. that is something where perfection is the bottom line. anything less than perfection is completely unacceptable. in closing, this is on the forefront of the improving the safety of the national airspace system. we have pushed for years for this program to voluntarily support situation -- report situations that might be safety problems in the system. we have joint standards with the faa. over the past year, we worked real hard with scientists and

the faa to come up with suggestions to improve fatigue in the work environment. we want to implement these as soon as possible. we have to be 100% 100% of the time. anything less is unacceptable. i cannot stress enough that the men and women of the air traffic controllers association worked the best and safest air traffic control system in the world. i look forward to answering any of your questions. >> thank you for being here. we look forward to your testimony. >> thank you. distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on sleep and fatigue among air traffic controllers. i am a physician by training and

a research professor and director of the sleep performance center at washington state university. i joined in 2004. prior to that, i served 24 years for the u.s. army to sustain performance in military operations. we are continuing this work studying sleep and performance and operational environments in which if the human fails, the system fails. chairman, it is important for the subcommittee with its important role to examine the recent incidents in which air traffic controllers have inadvertently falling asleep or deliberately napped while on shift. is this a moral failing on behalf of a few air traffic controllers? does it indicate a problem in the scheduling of air traffic control operations.

i believe is a systemic problem. the well describe sleeping nests that is generally characteristic of all night shift work. air-traffic controllers are the same physiologically as any other night shift workers. the same principles apply. what can we learn from these incidents of air traffic controllers sleeping on duty? i inadvertently falling asleep, air traffic controllers are pointing to a possible problem. they are identifying shifts that higher but the risks. by sleeping on shift, they not only point to a problem, but a solution as well. the primary mission gaidar of fatigue is sleep. in the early morning of august 27, 2006, a flight crashed on

takeoff from lexington, ky killing 49 of the 50 people on board. the crash occurred when the controller on duty was working the last shift of consecutive ships. there was a eight-nine hour break between the second day shift to the final night shift. the spread fell largely in the early evening during the so- called forbidden zone for sleep. he was only able to sustain sleep for 2-3 hours in the afternoon. it crashed as the captain and first officer failed to detect that they were on the run what -- wrong runway, one that was too short for takeoff. at the time of the crash, the air traffic controller's

performance was impaired by restriction and working at a circadian low. an on-shift nap would be the only way to help. the national transportation safety board to not indicate fatigue as a cause of the crash, i believe it is possible but have the air traffic controller had more sleep, he might have detected this in time to avert the disaster. i expect that one way to sustain operational performance and well-being in air traffic controllers working the night shift is sanctioned, on-shift napping. we can study ought -- the effect on this during the night shift.

previous studies have shown that even short, poor quality maps and -- increased alertness and performance. i can describe what the scientific evidence of just as possible and support ways for more evidence. members of the subcommittee must decide what is feasible and desirable as supported by the evidence. thank you, chairman, for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee. that concludes my remarks. i would be happy to answer questions that you might have. >> thank you all for your testimony. doctor, i think i will start with you on this last point you just made about what is the

optimal schedule that exists today? is there an optimal schedule to minimizing fatigued? >> yes. it is daytime work and nighttime sleep. there is no good solution for night shift work. a lot of things have been tried. stimulants, bright lights, melatonin -- >> i am referring to the fact of the 2, 2, 1 schedules. organizations that have a strict night shift work force has a better way of dealing with this. >> the rapid turn is particularly troublesome. there are problems with full- time night shifts, rotating night ships, for were the rotating, back word -- forwardly

rotating, backwardly rotating. early starting is almost as bad as working permanent nights. there are partial fixes that make things a little bit better. but no one size fits all schedule that will work under all circumstances. >> i wanted to clarify that. your testimony talks about what you think some of the remedies are within that framework. i wanted to go back to your testimony. do you have a sense that there has been a significant increase in operational errors since fiscal 2010? i know he does not want us to look at 2010. do you have a sense of this?

>> the numbers reported to show an increase in operational errors from 2009-2010. a 53% increase. 1887 in 2010. the question is why. we do not know and neither does faa at this point. it could be better reporting practices. we think that probably accounts for some of it. we think it could be an increase in the number of operational errors in itself. for better reporting practices, that is captured. what i am referring to and what they spoke to earlier in their oral statements is the air traffic safety action program has encouraged an atmosphere of self reporting minus possible repercussions for comptroller submitting reports.

he has reported that reports of operational errors are not included in the scouts. that cannot explain the increase. what you referred to earlier in your statement may explain part of it. as we slice and dice some of the numbers that we found,an 86% increase in operational errors where this is in place from 2009-2010. that would account for part of it. we are puzzled that at enroute traffic facilities, they increased 39%. they have had a program like time.n place for womsome

we do not know why. in our visits to air traffic control facilities, we have discussed this with managers and online controllers. some of them believed it is due to the increased numbers of controllers in training. that stands to logic. others have told us that they think it is attributable to controllers at the midpoint of their career who are beyond the training stage where they might be more careful in each and every action and have become more complacent. we just do not know. madam chairman, you have asked our office and we have a request from the house to review the air traffic safety action program as well as the faa lost index, which will attempt to capture all such losses of separation, categorize them, and we hope to gather some data on those so

that we can categorize and have the correct corrective measures prescribed. >> do you have any data as it relates to the loss of separation issues as it relates to the fatigue issue? >> are you referring specifically to the loss in? ? >> on this issue of fatigue, have you found the issues of how those are connected? " in 2009, we examined potential petite factors at the main air traffic control facilities in chicago. we identified at that point scheduled overtime, little time for rest between ships with a counter rotational shift pattern and high demand for on the job

training. they reported a degradation in their performance and increased fatigue as a result of that. we did not link those specifically to operational errors. >> we do not have a link at this point. senator rockefeller. >> i think you said the first time around that it is very important to place people in the right airport. that large and complex ones for those who are just in training may not be a good idea. that makes me want to ask randy how he handles that. how are people assigned?

it strikes me as a very smart point that he made. it does not cure a lot of problems, but it creates a baseline, at least an attempt at prioritizing. >> to answer the question, the placement has been made far more rationally today with the ability under the new agreement with the air traffic controllers, we now provide incentives for air-traffic controllers to move to the more complex facilities. we did not have that under the last agreement. a vacancy would come open in the new most complex of facilities and nobody will fit it. we would have to assign somebody fresh out of training. that was the only way to fill the vacancy. it was unfair to the controllers involved and it was unfair to

the facility. controllers can and will go to the more complex facilities. in any business venture, when you assign people, you pay attention to how they do in their training. we would like to think that everyone who graduates from the academy is suitably qualified to operate anywhere in our system. we try to honor the wishes of somebody who grew up in seattle and wanted to be an air traffic controller in seattle. we would let them go to seattle or new york or wherever they might be. people often bid to work where they grew up. to the extent that we can, we honor that. i want to make one comment. there seems to be some thought that the rate of people in training is rising. it is not. it is falling. we have historically had about a 25% rate with normal turnover

in training. that includes people who transition. if i were a controller in the cleveland center and i moved over to denver, i am considered aining controller. i may have been with the faa for 20 years. i count in the ranks. a year ago, the number was 30%. we are reducing the number of retirements. there was a surge. we had an exceptional number of retirements for three or four years. it met a lot of people to retire, the last agreement. we had an enormous surge in retirements. i believe the inspector general noted we had a 25% increase in cost. we had a 35% increase in

training, which would account for the cost. >> my time is about to run out. as a background for all of this, the house has passed a budget that would take the faa back to 2008 levels. i am concerned what the effect would be and what the flexibility would not be for you and others because of the fact that a lot of these people will be laid off. you would be dealing in a winter wonderland. i would like you to explain how, if we went back to 2008 levels, by and not going to allow us to do that, the world needs to know what would happen on your watch about this. >> let me start by saying that i am not going to budget safety.

safety will maintain at the level we are at today. we do not have the option of shutting down radar for 10% of the time because we had a 10% pay cut. the areas where we feel the impact is flight standards. we had over 850 requests. these are airlines buying new equipment and doing a lot of new things. maybe they are opening new stations. these all require our certification. we have 2400 safety items that are in the cue to be certified. this is new electronic equipment all meetings certification. these are all objects that will make the aviation system better, cheaper. >> nobody can do anything until they get certified? >> they cannot do anything, nor will they employ people who will build them. next gen becomes very seriously

threatened. i read a private sector report. fivee'd delaynext gen for years, it would cost $140 billion in the benefit for building that system. >> i thank the chair. >> thank you, madam chairman for holding this important hearing today and for the witnesses for testifying. this is my first hearing as ranking member. i look forward to tackling the issues in the subcommittee's jurisdiction. our constituents it always want us to be able to share our experiences. most of us are frequent fliers. we can identify the challenges that people face in challenging. i want to work with my colleagues on this committee to

ensure that our consumers have access to safe, affordable, and timing lee -- timing -- timely air service. we have roughly 13,000 air- traffic controllers and civilian contracts controllers and 900 military controllers. they ensure that our nation has one of the safest aviation systems in the world. there is still a lot of work that needs to be done. i appreciate you taking some of the steps being taken today. i would like to take up a question regarding next gen. i am aware that the faa is in the early stages of the next- generation air traffic control system. the system will use technological advances to make the system safer and more

efficient. in some cases, aircraft will be flying closer together more safely. do you see the next gen system and to reduce saying for preventing terrorist caused by the current system. >> one of the of that says it is a very advanced situational awareness. it would show all the aircraft around your aircraft. you will essentially have the same display that the air traffic controller has. it is simply a backup system. as hard as we try, there are situations where radar fails. sometimes it is for a few moments or a few seconds. when airplanes are closing at a combined closure rate of 60 miles per minute, 20 seconds is a long time. having the situational awareness that you would get from that type of increase and warning

technology could be a huge lifesaver. it gives us a better situation and more timely. people do not think about it with long-range radar sweeps. it is between nine and 12 seconds between updates. airplanes go a long way. these are instantaneous. they are constantly showing you actor position of where the aircraft are. >> is there anything in a thenext gen system that could be improved? >> the situation is a little bit different. we are taking a hard look at working with our colleagues to work through the scheduling processes. the technology is going to be more effective in terms of

provide everybody with a more such additional awareness of where the traffic is. >> if anybody else on the panel would want to respond to that, feel free to. i also wanted to point out over the next 10 years, we are going to be looking at 11,000 new controllers hiring and being trained. are there any programs in place that we would be able to identify who might be more adept or who might have the greatest difficulties of working the night shifts. are there any ways to identify those types of things when you are evaluating personnel? >> the doctor probably could shed more light on profiling. one of the things we did in terms of overall training, this morning i kicked off our blue ribbon panel. this is a group that we have

selected in an overall view of training. this panel is going to look at every segment of how we hire, train, requaligy our -- requalify our controllers. i am looking forward to their report to help increase the training of controllers. >> the people who are mourning types do not do as well on shift work as people who are evening types. this is a difference in their circadian rhythm. there is a physiological difference between people. evening types do better. no. people do better. as you get older, sometimes, people whose tolerate ships work very well cease to tolerate it

or did not do it at all. as we get older, we shift more and more to the morning type. this is an issue. there are physiological differences that do speak to people's ability to do this. >> with that kind of information, managers might be in a better position to schedule and mitigate issues before they happen. if that kind of information is available. it sounds like it is. >> it is. this is expected within the field. >> my time has expired. >> i was beginning to feel lonesome here. we introduced the chair person and then the chairman of the committee, the ranking member, and then members of the committee.

i am multiple members of the committee. i am glad that we have a chance to make this exchange. pretty important. we look at the number of supply every day and how good the performances of the controllers are, it is really remarkable. the very obvious glitches that are in here, you look at 6 incidences' where air traffic controllers were caught sleeping on the job. watching pilots land planes with no assistance. i understand that you are taking steps to ensure that there is at least two people. i wonder in the processing of the appointments, are there any

prohibitions against second jobs. i am sure a lot of people enjoy a second job in come. among the controllers and other people in the work force. are there any rules that say you cannot have strenuous exercise before you come to work? i do not how you monitor it. if somebody just had a five or 10-mile run and then comes to work, you could be heading for a very serious problem. of sleepain determinant time is work hours. you add second employment and to cut into your sleep time. the first is work hours. the second is travel times including dropping people off

and picking people up and commuting. the second is a family and community responsibilities. >> with all of those things that answer the question as i put it, how do you regulate the behavior? it obviously has to do with sleep. when i get older, i will probably need more sleep. >> i think he said you would get up earlier. >> yes. i am so proud of our workforce. as you know, there are thousands and thousands of good movement.

no problems. it is not the good things you do. that is expected. it is the bad things we are focused on. one incident can be far too many. we have to be careful. we had a major assault on controllers some year ago where the whole force was terminated and had to rebuild. i hear you ask for a budget to take care of your responsibility. on the other hand, i like what you said that safety is the most important issue. there will be no compromise on safety. how do these things come together if you do not have

enough money in the budget? it is hard to say we're all going to do safety measures to spread the hours out. 10 hours between jobs or whatever that is. there is an inconsistency there. when we send people to the front, we have to have enough bullets for them to carry. if we send people into the towers, those jobs are equally important. mistakes would be unacceptable. how does that work out, the budget and safety? >> i will expand on the comment i made. you're asking me to make a selfish choice. i indicated we will not compromise safety and we will not. we have a dedicated word -- work

force. we're going to staff and man and make sure they have the rest and education they need. there are areas that are more discretionary. the certification we're looking at, there are three facilities being proposed to be built on the east coast. one is blowing, -- boeing all are going to hire up to four thousand employees. each facility has to be certified by the faa. this safety going to be compromised if i build one four months later? no. but we would be better served by putting people to work four months earlier rather than need be lacking people to inspect the plant. we are being forced to make some discretionary spending decisions. we have a case that would

support their request we have made. all of us want to do more. we want to do more with the funds we have. we're good shepherds of the taxpayer dollar. that employee to savings we have undertaken. we have saved $560 million in the last five years. that is money we took to programs and did not ask for more money. we funded those from internal savings. we're going to save $85 million this year from i t consolidation. we want to share our services better. not having the funds we're looking for will have consequences. >> it has to be someplace. you cannot get more liquid and a quart bottle then it will hold. i do not know how we can say,

ok, build an additional facility. bring more airplanes into the system and not be guaranteed we have enough funds to supply the appropriate number of controllers. there should be a formula that says if you want to cut the funding to the faa, here is how many controllers you get. there can only be x number of airplanes in this guy. so there is not this tug of war you find yourself in. where it is going to be cut, cut, cut. if you cut too much, the blood starts running. across a very much. -- thank you very much. >> i would like to go back to my question about operational errors and understand whether

you have any per view on this as relates to this year. are we seeing the same trajectory tax is this year better than last? >> i am as concerned as anyone about errors. the other side of it, i am pleased. we tried to change the culture. we want to have people report everything. we have asked our supervisors to be more proactive. while reports are excluded from the reporting, operational errors are duly reported. if you make an error and i see it, you file and i file. there is no prohibition on both of us noting that operational error. >> you're not saying that this double accounting. >> no, no. i am suggesting to you that they are in another fashion.

somebody else is going to file the report. the other thing we should pay attention to is that there has been an increase, but the a errors went from 37 to 43. that was of 133 million operations. i do not like an increase of seven. but that is a small percentage of error increase. the lion's share of errors comes d's.to the c's and this means the someone who wanted 5 miles of spacing had 4.9. we do not people getting inside of 5 miles. but there was nothing at risk. so we take this increase data and revise our training. the goal here, as we go forward,

we are going to get more increases. as we capture more electronically, when you look at a radar that is getting 50 miles -- scanning 50 miles, as this kind of reporting comes in, we will see increases in errors. that is a good thing. >> can you talk about the "a" group and what the methodology is? is this objective? is this an object of prague -- objective process? >> loss of separation is what we're talking about. "a" is the most significant loss. depending if the decision on route environment, the final

approach, for example, over the ocean, we separate airplanes by 50 miles. we cannot see them. we require them to report where they are. across the united states, they can go to 20 miles. on final approach, because the radar is better, we can tolerate 3 miles. >> so this increases 7, do you know which of those they were? >> i can get back to you. i do not have it on the top of my head. my point is that thousands of the increases were down in the c's. they were not the significant problems. the ones that would really concern us. they all concern me but i want to make that distinction. >> were more of them during the

been night shift and other ships? >> i do not know the answer to that. i can get back to you. we can get the time and location of each event. >> that is one of the questions we're trying to ask -- ascertained. . we have this issue of fatigue in the workplace. they are concerning. they are related to each other. >> common sense would direct me to suggest that probably not. the traffic drops off in the evenings. these errors tend to happen at high-volume situations. >> is the schedule considered a casual factor for error? do you know? do they list a casual factors

for each operational error? >> subsequent to each operational air, there is a series of questions that is asked. we believe those questions need to be better refined and the data needs to be much more precise. i referred earlier to our review of factors in the chicago area. in reviewing operational error report above location, we were looking specifically for the degree to which fatigue was accounted for in the investigation. we found into many instances a cursory description of what the controller had experienced, for instance, what shift? that is entirely relevant.

the controller reported simply, rotation. he did not indicate which shift. or which state in the two-to-one rotation. with better attention, that will yield better data. better data and proper analysis will yield better corrective actions. >> thank you. senator rockefeller. >> i think it is only fair you get to talk. let me ask you a couple of questions. this has not been answered. i am ashamed to say i do not know the answer myself. please tell me that in air- traffic control person cannot hold two jobs during the course of the day. >> it is not prohibited. under the proposed -- many of the new air-traffic controllers

were holding down two and three jobs to make ends meet because of the cut in pay. they're putting a lot of focus on getting us back to a fair collective bargaining agreement. i'm not sure of the numbers of people holding two jobs down. >> you said sometimes three. >> sometimes three. to make ends meet. >> that is stunning to me. i think that the doctor can do all of the magic he wants but you cannot overcome that one. i will come to an end in that period that -- i will come to you in a minute. that is asking for trouble. your response would be, they do not have a choice. they have mouths to feed. that is where we get into the question of the budget.

safety comes first. the budget will affect this. it will affect pay increases. just like not having next gen makes life more complicated but it will make it better because they can see farther out and have more accurate spacing. how can this happen? as is always been the case? how does this not cause of bad judgment? >> from 2006-2007, we're talking about the tea in the work environment and how we want to get together to address this. that was one of our biggest reasons to get a fair collective bargaining gris-gris -- agreement. we sought new hires coming in with a 30% reduction in pay and working at these busy facilities

in these high cost of living areas and not do -- being able to make ends meet. >> we have a problem here, gentlemen. can these things coexist side- by-side and have less talk about maximizing safety? >> they can. performance is dependent on sleep in 24 hours. however you split it is a good. if total sleep in 24 hours is ok, you're not so concerned about commute time or second jobs. it is when it cuts into the sleeve. there are ways of measuring that you could actually track people 's sleep history over days and months unobtrusively. but that was ok, that would

probably be all right. >> you're talking from a lab point of view. in the real world of being in a control tower, people are not going to divide up their sleep very well. maybe i am wrong. maybe end -- maybe they can comment on that. i think this is a big issue. >> fatigue israel. -- is real. i applaud the commission for coming up with a task force. we of come up with ideas to mitigate fatigue in the work a diamond. the new collective bargaining agreement is fair.

it has gotten us back to -- we will get back to the 2006 pay which has taken some of the stress off the new air-traffic controllers to do not have to have the two or three jobs anymore. we are getting there. there is a lot of things we are addressing. the recommendations are built on science. it is a con bridget conglomeration built on scientists from nasa who say this will help fatigue in the work environment. that is one thing we are pushing for. >> there is work to be done. thank you. >> to you have a second round of questioning? >> just a couple of things. mr. babbitt, following this string of incidents, the ceo of the faa accepted responsibility and resigned. that is a critical position at

the faa. how long before you find a replacement? what is the skills that you are looking for? >> it was unfortunate that -- he was a professional. i have known him for a long time. he had an excellent background and reputation. we are starting the process now. i could not tell you in exact terms. sometimes some of the folks you would like to have not interested in taking the job. certainly this is a job that requires a lot of operational experience. this network is not unlike a large logistics' network. this is a very complex operation. just the operation itself, you have over 500 facilities that are mad with people on 24 hours. the vast majority are 24 hours. they have to be trained. the opera and -- operational

-- side of it, how do we prioritize those? we have a set of criteria we are looking at. we are reviewing it within the department of transportation. we will start our research quickly. in the interim, the chief counsel to the faa, david, he is a seasoned professional. he has a lot of experience in operations. he saw a lot of transformation at continental airlines. he is familiar with networks. i think he is doing a terrific job. he would rather go back to being chief counsel then the coo. he is doing a good job in the interim. my hope would be within the next few months. it is hard to say. >> accountability is important. one individual is not solely

responsible for these incidences. >> we have undertaken some dramatic management changes. we have 10 different areas where we have taken the leadership and in some cases people thought it would be better to move on and do something else. we have some cultural changes to make. one of the reasons paul and i were on the call to action was to reinforce professionalism. senator rockefeller mention, we cannot regulate this. i cannot regulate professionalism. but you can call upon the vast majority of the controllers. they are proud of what they do. they have great respect for what they do. we call upon them to help mentor people. sometimes you see someone doing something less than

professionals. . speak up. they need to help us police the professionalism. someone can have 16 hours of rest but we found out they played 60 -- 36 rounds of golf. that is not professional. if he did not use the sleep wisely and take advantage, these are the types of things. i am glad the group is addressing these. some of the stuff, you cannot do top down. they are inspired to do it. they're not happy about this blemish. >> let me ask a general question. you have implemented the nine hour rest period.

maybe why the recommendations were chosen and is that satisfactory? is that rest something you would be the most effective? >> one of the 12 recommendations was the nine hour break between the evening shift and the quick turn to the day shift. that was backed with signs that said that would give us an extra hour of sleep as we were rotating through our ships. that was backed with science and one that was recommended. the extra hour between the day shift in the midnight shift, you're starting your shift later. that is when your circadian

rhythms are expecting you to sleep. you're focused on falling asleep at that point. we do not support it. we are working with the administration. the science supports it, we are behind it. if 10 hours is better than nine, but right now nine hours has the most benefit between shifts. if nine hours are supported with science, we will be behind that. right now does not show that. it shows the opposite. you're starting your midnight shift in an area where you are working more hours in that dangerous. . period. >> the issue depends on the timing of the sleep opportunity. as was indicated, the early to mid evening is the forbidden

zone for sleep. your temperature is rising. your body is telling you to stay away. it is difficult to sleep then. nine hours from 3 in the afternoon until 11:00 in the evening is not going to help very much. it is not going to be a usable sleep opportunity. in contrast, nine hours from midnight until 9 it -- 9:00 a.m. is a duty. you can capitalize on that opportunity. placement is key with respect to the circadian rhythm. >> you refer to our recommendation the base -- that dates back to a report out of the chicago facility. at that time we recommended 10 hours between shifts. it was our understanding that the faa was about to change its internal order to specify 10 hours as opposed to eight hours in the rotation.

we endorsed that change. since then, they have both referred to the work group that has recommended a move to nine hours. we are not wedded to 10 hours. we would gladly defer to medical science on this question. but we think that the agency would be well served to be guided by the science when it comes to rest during a work shift as well. it will be cold comfort for the family of a victim of an aircraft accident if it is determined that it was due to controller error and the controller was fatigued at the time and had been deprived opportunities for rest. >> to you have a second question?

>> i ask consent that my full opening statement would be put in the record. >> without objection. >> i want to ask mr. babbitt a question about 2006. the four moc -- former faa administrator informed me that air-traffic control needed a least 35 controllers to move traffic safely. i do not know if that was intended to be performance people the right now there are only 26 certified controllers and the tower with eight trainees. what is the plan to keep the towers fully staffed? >> i am not sure. i do not have the numbers available. we try to staff to traffic.

traffic flows -- you may want to increase staff -- staffing someplace. sometimes traffic falls off. a good example would have been cincinnati where a merger forestay moving traffic to other areas so traffic in another city went up a dramatically. traffic in cincinnati went down. it takes us a while to migrate people back and forth. my understanding today, and i can give you the absolute numbers we have, we think we have a floor of around 28 and a ceiling of 38. >> let me ask you this. what have we to do to provide the numbers we need for new or rigid -- newark, when 75% of the

trainees to not make it through the program? what do we do to get newark up to date? >> we had difficulty with the collective bargaining agreement. we were unable to attract season controllers. that has changed. those are old numbers. we have had dramatic improvement since then. now we're able to, if we need to fill spots, we would be able to advertise. a seasoned controller might come from a smaller facility. he would uprate into it as opposed to a new hire. we had to put new hires into a washout rate. that was unfortunate. we have cured that.

>> we still have increased salary for high-cost areas? >> yes, sir. >> if someone comes from another, less busy airport to become a fully trained controller, they will get an increase in the salary? >> if they come from the guardia probably not, but inside the metropolitan area. >> that house republicans have threatened to cut back faa funds to 2008 levels. what impact would these proposed cuts have on our ability to hire and fully trained new air traffic controllers? >> that would be a big concern of ours to go back to those levels.

as mr. babbitt said, from 2006 to 2009 we lost between four thousand and 5000 air-traffic controllers. we've hired somewhere over 7500 controllers. it takes three to five years to train somebody become an air- traffic controller. the training puts a lot of stress on the program. in a lot of our facilities, the optimal ratio of controller level -- if we went back to 2008 numbers and looked at not hiring, currently we have about another four thousand already to retire. they will be retiring soon. we have another wave of retirement. we have not caught up from the first wave in 2006. >> i close with thanks to all

four of these people. they do a terrific job. we are going to how do to death to make a better. -- hound you to death to make it better. >> i want to commend commissioner babette for some of the actions. we were all surprised by -- i am glad to see you working to get further. this is not an area had a lot of knowledge about. i do not think in all my time in public service i had more of a frightening session getting air- traffic control 101. in terms of the wave of retirees, the challenges of attracting new folks, the

ability to attract people to stay in the profession, the need to move to next gen. i want to echo what has been set, i think you do a good job. we need to be vigilant. i would ask you if there is anything else. the remarkable thing is, a lot of the things said in 2007 have come to pass. i do not think a lot of our folks around the country would know how close to the edge because there has been a massive transfer -- transformation. new people were hired. i wonder if you -- i know i missed the first round of questions, but if you have any advice or admonitions? hopefully not any more predictions that you made in 2007.

>> unfortunately, there is a lag in the system. i did not mean to say we're not concerned about operational errors. we certainly are. i was trying to refer to, in 2006 to 2009, there was a culture within the -- incentives were tied to it. to cover it up. we were not getting the information to address the concerns in the system. that is why i applaud the system for putting a just culture in place. i think we're going to see an increase in operational errors. better reporting, we will start to see where there are implications of safety in the system. i look forward to working with the administrator and all the to say, yes, we have a concern that

we need to address. as operations grow, as fatigue is a real problem in our work environment, we look for to implementing those recommendations to mitigate as much as possible. we can never eliminate fatigue and a high stressed profession like air-traffic control but you can try to mitigate it so that our karma the skills are not impaired. that is where we but to go. we are embarrassed by what has happened. we are proud professionals. we do not like any of the nonsense that is going on. we want to make sure does not happen again. the first positive step is to recommend -- address the safety concerns. >> you feel we have the transparency and training to make sure that we do not have this kind of cliff effect of retirement?

>> the retirement rate is half of what it was three years ago. we are down to a steady state. any business to a point where you have retirement at 5% per year. that is where we are living. we can train with and that without any problem. we were overburdened. there is no question. we were training twice that many of controllers for three straight years. it put a huge burgeon -- bergen. we added finite number of facilities. who trains them? the other controllers. it is a burden. we are down to the 20% range. >> i appreciate the collaboration you are going to work on.

i wish all of the things you have -- i hope the rest of them do not come true. mr. babbitt, this will come out of left field. i hope you get back to me if you do not have the answer. i am interested in making sure we get additional spectrum into the marketplace. in number of years back, there was an award given to a company that might be another broadband competitor. there were certain questions about interference with existing gps systems. some of these concerns into have been raised now. nobody likes to give up spectrum. some of the folks that i've talked to say there are ways we can make sure that there is another viable broadband competitor and still make sure as we move into next gen that

there is appropriate gps protection, but there will not be interference. i would just hope that you go through this process you will participate and not to seven approach this as, -- that says, there is potential interference. >> we are actively engaged in working through to find a solution. one of the problems was the original intent of light squared was to use the satellite signals. back in november, they began to come up with the idea they could enhance the signal by boosting it on the ground. literally 100 times more powerful than the original forecast from space. there is a technical solution available but i have to tell you

it wouldn't be not without consequence. the technical solution, remember, we would design the equipment for interference. it has weight, cert, there are consequences to putting new equipment in airplanes. it would probably be in the five-year range. you're talking about equipping their plans that have been designed for the last 15 years to accommodating the automatic surveillance broadcast equipment where the airplane takes its position from a satellite and the broadcasts that. we have about 5000 commercial airplanes they use that equipment today and about 140,000 general aviation airplanes. >> it would require a transition period. i wonder what some of those costs will be. at some point we will have to weigh the policy implications. >> we certainly will.

>> thank you, madam chairman. i apologize for being late. now i am last so that means all the questions have been asked. i want to thank all of you. i was impressed by your comments and exchanges with -- about the pride in your profession and how these recent he vents have been disappointing and the work that is being done to fix it. we have carried nearly 800 million people last year. many of them through major hubs like minneapolis. we know that our accident rate has gone down over the years. there are still issues we know. we have some of our traffic controllers falling asleep. fatigue and sleep deprivation is a serious issue. i appreciate this hearing and

all of you for taking this on. mr. babbitt, the faa has recognized and addressed the issue of fatigue and the new staffing guidelines required to controllers in towers during a night shift. have you been able to quantify the effect of these policies on operational errors and runway incursion since implemented? >> it is probably too early. part of the problem is these powers -- towers, the ones with a single person staffing, that is because there is very battle traffic operation. we would not expected to be many errors there. it is too early to tell. >> i know there were reports about people falling asleep.

it seems like there have not been in the last month or two/ do you have information on that? >> we instituted a number of changes. >> i know the changes i wonder if you had reports of people falling asleep. >> i called for a top to bottom review. we did find some that happened earlier. i'm sure i could find more. we found two that happened in january. both instances of observed sleeping or with their eyes closed. neither of these were good. one in los angeles and the other in for worth. -- fort worth. >> the rest periods between --

does the faa have an estimate of how these new policies could affect the demand for controllers? >> in this case we're talking about 30 total out of 15,000. that has a consequence. we're also looking to work with the controllers. there are ways we could, for example, provide the same as effective result of having two people together in a tower. were we have facilities where we have somebody in a radar facility downstairs, each of them alone. we can put a consul upstairs and that the person work radar up there. it is dark at night anyway. now there are two people at no cost other than the installation. we are looking at things like that. >> they would be doing -- >> guess, in a different location. we would put them in the same spot. it would save as the extra

person. >> one last question. there was a set of 12 recommendations that would address the issue of fatigue among air-traffic controllers. do you know the status of this proposal? do you expect to implement the recommendations? are there other recommendations beyond double staffing during nine shifts -- night shifts? >> we have already implemented several. it came out of the fatigue study. we are in discussions to review and see what makes the most sense. in addition to the lafayette -- faa, we had some human factor folks that introduced medical science to help us better understand fatigue and have to mitigate it. all of those will be in review. some of those require

memorandums to the collective bargaining agreement if we need to move ships. we have had excellent cooperation with ourselves. >> thank you. >> the 12 recommendations are a good start. they will have to be implemented and evaluated to see if we reach the goals we're trying to. there might have to be more. the scientists will continue to work to see if we need more time in between ships or whatever might happen. so we can see if we are addressing the fatigue. more importantly, there -- the education factor. we have about 5000 new air- traffic controllers under the

age of 30. when we were 30, we thought we were invincible. we did our test over the night. we need to make sure that we address fatigue and address it real and make sure that we use that time to sleep. >> a very dead. thank you -- very good. thank you. >> getting more details on the operational errors and the meaning of those errors and the implementation of recommendations. this committee will play an active role in all of those issues. we're not ruling out taking a legislative path, either. we will be diligent until we feel we have improved the

safety. thank you for this hearing. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> congressman paul brown who serves on the homeland's security committee will talk about the threat of al qaeda since the death of bin laden. joh garamendi on the situation in libya. later, a discussion about the cost of eliminating tax credits. washington journal at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

on c-span 3, a conference on the federal debt and other fiscal challenges. speakers include bill clinton, paul ryan, gene sperling. live coverage begins at 9:15 eastern. >> there are three days of "book tv" this weekend. one of the largest said the sting operations. new releases with -- panels on feminism and the favor books of 2011. plus, michael more on his upcoming memoir. the untold story of barack obama's mother. find a complete schedule at book tv.org.

>> today, the u.s. house took up debate on medical education funding. it included an amendment on abortion offered by virginia fox. this is an hour and 40 minutes. oman yields back. the gentleman from new york. >> madam chair, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i rise in opposition to h.r. 1216, the underlying bill. as a resident of update new york, where much attention has been given to today's spec election far congressional seat, people are saying loud and clear, hands off my medicare. mr. tonko: the republicans are once again putting us on the road to ruin. they are pushing forward to end a program that 46 million seniors and disabled individuals depend on for their health care. is gross injustice is made more egregious by the fact that this is done not to balance the budget to expand and perm

neptly guarantee even bigger tax cuts for millionaires an billionaires and give tax breaks to some of the most profitable companies, including oil. i have heard a lot of talk about the need to make tough choices these day. the average senior on medicare earns just over $19,000 a year. one quarter of medare beneficiaries suffers from a cognitive or mental impairment. i ask my republican colleagues, what is it about stripping these americans bare of their health and economic security that wall fis as tough? thers nothing tough about stealing from the poor or weak to give to the rich. our seniors know about all tough choices doifment buy grows riss or prescriptions? do i pay rent or medical bills. it hurts but how much will it cost? these are the tough choices, these are life and death choices. with the passage omedicare in 1965 we entered into a covenebt

with each and every american citizen. a seniors will be on their own with a measly voucher and forced to buy insurance in the private market where all decisions will be profit-driven. more profits for insurance companies on the backs of seniors. sounds like a reblican plan to me. this new voucher program amounts to a rationing. the voucher is not linked to increases in health care costs, yet the cost of private health insurance have risen over 5,000% since the creation of medicare. 5,000%. the analysis of the nonpartisan congressional office has estimated that in less than 20 years these vouchers would pay just 32 cents on every $1 that a senior would spend on health care premiums. now, the republican leadership has repeatedly stated that this budget gives seniors the same coverage as members of congress. well, as a member of congrs myself, i know that our health plans pay for about 72 cents on every $1 of health care, not 32

cents. america knows that legislation in congress carries a statement of priorities and values. not purely dollars and cents. and what sse does it make to cut training for primary care physicians who are on the front lines not only of keeping our constituents and communities healthy, but also of lowering health care costs with early, simple treatments? i urge my colleagues to stand with our siors and stand up for middle class priorities. let's defend our middle class, let's defend our working families. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and with that, madam chair, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from massachusetts. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. >> i rise to undermine our constituents' access to affordable health care. ms. tsongas: i recently heard from my constituent from massachusetts named phil who

relies on medicare for his health coverage. his wife's diabetes treatment and prescription drugs are also covered through medicare and they have both paid into medicare all their lives through payroll deductions. he remarked to my office that there was no way that they could meet the cost of health care today without medicare. he and hisife are not alone. each day thousands of seniors like them use medicare to cover the costs of doctors' appointments, prescription drugs as well as routine tests and treatments. under the budget that house republicans passed in apri and that the senate is set to consider this week the medicare program that seniors have relied on for more than 50 years to meet their medical needs and expenses would be eliminated. in its place would be a voucher system that pays a small lump sum to private insurers to cover seniors. any cost not covered by that payment would fall to seniors to

pay or forego coverage. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that elimination of medicare is needed to help reduce the deficit and that the same benefits that seniors now enjoy under medicare will be recommend cated in the private insurance -- replicated in the private insurance market. not so in reality their plan will result in a far -- not so. in reality their plan will result in a far lower care for seniors while trillions of dollars will be added to the national debt. rather than taking steps to reduce the underlying increases in health care costs which in turn drive up the cost of medicare, their plan simply shifts those costs to seniors. thvalue of the vouchers that would replace medicare would not keep pace with rising health care costs, so seniors will be increasingly required to make up the difference. just eight years after the program's start, a vouch already cover less than 1/3 of the cost of a private health insurance package with the same benefits as medicare currently provides. leaving seniors to cover the

rest. according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office, the average senior will end up spending nearly twice as much their income on health care than under the current medicare system. that is why a.a.r. -- aa released a statement warning that the bigget, quote, uld result in a large cost shift in the future employees. the republican proposal, rather than tackling skyrocketing health care costs, would simply shift those costs onto the backs of people in medicare. unquote. instead of focusing on cost control measures that would bring down the cost of medicare, the budget claims cost savings but only by passing those costs directly onto our seniors. furthermore, because costs have typically grown faster in the private market than in medicare the costs faced by seniors under the republican plan will be much higher than the costs faced by the federal government now. my colleagues have argued that seniorwon't be affected by these costs for years to come, but this is simply not true.

for example, the house budget immediately reopens a prescription drug doughnut hole for current seniors that was fixed with passage of last year's health reform law. it also significantly increases costs for seniors now residing in nursing homes and for their adult children who may not be able to afford their parents' care. despite being presented as a solution for our deficit, the budget proposal would still add $8rillion to the natiol debt over the next 10 years. these new debts are incurred part because their budget proposal also slashes taxes for the wealthiest americans while continuing to provide billions in tax breaks for oil companies and other preferred industries. real deficit reduction will require a blend of spending reductions, new revenue and additional reforms to control rising health care costs. but simply shifting those costs onto seniors by eliminating medicare will prove as

unsustainable for our nation's well-being as the current budget crisis we face. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from illinois. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. mr. davis: thank you, madam chairman. i rise in opposition to the fox amendment -- foxx amendment and to the underlying bill, h.r. 1216, to amend the public health service act to convert funding for graduate medical education and qualified teaching health centers from direct appropriations to an authorization of appropriations. this bill would eliminate mandatory funding that establishes new or expanding programs for medicals remain dents in teaching health centers and unobligated funds previously appropriated to the grant program. under policies currently being considered by some in the house majority, academic medical centers and teaching hospitals face as much as $60 billion in

cuts over the next 10 years to medicare funding for indirect medical education and direct graduate medical education. these cuts would reduce indirect medical educatiopayments by 60% from the current level at 5.5% to 2.2%, cap the graduate medical education payments at $1 -- 120% of the national average salary paid to residents. it would reduce federal funding for medical residents in training is wrong public policy. giving our present situation with the shortage of primary care and family practice physicians and the expected future growth of our population, it makes no sense for the republicans to end the present structure of medicare. in 2010 47.5 million people were covered by medicare.

we have 39.6 million at the age of 65 and older and 7.9 million disabled. the republican budget plan is a voucher plan that would raise health care costs and would immediately create higher costs for prescription drugs for our seniors and disabled. this plan would end medicare's entitlement of guaranteed benefits and promote rationing by private insurance companies who would make decisions on approving our disapproving treatments for our seniors and the disabled. the medicare program is efficiently managed, devoting less than 2% of its funding to administrative expenses. med car haise dramatally improved the quality -- medicare has dramatically improved the quality of life for seniors and the disabled. it is the largest source of health coverage in the nation. democrats are committed to strengthening medicare, not

tearing it down. under the guise of reform, republicans desire to end medicare as we know it today. last year the republicans promised the american people that jobs would be their number one priority. well, i ask, where are the jobs? but instead they want to make draconian cuts to programs to help seniors and the disabled, the middle class, the poor and the needy and yet provide tax cuts for over $1 trillion to millionaires and billionaires and so we ask, where are the jobs and where are the opportunities? the estimated one-year impact of anticipated graduate medical education cuts for illinois are $144 million. for indirect medical edution and $39 million for graduate medical education which totals

$183 million. if they are -- if there are no doctors, there can be no medical care. i urge that we vote against these measures and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. waters: thank you very much, madam chair. i rise in opposition to the underlying bill, h.r. 1216, which would undermine the teaching health center program which trains primary care physicians. madam speaker and members, this is just one more attempt by the republicans to dismantle health care reform. they're going after the training of primary doctors. we need more primary doctors even if there was no health care reform. there are many communities throughout this country who have no primary health care physicians. our nation is facing a serious

shortage of primary care physicians, primary care physicians are an essential part of a successful health care system. they're at the first point of contact for people of all ages who need basic health care services, whether they're working people with employer-provid health insurance, low income children on medicaid or seniors on medicare. the republicans have made it clear that they're not concerned about access to basic health care services. the republican budget for fiscal year 2012 turns medicare into a voucher program. slashes medicaid by more than $700 billion over the next decade and cancels the expansion of health insurance coverage which was included in the affordable care act last year. the republicans' budget cuts to medicare are especially detrimental to current and future medicare recipients.

under the republican budget individuals who are 54 and younger will not get government-paid medicare benefits like their parents and grandparents. instead they will receive a voucher-like payment to purchase health insurance from a private insurance company. there will be no oversight to these private programs. we will not be able to contain the cost, we will not be able to mandate what the basic services should be. as a matter of fact we know the stories about the h.m.o.'s and the fact that they had accounts who determined -- accounnts who determined what care could you get. not physicians who had the knowledge and the ability to determine what you need. when the first of these seniors retire in 2022, they will receive an average of $8,000 to buy a private insurance plan, that is much less than the amount of the subsidy members of congress receive for our health

plans today. the coverage gap in the medicare prescription drug program will continue indefinitely. der the affordable care act this so-called doughnut hole is scheduled to be phased out. the republican budget will allow seniors to continue to pay exorbitant prices for their prescriptions when they reach the doughnut hole. the republican budget also gradually increases the age of eligibility for medicare from 65 to 67 years of age. madam speaker, the republican budget is also detrimental to americans who depend again on medicaid, including low income children, disabled americans and seniors in nursing homes. the budget converts medicaid into a block grant program and allows states to reduce benefits, cut payments to doctors, even freeze enrollment. medicaid funding is slashed by more than $700 billion over the next decade.

that is over 1/3 of the progm's funding. meanwhile the republican budget extends the bush era tax cuts, beyond the expiration in 2012, and cuts the top individual tax rate down to 25% from 35%. according to the center for tax justice, the republican budget cuts taxes for the richest 1% of americans by 15% while raising taxes for the lowest income 20% of americans b 12%. the national shortage of primary care doctors is not a problem for multimillionaires. they will always be able to find a doctor who will treat them and pay them whatever they ask for. but most americans -- america's seniors ne well-trained primary care physicians and medicare benefits that they can rely on. i urgey colleagues to oppose

the underlying bill, oppose the republican plan to dismantle medicare. they're trying to dismantle health care reform piece by piece, inch by inch, today is an attack on training needed primary care physicians. what sit tomorrow? we know they have a strategy that includes hundreds of bills that will dismantle, again, piece by piece, medicare reform. it's not fair, madam speaker and members. health care reform in which all merps are covered is something we should support. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from california. >> madam speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. woolsey: i rise in opposition to this amendment and the underlying bill, h.r. 1216. this is just the last attempt, the latest and newest attempt by the majority to stall health

care reform and undermine the alth security of the american people. we have barely taken our oaths inian when they voted to real the affordable care t. now trying to eliminate title 10:00 funding that creates critical primary care for women an last month they went after the funding for the healthare exchanges and voted to cut grants for school-based health centers th served young children. but worst of all is e republican budget resolution that was passed last month. it rips the heart out of medicare, eviscerates, disfigures, a program that would no longer be recognized. it's one of the more radical proposals i have seen in 18 years in congress. they want to strip guaranteed benefits and break the american promise that served our seniors so well for nearly half a century. and what do they replace it with?

a voucher. a voucher that won't be able to keep up with soaring health care costs, a voucher that will give seniors no leverage in the health care marketplace, a voucher that will put older americans at the mercy of the insurance company. madam chairwoman, the c.b.o. has concluded that the republic proposal will double health care costs for seniors. so, if you're 54 years old today, you'd need to ave an addional $182,000 to make up for the medicare benefits you'll lose under the republican plan. and they're not content to destroy medicare. medicaid comes in for brutal treatment as well. by converting to it a block grant, they would be throwing as many as 44 million americans off the insurance rolls, eliminating coverage for the poorest people, most nursing home residents and people with

disabilities. my friends on the other side of the aisle who say we have to do this to blaps the budget, they know they're wrong. i say they're dead wrong. we do not need to put seniors and low income americans onn austerity program in order to rein in the deficit. we do not need to shred the social safety net or squeeze the middle class in order to get our fiscal house in order. in fact, we can save taxpayers $68 billion over seven years and expand the menu of health care choices by instituting a public option. if you ask the american people, they'd rather see some shared sacrifice in cutting spending. they'd rather see us eliminate tax breaks for c.e.o.'s who have no idea what it's like to choose between taking their medication or eating their next meal. madam chairwoman, i'll vote no

on h.r. 1216, it's just another example of republican negly johnson and callousness on health care. they clearly prefer the broken system that leaves millions uninsured, imposing crippling costs that bankrupt families and bankrupt small businesses. the jority doesn't want to solve the health care crisis. they want to exacerbate it. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentlewoman from california. >> i move to strike the last word as i rise to speak in opposition to h.r. 1216. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. richardson: urn the guise of deficit reduction, republicans are attempting to attack our nation's vital support system for our senior. the republican budget would deny seniors and those who are coming forward after those that are currently taking advantage

of these benefits, health care, long-term care, and the social security benefits that these seniors have earned. sunday evening, i just got back from my district where i had an opportunity to have our annual senior briefing. there were over 900 seniors there and they were concerned. i spoke with several of my seniors in my district and they'rworried about how they and even some of their parents who are in their 90's today will be able to get by once ryan care, is what i'm going to call it, the attack on medicare which would destroy something we all need. by following ryancare and turning medicare into a voucher program, republicans would gradually eliminate the peace of mind that many of our seepors have grown to be able to count on. we don't want to go back to the ole dis of calling seniors poor and not having an opportunity to live in dignity in the last years.

these fixed value vouchers, which are being suggested in ryancare, would not only keep up with the rising cost of health care but would cost seniors an additional $17,000 more per year by 2020. in california alone which is where i'm from, under the republican budt, seniors would pay $213 million more on prescription drugs in 2012 alone. that's next year. the republican budget would return our country to a time when being old was something that people would be afraid of, not look forward to. the republican budget would also turn medicaid into a block grant system. haven't we seen what that's do with community development block grants? it wldn't work. under a block grant system, medicaid would no longer be able to support the elderly. by converting the current medicaid system into a block grant index, congress would shift the burdens to rising

health care costs and aging populations to the states. all you have to do is look at "the los angeles times" to' what's happening to my state and i don't think we'd be able to help the seniors. the deficit must be addressed. in fact, i supported many bills an amendments that have been brought forward on the other side. but it should be done in a fair way. we should not blaps the budget on the backs of our neigh's seniors. not after wall street and our car manufacturers got a bailout. i will, and democrats will, continue to work to protect, strengthen and save social security, medicare and medicaid. madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentlewoman from maryland. ms. edwards: i move to strike the last word and rise in opposition to the underlying bill.

the chair: the gentlewoman is recognize. ms. edwards: we have returned to the hill after a hard week at home in their district trying to explain dismantling medicare. the reason it's hard to explain is because there is no explanation. the plan that republicans have under consideration would indeed end medicare as we know it. it would end medicare and it's just that simple. the plan would turn medicare into a voucher system that would leave seniors paying more and more out that have the pockets for health care. you know, i was out a town hall meeting at a senior center many any -- in my congressional district. it's one where people have come from every level of the private sector to enjoy their retirement. they receive medicare benefits. i asked them, who in this room a room of about 100 seniors, i asked them how much would you like -- how many of you would

like to go into negotiations with your insurance compy to see how much you were going to pay for health care? none of those seniors stood up. that's what the ryan pla this medicare dismantling plan would do for seniors. it would say, we want you to go on your own and gobet with the big insurance companies. we know that can happen for those who are younger but it cannot happen for seniors. it would shift the burden to make the system much less inefficient and increase administrative costs that are passed on to all consumers. according to the congressional budget office, the plan would raise the eligibility age from 65 to 67 and while it repeals provisions of the affordable care act that are actually designed to make the system etch more efficient. this just doesn't make sense. i think that seniors have caught on. in fact, i think all americans have caught on. and the thing about medicare is that it it suspect just about our seenors, madam chair.

it's about about the contract that each of us, one yen ration makes to the next generation. it's the contract i've made with my mofere, that my son makes with me an it is to make sure that we're able to be taken care of in our old age pause we paid into it and paid for it. according to the center for economic and policy research a 54-year-old worker would need to save an additional $182,000 a year to pay for the higher costs of private insurance wh the government elimination of medicare. $182,000. let's just absorb that for all those 5 -year-olds. how long is going to ke you to get to abling 65 or 67 and save $182,000 to pay for your health care costs? well, we know that would be an impossibility. i want to tell you what's happening in maryland because it will happen across this country and it is that our

seniors are exnicing that the g.o.p. plan would require seniors to pay an additional $ 608,000 out of their pocket. that's not including the fact that they'll have to negotiate and probably pay more than that. at a time when our seniors are vulnerable and they're struggling and they've seen a depletion in their savings, it's not fair to threaten them anthreaten their quality of life by ensuring that they'll have to pay these out of pocket costs. so, i would ask us, madam chair to really examine what it is th we're asking the american people to absorb. and our seniors, you know, i was up with a oup of seniors in new hampshire and throughout my congressional district and our seniors are saying so us, it isn't just about us and don't count on us supporting this plan just because we happen to be over age 55. we support medicare because we understand what it means for future generations. so this is a link a bond

between the young people in this country who are working, our seniors and retirees to protect medicare and protect the benefits that come with it. and i would ask us on this underlying bill, i think my some of my colleagues have spoken to this we need more primary care, already we're seeing what's happening in our system, where 26-year-olds, up to 26-year-olds can be covered on their parent's health insurance. you know what that's doing? it's bringing down the costs, making sure we have more resources to absorb the care that people need as they get older. and so let's not stomach a dismantling of the medicare protections that we've known for almost -- for 46 years in this countrythis contract from one generation to the next generation to ensure that our senior who worsod hard are able to enjoy their retirement without sacrificing everything they have to pay the cost for

additional benefits while health insurance companiesalk away with record profits and certainly while oil angas -- with that, i yield. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky. >> thank you, madam chair. i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. guthrie: i rise to support thfoxx amendment. i was also back home last week and went to a 100th birthday party for a group of people in northern kentucky, the louisville area, that were turning 100 years old. a lady there was 103, born in teddy roosevelt's presidency. i went to do this because i wanted to thank them. i'm a big believe for the what the greatest generation has done for us. i'm a member of the baby boom yen ration, born in 1964, 47 years old. 1946 to 1964, if you were born in 1946, you're in medicare this year. 65 years ole system of one of

the -- i wanted to thank them and let them know what we are doing is making a sustained and secure medicare system for them. we all know last -- end of last week that 2024 is the date put out that we're having medicare -- it goes bankrupt. so what we put together is a real proposal for 10 years to allow people the opportunity adjust that are 54 and younger. there's not a member of the greatest generation, if anybody says different, they're wrong, there's not a member of the greatest generation affected. half the baby boom, half the baby boom is covered -- is not affected by the changes that we have to make to make a secure and better future. i'm 47 years old this means a lot to me, my daughter is 17. you ask a lot of people my age, do we have a better lifestyle than our parents had? the greatest yen ration gave us a -- the greatest generation

gave us a better lifestyle because they wanted to. and if you ask somebody my age, do you think your children have a beer lifestyle? and it's bad that they think that they don't. i don't want to be part of a government that doesn't address the fact that we want our children to have a better future. when my daughter is my age, we can pay off the national debt. so think about it. i'm 47 years old, not a $14.3 trillion debt, you ask a lot of people my age, do you think our children will have a better future? they say no, we're going to keep piling on debt an deficits as far as the eye can see. but madam chair, ask me, now, as you thinkf my daughter at 47 years old, is living in a country with zero national debt, do you think my grandchildren and her grandchildren will have a better future? they will.

we're talking about saving and securing medicare for the greatest generation. we're talking about saving and securing it for people that become older and mo ma -- more mature. so anybody says the greatest generation is affected by this is just not saying what passed out of the house of representatives. if anybody's saying that seniors are affected by this, that's not passed out of the house of representatives to. say we have reform the program to make it stronger and better for them, that's accute. and making it stronger and better for those who come forward. that's what we're talking about doing. that's what the facts are. people deserve the facts. people are tired of hearing rhetoric, they want facts and the facts are, we're sustaining and sering it for the greatest generation and reforming it so it will be there as our children mature and if we pass the budget as the senate would pass the budget that we passed out of the house, when my daughter is my age, we'll have zero national debt. we'll have a better future and

then ask her if she thinks her children will have a better future than she did and i guarantee that you she will say that. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from north carolina. >> i move to strike the last rd. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise to oppose this nonsensical pending amendment, the underlying bill, although the underlying bill doesn't do that all. but most of all, to disagree with the remarks of the gentleman from kentucky just now and from other remarks like that that what the republicans have done are not going to affect the people on medicare now or the people who are older than 55, 55 and older. what it does in fact is shift more and more of the cost of health care to people who cannot afford it so that the richest americans will not have to pay taxes,ill have to pay -- they'll cut taxes so the richest americans by even more and it will protect insurance company profits and the profits of

everyone else in the health care field who are making profits that are causing american health care to be twice as expensive as health care anywhere else in the developed world. mr. miller: and it -- the guments and what the republican congress has done in these last few months have made very clear how cynically dishonest everything republicans said about health care in the last two years really was. especial about medicare. when democrats really did try to find a way to t control of costs without affecting the quality, the availability of care, the access to care, the quality of care, all republicans would say, even when it was specifically and narrowly targeted at fraud, they said we were cutting medicare. now we see what they really thinabout medicare. and now we see how really -- how little they really do understand how important medicare is to the financial security of older americans, of americans in

retirement. now, they say it will not affect you if you're over 55. if you're 55 or older. well, i just turned 58, it's nice to know the republicans care that much about me, by let me tell you, that's not the way it's going to work. so someone 53, just five years younger than i am, well, when i turn 65 i'll qualify for medicare, presumably i'll get medicare. my 96-year-old mother who i visited this weekend, she will get medicare, i feel prty confident she'll get medicare for the re of they are life, but when i turn 65 i'll get medicare, the guy who is 53 now, he'll be 60, he'll be paying taxes for my medicare, he won't be getting it, he'll never get it. what he'll get instead is a coupon, a voucher, he'll get an allowance to go buy private insurance and private insurance is simply not going to pay for what medicare pays for. it is going to be famore expensive. the congressional budget office estimates that in just 10 years

those folks will have have to pay 60% of their own health care cost if this plan goes through. what they call a path to prosperity, what should be called the path to insurance coany profits. in 20 years it will be 2/3 of their health care costs. they will be paying for it. they'll also be paying taxes or working americans, people who are still in the work force, i will pabbing taxes so i get medicare and they know that's the deal they're getting. the deal they'll be get something that little voucher, that puney little vouch that are puts them at the mercy of insurance companies -- voucher that puts them at the mercy of insurance companies. all of rublican politics seements to be built around resentment. i don't to have a nation that filled with resentment between generations. ms. edwards spoke about the contract between generations, that just as our parents took care of us in our childhood, we will take care of our parents and their generation when they retire. we'll take care of them with our social security taxes, our medicare taxes, they will get those benefits.

but under the republican plan, the path to insurance company profits, they won't get medicare, they'll get that little voucher. how long is that going to go on before that resentment builds up? how long is that going to go on before the people are paying the taxes for it and know they'll never get are going to say, no? no more of this. we have got to change this. madam speaker, what we want is for all americans to get the same deal. we want the people who are 65 and people who are 96 to get the same deal, the people who are 70 to get the same deal, the people who are 58 to get the same deal, the people who are 50 and 30 to get the same deal. and if you're willing, if this congress is willing to control cost, even though that means limiting the profits of some of the people who are getting really rich from our dysfunctional health care system, we can do that. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from rhode island. mr. cicilline: i move to strike

the last word. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for five minutes. mr. cicilline: thank you, madam chair. i rise in opposition to the amendment and in defense of our nation's seniors who are really under attack and why is that? because the current republican budget proposal passed by this house and up for senate consideration pulls the rug out from underneath our seniors. it ends medicare by making huge cuts in benefits and putting insurance companies in charge of our seniors' health care, letting insurance decide what treatment and what tests our seniors will receive. under the republican plan medicare will end, will not only impact our seniors, but it limb pact the family members of our -- it will impact the family members of our seniors who are will now have those responsibilities. it will reopen the doughnut hole, making it more expensive for our seniors to get their prescriptions, the prescriptions they need to keep them healthy. and under their plan, they will slash the support for seniors in nursing homes while continuing

to give subsidies in the billions of dollars to big oil companies. and what else? more than 170,000 rhode islanders in my home state rely on medicare and they'll be paying to give additional tax breaks to the wealthiest americans in our country. to make matters worse, the nonpartisan congressional budget office determined that this budget actually adds $8 trillion to the national debt over the next decade because it's can -- its curts in spending are outpaced by the gigantic tax cuts for the ricst americans. our senis cannot afford this republican budget. it would deny them health care, long-term care and the benefits that they've earned. the republicans' choice to end medicare by cutting benefits and turning power over to the insurance companies for the important health care decisions of our seniors will result in reduced coverage and exposure to greater nancial risks for our medicare recipients. costing even jors -- seniors an

estimated $6,0 more each year for their care. the congressional budget office determined that under this republican budget, seniors out --' out of pocket -- seniors' out-of-pocket eblings pences could almostriple. they included and i quote, most elderly people would pay more for their health care. to put that into context, the c.b.o. found that 2030 seniors will pay 68% of premiums and out-of-pocket costs under the republican plan compared to only 25% under current law. and it found that the republican plan means seniors will pay more for their prescription drugs because it reopens the doughnut hole, costing each of the four million seniors who fall into that coverage gap up to $9,300 by 2020. and the conservative "wall street journal" concluded that this plan, and i quote, would essentially end medicare which now pays for 48 million elderly and disabled americans as a program that directly pays those

bills. under the guise of deficit reduction, this republican plan is recessly attacking vital support systems for our seniors. we all agree that we have to address the deficit. the issue isn't whether we should do it but how we do it. let's repeal subsidies to big oil, let's eliminate fraud and waste, let's end the wars that are costing us more than $2 billion a week. but we should not be balancing the budget on the backs of our nation's seniors. our federal budget is more than just about dollars and cents. it's a statement of our values and our priorities as a country. the republican budget reflects the wrong priorities. they would rather cut benefits to our seniors than cut subsidies to bilirakis big oil or corporations that ship our -- subsidies to big oil and corporations that ship jobs overseas. this breaks the promise we made to our seniors to protect them in their golden years. we must do better for our seniors. medicare has met the health care

needs of senrs while providing them with financial stability for more than 40 years. ending medicare would pull the rug out from underneath the feet of our seniors during their golden years. and i ask my colleagues, if we n't protect our greatest generaon, what's next? i yield back t balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from north carolina. >> me to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for five minutes. >> madam chair, i've heard my colleagues give volumes of words here today but i've seen little action. in the four years they controlled the u.s. house, they proposed nothing in the way of meaningful entitlement reform, nothing to preserve social security, nothing to preserve medicare, nothing to improve medicaid and ensure it it's there. . mchenry: madam chairman, i ask, where is the plan of these

house democrats speaking today? where's their plan for entitlement reform? i'd be happy to yield. fantastic. i would say -- oh, i'd be happy to yield. where's your plan on entitlement reform? >> does the gentleman favor permitting medicare to negotiate the price of prescription drugs the way the v.a. does and save $25 billion a year? mr. mchenry: reclaiming my time, does the gentleman favor the medicare part d prescription drug benefit that has a lower cost basis than what your colleagues proposed at the time of enactment? reclaiming my time, i would say, they have lots of -- i'm going to finish up here, my friend. i would just tell the chairman that what is missing from this discussion, lots of questions, but little substantive action, no policy proposals to make sure at medicare is there for the

next generation. much less, the end of the greatest generation. i would ask my colleagues to come forward with a substantive plan, not just take up the time here on the u.s. house floor, not take away time from these important amendments that we have under this open rule here on the house floor, i would ask my colleagues to do something real and substantive rather than push us to a debt crisis which their policies and their spending are pushing us towards and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. thank you, madam chairperson. my friend who just spoke asked us where the plan is to redu the debt and deficit and if he's here i'd be happy to yield to him but i would ask him to consider these ideas. one, medicare pays more than

twice as much for a fill at the vet -- than the veterans administration does because we have a law that the majority supported that says that medicare can't notiate prescription drug prices. i favor repealing that law and saving at least $25 billion a year. i would ask my friend if he supports that? and i would yield if he'd like to answer. does the gentleman support that idea? mr. mchenry: whyidn't the gentleman do it when he was in the majority? i'd be happy to yield back the balance of my time. mr. andrews: reclaiming my time. we did not -- two republican senators support on the other side we would have done it over here. second thing, does the gentleman support stopping the spending of $110 billion a year

to occupy iraq and afghanistan and instead spend that money here mountain united states, does the gentleman support that? i'd like to yield to him? i'd repeat it. we're spending about $110 billion a year to help finance the government of iraq and afghanistan. i'd rather see that there are 110 billion to reduce our deficit. would -- that $110 billion to reduce our deficit. would the gentleman support that? mr. mchenry: does the gentleman support the president being in libya? mr. andrews: i do not. i do not support baghdad and kabul for what we could be doing here at home. third, we'll spend at least $63 billion over the next 10 years to give tax breaks to oil companies that made record profits, $44 billion last year alone, as our constituen are paying over $4 a gallon at the pump. i support repealing those

giveaways to the oil industry and putting that money toward the deficit. i don't see the gentleman any more. not sure how he stands on it, but we support that. four, i pport the people who make more than $1 million a year might be asked to contribute jt a little more in taxes to help reduce this deficit. i know the other side's going to say, well, this will hurt the job creators in america. there's an echo in this chamber. in 1993 president clinton proposed a modest increase on the highest earning americans to help reduce the deficit. the former speaker at the time, mr. gingrich -- he wasn't speaker at the time -- became the speaker -- said this would cause the worst recession in american history. he was wrong. the gentleman who became the majority leader, mr. army, said this was a recipe for economic

collapse. he was wrong. when we follow the supply side trickle down the last eight years under orge w. bush, the economy created one million net new jobs. but when we asked the wealthiest of americans just a little bit more to reduce th deficit in the 1990's, the economy created 23 million new jobs. so when they ask, where is the plan? here's the plan. don't abolish medicare the way they plan to. negotiate prescription drug prices, stop paying the bills for iraq and afghanistan, stop the giveaways to oil companies that make record profits and ask the wealthiest in this country pay just a bit me to pay down our deficit. let's put that plan on the floor and reduce the deficit that way. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gelewoman from california. >> i me to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is

recognized for five minutes. ms. lee: thank you very much, madam chair. i rise in strong opposition to the underlying very reckless bill, h.r.216. the republicans -- and we heard this over and over again -- they want to destroy and to deny seniors long-term affordable health care by eliminating programs that are training the future health work force of our country. this legislation is really part of an ongoing republican attack on medicare under the guise of deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility. it really is about privatizing medicare and, of course, that means there will be some winners and there will be some losers. the republican' plan to end dicare threatens the healthy and secure retirement that we promised american seniors. in fact, an end to medicare as an end to the lifeline that millions of seniors rely on. medicare gives peace of mind to millions of americans who pay into it all of their lives. the republicans want to give

aging americans voucher, mind you, that will not come close to covering the cost of health care instead of maintaining and improving medicare. sure, waste, fraud and abuse must be addressed wherever we find it, including the pentagon. but we disagree with the republican agenda that the program must be killed. the republicans want to end this program when millions of medicare beneficiaries are struggling to make ends meet, and when we know that medicare eligible beneficiaries will double over the next 20 years, republicans have the wrong priorities, focused on letting the rich get richer on the backs of the middle class and the most vulnerable in our nation. under the guise of reform, republicans would increase cost for seniors and cut benefits while giving tax cuts to millionaires, subsidies to oil companies and sending desperately needed jobs overseas. if the republicans get their way, millions of seniors would

immediately begin paying higher costs for prescription drugs. the impact of killing medicare wille the most severe on vulnerable and underserved populations, including our seniors of color, while negatively impacting all seniors who rely on medicare to protect their health and economic security. an end to medicare is really an end to a lifeline that millions of seniors rely on. if republicans have their way, millionaires will contin to get big bonuses while millions of americans fall deeper into poverty. madam chair, approximately 43.5 million americans were living in poverty in 2009. but did you know that nearly four million of those are seniors? given our challenged economy, we can't expect these numbers to improve since 2009. medicare is part of a promise made to hardworking americans to ensure that they would not lack the security of having health care. and so rather than stand silently while republicans

destroy a program that protects vulnerable populations, we are here to speak up and stand up for our mothers and our fathers, our grand mothers and our grand fathers, our aunts and our uncles and, yes, our young people and our children and to be their voice in the house of representatives. we are here to declare that medicare should be protected and improved to protect our nation's seniors and most vulnerable populations, and we're here to say we want to secure it for future generations. ending medicare really does end this promise, and the security for millions of americans today and here and in the future. so we're here today to defend medicare and the support it gives to our seniors. we must ensure that those who have worked hard their entire lives have the health security they need and that they deserve in their later years. thank you, and i yield back the balance of mtime. the chair: the gentlewoman

yields back. the gentleman from texas. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> madam chairman, i have seen shameless acts on this floor before and we're watching another one with the last few speakers tt we've seen here today. mr. sessions -- the facts of the case are, and people know this, that we passed a budget resolution which is a construct to ask this house of representatives to consider a plan so that we do not bankrupt medicare which is exactly what anyone who voted for the health care plan on march 21 or 22 a year ago did. the plan under which president obama and speaker pelosi at that time supported took $500 billion out of medicare to support a plan which could not be sustained either which cost $2 trillion for health care. so this year republicans have a plan which would allow the

sustenance to sustain medicare with a pn that is a market-based plan. it's not a voucher program. not one peon who is presently on medicare today nor anybody that is 55 years old or older today would be impacd by this plan. it is a plan that says we should challenge the congress of the united states, including the administration, also, to come up with a plan about how we can sustain medicare as we do see a doubling over the next 15 years of people who will be expected to participate in that plan. so that we g this right for once let me say this -- it is not a voucher program. it does not impact anyone that is presently on medicare, so the shameless things we heard today about everyone's grandmother and everybody's

grandfather and all these people that will be thrown off medicare, they will be un affected. here's what the plan calls for. it calls for the united states congress to begin a process with hearings that would allow members of people who would be on medicare to probably be allowed to have instead of a one-size-fits-all plan of medicare to have a plan that looks just like what government employees would have. a realistic opportunity for them to choose among several plans, whether they want a basic pl, all the way up to a plan which they could fully participate them self. today, medicare is a closed one-size-fits-all process just likee heard mr. miller, we're going to treat everyone the same way, it does not work

because not everybody has the same needs as each other. we will have a plan which is market-based, which does not bankrupt this country nor the system, which will allow the individual an opportunity to come into a process and have their own health care just like mebody who works for the federal government. it would allow people who were in that program to take money out of their own pocket to choose their own doctor if they chose to and to be allowed to supplement those payments. we would probably set a mark, a bar that said if y make above a certain amount of money, that's not determined yet, but if you had the ability to pay for yourself you shouldn't rely upon the government. another way to make sure that we support the system because if people have the ability to pay for their own health care, we should allow them to do

that, encourage them to do that. and then we look at how doctors are paid. doctors today have not only been mistreated by both sides but in particular as we see doctors not being compensated, they are not available and it means seniors are being denied coverage because physicians are not being reimbursed properly. it allows us to have a great system where doctors would want toerve seniors, a great and better system that's market-based whereby the person has the ability to pay. if they do they would pay their own physician and their own way with the minimum support from the government. bottom line is the gentleman from north carolina asks a relevant questio and the answer that came back was when he said, what is your plan, the answer that came back was, what about the war and what about oil companies? wellthe facts of the case

are, we're talking about medicare here today. a system that is draining, draining this country from not only its ability to provid outstanding and excellent alth care but also a system -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. sessions: i thank the gentlewoman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. members are reminded not to walk in the well when other members have been recognized. the gentleman from ohio. >> madam chair, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise in opposition to the underlying bill and i think it's important for us to go back, as we hear about market-based solutions, to why medicare was started in the first place. mr. ryan: there is no market to provide health care for older people because there's no money to be made. insurance companies can't make money off of coverinold people who get sick, really, really sick. and what this plan does, madam

chair, and theanalysis was, well, it's just goi to be like the federal employee plan. we get members of congress and federal employees get a premium support. well, the premium support that federal employees get is about 70-some percent of the health care costs, and that number goes up and down with inflation for health care. so no matter what the health care costs are, the federal employee has 70-some percent of that covered. the problem with the republican plan is that the voucher or the premium support is hooked to the c.p.i., the consumer price index, which is 2.5%, maybe. so the voucher is going go up at c.p.i., say, 2.5%, while health care costs are usually a percent or two above g.d.p.

growth. so say we have 4% growth, then health care costs are going to go up 5%, maybe 6%. so your premium support or your voacher is going to increase every year by 2.5% while health care costs are going up at 5.5%. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out over the course of several years that voucher becomes worthless and it will only probably cover 30%, maybe, of the costs of the health care that these seniors are going to get. so let's not sit here and pretend like the senior citizens in the medicare program are going to somehow be living large and getting some kind of great health care. this dismantles the medicare program. period. dot. at least have the courage to come out and say we want to dismantle the medicare program, and if you want to look at how far to the right that the republican party has gotten on this issue, i've never seen

former speaker gingrich do a faster or complete potomac two-step in my entire life when he even insinuated that this may not be good for senior because the goal now of the republican party, madam chair, is to dismantle the medicare progra . and tree tried to privatize social security. and this is no surprise. and my question is, madam chair if you are a 55-year-old guy in youngstown, ohio, who statistically over the last 30 years, last 30 years, your wages have been stagnant in no increase in real wages over the last 30 years, now you're saying to them, they have to come up with another $182,000 to be able to pay for their health care. you can nod your head no all you want.

these are the facts. congressional budget office says neutral third party, that the average person going into this medicare proposal will pay $6,000 more a year. that's not the democratic study committee or our policy saying it, it's c.b.o. $6,000 more a year. while the guy's ges has been stagnant in the last 30 years and that's where the issue of the oil companies does come in, because we are giving huge breaks to oil companies. we will take more arrows on the other side to protect even thinking about possibly asking the westiest 1% to pay just a little bit more to help us address this issue. the world's falling. the sky is falling. the world's ending and it's so bad that we can't even muster up the courage to ask bill gates and warren buffet to help us out

a little bit while we have these proble and three wars going on at the same time. i mean, come on, madam chair. this is not right. this is not right. so at the end of the day, the democratic plan is for medicare. we keep it to cover senior citizens and their health care when they get older. and if we've got to make adjustments, we make adjustments, but you don't dismantle the entire plan. you don't at the same time give tax breaks to the oil companies. don't dismantle medicare, madam chair. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: if we are going to tell stories here let's start out with once upon a time and end with, they lived happily

ever after. is it the responsible republican plan that was debated on this floor for hours. this was a plan, the first time we had ld out a pathway for how to save medicare for people who are going into the program in 20 years, 30 years time. now, wha is the plan on the other side? well, there was no plan fr house democrats. there is no plan from the senate democrats. there is a plan from the president. the president laid out his aspirational budget like the republicans laid out their program, which was their budget and the president's apirational document laid out a clear path. the president believes in 15 people, not elected by anyone, but appointed by him and their ability to control costs in the medicare system. it was written into a bill

called the patient protection affordable care act. i have a great deal of sympathy with those on the other side who don't like the independent payment advisory board. one wrote an editorial yesterday decrying the nature of the independent payment advisory board, but the sad fct of the matter is, this is the democratic alternative to the republican plan to save medicare into the next 50 years. that plan, the democrats' plan, the president's plan, with the independent payment advisory board says 15 people are going to be picked and will be paid well. they will then decide where are the cuts going to occur in medicare. now true enough, coness gets an opportunity. this 15-member board will come back to the united states congress and say here is the menu of cuts that we believe is necessary to have this year in order to keep medicare solvent. by law, they have to come up

with a certain dollar number of cuts but as the president said in his speech to georgetown earlier this year, that's a floor, not a ceiling. if we need more money, we can go back. congress looks at the cuts that are brought to them by the unelected board and says, we don't like those cuts. some of those cuts will be damaging to poor seniors on medicare. do we have a choice? yes. we can vote it up or down. if we vote it down, we have to come up with our own menu of cuts to delen deliver to the secretary of health and human services. what if congress can't agree -- i know, when has that happened before -- but what if we can't agree? that's the purpose of the independent payment advisory board. we can't intervene because the president's board has spoken. so congress can't agree on what these cuts should be. so what do we do?

we continue to fight. but guess what happens? april 15 of the next year, the secretary of health and human services, whoever he or she may be at that time gets to institute those cuts that were brought to you by the independent payment advisory board. now is that a good idea? and i have heard discussion here on the floor today about $6,000. you know what? if you don't fix that sustainable growth rate formula, guess what's going tope going t every senior rich and poor on the medicare program? either they won't be able to find a doctor or they are going to have to pay more money. how much more? about $6,000 per senior. but, look, the independent payment advisory board, something like that has never happened in this country. in a free society, we have an unelected board who is going to tell us what kind of medical care we can get, where we can get it and when we can get it

and most importantly when you have had enough and when they say you have had enough, that's it, no more, dyalisis, insulin, esn't matter, you have had your share. that is the problem with the independent payment advisory board and congress becomes powerless because frequently we do disagree with each other, the secretary will make that decision for us and next year the process starts all over again. i have a great deal of sympathy with my friends on the other side of the aisle because they did not include this language in their bill and we remember a year ago, the very bad process that brought us the act. and what was that process? the senate on christmas eve that passed a house-passed bill that will came back over to the united states house and ll the house agree to the senate amendment. you all remember 3590, it was a housing ll when you passed it in the summer of 2009. u did not include the

independent advisory board in h.r. 3200 for a very good reason. the reason is un-american. and now you are left to defend it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. markey: you know, this is a crazy debate that we're having here right now, because you know, the republicans, they keep saying to the democrats, well, what's the plan? and so we say to the republicans, well, what's your plan? your plan seems to be saying to grandma and grandpa that they are taking too much, that they really -- they are taking america for a ride and we have to cut medicare. their health care is too good and grandma and grandpa, they didn't do enough for america. so the democrats w turn around and say, hey, about looking at it this way. before you go afterrandma and her medicare, how about you say

to warren buffet, how about not taking those extra tax breaks. and the republicans say, we can't take away any tax breaks from warren buffet and all the other multi, multi millionaires and billion as we don't want to touch their money even though it would give us hundreds of billions of dollars. i say, how about prescription drugs and negotiate the price of prescription drugs for medicare the way we do with the v.a.. they say that would be unfair to the drug companies. we can't touch them either. then we say, well, e war in iraq, the war in afghanistan, it's winding down now, maybe we can look at the defense budget and save a few billions there before we ask grandma to sacrifice on the health care she gets fro