the chair: on this vote the yeas are 129. the nays are 295. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 13 printed in part b of house report 112-111 by the gentleman from illinois, mr. manzullo, on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 13 printed in part b of house report 112-111 offered by mr. manzullo of illinois. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the

u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 92. the nays are 395 and the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 14 printed in part b of house report 112-111 by the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 14 printed in part b of house report 112-111 offered by mr. rohrabacher of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning

institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 81 and the nays are 342. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 15 printed in part b of house report 112-111 by the gentleman from illinois, mr. schock, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 15 printed in part b of house report 112-111 offered by mr. schock of illinois. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.

this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 158. the nays are 162 and one member

voting present. the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor please say aye. those opposed please say no. the amendment is adopted. accordingly under the rule the committee rises. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house in the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 1249, i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house in the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 1249 and pursuant to

house resolution 316, reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on adoption of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. . those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend title 35, united states code, to provide for patent reform. >> mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order.

the house will be in order. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members take their conversations off the floor. gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. miller: i am in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. miller of north carolina moves to recommit the bill h.r. 1249 to the committee on the judiciary with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendments. at the end of the bill, the following, and conform the table

of contents accordingly. section 34, priority and processing patent applications, a, priority. the director shall prioritize patent applications filed under title 35, united states code by entities that pledge to develop or manufacture their products, processing and technologies in the united states, including specifically those filed by small businesses and individuals. b, denial of priority. the director shall not grant priorityization for patent applications filed under title 35, united states code by foreign entities that are falls of any country that the director has found to deny, one, adequate protection for patent rights, or, two, fair and equitable access for persons that rely on patent protection. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for five minutes. mr. miller: mr. speaker, the house is not in order.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's correct. the house will be in order. members, meese take your conversations off the -- members, plose take your conversations off the -- please take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: thank you, mr. speaker. the consideration of this bill has been bipartisan to this point and that certainly does not need to change now. this motion to recommit doesn't send it to the committee or kill it, but consistent with the spirit of the bill and this is simply the last amendment and should be considered in the same bipartisan way all the other amendments have been considered. mr. speaker, our future prosperity does depend upon our being the most innovative country in the world, the most innovative economy in the world, american scientists -- >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order.

will members please take their conversations off the floor. members and staff. the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: american scientists and engineers are doing great work. we are doing some of the most advanced sophisticated research in the world for instance, we lead the world in solar cell research and making some of the greatest breakthruse and that technology is funded by the department of energy or by other federal research programs, but 80% of the manufacturing of solar cells is being done in asia, mostly in china. what's happening is that firms are getting federal funds to do research to improve solar cell technology. they are developing advanced technology, but when the time comes to manufacture a product coming out of that research, those firms are contracting with chinese manufacturers to make

the products. that is just one example of companies that are doing research here, but manufacturing somewhere else. when american workers need good manufacturing jobs. mr. speaker, the benefit of innovation should not just be higher profits for american corporations. the benefit should be good jobs for american workers. under this motion to recommit, those companies will still get their patents, but don't go to the front of the line. the people who go to the front of the line are those who will pledge they will do their manufacturing here in the united states, creating good jobs for american workers. second, we know there are countries in the world that don't respect american patent rights and don't treat american inventors fairly when they try to get patents in those countries. this motion to recommit will still allow those people from those countries to get patents and will treat them better than

they treat american inventors but they go back to the line and do not get priority when it comes time to get their patents considered. help american workers share in the prosperity that comes from american innovation, from our research, from our innovation. support this motion to recommit. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. smith: i rise in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i oppose the motion to recommit and urge my colleagues to defeat it. the act is a culmination of six years of effort. during this time the house and senate judiciary committees conducted 23 pierce on patent reform and brokered numerous negotiations. h.r. 1249 has garnered bipartisan and widespread support. this bill improves patent integrity in p.t.o. operations and helps businesses from a

broad range of industries, independent inventors and universities. but the biggest winners are the american people. they will get more job opportunities and greater consumer choices. this amendment would mean that u.s. companies and inventors would be discriminated against all over the world when they file. it would be open season on american innovators and businesses. we would no longer be able to sell products aboard and theft of u.s. goods would become rampant. mr. speaker, this motion to recommit alsosigns our patent system to the one created in the 1952 act, era of test telephones, tvs and the manual type writer. we need to update our patent system and we need to do it now. oppose the motion to recommit and support h.r. 1249. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the

balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the the motion to reconsider. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in my opinion, the noes have it. mr. miller: mr. speaker, on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen having risen, the recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9, rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 172. the nays are 251. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill is passed. the gentleman from texas is recognized. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote

will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 304 and the nays are 117 and the bill is passed. and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent that the clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of h.r. 1249 to include corrections and the insertion of appropriate headings and insertion of the word written in the appropriate place in the instruction in amendment 1 to strike material in lines 23 to 25 on page 114. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to clause 8, rule 20, the ununfished question is

agreeing to the speak's journal. the question is on approving the speaker's jourm. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. peterson: i ask unanimous consent to remove myself as a co-sponsor of h.j.res. 47. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does georgia rise? >> i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 328, providing for the joint resolution, joint resolution 68 authorizing the limited use of the united states armed forces in support of the nato mission in libya and providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 2278 to limit the

use of funds appropriated to the department of defense for united states armed forces and in support of nato operations unified protector with respect to libya unless otherwise specifically authorized by law. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. young: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of h.r. 2219 and that i may include tabular material on the same.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house res. louis 320 and rule 18, the chair declares in the committee of the whole house for the consideration of h.r. 2219. the chair apoints the gentleman from georgia, mr. westmoreland to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house in the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 2219, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012 and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time. the gentleman from florida, mr. young, and the gentleman from washington, mr. dicks, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida.

mr. young: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: without objection. mr. young: first, i would like to thank mr. dicks, the former chairman of the subcommittee for the complete cooperation that we had with each other in preparing this very nonpartisan, nonpolitical defense appropriations bill for 2012. this bill is $530 billion of the base bill, which is $9 billion below the president's budget request. it was not easy to come by to find the savings, but we were determined to find those savings without having any adverse effect on the war fighter or the readiness of our nation. the basic bill is $530 billion. in addition to that, rather than

having a supplemental for iraq and afghanistan, we include a section that we call -- is referred to as the overseas contingency operation, which is $119 billion. the bill includes no earmarks from members' districts. the bill contains no money -- if i could have the attention of the house, mr. chairman. the bill contains no money for libya, because none was requested. the administration did not request money for libya. we asked numerous times what their plans were, how long it might take, what the cost might be. we did not get an answer until recently and they said no, they did not request any funding and

they were basically going to make up the balances by a reprogramming and would not ask for a supplemental, but would reprogram some of the existing funds. it's a good bill and i wish it had more money in it for certain types -- that would have liked to have seen a major pay raise and fund the $1.6% pay raise for the military, which was the authorized level and requested level, but we just had to find that $9 billion. the staff had to work extremely hard to make sure that we did not have an adverse effect on any of our soldiers or our readiness for our overall readiness and provides $312 billion for the health defense program and we understand the needs for our soldiers and our

wounded. there are too many of them. and we provide what we think is adequate money to care for whatever their medical requirements, medical needs are. and includes considerable research for -- into medical issues. and the research is important, because a lot of the injuries that we're seeing coming out of iraq and coming out of afghanistan were such that in previous wars, the troop would not have survived, but because of advances in medical care and because of the research and because of advancements in medicines and because of the ability to remove the casualty from the battle area quickly and get to a hospital quickly, we are saving the lives of many of our troops that would probably not have survived in previous

wars. we include funding for the construction of 10 navy ships. we include money for 32 joint strike fighter aircraft. we include $3.3 billion for 28 f-18 super hornets and 12 e-8 growlers and black hawk helicopters and $699 million for the reaper u.a.v., which is the advanced -- of the predatory tore. -- predator. i'm trying not to go into too much detail because it is a lengthy bill. the reductions we took to achieve this $9 billion in savings, we took favorable

contract pricing adjustments, contract and schedule delays resulting in fiscal year 2012 savings, unjustified cost increases or funding requested ahead of need, anticipated or historical underexecution of scracts, recisions of unneeded prior year funds and reductions that were authorized in the house-passed 2012 national defense authorization act under the chairmanship of chairman mckeon. specific reductions include $435 million in savings from those contract and production delays in the amram systems and we'll provide the details for the record of all of the areas where we took the savings. but all in all, it is a good bill for the money that we had

available. flr things that we would -- there are things that we would have increased. we would have increased the military pay raise. we just didn't have the money. so we went to the authorized level. there is much more to be said that will be said as we read this bill for amendments, which will probably not happen now until after we come back after next week's recess. at this point, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? dick dick i ask unanimous consent to extend and revise my remarks and yield myself such time. it has been an honor to work with my friend chairman bill young to prepare the defense authorizations bill for f.y. 2012. in the long-standing tradition of this committee, the bill has been prepared on a bipartisan basis and i support the bill. i know that chairman rogers will

be glad to hear that. i'm happy to report that the bill provides the funds necessary to support our troops both at home and in the field. it also makes the investment in research and development and acquisition needed to fully equip our troops and maintain our nation's technological edge, after careful review, the committee exercised its constitutional responsibility to allocate resources to those programs that best support the requirements of our military forces. in writing this bill, the committee had to make hard choices. the allocation for this bill is $530 billion, $9 billion below the request, while $17 billion above the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. many of the increase is absorbed by the military pay, operation and maintenance and defense health programs accounts. the bill provides the funds needed to support u.s. service personnel. examples of this include the

military pay accounts funded at $1.-- 1.6% raise consistent with the budget request and the level in the house-passed fiscal year 2012 armed services authorization bill. the bill also provides $32.3 billion for the defense health program, including $125 million above the request to continue the committee's long-standing efforts to improve research and treatment of traumatic brain injury and psychological health conditions. the bill includes funding increases for several research efforts, including peer-review, prostate cancer, ovarian cancer and lung cancer research. the bill the bill includes funds for several initiatives, including $250 million to replace schools owned by local authorities.

the bill addresses many of d.o.d.'s most pressing needs. it funds 10 ships as requested in the budget and 32 joint strike fighter aircraft. i'd like to have seen more strike fighter aircraft because i believe they're doing a much better job on this program. last year it was in some trouble, this year, the admiral has said repeatedly that they're on, in fact ahead of, the training schedule. so i think this is very good news. the bill also adds funding to fill gaps in d.o.d. capabilities. some examples include the m-1-a-2 package. $2 million is provided to prevent a break in the production of tanks. this is something we agreed with on an overwhelming basis. shutting down the tank line in ohio would be a terrible miscake -- mistake because we'd lose

the skilled workers. humvee force protection, improved armor and other blast protection technologies on the humvee. long-range strike, $100 million is added to reduce technical risks for this program. we're moving ahead on the replacement for the try dent submarine. the c-17 replacement is included to replace the operational loss of a c-17 aircraft. the committee has steadfastly replaced, when there's been operational losses, we've replaced equipment. this is another example. special operation command shortfalls, this is one thing in 2011, this year a bill is added to address unfunded requirements. national guard and reserve equipment, $1.5 billion is included to fund equipment shortfalls in national guard and reserve equipment.

intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance, $50 million is included above the request to continue to fill gaps in d.o.d. i.s.r. equipment. israeli missile defense systems. $130 million is added to increase israeli missile defense. $50 million included to continue the the committee's efforts for sbir phase three transition. historically black colleges and universities, $20 million is added to continue military research at historically black colleges and universities. the bill includes $80 million above request for the footprint of deployed units and $10 billion above the request for other programs. it provides $18 billion for operations in afghanistan and

iraq. the bill ensures that troops have a central force -- have essential force protection and provide the meaners in afghans to provide their own security. the bill includes $12.8 billion to train afghanistan's national security forces. while the bill provides essential support for our troops, i remain concerned about the nation's direction in pakistan and ongoing operations in afghanistan. there's cause to question the reliability of our partnership with both countries. in the light of recent events, we must reassess the extent of u.s. military involvement and the objectives of u.s. foreign policies in that part of the world. re-examining whether u.s. national security requires a continued deployment of over 100,000 u.s. service personnel. i welcome president obama's decision to start the withdrawals and i urge a cease fire and a political settlement. after a careful review of the situation, i believe it is time to significantly accelerate the

withdrawal of u.s. forces. to accomplish this objective responsibly will take some care. by necessity a political solution in afghanistan will involve negotiations with taliban representatives. it will also demand taking into account the interests of surrounding nations to ensure that those neighbors do not fight with one another along sectarian or tribal divides within afghanistan. finally we must guard against creating a vacuum similar to the one that occurred at the end of the soviet occupation in 1989. even with these cautions in mind, i believe it is time to begin the process of bringing the level of deployed u.s. troops in line with the new assessment of our security interests in the region. i look forward to hearing from general petraeus and general odierno. we'll work with them on the surge in iraq which turned out to be very successful. the military has done a very

good job in helmut and kandahar and has dominated the taliban in recent times, which is very positive. we still have a problem on the eastern front between afghanistan and pakistan and we need to continue to put pressure on al qaeda. the capture and death of osama bin laden was something all the troops that have served here since 2001 should take satisfaction in. the person who led the effort against the united states in one of the most horrific acts and one of the most economic destabilizing acts that has ever occurred to our country. i have concerns about our nation's policies in afghanistan and pakistan, i strongly support this bill. it's a bipartisan bill and it provides the resources needed by our troops. i urge your support for the bill and i also want to thank the staff, i know mr. --

chairman young will join me in this, we have a tremendous staff that works together they work together when i was chairman, they're working to the now that chairman young has -- he had been chairman before, he's now regained his chairmanship and the staff has done an extraordinary job. it's a major piece of work to put together a $530 billion bill and know all these programs and i commend them for their good work. i yield back. i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? -- from florida rise? mr. young: i'm happy to yield five minutes to the champlee of the appropriations committee, mr. rogers. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for five minutes. mr. rogers: i thank the chairman and thank mr. young for yielding me this time and thank you and your other partner this dynamic duo we

have here between chairman young and chairman dicks. thank you for good work. the nearly $649 billion in total funding within this bill will provide our armed forces with the resources they need for the nation's missions abroad and the protection of our people here at home. this bill sustains our military readiness, facilitating the continued modernization of the national defense systems and preserving the american armed forces as the greatest military in the world. as our soldiers and marines continue to put their lives on the line, to eliminate terrorism and protect freedom around the globe, congress must provide the necessary support and funding to keep them safe and well-equipped and we must do so in a timely manner. these efforts include adequate funding for equipment

procurement, base operations and military pay. toim prove our defense capabilities and prepare for future challenges, we've provided funding for research and development and to -- into new technology. this legislation also provides essential funding for health and quality of life programs for the men and women of the armed services and their families. but as in all of our appropriations bills this year especially, this legislation reflects hard decisions to cut lower priority programs, reduce spending in programs that can be scaled back and target funds where they're needed most. so that our nation can continue on the path to fiscal recovery. no bill no department, including the pentagon, should be immune from scrutiny during these precarious financial times.

this legislation identifies fiscally responsible savings, savings that will in no way impair the safety or effectiveness of our troops, the success of our military operations, or our military readiness. the bill also increases oversight of defense programs and funds to ensure that tax dollars are being spent wisely and efficiency. we've taken a critical eye and increased scrutiny on some programs to ensure american taxpayers are receiving the proper benefits for their defense investments. i want to thank, again, chairman young and ranking member dicks for their tireless work. in fact, it's a very bipartisan spirit and commitment and that's the rule of this subcommittee over the decades of time. and their commitment to crafting a very responsible defense bill. and of course the staff has

worked tirelessly to make this day possible. so i urge mr. chairman, i urge all of our colleagues to support this bill. it's a good one. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. bishop who is a former member of the defense subcommittee and now is the ranking democrat on the military construction-v.a. subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. bishop: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i am pleased to rise in support of the committee's f.y. 2012 defense appropriations bill. i would like to commend chairman young, ranking member dicks, chairman rogers and the che members and staff on both sides of the aisle for continuing the fine tradition of bipartisan cooperation and teamwork in producing this bill. the bill provides $534.5 billion for d.o.d. in 2012, $17

billion more than the current level. it provides $18 nt 7 billion for ongoing military operations in iraq and afghanistan. it continues our long standing commitment to our troops and their families by including a pay raise for the troops, strengthening health care service members for the families and providing $4.2 billion for family supported advocacy programs. it provides $2.8 billion for combating i.e.d.'s in afghanistan and iraq and $253 million for the modernization of the m-1 abrams tank. it includes $5.1 billion for reserve equipment, $6.3 billion for medical research, including

$3.3 million for cancer research and millions for traumatic brain injury research. i'm pleased that they included millions for research, including $20 million for historically black colleges for research. i'm reminded of my dear friend and colleague, former chairman jack murtha, who had one simple creed in developing an appropriations bill thambings to create a bill that afforded our service men and women all the resources they need to do their job as effectively as possible. i believe this bill does that and i do earnestly believe that chairman murtha would be proud of this bill. i'm pleased to support its passage. thank you and i yield back, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. young: mr. chairman, i am happy to yield at this time to the former chairman of the

subcommittee and the former chairman of the appropriations committee, mr. lewis of california. the chair: mr. lewis is recognized for how long? mr. lewis: two minutes, i believe. mr. young: two minutes. the chair: two minutes. mr. lewis: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i thank mr. young of florida and mr. dicks of washington for the fabulous work they've done working together in developing this measure which is something over $500 billions of dollars. the public certainly will know that that's no small amount of money. but certainly also they'll know it is the reason for us to have a federal government. funding available to preserve our nation. and as we leave this weekend to celebrate the fourth of july and the history of our country and the history of freedom not just here but also available around the world, we know that it's the work of this subcommittee and people like

these leaders that allow us to continue to be on the point of the spear for freedom around the world. indeed, if there's a reason for us to have a federal government, it is to be able to preserve our freedom and to provide opportunity for others chairman, it is very important for me to point out that we are about serious and difficult challenges especially in the middle east at this moment. a while ago, my friend norm dicks, mentioned 1989 and the challenges in afghanistan. and the soviet union was attempting to take overall of afghanistan as a way of taking over the middle east and to extend their desire to take over the world. a stop to that came by way of this committee's work and leadership from this committee. if you have not taken the time to read about "charlie wilson's

war," you should and recognize that that led for a chance for freedom in afghanistan. if you would give me -- mr. young: i rise to yield several minutes to the gentleman from california. the chair: without objection. mr. lewis: if one would recognize, "charlie wilson's war" time, we were successful in stopping the soviet union. as we had that success, america often does what we do overseas, we walked away and left a vacuum in afghanistan. and it was that vacuum that let al qaeda and others to train themselves and puts us in the pressure box that we are in today in the country. america must constantly be aware that we are the force for freedom and working together we will continue to have freedom flute the world. having said that, mr. chairman, i want to extend my deepest

congratulations to these two gentlemen, these two leaders, bill young and norm dickses, extremely talented -- discs -- dicks. and we have free debate on the floor. that is the strength of our congress. if if the people will be patient with us, we will accomplish some things, indeed, freedom will continue to be a force in the world because of the work of these gentlemen. and our congratulations as well and our best wishes go out to their continuing work and success. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from california, a member of the appropriations committee and someone who is a very dynamic leader on our committee and that

i enjoy working with, congresswoman bash bra -- barbara lee. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. lee: thank you for your patriotism and commitment to our country and our troops and it is an exciting committee and it is a very important committee and i thank chairman rogers for his leadership and for his service and the attempts to bring this committee together in the spirit of bipartisanship. and i respect and support the president and i applaud him for his tremendous leadership on so many issues. like many of my colleagues, i was tremendously disappoint todd hear the president's announcement last night. three out of four americans want to bring our troops home from afghanistan and this is far from the significant reduction that the american people were

expecting. a token troop reduction of 10,000 by the end of this year and waiting another year to remove another 23,000, which in total would reverse the 2009 troop escalation is unacceptable and quite frankly it flies in the face of the growing bipartisan calls across our war-weary nation to exit afghanistan and to refocus on our priorities here at home. i voted against this original authorization in 2001, which was a very difficult vote for me to cast, because i was the only one to cast a no vote. i knew then that that authorization was an authorization that was a blank check to wage war for any reason against any nation for any length of time. and this has now become the longest war in american history. as we spend over $2 billion a week on this decade-long war,

critical programs, like programs for women and children, nutrition programs, food stamps and medicare, are on the chopping block. enough is enough. there is no military solution in afghanistan. and in a world where terrorism can eminate from the tribal regions of yemen or hotel room in germany, we cannot adequately address these challenges through a boots on the ground strategy. it is clear that occupying states and nation building doesn't make for effective counterterrorism and the financial and human costs for continuing this war are indefensible. with over 1,600 troops killed and more seriously wounded in afghanistan, the human toll continues to mount each ander day. we need to bring our troops home and use the savings for our economic challenges here at home especially for job and i have amendments to end funding

operations for combat in afghanistan and provide funding for the protection and safe and orderly withdrawal of our young men and women as quickly as possible. and i urge members to support this amendment. aisle be offering an amendment to transfer $5 billion, which is in the pentagon -- now this is a $5 billion -- may i have two more minutes? mr. dicks: yield two more minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two more minutes. ms. lee: i want to explain these amendments today during general debate, because this is important to the public to know, there is a $5 billion war slush fund just sitting over there. i want to offer an amendment to take that war slush fund, $5 billion and apply it to deficit reduction, especially in this time of deficits, i hope we can agree that we should not be handing the pentagon a $5

billion blank check for a war slush fund that has little accountability and runs counter to our constitutional duty to control the purse strings. we cannot forget about the 45,000 troops in iraq. i will be offering an amendment to ensure that all of them are brought home at the end of the year as agreed to in our status of forces agreement. my friend and colleague from illinois, congresswoman january schakowsky and myself will require the department to provide audit-ready financial requests. this $648 billion budget, $17 billion above last year's budget. it could be cut at least by $75 billion to $100 billion without undermining our troops. as a daughter of a military veteran, i support each and every dollar in this budget for our troops, because they deserve

support and economic security. but we should be cutting waste, fraud and abuse out of the pentagon and should cut these cold war weapons systems that have no reason to be developed in this new world of terrorism and when we see ourselves faced with asymmetrical warfare. $648 billion is too much. it's much, too much. we can ensure our national security, protect our troops and re-invest some of these dollars to create jobs at home with a rational defense budget. so we'll never pay down our debt as long as the military budget continues to soar. thank you very much. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. young: i now yield four

minutes to the very distinguished -- a senior member of the defense appropriations committee and chairman of the subcommittee on energy and water, mr. fleeling -- frelinghuysen, four minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: this is a good bipartisan bill carved out an an allocation be higher, but we must do our part to lower the federal deficit. this bill deserves our strong support, because as the chairman says and others, it has an important pay raise in there for all of our troops who are volunteering. it provides more first-class medical care for those who are injured. it provides more money for ships, 10 new ships, two of them being virginia-class submarines, additional money for fighter aircraft, which are badly needed. and $1.5 billion for the national guard equipment for

overseas and home state missions. this money was unrequested by the administration. i want to take a minute to reflect the collective bipartisan frustration many are feeling with the administration's handling of the libyan operation, another what we might call overseas contingency operations. we will debate the national interests on libya as we consider measures that go to the heart of congress' constitutional role to declare war. here this evening, the committee is in the process of developing a credible defense spending program beginning this october. i understand there are no funds designated for libyan operations in this bill. however, in reality, this libyan mission is heavily dependent on u.s. assets and these assets must be accounted for by our committee. we are aware that our chairman, mr. young, and he referred to it in his remarks, since april 1,

seeking information by the sfration about the nature of the mission in libya, two, the cost of the mission, the length of the mission and any anticipated changes to the mission. we are aware that the president finally responded with his june 15 letter to congress, in which he reports that the department of department of defense has spent over $750 million over the last three months, $10 million a day in libya. mr. chairman, the president errs when he fails to give us information about any mission. in closing, i support this mark, and i support this bill and i thank the chairman and ranking member and committee staff for the great work they have done and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seeks recognition? mr. dicks: i reserve at this point. the chair: the gentleman from

washington reserves. mr. young: i yield two minutes to a very important member of the defense subcommittee, mr. calvert from california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. calvert: i certainly rise in strong support of this fiscal year 2012 defense appropriations bill. i want to thank chairman young and ranking member discs and their staffs -- dicks and their staffs for a fantastic job. this bill is a great example when it comes to our national defense that we work together as americans, not as democrats, not as republicans, but as americans and in a time when he are in a number of conflicts around the world, it's important that we show that we stand united in support of our troops and against our enemies. i would remind of what's the longest war, the longest war in american history is the cold war and we were in that for over 40

years and we are in a war against terrorism and radical elements out there that are trying toll kill us and to harm our national interests. and so this is a long-term commitment. i congratulate this committee for doing the job that's necessary and i ask unanimous consent that i would submit the balance of my comments for the record. the chair: request is covered by the general leave. yields back. for what purpose does -- mr. young: gentleman continue to reserve? mr. young: at this time, i would yield two minutes to another very important member of the defense appropriations subcommittee, mr. cole. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. cole: i rise today in support of the fiscal 2012 defense appropriations act and urge members to extend their

support as well. this is a fine bill that the committee worked on in open fashion and includes input from both sides of the aisle. thanks to chairman young and ranking member dicks, it is a strong bipartisan bill that will do good for the defense of our country. we will have spirited debate on amendments and that's a good thing. at the end of the day, this legislation is and will remain a very good product. the spending levels in the bill do not exceed the 302-b allocations which is within the overall spending approved by the house budget resolution. it includes $530 billion for the normal operations of the department and the conduct of the global war on terror and includes 1.6% pay raise for the

troops and $453 nilion for upgraded abe rams tank and $2.7 billion for the continued development of the f-35 joint strike fighter, a weapons system that is critical to maintaining the air superiority for the united states air force. the bill will withhold 75% of the funding for the pakistan counterzphurns capability fund until the secretary of defense provides lawmakers the metrics for the use of those funds. the committee adopted an amendment that would provide $1 million for the creation of a bipartisan commission to make policy recommendations on afghanistan and pakistan. mr. chairman, this is a strong piece of legislation, one that i fully believe we should support and i would ask all members to do so. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seeks time?

mr. young: mr. young: does the gentleman continue to reserve? mr. dicks: i reserve. mr. young: i have no further speakers, i do have a brief closing statement after mr. dicks -- when he's prepared to close. the chair: the gentleman yields back? mr. dicks: i'd like to again thank the chairman for the work of -- for his work and the staff. i rarely disagree with my good friend from new jersey but i must say that the president did lay out the rationale for why we did libya. he said we were there to help protect the libyan people. there were two resolutions adopted by the united nations, 1973 said -- and it wasn't just

the united nations, you had the arab league, you had nato involved in this, and yes, i think the president would -- would have been better advised to have asked for authorization, but this was a situation where the libyan people were going to be slaughtered. and the president felt that he had to act. and some of us just got back from a trip, we saw that -- the men and women who handled the equipment who fly in there, do the jamming, all the different things that are done. and they have done a phenomenal job. and now the president has turned the leadership of this other to nato. and they're taking the lead. the gentleman from new jersey is correct, they cannot do all these things without tankers, without the things, some of the special intelligence reconnaissance that we have that just isn't out there for

anybody else. so i hope that this will, tomorrow's debate will be on the merits. let's look at this thing, let's talk about it, i think this will be a worthwhile discussion. but i do believe -- i remember there was fwing to be a no-fly zone, an embargo to protect the people, i think the president laid out what this is about. we have to look at this in terms of egypt and other countries in the area. thousands and thousands of people are fleeing from libya. this is going to cause a major problem in the countries that surround libya. and you know, ronald reagan attacked libya. i think he called gaddafi a mad dog. and he didn't -- i don't remember -- he came to congress before he let the bombers go in there and attack them.

in this case, i am one who is very restrained in the use of force, but in this case, i think the president had to act and he had the united nations and i said the arab league, nato, he had the french and the british demanding action. so i think we have to look at the result here too. i think right now, the rebels have a very good chance of succeeding. and i hope they can do it in a timely way. we'd like to see this over as quickly as possible but remember kosovo that took a significant amount of time before that worked out. and there were a lot of critics, a lot of critics, but a lot of people -- president clinton, when he did that. but in the end it turned out very well for everyone. libya, i think gaddafi should be replaced. i wish we were more candid about that. the president has said that. i hope that we look at this fairly and realize that --

realize the damage that would be done to the north atlantic treaty organization if the united states all of a sudden pulled all of its forces out of this. they would not be table continue. this would be a worldwide embarrassment to the united states of america, to our great country and to our military. and i just think we have to look at all the ramifications of this. this is a serious matter and shouldn't be politicized. senator jackson from my state used to say, when it comes to national defense, the best politics is no politics. call it on the merits and do it in the best interest of our country and in the best interest of people serving our military. thank you. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. young: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. young: i want to thank mr. dicks for being such a good partner and working in a up -- in such a bipartisan way to guarantee we did the best we could with the money we had available to provide for the national defense. i would say again, we have not had any impact adversely on any of our troops, and we have not adversely affected the readiness of our country. while we have taken some of those slush funds and some of those wasteful funds, we did take some of those to achieve the $9 billion in savings that we were required to achieve. the bill is lengthy, as you can hear from the various speakers, there are many, many, many parts of this bill. this bill has been available, the specific details have been available for over two weeks so that members have had every opportunity to study the bill. in order to get where we are, it took a lot of work because

number one, we had to finish last year's bill and that was no fault of mr. dicks. he worked hard as chairman last year to produce another very good, bipartisan bill, cooperating totally with us on the minority side. the minority at that time. but we didn't get to get that bill to the floor. and i wish that he had, but it didn't quite make it. so we finished this year -- so this year, we finished the work for f.y. 2011 and now this is the bill for f.y. 2012. again, it is a strong, bipartisan, no politics, good, defense bill. but in order to get to this point to get where we were, required tremendous dedication on the part of all of the members on the subcommittee. as well as -- and very specifically, as well as the staff. the professional staff of our

defense subcommittee, very, very special and work extremely hard. i'd like to call attention to that staff. on the minority side, paul jolla, who also worked on the majority side at one point. becky, on the majority staff, brooke boyer, walter, jennifer miller, tim, atreian ramsey, ann reese, megan, paul terry, b.g. wright, sherry young, and the chief of staff, tom mclemore. they've done a tremendous job. i know that oftentimes when the house finishes its business and members would retire to their respective homes, staff stayed and they did the analysis that had to be done to achieve the savings in that we achieved but

also to make sure we accomplished what had to be accomplished to provide for our troop, provide for their welfare, to provide for the readiness of the nation. i said in my opening remarks, there were other items, other things, other parts of the bill i would like to have increased. i would have liked to have increased the pay raise that goes to our military. the money just wasn't there. but we did insist on funding the full 1.6%, which doesn't sound like a lot, but at least it's not a reduction. mr. chairman, a good bill, we aren't going to vote on this bill tonight, we will leave this bill for, it's my understanding now from leadership, we will lead this bill for amendment under the five-minute rule week after next and we'll be prepared to again, in a bipartisan way, deal with any issues that might come up at that time. so wishing everybody a good evening, i yield back the

balance of my time. the chair: all time for general debate has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. young: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion to rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having had under consideration h.r. 2219, directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon.

the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2219 and has come to no resolution thereon. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. berg of north dakota from 4:00 p.m. today and for the balance of the week. mrs. napolitano of california for today and friday, june 24. and mr. rangel of new york for today. the chair: without objection, the requests are granted. -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection the requests are granted. the chair will now entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise?

>> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, our nation's medical liability system is broken. it's put limits on patients' access to health care and it's increased cost. but since 2003, my home state of texas has been a leader on medical liability reform. as a result of tort reform from 2003 to 2009, texas has seen an increase of roughly 60% in new physician license applications and since 2003, texas has had 21,640, let me say that again, 21,640 new physicians licensed. that means more doctors to

treat patients, especially in rural areas with limited access to health care. mr. olson: all major physician insurers have cut rates, giving texas doctors affordable premiums, allowing them to focus on quality of care. texas is a model for tort reform for the nation. i urge the congress to adopt a similar policy to save our nation billions in medical costs. the chair: the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. are there further one-minute requests?

under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. this evening, i will be joined by my colleague from california, representative garmeppedy. he and i will discuss for this next hour the issues that deal with a program that is tremendously popular in this country that deals with our senior population as they have the resources through a program dubbed medicare that enables them to enjoy with dignity their senior years. and to be able to have the security of knowing that there is affordability and accessibility for their health

care needs. and obviously, as our senior population continues to grow and the longevity curve continues to climb upward, our senior senior population has reminded us that their dignity and their quality of life has been addressed in a very strong way as the calculated curve for life expectancy continues to mount, which is a positive force in the lives of all americans. the efforts that we see afloat in this house in this -- at this capitol, range across a number of cuts and reforms that people are proposing for the future budget for this country. there is this ryan road map, which has been developed and dubbed the path to prosperity by

the author and by the republican majority in the house. however, many of us have seen it for its true values and its attempts to end medicare so much so that we have dubbed it the road to ruin, a situation that would undo a medicare program and is why signs such as this next to me here, i would greet many of us when we arrive in our districts for district work periods or on weekends as we break from session here in the house of representatives. hands off my medicare. it's very bold, very straightforward and very understood. the message is real and has reached us because it talks about an attempt here to end medicare in this house. it would force seniors to find their own insurance in the private market. they would be asked to shop. they would be asked to shop with a coupon in hand, the money that

the government would kick in for that coverage, part of that coupon would not nearly keep pace with the actual costs, the costs that seniors would be forced to pay. and of course, as 32 cents, which has been beyond the average expectation of the coupon for every $1 premium cost would be the outcome, that means the risk would shift from our senior population, to have them dig into their pockets and the risk would be removed from government and placed in the havends of seniors. it would take away a dependable system and put a profit-driven insurance arena and rationing care for our seniors. this is a very unacceptable outcome, representative garamendi and i'm glad you joined us, where we'll focus on

the ryan road map and what it really means, what it calculates to do and the impact it has on so many elements of the population out there. and thank you, representative garamendi, for joining us this evening, as we talk about this attempt to end medicare, shift the risk from government to seniors. mr. garamendi: gar representative tonko, thank you for the opportunity to talk about this. we call this the ryan road map, but the republican budget proposal. not only the chairman of the budget committee that put this out but every republican in this house voted for it. they have adopted it as their road map, as their solution to the problems that face this nation. you spoke very eloquently about the way in which this proposal

would change the who pay s and how it's going to be paid for and shifts the burden away from all of us and shifts the burden on to individual seniors. one of the things i found interesting is how much does it cost an individual senior. those who are seniors also suffer. not those who will become seniors, but those who are seniors today and i will come back to that during this discussion because that's a very important part. republicans say this doesn't affect anybody who is on medicare. the medicare portion doesn't, but the medicaid does, because it does cut medicaid. they shift the responsibility here and what it's going to cost an individual. if you are not yet 55, then you're going to be in a system that is not medicare. it's the voucher program, a

program in which the government will give you a voucher, a ticket and say go buy your insurance. who is going to make up the balance? the individual is going to make up the balance. so if you are 55, this little chart lace it out. if you are 55, you better start finding $182,000 right now, because when you are 65 and go on the non-medicare program, you will have to come up with $182,000 in order to be able to buy the insurance you need. if you are 50, $231,900 in order to purchase the private insurance coverage. and it goes on. if you are 40, you need $343,800. so you have to stock, put that money away, so when you become 65 and medicare is not there for you, you will be having to make

up the difference. bottom line in all this is, i love this one, i think you will recognize this, mr. tonko. tombstone, medicare, 1965-2011, created by l.b.j., destroyed by the g. l g.o.p. they are destroying medicare. it has been around since 1965 and guarantees that every individual in america who has turned 65 will have this health insurance policy, a policy that guarantees them benefits, doctors' visits, hospital visits and under the new affordable health care act, an expansion of services, a whole series of preventative services available without costs to seniors. actually saves us money.

it's very, very interesting if you save money up front in prevention as we do in the affordable health care act and every republican voted against and voted to repeal, that benefit goes to seniors free, saves taxpayers money and keeps seniors healthy. >> you point out to the line in the sand drawn for 55 and over and 55 and under. and there is a different treatment. while people would try to suggest that, well, if you are 65, say, and you are qualifying for medicare and you go forward and folks below 55 will never join the system, well, that causes fluctuations in the crowd in the 65 and over today as they grow older and life expectancy goes north, not south.

there is no replenishing of the younger eligible medicare community and as you climb the age chart, the correlation with health care and your need for services rises. so the younger element within the medicare-eligible community was i think providing statistic biment in the fund. so i think it disrupts the outcome of that universe as you no longer allow the entry of new populations with time. mr. garamendi: absolutely true. i was insurance commissioner in california for eight years and that theory -- it's the way insurance works, large pool, all of whom share the risks. and if you are risk pool as you described it, becomes older and older -- mr. tonko: with no senior coming in -- mr. garamendi: you have a very, very expensive pool.

now, on the other hand, the very same thing occurs on the private insurance side. on the private insurance side, we're going to see in the republican budget plan, the ryan plan, a whole population of people that have become 65, no longer eligible for medicare and now they're going into the private insurance sector. mr. tonko: a community for whom we have not done insurance writing -- the actuarial science has not applied. 45 years of -- mr. garamendi: exactly right. will the insurance companies want to see those people? no, they won't, because those people are now at 65 and at an age where they are going to have higher medical expenses. and asking the private insurance companies to take this whole new population of older, more expensive people into their private insurance companies,

into that pool. the result of which is that private insurance company's pool will become more expensive. they know those people who are now 65 in the private insurance pool will become ill and costs will be more expensive and the doors will be slammed shut. and the vaket, well, presumably guaranteed by law, advertising won't be there, the insurance agents wont be there to serve that that population, making it not only expensive for the individual, but difficult to get the quality insurance and there is no guarantee about the benefits in the republican proposal. mr. tonko: if you will suffer an interruption here and allow me to share with what both of us have talked about, people at home, because this is such a drastic proposal, can't believe it's a real proposal, but we have to remind people, it is

alive and has legs. the majority leader who is at the vice president biden table for negotiations on the debt ceiling bill, today walked along with a republican senator spokes person for the republican conference, dropped out of the talks today because they couldn't get and want that agreement to have certain revenues at that negotiating table to be exempt or certain proposals. we're saying, look, this has to be a bipartisan approach that has a tender balance here that you cannot drop out of that balance certain impacts to the economy, like $800 billion worth that is the price tag for the wealthy in this country, where

they want dollar amount to be absolutely, you know -- mr. garamendi: let me see if i understand what you are saying. the republicans are saying they are willing to cut services to seniors, medicare and we also know there is a proposal by mr. sessions, mr. a republican, to terminate social security. they want to reduce the benefits to seniors, but they don't want any new taxes on the superwealthy. mr. tonko: exactly. and we are saying as democrats in the house and on the hill, what must be on the table? we need to have discussions about oil breaks that trace their roots over 100 years' worth of policy decisions, tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of americans must be on the table. these are the important things.

bill oil profits that are historically largest are the reason that in order to afford those sorts of handouts and wealthy tax cuts, they need to carve into a program like medicare in order to make it all balance. and we are saying no. no. no. we are saying these things must be on the table. mr. garamendi: all we do here are make choices and about solving this international problem, solve it this way or that way, it's all about choices. this issue of how we are going to deal with the budget and the budget deficit is about choices. the republicans have made a very clear choice. they are deciding that their choice is to reduce the benefits to seniors, medicare, medicaid benefits, almost $900 billion cut in the medicare program that provides benefits to seniors in

nursing homes and terminating medicare so you are forced into a private insurance market, that's the choice they have made, rather than go and get our money back from big oil. choices. they have refused in votes here on the floor, refused to take back the subsidies that we're giving to the big oil companies. i suppose arguing that these oil companies are hurting, that they're not profitable. well, not so. just take a look here just this last year, exxon mobil saw 69% increase in their profits, $10.7 billion profit.

oxy, up 46%, conoco, 43% increase, $2.1 billion. b.p., 16% increase, $7.2 billion. that's money right out of the pockets of consumers and in addition, they get billions of dollars of our tax money you and i pay in addition to the gasoline tax, they get that for additional profit. it is prong. -- it is wrong. it is about choices. the plups have made a choice here, take away from seniors, take away from medicare but make sure oil companies continue to receive subsidies. mr. tonko: you talk about choices. the choices are, do we continue medicare? democrats in the house want to improve, want to strengthen medicare, not deny it, not end it. make it more stable. make it even stronger program. there's a choice. their choice would be to have

tax earmarks for what sort of things? for corporate jets. for golf bags. for snow globes. these are the choices. and beyond choice, representative garamendi, there are contrasts. this chart here incorporates what you're talking about with big oil. we have $131 billion that are given away yearly to big oil and millionaires. handouts -- mr. garamendi: how much? mr. tonko: $131 billion. mr. garamendi:? a queer? mr. tonko: yes. contrasted with $161 billion cut from medicare. mr. tonko: you have to provide tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires and mindless handouts to oil companies sitting on historic record profits, this year alone, we

are at about $36 million in profits. if we have done this mindlessly for a century's worth, why would we continue that and put at risk a program that will be celebrating its 45th anniversary in a few days? why would we do that when the quality of life for the many, many, the masses of medicare eligibility, are putting -- being put at risk for the far fewer who will get the millionaire, billionaire tax cuts and oil handouts? mr. garamendi: it's about choices. it's about where do you stand? do you stand with the seniors and medicare and the benefits they need to survive? or do you stand with the big oil companies? look at the way the votes come down on the house floor. over the last five months, we've seen vote after vote after vote where the democrats have suggested we eliminate these subsidies, all of them,

the subsidy to big oil, that we reinstall the higher income tax for the super wealthy, we're not talking about the working stiff out there in the plant, we're talking about the super wealthy, those that have an adjusted gross income, that's after all the deductions of over $250,000, take it to $1 million. but just raise their tax rate on that upper income above $250,000, 3%. not talking about a huge increase. a 3% increase. and yet our republican friends say, oh, no, we can't do that. we have to whack the elderly. we've got to go out to the elderly and take away their medicare benefits. this is unconscionable. it is terrible economic policy. it is unconscionable that we would -- that anyone would make such a choice. give the wealthy more, take it

away from the seniors. what kind of -- what would lead a person to do that? mr. tonko: mr. garamendi, would you yield? mr. garamendi: i would be delighted, representative tonko. mr. tonko: not only do they talk about these choices but they've made it clear that their negotiations at the table begin and end with this destruction of medicare while protecting subsidies for big oil and to include the tax breaks for millionaires. that is very clear. that is the directive. that is part of a line drawn in the sand on negotiations. which makes it very difficult because what it tells us is that they're willing to put the risk of full faith and credit of these united states on the line and we know we have just struggled to crawl out of the situation a recession that

found $8 -- that found 8.2 million jobs lost in america, we're just climbing that hill to recovery and they're willing to put the full faith and credit of the united states at risk and perhaps, most likely, cause a new economic calamity. mr. garamendi: we often talk about this and what you're referring to is the deficit reduction negotiations going on between the vice president and the leadership of the house and senate and that's good. negotiations have to take place. but in the negotiations, it's very clear where the two parties come down. you described it so very, very well that in those negotiations it appears as though our republican colleagues are willing to put the full faith and credit of the united states . this is our worthiness, our financial worthiness as a nation on the line so that they can cut benefits to seniors. so that they can cut programs

that provide food for women and -- for pregnant women and children. so that they can make cuts in the school lunch program. so that they can make cuts in the infrastructure and education programs that keep this country moving forward. in exchange for no taxes on thewelly. they're willing to put this entire nation's financial strength at risk so that they can reward the super wealthy in this country. mr. tonko: if someone would rationalize that program, if they could show the societal good that comes with that, in recent history, twice over in recent history, we've witnessed that that relief at that top income strata has not caused or inspired a trickle down that produced jobs, that enabled people to see investments made

in an economic recovery. in fact, the reverse was true. we saw what happened. they reduced taxes for millionaires and billionaires, $8 -- for millionaires and billionaires, 8.2 million jobs lost, the american economy brought to its knees. now the people have said, our top priority is jobs. we heard it. all of us who serve in this chamber heard it in the last election of november of 2010. it couldn't have resonated more boldly, more clearly, it's about jobs. it's about growing the economy. stop shrinking the middle class, start growing the economy. that was the directive system of what they wanted was to make certain that we would allow for dignity to continue, that health care costs would be contained as we did the reforms to health care, we included improvements for medicare, they wanted that medicare program to continue, and when you listen

to the american public out there, and we'll talk about this in a minute, the polling, most recent, today, that was released, indicates there is strong support for continuing medicare. they support strengthening medicare and they have denounced this attempt to bring an end to medicare. they are angry about it, not just for their generation. i'm saying they, as seniors, they are concerned because they want their children and grandchildren to enjoy that same order of security that has served them so well with their health care needs. mr. garamendi: how well you said it, mr. tonko, the choices are very, very clear. we do have a deficit problem. you and i should spend some talking about how we got into that in the first place and how to get out of it but to put this nation's financial strength on the table and say as republicans are, they are willing to let this nation go into default on its

obligations. first time ever. and if that were to happen, it would kick off another financial crisis around the world. the rest of the world depends upon the willingness of the united states to pay its debts because that's the security in the banks around the world. and if the united states isn't willing to do that suddenly, this nation will be in deep trouble and the world economy along with it and guess what? it's going to cost us a lot of money because the interest rates will go up. the united states isn't trustworthy, it's risky, therefore you have to pay higher interest. you have to understand that this is a default crisis. it's not the debt ceiling. it is a default crisis we're facing. to use it as a lever to harm seniors is unconscionable, but yet that's what they're doing as they continue to call for cuts in medicare and the medicare program. we shouldn't let it happen. we do have -- before we go

there, i keep coming back to this. in 1965, the united states decided that they were going -- that we were going to end foifer among seniors. the seniors were the most impoverished part of the american population. and added to the social security program was a health insurance program called medicare. an extraordinary expression of the american compassion. an extraordinary expression of the american desire to take care of their parents and to provide the necessary health care services. and here we are, in 2011, with a proposal by the republican party to terminate medicare. how can it be? how could we have come to this? and to say it's the deficit that's causing this to happen is, i think, wrong. before we turn to the deficit,

i just think that you and i talked about this, representative tonko, and we should cover it. we talked about it a little bit. we know that the cost of medicare is going up. and it is. something that is of concern to you an me and i think to everybody in this nation. but medicare costs go up along with the total inflation with health care. it's the whole health care system that goes up and medicare rides along in that inflation. it is not the cause of the inflation. there are many other causes of the inflation in health care. and in order to deal with the cost of medicare, you don't destroy medicare and throw medicare into the private insurance market. what you have to do is control the underlying costs of health care. and there are some things that you can actually do in medicare. for example, medicare part d,

which is the pharmaceutical portion of medicare, passed by republican congress in 2003 without any way to pay for it. all borrowed money. ok, so much for the republicans' desire to pay as you go. but it was all borrowed money. and into the law the republicans wrote a provision that prohibited the federal government for negotiating for drug prices. and the federal government is a price taker. whatever the drug companies want to charge, the federal government has to pay. we could save tens, hundreds of billions of dollars over 10 years by simply allowing the federal government to negotiate the prices of drugs for seniors. mr. tonko: you're so right. that preclusion that came in that measure was an outright

avoiding of providing a benefit to the senior community. and you know, i know the number because we talked about it today in another session. it's $156 billion that could be saved over that 10-year stretch just by bulk purchasing the pharmaceutical needs for the medicare program. mr. garamendi: but the republicans wouldn't allow it. mr. tonko: it's not just a savings for the government but also a savings to individual seniors. so right there is an opportunity to provide more stability and rein in costs within the medicare program. but it takes the sort of compassion and the determination and the outright leadership to make certain that we make it stronger. what they said today, i was in a meeting with the budget committee, what they said was the way we're going to do this is sharpen the pencil. there's going to be

competition. everyone is going to fight to serve the senior citizens for her or his health care needs, they're going to drive down the cost and provide the benefit. since medicare was initiated, the private sector premium costs have risen by 5,000%. medicare is far below that curve there isn't that marketing program. there isn't that administrative overcharge, that really has driven these prices to go out of sight. and what we have here is an attempt to put the insurance company into the driver's seat. mr. garamendi: as the insurance commissioner in california for eight years, let me pick that issue up. the insurance companies are extraordinarily inefficient compared to medicare. everybody thinks government is inefficient, it's not the case in medicare. medicare collects the money and distributes, pays the bills for about 3% of the cost, about 3%.

the private insurance companies are about 30%. now, on the err end, you've got the -- other end, you've got the cost of administration. it may be another 7%, 8% administrative costs for the doctors and hospitals for medicare but on the private insurance side, because there are so many different policies, so many different forms so, many different coverages, this is covered, that's not covered, this is exempted, this is the co-pay for this and a different co-pay for that, it is utter chaos for the provider. and so about 15% of that 30%, about half of that 30% is administrative costs and commissions in sales and advertising on the part of the insurance companies and the other 15% is the administrative costs on the part of the providers, the hospitals and doctors. it is absolutely the most inefficient way to deliver medical services and to pay for

them. medicare is 1 1/2 -- 1/2 the administrative cost, both for the provider and the collection and the payment of the bills. mr. tonko: and i think it is probably what underlies the thinking of americans out there, because when they were polled just recently with the poll that was shared with people today, there's overwhelming opposition to the g.o.p. plan to end medicare. so much so that in that effort by the g.o.p. to convert medicare to a voucher system, 57 plus-pus -- 57%-plus said no to that idea and when you look at independent voters out there as a separate block of measurement it closes into 60% at 58%-some. so people are saying overwhelmingly, we do not want to convert this into a voucher system where you get 32 cents out of every dollar that you need and they're saying very clearly, hands off my medicare.

hands off my medicare. mr. garamendi: i want to pick up one more issue. i know my republican friends over here are constantly saying, well, but in the affordable health care act you took $500 billion out of medicare. let's understand what that's all about. in 2003, in that program, the medicare part d program, two programs were actually put in place. one was the drug benefit, another was what is called medicare advantage. this is the supplemental program for medicare. the medicare advantage program, when it was put in, to entice the insurance companies, the private insurance companies to participate, they were given a 16% bonus over and above their cost. so for eight years or seven years they enjoyed a built-in additional profit of some 16%.

mr. tonko: just to get the concept up and running. mr. garamendi: just to get it up and going and they continue to receive that additional 16%. additional profit. guaranteed profit. when we did the affordable health care act, we said, wait a minute, they don't need that any longer, the program's up,s going, the advertising and everything else is in place, the administrative systems, so we want to take back that additional profit given to the insurance companies. that's where the $500 billion is over a 10-year period. that's money that was saved by creating an efficiency and once again ending an unnecessary supplement. it did not in any way shape or form change any of the benefits that seniors received in the affordable health care act. there was a sentence, it said, no benefit changes period. mr. tonko: right. and where we saw overpayment for services provided, where there

was unnecessary profit accrued in certain areas, we said enough is enough. they shouldn't pay for adding to the profit column beyond reason for those private sector types if they can do it cheaper which was the claim. we can do it cheaper. let us have the medicare advantage model and we will show you how we can provide benefits. it didn't require such vast overpayment. mr. garamendi: no more subsidies. now that i'm on a roll, in that affordable health care act, there was additional money for the internal revenue service, the i.r.s. specifically to go after medicare fraud. we know it's a problem. in the previous years the republican budgets reduced the effort of the medicare program to go after fraud so we put money into the affordable health care act to go after fraud. guess what happened when the republicans came to power? they eliminated the money that the i.r.s. needed to add

additional agents to go after medicare fraud. mr. tonko: right. mr. garamendi: what's that all about? mr. tonko: it's situations where we found recently. there was an article in "the new york times", they reported that there were c.t. chest scans done two times over at many locations where they were recovering those valids through medicare and found them a to -- that to cause some $25 million worth of waste, of fraud in the system. now, that's just one small example of one small bit of opportunity and activity in the health care field. think of it, if you have the agents, as you suggested, and if they are funded in a way that produces dollars of savings, simply by having the infrastructure, the human infrastructure to go out and chase this fraud down, you know, we can then benefit. there are systems here that we have developed that had the checks and balances, have bells and whistles, have the preventative element, even the

efforts we made in the affordable care act to not require co-payments or deductibles for any of the screenings and the annual checkups for our seniors. wonderful concepts to again contain the cost of health care within the medicare model. which we thought was a wonderful thing to do and you're right, there's no move here. when you end medicare and make no adjustments and just hand it over to the private sector and say, keep on your trend of being much more expensive than medicare and go out there and sharpen the pencil, without changes that they want to induce into the program, nothing changes, but the cost increases for the seniors. mr. garamendi: so if you're looking at the deficit, indeed -- and dealing with the deficit, you don't have to destroy medicare to save money. in fact, it will cost us more money not directly in taxes but out of the individual pocket. no doubt about it. the other thing is that there are many, many ways to bring down the cost of health care. those -- many of those were in the affordable health care act

which our republican friends want to repeal and let me just go through. there's the end of the subsidies for the insurance companies which we just talked about. there is -- there was the money for the i.r.s. agents to go after fraud. there is in the legislation a provision that says that hospitals will not be paid for reinfections. these are one of the most expensive things in the hospital system is when a patient gets an infection in the hospital and comes back into the hospital. these are very, very simple things called cleanliness and hygiene at the hospital to bring down the infection rate and in the affordable health care act it says, no, no, if there's a reinfection in the hospital, we're not going to to pay you a second time around. forcing the hospitals to keep it clean. electronic medical records, eliminated by the -- attempted to be elimb natted by the republicans, -- eliminated by the republicans, all of these

things are good for health. the preventative care. mr. tonko: the annual checkups, don't forget those. just undoing the requirement for co-payment or deductibles for those screenings and annual checkups, there was this compassionate reasonable, thoughtful approach to contain costs, provide for the continuation of a program that has grown immensely valuable in the lives and the fabric of our senior community and you know what's interesting? this hands off my medicare is not just resonating with today's seniors, in the recent poll that i just cited, 61% of those age 35, representative garamendi, and older and 63% of those age 5 and older said they -- 55 and older said they would be worse off under this g.o.p. plan. worse off. so people, the more they check this out, all age groups, under 55, under 35, over 65, are all saying, hands off my medicare. it's no wonder that the message

has been resoundingly delivered throughout this country. no matter what regionment -- region. you're on the west coast, i'm on the keast coast, we're haring it from coast-to-coast. mr. garamendi: and everything in between. hands off my medicare. hands off my children's medicare. however, we're saying that, the public is saying that, democrats say, we will not give an inch on medicare, we will control the cost within the affordable health care system but we will not allow the destruction of medicare. keep your hands off medicare. the public is saying that and what are our republican friends saying? they're saying, keep your hands off big oil subsidies. hello? what's that all about? they're saying, don't touch the subsidies, the billions of dollars annually that the oil industry gets, our tax dollars given to the oil industry. don't touch that. keep your hands off those subsidies, but they want to put their hands on to medicare and literally destroy medicare.

mr. tonko: so you're saying that, to quote your dollar figure from earlier, if you're 54, 55 years old, save another $182,000 to cover your health care costs with the end to medicare because the system has to pay oil subsidies to the historically profit-rich oil industry, so we're saying, ok, gather up those dollars, keep that safe how, the $182,000 additionally that you'll require for your health care coverage, because we have to give this mindless handout to the oil companies. or guess what? $6,000 more out of your pocket per year for your health care coverage because we won't have the dollars if you don't do that to pay the oil companies or to give the millionaires and billion airs their tax cut. these are the -- billionaires the tax cuts. these are the priorities that need to be addressed thoughtfully at a negotiating table and, you know, the ridiculousness of the empowerment of the most powerful

at the expense of the masses of those who have received quaflt care and dignity -- quality of care and dignity addressing their golden years, that has to be sacrificed just so that this stubborness of negotiation can continue where you're going to have this outcome. mr. garamendi: representative tonko, we do have a deficit problem. we have to address that. we've talked about ways that that can be done in the health care sector without harming medicare. but one of the most important things in addressing the deficit problem is to put people back to work. americans want to work. they want to earn a livings, they want to have enough money to pay for their home or their rent and food and take care of their children so their kids can go to school. we need a jobs program. we need a jobs program in america. we need to be able to put people back to work. we're into almost the six-month -- the end of the sixth month of

this session, not one jobs bill put forward by the republican party. not one. they talk about cutting in taxes as though that's somehow going to create jobs and there's absolutely no evidence that it does. what the democrats -- mr. tonko: what does grow jobs is strengthening purchase power so that as the middle class of america, which is the engine that drives the economy, has the available cash to purchase things, to be out there and allow for the upper stratus to have their products sold, purchased, you're going to destroy purchasing power of many households, senior households, those who have to save $182,000 before they qualify as seniors, that's going to drain this economy. mr. garamendi: that's money directly out of the pockets and that's money that has to be set aside. what i'd like to take a few moments on with your permission is to talk about a program that you and i and other colleagues on the democratic side have been

working on now for the last, almost a year now and we call it america in america. it's that great middle american class, the heart and soul of this country, the men and women who went to work every day and made something. they made cars, they made jet airplanes, they made engines, they went in the fields, they made the tractors. america was the great manufacturing center of the world and in the last 20 years to 30 years we've allowed that to dissipate. we want it back. and we know we can get it back. we have the ability in this nation to rebuild the manufacturing base of america and when we do we will rebuild the middle class of america. we call this make it in america. and it's so important. you come from an area that still is a great manufacturing sector and was once the greatest center of it. mr. tonko: absolutely. in the 21st congressional district of new york, in the

capital region of upstate new york, host the original infrastructure of the aryan barge canals. the route that gave birth to a neck las of communities called -- necklace of communities called milltowns that became the epicenter of innovation that inspired a westward movement, that inspired an industrial revolution. that spy near -- pioneer spirit is the d.n.a. of america. give us the opportunity to invest in ideas and we turn that into manufacturing and we go forward. but it begins and ends with a quality work force and the cuts proposed in head start, with a quarter of a million children being denied head start opportunities, the huge cuts to title one funding to get resources to our schools, especially those in most difficult situations destroy the work force of the future. without investment in education there is not a strong and vibrant work force that can continue to carry our strength as a nation in this global

economy. then also i have witnessed in my region, we're the third fastest growing hub in this nation for science and high tech jobs, when you start cutting away at r&d, you're going to destroy the opportunity we have as we continue to cluster with the science and tech related jobs. mr. garamendi: representative tonko, i come from the san francisco bay area. we are the first great science research technology. we'll let you be number three but we're number one. mr. tonko: thanks a lot. mr. garamendi: but the point is, our strategy of make it in america includes half a dozen different specific programs, one of which you talked about, which is the education system. why in the world, when we need, as you just said, to build the ability of the american worker to compete smart, capable,

would we reduce the education funding. that's precisely what our republican friends have done. they've taken money out of the pell deprants for college, very significant, head start, the -- all of the federal education programs are being reduced by our republican colleagues at a time when we have to build it. if we're going to make it in america, we need a well-educated work force. this one up here we call trade. listen, china's cheating. china is cheating on their currency. no matter how creative, how competitive we are, how hard our workers work, it's virtually impossible to compete against china because of their currency cheating. we want the democrat -- we want, the democrats want, to put on this floor, send to the president a demand that the united states take action takes action against china on their currency issue so we could have

a fair trade situation. mr. tonko: absolutely. the currency issue is epicenter -- is at the clenter of what's required. fair trade is what allows us to compete effectively. this imbalance that's been allowed to continue is harmful to our economy, to the workers of this country, the working families have taken it on the chin, the middle class of america needs that purchasing power that enhancement of purchasing power, then you see economic recovery. then you see people putting people to work because as that continues to grow and snowball, you'll require the investment in jobs from service secor on over to manufacturing, on over to r&d. where you plant r&d, as a center of invention, of ideas, of innovation, there will come to be next door to that planting the manufacturing elements that will allow our manufacturing sector to

prosper. mr. garamendi: r&d, research an development, r&d, research and development, in the continuing resolutions pushed forward by the republican party, and successfully enacted and signed into law by their intransgent to deal with any new revenue the reg budget of the united states was significantly reduced at a time when we need more research resm search into energy. we know we have an energy crisis. we know we need to move to new energy sources. yet the republican budget reduced the energy research for this nation. automotive research. we're just beginning to claw back and rebuild our automotive industry. research into batteries and new, efficient automobiles, eliminated by republicans. mr. tonko: when you talk about advanced battery manufacturing

taking place in my district, you're talking about the linchpin, the connector to all the opportunities out there that transition us into alternative technologies. it begins and ends with that battery development an we have those opportunities, we invested in those, we need to continue to take that northward so you put the money down that will grow jobs. that's investing. there's a rightful expectation that there will be dividends from that investment. when you look at the global race, this is much similar to the global race on space in the early 1960's when we got knocked on the seat of our pants in the late 1960's with the sputnik moment, we woke ourselves up, got involved with great passion, getting that race done in winning style. today we have more competitors. you've got china, brazil, india, germany, japan, all investing on a global race on

clean energy investing and we're going to tie our hands mind our backs. mr. garamendi: take away the research money, we know what happens. we lose the race. we all get sick. why put forward a policy to reduce research in medical services in the basic understanding of the human gene, of understanding how we can solve medical problems? why would anybody propose a reduction in the research for medical care? i don't know, but they did. and they succeeded in reducing the budget for medical research system of energy, medical research, automotive, transportation reserge, they reduce the budget and they expect our economy to grow, to be competitive? i don't get it. that's what they've done. mr. tonko: there's guy a -- quite a few benefits that come not with just job creation but service delivery. if you provide for this sort of basic research, you're providing for cures to

illnesses that have continued to haunt the fabric and quality of life of individuals. if we can discover and unleash that potential, there's a quality of life that's addressed, there's hope that's delivered to the doorsteps of families across this country and so it goes well beyond job creation but you're absolutely right. these are jobs that are of high quality that require, again, the investment of america's know-how. there are opportunities for intellectual capacity that we as a nation invest in higher ed and this is putting that higher ed product to work. mr. garamendi: let's take another example this comes up on the energy policies of the nation. we all understand that the oil industry has done rather well. and we continue to subsidize the oil industry. efforts to eliminate those subsidies and shift those to the new green technologies have been blocked by our republican friends. we do have money going to

subsidize, to provide incentives for the clean energy industry, wind turbines and solar photo voltaic systems. i have a bill in actually two bills, that say our tax money must be spent on american-made equipment. for example, i have two big wind farms in my district. the solano and altamon wind farms. huge. towers 400 feet high. blades a football field across. made overseas in europe and china. i'm looking and going, our tax money is being used to help build these systems? and yet they're in the american made? no, no, no. if our tax money is going to be used in this way, it's going to be used to buy american-made equipment. that bill is in. it's now being slowed down, blocked in the various republican committees here. but it seems to me, foolishness, to allow our tax money to be sent offshore.

we also, all of us pay 18.5 cents excise tax for gasoline. that's used to build roads, highways, bridges and to buy trains and buses and light rail systems. my legislation says that that money must be used to buy american-made equipment. those trains, those buses, those light rails, the steel in the bridges, will be american made. why don't we bring those jobs back home? we can do this using money that is already available, already being spent, but sometimes all too often spent on foreign made equipment. mr. tonko: and talk about the innovation economy, where you invest in america, where an infratruckture that moves goods and people is as sound as it can be, but as we invest in america and talk about the energy economy, the innovation that comes with advanced battery manufacturing, that stops the trail eventually of

dollars that are exported out of this nation, going into the middle east, $400 million plus a year to maintain this fossil based economy that has us glut tonously dependent on fossil based fuels imported from unfriendly nations to the united states. there has to be a cleaner way, more efficient way, that enables us to grow products not on the radar screen. that's how a great nation continues its greatness and continues to become greater by putting to work its brainpower and developing products that are kinder to the virlte, strong in manufacturing element that produced here in these united states and draws upon the work force and the r&d potential of everyone from trades up to ph.d.'s. involved in that equation of success. i think it's a way to empower us across the board.

mr. garamendi: as we come to the conclusion of this, the make it in america agenda is a powerful agenda to rebill the american manufacturing base, to put middle class america back to work. so that they can have the home that they want. so that they can take care of their children's education. so that they can have once again pride in this nation. we can do it. these are the policies. a fair trade policy in which we tell china, no, no, no, we're not going to let you cheat on your currency any longer. where the tax policy makes sense. this one, an example, somewhere in the last 30 years, built into the tax laws, was an incentive for american corporations to ship jobs offshore. they take a job, send it offshore they got a tax break. i don't know where it came from. i know it was in the codes. what we did in the tax bill of last december was to eliminate that tax break for american corporations sending jobs offshore.

it passed. the president signed it. but our republican colleagues to a person voted against it. they voted to keep that tax break for american corporations to shift jobs offshore. doesn't make sense to me. but it's gone and that's the kind of policy we want to put in place where we take care of americans who are working in america. mr. tonko: about an hour ago, we were talking about it all being about principles, values, priorities. contrasts and choices. well if we go with the choice to not make it in america, not invest in innovation, we search -- research for medical purposes, means we may not be able to contain those costs of medical needs, of health care, because we'll avoid the discovery of better treatments, new cures, prevention elements that all comes with the medical research and medical innovation that can be made in america.

and then we have opportunities to keep medicare alive. not destroy it by containing costs for health care and allowing for the dignity of life and the quality of care to go forward without this treatment, to end medicare. an the choice is to avoid powerful industries like the oil industry, giving them mindless handouts, or do we invest in higher education, job creation, quality of life issues, housing opportunities. these are the choices we're talking about. this hour has been, i think, an opportunity for us to exchange better with clearer -- with a clearer expression what the contrast is on the floor of the house of representatives an what it is between this path to posterity -- prosperity that we have seen as a road to ruin, one that would end medicare, continue handouts, to record profit oil industries, to continue to advocate for millionaire and billionaire tax cuts at the expense of

america's middle class that needs stronger purchasing power and needs to know her children and grandchildren will have the opportunities, equal opportunities for quality education and a college dream. mr. garamendi: thank you very much, representative tonko. our promise to the american seniors and those who want to become seniors is that this tombstone that the republican party wants to put out there, the termination of medicare, will not happen. we will not let this happen. medicare is part of the american agenda. it is part of what is good about america. and it will not be terminated by anybody. that's our promise, that's where we draw our line in the sand. thank you for this opportunity. mr. ton toe -- mr. tonko: thank you, representative garamendi. it's been great to share this opportunity with you. we only ask that thoughtfulness guide the negotiations either on a deficit ceiling bill or on

budgets as we go forward. thoughtfulness and a desire to grow opportunity for all americans. we're at our best when the inclusiveness of this process enables everyone to be empowered and not just the special interests, the wealthy oil industry that has set record profits. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is up. mr. tonko: we yield back and thank the speaker for the opportunity. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentlewoman from alabama, mrs. roby, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mrs. roby: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of my special order regarding the debt and jobs. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. roby: thank you so much. mr. speaker, i am joined here

tonight by members of the freshmen class, once again, to focus this discussion on jobs. and i immediately have just one glaring road sign in my mind as i sat here and listened to the democrats talk about their so-called plan, make it in america. and it's stop, s-t-on h opinion. the american people deserve -- s-t-o-p. the america people deserve the truth and that is not that. we have to focus in and look at what we're going to do tonight in a very good discussion about this job-killing legislation that has been presented by the very side that just stood up and told the american people that we're out to kill medicare and so on and so forth. people can't make it in america right now because of the heavy hand of government that is bearing down on them because of this job-killing legislation and overreaching regulation that continues to be promoted by the

other side and we've had enough. so let's stop. let's stop the demagoguery, let's get down to the truth, we're going to have that discussion here tonight. the average unemployed american has been searching for a job for 39 weeks. the longest average time in history to be looking for a job. 21 million jobs are still needed by 2020 to return our nation to a full job recovery. companies in the united states of america are hitting the brakes on hiring and production. i want to start our discussion here tonight, i want to hit on three points, i'm going to talk very quickly about health care, about energy and jobs. and that's going to leave for the discussion here tonight. on may 19, a small business owner received documents from his insurance carrier stating that due to obamacare, the coverage in his policy would be updated with the new terms of the law on the anniversary of his enrollment. four days later this small

business owner received a statement from the same insurance carrier stating that his monthly premium would increase by 25% and i have those documents with me tonight. why does the administration continue to state that americans will not see significant increases in their health care coverage when it is already happening right now? mr. speaker, i would like to submit these documents into the congressional record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. roby: thank you. the obama administration is encouraging employers to retain coverage and how can a small business owner retain coverage if it forces them into bankruptcy? and i'm going to point you begin to don cox, he's a small business owner, he owns 15 pizza huts in alabama and he is very proud of his products and his employees. the health care regulation is on the top of his list and in 2014 done would provide all of his --

don would provide all of his employees with health insurance. only five pizza huts will be able to stay afloat. 10 out of the 15 will go bankrupt due to this health care law. they stand on the floor tonight and they submit to you that we need to make it in america and we can't make it in america due to their job-killing health care legislation. if don provides health insurance to all of his employees, then 10 pizza huts go bankrupt. and although when we're looking at his balance sheet he's making a profit, almost all of the profits are returned back into the business. last week when we stood on this floor, a couple of weeks ago i talked about remanufacturing, who spent $1 million adding onto their already 700,000 square foot facility in montgomery, alabama, where they provide over 1,000 jobs and that $1 million investment was to comply with federal regulations. the environmental protection agency has been an agency that has been particularly troublesome and over burdensome

businesses and placing road blocks to domestic energy production. i want to talk about the e.p.a.'s proposed buller mackerel and that what that will do to small businesses. i've had people in my office all week talking about this. next week i'm going to be touring international paper mill and that impacts 42 boilers and 40 process heaters at 19 i.p. facilities. their compliance costs for just bowler mack and the commercial and industrial incinerator rule are $600 million. this is not rocket science, we're standing around and our friends on the other side of the aisle are asking us, where is our jobs bill? and yet i would like to return the question to them and say, where is yours? all you have done for the past two years are or more is do your best to stifle job creation, american job creation right here in the united states.

enough is enough. this must stop. and then of course today we learned that the president has decided that he is going to dip into our own energy oil reserves right here in the united states and yet does everything he can to stand in the way to energy production right here in the united states. we have got to lessen our dependence on middle eastern oil. americans deserve the truth and i hope tonight's discussion will provide that opportunity. thank you so much, mr. speaker, and at this time i'd like to yield to my friend from illinois as much time as he would consume. >> thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i think she said it perfectly. i'm a young guy, i remember in the 1980's watching the where's the beef commercials? everybody remembers that. mr. schock: there's a question,

where's the jobs? where's the jobs? i remember a little over two years ago the president promising that if we pass an $800 billion stimulus unemployment would not exceed 8%. well, where did that get us? in fact, if you look at the president's own charts, it said that by this time under this stimulus plan unemployment would be about 6.5%. i'll tell you, that's compelling when you see that on a chart. when you're a country facing a huge economic crisis on a slide, that's very compelling. but it didn't work. it was a waste. we wasted $800 billion of hard-earned money, most of which was borrowed on something that didn't work. now, americans are still feeling the pain. in fact, unemployment went up

toward 10%. mr. kinzinger: counties in my district, in illinois, have upwards of 11%. didn't work at all. and now i've actually heard our colleagues on the other side of the aisle float a second stimulus. when they say, well, $800 billion wasn't enough, probably needed to be more. well, why don't we just make it $5 trillion or $10 trillion? if we can just plant money and borrow it, but then tax, borrow and spend our way to prosperity, well, make it $10 trillion. well, that's ludicrous. we know that's ludicrous. i hail from illinois. illinois is the president's home state. illinois has huge problems with folks that are looking for work and can't find it. illinois used to be a manufacturing economic powerhouse of the united states. not hard to drive around and see abandoned warehouses or abandoned factories. joliet, illinois, a city in my district knows that all too well.

they understand that. so what do we do? well, recently illinois came up with a decision, well, the budget's bad, yeah, the budget's bad because you're running business out of your state. so as a result they say, we have to raise taxes. so in springfield they raised the individual income tax rate and then they raised the corporate tax rate. now, there's got to be some good news to this, right? well, the state of illinois has had $300 million in increased tax revenues that they've seen from this corporate tax increase . but if you read "the wall street journal" just shortly ago, you'd read that $240 million has already been given away to these corporations to incentivize them to stay in illinois because they were looking at leaving because of this high tax rate. i'll tell you, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again but expecting different results.

we cannot tax, borrow and spend our way to prosperity. you talk to any small businessman out there, or small business woman or job creator or owner of a factory that's just trying to take their products to market and they'll tell you the biggest hindrance, one of the biggest hindrances, besides the lack of confidence, is the government. in fact a lot of people have said, -- i've talked to a lot of people and said, how much better would your life be if you didn't have to sit around and do government paperwork? they might be able to go out and sell goods. they may be able to go out and expand the business. nope. we got to tax and regulate in this town. this town's really good at taxing and regulating. at putting things through a bureaucracy and letting bureaucrats have their way. we're going of a a cliff. -- off a cliff and it's time to pump the brakes. it is absolutely time for us to get deadly serious about

reducing the size of the federal government. cutting spending. and getting americans back to work. our colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to say, where's your jobs plan? we put forward plenty of jobs plans, one of them includes drilling for oil here at home. which we'll get into. which my good friend here actually, that will be speaking soon, sponsored and i commend him for that. but there's a fundamental difference between the two parties here. the democrats believe that government creates jobs. you hear that all the time in what they say, listen closely. they say, we just need a jobs bill. we need $800 billion in more spending we need this program. what you're going to hear tonight is the republican view. the federal government doesn't create jobs. the federal government can make jobs, we can take tax money, put it through a bureaucracy and spit out a paycheck.

jobs are created in the free market. we can create an environment for job creation and that's what our freshmen class came here to do. and we aim to do it. and i yield back. mrs. roby: thank you so much, the gentleman from illinois, your comments are right on and i just, before we move on i want to share with you, i heard from a gentleman today, a businessman in greenville, alabama, and i'm going to quote him. economic conditions being what they are, we are in a situation where real estate values are declining, demand for our products are declining and the value of the dollar on world markets is declining, all of these fact floor the uncertainty of business today. in the long-term i can't see any expansion until regulations are eased and the health care bill is killed. you want to talk about whether or not we have a jobs plan, this is their jobs plan. what this man -- businessman in

greenville, alabama, is facing is exactly what the other side of the aisle has proposed and he can't create jobs. and we have time and time again shown leadership here in the house, in the majority, trying to repeal this job-killing legislation and we run into roadblock after roadblock with the senate majority and with the white house. now i'd like to yield time to the gentlelady from washington. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm excited to be here this evening to talk about something that our country has too few of. jobs. in my neck of the woods, in southwest washington state, just about every county save one has double-digit unemployment and we've had those disappointing numbers now for many months. almost 30-plus.

so we are at a place right now where families are hurting. you know, moms who are paying the bills at night, thinking about health care payments, thinking about what kind of -- getting the kids to school, how much it's going to cost to fill up the gas, you know, the gas in the gas tank, what the costs of meeting a mortgage are going to be, these are the real challenges that middle america is facing right now and that's why we're here. that's why we're fighting. that's why we want to rein in spending, because as this actual ly -- as this chart shows, less government means lower unemployment. less government spending means, if you look at this, and this is from 1980 to 2010, they've almost tracked equally, our unemployment numbers and the federal government spending or outlays. the red line is just that. the government spending. the blue line is the unemployment rate. it's very easy to see that when the federal government actually spends less and leaves that money in the pockets of that mom who is trying to make her mortgage payment or that single dad who is attempting to get