flack to the gulf coast of -- flock to the gulf coast of florida, specifically to visit our beaches, our parks and waterways and our recreational opportunities. more than 80 million tourists mr. chairman, per year stay in our hotels eat at our restaurants and create many economic opportunities for floridians. the tourism industry is a multibillion-collar industry for florida and the national economy, mr. chairman. florida's seafood and recreational fishing industries also contribute thousands of jobs and billions of dollars to the local economy. . mr. chairman, i strongly urge this house to adopt the commonsense measure to ensure that the federal government consider all ramifications of lease sales and ensure that jobs and the economy remain the focus of any actions of our federal government. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves. for what purpose does the

gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. markey: i rise to claim the time for the minority. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. markey: i thank the chair very much. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: just to point, the issue is not claiming time or minority or majority. the time is in opposition. i raise time to -- to claim time in opposition if the gentleman is not objecting. the chair: does the gentleman from massachusetts oppose? mr. markey: having stood up there, sat up there hundreds of hours on the rules committee he's absolute correct dissector of language used here in seeking recognition from the chair. so i will rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment. if that's -- technical words of art -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. markey: i thank you. this amendment would require a

study to investigate potential economic impacts from a variety of risk that oil development in the outer continental shelf poses to local tourism and fishing economies in florida. while we actually had a real-world study for 87 days during the b.p. spill as we saw in 2010 with the b.p. oil spill, oil can wreak havoc on a coastal community meaning a disaster for tourism and fishing, seafood industries, these disasters can and do happen putting hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars at stake. it is important for the public to know the risks associated with allowing oil companies to drill off of our coast, but we should be protecting our beaches in florida, california, in new jersey and massachusetts

, not just requiring a study of how huge a disaster, a spill would be for these states, we should be protecting the lives and the livelihoods of the people of the gulf by taking the lessons of the b.p. spill and turning them into new laws. but nearly two years after the b.p. spill began, this congress has not enacted a single new law to improve the safety of offshore drilling. es that indefensible when the b.p. -- that is indefensible when the b.p. commission found we have a fatally flawed rate of accidents and fatalities in our country compared to the rest of the world. ours is four times higher than that in europe. that is the fatalities on our oil rigs. so that's the issue. we have yet to increase the fines because only we can do that here in congress.

right now a lot of these oil companies think it's just the equivalent to a parking ticket. you know, if you could -- if you could pay a parking ticket for a whole day on the main street of any of the cities in the united states, you'd pay that $1 parking ticket because it would be cheaper than paying $20 to put it in the garage. and that's what we have right now. we have the equivalent of $1 parking tickets that are assessed against oil companies who spoil the oil who result in because their faulty safety rules the highest fatality rate in the world in terms of people who work on oil rigs. so at this point i completed my statement and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. bilirakis: mr. chairman, i'd like to yield two minutes to the distinguished chairman

from washington, mr. hastings. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. hastings: the gentleman's amendment will conduct this economic impact study only for the eastern gulf of mexico, o.c.s. area as defined in the bill. i understand and appreciate the gentleman's interest in protecting the multiple use of the o.c.s. and i join him in that interest. for decades tourism fishing oil and gas drilling have been compatible in the gulf of mexico, and there's no reason that the new areas opened up under this bill would not operate in the same way. while i understand the interest of the gentleman to have this study for those areas in the eastern gulf of mexico, i wish that he could have expanded this study to jobs that could have been created by new drilling and the support that comes with that activity. and while that's not embodied in the gentleman's amendment, i will only have to think because you're having the study on that

there may be some residual. i look forward to that residual potentially also. so i thank the gentleman congratulate him for offering this amendment, and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. bilirakis: yes. i'd like to close briefly if that's all right. i, of course, urge passage of this reasonable, commonsense amendment and then i'll yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in part a of house report 112-398. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. bishop: mr. speaker amendment at the desk -- i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will

designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in part a of house report 112-398 offered by mr. bishop of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 547, the gentleman from new york, mr. bishop, and a member opposed, each that control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. bishop: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, my amendment is very simple. it prohibits oil and natural gas lease sales off the coast of northeast states, including new jersey new york, connecticut, rhode island, massachusetts, new hampshire and maine. furthermore, my amendment is paid for by striking language in the bill related to outer continental shelf revenue sharing in section 17501. i appreciate the rules committee making my amendment in order because this amendment will protect the coastline of new york and other northeast states. i also thank my co-sponsors, including mr. crowley, mr. rangel mr. pascrell, mr. capuano and ms. pingree. mr. speaker, i represent the last 70 miles of eastern long island where the primary

industries are travel and tourism, everything to do with the second home market, agriculture and the fishing industry. thus, in my district, the environment is the economy in many respects. it can ill afford a disaster like gulf coast states endured during the deepwater horizon spill in 2010. oil-soaked beaches would devastate long island's economy, let alone the environment, and there is no reasonable person who can disagree with me on this point. the republican drilling proposals to offset the highway bill would raise less than $4.3 billion over 10 years, according to c.b.o. or less than .1 of the revenue actually needed. combine this with the other funding mechanisms for the highway bill and republicans are paying for their reckless legislation on the backs of middle-class families. for example, the republicans' spending package would require federal employees to increase their pension contributions while reducing their benefits. worse, as of this moment, they are using federal employee's pension contributions to offset

costs in two completely separate proposals. the highway bill and the payroll tax cut package for unemployment benefits and the doc fix. this isn't being honest with the american people. i would ask the republican leadership to check their numbers again. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and oppose the underlying bill, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, the outer continental shelf and the resources it contains are under the jurisdiction of the federal government and therefore it belongs to all the people of the united states as a whole. these federal offshore resources are, unlike federal lands, and onshore resources, outside the borders of the states. each individual state controls

several miles offshore of their coast and that varies by some -- by state by state. but beyond that point, the federal lands are owned by the federal government and its resources. this bill underlying legislation, is a drill-smart plan that directly focuses on those offshore areas where there are known resources. federal assessments statement that the north -- estimate that the north atlanticic has nearly 18 trillion cubic feet of gas. using modern technology it's highly likely that the find can be even more than what is estimated. this amendment, then, would lock away those resources from the american people who, as i mentioned a moment ago, own them. not too long ago the entire

o.c.s. was under moratorium. offshore drilling was prohibited. when gas skyrocketed past $4 a gallon in 2008, the american people collectively said no more. the american people cried out and demanded that congress act and we did by lifting the moratorium. in fact, what the american people found out, mr. chairman, at that time is that we had tremendous potential resources here that we weren't utilizing. that's why they cried out and said, ok let's send this moratorium. now, this amendment proposes to reverse the will of the american people to ignore the high cost of gas at the pump, to ignore that prices are, again, climbing towards $4 per gallon and to ignore that our nation's security is strengthened when we get our energy from here in this nation and not from hostile foreign nations. the american people want to increase american energy

production and jobs, not stifle american energy production. let's not forget that we are creating american oil and gas that can be refined and used here. and some of the states that want to shut down production off their coast are some of the states that are the highest consumers of these fuels that they have shut down. additionally, this amendment completely eliminates all coastal states and u.s. territories from receiving a fair and equitable revenue for drilling that would occur off their shores. that mean states like florida and virginia and others that would like to participate could not receive a portion of the revenues for drilling that would occur off their states under this bill. finally, i'd like to say this, because we've had a long discussion today and debate, and i've heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say we love natural gas.

i'm not sure if it was said with that same language but the message was there. listen, mr. chairman, nearly 18 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lies off the atlantic coast. can you imagine how much easier it is to get that to market than shipping it from someplace else? so i would urge rejection of this amendment and reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, may i inquire as to how much time i have left? the chair: the gentleman from new york has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. three minutes remaining. apologies. mr. bishop: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from maine ms. pingree. the chair: the gentlelady from maine is recognized for one minute. ms. pingree: thank you, mr. chair. mr. bishop, thank you for allowing me this time. this amendment would prohibit any oil and gas drilling on the outer continental shelf in the northeast, including my home state of maine. an accident or a spill off our coast would be devastating to

our working water fronts. we don't have to look any further than the deepwater horizon disaster to see the damage an accident can do to a coastal economy. not only that but it would be decades before any oil that is discovered would ever make it to market. decades that should be spent researching and investing in new sources of clean energy and breaking our dependence on oil. the republican proposals in this bill would not only carelessly expand the permitting for current gas and oil leases but also encourage expanded drilling. i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense amendment and voting against this ill-conceived bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i will reserve my time since i have the right to close. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i'm prepared to close as well so i'll yield myself the balance of my time and i would just say to my friend from washington that i would find

his argument and i would find the statistics that he cited somewhat more persuasive if this congress had enacted any reforms, any safeguards to protect our coastline from the kind of disaster that affected the louisiana and the florida coast in the wake of the b.p. oil spill. we have not put in place a single piece of legislation that would make offshore drilling safer. we have not put in place a single piece of legislation designed to prevent the kind of disaster that took place in the gulf. we are continuing to rely on the sort of slip shod environmental reviews that preceded the granting of leases in the gulf. and my region, ms. pingree's region to the kind of disaster that the gulf was exposed to without putting in place those safeguards simply unwise not worth $4.3 billion to fund a

bill that most of us feel is a very flawed bill to begin with so i would urge adoption of my amendment. as i say, i urge defeat of the underlying legislation, and i yield back the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: how much time do i have? the chair: a minute and a quarter. mr. hastings: two points. the gentleman cuts that this congress and this house led by republicans haven't done anything in regards to safety offshore. through the appropriation process there has been a tremendous increase imprecisely what the administration was asking by -- the obama administration was asking for safety. and the obama administration has said that it is safe, although i would argue, they should be more aggressive, but they say it's safe to drill. that argument, i don't think has a great deal of bearing.

but more importantly i would say this. the port of boston has liquid natural gas terminal and importing natural gas from trinidad and yemen hardly a stable country in the middle east, right now off the coast, just north of this area we are talking about, there is natural gas drilling going on. certainly, if we want to be less dependent on foreign oil and foreign energy and we like natural gas, like my friends on the other side of the aisle have talked about we should recorrect this amendment and adopt the underlying bill and with that, i urge rejection of this amendment and yield back. the chair: all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. mr. bishop: i request the yeas and nays. the chair: the gentleman request a recorded vote?

mr. bishop: yes. the chair: the gentleman from new york requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york pib post poined. it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in part a 112. >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in part a, 112-3 8. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana, mr. richmond and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. richmond: what this amendment does is it allows the gulf coast states to invest their oil and gas royalties into their states in terms of coastal restoration and i would tell you, mr. speaker, that

louisiana, since 1950 has contributed over $160 billion to the federal treasury and in return louisiana has received some of the same benefits as other states have received. however, one unique thing that we have received is a at that timered coastline. louisiana loses almost a football field an hour in terms of our wetland loss. and what this amendment would do is allow us to take some of those revenues that we receive and invest that back into restoring our coast. i would tell you also, mr. chairman, that restoring louisiana's coast is a very monumental task and the people of louisiana and people of the gulf coast communities are willing to step up and take not only their own resources but resources they receive from the federal government in terms of any revenues or royalties they would receive and put those back into coastal restoration making sure we have wetlands because when we talk about the damage

that has been done to louisiana whether it was katrina rita ike or bp deep water hors spill that coast louisiana citizens. it cost the lives of 1,600 of its citizens. so when we talk about our wetlands, that is our first line of defense preventing the damage of a hurricane. while we are willing to sacrifice our coast and those things so that we can have a stable energy sector in this country, we also recognize that we should invest back into it to make sure the citizens are safe. and with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: i claim time in opposition, although i'm not opposed to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: yield myself such

time as i may consume. mr. chairman, the gentleman from louisiana's proposal merit and i commend him for proposing it and i do urge its adoption. the goal of revenue sharing in the bill is to allow states the flexibility to use the money that they want to do with their local states. if this is what the gentleman's state wants to use this money i have no problem and i would agree with him. and i would emphasize one other point since i had the opportunity to visit the gentleman's state and i see firsthand what they have done with the initiative and that a is tremendous template for other states to do and that is precisely why. in the underlying bill we have the component of revenue sharing, for other states to emulate what louisiana has always done. i think the gentleman's amendment certainly is compatible with what we are trying to do and it is a good amendment and i commend the gentleman for that. and i yield back my time.

the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. richmond: i thank the gentleman and saying what the amendment does is really allow the gulf coast communities to invest in our own future while continuing to invest in the energy future of america. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in part a of house report 112-398. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 11, printed in house report part a 112-398 offered by mr. landry of

louisiana. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana, mr. landry and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. landry: mr. chairman, this is a bipartisan amendment offered in cooperation with my good friend, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. richmond. as he said earlier, the citizens of louisiana invepted offshore exploration and been drilling off its coast since the mid-1940's, but for the first 60 years of drilling off the coast of louisiana our state and other gulf coast states had received no money not a dime from the revenue derived from these wells. starting in 2007, congress passed an act called the gulf of mexico energy security act. this act provided that a small portion of offshore revenues would finally start to trickle in to our gulf coast states. we continue to receive a small

portion of those revenues through 2017 when at that time we will start to receive the 37.5% of the offshore revenue of each -- of those wells producing at that time. however, it included a cap which collectively those four gulf coast states could never receive more than a collective amount of $500 million. as the current bill now is going to provide revenue sharing for additional states without a cap, we are simply asking for fundamental fairness and asking that the cap of $500 million be raised to $750 million. and that's what this amendment does. this amendment simply raises the collective cap amongst the four states from $500 million to $750

million reminding everyone that there will be no cap on the additional states. i yield back and reserve the balance -- reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. markey: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. markey: thank you, mr. speaker. if this amendment passes mardi gras will come before fat tuesday this year, that's because the landry amendment delivers up to $6 billion in financial king cake to louisiana and the other gulf states at the expense of the other 46 states in the union. in 2006 the republican congress passed legislation that will divert $150 billion over the

next 60 years from offshore drilling on public lands to the four gulf coast states, louisiana, mississippi, alabama and texas. that bill set up what amounts to a new entitlement program for these four states that will result in a massive transfer of wealth from the federal government. this amendment would send $6 billion to these four states on top of that $150 billion we will already be getting. these oil and gas resources on public lands belongs to all the american people not just those of the adjacent states. they are public resources that belong to someone living in kansas or massachusetts or hawaii as they do to someone in louisiana or texas. these are resources that should help every american not just a select few. the revenue generated from these

public resources goes to the federal treasury to help pay for medicare and medicaid and helps to pay for our national defense. we can no longer afford to continue this diversion of taxpayer funds to these four states. we need this revenue to reduce our deficit and get our fiscal house in order. i had offered an amendment that would have recovered the $150 billion we are going to be sending to these four states that the majority did not make in order, and now this amendment would take us in the complete opposite direction. so i commend the gentleman from louisiana. i can't blame him for trying to get even more federal money directed to his home state under this program. but if you come from one of the 46 states that is not -- let me enumerate, louisiana mississippi, alabama or texas,

you would have to be crazy to vote for this amendment because they are going to take money away from your states away from your medicare beneficiaries away from your contribution to the defense budget because it will be higher in all those other states because this money is going to be sucked out of the federal treasury like through a straw right into the state of louisiana, alabama mississippi and texas. so if you vote for this amendment, you are voting to send that money $6 billion, directly from your state to the gentleman from louisiana's state. i urge all members of the louisiana delegation to vote against the markey amendment and give a similar recommendation to the members of the other three states. if you don't come from those four states, why would you send $6 billion to those states that should be in the federal treasury to be used for all the citizens of our country?

at this point i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts yields back. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. landry: mr. chairman how much time? the chair: the gentleman from louisiana has three minutes remaining. mr. landry: i would like to yield to the chairman of natural resources for one minute. mr. hastings: i would point out the underlying bill vastly expands the number of states that would be eligible for revenue sharing to far beyond those four states that the ranking member mentioned. but what our committee held a markup on this legislation two weeks ago, i pledged to work with the gentleman from louisiana and gulf members to bring parityy to the existence of what is being enjoyed in the four gulf states and the other coastal states which today were not entitled to a share of revenue of oil and gas

production off those shores. more states will have an opportunity to share this. but this amendment seeks to bring existing revenue sharing in the gulf more in line with the plan that was included with the underlying bill and i congratulate this amendment being brought to the floor and i support it and i yield back my time to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. landry: i yield a minute a minute to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. richmond. . . i thank the gentleman from louisiana. he said the resources of everyone, the resources are everyone's but the sacrifice that you make to get those resources come from those gulf states. we lost 18,036 lives in katrina. we lost lives in the b.p. oil spill. we lost 328 square miles of

marsh. and in this bill we give royalties to all the other states immediately. what we're asking from louisiana without a cap, what we're asking that in 2016 when we start to -- actually, 2023, to give us the 37.5%. however, we're willing to cap it at $750 million as opposed to the unlimited amount that all the other states under this bill would go -- would do. and i think in 2006, congress recognized that the gulf coast states were bearing the brunt of our energy production in this country. the lands that we lose, we produce 90% of the nation's offshore oil and gas. so that's a sacrifice that we make for people in kansas, people in california, to be able to turn on their lights in the afternoon or at nighttime. with that, mr. speaker i would urge members to -- mr. chairman, to vote for the amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. the gentleman from louisiana has one minute remaining. mr. landry: so, mr. chairman,

i'll just close with this. as the gentleman from louisiana just indicated 30% of all oil and gas produced in this country comes off the louisiana shores. a quarter of all the seafood is caught in louisiana. in louisiana we have made it a constitutional amendment that any revenue we receive from the federal government, offshore royalties, goes to coastal protection and the building of the coast that we are so rapidly losing. and, again this is not and amendment whereby we are asking for more of our share. we are simply asking to raise a cap when other states would have no cap. this is only fundamental fairness here. i certainly would urge all members to consider that and to please support this amendment when it comes to the floor. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time having expired, the question is on the amendment

offered by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. markey: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: on that we request a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 12 printed in part a of house report 112-398. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. deutch: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12 printed in part a of house report 112-398 offered by mr. deutch of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 547, the gentleman from florida, mr. deutch, and a member oppose, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. deutch: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman nearly two years

ago an explosion on the b.p. deepwater horizon drilling vessel unleashed a steady gush of crude oil in the gulf of mexico that went unstopped for nearly three months. the oil spewed into the gulf and jeopardized an ecosystem home to over 15,000 species and claimed the worst environmental disaster in our nation's history. yet, the b.p. deepwater horizon spill was also an economic disaster. mr. chairman, that is the issue addressed in the amendment i present to this body today. my amendment simply provides that no one shall be eligible for a lease issued unless there is first an estimate of the economic impact, including job losses resulting from a worst-case discharge of oil from facilities operated under that lease. right now under current law and under this legislation, as drafted, companies applying for new oil drilling leases are not required to project the toll on local economies resulting from

a worst-case scenario spill. it my home state of florida and in other gulf coast states like alabama, mississippi louisiana, the economic consequences were enormous. forced closures of fishing areas led to business losses. the ripple effect was felt by millions of americans in states whose coastal towns, cities and businesses depend on the livelihood of tourism fishing, restaurant shrimping and other industries. the bill before us today would open large areas of the gulf of mexico, the east and west coast of the united states, in alaska to oil drilling. opening these areas to drilling exposes the coastal communities and coastal states to significant commirk impact and job loss -- economic impact and job loss should a spill like the one the b.p. deepwater horizon occurred. and while they had a recovery

fund to assist those affected by the spill, hurt continues today. contractors for payout of claims, estimate of this spill is upwards of $40 billion and more. the federal government has a real interest in ensuring that companies applying for new oil-drilling leases are aware of and are prepared for the potential economic impact and job losses resulting from a worst-case scenario spill. it only makes sense that these applications require an economic in addition to an environmental estimate of such disasters. my amendment, therefore, would require the person who had an application this estimate of impact of worst-case scenario. i ask my colleagues to safeguard our economy from tragedies like the deepwater horizon spill, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman

reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington seeks recognition. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, since the deepwater horizon tragedy, the bureau of ocean energy management and the bureau of environmental enforcement have put forward significant regulatory measures governing offshore drilling. this is very important, mr. chairman, because existing federal regulations, specifically 30 c.f.r. 254.26 already require a worst-case discharge scenario, so that's in the law already, mr. chairman. in all lease applications, that includes the evaluation of economic resources that may be impacted. so i find it interesting that we are -- we have an amendment before us and that we are

debating on essentially legislation and regulatory issues that are already currently in place. now, let me make another point to i hopefully sometimes point out the disconnect of what we are talking about because one of the issues that we are talking about here are the creation of american energy, american jobs, american security less dependence on foreign sources of our energy. this last january for example, the state department expelled the counsel general of venezuela for planting a cyberattack on the u.s. government, and yet here we are debating an issue that could affect our getting to be less dependent on foreign energy sources and ignoring what is the obvious. we ought to be obviously trying to be less dependent on foreign

oil, and yet that debate isn't even going on. we're talking about debate on an amendment that is simply redundant of current law. now, i don't know why we are having this debate, but i think the redundancy of it here, we always have a worst-case discharge scenario in current law. we simply don't need this, and so with that, mr. chairman, i urge opposition to this amendment, and i'll reserve my case i have to say something further. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. deutch: mr. chair, how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from florida has two minutes remaining. mr. deutch: thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. deutch: mr. chairman, the gentleman from washington, i respect a great deal, but to say this is a redundant of current law is just incorrect. the gentleman knows and in fact told us that the requirement that he referred to is in regulations. mr. chairman, for anyone who's

watched what's gone on in this body, in this congress, it's been this house of representatives that has brought to the floor bill after bill after bill to give this congress the ability to appeal really lakeses, to block regulation. mr. -- appeal regulation, to block regulation. if we believe in american jobs, and the suggestion to say that this is more important than the people in tourism, the people in shrimpers, the ability to provide for their families because of the beautiful pristine coastline we have in florida and because of all that surrounds that environment in the other states in the gulf, to suggest that those are somehow less important than energy jobs is inappropriate but more than that. i don't want to have to rely on regulations, mr. chairman. if we are committed to ensuring

that there is an analysis of what would happen in the worst case then let's put it into law. let's put it in the statute. let's not rely on the regulations that my friends so often blame on these bureaucrats for writing. let's not rely on them. here's an opportunity for us to stand together and not one to rely on regulations. mr. chairman, i ask my colleagues to join with me to, as they already acknowledged this is an important issue, to not have to rely on regulations any longer. let's make this a part of the law. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from washington's recognized. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, since i have the right to close, i will reserve. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from florida has 15 seconds remaining. mr. deutch: mr. chairman, there are lots of amendments that are controversial. simply requiring the companies

do what the regulations require them to do, which my colleague from washington acknowledges they are already required them to do, but making them part of the law instead of requiring regulations that may change from time to time is the appropriate step. i think we should all be in agreement to that. i urge adoption of this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, from time to time there shows progress in the course of debate. the gentleman from florida correctly pointed out that my side of the aisle has some real heartburn on a lot of regulations. i'll be the first to admit that. apparently he does too by his acknowledgment that we have that acknowledgment. he doesn't want to be governed by regulations. i think we're making progress at least in that way and i congratulate him. but here's the point. on this specific issue, this congress has responded, and to the credit this administration has responded, probably not to

the extent that i would like seen that the regulatory oversight on potential spills in the gulf or anyplace off -- in the o.c.s. would be responded to in a timely manner that was done through the appropriation process by a republican-led congress. i congratulate the chairman of the interior subcommittee on appropriations for doing precisely that. but i will repeat again. in my view in this particular case this amendment is redundant to what the law true regulations already is and i urge rejection of this amendment and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back. all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. deutch: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. deutch: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman from florida requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule

18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part a of house report 112-398 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 1 by ms. eshoo of california. amendment number 2 by mr. markey of massachusetts. amendment number 3 by mr. rush of illinois. amendment number 4 by mr. doyle of pennsylvania. amendment number 5 by mr. polis of colorado. amendment number 7 by mrs. capps of california. amendment number 9 by mr. bishop of new york. amendment number 11 by mr. landry of louisiana. amendment number 12 by mr. deutch of florida. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in the series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on

amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 112-398 by the gentlewoman from california, ms. eshoo, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 112-398 offered by ms. eshoo of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in sport of the request for a recorded vote will rise -- 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 15-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 173, the nays are 249. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the

request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in part a of house report 112-398 by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, 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 2 printed in part a of house report 112-3 98 offered by -- 3 -- 112-398 offered by mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. 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 172, the nays are 254 --

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 173, the nays are 254. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 by the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part a house report 112-398 offered by mr. rush of

illinois. the chair: those in request for a recorded vote will be will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, members will record their votes by electronic device. this is 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: the yeas are 149, the nays are 276. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote for amendment number 4 by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle, on which further proceedings postponed and the noes prevailed. the clerk will redesignate. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part a of house report 12-398 offered by mr. doyle of pennsylvania. the chair: those of the request for a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. , this is 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 193, the nays are 234, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in part a of 112-398 by the

gentleman from colorado, mr. pole is on which the noes prevailed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is 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: the yeas are 160, the nays are 265, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 7 printed in part a of house report 112-398 by the gentlewoman from california on which further

proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment nument 7 printed in part a of house report 112-398. the chair: those in support of the 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 is 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 160, the nays are 265 the amendment is --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 160, the nays are 267, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 9 printed in part a of house report 112-398 by the gentleman from new york, mr. bishop, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in part a of house report 112-398 offered by mr. bishop of new york. 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 d vote -- 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 169, the nays are 257, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 11 by the

gentleman from louisiana, mr. landry, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in part a of house report 112-398 offered by mr. landry of louisiana. 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 66, the nays are 159, the amendment is adopted -- 266, the nays are 159, the amendment is a do notted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 12 from the gentleman from florida, mr. deutch, on which the further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 12 printed in part a of house report 112-398 offered by mr. deutsche of florida. 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 188, the nays are 236, the amendment is not adopted.

the chair: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- the question is on the motion that the committee rise. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no.

the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the committee rises. the chair: the committee of the whole house having had under consideration h.r. 3408 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had -- that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 3408 and has come to no resolution thereon. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 1162 an act to

provide indian tribes, tsunami and flood protection and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the speaker's appointment, 36 u.s.c. 2032 and order of the house of january 5, 2011 of the following member of the house to the united states holocaust memorial council. the clerk: mr. israel of new york.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order and if you have a conversation, please take it off the floor. the speaker pro tempore: please, members, take your conversations off the floor. the house will be in order. the chair is prepared to entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does does my colleague from louisiana rise? >> i ask permission to give a

one minute to the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. fleming: mr. speaker, for 50 years, the st. jude's children's research hospital has been one of the leading facilities for treating catastrophic diseases in children. nearly 8,000 children are treated at st. judes. i'm proud of a group of friends who for 36 years have been raising money through an annual auction. when the auction started the first goal they set was reached was $10,000 that has long since been eclipsed. this year was another record-breaking year. the auction held earlier this month raised $1,065235 to help the ongoing work to save

children's lives. thanks to the co-chairs of the st. jude auction and pete treat who after suffering the terrible loss of his five-year-old daughter to leukemia, started the auction and now has had the privilege of watching the auction raise more than $1 million for st. jude's children's research hospital. thank you, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? without objection. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is correct. the house is not in order. please take your conversations off, please. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker.

i rise today to speak of the loss that so many have spoken about over the last week and that is the loss of whitney houston, who i would imagine that everyone would acknowledge the beauty of her music and certainly the beauty that she was as a person and a human being. what a very sad loss for her daughter bobby and her mother cissy and her aunt dionne warwick. but we cannot help be reminded of whitney's voice singing "the star-spangled bancher," or the words when she sang "yes, jesus loves me," when she did it in "the bodyguard" and can't help bery minded of "i'll always love

you." and my quints are deeply saddened and our good friend, congressman don payne who has been in touch with the family and helping he has been a comfort as well. so i simply wanted to say, whitney, you have given us much joy and given us music in the 1970's and 1980's and we danced to it and your legacy will survive and we thank you and your wonderful family for sharing you for more than 20 years and thank you for that beautiful, beautiful voice that sang the "star-spangled banner"," like we never heard it before. we will always love you. god bless you and may you rest in peace. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. any further requests for one-minutes? the gentlelady from ohio is recognized.

ms. kaptur: i rise in great privilege to wish a very happy birthday that will come on february 23, to one of our most distinguished members, congressman louis stokes of cleveland ohio, he will turn 87 on february 23 and truly he deserves recognition during this black history month, and i pay him his due honor. he grew up in difficult circumstances in public housing. his widowed mother had to raise her two sons one of which, louis became the first african-american congressman ever elected from the state of ohio and his brother carl, first african-american mayor of cleveland, ohio. can you imagine that family? can you imagine their struggle? i wish to place in the record tonight some of his story but

one of the tremendous accomplishments that he achieved as an attorney was trying many cases in front of the u.s. supreme court including a case which created ohio's first mostly minority congressional district and later in life, he had the opportunity to run for that seat. he changed the face of this country. imjust so pleased to call him our friend and take the time to fully recognize the admirable and path-breaking contributions of former congressman louis stokes during this year's black history month. he deserves it. mr. speaker, i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back her time. are there further one-minute requests? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests.

the clerk: leaves of absence requested for ms. moore of wisconsin for today until 3:00 p.m. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5 2011, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. fleming, is recognized as the designee of the majority leader. mr. fleming: thank you mr. speaker, and once again, the g.o.p. doctor caucus comes together to discuss important matters regarding health care. tonight, we're going to focus on

saving medicare. now this has been a very interesting discussion, really going back to the days of the obamacare debate where we talked about how we would finance obamacare and lo and behold in the middle of the debate, we find out that the members of the other side of the aisle decide they are going to help finance obamacare by taking out over $ 500 billion, half a trillion, $500 billion from medicare in order to help finance obamacare. now, if you think about this -- i may be missing some slides

here, but the c.b.o. states that medicare may become insolvent as early as 2016. so i think the focus right now with regard to medicare, an important part of our entitlement program has got to be how are we going to save medicare and i have an array of colleagues here this evening that are going to help me develop that issue. again, i'll go back to the financing of obamacare and that is cutting out over half a trillion dollars from medicare in order to finance obamacare. and there are some other pieces of the financing as well. the individual mandate which is soon to go to the supreme court. and if that's struck down, that will be another piece of the financing that won't be available. tax increases increases of

taxes, excise taxes, taxes on equipment, tanning beds, many different new taxes $800 billion over 10 years of new taxes in order to finance obamacare. and there was the class act of course, which was long-term health care, which the ack tower said it wouldn't finance anything and last but not least the student loan program which was nationalized in order to siphon off profits from that to finance obamacare and we hear talk about forgiving those loans which will probably be another bailout like the mortgages. mr. speaker, i have to speak out tonight on the fact that obamacare is going to bankrupt this country if it is actually fully implemented but more important medicare will become insolvent as early as 2016.

and we are going to talk about how that is happening and how we are seeing skyrocketing costs and some of the things that will be discussed tonight is how we can save medicare. in closing my initial comments, i have to emphasize my colleagues from the other side, in as much as they want to blame us for ending medicare, which not a single member on the republican side wants to do that of course, but have yet to submit a plan that will save medicare and prevent it from becoming insolvent by 2016 or 2022 depending on who you believe. i would like to open the floor to dr. harris from maryland and would love to hear some of your comments about medicare and other matters having to deal with health care. mr. harris: thank you for

letting me speak on this very important issue. mr. speaker, as the gentleman from louisiana has said we really have to talk about saving medicare. medicare is under assault in a way that has never been under assault before. the gentleman from louisiana mentioned quite accurately that the president's health care bill passed two years ago would take $500 billion from medicare spending on our seniors who are currently receiving medicare, $500 billion. now, how are they going to do that? what are we not going to deliver to those seniors? well, the way it's done, the president appoints the independent payment advisory board, 15 appointed not elected members, no appeal from their judgment, and what they are going to do is say you know, in a year when we spend a little

more than the country can afford by the budget, we are going to decide what can and can't be delivered. now the president's budget he just released this week, makes it evenors worse because it sets a lower budget target for medicare spending and the president doesn't deal with the issue that's before the house this week, which is what are we going to do about physician payments. mr. speaker i represent a rural area of maryland, maryland's first congressional district, where it's already difficult for seniors to find a physician who is willing to take a new medicare patient because to be honest with you they're afraid that their pay is going to be cut 30% on the end of this month, on february 29. . and the president in his budget doesn't even deal with this issue. the president doubles down on the president's health care act.

he sticks to that $500 billion in cuts that's going to occur and not only that, he lowers the threshold for that independent payment advisory board to begin rashing care to our seniors -- rashing -- rashening care to our seniors -- rationing care to our seniors. some people listening are going to say well, we're not going to believe, these people, they all wanted to vote against the president's health care bill, you know. mr. speaker, they don't need to believe us. go to the congressional budget office's website. nonpartisan. doesn't pick sides. says that the medicare plan is going to go broke by the end of this decade and if you don't believe them, go to the medicare trustees website just go to google, search medicare trustees report. they say it goes bankrupt a few years after that. mr. speaker, the gentleman is right. we have to address medicare and

we have to address it now before the president's health care act destroys health care for seniors. my mother, 88 years old, depends on her medicare. she depends on her prescription can drug coverage, she depend -- prescription drug coverage, she depend on it to have access to the physicians she needs for her health care and, mr. speaker i'm afraid under the president's plan my mother and millions of other americans, our seniors receiving medicare are just not going to have the care they are used to and that they deserve. we need to save medicare and, mr. speaker, i think we're going to hear about some of the ideas tonight, about how we're going to do that. so i want to thank my colleague from louisiana for yielding me these few minutes and thank you for coming to the floor and doing this work tonight so that we show our members, show them public -- show the public who's watching how we have to save medicare for our seniors.

thank you for yielding me the time. mr. fleming: i thank the gentleman from maryland, my good friend who is an an theseologists for a number of years and very experienced. before i recognize my friend from georgia, mr. gingrey, i did want to point out a couple of things. remember i said a moment ago, the c.m.s. actuary in this case projects medicare program could be bankrupt as early as 2016. this is twelve. that's four years, mr. speaker. -- this is 2012. that's four years, mr. speaker. where the democratic plan to save medicare? republicans on the other hand, we've already passed a budget last year and we're working on another one this year that would do that. we just could not get harry reid to even salute it, much less have a vote on it. also, medicare costs are projected to grow substantially from 3.6% of g.d.p. in 2010 to 5.5% by 2035. the physician payment formula in medicare needs to be fixed or seniors may lose their doctor,

cost $316 billion, and that's what dr. harris was referring to, that it's already very difficult for doctors to make it on what they're paid and they're looking at a clip of a 30% reduction in their pay. if that goes into effect, mr. speaker, a lot of seniors out there will not have access to health care. so i want to show you before i recognize my good friend what this means in graphic form. and as you can see, the purple aspect of this is social security. the green is medicaid and other health care. you see it rising fairly steadily but plateauing. but look at the red. that's medicare. that is medicare. and it's going all the way out to 2080, it just goes straight up. and of course that's largely due to an aging population, baby boomers like myself getting older. but everything about this

program has way outdistanced any projections of what those costs are and so this really takes it up to a point where medicare alone, if not dealt with, not reformed and saved will eventually displace all of our budgetary spending, that alone. and of course that means no defense, no nothing else. no running government. with that i would like to recognize my good friend, dr. phil gingrey combine colings from -- gynecologist from the great state of georgia. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, i thank my colleague from louisiana for yielding. and as i look out over this packed house chamber and i see seven of my colleagues who are m.d.'s that are participating in this special order hour on saving medicare this evening, i'm estimating about 175 years of clinical experience in the

aggregate among these doctors. i am very appreciative, mr. speaker, of the republican leadership and the leadership of our committees that deal with health care and i'm referring mainly to ways and means and energy and commerce and education and work force. in many -- and many of the members here tonight serve on one of those three committees. so, our work in the congress, although not exclusively on health care, i think each and every one of us members of the house g.o.p.'s doctor caucus, came to washington gave up our medical careers with mixed emotions i guess, but feeling that there was a need. there was a need that we had to try to address and thankfully our leadership has committed to the house g.o.p. doctors caucus,

that we will be part of the discussion. and we will be part of the solution to saving medicare. we are i think i can speak for my colleagues, mr. speaker, in regard to our universal opposition to this new entitlement program patient protection and i call the unaffordable care act, sometimes referred to as obamacare, not solely because of its threat to medicare, but to a large part because of that. and my colleague from eastern shore, dr. harris, spoke of the amount of money that was taken out of the medicare program, something north of $500 billion and from a program that he also emphasized as did dr. fleming that by a date certain, it could be as early as 2016, medicare part a, the hospital trust fund

will be broke. it will be insolvent. there won't be any money there to honor those claims. mr. speaker, the gentleman from maryland, dr. harris, referenced his aging mom and i hope she's in good health and we love our moms. his mom 88, my mom 94, mr. speaker. and my mom, her life is just as precious to her as anybody's life in this chamber that may be 60 years younger than mom gingrey at age 94. but she depends on this program. she wouldn't be alive today if it weren't the benefits that were available to her. whether it's medication under part d or whether it's the ability to be treated for cancer, which she recently was and had a surgical procedure. so, i don't want to take too much of the time, the allotted

time tonight, because my colleagues, i want to hear from them, but i just want to say this. that we as the house g.o.p. doctors caucus in conjunction with the physicians in the senate sent a letter two weeks ago to the aarp, american association of retired persons, i don't know how many people age 50 are retired, but when you include all of these folks that join aarp under the senior status, you're talking about 35 million or more that are in that organization. so we felt very strongly mr. speaker, that we needed to reach out to this organization which we did i think some 26 members house and senate signed a letter and asked them to meet with us. by the way mr. speaker, we did hear back from the executive director barry rand just within

the last couple of days. what we want to do is say to them, no matter where we have been in the past in regard to issues of medicare part d the support of or opposition to obamacare clearly, surely we can all agree in a bipartisan way that we have to save medicare. and that's what this hour is all about. to talk about that. and i look forward to the opportunity without a lot of public fanfare until we decide what we can agree on and what we can come forward with in regard to saving medicare. we the physicians, the health care providers in the house and senate, in conjunction with the american association of retired persons and other retired groups , one that jim martin leads, one of my colleagues will mention that in a few minutes, i'm having a senior moment on the

name of that group, but a great group, a great organization. we're going to work together on this. and we're going to go forward to the american people in a bipartisan way and say, you know what? we're going to do it now, we're not going to worry about the results of the next election. that will take care of itself, the american people understand who they want in congress and who they want on 1,600 -- 1600 pennsylvania avenue based on what we do to save these legacy programs. i thank my colleague for yielding me the time, mr. speaker, and i'll yield back. mr. fleming: i thank the gentleman from georgia. my colleague and physician. let me say here that what are some of the things that we in this chamber, we republicans from the doc caucus, which by the way is 23 strong which includes three nurses and two dentists and one psychologist, and so what are some of the things that we agree on moving forward that we really need in terms of saving medicare? well, i can tell you one thing. that everybody agrees on. and that is that we need robust

competition among providers. doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, there's no reason why they shouldn't have to deal with the competition of market forces and why? because everything in america that we see improves improves because of the marketplace. that is when you compete it makes you work harder, it makes you try harder, it raises the level of effort and ultimately you end up with better quality service of products and you end up with lower cost to the consumer. we also agree that we want choices for americans. today there are a lot of choices, even for medicare recipients, that just aren't there. and we want that to occur. we also want to move away from a top-down bureaucratic system where again a 15-member appointed board of bureaucrats nameless, faceless unelectable,

unaccountable people who are selected and who will not be there to answer your call, we all agree that that is not a good thing. instead we want a program, a system in which you can change health care systems, you can change hospitals, doctors, insurance companies, whatever you want to do, and there's lots of transparency in order to do that. that's going to make the quality of care improve and the costs go down. well, now i'd like to recognize another gentleman from georgia, georgia, like louisiana, is flush with physician members in congress. but we like to have a few more in fact. so, i would like to recognize my good friend, dr. broun the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: dr. fleming, i appreciate you yielding me some time. mr. speaker, the american people need to understand very clearly that this administration, this president's policy on medicare as well as our democratic

colleagues here in the house and the senate, can be summarized by four d's. they want to deny that there's a problem. they want to delay fixing it. they want to destroy medicare as we know it today. and they want to demonize those of us who want to fix it so that it is good and solid program for the future generations of this country. that's exactly what we're trying to do here tonight is focus upon the fact that not only they do want to deny it, they even deny there's a problem. they keep saying that they want to save medicare as we know it today but medicare is not sustainable as we know it today because it's going broke. and it's going broke because of failed policy of this administration and it's getting worse and worse. hopefully we'll see the supreme court throw out the affordable care act, the president's health care reform bill, which is going to be disastrous.

it's going to destroy the doctor-patient relationship, it's going to destroy budgets from individual budgets, business budgets, state budgets, even the federal budget. ipab, as dr. harris was talking about, is going to be disastrous because we're going to have rationing of care. our democrat colleagues and this president wants to deny that there's any problem there. they want to delay doing anything about it. in fact, in the ryan budget, our budget that we passed last year started the dialogue, started the process of looking at trying to fix medicare for future generations. but our democrat colleagues don't want to do that. they want to delay fixing it. they just want to posture, they want to try to do anything that they can to face the fact that we've got to deal with medicare and the financial problems it has that my good friend from louisiana, dr. harris, talked about.

their policies go to destroy medicare. they're destroying medicare advantage, as dr. fleming talked about, we've already seen -- we've already seen the president's affordable care act destroyed medicare advantage. it's taken half a trillion dollars out of medicare and then they want to demonize us, who want to do something about it. i introduced my reform plan, it deals with medicare, helps to save it for future generations. i introduced it last congress. we re-introduced it to put in place a repeal section to repeal obamacare in place -- replace that disastrous law that we have in place, the affordable care act, which something that makes sense that will lower the cost of all health care services and products for everybody in this untry. we are -- in this country. we are tweeblinging -- tweaking

it, i'll row re-introduce the patient option act in a week or two. it's a little over 100 pages, it's a comprehensive bill, it puts the doctor and patient in charge of making all health care decisions, not some bureaucrat here in washington, d.c. that the president and our democrat colleagues want to have in every single doctor-patient relationship, whether you're on medicare or not. they want to insert a bureaucrat from washington, d.c. to make those decisions for you. the american people need to know mr. speaker, that our colleagues on the democratic side and this president, if they have their way, they're going to deny there's a problem, they're delaying fixing it, they're going to destroy medicare as we know it and they want to demonize us that want to fix it. and we're not going to sit still, not going to have it, we're going to continue to fight, to make medicare available, make insurance available for everybody at a lower price. that's exactly what republicans are doing. we have a plan, many plans,

actually, there have been numerous bills introduced by many colleagues on our side, physician colleagues, dr. tom price from roswell georgia, orthopedic surgeon one of our georgia colleagues, introduced his plan. we've got many plans here. we are fighting to save medicare our democrat colleagues and this administration this president, are going to destroy it. i yield back. mr. fleming: i thank the gentleman from georgia, a physician of note and one who has re-entered the u.s. marine corps as a reserve physician as well, i admire him for that. before i recognize my friend from tennessee also another physician, i want to point out something about medicare. that it's very important for everyone to think about. you know, medicare was started in 1965 with a lot of promises

and the promises have been fulfilled to those recipients who get the benefits of medicare. however, this big, beautiful apple, if you will, of medicare unbeknownst to a lot of people, has been slowly rotting and decaying from the inside financially, in ways that the public can't see. in a way that's very soon going to be evident. and why? the reason is because even though folks pay their premiums into medicare, they do not nearly cover the cost of medicare, in fact, they only cover about a third. the other 2/3 come from the providers themselves and also from the taxpayers. and that's all well and good, there's nobody we would rather do more for than those from the greatest generation, those who lived through the great depression, world war ii. the fact is, we cannot continue the same way.

it will totally bankrupt the country. therefore, we have got to -- we have got to heel this patient and that is we've got to save medicare. i want to recognize my good friend from tennessee, also an ob/gyn, one who came here in 2009, as i did, we've grown to be great friends and certainly the best doctors are from the south, mostly from louisiana and tennessee, i think you'd agree. with that, i yield to my good friend. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman for yielding one of the things in the health caucus we are so blessed with are three new members of the caucus, we have 15 physicians, this is the first time probably in years that the house has had this kind of support from the health

care community around the nation. this weekend, i had an opportunity to talk to my wife a little bit about what my purpose was here in this house. i'm a veteran as you are, i served as a practicing physician as almost -- i think every one of the doctors caucus have been out for years, decades, 31 years for me of private practice. medicare came along when i was a college student. the reason it came along at that point was because half of our citizens when they retired didn't have access to any health care coverage. there was a problem noted and at that point in time, that plan started as a $3 million program, really a skeleton program in the federal government. the government estimators, there was no congressional budget office, but to they estimated that in 25 years, this would be a $12 billion to $15 billion program. today it's over $500 billion. a very important program because you and i, dr. fleming

have seen incredible advances, i could sit here the rest of the night and talk about the last 30-plus years of medical advances that have been applied to our patients. med case, surgical procedures that have improved the quality of life of every american citizen. one of the -- strange things happened when i was a very young doctor, in johnson city, tennessee. i noticed that 30-something years later mitigating circumstance 40-year-old patients were in their 70's and on medicare. i had a chance to follow them throughout most of their adult lives and see the care they got. one of the things i think the health caucus and physicians caucus is absolutely committed to is saving medicare. it's a great program but not sustainable. one of the frustrations i've had on this house floor is how can you solve a problem you can't even talk about. when your demagogued and told you're going to dump grandma

off a cliff and you're going to do this, that's not solving problems that's throwing bombs. i think these men and women are here to solve problems, otherwise, i don't think i have a purpose in this congress. i'm going to commit myself, and i think the entire cawkiss will to saving seniors. pick a number, estimators have been wrong before, but what if they're right? what if they're close to being right? we've got to start solving the problem today. not wait. the president's plan is to do nothing. what are we talking about doing? what are we planning on doing? before i get to that i want to mention ipap. this is hard to explain in a minute or two on a tv interview we might do but the independent payment advisory board takes health care decisions away from where the health care decisions ought to be made and those ought to be made between the physician, the patient and that patient's family. not between the insurance company and not between

certainly a bunch of bureaucrats here in washington, d.c. quite frankly, i don't want a republican president putting them on there, and i don't want a democrat president putting them on there. i want those decisions made in the physician's examining "between a rock and a hard place" the family and the patient and the dr. the ipab are 15 -- and the doctor. now, the ipab we have 122 co-sponsor in this bill from barney frank to fill roe. there's a -- to phil roe. my colleagues here on the other side of the aisle, quite frankly, did not have this in the house version of the bill as you recall that came in the senate version of the bill. we need their support in a bipartisan way to repeal this. why do we want to repeal it? we want to repeal it because it is based not on quality of care and not on access of care. it is based strictly on cost.

and to squeeze more money out for the affordable care act that's why our seniors need to get involved in helping us get the affordable care act overturns because they are interlocked and the money will come out of medicare. we have a bureau up here a board that says you spent this much money and if you spend more, then it's going to come out of the providers hospitals, doctors and other health care providers, meaning that you'll decrease access because they won't be able to see their doctor and when you decrease access you decrease quality of care. no one in this country want this is. has it been done anywhere else in the world? absolutely. it's done in england right now. we can go on with the horror stories of rationing of care. that is ultimately what happens. who gets rationed? is it based on the certain age? is it based on a certain disease? i don't think any physician in the world, i'm a morally -- i can't, ethically, i can't do that. if a patient comes in, we have

that conversation with the family, put out a treatment plan and execute that plan. how do we save? i know we're going to talk about that in a little bit but i want to point this out, i'm on medicare, got on medicare last year. the day before i turned 65 years of age, i had a health care plan in this health care plan was a hospitalization a drug benefit, it had, it also had the ability for me to see my doctor. it was a health care plan. medicare has part a, part b, part c, part d. the only reason it's chopped up in parts is because politicians put it together. not an -- not a way to see your doctor. what i think should happen to you when you're 65 is you should have a health care plan, it has scription drug benefits, hospitalization, doctor benefits and testing benefits like any other. so what will we do and how we plan on doing this? it's not hard at all. with the premium support we're

talking about, just act like the federal government, the day before when your business, your employer paid that part of the premium, the federal government will pay that premium. and the other part will be paid by you as an individual. higher income seniors like us right here will get a bigger piece of that and lower income seniors will have a small piece to pay. or if you want to stay on traditional medicare you're allowed to stay on traditional medicare. in doing this, we can save this very vital program for our seniors. i'm willing to sit down as anybody in this caucus is to talk to our seniors about how we're going to help save this. i want to thank you, dr. fleming, tonight, for holding this special order and my colleagues for coming down here. i yield back my time. mr. fleming: i thank the gentleman, dr. row, very insightful comments -- dr. roe, very insightful comments. we're beginning to pull the cover back on what some of the solutions are. i will point out this evening that you know, it's interesting, the way physicians

are trained. we're trayed to be pob solvers. -- trained to be problem solvers. we're trayed to look for solutions. sometimes it's like mixing oil and water in washington. there are a lot of people who have been here in washington a long time who don't think in terms of solutions. we're committed, all of us, our physician colleagues, nurses, psychologists, dentist continue to apply the pressure to move forward in solving problems for the american people. i'd now like to yield to another physician from louisiana, he's actually a hepatologist and some who may be hearing me speak right now may not know what that is. it's a specialist a physician specialist in liver disease and also a gastroenterologist as well and with that, i will recognize the gentleman from louisiana, bill cassidy.

mr. cassidy: thank you, mr. fleming. i always tell people, hepa tolingts no i don't do snakes i do liver disease. people say medicare, we pay into it our whole life, how is it going bankrupt? the president's health care plan, took $500 billion from medicare, instead of putting it back into medicare to support the program, it used it to create their new entitlement. that's important. because as the graph you had earlier shows the -- at our current rate of going forward by 2030, i think it is, dr. fleming, you have it right there, roughly 2040, 2045, social security, med ka cade, medicare will take -- medicaid medicare will take up the

entirety of the federal budget. whatever tax dollars we receive by 2045 will be entirely consumed by those three entitlement programs. do you have a graph where there is a debt on there as well? mr. fleming: this is the only graph i have. mr. cassidy: so if nothing changes, social security medicare medicaid will consume 100% of the tax revenue. currently, we have to preserve this important program. the other thing i like to point out to people new york 1964, when medicare was conceived, people had on average four kids per family. so the folks that came up with medicare said, well, people are having four kids per family now, most likely they'll continue to have four kids per family going forward let's make this a pay as you go, so there will always be four people paying for the two people ahead of them. turns out, families have shrunk. now i point out new york most

crowds most people have more brothers and sisters than they do children. families have decreased in size. instead of on average four kids per family, there's now about 2.5. that demographic shift has made all the difference. instead of a pay-as-you-go program where there is always as much money coming in as we needed to pay out, what's happened is families have shrunk you have a large number of baby boomers and then their parents and beneath it you have a kind of a tree if you will where it goes straight down. instead of the pyramid originally thought that would occur, we now have something that looks like that and then goes straight down. there's no longer this broader base of people paying in. so -- but this is not -- we're not the first to recognize this. the former democratic senator from louisiana who was appointed by president clinton to say,

listen, the demographics are changing. how do we preserve medicare? and it was actually john, a democrat, who first came up with the premium support model. now, we speak of it sometimes as a republican plan. no. it was originally a democratic plan. and it was a bipartisan commission. it came up with this support model as the thing that would save medicare. as it turns out the president president clinton, became distracted with the monica affair, if you will, and it kind of got pushed to thewayside. so -- to the wayside. so the same model conceived of in the 1990's is the basis for what is now the bipartisan widen-ryan plan. now, although dr. roe spoke of it earlier, it's worth going over, if you're 55 and above, nothing changes from the medicare program you've always known. nothing changes. if you're 55 and above if you're already on medicare because you're disabled, nothing

changes. if you're 54 and plo, like i am, the program changes to premium support. now, in the premium support model, it works kind of like medicare part d. i find the program that best fits my need. i choose the program that i want. if i'm very wealthy, i pay a little bit more. if i am poor, i pay nothing at all. but if i'm middle class, i pick the program i like. if it's a frugal program then i pay less out of pocket. if it's a bells and whistles program i may pay a little bit more out of pocket. much like the medicare part d program that seniors now get their drug benefit from. and by the way in medicare part d program that has 80% approval among seniors. >> you're referring to the drug program which is the last piece that was added, where there was a lot of debate about top-down government commanded pricing.

mr. fleming: or a market-based system that ended with a market-based system and that improved the cost by 40% and i yield back. ms. castor: we both know, because -- mr. cassidy: we both know, because of market forces, its costs are 40% cheaper than originally conceived. that is the power of getting the patient the ability to go from plan to plan. if she doesn't like that plan, next year she chooses another. and the bad plan goes out the of business if enough seniors do that. that's the same concept behind medicare part d. we have other colleagues to speak. i have one more thing. i'm always struck when my democratic friends say they want the american people to have the same type of plan that members of congress do. the premium support model is the same type of plan you and i have. we pick among an array of programs we pick the one that

works best for us, that matches our pocketbook. if we're poor we pay nothing at all, if we're rich we pay a little bit more. but most of us in congress are in this middle range. we get the plan that benefits our need. that is the widen-ryan plan totally. we actually give the american people the same sort of deal that members of congress do. so that said, thank you for allowing me to join you and i yield back. mr. fleming: i thank the gentleman again, even more insightful points. just to reiterate, we in congress, despite what a lot of people think we don't have any kind of special health care plan. we have the same plan as all other federal workers. and that is simply to go on a website or in a booklet and choose of hundreds of excellent health plans that are competing with each other for our business. we pay part of the premium, our employers, the federal government, pay the other part. and that's precisely what we want for everyone in america to have. but in order to do that you've

got to take down the walls from one state to another, the state borders when it comes to insurance. you've got to make sure that all of these providers of services, doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, are competing with each other, driving up the quality and driving down the cost. and with that i would like to recognize one of our freshman members who has really come on fast, another physician, a family physician the gentleman from the state of tennessee. i yield to you. mr. desjarlais: i thank my colleague. i just wanted to point out a fact that i'm proud to stand here with my physician nursing dental colleagues, all the members of the doctors caucus. because i can say i think for all of us that none of us choose congress as our clear path in life. our first passion in life was to help people and we know we have a problem facing us. nobody can deny on either side of the aisle that medicare is going broke.

as dr. roe says, we can't afford to wait to solve this problem. it's there. it's not a partisan issue, it's a people issue. it's about my parents and your parents and our grandparents. and we just can't afford to let partisan bickering get in the way of solving this problem. so what i guess i would ask people to do, if you're a member of aarp, if you've not contacted your congressman or your representative or your senator, pick up the phone and make sure you know where they stand because they can't answer you that medicare is not going broke in the next 10 years. we've offered up a lot of solutions to try to stave this off. but we want to make sure that we help you save medicare and we're going to do all we can from our end but we can only do so much. so if you're a member of aarp call aarp, tell them to get onboard. the g.o.p. doctors caucus will help lead the way. i can say that all of us in this cause, as we treated patients over the years, we never looked at them as democrats or

republicans, just as patients and people. that's what we're here toad tonight. we're here to help save medicare but we need your help. pick up the phone tomorrow, call your member of congress and make sure you know where they stand and they need to get onboard and they can't deny that this problem's coming. i yield back. mr. fleming: i thank the gentleman. did you hear that? did you hear what the gentleman said? the gentleman said that he's never treated a patient that was either a republican or a democrat. it doesn't matter to us who are providing care. and we've got three wonderful nurses here and we all appreciate what nurses do. oftentimes the nurse is the first health care worker you encounter when you open your eyes after whatever has happened to you and so we appreciate our angels so much. but again, we providers, we don't care we don't ask whether you're democrat or republican. all we care about is that you have a need. so i would like to recognize congresswoman buerkle from the great state of new york. we're moving above the

mason-dixon line this evening and we're talking to folks from new york. i yield to you. ms. buerkle: i thank my colleague and i must say i feel a little bit out of my element. when we dealt with tennessee and louisiana. so it's good to be here. and i appreciate the opportunity to stand here with my colleagues. i think it's so important that the docs caucus has this conversation with the american people. because we stand here tonight not as politician but as people who care deeply about the health care profession and about patients getting the kind of care they need. so i hope that when we speak to the american people and particularly our seniors because tonight we're talking about saving medicare that they look at us as people who are deeply committed to making sure that they have the health care and the medicare benefits that they deserve. because they've paid into it. so i guess, briefly, because we have so many other colleagues here, i'd like to make just a couple of points to the american people.

number one, unfortunately, because of the current health care law medicare hasn't changed. so when we talk about saving medicare, it really means restoring it to what the american people know medicare as, especially our seniors. this health care law, and i am so saddened when i see some of the senior groups aarp, in fact i got a letter from a -- letter -- a whole box of letters -- from people who plong to aarp saying don't cut medicare. i want to say, we're not cutting medicare. for those who are 55 years and older and as mentioned earlier, if they're on disability and getting s.s.i., their plan doesn't change. it remains the same. but for those 54 and younger, we're talking about a premium support and the reason we're talking about that is because if we don't there will be no medicare for anyone. so we're intent on saving medicare, we want to make sure that our seniors have what they deserve, what they've paid into

all of their lives, and that is god medicare coverage. i'm not only a nurse but i'm also the daughter of a 90-year-old mother and she and i know very well how important medicare is. so we have no desire to change medicare as seniors know it now. we're talking about making a change for those 54 years and younger. but the sad part about it is the health care law, the law has changed medicare and now our seniors will have to be the -- to be dealing with ipabs, they'll have to be dealing with cuts on their medicare services and the employers, my colleagues said, for them to reach out to their senior groups and say, wait a minute, the real threat to our medicare is the health care law and that's what needs to be changed. and just before i end, i would just say to all the american people, we are committed here in the congress and on this side of the aisle, to making sure that you get the medicare services you paid into all of your life you so richly deserve, and you count on.

we in the health care profession stand together, had we want to make that pledge to our seniors and to the american people. i thank my colleague and i yield back my time. mr. fleming: i thank the gentlelady for yielding back. i'd now like to yield to another gentlelady, a person that i've become good friends with, all from new york state and a person who has vision for america. not only that, but she's someone who's been taking care of other people's vision as well. but she's come to washington to apply her vision to what she feels and we feel, we agree with her in what the future of health care should be like as well as many other things in life and with that i yield to the gentlelady from new york. ms. hayworth: thank you so much and thank you for holding this special order session which is so important.

one thing -- the comments by our distinguished colleagues have been perceptive and enlighten and mofpking. -- enlightening and movingment one aspect i might be able to add. they have said so much, but i'd like to invite our seniors and those who love them and who may accompany them in the course of their care, as i have had the privilege of doing for my own parents, both of whom have relied on medicare for many years i'd like to urge our seniors and their families to talk with their doctors about what it means when medicare changes the way it deals with the doctors' practices. and what it will mean for our seniors having the ability to

be cared for by the doctors they prefer and in the places where they're comfortable and that are familiar and that they like and trust. what may happen if medicare loses the funds that now exist in the trust fund and that are running out very, very rapidly. and i think it's important for patients and doctors throughout the united states to have that conversation and for our doctors to hear the patients' perspective and for patients to hear from doctors how tough it may be for a lot of doctors' practices to keep their doors open if medicare loses the funds that it needs and if that's accelerated through the affordable care act, which does as we've mentioned many times but it's so important to say that takes an enormous piece of

crucial funding away from medicare. we can't afford that. half a trillion dollars is an enormous amount of money. so there are lots of threats looming on the horizon for our doctors' practices. and i had the privilege of practicing opthamology for sophomore years and i took care of medicare patients and i cherished them and it's been a privilege as you mentioned to care for those patients, so many of whom have done so much for our country and for our communities. but i can attest to the fact that it can be very difficult to keep your doors open when medicare keeps rash eting down -- ratcheting down what it will pay for certain service, even in the face of the fact that doctors have right to pay and staff to pay and they have insurance, including malpractice insurance, which can be very expensive in state like my own home state of new york. so it can become very, very difficult to balance all those

things and that's why it's so important to make sure that medicare has the funds needs and that we protect medicare for the future, in the way that we handle its premium structure, premium support will be a great help to us but those are things that we need to hear from our patients and our doctors. . i'd like to urge everybody to talk with your doctors find out the story, find out what they want to tell you so the patients and doctors can take that message home to their members of congress, their senators and to the president. i want to yield back and thank you, dr. fleming, for all you're doing to support a wonderful cause. mr. fleming: i thank the gentlelady from new york, nan hayworth, for all her contributions both here in washington and certainly back

home. well certainly we saved the best for last here. we have dr. ben check the gentleman from -- dr. benishek, the gentleman from michigan who managed our time last time, he did a great job as i understand it, a wonderful surgeon, i would like to yield to you in the last few minutes we have tonight. mr. benishek: thank you, dr. fleming. i'm glad to be here tonight. i've been taking care of patients in northern michigan in a rural setting for the last 30 years and it certainly means a lot to my patients to have medicare there to help them get through some of their medicare -- medical problems in their elder years. i'm kind of surprised that i've been castigated for voting to end medicare when really i voted to try to save medicare because of the crisis that's

coming forward, because of the demographics of our country and the pending bankruptcy of the medicare trust fund. as i see it, there's like really four reasons why medicare is in trouble. number one there's an increasing number of patients on medicare every year. there's 10,000 patients a day added to medicare. there's like 50 million people today that receive medicare and in 20 years, i think that number is 80 million people. that's one reason. the sec reason is there's a little over three persons paying into medicare for every person receiving that benefit today but in 20 years, there'll be a little over two people paying. not only will there be 30% more people, there's going to be a

their less people paying in. the other -- the third problem of course, is just general rising costs of medicine. that's an issue that i think our plan to save medicare a premium support plan, where there's options in your insurance, would help keep the costs down. of course the fourth problem is the affordable care act. the medicare that people are familiar with today, seniors today have, that's not the same medicare going forward. because the affordable care act is taking $5 5 billion away from medicare. that's over $100 billion from hospitals, i think it's $40 billion from home health care $30 billion from hospice care and over $100 billion from medicare advantage. i know in my rural district, we have many small community hospitals that depend on

medicare payments and $100 billion taken from each of those small hospitals, those hospitals operate on a razor thin profit margin. if we take that money away from my small hospital in my district they may not be there tomorrow. so how does my senior population come see me? they won't be able to go to their local hospital they'll have to go to green bay or marquette or drive hundreds or miles to get evaluated in an emergency room for example. this is not -- the way things are now is just not sustainable, especially with the affordable care act's impact on medicare. and to think that if we do nothing, everything will be ok, is just wrong. we put forward this plan of premium support where you have a choice, similar to medicare advantage, in michigan there's

20 or 30 different plans to choose from. the one that suits you best. i think that's a reasonable option. there may be others though, may be other plans out there somewhere that is equally good. i haven't seen that. but i'm certainly willing to listen to a plan. -- plan of how to fix it. but the mere fact of doing nothing is sun -- is unacceptable. i think it's wrong to castigate those of us that are trying to find an answer that will fit most people and be affordable and like many of the advantages that people have talked to previously to evening, differences in different people's situations, to do nothing, though, put your head in the sand like an ostrich and pretend there's no problem is not an option. so like many before me speaking, i encourage people to speak to their physician about what the situation is. i'm going around my district

this next coming several months and putting together a little medicare meet and greet at the senior citizens' centers, at various local -- locales in my district, because they don't seem to have an idea, i say patient, i mean constituents, but speaking in doctor terms. they don't have an idea how serious the problem is. i think that's part of our problem, getting that message out there to people, this is not something we can ignore. this is nothing that's going to go away by not dealing with it. this is certainly not going to go away by castigating people that are trying to find an answer. so i encourage those people, as nan mentioned, to speak to their physician. call my office to get further information. but realize we're trying to fix the problem, not ignore a problem.

with that, i'll yield back. mr. fleming: i thank the gentleman for yielding back. the physician from michigan. in the closing miamis here, what have we learned? we've learned that we have a medicare system that's highly bureaucratic highly expensive and as the graph showed, is going to be insolvent as early as 2016, that's four years away and we desperately need a solution to that we've got this side of the aisle which has already come up with a solution, a premium support plan that basically offers to americans the same opportunity we and congress have, an excellent health care plan, and this side of the aisle democrats, who absolutely have come up with no solution, as the gentleman said, bury their heads in the sand, offer nothing, and i would submit to you, mr. speaker that we can't continue going this way. we have got to move forward. we've got to find solutions by again putting health care providers in the arena, having

them compete with each other, always from doing that. if it's a level playing field and that's our responsibility in government, the quality of care goes up while the cost goes down. so with that, i want to thank my colleagues here tonight, we have had a great discussion, and i look forward to doing this again very soon. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced spoil

of january 5 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, for 30 minutes. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i wasn't planning oncoming to the floor this evening but when i heard my republican colleagues' special order that was just completed, i couldn't help but come down because i think i have to correct the record on many of the statements that they made this evening about medicare and their efforts with regard to medicare. first of all, i have to point out that when medicare was first -- when medicare was first adopted in the house and in the senate back in the 1960's when president johnson was here the republicans overwhelmingly opposed it. they were opposed to medicare. they voted against it. it would never have passed if it was for their votes. it only passed as a democratic

initiative. over the year, democrats have been the ones -- over the years, democrats have been the ones to protect medicare. republicans have consistently opposed medicare tried to repeal it, privatize it, voucherize it and basically as a once republican speaker said, who i was here at the time when newt gingrich became the speaker, back in the other i will -- early 1990's, or mid 1990's, he said we want medicare to wither on the vine. that's basically what the republican leadership has been doing consistently in the 20-something years i have been in congress and surgeonly if you look at the budget that was -- budget that was adopted by the republicans last year, it does exactly that. the republican budget would end the medicare guarantee, replacing it with a voucher in

2022, and what that essentially means is, right now, under the medicare program, when you get to be 65, you immediately become eligible for medicare which a government program and you're guaranteed that you have your health insurance through the government, through medicare, but if you establish a voucher, which is what the republicans tried to do in their budget last year, fortunately they didn't succeed, they would simply give you a voucher or set amount of money for you to go out into the private sector an try to buy health insurance for that amount and of course the amount that would be available wouldn't keep up with inflation, so even if you were able to buy health insurance when you were over 65 as a senior, which many people would not be able to, eventually you would not be able to to and you would simply have to pay more and more money out of pocket in order to buy the health insurance. in fact, we estimate that the republican budget would double out of pocket costs by 2022 and

cost an additional $6,000 for each senior and out of pocket costs would trip bill 2030. so what i want my constituents and everyone to understand is the reason democrats started medicare in the 1960's under president johnson is because people over 65 were not able to get health insurance privately. they weren't able to go out and buy health insurance because basically insurers didn't want to cover seniors. they had too many disability too many times they had to go to the hospital and see the doctor. it was impossible to get health insurance if you were over 65. i would maintain that if you let the republicans move forward with their voucher proposal, which they still talk about constantly, the chairman of the budget committee, mr. ryan, keeps talking about it, the aim thing would happen again. seniors wouldn't be able to buy a health insurance with a voucher or without the costs

of it would get so prohibitive and the consequences, medicare would disappear both as a guaranteed health insurance plan for seniors and many seniors simply wouldn't have health insurance at all. the other thing my colleagues tried to suggest tonight is that medicare was going broke. now if you believe, which they tried to convince you that medicare is going broke then that sets the stage for the fact that you should either get rid of medicare or voucherize medicare because the notion is that somehow the government isn't going to continue with the program or can't afford the program and therefore we need to change it drastically. i would maintain that is simply not true. actually right now, there are 40 million seniors and eight million people with disables below age 65 who have medicare medicare is efficient per capital spending at nearly half the per capital