the bill we are considering today is very simple. republicans are taking a proactive step to secure a more stable energy future for our cupry. last week the nonpartisan congressional research service published a report confirming that president obama's plan for offshore drilling offers the lowest number of lease sales in the history of our outer continental shell program. there on my left, 15 is the number you see in red, going back to 1980, when president jimmy carter was in office, he had 36 lease sales in his proposed five-year plan. and you can see intervening five-year plans since 1980 until today. this is the fewest ever. even this number is generous because we're operating under the assumption that the administration will actually follow through on doing all of these 15 lease sales. this is not a sure bet when you

consider that since the president was elected he has canceled more lease sales than he has held. let me repeat that. this president in 3 1/2 years has canceled more lease sales than have been held. now, the administration proposes a new leasing plan that offers for sale the fewest leasing sales ever and locks away 85% of our outer continental shelf from any development. why would the president propose the fewest number of lease sales ever? is it because we've solved our dependency on foreign oil? no. we import five million barrels a day. is it because we've developed all of our domestic resources so there's nothing left to develop? no, the president's plan leaves tens of billions of barrels of oil off limits and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas untapped, unused and unavailable for the american consumer. the president says over and over that he supports u.s. energy development. then we see that every

opportunity he makes the choice to prevent efficient energy development from happening. we must do more for the american people in generating more energy for lower prices and less -- lessen our dependence on foreign oil. this bill does exactly that. i ask my colleagues to join me in voting for this bill. vote for american energy and american jobs. let's replace the president's do-nothing plan with a plan that moves america forward. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. >> i the thank the chair and i rise in opposition -- i thank the chair and i rise in opposition to this. i'd like to address a point the chairman made as he attempted to correct mr. markey and said that there have been a number of wind energy bills considered.

i think we would gladly count those votes in the column of gutting the national environmental protection act. mr. holt: but wind, no. the wind industry did not support any of those bills that he was talking about or amendments. they are not wind legislation, they are environmental spoilage legislation. mr. chairman, this republican bill would allow drilling off the coast of every state in the east coast, from maine to south carolina. and off of california and off of alaska. which is, i might add, one of our nation's most important salmon fisheries. by reviving long-dead fisheries, long-dead lease sales in these fishery areas, they would be

reviving sales that the bush administration issued just four days before they left office. now, it's interesting that tomorrow we will consider republican legislation on this floor that is intended to prohibit midnight regulations. yet today we have a midnight drilling lease sale. they are, in effect, trying to reinstate the bush administration's midnight offshore leasing plan. so i just want my colleagues on the other side to know that tomorrow, when we were talking about midnight regulations, that they were actually talking about it a day in advance. the other side has also made the point that the administration's offshore drilling plan would

reinstate a moratorium. quite the opposite. mr. chairman, the obama administration's offshore drilling plan already now makes more than 75% of our oil and gas resources available for drilling. they are not doing what the republicans are saying they are doing. two months ago industry analysts were projecting that by the end of this year we would have 50% more floating rigs operating in the gulf than before the b.p. spill. turns out they were wrong. not by the end of this year. it's already happened. we have about 50% more rigs operating in the gulf today. we have more rigs operating in the united states than in the rest of the world combined. and they're saying the president is trying to kill the oil industry. h.r. 6082 ignores the fact that

president obama's all-of-the-above energy strategy has successfully reduced our dependence on foreign oil from 57% in the last year of the bush administration to only 45% today. it ignores the fact that our oil production is at an 18-year high . it does raise the question of why we have this legislation in front of us at all, if not to maybe embarrass the president. but, no, the president will not be embarrassed by the facts. and i hope we will deal with the facts here. this legislation is unnecessary and unwise. unnecessary because the drilling is taking place and unwise because the other side wants to strike all of the environmental

protections that, rather than weakened, should be strengthened. later we will be considering an amendment that i will offer to strike the language from the underlying bill that requires the department of the interior to conduct a single multisale environmental impact statement for all new areas opened for drilling. you may recall, mr. chairman, i said a moment ago that this legislation talks about drilling from maine to south carolina, off california and in alaska. and they propose to say a single environmental impact statement will deal with that? that's like the environmental impact statement that applied to the b.p. drilling in the gulf that talked about walruses. yes, because they were using the same environmental impact statement that they had used in alaska previously. no, the protection of the

environment requires a little more attention than that. congress has a responsibility to the american people, to ensure that offshore oil and gas drilling is occurring in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. also later we will be considering a -- an amendment that i will offer that has to do with the royalties that will be collected or should be collected from offshore drilling. the big five oil companies made a record profit of $137 billion last year. in the first quarter this year they continued to capitalize on the pain of the americans at the pump, raking in $368 million in profits per day. and this legislation that is brought to the floor by the republicans here want to allow them to drill in many places

without paying any royalties, without paying a fee to the taxpayers for the oil that the taxpayers own. right now more than 25% of all oil produced offshore on federal lands is produced without paying a penny of royalties. that should be changed. my constituents, and i think the constituents of any member of this house, would say it's only fair that these oil companies pay for what they use. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, a member of the natural resources committee and subcommittee chairman, dr. fleming. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. fleming: i want to thank the committee chairman for allowing

me to speak. first i would like to agree with the gentleman from new jersey. he is absolutely correct that oil production has increased in recent years and that our dependence on oil has actually decreased over the same period of time. but why? why? because of the private sector. the private sector industry out there has been out there drilling in new areas like north dakota, in my own home state of louisiana. it's the private sector that's driving this, that's producing more oil than we've ever done and there's much more that we can have. on the other hand, in public plans that's been under the control of the president, we've seen a reduction of 15%. so there's no way in the world that we can give our president, president obama, credit for this that -- for that. unless of course if we said, well, indeed the private sector didn't build it, he did. but i really don't think that's the case.

mr. speaker, i stand in support of h.r. 6082. what we're seeing in president obama's lease plan is a study in contrast. when demand for energy was up and prices were spiking in 2008, the bush administration opened more areas for drilling. that's just common sense -- commonsense economics. well, here we are four years later, with high energy prices again and this president's solution is to propose a plan that opens no new areas of drilling. the obama administration pounced on the b.p. spill two years ago to ratchet down our nation's ability to drill for oil and then dragged its feet in new drilling permits. all the while taxpayer dollars were being thrown at failed wind and solar energy products like solyndra and many others too noum ruse -- too numerous to name today. this legislation is part policy -- smart policy and a return to common sense. our country needs energy and it

needs jobs. the president's plan doesn't help but h.r. 6082 does. it will open areas for drilling -- mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. fleming: i thank the gentleman. the president's plan does not help but h.r. 6082 does. it will open areas for drilling that never should have been closed off. and that will lead to more jobs and more cost effective energy for americans. and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. holt: yes, mr. chair. in 1969 many in america encountered the phrase, oil spill for the first time -- the phrase oil spill for the first time. in -- off the coast of santa barbara, california, there was what has now become the granddaddy of oil spills. currently representing that area

and those beaches is our good colleague from california, mrs. capps, and i would like to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from california. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for three minutes. mrs. capps: i thank my colleague for yielding. mr. chairman, here we are, voting once again to mandate new offshore drilling in the areas where it simply isn't wanted. just like before this proposal simpley ignores the facts -- simply ignores the facts. the fact that we already make more than 75% of the offshore and gas -- oil and gas resources available for drilling. the fact that domestic oil production is at an 18-year high , the fact that we have more rigs drilling in the united states than in the rest of the world combined. instead of addressing the real issues in offshore drilling like

the need to adopt a safety recommendations of the nonpartisan oil spill commission, this bill seeks to compound the problems by mandating new drilling all over the place. h.r. 6082 also cavalierly dismisses the legitimate concerns raised by the people most affected by this mandated new drilling idea, my constituents. after nearly 100 years of drilling off my coastline, californians have spoken and clear, we've had enough. in fact, a 2010 proposal to allow drilling from the shores of a coastal town in my district was opposed by 70%. that's right, 70% of the voters. to protect communities now at risk under this bill, i offered an amendment that would have stopped the mandated new lease sales off southern california, off my district. but the majority refused to allow a debate on this amendment. in addition this new mandated drilling would have -- would

happen on platforms that have been in the santa barbara channel since the brothers were topping the charts over 50 years ago. it's not a good idea to use these old rigs for expanded drilling. 20 of them, including platform a, as my colleague referenced, the very culprit of the 1969 santa barbara oil spill. i offered an amendment to require the interior department to certify these platforms that are actually capable of handling new drilling before it could start but thanks to the rules committee, we won't be debating that issue either. . what is true, the pentagon doesn't support new drilling off its base off the central coast. the pentagon told exxon mobil that the company's proposed drilling plan at the air force base, and i quote, would present a wide range of significant operational constraints, unquote and i offered an amendment to protect the national space

launch mission at the air force base. but again, the house won't be able to debate that issue and the concerns of the air force are left unaddressed. it's clear h.r. 6082 is not a well thought-out proposal but another heavy-handed know-it-all approach from washington, d.c.,, cutting out environmental reviews, limiting public input. that might be good policy for oil companies but bad energy policy for my constituents and this nation and i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. the chair: the gentlen from washington. mr. hastings: i yield two minutes to another member to the natural resources committee, mr. mcclintock. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcclintock: i was reflecting on the fact that during the same period i represented some areas of santa bash bra for eight

years and i would remind the gentlelady the board of supervisors passed a resolution for more offshore development of the area, so dependent is the region's economy on that enterprise. that speaks volumes of where the american people stand today as well. america's energy crisis is not because of any shortage of american energy. it is blessed with vast reserves. the petroleum, natural gas, coal, hydroelectricity and uranium that dwarfed those of any other nation and make us the most energy-independent nation in the world. the crisis here in washington. capps capps would the gentleman -- mrs. capps: would the gentleman

yield? mr. mcclintock: i would not yield. this is to the green left and continues to thwart the development of american resources. we have seen this policy time and time again as the president who has blocked the keystone pipeline, waged war on coal and threatened offshore exploration and development, which a problem this bill now addresses. and to add hypocrisy to injury, while blocking american petroleum development, many of these let the brazilians increase their production. enough is enough. our nation is at a crossroads. we can choose government-energy shortages or abuppedance produced by american enterprise. that is the issue before us today and that is one of the issues that will be before the american people in november.

the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: mr. chairman, i would like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko, who is a new member of the committee but one of the more energetic members of the committee and passionate about preserving a healthful environment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. tonko: it isn't enough that the obama's administration offshore drilling plan and the majority isn't going to be happy until we turned over every squart foot to the oil and gas companies. h.r. 6082 abandons any pre-tense to the support of any states and east coast and southern california. the states on record opposing oil and gas drilling. too bad, new york, new jersey, connecticut and massachusetts. if your citizens want to have fishing, big oil wants to move

in. and h.r. 6082 gives them the authority to do so. h.r. 60 2 requires no public comment or consultation with the states. apparently those steps, steps followed by the administration inputting together their plan are too time consuming. besides they may result in opposition to this ill-conceived drilling plan. on the same day that the chemical safety board released its report on the deepwater horizon accident and saying safety lessons were not learned, we are moving a bill that does nothing to improve the safety of offshore drilling for the people who work on these rigs or the many citizens and businesses whose coastal access, enjoyment or livelihood would be lost if there are were an oil spill. thankfully this bill will go no further. and if it passed the other body, the president issued a veto threat. why are we doing this? one can only speculate.

i'm disappointed that the rules committee did not make my amendment in order and would require gas companies to disclose their campaign donations to super pa crmp s. free speech shouldn't cost millions of dollars. sunshine is the best. the public should know who is funding ads and other campaign-focused activities emwhen it comes from corporations that come from private resources. they unleashed a tidal wave of donations. there are super pa crmp s to spend the $221 million to dominate the air waves with the political view points of corporations and wealthy individuals. according to an article published earlier this year, americans for prosperity paid over $12 million attacking the

obama administration's green energy policy. the country needs to know how money is being used to influence elections. my amendment would have provided the public with some of that information. h.r. 6082 will not make us energy independent or more energy efficient and not lower fuel prices. investment in our new energy sources are the real way to kick our oil well habit and i urge my colleagues to reject h.r. 6082 and i yield back. mr. holt: may i ask the time remaining on each side. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey has seven minutes. the gentleman from washington has 17 1/4 minutes. the gentleman from washington.

mr. hastings: i yield two minutes to another member of the natural resources committee, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. duncan: thanks to natural resources committee for their hard work on this issue. the congressman from louisiana reminded us drilling equals jobs and republicans have a plan for job creation in america and it begins go, it begins not with the government takeover in our health care but it begins with america pursuing energy independence. utilizing the resources that we are blessed with in this country, primarily right now in offshore areas. we do this by expanding areas of our outer continental shelf that are included in our nation's plan for exploration over the next five years. it seems simple to the average american and that's what frustrates them so much that we

would refuse to explore our reserves and meet our energy needs in this country. with a 9.4 unemployment rate in south carolina. drilling equals jobs and that is why my state, their offshore area is included within this bill. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this american jobs and energy initiative bypassing h.r. 6082. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: i'm pleased to yield at this time three minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran, who on the appropriations committee and interior appropriations, is a champion for the environment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. moran: i want to thank my good friend from new jersey for yielding to me. a few facts that we need to put on the table here. one, this bill isn't going

anywhere. not going to be accepted by the senate, let alone the -- enacted by the president. secondly, we could create more jobs and a more sustainable future if we drop the subsidies for oil and gas and redirected them into wind and solar power. and thirdly, this will have no impact upon the world oil price. the enact is that -- the fact is that we have a good deal of experience that shows that no matter how much production comes out of the united states, it, at best has a negative impact on what consume rs -- consumers pay at the gas pump. let me fluste some numbers to that effect to prove the point. we currently consume about 18.8

million barrels of oil a day and produce 5.4 million. despite the concerted efforts of former oilmen, president bush and vice president cheney and the congress that embraced the drill, baby, drill mantra, total oil production dropped from 2 billion barrels in 2001 when president bush came into office to 12 billion barrels when they left off. u.s. production declined despite technological advances in drilling and despite the lifting of previously restricted areas on land and at sea. ironically, oil production today

under the obama administration is higher, it's higher than at any time during the 14 years. i'll mention that once again. oil production today is higher under the obama administration than at any time dug the last 14 years. jo shore, oil leases on 73 million acres on the public's land. offshore, more than 37 million acres of the outer continental have been offered for lease since 2012. public lands and waters are available and have been leased for drilling than at any previous time in u.s. history. worth repeating. more of the public's lands and waters are available today and have been leased for drilling than at any previous time in u.s. history. as of june 1 of this year, 1,980 rotery drilling rigs operating on u.s. lands and waters, more

than all other countries combined. but all this activity has had no impact on prices. the fact is we have 36 years of data to show it will have no impact on the price of oil. so why are we doing this? that's the real question that needs to be answered. so i thank the chairman for the time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. blackburn. charmede the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. blackburn: i thank the gentleman for yielding time. just last month, the administration announced its proposed final lease plan for developing the u.s. offshore energy resources for the next five years, 2012 to 2017. there was a lot of anticipation about this and we thought that finally the administration would hear the calls that have come from this house saying, you know, we need to increase our

american energy supply and we need to create jobs. but we were disappointed. our calls for release obviously fell on deaf ears. instead of opening up 98% of the u.s. offshore, which is currently unleased for energy exploration, the president's plan will make the situation worse by closing 85% of our offshore areas to energy production. i think that's significant. because you have to ask the question, what do you really want if you want energy independence, open it up. let's explore for these resources. to put that into context. i think what we need to do is look at this president's plan and compare it to previous presidents. and mr. chairman, what we find is that this president's plan offers fewer offshore drilling

leases than former president jimmy carter had offered. the president's plan also ignores the economic struggles that are facing our country, and it really does not move us toward energy independence. what it does do is to take a step backward. we are heading the wrong direction in this issue and re-imposes the drilling moratorium that had been lifted, moratorium that the gulf coast still has no recovered from. and i think that we need to look at that and consider those jobs in our coastal regions and in stark contrast to the president's plan, h.r. 6082 proposes a drill smart job creation plan that expands offshore drilling and opens new areas containing the most oil and natural gas resources. i encourage my colleagues to support this plan and i yield

back. . the chair: the gentleman has four minutes. the gentleman from washington has 14 minutes. mr. holt: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i am very pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. -- dr. boustany. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 6082 which i believe is a commonsense approach to energy production and jobs in south louisiana and for our nation. and i continue to be disappointed. the president states we must have, i quote, an all-of-the-above energy strategy for the 21st century that develops every source of american-made energy, but at the same time he fails to understand the need for the resources now to develop resources now for future energy production. south louisiana has tens of thousands of jobs in the oil and gas industry. this administration's hostility

to responsible, safe, american energy production, by closing 85%, 85% of our offshore areas to energy production and issuing burdensome and duplicative regulations, stalls our languishing economy, hurts job growth. i rise in support of h.r. 6082 because it's a rational and responsible plan. not only will this bill generate a robust drilling plan, creating thousands of new jobs, helping to lower the price at the pump, improve american energy security and strengthen our national and economic security, but it requires separate environmental reviews from each -- for each specific lease. this is good policy. passage of this legislation sends a crystal clear message to the administration that a do-nothing energy plan is simply unacceptable. i look over at my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and i would urge the president as well to take a look at that plaque up there near the ceiling, above the speaker's chair. read it.

from daniel webster. it says, let us develop the resources of our land. passage of this bill gets us on to a good start of developing the resources of our land, which includes good, high-paying american jobs. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: i'd now like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. keating. three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. keating: i thank the gentleman for yielding this time. i have a lot of time to watch television these days, but i think most of us have seen on television a commercial that comes up time and time again. and it's a commercial with beautiful coastal scenes in it telling people, come to louisiana, come to mississippi, come to florida, come to the coast.

and i looked at that and i said, that's great marketing. at the end of the commercial, i was surprised to see it was sponsored by b.p., now why was that sponsored by b.p.? it was sponsored by b.p. because of the deepwater horizon and the damage that that did. and, you know, this bill is just another attempt at giving big oil a handout. putting oil companies and their profits above both the american taxpayers and american treasurers. now, my district -- treasures. now, my district includes the south shore massachusetts, the islands of martha's vineyard and the south coast. we're a maritime community. one that respects the ocean, and one that has prospered from its resources. this bill would threaten our shores, our marine life and the industries that rely upon them by opening up the waters of the east coast from maine to south carolina for quote-unquote

required oil and gas leases. i ask my colleagues, is this necessary? why put hundreds of miles of ocean waters and the livelihoods of our fishing and tourism industries at risk when our nation's oil imports are already down to their lowest level in nearly two decades and production is up? now, in the spirit of compromise, i'd like to offer a suggestion that will help the oil companies increase their profits. and that would be this. let's defeat this bill. and the oil companies won't have to spend all that money paying for tv commercials to lure people to areas that are our nation's treasures, because they've been damaged. with that i yield back the balance of my time to mr. holt from new jersey. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chair. mr. chairman, i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from a coastal state, the gentleman from mississippi, mr. nunnelee. the chair: the gentleman from

mississippi is recognized. mr. nunnelee: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman for yielding. i rise in support of h.r. 6082, the congressional replacement of president obama's energy -restricting and jobs-limiting offshore drilling plan. the president's lease plan for offshore energy resources is unacceptable. it would close 85% of our offshore areas to energy production and recovery. just like the keystone pipeline, this is just another example of an administration beholden to a radical environmental agenda. we must be about safely and responsibly recovering american energy. we have available energy under our feet and off our shores. now this plan does that by expanding offshore drilling into new areas, areas that contain the most oil and natural gas

resources. our economy is still struggling. people are still looking for work. this bill would generate $600 million of government revenue and at the same time put tens of thousands of americans back to work. it's time that we choose jobs and energy security over left wing ideology. mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. holt: i thank you, mr. chairman. i am the final speaker on our side and if the gentleman from washington state is ready to conclude debate, so are we on the minority side. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i would tell my friend from massachusetts, i have one other person and then myself to close. mr. holt: then, mr. chairman, i will reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i am very pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. hurt.

the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. hurt: i thank the chairman. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise today on behalf of the people of virginia's fifth district. as i visit with central and southside virginians across my district, they echo the same sentiment. the burdens caused by high fuel peruses and the stalled economy are negatively impacting their lives. this issue particularly resonates in the commonwealth because just last month the administration announced that its five-year energy plan will exclude resources off of the coast of virginia. this announcement comes as a shock to the people that i represent. at a time when the fifth district is suffering from three years of high unemployment, now the administration has said it will put thousands more virginia jobs on hold. it also shocks us because it shows just how out of touch washington is when it comes to the devastation that high fuel prices are causing at home. while energy prices may have subsided for now, now is the time to act. i am proud to support this legislation which replaces the

administration's unreasonable and irresponsible energy policy. i believe that this legislation will bring jobs to virginia, help keep fuel prices low and move our country forward to spur economic growth in central and south side virginia. i thank the chairman and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. who seeks recognition? mr. holt: mr. chairman, i seek recognition and i yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. holt: i thank you, mr. chairman. this is a very -- mr. markey: this is a very simple debate to understand. the republicans want to authorize drilling for oil and gas off of the coastlines of southern california, maine and new hampshire and massachusetts, rhode island, new york, maryland, new jersey. these states do not want this.

they've long ago gded -- decided that the risk is too great to their beaches, the risk is too great to their fishing industries. they do not want it. but it also is in the context of this republican aversion, this republican opposition to wind and solar and other renewables receiving the same attention as oil and natural gas does. and the important thing about wind and solar is that they would be domestically produced, 100%. and the same is true by the way, you would think for natural gas, let's say they find some off the coast of massachusetts or off the coast of new jersey. that would be great. but what the republicans refuse to agree to is that that natural gas cannot be exported to other countries. and the reason that's important is that we could use that natural gas and substitute it for the oil that we import from the persian gulf.

but they won't agree to do that. so the one thing that definitely has to be produced here is wind and solar because it has to be domestic. natural gas, though, you can put in a shipment, you can send it around the world. you can freeze it like liquefied natural gas. and they won't agree not to do that. as part of this package of running the risk of defouling the beaches of the east coast and the west coast. and it's just something fundamentally wrong with this. nothing for wind and solar. everything for the oil industry, including their discretion to then take the oil and gas that's discovered off our beaches and selling it overseas. so this is just wrong on so many levels. in terms of what we should be doing to protect our own country . and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mamplee, -- mr. chairman, how much time do i have? the chair: 9 1/4 minutes. mr. hastings: i will yield myself the balance of the time.

the chair: the gentleman yields himself the balance of the time. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to say why we are here today. we are here today because the president submitted his plan, it was late, 60-day plan, and his plan, the five-year plan is supposed to go through a 60-day review here in the congress. and we are here to offer an alternative to that plan. because that plan locks up 85% of the potential resources in this country. we offer this plan because we have heard loud and clear from the american people that it is in our best interest to be less dependent on foreign energy and in the process of creating american energy we obviously create american jobs. that to me is a win-win situation. now, let me respond to some of the arguments that have been made on the other side.

and i want to point out specifically the bills. the charges made that the republican-led house has not taken up any bills dealing with renewable energy. in fact, the observation was that there were no bills. in fact, there have been several bills and there are four bills that have -- or two bills that have passed the house. now, my friends -- some of my friends on the other side of the aisle may not like it, but the fact is they've passed. first one, h.r. 440 , it passed on a bipartisan basis in july. h.r. 3408, it too passed on a bipartisan basis in february. and h.r. 4480, it too passed on a bipartisan basis in june. so, republicans have repeatedly said that we are in favor of all-of-the-above energy plan and this of course confirms that

belief. now, i want to make an observation to again part of the debate here that we are giving away something. i'm trying to think of an analogy on how to describe that and the best that i could come up with is, if one has an asset and the federal government has an asset of having control over the outer continental shelf, and somebody wants to use that asset where there may be some opportunity to create jobs or grow the economy or what have you, that seems to me to be a positive step rather than a giveaway. in fact, i think about the private landowners in north dakota or maybe the state of north dakota. because the same people that are being supposedly, big oil that are being beat up here on the floor in debate here, went to

north dakota, they talked to the state, they talked to private landowners and they said, you may have some assets that we would like to see if there's maybe some energy development available. very similar to what's availabl i'll pay you the land owner if you let me look and if there is something there, i'll pay you what comes out of the ground. this is the exactly the same process we are going through here but dealing with the outer continental shelf. who is the beneficiary? the beneficiary is the federal government because they get money for the leases and they get oil. and i might point out, the second largest source of income to the federal government, actually income tax comes from leases and royalties. so this clearly is a benefit to the american people in that regard. when this is characterized as a

give-away what supposedly is giving away a paid-for, it doesn't pass the test. and we hear the arguments specifically from my good frind, mr. moran saying this bill is going no wherein the other body. i would remind my good friend that the two senators in his home state of virginia are democrats and they are in support of drilling in -- off the coast of virginia which this bill embodies. maybe they could whisper in the majority leader's ear and get some action and this bill could move through the senate as i suspect it will move through the house on a bipartisan basis. with that, mr. chairman, i think this bill is a very good bill. i urge its adoption and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for general debate has

expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of a amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on natural resources printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 112-29. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part c of house report 112-616. each amendment may be offered in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report and shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent and shall not be subject to

amendment and shall not be subject to demand of division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part c of house report 112-616. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i have an at the amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part c in house report 112-616 offered by mr. hastings of washington. the chair: pursuant to the rules, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. hastings: this amendment is very simple and makes two small technical corrections to the way the plan is referred to in the bill and i urge my colleagues to

support this amendment. and i will yield to the gentleman from from massachusetts. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman and the minority has no objection to the amendment by the gentleman and we urge support of it. mr. hastings: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. 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 2 printed in part c of house report 112-616. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? holt holt i have an -- mr. holt: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report c 112-616 offered by mr. holt of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to the

resolution, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. holt holt on page 5, line 22, strike section 6. this amendment strikes language from the bill that requires the interior department to conduct a single multi-scale -- multi-sale environmental impact statement. for all the new areas that would be opened under this bill. now it's not going to happen and we aren't going to see this into law. i'm sure this bill is not going anywhere. but if it were, it would be an environmental disaster. the notion that one environmental analysis would be sufficient for lease sales in the atlantic, in the pacific, in the bristol bay of alaska is simply absurd. these are very different

environments. the steps that would be taken to prepare for drilling would be different in each one. the steps that would be taken during drilling would be different in each one. the steps that would be taken to prepare against an accident would be different in each one. and the steps for a clean-up would be different in each one. in fact, it would be hard to imagine three environments that could be more different. i mean along the atlantic coast from south carolina to massachusetts, there are differences. and congress has a responsibility to the american people to ensure that offshore drilling for gas and oil is occurring in a safe and environmentally safe and responsible manner. it's been over two years since the worst environmental oil disaster in american history. the bp oil spill, and congress has yet to enact a single

legislative reform. this committee, instead of doing a bill that seems to be motivated to try to embarrass the president, i guess, based on a false premise that the president is interfering with the oil industry, they should actually be trying to put in place corrections that have been pointed out that are needed following the knowledge we've learned from the bp oil spill, the independent bp spill commission gave congress a grade of d for its legislative response. the republican majority has said they wanted to wait until the facts were in before taking action to respond to the bp gulf spill. we have heard from the independent bm -- bp independent commission. and reports reached similar

commissions, the pbp disaster was preventable, not inevitable. corners were cut, bad decisions were made and stronger safety standards could have helped and prevented the disaster. just today, the united states chemical safety board issued its first report on the bp oil spill disaster and found that bp when it looked at offshore operations, it, quote, focused on financial risks, not process safety risks, end quote. that's what we should be doing here today. we should be strengthening to public health and environmental protections, instead of saying we are going to drill everywhere and water down the environmental protections. here we are considering the 11th drilling bill over the last 18 months.

the republican majority is once again seeking to open up vast, vast swaths of america's coastlines to drilling without proper environmental review mandating a single impact analysis for the variety of lease sales included under this legislation. it is simply insufficient. it will make drilling less safe. the authors of h.r. 6082 apparently believe that the atlantic, the pacific and bristol bay are similar enough to warrant a single environmental assessment. an oil spill off the east coast would endanger 200,000 jobs and $12 billion associated with just new jersey's fishing and tourism industries. that's not counting the indirect effects as the money flows through our local economies. bristol bay forms the heart of one of the most productive

salmon fishing areas on the planet and contributing to our economy. the underlying bill opens up these areas to drilling. my amendment simply strikes the language from the bill that requires a single multi sale environmental impact statement and would go a long way toward protecting the environment. i urge adoption of the environment. you mr. hastings: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. chairman, the amendment prioritizes buyer buyer over responsibly increasing energy production and job creation. this amendment would strike the section of the bill requiring that an environmental impact statement be conducted between any leas sales areas.

the gentleman takes issue in which the environmental impact statement is required to be conducted. however, what he fails to mention is that the administration is required to do yet another environmental review prior to each lease sale and additional reviews on each lease block as part of the leasing process and each exploration plan has additional environmental work. so in effect, all of the areas in the underlying bill will be studied and then restudied for the effect that any activity will have on the environment. not only that, mr. chairman, but all of these lease sales will still be subject to the many different laws that still impact the offshore leasing process, such as the coastal zone management act, the endangered species act and the national fishing enhancement act, to name a few. the truth of the matter is this

bill doesn't harm of the environment. it goes the extra mile in requiring a multiple sale i.e.s. on all the lease areas while ensuring that leasing does occur. although that leasing is still subject to all the environmental protection laws that are on the books. support for offshore energy development does not mean that you could also respect the range of different environmental needs based on a leased area. mr. chairman, i don't think anybody in the country wants -- does not want to drill same and responsibly. i certainly don't and i know members on my side of the aisle don't. i encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment. and mr. chairman, i understand he has yielded back his time? i will yield back and urge a no vote. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes -- the noes have it. mr. hastings: the noes have it? the chair: in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. mr. hastings: i ask for a recorded vote. i'm not sure -- the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part c of house report 112-616. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek

recognition? ms. richardson: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 6. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report c, 212-616 offered by ms. richardson california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 738, the gentlelady from california, ms. richardson and a member opposed each will control five minutes. ms. richardson: my staff and i have had the opportunity earlier today to discuss this amendment with chairman hastings and ranking member markey and their staff so i will be brief. the richardson amendment amends section 8 to explicitly require the secretary of the interior to consult the california governor and the state legislature before leasing any areas off the coast of california. my amendment codifies in the

bill existing law, practice and customs. in short, the richardson amendment extends to california the same consideration that the bill's drafters afforded the state of south carolina. the state of california has more than 2/3 of the nation's coastline, a far greater percentage than south carolina has with respect to the atlantic coastline. the california's coastline is an international treasure and our state's residents should have input. offshore drilling should thoroughly consider impacts to tourism, fisheries, coastal recreation and the economy and its benefit. that is why it is reasonable and necessary that the people of california, through their chief elected officials be consulted by the secretary of interior on the subsubject of offshore drilling off the california coast. i would like to acknowledge the expertise and willingness of chairman hastings and ranking member markey for working with

me on the richardson amendment and i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. mr. hastings: will the gentlelady yield? i thank the gentlelady for yielding and congratulate her on her amendment because i think this is a responsible approach that we are taking and we are trying to take. and one of the reasons why california is so important as the gentlelady knows, that there are scientists that say there are over million barrels of oil potentially off the shore and that should be important to the people of california because not too long ago you were producing 50% and now it's down to 38%. and what we say is in this legislation, it should be done from platforms on land. i thank the gentlelady for her amendment. i think it is a responsible approach and it adds to this legislation and i urge my colleagues to support the legislation -- or the amendment. i thank the gentlelady for

yielding. . . ms. richardson: i want to say, i acknowledge and preesh the leadership of chairman hastings and ranking member markey and look forward to working with them on this and other issues and look forward to considering the rightfulness of this amendment. i yield back my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. 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 four printed in part c of house report 112-616. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. markey: mr. chairman, i have an amendment made in order the rule, markey number four. the chair: the clerk will

designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number four printed in house report 112-204, offer by mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair: purr sune the resolution, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. mr. markey: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. markey: mr. chairman, this amendment is very, versimple. it ensures that the natural gas produced under the leases issued under this legislation is sold in america. we're talking about the public lands of the united states, the taxpayer owned lands of the united states. these are the american people's lands, off of massachusetts, off of new york, off of new jersey, off of california, that are being leased under this

bill. the very least we should be able to tell the american people is that they are actually going to see a benefit from any oil or gas produced from these lands. we should be able to tell americans that we are keeping the natural gas produced on their public lands here in america to keep prices low for americans here in the united states. and we're going to find ways of putting that natural gas into trucks, into buses, into cars, so that we can stop importing oil from dangerous parts of the world. we should be able to tell americans that we're keeping the natural gas here so that we cacreate more american jobs in manufacturing, in plastics, in fertilizer new york chemicals, and in steel, and that we tell those countries in the mideast we don't need your oil any more than we need your sand because we have natural gas here in america.

that's all my amendment would do, send a strong signal to the opec nations. current law does not allow for the exportation of our crude oil and it shouldn't allow for the exportation of our natural gas either. my amendment would ensure that no waivers can be granted, no permits can be issued to export natural gas produced from the public land of the united states. to other countries -- from the public lands of the united states to other countries when we're still importing oil from opoke. how much sense does that make, that we find natural gas and start to sell it to other countries even as opec continues to tip us upside down and shake money out of our pockets at the pump. i'm going to reserve the balance of my time at this point and continue my argument in a few minutes. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman -- for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise in

mr. hastings: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized in opposition. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: i'm happy to see that the gentleman understands that america needs oil and natural gas. that was a very good statement on his part. and that we'd prefer to see more coming from america than imported. i think we're making progress. the good news is, this is already law, what the gentleman is trying to address. title 43, section 29, 1354, specifically prohibits the export of oil or gas from the outer continental shelf unless the president finds that it is one in the national interest, two, will not increase our

reliance on foreign gas, and three is in accordance with other regulations on export. the house had said repeatedly that increased energy production on federal lands is in the national interest. so i suppose the gentleman could say there's some wiggle room there. but nevertheless, this amendment has failed in committee last week, it has failed on the house floor on many occasions because of this already being in law. i urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. markey: the department of energy right now has applications from 15 companies to export 28% of our current natural gas consumption in the

united states. let me be very clear. exporting our natural gas will increase american energy prices no economist or energy analyst disagrees. why find natural gas here and start selling it around the world, to raise prices here? in fact, exporting far less than what is currently being proposed could send natural gas prices skyrocketing by 54%. we are the saudi arabia of natural gas. we are right now the lowest natural gas price in the world, in the united states. it's only $2.40, $2.50. an m.c.f. in japan and korea, in china, it's seven times higher. in europe, it's four times higher. so if you're a manufacturer, if you're a company thinking about moving your trucking or bus fleet to natural gas as opposed to oil and you're in these

other countries, it's difficult for you to do it. it's time for the united states to figure out how to do this. we have this incredible bonanza. now they're proposing to drill off the coastline of massachusetts, of new york, of southern california, to find more natural gas, and what are they saying? let's export it. you're going to export the cheapest natural gas in the world. do you know what t. boone pickens says about this? if we do it, if we export natural gas, we are going to go down as america's dumbest generation. it's bad public policy to export natural gas. this is t. boone pickens. this is ed markey. this is a coalition that spans the entire spectrum of political thought. but we do agree on this one thing. why would we take our most precious natural resource and sell it to other countries when it gives us a massive

competitive advantage? so i'm going to reserve the balance of my time to conclude debate but -- this is a nonsense call policy. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. hastings: i have no more requests for time and i understand i have a right to -- i have the right to close to i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: how much time is remaining on either side. the chair: 15 seconds. mr. markey: 15 seconds. we drill for natural gas off our beaches, our pristine beach with efind it, we take the risk, those states take their risk, that natural gas should stay here in america. exxonmobil shouldn't be able to pack it up and sell toyota china or to south america that natural gas should stay here in america if it's found off our beaches. that's what the markey amendment calls for. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. hastings: this law has been on the books since 1940. now in 1940's, the -- now in 1940, there was a whole lot of unrest in the world prior to the second world war and the wisdom of the congress at that time they said that energy production from the outer continental shelf, which i might add, was probably not as robust as it is today, there are only certain conditions that you export what comes off. as i listed those things before, i think they're important. that law was a good law then. it's a good law now. this amendment adds absolutely nothing to that whatsoever. so mr. chairman, i would urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. markey: i request the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number five printed in part c of house report 112-616. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. markey: i have an amendment at the desk that has been made in order and designated markey number five. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number five printed in part c of house report 112-616, offered by mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 738, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman is recognize. mr. markey: thank you very much. the independent blue ribbon b.p. spill commission, this is their comprehensive compendium of what went wrong and what needs to be done in order to correct what went wrong in the

gulf of mexico, the worst environmental disaster in the history of our country, it concluded that there were systemic problems that occurred in the entire industry. the commission recommended sweep regular forms to improve the safety of offshore drilling. yet this congress has still not enacted a single legislative reform. as a result, the b.p. spill commission recently gave congress a d, this republican congress, on its legislative response and only refrained from handing out an f because it said it didn't want to insult the institution. my amendment would simply ensure that we put into the statute specific minimal safety requirements for blowout preventers, cementing, and the casing of offshore wells. my amendment would ensure that if we are going to expand drilling off of states like

massachusetts and new york and new jersey and maryland and california, that we put additional safety requirements on the books to ensure that a romney administration or any other future administration cannot simply roll back the interior department reforms. we don't want a louisiana mess off of the coast of massachusetts. off of the coast of southern california. we want the safety reforms that the b.p. spill commission recommended be put in place so there is no recurrence. the republicans are saying they want to drill off the coast. -- off the coast of these states that don't want the drill, the least they should do is build in the safety reforms and just today, the chemical safety board released its report on the disaster. the chemical safety board reach maryland of the same conclusions as the b.p. spill

commission. the government's joint investigative team and the national academy of engineering said that this disaster was not inevitable, that it was preventable. this majority has said they wanted to wait until all the facts were in before taking action on safety legislation, well the time has now come. we now have two blue ribbon reports, each reaching the same conclusions. it is long pastime for the congress to take the lessons of the b.p. spill and turn them into laws so that we never have a disaster like this again. i'm afraid of what the majority is contemplating here which is authorizing the drilling off the coasts of the east and the west in our country without building in the safety reforms. if ever there was a recipe for disaster, ruining the fishing, ruining the tourism business for these states that don't want the drilling in the first

place because their economies are not based upon the same premise as the louisiana and texas economy, then this is that recipe. this is what we're voting on here today. i reserve the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized mr. hastings: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, let's be very frank. this amendment won't increase safety but will add red tape and open new avenues for lawsuits to interfere with the process of creating american energy and creating american jobs. the types of safety measures identified in the amendment are already in place and they are already enforceable. on multiple occasion occasions,

the obama administration has said operations are being conducted safely. with this amendment, the minority tries to divert attention away from the real issue of increasing energy production, american energy production, creating jobs, american jobs, lowering energy costs and improving our national security, all doing that because potentially we lessen our dependence on foreign oil. it seems that my friends on the other side of the aisle simply do not want to face the fact that this bill says we can move forward with a robust and responsible program of oil and gas development while at the same time ensuring that increased safety measures are undertaken. these are not nor should they be mutually exclusive goals. right now, we have two choices before us. tomorrow, when we vote on this and the suspension that will be

before us, we can choose to endorse the president's energy plan to hold 15 sales in five areas in the o.c.s. or we can support this bill which will have nearly double 29 sales in over double areas, 11 areas. both options will ensure that the drilling is done safely. both options will ensure that our environment is protected. but only one option follows through on the promise made by the american people when the moratorium was lifted. the american people clearly want our nation to harness our energy resources but the president's energy plan takes 85% of the outer continental shelf and makes it off limits. this amendment, i should add, has failed when it was offered on this floor last february and also failed when it was offered in the committee last week. i urge my colleagues to vote no

on the amendment. and i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: could i ask you tell us the exact times that are still remaining? the chair: 1 1/2 minutes for the gentleman from massachusetts. and 2 1/2 minutes for the gentleman from washington. mr. markey: does the gentleman have any other speakers? mr. hastings: if the gentleman is prepared to yield back, i will do the same. i'm the last speaker on my side and you do what you have to do and i will respond accordingly. mr. markey: i yield myself the remaining time. again, just for the record, republicans can say this as much as they want, and i have to repeat, when president obama was sworn in, 57% of our oil was imported. today only 45% of our oil is

imported. congratulations president obama no matter how many times the republicans want to cover that over. 72% of all the oil and gas reserves offshore have been made available by the obama administration for drilling. three, we in the united states are at an 18-year high in drilling. now the republicans have a problem with this, because the 18-year high in drilling, the reduction from 57% imports down to 45% imports and 75% of all areas off the shores of our country are open for drilling, it runs totally contrary to everything that they believe, everything that they want america to believe is better, because if the american people actually believe the truth,

which is that obama has reduced our imported oil from 57% down to 45%, reduced our dependence on imported oil and increased our drilling to the highest point in 18 years, then their argument goes right down the drain. they have to keep getting up as if bush was the right guy and he did nothing. if you were so desperate to license all of this drilling off of the beaches, and enact the safety precautions that prevent another mess like the bp horizon catastrophe in the gulf of mexico. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: let's say it again, the gentleman's remarks would imply that because there is increased oil production in this country is because of the

actions of this administration. nothing, mr. chairman, could be further from the truth, because it takes a while to go through the process of leasing and developing potential resources before you drill and even then you don't know until you drill. all of that process started prior to this administration taking office. it happened in the bush administration. as a matter of fact, it happened in the clinton administration. that's where we increase production and in large part came from, but that wasn't entirely true because the american production of oil is coming from state and private land, not from federal land. federal land production the last two years is down under this administration. but it's because of principally north dakota and west texas we are founding more production. i think that is good, but should we ignore the potential

resources we have on federal lands and not allow that tore produce our american energy? this amendment really does not help that process. all it does is add red tape to the process. so i urge a no vote on the amendment than i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. mr. markey: may i request the yeas and nays? the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in part c of house report 112-616. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek

recognition? mr. holt: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report c, 112-616 offered by mr. holt of new jersey. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey for five minutes. mr. holt: if the majority of republicans continue to push their oil-above-all agenda, we democrats will persist to make offshore drilling safe, safe for the workers and the environment and to make sure that the american taxpayers are getting their fair share of return on the use of their natural resources. the big five oil companies made a record profit of $137 billion last year. in the first quarter of this year, they continued to capitalize on the pain of

americans that they feel at the pump, raking in $368 million in profits per day. did the americans see increased profits from selling their oil as it was pumped from public lands offshore? no. as a result of a legal quirk in the 1995 law, oil companies are not paying any royalties to the american people on leases from 1996. none, zero. and the amount of free oil these companies have been pumping has gone through the roof. as more of these faulty leases have gone into production. right now, more than 25% of all oil produced offshore on federal lands is produced royalty-free and these oil companies are getting a complete windfall on 25% of all the oil produced offshore. they don't pay the american

people one penny for their drilling, regardless of their huge profits. it is unjust. according to the interior department, american taxpayers stand to lose about $9.5 billion over the next 10 years. yes, it's a give-away and the general accountability office present difficulties this free drilling will cost us $53 billion over the life of the leases. my amendment would recover these revenues that rightly belong to the american people and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek time in opposition? mr. hastings: i yield myself such as time as i may consume. this is yet another attempt to legislate a decision that was made during the clinton administration. the constant attempt to renegotiate contracts that were signed, sealed and delivered

under the clinton administration is in violation of contract law. that should be very, very basic, it would seem to me, if, indeed, we are a nation of laws. the u.s. supreme court found that the interior department did not have the authority to go back and insert price thresholds on these leases. the department has lost this issue in district court. they lost it in the appellate court and lost it in the supreme court. if this amendment were to pass, the issue would most certainly be challenged in court and undoubtedly the department would again lose after having used taxpayer dollars to defend. this amendment seeks to force u.s. companies to break a contract. some would say it is a bad contract, maybe it was. i'm not going to second-guess what the clinton administration

did but they signed that contract. this amendment has repeatedly failed on the house floor and i hope it fails again and i urge its opposition and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt. mr. holt: my amendment would offer oil companies a choice, they could choose to either continue to produce royalty-free oil in the gulf and not get new leases or pay their fair share and proceed with this drilling that would be allowed under this law under this legislation. my amendment does not break contracts. it simply would not force companies to give up their leases and would impose a condition on future leases and as a congressional research service has stated, as a general matter, the united states has broad discretion in setting the qualifications of those with home it contracts, unquote. these oil companies are the most profitable companies in the

history of the world and yet they receive more than $4 billion a year in taxpayer subsidies. and on top of that, they get to drill for free on all these public lands because of a quirk in the 1995 law that came about because that republican congress wasn't eager to make oil companies pay, we shouldn't continue to give them a free ride. if you are serious about paying down the deficit, then there is no excuse for not supporting this amendment to recover about $1 billion a year -- actually somewhat more than that probably, that is rightfully owed to the american people. time to end this taxpayer ripoff once and for all. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: if the intent of this amendment as the gentleman

says is just to say that companies aren't forced to but could renegotiate their contracts, i would say, well they can do that right now. anybody who has entered into a contract is free, if both parties want to, renegotiate a contract. nothing prevents them from doing so. but to have the heavy hand, have the heavy hand of government say, in the future, if you don't do this, i think is a step too darn far. and i think that is really the wrong way to go. that is the last thing we need is to say a condition of government or a condition of leasing is that you have to retroactively go back and change a contract? that is a chilling effect, mr. chairman. and again, i don't know why the clinton administration signed these contracts. maybe it was a quirk. who knows. but to add this, where do you

stop then? where do you stop all the federal contracts that could be not only in energy production, but anything else? this is a very, very bad amendment. it's a very, very bad precedent and i urge my colleagues to reject it. and i yield back the balance of my time. jabt. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. mr. holt: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in part c of house report 112-616. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition?

>> i have an amendment at the -- mr. hastings: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in part c of house report 112-616 offered by mr. hastings of florida. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida for five minutes. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, republicans justify these irresponsible bills by claiming that more drilling will help reduce the cost of gasoline and fuel for the average american. yet opening up even more of our country's shores to drilling will do little to help americans at the gas pump. in reality, the united states is already producing more oil per day than it ever has. there are more drilling rigs in the united states than the rest of the world combined. the drilling plan issued by

president obama that this bill amends already makes three quarters of our offshore oil and gas resources open to drilling. and yet, 70% of the offshore areas that are leased are currently not even active. that's 55 million acres under lease, not active. the price of oil and gas is set on a global level. primarily by the organization of petroleum exporting countries, or opec. at maximum output, the united states holds only 2% of the world's oil reserves. not nearly enough to significantly impact the price per barrel, which is set on a global scale. according to the energy information agency, even tripling our current offshore

drilling capabilities by the year 2030 would lower gasoline prices only five cents per gallon more than if we continue at our current levels. gas prices are set on the world market, on the basis of many geopolitical factors. for example, when the world thought israel might attack iran or -- iran in february, gas prices went up, 10%, in two months, to reach a nine-month high over fear that fuel supply lines would be disrupted. though production in our country has actually increased every year since 2005, crude oil hit a record $147 per barrel over the same time period, demonstrating that is a little correlation between drilling levels in the united

states and the price of oil. what drives the price of oil more than any other factor is the large, nonstop, worldwide demand for oil. the only way we can reduce gasoline prices is to reduce our cupry's disproportionate demand for fossil fuels by increasing our energy efficiency, improving the fuel mileage of our cars, and develop regular newble energy resources. federal -- renewable -- and developing renewable energy resources. we should focus on these demands, not increasing the land available for drilling, and i make it very clear over and over again that i'll be the last person standing off of the shores of florida if we continue down the path of wanting to drill in that area. mr. chairman, with all this in mind, my amendment requires

applicants for drilling of oil or gas exploration to explain in detail to what extent will oil found on the property reduce the price of oil. drilling will put our environment and health at an increased risk and since we know there's no correlation between gas prices and u.s. drilling, this bill is nothing more and i know my good friend from washington will say it's not a giveaway he perceives it as not a giveaway, i do. i think it's nothing more than a giveaway to the oil and gas companies and my goodness gracious, have we not given them enough? chip for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. hastings: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized in opposition.

mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. in deference to my good friend from florida, i believe this is a political amendment that would require companies seeking to drill offshore to estimate the impact that the oil and gas -- the increased oil and gas production would have on gasoline prices. mr. chairman, let me repeat again. this bill is about increasing american domestic energy production. it's about reducing our dependence on foreign oil. it's about creating american jobs and creating american energy. simply put, requiring producers to estimate the impact that each and every well has on global markets is nothing more than bureaucratic paperwork nightmare that would be put on those that would want to go and drill offshore and delaying tactic by those that are

opposed to offshore development. i don't think this is a good amendment and as i said in deference to my good friend from florida, i really believe that this is a political amendment and i urge rejection of the amendment and i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. the chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the house and any manifestation of approval of disapproval of proceedings or other audible conversation is in violation of the house rules. mr. hastings: do i have any time remaining? the chair: the gentleman has 30 seconds. mr. hastings: i am going to use my 30 seconds, i hope to be able to yield to my good friend for a question and perhaps i can get it in, do you dispute, representative hastings, that we now have 55 million acres under lease, 70% of it is not being utilized and in the final analysis, if all of what we wanted to drill, that it will

amount to more than 2% of the world's output? mr. hastings: if the gentleman will yield and if i run out of time, i'll claim the time. first, i do not deny that, except the figure that you're using aren't -- the figures that you're using aren't quite accurate. i'll say that in the sense that the 2% you're talking about is known reserves. the chair: the gentleman's time has reserved, the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance mauve time. the figure you're using is known reserves. the potential resources we have are much, much greater than that. when you look at the potential future energy production in this country, you look at the potential resources, not the known reserves. there's a big, big difference. 2% is reserves.

i acknowledge while we have 2% right now, our potential resources are much, much larger. i yield to the gentleman. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman. in the gulf of mexico, we're told the largest volume of undiscovered, technically recovered -- recoverable resources, 20 million acres are under lease and only 10 million acres are under a plan and only 2% -- 6% are producing. so millions of -- so it's estimated to contain 17.9 billion barrels of oil and 49.7 trillion cubic feet and so i make the argument again, to my dear friend, that if we're talking about doing everything that you called for and i know it's most sincerely if we do that, we're not talking about

reducing the price of gas but by a nickel. mr. hastings: reclaiming my time -- mr. hastings: show me the plan for energy independence. mr. hastings: what the gentleman is talking about with lease sales, somebody made an invest thafmente don't know if the area has oil or natural gas. they don't know. they'll go through the study, spend millions, perhaps billions of dollars, finding out if something is there. if they think there is, they'll drill, costing that much more. these lease sales are time -- there's a set time. the federal government gets money from these lease sales. why would somebody give money to the federal government if they didn't think there was something there? and by the way, many times these leases come up empty and the company walks away and the only revenue goes to the federal government. but let me speak to the amendment, one other area, because what the gentleman is really saying with this

amendment, he is asking somebody that produces a crude product to estimate the price of a finished product. that's like telling an apple grower in my part of the country that if he or she should sell apples overseas, what's the price of applesauce going to be down the line? it doesn't make any sense to do that. whether the gentleman purposely did that or not, i don't know. but in any case, i don't believe this amendment ought to be adopted for other reasons, but certainly for that one. with that, mr. chairman, i urge a no vote on the amendment and i yield back the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the credit from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, fourth proceedings

on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment aurm 8 printed in part c -- amendment number 8 printed in part c of house report 112-616. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. hastings: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number eight printed in part c of house report 112-616, offered by mr. hastings of florida. the chair: pursuant to houseres. -- house resolution 67 -- 618, the gentleman from florida and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i want to say to my good friend from washington, i appreciate him yielding some of his time to me and i'm glad he didn't

pair apples to oranges, i thought that's what he was going to do when he went down the applesauce route my republican colleagues continue, in my opinion, to cling to an antiquated 19th century energy policy while the rest of the world has moved into the 21st century. just because the majority of the members of congress refuse to acknowledge that human activity contributes to climate change does not make it true. climate change is not an abstract or difficult scientific principle to grasp. the effects are all around us. our country is currently experiencing its worst drought since the dust bowl in the year of my birth, 1936. just last week, sudden violent storms rocked the east coast, referred to as microbursts,

knocking out power for thousands and killing a number of people. furthermore, record heat waves are having serious repercussions in crop yields. we must pursue responsible, sustainable energy policies, both for the legacy that we will leave our children, and also to make certain the united states is at the forefront of the emerging green economy. . my amendment will not let oil companies shield themselves any longer. it requires each permit application and analysis and estimate of the impact on global climate change of the consumption of the fossil fuels discovered. while the oil and gas found on each individual lease may not have a huge impact, there is no question that the aggregate fossil fuel consumption contributes to global climate

change. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment in order that the house republicans and big oil companies acknowledge that the international community is preparing for. when i wasn't of the organization for the security and cooperation in europe's parliamentary assembly and its headquarters are in denmark and i went to denmark during the two-year period of time close to 30 times over the course of the years that i have been here. and when i fly into denmark, just coming on the side of sweden, i see the windmills that have been tilting for 16 years and denmark is the beneficiary of much of that production. they are headed for the future. we are living in the past. i reserve the balance of my

time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: 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: we just had this debate and again in deference to my good friend from florida this is another political amendment because it would require companies seeking to drill offshore to estimate the potential impact produced by oil and natural gas production, what impact that would have on climate change. not only that, you would have to do it on a well-by-well basis. mr. chairman, in all honesty, some sort of requirement like that would simply dry up anybody wanting to drill offshore or utilize our resources offshore.

if that's what the gentleman wants, then ok, that's a good concession, but if not, it simply does not make any sense. but from a practical standpoint and i think this is very important, mr. chairman, if the issue -- and there is some debate about this, no question, but if the issue of producing oil and natural gas will affect the climate and we as a country probably have the most stringent laws, environmental laws on our air quality and water quality, why would we put this extra burden on us when it doesn't -- wouldn't happen in other parts of the world but this net effect, if it were to become law is to drive everybody from america. if the issue, if the issue is really to protect the environment and protect the air,

why would you drive it to areas that have less string ept environmental laws. that would be the practical effect if this amendment becomes law. we have been over this before and puts extraordinary burdens on individual wells and individual producers and as i mentioned in deference to my friend, it is a political amendment. i urge rejection and reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. he has 1:45 left. mr. hastings: in the words of the celebrated movie that these words came from, i'm shocked -- just shocked that this is a political amendment. and i'm equally shocked that this bill is political. this is the 144th time that we are talking about oil drilling and somewhere along the line, i'm lost. i thought politics is what we

do. that's what i do. that's what people sent me here to do and that's what you do, politics. the difference is is where we separate ourselves is whether we are talking about the politics of the future where there are opportunities for us to do the things to bring us to energy independence or whether or not we're going to cling to fossil fuels until we just can't find any place else to drill. my major opposition to main drilling offshore has been shown when the deepwater horizon occurred. there have been other accidents. you want to drill in the tundra and there have been accidents in their area and daily in for the lauderdale, i see ships sitting off the shore and i find things

that come from them wind up on those beaches. we make $60 billion a year on those resources. i heard you earlier, my colleague argue about north dakota. i don't want to be in north dakota in the wintertime. i know a lot of north dakota people when they finish with the drilling are going to come to our beaches and that's what about i'm about trying to reserve. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of the time. i am shocked but i'm glad we got that out of the way. mr. chairman, this bill is a bill that addresses american energy and american jobs and therefore has a positive effect, potential positive effect on our economy. this amendment adds nothing to that.

as a matter of fact, it's an impediment to this bill becoming law if it were to become adopted. and if i could say something about oranges, but i'm totally at lost. i urge this amendment's rejection and i yield back. the chair: the gentlemen question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those opposed, no. . those in favor say aye. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. mr. hastings: mr. chairman i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: i move that the committee do now rise.

the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee on the whole house of the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 6082, 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 reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 6082 and has come to no resolution thereon. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches.

the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for ms. jackson lee of texas between 1:00 and 5:00 p.m. today and mr. reyes of texas for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy

of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, we have had an extensive debate today on the floor centered around american energy and american jobs. and it is interesting in how this discussion has unfolded over time. many times we on this side of the aisle are accused of repeating over and over and over different issues. and i suppose to a certain extent, that is true. but one of the reasons why this effort is done on a regular basis is because the genius of our founding fathers was such that they created a government where there was division of powers. and we all know that, the three

branches of government. but the genius of our founding fathers was even greater than that in the fact that they gave the legislative branch and they divided that power. they divided that power between the house and the senate. and what that simply means, mr. speaker, before any legislation can pass, any law that's put on anybody in this country, has to pass both houses of the congress. now i recognize -- i'm a member of the people's house. no member of this house in the history of our country that was not elected to this house. on the other hand, the senate is a different body, as we well know. the senate is made up of two members of each of the states regardless of population. and so, because we come from different constituencies, you

are bound to have different ideas as you approach legislation. but again, the genius of our founding fathers was to say ok, before anything can become law, both houses have to act on that legislation and has to pass both the house and the senate without a difference. and there lies the challenge. we have been accused here many times of passing the same type of legislation at least on the same issue and passing it over to the other body. we have found unfortunately in this congress is that the other body has simply not acted on a lot of pieces of legislation. yow, i'm not saying they should pick, although it would be nice if they took everything that we passed and said it's a wonderful idea and send it to the

president. well, they don't do that, but one of the functions that they could do, they could do and haven't done is pass legislation, albeit different than what we have and then we have a mechanism to work out the difference. but in many respects, mr. speaker, not even that has happened. in other words, they haven't passed legislation where they may have a disagreement with us that we can work out the differences. so that leads to a lot of frustration on our side of the rontonda, but we feel it is important to continue to make the case in what we believe in. and i might mention also that the house is controlled -- majority by the republicans and of course the democrats control the senate and there's a difference. that's why we continue to send legislation over to the senate. and we hold out hope that

they'll take up legislation, maybe on the same issue and go to conference and work out whatever differences. that's why we continue to bring this legislation to the floor. i look foffered to a time when -- i look forward to a time when the senate will, in fact, act. let me talk about this piece of legislation that we had on the floor today and why it was brought to the floor and how the process is going to unfold tomorrow. as i mentioned in my opening remarks on debate, the president, any president, by the way, i required to submit a five-year energy plan on the outer continental shelf or o. crmple s. and submit it for a 60-day review for congress. that clock started ticking in june last. so we thought it was important because i, for one, and a number of my colleagues on the house

natural resources committee and throughout this congress felt that the president's plan was inadequate and ought to be an alternative to that plan. thus, we had a markup several weeks ago on the plan that we had before us today. we are debating it tonight now. we have gone through the debate and had the amendment process and we will -- we will vote on this bill tomorrow. but, what is missing -- what is missing in all of this equation was simply that there's no effort to defend the president's plan. as a matter of fact, in the debate that i had heard from the other side rarely did i hear anybody say that the president's energy plan was a good plan. so tomorrow, there will be on suspension legislation that i reluctantly offered that was the

president's energy plan. and we'll have a vote. so tomorrow, the house will have an opportunity to say yes to this job-creating bill that we had on the floor today or the president's plan. . . that will be a -- an opportunity for the member this house to be to the vote on. i hope they'll vote for the job creating plan we debated today and reject president obama's plan. with that, mr. speaker, i will yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced

policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. cassidy is recognized for 55 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. cassidy: thank you, mr. chairman. an issue tonight that's much more porn to the american people than many realize is medicaid. for folks who don't understand this, and that's -- and you really have no need to until this health care debate began, but if you will, there's three types of coverage for folks who have insurance. one is medicare, and medicare is the program for folk whors typically 65 and above, it is the program that all of us pay into having a certain amount deducted from our paycheck into an account. the second is private insurance. 90% of americans have their private insurance policy through their employer. the last group is medicaid. medicaid is a program designed

to support those of lower income as well as those who are elserly and again of lower income and long-term care in nursing homes and it supports the blind and disable the financing of medicaid comes from your tax dollars but it can be your tax dollars either funneled through the federal government paying a portion to the state, which is matched by the state match, which is from the state itself. so medicaid is a program for lower income which receives about, on average, 57% of the money that goes toward it from the federal government and 43% on average from the state government and the state administers the program to take care of, again, low income for acute medical services, long-term care, think nursing homes for the elderly and the blind and disabled. tonight's discussion will be about medicaid. the importance of medicaid is that 16% of the mcdollar in the united states goes toward medicaid. so almost -- of the health care

dollar in the united states goes toward medicaid. so it's this combined federal-state freshman that provides health insurance for the poor. additionally, medicaid is important because right now, medicaid is consuming an ever larger portion of both the federal government's budget as well as the state governments' budget. one example of this, the simpson bowles bipartisan debt commission which president obama appointed to help give guidance as to how our country could get out of our indebtedness pinpointed medicaid as one of the drivers of our national debt system of first we know on a national level, medicaid has been pinpointed as a driver of our national debt. on a state level, medicaid is consuming an ever larger portion of state budgets. now there's many examples of

the importance of this, but as medicaid is costing more and more, state dollars for other programs are less and less. senator lamar alexander, senator lamar alexander from tennessee, said that the reason tuition is increasing at universitys in tennessee is because there -- at universities in tennessee is because there's less public support. more tax dollars are going to medicaid, so therefore to make up the budget for the universities in tennessee, they have to increase tuition. one example of this is, for k through 12, for the first time beginning around 2009, states spent more of their income upon medicaid than on education. and so this is a -- a chart from the national association of state budget officers, and

it shows how total state spending on medicaid now surpasses k through 12 education, that's kindergarten through 12th grade. that's primary and secondary education. this blue line you see funding for education. and you can see the percent of total state expenditures devoted to, in this case, education. and so in 2008, it peaked at around 22%. now in 2011, it has decreased down to roughly -- it started off as roughly 22% here and now it is down to roughly 20%. here you can see that in 2008, medicaid expenditures were about 20.7% of the state budget and it is rapidly rising. it is now up to almost 24%. we're now spending more money

providing medicaid services for those who are eligible than we are educating our children. now, it isn't as if this is something that is temporary, related to the recession. this is actually expected to continue to worsen. so medicaid, again, the program that both the federal and state government, which means both taxpayers paying to the state and taxpayers paying to the federal government, finance, is growing so rapidly that it is cannibalizing the rest of the state budget. an example of this is that expenditures for primary and secondary education now for the first time in history are lower than those expenditures for medicaid and this is expected to worsen. so if you will, we have this program, which is important, it's a safety net program, but under its current construction, it's costing more and more. now, i'm joined by a couple of

my colleagues and i will first go to doctor nan hayworth, an ophthalmologist, she held up a note earlier, but she didn't realize my eyes are not good enough to read the note, but an ap that will ophthalmologist from new york, but -- an but an ophthalmologist from new york, who will talk about this. ms. hayworth: i understand your name may be slightly limited, so dr. harris and i will be more than happy to lead this discussion as we go along and i thank you for all the work you do on this very important subject. the american public has much to be concerned about with regard to the massive 2010 health law. and this was, of course, passed

on a party line basis, unfortunately. i and dr. harris are two of the representatives who were elected in part in response to the public's grave concerns about this act. and if i can direct everyone's attention to the chart that dr. cassidy has revealed next to him, you can see what is projected to happen in terms of medicaid spending alone as the years go by and of course under the terms of the affordable care act, it's like putting gasoline on a fire. unfortunately. mr. cassidy: if the gentlelady will yield, federal and state medicaid spending in billions of 2010 dollars, currently, by 2009, it's down here, the years, so 1993, 2009, going out to 2081, and so here is about

$400 billion, this is combined federal and state spending, by 2017, this rises to $750 billion, by 2025, obviously, within our lifetime, it will rise to close to $1 trillion and projections are by 2081, it will be over $4.5 trillion. ms. hayworth: i'm going to imagine that this chart does not take into account, because it could be, indeed, very difficult, to do so, but it has to enter the public mind when we think about these things, the enormous cost on the american public of the well-intentioned but poorly designed 2010 health law. it will make our economy weaker. so it's fair to anticipate that there will be a further impetus

to acceleration of medicaid spending really because of the imposition of that $2 trillion or more of washington-generated cost due to the terms of the affordable care act. so this is an issue that concerns every one of us, not only people who are truly in need and unable to sustain their job or their health care. we've all met pose fellow citizens, and i have in my own district, the hudson valley of new york, these are people like the folks i met at park, a center that provides for people that are severely disabled by developmental disabilities such as autism, but not only autism.

and these are -- these are good people who, no matter how robust the economy is, will not be able to afford the kind of care that they need. and those are the people in particular who medicaid was initially intended to help. mr. cassidy: if the gentlelady would yield. medicaid is an important safety net program. ms. hayworth: right. mr. cassidy: for those folks without means. it is traditionally designed to take care of the blind and disabled, the elderly in long-term care an oftentimes focused upon pregnant women and upon children, so the importance of making sure the program is sound is that we continue to care for these people. i yield back. ms. hayworth: not at all. thank you. precisely. we need to be able to provide for the people who are most in

need. that is a reasonable role for government in a great nation. but what we don't want to do, what we want to avoid, is creating economic hardship that will push more americans into this category and we see that phenomenon happening across our economy as we speak. and it's one of the reasons why so many states have said we cannot possibly afford to expand our medicaid programs because -- and indeed, dr. cassidy you being the good teacher that you are, provided me with an example from the state of connecticut, with their recent experience in opening up their medicaid program and opening up the enrollment. they had such a dramatic increase, i think it was something like 70% increase in the number of enrollees, that the state actually couldn't handle that increase in any

way, so their services to all of their medicaid recipients, unfortunately, of necessity, were compromised. mr. cassidy: if the gentlelady will yield, i'd like to bring in dr. harris, an anesthesiologist from maryland, you mentioned how medicaid, as it attempts to expand and be all things to all people, becomes stressed, and in that stress becomes less capable of being anything to anybody. ms. hayworth: exactly. mr. cassidy: so a program that becomes too stretched, too unfocused, it becomes ineffective at its original mission. dr. harris, i can leave this one or put up the other. mr. harris: if the gentleman would leave that one up, a picture says a thousand words that picture is the growth of

medicaid for the next generation. my son is 12 now. when he reaches age 65, he'll be at the right hand side of that graph. though none of us like to think of it, we all remember when we were 12, we never thought we'd retire. but here we are. near regular tirmente age. it's not that far -- near retirement age. if i read that graph correctly, our current entire budget in 2010 dollars is $3.5 trillion. our entire budget, paying for everything. that graph indicates by the time my child reaches retirement age, every penny of that budget will be taken up by medicaid. every penny. not a single penny for medicare, not a single penmy -- penny left every for social security, not a single penny left over for interest on a debt that's now $16 trillion and growing. not a single penny left for defense, not a single penny left for pell grants, not a

single penny left for anything. mr. cassidy: if he gentleman will yield, i think the point being made is not only will the safety net become tattered in and of itself, but rather, even though tattered, it will destroy these other governmental if you thinks, ourable to finance these other governmental functions, i yield back. mr. harris: the gentleman is correct. every single program we have, whether it's to help the elderly with health care, the elderly with social security, whether it's food stamps, whether it's unemployment insurance, whether it's to do the things this government has to do, like pay the interest on an ever-growing debt, whether it's pell grants, whether it's k through 12 education which your last slide showed, every single program that we have is threatened by this one single program, a program that the president's affordable care act ballooned out of control. mr. cassidy: if you could elaborate, we know that under

the president's health care proposal, that medicaid, a program which right now is driving federal indebtedness and which is threatening to bankrupt states, was greatly expanded despite that, was greatly expanded under the president's health care proposal, to include people up to 133% of the federal poverty level. so i yield back to the gentleman if he'll just comment, this is what he's referring to regarding the expansion and if so any further thoughts he has. mr. harris: the gentleman's right. what we have done is we've once again made promises to people we know we can't keep. we know because that graph -- i'll yield to the gentleman to ask the question, that's from the federal budget office, that's a nonpartisan group that looks at the affect of federal -- effect of first of all laws and policy -- of federal laws and policies. so what we have here is we have a third party looking at what's

going on and saying, the emperor has no clothes. but in fact if we continue the current policy with medicaid, which, as the gentleman well knows, roughly doubles the number of people eligible for the safety net program under the affordable care act, we will not only bankrupt the medicaid program, future generations will no longer have the ability to be confident that social security will be there when they retire. medicare will be there when they retire. the rating agencies, whether it's moodies, s&p 500 s&p 500, althe various -- standard & poor's, all the various rating agencies will say, you don't have the ability to pay the interest back on your debt. we know what happened. we know the cornhusker kickback. we know what went on. the buying and selling of votes at the expense of future generations and the ability of the federal government to keep their promises to future generations, the promisesed of

medicare, medicaid, pell grants, k through 12 education. the gentleman showed a slide that showed a 3% increase in the cost -- an average of 3% in the state's budget, the cost of medicaid over the past only three years before the president's health care bill kicks in. as the president may not, in maryland that's a -- 3% doesn't sound like much, but in maryland that's a $1 billion increase. that's an increase we can't afford. that's an increase that means that property or income taxes would have to go up, further strangling our economy, and if the gentleman full recognizes, this is why the president's policy, with regard to medicare and the affordable care act, is poorly thought out, is going to bankrupt the nation and really ought to be repealed and rethought. mr. cassidy: if the gentleman will yield, i'll go to dr. desjarlais. he has a french last name and you'd think he's from louisiana, he's actually from tennessee.

now, doctor, obviously, obviously to you and me but perhaps not to those who are listening, tennessee experimented with using medicaid as a safety net program back in the 1990's and if you will extended it to many others, can you comment as to the results that have? mr. desjarlais: i thank the gentleman for yielding. and you're absolutely right. i moved to start my practice in tennessee in the fall of 1993 and our program tenncare was implemented somewhat as an experiment in january of 1994. so i witnessed it from its inception through what i would call its continuous failure. the program continued to grow and expand, continued as i think you referenced early, has drained our state's educational resources and it got so bad that in 2007 the governor actually

had to reabout 270,000 people from the -- to remove 270,000 people from the program just to keep the state from going bankrupt. so clearly it was an example of how the program and the system does not work and did not work and that's maybe a glimpse of what we can expect to see moving forward with the president's health care law. so, it failed to accomplish its objectives and just as we would have suspected, the cost grew exponentially. and so we have a great example in tennessee of how the system does not work. so clearly we need alternative reforms and be happy to yield to the gentleman from georgia, dr. broun. mr. broun: thank you, dr. desjarlais. i appreciate you yielding. in fact, medicaid is going to destroy the federal budget and create a total economic collapse of america if we don't change it

from the present system. that's before obamacare even takes place. and markly expands the states having to cover many more people as my good friend from maryland was -- dr. harris was just explaining. but there are alternatives. hopefully we can repeal obamacare and replace it with something what makes sense. but there is a solution today. in fact, the republican study committee, several of us in the republican study committee, jim jordan, our chairman, tom rokita, i introduced the state health flexibility act. which would freeze medicaid spending at the current level. and will block grant those funds to the states with no strings attacked -- attached. not only for medicaid but also for the state child health insurance program. and what the states would do is utilize those funds in any manner that they want to. if they want to do drug testing on medicaid or schip recipients,

they can. they can organize the program any way they want to. which is going to be the solution, because it freezes spending at current levels. >> if the gentleman will yield. i just outside of pride of authorship, there's another alternative, a republican medicaid proposal, one that i and others are sponsoring. mr. cassidy: and it does, if you will, similar to the block grant, but it readjusts as your population changes. i'm from louisiana, when hurricane katrina hit, we had lots of folks who moved to atlanta and moved to houston. if you will, the dollar would follow the patient. it wouldn't just stay in louisiana. i love my state and it would be nice to have the extra money, but it's more important that where the patient is have the money. it's a various of the theme but also part of it is the state has flexibility, freeing them from the money-consuming regulations that the federal government puts on how those moneys are applied.

i yield back. mr. broun: absolutely. the state health flexibility act does that same thing and the only growth is due to the population growth in any state. so it does account for that change in the population of any given state. but we have solutions. we have economically viable solutions that republicans are submitting and hopefully we can get passed into law. of course we've got to have a senate that will even take up those kind of bills because the house has passed bill after bill after bill to create a stronger economy, to create jobs here in america, to lower the cost of gasoline, to develop all our energy resources. we've got these bills that will solve the problems for medicaid, even my patient option act is across the board health care reform and repeals obamacare and

replaces it with policy that makes health care cheaper for everyone. provides coverage for all americans. and will save medicare from going broke. you add that with the state health flexibility act, it covers everybody. we have solutions. but harry reid is an obstructionist. he's acting as a puppet for this president and they throw in the trash can every bill we send over there. we've got to create jobs, we've got to create a stronger economy, we have solutions to the health care problem, all of us as physicians, all of us as physicians out here that are talking tonight, we've just been joined by one nonphysician, but she's been a strong supporter of the doctor's caucus and we've seen her here many times, mrs. lummis from wyoming, but we have solutions. the american people need to understand republicans have solutions. and we need to have the ability to pass those solutions into law so that we can have policy that's not going to break the

bank. mr. cassidy: one thing i'm struck, if the gentleman will yield, one thing i am struck, and i like to bring mrs. lummis in, is that oftentimes it is -- when folks say, it's medicaid and the government who pay for it or the states should enroll because the government distribute federal government is going to pay so much more. and there's a sense that it is the government that is paying for it but not the taxpayer. now, what we know, the government is nothing but an aggregater of our pocketbooks. mr. broun: that's right. mr. cassidy: it will take that money. i asked mrs. lummis it come tonight because she is a former state treasurer in wyoming. mr. broun: before you go to mrs. lummis, aye like to reclaim my time and just say this. i say that georgia is struggling. we have a balanced budget amendment to our state institution. -- constitution. we're having a difficult time dealing with the extra cost not only of medicaid but all these

government mandates that has forced it upon our state from the federal government. it has to stop and the only way we'll stop it is for we the people across this country to demand a different kind of government from their senators, from congressmen and particularly from the president of the united states. i yield back. mr. cassidy: thank you, dr. broun. mr. chair, i'd like to recognize mrs. lummis to discuss the impact this program is having upon state budgets and therefore other states' services but i need to yield to you so that you can then recognize dr. harris to replace me at this stand. mrs. lummis: i thank the gentleman. i thank the gentleman for inviting me to participate. although a nonphysician, the only nonphysician here. >> will the gentlelady suspend? mrs. lummis: i will.

the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. harris, is recognized for 28 minutes as the designee of the majority party. mr. harris: thank you very much, mr. speaker. and i will yield to the gentlelady from wyoming. mrs. lummis: i thank dr. harris and i want to thank dr. cassidy. i have seen dr. cassidy in the cloakroom talking on the phone pro bono to patients that he used to serve in louisiana. and i have seen other members of our doctors caucus do the same thing. these are people who care about their patients. and even though they're here working for the people of the united states in their district and not compensated financially, they are still here caring about their patients, working without compensation, pro bono, to help

people that they used to serve, to make sure their lives are better and their health care is better. so i want to compliment the physicians in this conference that have made such a difference to my life and to other people's health care lives. and i want to thank them for serving in congress. they make a huge difference in the dialogue, the debate, the nurturing, the care, the tenderness and what we all experience because of their training and because of their love of the people of this country and the manner in which they serve their patients. mr. speaker, i was state treasurer of my state. i have seen medicaid and other programs soak up the compensation that taxpayers in every state provide through taxes to their states, preventing states from being able to allocate more money to education and other state-based functions.

and medicaid is definitely one of them. but in addition, states care for their working poor. states want to see their low-income medicaid-eligible people have access to high quality health care and support the medicaid program. but not support it in a way that requires these rigged handcuffs on states -- ridge i had handcuffs on states that prevent states from innovating, from providing quality care to their people. case in point, my state of wyoming has the smallest population in the nation. as a consequence we have the opportunity to study things that other states cannot study because their populations are so large. my state of wyoming, through its own health care commission,

studied every single medicaid-eligible child under the age of 18 and determined that it would be over two and a half times cheaper to buy each one of those children a standard blue cross-blue shield policy than it is to provide health care through medicaid. these are the kind of things that states are studying, that they're learning, that they're innovating. furthermore, there are places in the country that are dealing with different health care problems than other places in the country. case in point, the rocky mountain west has a much higher incidence of multiple sclerosis than other parts of the united states. no one knows why, but it's a fact. so wyoming and other rocky mountain states should be able to concentrate on m.s., whereas other states, perhaps southern

states, may have more problems with diabetes. i recently was in saudi arabia. there's a tremendous diabetes problem in saudi arabia. they're spending tremendous amounts of money at their brand new higher education university where they partner with businesses to study diabetes in a way that will help the great number and growing number of people that are affected by diabetes. these should be things that regions of our country are allowed to work together on and to create programs for and to innovate and to be the great incubators of innovation that states are. and so that's why i do want to compliment the u.s. supreme court in the portion of the decision on obamacare that provided that states do not have to be held hostage under the obamacare law, they do not have to expand beyond the original intent of the medicaid

eligible population to accommodate its expansion under the obamacare law, when they can still, if they choose, concentrate on the medicaid-eligible population as it exists today to continue to provide quality medicaid to low income eligible constituents within their states. but that doesn't mean they should be under the same constraints they are under now to provide medicaid to their populations because of the variance in the kinds of diseases cropping up in different parts of the country and because of the different innovations that states are able to use if they're not constrained by the shackles of federal one-size-fits-all. i want to thank the physicians in our conference for

continuing to raise these issues, to discuss these issues. you discuss them to the benefit of those of us who are not physicians who serve in congress, you discuss these to the benefit of people who provide health care in this nation and you do it as a service to the people of this country. i thank all the physicians who are here tonight to discuss this issue and i yield back. mr. harris: thank you very much to the gentlelady from wyoming for bringing up that point about what medicaid does to state governments and all the programs they have to fund. i will tell you that with regard to what -- what happens is, what we know is, the access under the medicaid program is already suffering, access of patients, again, you know, passing the affordable care act puts a can -- an insurance

card, a medicaid card, in the hands of millions of americans but that doesn't guarantee access to health care. as we know, -- as aphysician, i've taken care of medicaid patients for over 30 years but increasingly, what i'm finding, is my colleagues, facing the decreased payment reimbursements by the government who are under financial hardship now, there are very few states in the union that actually have extra money around to fund that medicaid increase and even under the current conditions, as this chart will show, this chart shows various specialties and how medicaid patients have access to -- access to them. under current reimbursement, which of course will get nothing but worse for the specialists under the new affordable care act, among all specialists, 89% of patients with private insurance have access to all specialists, only

34% of medical assistance or medicaid patient, that's true whether it's orthopedics, psychiatry, endocrineology, determinenology, ear, nose, and throat, in all cases the access to a physician is restricted because when the government controls the health care budget, the way it contains costs is by decreasing reimbursement to providers. that's a fact. that's what happens. that's what's going to happen under medicaid. we know that's what's going to happen under medicare. i yield to the gentleman, the physician from tennessee. >> thank you for yielding. i'd like to expand a little on what you just commented on and actually what the gentlelady from wyoming talked about in terms of the efficiency in her study where they could actually buy a policy for those cheaper han the federal government has implemented. mr. desjarlais: we are promised

better access to care and the tenncare program in tennessee was an experiment of nationalized health care confined to one state. what we found was that more and more physicians, as you stated, were dropping out of the tenncare program because of reimbursement issues but also because of the buerk -- bureaucracy and the frustration trying to find specialists. i had a primary care practice and i had to hire an extra staff member, which drove up my cost, to sit after hours to try to find specialists to take care of these patients. frustrating for us, frustrating for them but the reimbursement gared to a private pay patient versus a medicare patient versus a tenncare patient continually was less money. mr. harris: so what the gentleman is say, you had patients under tenncare who had an insurance card and you couldn't find anyone to take care of them. mr. desjarlais: that's right.

and that's what we're going to see under the president's plan, people who allegedly have access to care but they don't, because the reimbursement rates are so low, the physicians can't keep their door open. the reimbursement rate of a physician in tennessee was half that of -- of a tenncare patient was laugh that of a -- half that of a private patient. mr. harris: if the gentleman would yield back, you may or may not be aware of the study done last year that showed that the outcomes in patients, whether they have private insurance or no insurance or medicare or medicaid, when you compare them that medicaid patients have the worst outcomes, in fact, 93% more likely to die of their illness than a patient with private insurance. they were more likely to die than even patients who had no insurance.

and i don't know, is the gentleman aware of that finding? mr. desjarlais: i have heard of that study as well. i think it's an access to care issue. that's certainly a problem that's not been addressed. the obamacare law does nothing to address access to care and does nothing to address cost of health care. we all know that the cost of health care is driving our national debt. we need to look at solutions that have been offered by the republican caucus and the doctors caucus that will make real reforms to health care to make it more affordable and involve a greater attempt to get government out of the way. just like in small businesses, the number one complaint is that government bureaucracy is driving down the profitability remains the same in health care as well and we need to look at more free market options in health care if we're going to actually reduce costs. mr. harris: if the gentleman would yield back, i'd like to bring the physician from texas

into the discussion because women, actually, are specifically affected by the shortfalls in medicaid because the reimbursement rates for women's health care is frequently so low that it's actually hard to find an obstetrician to take care of those patients. in maryland, this is a problem we had. in the first congressional district, the eastern shore of maryland, for a while, before we did medicaid payment reform, you couldn't -- women who were pregnant in that part of the state had to drive three hours to find an obstetrician to take care of them because the reimbursements were so low. and we know the affordable care act does nothing for medical liability and we know, for instance, that we have cesarean section rate that's 35% now, the result of medical liability, we have obstetricians who have left the practice later in their careers of obstetrics and gravitate toward just doing gynecology, where they join frequently large group practices. we have left the practice of on

setics -- obstetrics to be an impersonal practice with people who generally don't have as much experience as those who have left the practice and because of the lack of liability reform, a cesarean section rate that's roughly doubled over my career in dealing with on set ribblings and obstetric anesthesiology. i would like to hear the gentleman's comments on medical insurance and what it's doing for women's health care in this nation. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. the doctor from maryland makes an excellent point about having an insuran card, a medicaid card, does not necessarily guarantee access to care. i would see it literally every month in my practice, being an obstetrician, if i'm called by the emergency room doctor to attend to a patient that's pregnant, i've got 30 minutes to show up or i get fined $50,000.

mr. burgess: i would always show up. the difficulty is that sometimes the problem that caused the patient, although she was pregnant, the problem that brought her to the emergency room was something unrelated to pregnancy, a heart murmur, tonsillitis, i may not be the best person to take care of that problem, but it was almost impossible to find a specialist to treat that person, and you might admit someone who didn't otherwise need admitting to get them that care. an inefficient and expensive way to get that care. mr. harris: do you think that's the kind of health care the women of america deserve? mr. burgess: no, well, look, it doesn't have to be this way. that's what is so disappointing about every aspect of the affordable care kt act. i don't want to get too far into it but we know the law was

written by the special interest groups, secret deals, the senate constructed deals, christmas eve before a snowstorm, to get out of town, this was constructed under the worst possible circumstances. should it be any surprise to us that the darn thing, regardless of how you feel about everything else, it's just not going to work. and yes, the gentleman pointing out the difficulties in obstetric care is just one aspect of that. if i could, i'd like to bring up the point, i was in the supreme court the day the oral argument was heard on the individual mandate. i heard the solicitor general make his remarks or make his argument that, look, the cost of health care is going up because we have people showing up in the emergency room without insurance and everybody needs to buy insurance and that will fix the problem. wait a minute. that's not going to fix the problem. because we know in the state of texas, only 31% of doctors will see a medicaid patient. as a consequence, if you expand your numbers of medicaid patients, and you don't have

the doctors there to see them, what are they to do in they've got this card in their hand, they go to the emergency room to get the most expensive care. now, i wanted to bring this up because in the "austin american statesman" this weekend, dr. tom sues, the executive director of the state department of health, or the commissioner of the texas department of health and human service, had an op-ed in the "austin american statesman" and i want to read the first two paragraphs of his piece. do you know how much a medicaid card pays for an emergency room visit? how about if it's an -- if it isn't an emergency? the answer is the same in either case, nothing. not one dime. the texas medicaid program paid $467 million for almost 2.5 million emergency visits in 2009. half of those were not emergencies. yet federal law makes it virtually impossible for states to charge even small co-pays to

discurbling unnecessary emergency room utilization by medicaid clients. i think he's hit the nail on the head here. we have to provide the flexibility back to the states but it belies the question, who thought that taking a safety net program for blind and disabled, nursing home residents, pregnant women and children and expanding that to cover 15 million more americans, that wasn't the way to go about this. there were better ideas out there. for whatever reason, the obama administration chose not to listen, not to solicit those ideas and now we have the situation as it exists today. i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank him for allowing me to participate in this hour. this is an important subject, one that's not going to go away and we'll be talking about it a lot for the next several months and the next several years and i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman from

texas. mr. harris: we have on the floor with us two obstetricians. if women are ready for child birth, we're ready on the floor of the house tonight. but the gentleman makes a great point because in the end having an insurance card doesn't guarantee access, having an insurance card doesn't guarantee affordable care. and as we know the affordable care act, what it did is to again, to pretend that real economics don't exist to. pretend that the laws of mathematics don't count. that we can expand this program, as the gentleman pointed out, a program that was meant for the safety net for the poor, elderly, for women, for children, and we expanded it well beyond that to the point where, as we brought up earlier in the hour, if gone unchecked, it will bankrupt everything else in government. and the time has come for, as the gentleman has pointed out, for us to reconsider that. to reconsider whether that affordable care act was the right approach.

now, we know that just today the congressional budget office has rescored the president's affordable care act and has said that as a result of the supreme court decision, because one of the goals was to ensure as many americans as possible, that an additional three million to four million individuals will not be insured as a result of the supreme court because the states will make a rational decision that they can't afford to let their budgets go bankrupt through this government, federal government-mandated expansion that does nothing to control cost. and does nothing really to increase access other than putting a card in someone's hand and, as the graph shows, that card doesn't help all the people who are in these pink bars. they're the ones with the medicaid cards currently. and their chance of seeing a specialist is somewhere between 17% and 57% because the government payment is so low,

because these programs are so expensive and never adequately budgeted for, just as in the case in the affordable care act. now we're joined this evening by my colleague from georgia, dr. gingrey, who is also an obstetrician, who brings -- who has spent years taking care of patients, understands what it will take to fix the health care system in the united states, and i'm very interested to hear your perspective, dr. gingrey, on the topic we're discussing tonight. medicaid and its expansion under the affordable care act. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman from maryland, my physician colleague, for yielding. and i missed some of the hour, i regret that and hopefully i'm not repeating some remark that's already been made, but even if i am, i think it's important for people to understand that medicaid expansion is threatening each and every one of our 50 states and the

territories. the provision in the affordable care act, obamacare, that's titled maintenance of effort, and actually this maintenance of effort provision, mr. speaker, began even before the passage of obamacare. obamacare passed in march if, 2010, a little more than two years ago. it just extended this. but what happened with the stimulus package, back in 2008, states were told that they would not be allowed to purge their roles -- rolls of people that were at that point in time under medicaid, to see if per chance they were in this country illegally and not eligible or their income level had risen to

the point that they were doing just fine, thank you, maybe making $50,000 a year and could afford their own health insurance premiums, not to be paid for by we the taxpayer and the citizens of the state of georgia, my great state. so, since 2008, and then it was extended with the passage of obamacare to say that through the year 2013 these states could not do that. well, what's happened is, i've got some statistics, and just to quote from the national governor's association report, states are facing a collective $175 billion budget shortfall through 2013. in large part because of this maintenance of effort

requirement under medicaid. that they're not allowed to make sure that the people on the medicaid program are the ones that need to be there, the most needy, that can't afford, their children can't afford health care. and now these roles are sort of -- rolls are sort of set in stone until the year 2013 and in many cases, mr. speaker, they include childless adults. childless adults who maybe were eligible to get on the program at a point where the income was very low or maybe they were out of work, but now, you know, shouldn't the governors be allowed, at least on an annual basis, if not every six months, to look at those rolls and make sure that the dollars are for health care, are going to the folks that really need it and their children? that's what the medicaid program was all about when it was

started as an amendment to the social security act back in 1965. so, i wanted to mention that and may have already been talked about earlier. my colleagues in the doctors caucus of the house that know of what they speak in regard to health care, there are a lot of other issues in medicaid, but i thought in particular i wanted to discuss that and just conclude my remarks, i'll be glad to yield back to my colleagues and continue to listen and maybe comment on some other issues. but in conclusion, on this point, if allowing a state to improve its enrollment and its versefication system saves enough money to keep our children's education program in tact, and the safety of its citizens in regard to police and fire protection in tact, why

wouldn't we support this change? why wouldn't we repeal this maintenance of effort? if given governors the ability -- giving governors the ability to manage their own medicaid programs prevents drastic cuts to education or job creation programs, why in the world would we not support that? the only reason i can think of would be to force, under obamacare, more and more people into the medicaid program, where the states have to eventually do that f map and that sharing of the cost because otherwise there'd be exchanges and the subsidies as we know go up to 400% of the federal poverty level. it's all part of this grand scheme to eventually have national health insurance, medicare for all, if you will, and it's got to stop. and i yield back to my colleague.

mr. harris: thank you very much from the gentleman from georgia. medicaid expenditures now exceed k through 12 education. and as the other chart we've seen shows, we're over at the left-hand side, it will only get worse over time. i'd like to yield to the obstetrician from texas, the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i wanted to make one point on the score that was provided today. i know some people are looking at that and saying the cost for the program, for the affordable care act over the next 10 years, was only scored i think at $1.16 trillion, if i can use the words only and trillion together in a sentence, but what many people overlook is the congressional budget office must score under existing law. and one of the things that existing law does is cut physician reimbursement in medicare by 35% on december 31 of this year.

so, add another $300 to $400 billion to that cost, just for the so-called sustainable growth rate formula which has not yet been repealed. now, we will fix that before the end of the year, for at least one more year. but the congressional budget office has no way of scoring that. they must go with existing law. the other thing that -- and of course the independent payment advisory board, same things applies. they have to think that the cuts that the independent payment advisory board is programmed to produce, that they're going to occur. the other thing the congressional budget office cannot easily estimate is the number of people who will be moved off employer-sponsored insurance onto the federal -- onto the state exchanges or the federal exchange. and that is a difficult number to know. mckenzie corporation said it is going to be 30%. the deloit corporation has said 10%. we dent know what that number is. c.b.o. is scoring it to 1% to 2%

because that's the average historically. those points are important to remember in looking at these figures. i yield back. mr. harris: i thank the gentleman. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority party. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, thank you for the privilege and

for my colleagues in the republican doctors caucus, for a most interesting but factually incorrect 45 minutes of debate here. we really -- we're going to spend this evening talking about jobs and about the american jobs act and one of the great woulda, coupa, shouldas of our times. there are a few things that really need to be discussed from the last half hour. first of all, most of the discussion was about med kay cade. that's a program, a national program, in which the federal government pays about 50%, if varies state to state, but roughly 50% of the cost of providing medical services to the poor, women, children, in the states. now, the debate was most interesting in that the argument was that there would be a lack of access and simultaneously an

argument that the costs -- there were no costs control. yet if you were listening to our esteemed -- esteemed colleagues, walk have heard them say that doctors are not paid enough. i think if they're not paid enough and the doctors want to get paid more, in order to provide services, then the costs are going to go up. and so the cost control argument here doesn't make a whole lot of sense. if you want to keep the cost down, you need to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the system. and certainly certain services within the medicaid and medical as wecal it in california, are not paid sufficiently. some other services are paid more than enough. so you need to balance that up over time and all of these programs are run by the states. it's really the state that decides what the reimbursement rate is going to be, the federal government then matches the state's contribution. so the argument really didn't make a whole lot of sense. and even more so nrkts ryan

republican budget, which has passed this house twice now, there is a significant reduction in the educational services for doctors. so that the money that we -- all americans spend to educate doctors, particularly in that part of the program, both the basic education and then in the residency programs, the ryan republican budget significantly reduces the amount of money available for residency programs for family care practices. for the very basic programs that we all want to access. so for family care, for basic care, that money is reduced. you go, wait a minute. that doesn't make any sense, if you're down here on floor arguing that there's insufficient number of doctors and they're not paid enough, then don't argue at the same time that it's too expensive and there's no cost controls and please don't argue that