Floor Statements

Thank you very much, Representative Tonko. Thank you for bringing this issue alive this evening and for giving us this time to discuss this.

Many, many thoughts went through my mind today as this vote and the debate went along. As it was debated by our Republican colleagues, I just couldn't understand where they were coming from. What would motivate them to want to destroy Medicare? And Medicaid? Why would they do that? The thoughts just reeled through my mind, and I'm going, I guess maybe they had had a different experience than I did.

I was a young boy in the 1950s, and there was no Medicare, and there was no Medicaid. My father was a rancher. We grew up in a ranching area up in the foothills of California, in the Mother Lode Gold Country. He took me one day to the county hospital. It was one of the most horrible moments I can remember as a child, because the wards, there was just a ward, maybe 20 or 30 very elderly men, and then on the other side elderly women, who were dying. Their medical care wasn't available to them.

Sometime later, maybe another month after that, we were out chasing cattle that had gotten loose--I was just a young man--and one of our neighbors, we came upon the neighbor and asked where the cattle might be, and he said they were down that way. He had this huge growth on his mouth, and my dad asked about that, and he said, it's cancer. He had no insurance. He had no care. He was probably 70, 75, 80 years old. He died shortly thereafter.

In 1965, this country did a remarkable, beautiful, wonderful thing. We gave to every senior in America medical care, doctor and hospital care, the opportunity to live longer, to have that cancer treated, to eliminate those wards in the county hospital where people simply were warehoused to die. And here today, for the third time since January of this year, the Republicans have put forth a proposal--and hopefully it will never become law--to terminate Medicare.

Have no doubt about it, Mr. Tonko, they would terminate Medicare. As you said, they would turn it over to the private insurance companies, with a voucher, insufficient to pay for medical care insurance from an insurance company today. The discrimination that exists in insurance for people with preexisting conditions, and the paramount preexisting condition in America is age. If you're 55, 60, 65, you have a preexisting condition. It's called age. What will come of those people?

What is this Nation all about? Who are we as Americans? Who are we as Americans that on this floor in a charade, in a falsehood, brought to America today, and twice previously, legislation that doesn't deal with the fundamental issues of the budget, the tax issues, the revenue side of it, real reform in the programs, whether it's Medicare or the military. Real reforms. No, no, no. Just cut, slash, burn, and take your seniors, toss them aside.

This is not the America that I want to live in. This is the America of the 1950s when there was no Medicare and when seniors were in wards left to die, or in no care at all. Every American 65 years of age is guaranteed a comprehensive health care benefit. It's called Medicare. Whatever else we stand for, that's where the Democrats stand. We will fight this fight. We will not lose this fight.

This is about the very heart and soul of this Nation.

Mr. Tonko, thank you for these moments.

I have this chart. We've used it before as we've discussed Medicare. It brings this whole thing right into focus. This is a tombstone. Medicare. 1966-2011. Created by LBJ. Destroyed by the GOP. It may be a little harsh, but this is really the reality of what is going on here. It's the end of Medicare as we know it. It's the end of the guaranteed benefit program, and it does turn everyone who is 55 years and younger over to the insurance industry.

I spoke to this briefly before--and Mr. Courtney, thank you for reminding me that I was the insurance commissioner in California for 8 years. I fought tooth and nail with the insurance industry over health care and automobile and homeowner and other kinds of insurance. In the health care sector, the private health insurance companies are about profit. That's their goal. They are profit-making organizations. And to enhance their profits, they do a variety of things. Deny coverage. You've got a policy? Oh, but that was a preexisting condition, and therefore we're not going to cover it. Or, gee, that kind of treatment is not covered.

There was a lot of talk about death panels. I'll tell you where the death panel is--and I saw this as insurance commissioner. I saw insurance companies denying treatment that led to the death of numerous individuals over those 8 years. The real death panels have been the private insurance companies. In Medicare, I know of no case where that has happened. Maybe it did, but I'm unaware of it, and I had the biggest State--California. Also, there is this kind of discrimination that takes place.

Let me just put this additionally to it. The private health insurance company is grossly inefficient. It is inefficient. It has enormous additional costs that Medicare does not have. By comparison, Medicare is a very efficient operation. It takes about 2 percent to raise the money and another, maybe, 2 or 3 percent to pay the bills and, on the provider side, maybe another 10 percent to do the billing also. Maybe the total cost is somewhere at about 15 percent in administrative costs. The private insurance companies run somewhere near 30 percent in administrative costs when you consider profit, when you consider the advertising, sales commissions. And they have thousands of different policies covering this, but not covering that, this deductible, that deductible. And when it gets to the provider, the ultimate chaos. So the administrative cost in the private system is about twice what it is in Medicare. Medicare is a very efficient, very effective, universal program that raises the money in a very fair way.

All of us pay for it, and all of us should be getting that benefit when we get to be 65--but not so in the private sector. Our Republican colleagues want to take all of this money and hand it over to the private insurance market and say, ``Okay. You guys take care of it.'' It's less efficient. It's certainly deadly in denying coverage and benefits. Just compared to Medicare, it's very inefficient.

Mr. Courtney, thank you for pointing out that very, very important fact that seems to have been totally overlooked in today's debate, at least by our Republican colleagues.

There is another factor here, and that is that Medicare, like all medical services across the United States, whether you are in Kaiser or in Blue Cross, Anthem or Medicare--all of these programs are carried along on the inflationary wave in health care, which actually runs two or three times the general inflation of our economy. So health care is growing very, very rapidly overall. It turns out that the inflation rate in Medicare is about one half the inflation rate in the general health care system. Now, if Medicare is part of the health care system and takes care of the most expensive part of the population, how is it that Medicare is not inflating--the costs are not going up--as fast as the costs are in the private health insurance sector?

The reason is, as I discussed before, Medicare is very efficient. It is a very, very efficient program: a universal benefit across the Nation, uniform; clear deductibles, clear co-pays; and in Medicare part B, cost sharing. All of that is there and it's understood. The private insurance has 1,000 different policies--chaos throughout the marketplace.

Now, we've talked about this a little bit. We really need to have Americans understand that the Affordable Health Care Act had a whole series of very, very important legislative activities that will reduce the overall cost of health care.

An example is electronic medical records, not written records by a doctor or a nurse--either legible or illegible, stacked in a great big stack of papers--and all of us have seen those. Electronic medical records. It's a very, very important way to reduce problems, to reduce misunderstandings, a back-and-forth with drugs and the like.

Another very important factor is hospital infection rates. Hospitals have a very high infection rate, and don't get paid a second time for retreating the original illness when that person comes in. It has a very, very important impact on reducing the cost of medical services. There were many other things you talked about--the drug benefit.

By the way, how is it that during the Bush period when the Medicare part D, the drug benefit, went into place that the pharmaceutical industry was so powerful that they denied American taxpayers the opportunity for the government to negotiate for the price of drugs?

Mr. Tonko, you raised that point. To this day, we've not had our Republican colleagues come along and say, ``Oh, yeah. There's a good way to save money. We'll just negotiate for the drugs.'' It turns out, as to the military and the health care services provided by it, they can negotiate for drugs, but Medicare cannot.

So it costs us, you said, $150 billion over 10 years. Is that the number you came up with?

It was the bill they introduced.

Before we go to this other issue--and we've got another 7 or 8 minutes here--another major program that is targeted by our Republican friends is Medicaid. Medicaid is a program for impoverished Americans. Seventy percent of Medicaid is for seniors and nursing homes. They want to take some $700 billion out of Medicaid. In California, that's called MediCal, but in each State they have their own program. But $700 billion goes directly to seniors that are in nursing homes. What will come of those people that are now in nursing homes when this program, Medicaid, is reduced as proposed in the budget that was passed today?

But, having said that, let's turn to the other side of the coin.

You want to make cuts, but do you want to cut Medicare? Do you want to cut Medicaid?--or do you want to cut the subsidies that exist in American business today?

This is just one of hundreds of subsidies, tax breaks, given to American businesses that they don't need.

Big Oil receives my tax money, your tax money, and the American taxpayers' money to the tune of--I don't know--$5 billion, $6 billion, $7 billion a year. Yet look at their profits. Look at their profits here. This is just 1 year. You add up these profits over the last decade. Exxon last year, $10 billion; Conoco $2.1 billion; Chevron, $6 billion; BP, infamous BP, $7.2 billion. Yet they receive our tax subsidies. You take this and you apply it over the last decade, and it is just $950 billion of profit--$50 billion less than a trillion dollars of profit.

And yet defending the oil companies are our Republican colleagues, saying no, no, no. You can't touch Big Oil. You can't take away their tax subsidies, but you can surely go after seniors and take $6,000 out of the pocket of every senior with this Medicare program.

Mr. Courtney just pointed back to me. I was going to pass it to him.

We just talked about Big Oil, the subsidies to Big Oil that are being protected by our Republican colleagues, making sure that Big Oil gets their money. That's not the only thing.

They are fiercely fighting, fighting fiercely to maintain the Bush- era tax cuts for the superwealthy. We're talking about millionaires.

So what does it mean for millionaires to hang on to that tax cut that occurred in 2003, I believe? For millionaires, that tax cut is worth $200,000 a year if you have an income of $1 million. Now, there are folks out there that have incomes of a billion. So you can kind of expand that, add five zeroes. You get close to what it might be for a billionaire, and there are billionaires out there. What does it mean for seniors? It means it's going to cost them some $6,000 a year in what will be their Medicare costs in the future.

Thank you. You read the chart better than I do.

Representative Tonko, thank you so very much for bringing us together tonight to talk about Medicare and the Republican proposal to terminate Medicare and significantly reduce Medicaid programs for seniors in nursing homes.

This is a pivotal moment in this Nation. It really speaks to our values. It speaks to who we are as Americans, who we care for, and what we are concerned about.

Madam Speaker, later this week, this House will take up the second iteration--the second coming, if you will--of the House Republican budget, a budget designed to destroy Medicare, basically to terminate it for anyone who's 55 years or younger, a plan designed to put Social Security on a track to privatization, a plan designed to take nearly $700 billion out of the Medicaid program, basically destroying those things that have held the fabric of America together.

Have no illusions about what this is all about. It's not just a constitutional amendment; it's not just cut and cap. It is really about destroying Medicare, Medicaid, programs that are essential for seniors.

If you want to make a cut in something, why don't you take a third of a trillion dollars out of the war in Afghanistan, which is what we're going to spend over the next 4 years? Now there's a good cut that we ought to make.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, Congressman George Miller, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, and Congressman Jerry McNerney to congratulate the International Association of Heat & Frost Insulators & Allied Workers, Local 16, San Francisco Chapter, on its 100th anniversary celebration.

On August 1, 1911, Local 16 was chartered as a member of the International Association of Heat & Frost Insulators & Allied Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC. For the past century, Local 16 has worked to ensure the health and safety of consumers and has reduced both carbon dioxide emissions and energy costs through advancements in insulation installation.

Local 16 has played a key role in raising public and industry awareness of the health dangers associated with handling asbestos materials. Certified professionals of the Insulators and Allied Workers Unions continue to safely remove asbestos and replace it with more environmentally friendly insulation material. In the last decade, Local 16 has trained an average of 125 Hazardous Waste Handlers and Firestoppers annually. This leadership and dedication to public safety helps to provide Americans with healthier homes and working environments.

With professional installations, Local 16 ensures that less energy is lost through insulation, saving Americans money and reducing the amount of carbon dioxide that is generated. This commitment to consumers and to the planet has helped the Local 16 membership base expand across two states, representing over 1,000 active members, retirees, and families throughout California and Nevada. For these members, Local 16 strives for workplace equality and improved job opportunities, all while working to stimulate our regional and national economies.

Mr. Speaker, we are truly honored to pay tribute to our friends in the International Association of Heat & Frost Insulators & Allied Workers, Local 16, in recognition of their 100th anniversary. We ask our colleagues to join with us in congratulating the San Francisco branch for its continued leadership and commitment to service, and we wish them success in all future endeavors.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I was just kind of curious about which one of those EPA regulations that my colleague was talking about. Perhaps it's the one that would prevent the emission of mercury into the air, or arsenic into the water. Maybe they want to poison the air and the water. Maybe that's what they're looking at. Or the SEC regulation that would bring to heel Wall Street and all of its excesses which just about terminated the economies of the world. Maybe those are the regulations they don't want to see. In any case, what I would really like to talk about here is the negotiations that are under way to deal with the looming crisis of the debt.

The President of the United States has said, okay, let's not kick the can down the road any further, let's deal with this issue, and has proposed a $4 trillion solution. No sooner did he make that proposal than our Republican colleagues said, oh, no, we can't do that because that will include finally creating in America a fair Tax Code, one in which the superwealthy are actually going to get to pay for their share of the burden. For example, the hedge fund managers who pay a 15 percent rate on their earnings, their ordinary income, while the rest of us get to pay the full freight, whatever that might be, 35 percent for those at the top brackets. But, no, no, we can't deal with that problem, so we can't have a $4 trillion solution.

The President also says, We're not going to kick the can down the road. We want to extend the debt limit to at least 2013, to put this issue off. But the Republicans don't want to do that. They want to do a short term.

I wonder what's going on here. Talking about cuts, the only cut that I've seen thus far defined by our Republican colleagues is to cut Medicare. In fact, not just cut it, terminate Medicare, to somehow take all of those Americans who are 55 years or younger, and say to them, no, when you become 65, you will not have Medicare. We'll give you a voucher and you can go out and take your best shot with the private insurance sector.

Good luck. I was an insurance commissioner. I know what those private insurance companies will do. They'll deny you benefits, deny you coverage, and they will tell the doctor exactly what you might actually receive in terms of health care. It doesn't make much sense to me.

I think we need to support the President in this matter. I think we need a balanced approach here, one in which the wealthy finally get to pay their fair share, in which the oil companies no longer receive our hard-earned tax dollars so that they can have their $4 billion subsidy. I think it's time, as we heard earlier from our colleagues, to end the wars. If we end the war in Afghanistan, we could over the next 4 or 5 years have a third of a trillion dollar reduction in our deficit.

There are many things that can be done, but one thing we will not do is to attack Social Security. Social Security and Medicare are the foundation of support for all Americans. When they become old, 65 and older, they know that they have that benefit available to them.

Medicare works. Medicare is actually far more efficient than any private health insurance system. It has provided seniors across this Nation with an opportunity to not be impoverished when they become 65, that their health care will be provided to them. It has allowed for the extension of their lives. It has reduced the poverty rate. Together with Social Security, these are two of the foundations that we have promised every American. When they become 65, they will not face poverty. They will have a foundation. Not enough to provide all that they might want but at least a foundation.

And so as we go through this whole issue of whether we're going to raise the debt limit or not, let us be mindful that we will not do it on the backs of the seniors, and we will do it in a balanced way as the President has said. We will provide for a fair Tax Code in which the superwealthy pay their fair share, in which corporations are no longer able to evade taxes, in which the oil companies no longer will receive our hard-earned tax dollars so that they can have even greater profits, and let us be mindful that the oil industry itself over the last 10 years, the top five oil companies have had over a trillion dollars of profits. It's time to bring back those subsidies and to balance our budget. We can do these things.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

We clearly have to move away from fossil fuels. In order to do so, we need to understand the other opportunities that are available to us. Indeed, solar has been around for a long time. But also in the last decade, 15 years, there have been extraordinary increases in the efficiencies in the solar systems, and they continue to increase.

This is not the time for us to back away from the future. It is time for us to move aggressively forward, providing the research, providing the incentives to move to a new source of energy.

If you want to continue to pollute the atmosphere, then stay with coal. If you want to continue to be indebted to the petro dictators of the world, then stay with oil. But we need to move away from that. And this money in this particular part of the bill provides us with the opportunity to seize the next generation of power, and that is the sun. Yes, the sun has been around a long time, warming us and providing us with what we need to survive. We need to use it more effectively and efficiently, and that is what this money allows us to do. Removing the $154 million is exactly the wrong thing to do. I oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

This particular section provides $700 million-plus for nuclear power research, various kinds. The chairman spoke to this issue a few moments ago.

The purpose of my amendment is to carve out of that $700 million-plus a sum of $20 million to restart America's program on recycling spent nuclear fuel. We currently call this spent nuclear fuel a ``waste'' when, in fact, it still possesses about 97 percent of the energy that was originally in the uranium and then processed once through the light water reactors. The purpose of the amendment is to restart.

In the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, America undertook a program to close the nuclear fuel cycle. That was abandoned in 1994 after a successful effort to recycle and to use that energy that is found in the nuclear fuel. Unfortunately, now this spent nuclear fuel, which we call a ``waste product,'' is sitting at every reactor in the United States and mostly around the world, creating a significant hazard. We only need to think about Fukushima's little swimming pool that went dry and of the meltdown that occurred at that point.

We need to recycle and completely use, or as much as possible completely use, the energy in these spent nuclear fuel pools. If we do so, we can do it in a way that significantly reduces the hazards and that significantly reduces the longevity of the problem from some 200,000 to some 300 years and create an enormous energy opportunity.

This is a beginning. There is a long path ahead of us, and we have to start on this immediately. That is the purpose of this. Unfortunately, it is going to be ruled out of order. However, in the future, as we move forward, I would hope that the committee and this House and the Senate deem fit to put this kind of program back into action.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I do wish to speak on the point of order.

I think the point of order is out of order. In fact, the issue before us is of utmost importance to this Nation--and indeed to the world--as more and more light water reactors are built.

The problem of spent fuel continues to mount and creates hazards. The United States did, in fact, figure out how to close the nuclear gap.

I'm working towards that.

The point of order that I would have wished to speak to, I will yield back my time and take up the subject later.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

This amendment would transfer $450 million from the Fossil Fuel Research Account to ARPA-E. The reason for the amendment is that we have to move off the 19th-century fuel, that is, coal and oil, and move to future energy sources, one of which I talked about a few moments ago, that is, the nuclear. The other energy sources are out there. We discussed on this floor here over the last hour the issue of solar. There are fuels, advanced biofuels. There are also wind, solar, wave, geothermal. All of these are being advanced at this time by the ARPA-E program within the Department of Energy. That's where the future is.

Now, we can make a choice here about staying with the past and trying to figure out how to create clean coal, which is probably the oxymoron of the century, or we can simply shift our resources to look at other energy sources, and that's what we have to do. The purpose of this amendment is to do that, to shift $450 million into ARPA-E so that we can look for the energy systems of the future, providing the support that they need both in the research and in the early development of those resources.

There has been much success in this area. There have been numerous research programs that have been done not only at the Department of Energy facilities, but at universities around this country that have taken advantage of the ARPA-E program. It is modeled after the very successful and very long-lasting Department of Defense ARPA program, and it works. We've actually seen major scientific breakthroughs that have occurred as a result of the funding from the ARPA-E program.

Modest as it was, if this amendment were to be adopted, it would be a very big program, one that has the potential of advancing this Nation's future and freeing us--in the case of oil--from the petro dictators of the world and also, in the case of coal, from the extraordinary problems that coal brings to the environment and to communities throughout this Nation. I understand the coal industry and their desire to continue to dig for coal, but we know that at some point we're going to have to move away into the future, and that is what this amendment would attempt to accomplish.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, Representatives George Miller, Barbara Lee, Pete Stark, Jerry McNerney and I rise today to congratulate Mr. David Williams, Director of Wastewater for the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) on his election as the new President of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, NACWA.

Mr. Williams is an accomplished leader and committed environmental steward. From his military service to this country and throughout his career in clean water, Mr. Williams has exemplified what it means to be a public servant. He is ideally suited for this national leadership position with NACWA and to helping ensure that California's and the Nation's clean water agencies are sustainable, that the environment we live in is consistently improving, and our public health is protected.

At EBMUD, Mr. Williams leads one of the nation's most advanced wastewater treatment facilities, providing services to approximately 650,000 people along 88 square miles of the east shore of San Francisco Bay in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Mr. Williams oversees a staff of roughly 300 professionals and technicians who are responsible for the operation and maintenance of the district's entire wastewater system.

Under Mr. Williams' leadership the district has led the industry through his innovative work on several notable programs: utilizing existing wastewater infrastructure to create a national model for recycling and energy creation; working with local dentists, universities and public schools to eliminate sources of mercury in the waterways; developing a partnership with Chevron to build the Richmond Advanced Recycled Expansion (RARE) Water Project; and creating dual plumbing ordinances requiring new development to plan for recycled water use.

Since joining others in founding NACWA 41 years ago, EBMUD has benefitted from its active engagement with the organization. A member of NACWA's Board of Directors since 2004, Mr. Williams has previously served as Secretary, Treasurer and Vice President for the organization and has been a member of many NACWA committees and workgroups. He has also been elected to serve on the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Board, a position he currently holds.

In addition to his work with NACWA, Mr. Williams has actively participated in local, regional, state and national professional organizations including the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, Bay Area Clean Water Agencies, TriTAC, Aquatic Science Center, the California Water Environment Association San Francisco Bay Section, and the Bay Area Dischargers Association.

David Williams has selflessly shared his time, passion, energy and ideas to carry out the objectives of the Clean Water Act and it is my sincere pleasure to ask our colleagues to join us in congratulating him on becoming the new president of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies. Mr. Williams' continued efforts will ensure water quality progress for the San Francisco Bay Area, the State of California, and the Nation.

I move to strike the last word.

I rise in opposition to the underlying bill and will seek an amendment shortly.

Memorial Day was a time when four of my colleagues and I traveled throughout Afghanistan. We learned a great deal, and what we did learn we brought home.

1,650 American men and women have died in Afghanistan, and yet the incredible dedication of American soldiers was easy to see. They risk their lives every day. And it is with the utmost respect that we honor them on Memorial Day and beyond. I have great respect for the President and recognize

the difficult situation, the decisions that he must make; but, frankly, I think he made the wrong decision.

The killing of bin Laden gave us the opportunity to pivot, to go in the direction that we must ultimately go, which is to focus like a laser on al Qaeda, wherever it is in this world, including our own country. We must do that. And yet the decision to maintain in Afghanistan a troop level that really reflects what existed in 2009 is not sustainable. It's costing us a fortune, a fortune that we can ill afford.

This entire town is caught up in a debate over the deficit and the pending default crisis, and yet we seem to want to continue to pour money into Afghanistan, into a five-way civil war for which there is no military solution. Negotiations are essential. Yet is this country pushing forward the negotiations? If so, it's in secret, and I certainly hope it is there, because therein lies the solution.

I think we don't need 100,000, 50,000, 60,000, troops in Afghanistan. We really only need a handful to focus on al Qaeda, wherever they may be in that region. And so if we were to draw down our troops in the next 18 months to 25,000 in Afghanistan and then 10,000 in 2013, we would begin to get to a level over an appropriate course of time. And it is this House's responsibility to put forth an appropriation bill that provides money for only that, and no more, to limit the funding.

It's pretty clear the President has the power to initiate a war. It's equally clear that we have the only power, the only power to fund the war. And if we say no, then this war will cease. If we say only this amount of money for only this purpose, then this war will rapidly diminish. There will be amendments on the floor shortly to achieve that goal. And we ought to proceed in that way.

We need to rebuild America. We need to bring the money and the troops home and rebuild this Nation. We can do so when this war is over. Until then, this is a sump in which we are pouring the lives of American men and women and even more Afghan men and women and our treasure to the detriment of this Nation's economic strength.

I oppose this war, along with my colleagues, and I would ask this House, Democrat and Republican alike, to use the power of the purse to bring this war to a rapid and appropriate close and fund the negotiations, fund the war on al Qaeda, not the war in Afghanistan.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I thank the gentlelady from California.

Previously, my good friend with whom I've worked for more than 35 years in various levels of government challenged me on the position I take with regard to winding down quickly the war in Afghanistan. His recitation of history, while accurate, is woefully incomplete.

Much of what we are now fighting was actually begun by Charlie Wilson, morphed over this period of time perhaps by Pakistan. But we're caught in the middle of a civil war, not just a civil war, but a five- way civil war, one that has gone on for at least the last 35 years. We are, as my friend Mr. McGovern just stated, backing a government that is, on the face of it, corrupt by any standard.

So what are we doing here? What is this all about?

In fact, we went into Afghanistan to get al Qaeda, and we did. There is only a handful there. There are probably far more al Qaeda sympathizers--and maybe active members--in the United States than in Afghanistan.

So why do we have over 100,000 American troops and another 40,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan?

I did not suggest that we leave in a vacuum. Instead, I said we leave a

small force behind that goes after al Qaeda. Take them out wherever they happen to be. Bring our troops back home. Go back to the original mission in Afghanistan. Go after al Qaeda.

You're quite correct, my colleagues. They're in Somalia; they're in Yemen; and they're in other parts of this world. The more troops we have in Iraq and Afghanistan, the more reason we give to those who want to recruit yet more al Qaeda members. This makes no sense going forward. Yes, we will have a continuing obligation, but if you take a look at the strategy that is now in place, one that calls upon America to maintain its troops, then you can count on a larger deficit. That makes no sense to me. Let's bring our troops home rapidly. The amendments that will be on the floor will cause that to happen.

We have the power of the purse here. This Nation can no longer sustain $120 billion a year in Afghanistan when our bridges are crumbling, when our children are not educated, when we cannot afford in the budget you're putting forth to feed our children or to care for our elderly. This war must end, and it must end soon.

I have great respect for the President, but he has got the wrong strategy. He is continuing on the strategy that by the proof on the ground does not work. Pivot. Go back to what we once said was our goal. Get al Qaeda. Take them out wherever they happen to be. We know we can do it. We have done it.

Anybody who wants to play the al Qaeda game on their side, know that this Nation has the capability to take you out.

My good friend, Mr. Lewis, the next time you want to recite the history of Afghanistan, recite the full history of Afghanistan, including this Nation's 10-year effort and all of the mistakes that we have made. Let us not compound those mistakes by continuing on the same course for another 3, 4, 5 years and beyond. It's time to end this war. It's time to focus on the true enemy here--al Qaeda.

I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.

I thank my colleagues for bringing that recitation to an end, but I also urge my colleagues to pay careful attention to what we're trying to accomplish here. I'll try to explain it without reading each and every one of those lines.

The Afghan Study Group, Richard Haas and many others who are very familiar with the Afghanistan war and the way in which it is being conducted have suggested that by the end of 2012, America should have no more than 25,000 troops in Afghanistan and then further, wind down the war in 2013 to 10,000 troops focused on terrorists, focused on al Qaeda.

As I spoke a few moments ago on this issue, this amendment is to accomplish that goal, to wind down the war in a responsible way over the next 18 months so that at the end of the 18 months--that would be December 31, 2012--that there'd be no more than 25,000 troops in Afghanistan.

Now, unfortunately, I can't add the rest of it, but I will at least give the reason for this. And that is to pivot on the success of getting bin Laden. We went to Afghanistan to get al Qaeda. We succeeded. And now we are involved in a civil war, a great civil war, a five-sided civil war, maybe a six- or seven-sided civil war; and we are supporting a government in that war that is at best corrupt and quite possibly even more inept. So what are we doing there besides spending $120 billion a year?

Well, we are kind of fighting it out. We're losing a lot of Americans, and even more Afghans are dying. We're not going to be able to solve this with troops on the ground. This war needs to be negotiated. As much effort as we are spending on the troops, we should spend on negotiations. Unfortunately, little or no negotiations are going on that are at least talked about publicly; and I would hope they're going on privately, secretly, but I don't think that to be the case.

So we need a negotiated settlement; we need to pivot on the success of bin Laden. We need to focus like a laser on al Qaeda wherever they happen to be in the world. And we know that they are in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, other places in the world--including the United States. So our focus must be on that, not on this civil war. We cannot solve it with our troops in Afghanistan.

This amendment would cause us, as Members of Congress, to exert the authority given to us by the Constitution, that is, the power of the purse, and by denying funding for more than 25,000 troops at the end of 2012, we will accomplish the goal of rapidly, appropriately winding down the war. Not my words, but the words of the Afghan Study Group and Richard Haas--people who know these issues.

We must do this for our own good, for the good of this Nation. We're sitting here in the midst of a great debate upon a default crisis, a back-and-forth about how do we deal with the deficit. Well, one way we can deal with the deficit is to end this war; $120 billion a year adds up to a third of a trillion dollars in just 3 years. We're not suggesting we can get that. We know we're going to have to maintain some sort of a presence there.

But surely we don't need to spend $120 billion in Afghanistan when in our own country we are denying our children an education for lack of money. We are denying our elderly the health care that they need, for example, terminating Medicare for lack of money. We are not feeding our children; ``60 Minutes'' recently did a heart-wrenching story on homeless children living in cars and hotels in America because their parents have lost their jobs.

We have an unemployment rate that demands our attention, demands our investment in America, rebuilding America's bridges, roads, rebuilding our manufacturing sector, making it in America once again, rebuilding the real strength of this Nation, its economy, and the middle class so that they can have jobs that will allow them to stay in their homes, provide for their children, live the good American life.

We must end this war. We must first wind it down. Were this more than an appropriation bill, I would have gone to step two, which is 10,000 at the end of 2013 with a mission that is the original mission, that is, going after the terrorists, not nation-building. We must, as the President said, rebuild our Nation. And unlike the President, this amendment offers us the opportunity to use our money to rebuild this Nation.

By the way, for you deficit hawks, it's all borrowed money. You're borrowing money for Afghanistan, or you're borrowing money to rebuild this Nation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Garamendi

Amendment No. 92: Page 125, line 6, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $2,695,031,000)''.

Page 125, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $348,845,000)''.

Page 125, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $264,718,000)''.

Page 125, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $521,937,000)''.

Page 126, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $81,201,000)''.

Page 126, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $16,362,000)''.

Page 126, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $9,964,000)''.

Page 126, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $10,511,000)''.

Page 127, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $247,421,000)''.

Page 127, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $3,698,000)''.

Page 127, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $8,662,596,000)''.

Page 127, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $1,584,616,000)''.

Page 128, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $909,681,000)''.

Page 128, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $2,359,569,000)''.

Page 128, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $1,527,457,000)''.

Page 130, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $55,414,000)''.

Page 130, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $15,674,000)''.

Page 130, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $9,193,000)''.

Page 131, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $93,884,000)''.

Page 131, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $7,962,000)''.

Page 138, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $10,748,000)''.

Page 139, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $17,697,000)''.

Page 139, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $113,688,000)''.

Page 140, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $3,488,000)''.

Page 140, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $26,669,000)''.

Page 140, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $20,468,000)''.

Page 141, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $107,091,000)''.

Page 141, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $2,414,000)''.

Page 142, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $7,857,000)''.

Page 142, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $246,473,000)''.

Page 142, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $31,319,000)''.

Page 143, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $737,626,000)''.

Page 144, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $723,000)''.

Page 144, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $4,204,000)''.

Page 145, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $11,474,000)''.

Page 145, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $15,593,000)''.

Page 145, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $104,386,000)''.

Page 161, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $20,887,651,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, Representatives George Miller, Jerry McNerney and I rise today in honor of Mitch Avalon, who has served the Contra Costa County Public Works Department for the last 32 years. As his colleagues, friends, and family gather together to celebrate the next chapter of his life, we ask all of our colleagues to join us in saluting this outstanding public servant.

Mitch Avalon began his journey with the Contra Costa County Public Works Department in 1979 as a civil engineer, where his diligent hard work was recognized and he quickly assumed the title and duties of Deputy Public Works Director, a position which he has held to this day. In addition to his position with the Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Mr. Avalon has also served as the Deputy Chief Engineer for the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District, further demonstrating his commitment to public service.

While working for Contra Costa County, Mr. Avalon contributed to the creation of numerous county public works projects and programs, including the Capital Road Improvement Program, Clean Water Program, and the Contra Costa Watershed Forum. His work was instrumental in creating the annual Contra Costa County Watershed Symposium, which has become an incredible asset to the community. If not for his efforts, many of Contra Costa County's public works projects and programs would not have come to fruition.

Mitch Avalon's contributions have not only been an incredible asset to Contra Costa County but to the entire Bay Area. Mr. Avalon sits on the boards of directors for Friends of the San Francisco Estuary, California Central Valley Flood Control Association, and San Francisco Estuary Institute. In addition, he was the founding chair for the Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association.

In recognition of the integral role he has played in establishing sound public investment throughout the region, Mr. Avalon has been the recipient of many outstanding community awards over the years. In 2005 he was presented with the California State Association of Counties ``Circle of Service Award'' and in 2007 he was honored by the Contra Costa County Watershed Forum with the ``Watershed Champion of the Year Award.'' His legacy will live on through the series of public works projects, programs and associations he helped create and the communities they serve.

The long-lasting benefits of Mitch Avalon's career accomplisInnents not only benefit our generation but will improve our communities for generations to come; they stand as a testament to what diligent work and true commitment to community can produce.

Mr. Speaker, we are truly honored to pay tribute to our friend and dedicated public servant Mitch Avalon. We ask our colleagues to join with us in thanking Mr. Avalon for his long and dedicated service to the citizens of Contra Costa County and wishing him continued success in all his future endeavors along with a happy retirement.

It appears this morning and today the House of Representatives and Congress will be carrying out its constitutional responsibilities dealing with the war in Libya. Resolutions will be on the floor. Appropriately, we will be voting today on whether we want to end, limit, or extend.

For me, I think we have to carry out the U.N. resolution that calls for the right to protect or the obligation and duty to protect. That is why the Libyan situation started. That needs to be completed.

I would suggest that the Hastings resolution that gives a year is good in that it provides the necessary restrictions on the White House and on the military in the Libya operation and basically puts the United States in a support position. I would prefer that there be an amendment to that--perhaps it will be in a motion to recommit--that it be limited to 6 months.

I thank the gentlelady from New York for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we are later this morning going to be engaged in one of the most important tasks of Congress, and that is what to do about war. Unfortunately, the administration--and I think they would agree to this--didn't adequately engage Congress in the process running up to the beginning of the Libya conflict and didn't sufficiently engage during the course of it. We are now in a position where we will be making some decisions today about how we want this Nation to proceed, whether we want to proceed with a full-on war or with limited or much more limited activity with regard to the support of NATO in the Libya fight.

Unfortunately, all of this is now being rushed upon us here on the last day just before the break for the 4th of July. The amount of time to debate this on the floor is far too limited. It would have been our preference on the Democratic side to have had a more full discussion along the lines that the gentlelady from New York discussed in her opening comments--a full-on discussion about how we are to proceed. We are basically going to have two options, both of them with inadequate discussion. I guess we're down to that point now where we have no more alternative but to use the 1 hour, so here we are debating this issue at this moment.

For me, there is a very important principle that was enunciated by the United Nations, which is the obligation to defend and protect. That was the basic rationale for this country moving forward with the Libya operation. Yes, the President should have come to us early. He should have come to us at the very beginning and allowed Congress to carry out its constitutional obligations, ``yes'' or ``no.'' But here we are. The obligation or the right or the necessity to defend is very important. That's why we're there. We need to provide the President with the necessary powers to carry out that obligation in a very limited period of time. We'll see that this afternoon or later this morning with the Hastings amendment.

Mr. Speaker and Members, apparently the House has debated for more than almost 40 years ago the War Powers agreement or War Powers law. What we have before us today is a way in which we can effect that law and put it into place, and there is reason for us to support the Hastings amendment or the Hastings resolution, and there are four reasons.

First of all, there's a humanitarian issue here, and that's why we went into this in the first place, the United Nations resolution on the obligation to protect, and indeed there was a threat.

Secondly, this particular intervention is supported by the United Nations, by NATO, by the Arab League, in a most unusual situation asking for support of the Europeans and the United States in an Arab country.

Finally, we must continue our support of the effort, and we must do it in a very limited way. The resolution does that. It provides for a very limited scope and a limited period of time and, therefore, it is in order; and it appropriately puts the Congress, both Houses if this should pass the Senate, in support of the operation, thereby fulfilling the War Powers Act.

I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the resolution.

Representative Tonko, thank you so very much for the opportunity to join you this evening on this critical issue. We often call this the Ryan Roadmap, but it really is the Republican budget proposal. It's not only the chairman of the budget committee that put this out, but every Republican in this House voted for it. So they really have adopted this as their roadmap, as their solution to the problems that face this Nation.

You spoke very eloquently about the way in which this proposal would change who pays and how it's going to be paid for. It shifts the burden away from all of us. It shifts the burden onto individual seniors.

One of the things that I found very interesting was: How much does it cost an individual senior?

Now, recognize that those who are seniors today also suffer. It's not just those who will become seniors but those who are seniors today, and I'll

come back to that during this discussion because that's a very, very important part. Our Republican friends have often said this doesn't affect anyone on Medicare. Well, the Medicare portion doesn't, but the Medicaid does because it does cut Medicaid. We'll come back to that. What I want to focus on is the shift of responsibility here and what it's going to cost an individual.

If you are not yet 55, then you're going to be in a system that is not Medicare. As you say, it's a voucher program. It's a program in which the government will give you a voucher, a ticket, and say, ``Go buy your insurance.'' What's going to make up the balance? The individual is going to make up the balance, and this little chart lays it out pretty clearly.

If you're 55, then you'd better start finding $182,000 right now because, when you become 65 and go on the non-Medicare program, you're going to have to come up with $182,000 in order to be able to buy the insurance that you need. Similarly, if you're 50, you're going to have to have $231,900 in order to be able to purchase the private insurance coverage. It goes on. If you're 40, you'll need $343,800. So you've got to put that money away because, when you become 65 and the Medicare is not there for you, you'll be having to make up the difference.

The bottom line on all of this is--I love this one. I think you'll recognize it, Mr. Tonko. We used this some time ago. It's the tombstone. ``Medicare, 1965-2011, Created by LBJ, Destroyed by GOP?''

They are destroying Medicare.

Medicare is a program that has been around since 1965. It guarantees that every individual in America who has turned 65 will have this health insurance policy--a policy that guarantees them benefits, doctors' visits, hospital visits, and under the new Affordable Health Care Act, an expansion of services, a whole series of preventative services available without cost to seniors. It actually saves us money. It's very, very interesting that if you spend money up front for prevention, as we do in the Affordable Health Care Act, which, incidentally, every Republican voted against and voted to repeal, that benefit that goes to seniors free saves taxpayers money and keeps seniors healthy.

That's absolutely true.

I was the insurance commissioner in California for 8 years. Actually, that's the way insurance works. It's a large pool, all of whom share the risk. If your risk pool, as you just described it, becomes older and older----

Exactly.

Suddenly, you've got a very, very expensive pool.

Now, on the other hand, the very same thing occurs on the private insurance side.

On the private insurance side, we're going to see in the Republican budget plan, the Ryan plan, a whole population of people who have become 65 who are no longer eligible for Medicare. Now they're going into the insurance sector, the private insurance sector.

Exactly. So will the insurance companies want to see those people? No, they won't because those people are now 65. They're at an age where they're going to have higher medical expenses.

You're asking the private insurance companies to take this whole new population of older, more expensive people into their private insurance companies, into that pool, the result of which is that private insurance company's pool will become more expensive. They know those people who are now 65 in the private insurance pool are going to get ill, that they're going to be more expensive, and so their doors are going to be subtly slammed shut. As to the availability, while presumably guaranteed by law, advertising won't be there, and the insurance agents won't be there to serve that population, and there is going to be all kinds of not-so-subtle discrimination, making it not only expensive for the individual but difficult to get quality insurance. In fact, there is no guarantee about the benefits in the Republican proposal.

Let me see if I understand.

What you're saying is that, in the negotiations, the Republicans are saying they are willing to cut services to seniors--Medicare. We also know that there is a proposal by Mr. Sessions, a Republican, to terminate Social Security. So they want to reduce the benefits to seniors or even the availability of the programs to seniors, but they don't want any new taxes on the super wealthy.

All that we do here is make choices. All of these laws are choices about solving this international problem. Do we want to solve it this way or that way? It's about choices. This issue of how we're going to deal with the budget and the budget deficit is about choices.

The Republicans have made a very clear choice. They are deciding that their choice is to reduce the benefits to seniors--Medicare, Medicaid benefits, an almost $900 billion cut in the Medicare program that provides support for seniors who are in nursing homes--and to terminate Medicare so that you're forced into a private insurance market. That's the choice that they've made rather than to go and get our money back from Big Oil.

Choices, they have refused both here on the floor, refused to take back the subsidies that were given to the big oil companies, I suppose arguing that somehow these oil companies are hurting, that they're not profitable. Well, not so.

Just take a look here just this last year. ExxonMobil saw a 69 percent increase in their profits, $10.7 billion profit; Oxy, 46 percent, $1.6 billion; Conoco, 43 percent increase, $2.1 billion; Chevron, 36 percent, $6.2 billion; BP, 16 percent increase, $7.2 billion.

Oh, by the way, you know who's billion dollars those are? Those are the folks that buy gasoline and diesel at the pumps. That's money right out of the pockets of consumers, and, in addition, they get billions of dollars of our tax money that you and I pay in addition to the gasoline tax. They get that for additional profit.

It is wrong. It's about choices. The Republicans have made a very clear choice here: take away from the seniors, take away their Medicare, and make sure that the oil companies continue to receive their subsidies.

How much?

A year?

It's about choices. It's about where do you stand. Do you stand with the seniors and Medicare and the continuation of Medicare and the benefits that they need literally to survive or do you stand with the Big Oil companies? It's very, very clear.

Just look at the way the votes come down here on this House floor. Over the last 5 months, we've seen vote after vote after vote where the Democrats have suggested that we eliminate these subsidies, all of them, the subsidy to Big Oil, that we install the higher income tax for the superwealthy. We're not talking about the working stiff out there in the plant. We're talking about the superwealthy, those that have an adjusted gross income--that's after all of the deductions--of over $250,000. Take it to a million. But just raise their tax rate on that upper income above $250,000 3 percent, not talking about a huge increase, a 3 percent increase, and yet our Republican friends say, oh, no, we can't do that. We have to whack the elderly. We've got to go after the elderly. We've got to take away their Medicare benefits.

This is unconscionable. It is terrible economic policy. It is unconscionable that anyone would make such a choice--give the wealthy more; take it away from the seniors. What would lead a person to do that?

We often talk about this, and what you're referring to is the deficit reduction negotiations that are going on between the Vice President and the leadership of the House and the Senate, and that's good. Negotiations have to take place. But in the negotiation, it's very clear where the two parties come down. You've described it so very, very well that in those negotiations, it appears as though our Republican colleagues are willing to put the full faith and credit of the United States--this is our worthiness, our financial worthiness as a Nation--on the line so that they can cut benefits to seniors, so that they can cut programs that provide food for pregnant women and children, so that they can make cuts in the school lunch programs, so that they can make cuts in the infrastructure, in the education programs that keep this country moving forward, in exchange for no taxes on the wealthy. They're willing to put this entire Nation's financial strength at risk so that they can reward the superwealthy in this country.

How well you've said it, Representative Tonko. The choices are very, very clear. We do have a deficit problem, and you and I should spend some time talking about how we got into that in the first place and how we can get out of it.

But to put this Nation's financial strength on the table and say, as Republicans are, they are willing to let this Nation go into default on its obligations, first time ever, and if that were to happen, it would kick off another financial crisis around the world because the rest of the world depends upon the willingness of the United States to pay its debts, because that's the security in the banks around the world.

And if the United States isn't willing to do that, suddenly, this Nation's going to be in deep trouble, and the world economy along with it. And guess what? It's going to cost us a lot of money because the interest rates will go up. If the United States isn't trustworthy, it's risky; therefore, you have to pay higher interest.

So we need to understand that this is a default crisis. It's not the debt ceiling. It is a default crisis that we're facing. And to use it as a lever to harm seniors is unconscionable. But yet that's what they're doing as they continue to call for cuts in Medicare and the Medicare program. We shouldn't let it happen.

We do have--well, before we go there, I keep coming back to this. In 1965, the

United States decided that we were going to end poverty among the seniors. The seniors were the most impoverished part of the American population. And added to the Social Security program was a health insurance program called Medicare, an extraordinary expression of the American compassion, an extraordinary expression of the American desire to take care of their parents and to provide the necessary health care services. Here we are in 2011 with a proposal by the Republican Party to terminate Medicare. How can it be? How could we have come to this? And to say that it's the deficit that's causing this to happen is, I think, wrong.

Before we turn to the deficit, I just think that we--you and I have talked about this, Representative Tonko, and we should cover it. We've talked about it a little bit. We know that the cost of Medicare is going up. And it is something that is of concern to you and me and, I think, to everybody in this Nation. But Medicare costs go up along with the total inflation in health care. It's the whole health care system that goes up, and Medicare rides along in that inflation. It is not the cause of the inflation. There are many other causes of the inflation in health care.

In order to deal with the cost to Medicare, you don't destroy Medicare and throw Medicare into the insurance market. What you have to do is to control the underlying costs of health care. There are some things that you can actually do in Medicare.

For example, Medicare part D, which is the pharmaceutical portion of Medicare, passed by the Republican Congress in 2003 without any way to pay for it, all borrowed money. Well, okay. So much for the Republicans' desire to pay as you go. But it was all borrowed money. And into the law the Republicans wrote a provision that prohibited the Federal Government from negotiating drug prices. The Federal Government is a price taker. Whatever the drug companies want to charge, the Federal Government has to pay. We could save tens, hundreds of billions of dollars over 10 years by simply allowing the Federal Government to negotiate the prices of drugs for seniors.

But the Republicans wouldn't allow it.

Well, as the insurance commissioner in California for 8 years, let me just pick that issue up.

The insurance companies are extraordinarily inefficient compared to Medicare. I know that a lot of people think that government is inefficient. It is not the case in Medicare. Medicare collects the money and distributes, pays the bills for about 3 percent of the cost. The private insurance companies are about 30 percent.

Now, on the other end, you've got the cost of administration. It may be another 7, 8 percent administrative costs for the doctors and hospitals for Medicare. But on the private insurance side, because there are so many different policies, so many different forms, so many different coverages--this is covered, that's not covered; this is exempted; this is the copay for this and a different copay for that--it is utter chaos for the provider. So about 15 percent of that 30 percent, about half of that 30 percent is administrative costs and commissions and sales and advertising on the part of the insurance companies, and the other 15 percent is the administrative costs on the part of the providers, the hospitals and doctors.

It is absolutely the most inefficient way to deliver medical services and to pay for them. Medicare is one-half the administrative cost both for the provider as well as for the collection and the payment of the bills.

I want to pick up one more issue. I know my Republican friends over here are constantly saying, oh, but in the Affordable Health Care Act you took $500 billion out of Medicare. Let's understand what that's all about.

In 2003, in that program, the Medicare part D program, two programs were actually put in place. One was the drug benefit. Another is what is called Medicare Advantage. This is the supplemental program for Medicare. The Medicare Advantage program, when it was put in, to entice the insurance companies, the private insurance companies to participate, they were given a 16 percent bonus over and above their cost. So for 8 years or 7 years, they enjoyed a built-in additional profit of some 16 percent, which----

Just to get it up and going.

And they continued to receive that additional 16 percent, additional profit, guaranteed profit. When we did the Affordable Health Care Act, we said, Wait a minute. They don't need that any longer. The program is up. It's going. The advertising and everything else is in place, the administrative system. So we want to take back that additional profit given to the insurance companies.

That's where the $500 billion is over a 10-year period. That's money that was saved by creating an efficiency and, once again, ending an unnecessary supplement. It did not in any way, shape, or form change any of the benefits that seniors received in the Affordable Health Care Act. There was a sentence. It said, ``No benefit changes,'' period.

No more subsidies.

Now that I'm on a roll, in that Affordable Care Act, there was additional money for the Internal Revenue Service, the IRS, specifically to go after Medicare fraud. We know it's a problem. In the previous years, the Republican budgets reduced the effort of the Medicare program to go after fraud. So we put money into the Affordable Health Care Act to go after fraud. Guess what happened when the Republicans came to power. They eliminated

the money that the IRS needed to add additional agents to go after Medicare fraud.

What's that all about?

So if you're looking at the deficit and dealing with the deficit, you don't have to destroy Medicare to save money. In fact, it will cost us more money, not directly in taxes but out of the individual pocket. No doubt about it.

The other thing is that there are many, many ways to bring down the cost of health care. Many of those are in the Affordable Care Act, which our Republican friends want to repeal. And let me just go through them:

There's the end of the subsidies for the insurance companies, which we just talked about. There's the money for the IRS agents to go after fraud. There is in the legislation a provision that says that hospitals will not be paid for reinfections. One of the most expensive things in the hospital system is when a patient gets an infection in a hospital and comes back into the hospital. These are very, very simple things called ``cleanliness'' and ``hygiene'' at the hospital to bring down the infection rate. And in the Affordable Care Act, it said, no, no, if there's a reinfection in the hospital, we're not going to pay you a second time around, forcing the hospitals to keep it clean.

Electronic medical records, eliminated or attempted to be eliminated by the Republicans. All of these things are good for health. The preventative care.

And everything in between, Hands off my Medicare, Hands off my children's Medicare.

However, we're saying that. The public is saying that. Democrats say we will not give an inch on Medicare. We will control the cost within the total health care system, but we will not allow the destruction of Medicare. Keep your hands off Medicare. The public is saying that.

And what are our Republican friends saying? They're saying, Keep your hands off Big Oil subsidies. Hello. What's that all about? They're saying don't touch the subsidies, the billions of dollars annually that the oil industry gets, our tax dollars given to the oil industry. Don't touch that. Keep your hands off those subsidies. But they want to put their hands onto Medicare and literally destroy Medicare.

Representative Tonko, we do have a deficit problem. We have to address that. We've talked about ways that that can be done in the health care sector without harming Medicare. But one of the most important things in addressing the deficit problem is to put people back to work.

Americans want to work. They want to earn a living. They want to have enough money to pay for their home or their rent and food and take care of their children so their kids can go to school. We need a jobs program. We need a jobs program in America. We need to be able to put people back to work. We're into almost the end of the sixth month of this session. Not one jobs bill put forward by the Republican Party. Not one. They talk about cuts in taxes as though that's somehow going to create jobs, and there's absolutely no evidence that it does.

That's money directly out of the pockets, and that's money that has to be set aside.

What I would like to take a few moments on, with your permission, is to talk about a program that you and I and our colleagues on the Democratic side have been working on now for the last, almost a year now, and we call it Make It In America. It's that great American middle class, the heart and soul of this country, the men and women that went to work every day and made something. They made cars. They made jet airplanes. They made engines. They were out in the fields. They made the tractors. America was the great manufacturing center of the world. And in the last 20 to 30 years, we've allowed that to dissipate.

We want it back, and we know we can get it back. We have the ability in this Nation to rebuild the manufacturing base of America; and when we do, we will rebuild the middle class of America. We call this Make It In America. And it's so important.

You come from an area that still is a great manufacturing sector and was once the greatest center of it.

Representative Tonko, I come from the San Francisco Bay area. We are the first great science research technology. We'll let you be number 3. But we're number 1.

But the point here is that our strategy of ``Make it in America'' includes a half a dozen different specific programs, one of which you talked about, which is the education system.

Why in the world, when we need, as you just said, to build the ability of the American worker to compete, smart, capable, would we reduce the education funding? But that's precisely what our Republican friends have done. They've taken money out of the Pell Grants for college, very significant, Head Start. All of the Federal education programs are being reduced by the Republicans at a time when we have to build it. So if we're going to make it in America, we need a well- educated work force.

This one up here we call trade. Listen, China's cheating. China is cheating on their currency. And no matter how creative, how competitive we are, how hard our workers work, it's virtually impossible to compete against China because of their currency cheating. The Democrats want to put on this floor, send to the President a demand that the United States take action, against China on their currency issue so that we could have a fair trade situation.

Well, R&D, research and development. In the continuing resolutions pushed forward by the Republican party and successfully enacted and signed into law by their intransigence to deal with any new revenues, the research budgets of the United States were significantly reduced at a time when we actually need more research.

Research into energy. We know we have an energy crisis. We know we need to move to new energy sources. And yet the Republican budget reduced the energy research for this Nation.

Automotive research. We're just now beginning to claw back and rebuild our automotive industry, and so research into batteries and new efficient automobiles--eliminated by the Republicans. What are they thinking?

Take away the resource money and see what happens. We lose the race.

We know we all get sick, right? Why would you ever put forward a policy to reduce research in medical services and the basic understanding of the human gene, of understanding how we can solve medical problems? Why would anybody propose a reduction in the research for medical care?

I don't know. But they did. And they succeeded in reducing the budget for medical research.

So energy, medical research, automotive, transportation research, they reduce it in the budget and they expect our economy to grow, to be competitive? I don't get it, but that's what they have done.

Let's take another example. And this comes up on the energy policies of this Nation.

I think we all understand that the oil industry has done rather well, and we continue to subsidize the oil industry. Efforts to eliminate those subsidies and to shift those to the new green technologies have been blocked by our Republican friends.

Now, we do have money going to subsidize, to provide incentives for the clean energy industry, wind turbines and solar photovoltaic systems. I have a bill in, actually two bills, that say that our tax money must be spent on American-made equipment.

For example, I have two big wind farms in my district, the Altamont and the Solano wind farms. They're huge, huge pieces of equipment, towers 400 feet high with blades that are a football field across, made overseas in Europe and China. And I'm looking at it and I'm going, wait a minute; our tax money's being used to help build these systems? And yet they're not American-made? I said, no, no, no, no. If our tax money's going to be used in this way, it's going to be used to buy American-made equipment. That bill is in. It's now being slowed down, blocked in the various Republican committees here. But it seems to me foolishness to allow our tax money to be sent offshore.

We also, all of us, pay 18\1/2\ cents excise tax for gasoline. That money is used to build roads, highways, bridges, and to buy trains and buses and light rail systems. My legislation says that that money must be used to buy American-made equipment. Those trains,

those buses, those light rails, the steel in the bridges, will be American-made.

Why don't we bring those jobs back home? We can do this using money that is already available, already being spent, but sometimes all too often spent on foreign-made equipment.

As we come to the conclusion of this, the Make It In America agenda is a powerful agenda to rebuild the American manufacturing base to put middle class America back to work so that they can have the home that they want, so that they can take care of their children's education, so that they can have, once again, pride in this Nation. We can do it. And these are the policies--a fair trade policy in which we tell China, no, no, no, we're not going to let you cheat on your currency any longer, where the tax policy makes sense.

This one. An example. Somewhere in the last 30 years, built into the tax laws was an incentive for American corporations to shift jobs offshore. They take a job; they send it offshore; they got a tax break. I don't know where it came from. I know it was in the Codes. And what we did in the tax bill last December was to eliminate that tax break for American corporations sending jobs offshore. It passed. The President signed it, but our Republican colleagues, to a person, voted against it. They voted to keep that tax break for American corporations to shift jobs offshore. Doesn't make sense to me, but it's gone. And that's the kind of policy we want to put in place, where we take care of Americans who are working in America.

Thank you very much, Representative Tonko.

Our promise to the American seniors and those who want to become seniors is that this tombstone that the Republican Party wants to put out there--that is, the termination of Medicare--will not happen. We will not let this happen. Medicare is part of the American agenda. It is part of what is good about America, and it will not be terminated by anybody. That's our promise. That's where we draw our line in the sand.

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against House Resolution 316 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation of section 426(a).

Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of order not necessarily out of concern for the unmet, unfunded mandates, although there are many in H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011; I raise the point of order because it is one of the very few vehicles we have, given the House rule, by which we can actually talk about what is in this bill, and there are plenty of problems in this bill. I also note that the resolution includes H.R. 1249, which talks about patents, because that also violates the House's CutGo rule.

Let me speak to H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011, which is actually better noted as the ``bad lung, emphysema and cancer act of 2011.''

This bill gives offshore oil companies a pass to pollute by exempting the offshore drilling companies from applying the pollution controls to vessels, which account for up to 98 percent of the air pollution from offshore drilling. I suppose, if you're in the Gulf of Mexico and the wind is blowing towards the shore, you would care about this; but in California, the wind almost always blows onto the shore, and the offshore drilling and the additional pollution that would be allowed because of this is a serious problem for California.

It poses a health risk. Smoke, fumes, dust, ash, black carbon--all of these things--blow onto the shore in southern California where we already have quite enough air pollution without this additional amount.

Local communities do have a right--and should--even though this bill would tend to limit it, to go to the EPA. It cuts the review time in half, thereby denying local communities the full opportunity to express their concerns about the additional pollution.

It eliminates third-party expert decision-making by the Environmental Appeals Board--finally, 20 years of the Environmental Appeals Board, created under the George W. Bush EPA, and it eliminates that.

There are many, many problems here, and I would like to raise them all by including the patents in this.

I would like to now yield 3 minutes to my colleague from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

I thank the gentleman.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, I think he tossed it back to me, Mr. Speaker; so let me go ahead and finish this up.

Mr. Sensenbrenner accurately talked about the way in which this particular resolution and the underlying bill on the patent bill violates the House rule that was written not more than 5\1/2\ months ago. Why would we want to violate the rules that we put in place to prevent excessive Federal spending? Doesn't make sense to me. So I agree with Mr. Sensenbrenner: send this thing back. It's a violation of the rule, and I would ask for a ruling on that from the Chair.

The other point that I'd like to make is a similar point with regard to the offshore oil drilling bill which really does present a very serious problem for California. All of the offshore drilling in California--and it's very extensive. It's the second largest year for offshore drilling in the United States--is immediately off the southern California coast where we have very serious air pollution problems, some of the worst in the Nation.

All of those offshore drilling platforms pollute, air pollution of many different kinds causing potential harm to the citizens of southern California. Those onshore winds bring those pollutants onto the shore and cause additional air pollution problems which then require, under this bill, that the local communities take additional action to reduce the pollutants that are generated onshore, creating a very serious economic problem.

In addition, the bill requires that any legal issue raised has to be taken up in the district court here in Washington, D.C. By my calculation, that's nearly 3,000 miles away from where the problem exists, that is, southern California, placing an incredible burden upon them and an unfunded mandate that they have to then come out of their own budgets to come to Washington, D.C., to take up any legal issue that is raised, an unfunded mandate clearly in violation of the Rules of the House.

And, therefore, a point of order is in order, and I would hope that the Speaker would so rule.

There are many, many problems beyond that with regard to air pollution and the like. I will let those go.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I will ask for a vote, but I now yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Thank you, Mr. Farr.

Each piece of legislation that passes the House is really a reflection of our values. It speaks to our heart; it speaks to what we care about and what's important to us. This particular bill does that in a way that more than ever highlights values. Is it about children, about infants? Or is it about tax breaks for the very, very wealthy? Is it about safe food? Or tax breaks for oil companies and subsidies for oil companies? Is it about those people around the world that are hungry and the Food for Peace program that provides them with

enough food to be able to survive and to live? Or is it about a continuation of very fat, unnecessary farm crop subsidies?

It's about our values. It's about what we care about and what we think is important. And if there's anything that's important in life, it's food. It's the ability for our youngest children--I was on this floor not more than 2 hours ago with my granddaughter, 11 months old. Out there in America there are hundreds of thousands of young children that will not have the food that they need to be able to be healthy, will not be able to have the care they need. This is about our values.

What does this bill say of our values? It says that those children are of little value. Is that what this is about? Is it about those people around the world that are starving that will not have the Food for Peace program? Is that the value of this Congress, that we cannot find the money, in this wealthiest of all nations, to provide the health care for our young children and the food for those around the world?

What is it that we care about then? The very wealthy? About Wall Street? About the Commodity Futures Trading Commission not having the money that they need to regulate the programs that brought this country to its knees? What is it that we value? Big question.

In this bill, obviously there's a great difference in what we value on our side and what this bill, brought to us by the Republican majority, values.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly object to this bill.

In his second inaugural address, Franklin Delano Roosevelt laid out, I think, a very good test for us. It was a test for this Nation at one of its most desperate periods. We, too, find ourselves in a difficult situation. We do have a big deficit, and we need to make some tough choices. And today as we debate this piece of legislation, we are indeed making choices and we are being tested. We're being tested about our values. We're being tested about what we think is important. Franklin Delano Roosevelt suggested this be the test:

``The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.''

Ponder those words and apply those words to what we are debating and what we will soon vote for or against on this floor. The test of our progress, whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much. We've discussed many times here in the last couple of hours the options that are given to us on tax policy, continuing to provide subsidies to the wealthiest industry in the world, the oil industry, not to the tune of a couple of billion but, when you add it all up, some $40 billion a year. Whether we continue to provide a tax break to the wealthiest in this Nation, those whose annual incomes are in the millions and, indeed, some who are even in the billions. We're making choices and we're being tested. That's one option that our Republican colleagues seem to want to present to us.

The other option is what we on the Democratic side have been debating and asking for, and that is the second part of what Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, and that is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.

I was on this floor not more than 3 hours ago with my granddaughter, 11 months old. And in the arms of mothers and grandfathers and grandmothers and parents across this Nation are children of that age who depend upon the Women, Infants, and Children program, which this Republican appropriation brought to this floor reduces by 10 percent. 350,000 children will not be able to have the food that they need, the care that they need to be able to be healthy, to be able to grow, and indeed in the future, to be able to pay, as we will today, one way or another, for the deficit that we have.

A 10 percent reduction from last year, and is there anybody in this House that's prepared to argue somehow things are better out there and that a 10 percent reduction in the face of an increased number of women and children who need help, that that is a worthy choice for us to make? I think not.

I think that this bill miserably fails the test that Franklin Delano Roosevelt laid out during the Great Depression. This does not provide for those who have too little.

And it's not just in the Women, Infants, and Children program. Across the board, thousands, indeed, 48 million Americans become ill each year because of food-borne illnesses, and yet, in this budget, another 12 percent reduction from last year's funding for food safety programs at a time when we have a new food safety program to implement. 350,000 Americans wind up in the hospital as a result of food-borne illnesses, and the Republicans want to cut the money to provide the protection for Americans.

It's about choices. It's about values. What do you value in this system? Yes, we have a deficit. Yes, we must deal with it. And yes, according to our Republican friends, we must take that food out of the children's mouths; we must make sure that people will not be able to be healthy. I don't understand.

Will the gentlelady yield?

Thank you.

If the gentlelady from Wyoming would recall the years past, she would recall what is known as the Senate filibuster. The graveyard of legislation that the Democrats put forth many, many times died in the Senate as a result of their filibuster.

With regard to the issues of entitlements and this particular bill, we're talking here about the issue of how we care for those who have little. I'd be

happy to debate with you on this floor or any other place the import of the stimulus program, and, in fact, most every economist argues that without the stimulus program we would have fallen into a great depression, not just a very serious recession. I'm sure the gentlewoman recalls those words.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I strongly oppose the underlying bill, and I support the proposed amendment.

Earlier today, we had a long discussion about one portion of the bill that dealt with Women, Infants and Children and the way in which the legislation inadequately funds the necessities for pregnant women, infants and children to lead healthy lives. We are now on to another issue that is extraordinarily important.

In the '90s, the idea of deregulation took hold and was expanded throughout the 2000 to 2008 period, so much so that we had the financial meltdown. We had Wall Street bankers and hedge funds running wild, gambling on the future, and America was the great loser in that gamble.

Over the last several years, we have seen the derivative market increase from a $30-$40 trillion notional value to an over $300 trillion notional value today. Every day across the Wall Street tickers--across the wires--and in the back rooms of the hedge funds and the big banks, $300 trillion of risk is traded back and forth, risk that is not backed up by assets but by bets that are made. It is the great crap shoot in the alley of Wall Street--$300 trillion.

Where is the money? Where is the enforcer to make sure that the bet against Greece and the bet against the price of oil is going to be backed up? It's not there. It is the shell game of all shell games. There are no assets. I was the insurance commissioner, and we understood a couple of things very clearly: If an insurance company were going to make a bet that something would go wrong, then they had to have the asset to pay if that bet ever came to pass.

That's not the case here. There is no regulation of this market.

Understanding the need for this back in the 1930s, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission was established to make sure that, if bets were made on the future price of grain, somebody would be able to pay if that bet had to be paid off. It worked okay until the great period of deregulation. Let's understand the definition of ``insanity.'' It's when you repeat what you did before and expect a different answer.

This bill is asking us to, once again, repeat the deregulation of the derivative market by defunding, not providing adequate funding, for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. We are betting that things are going to work out, that this $300 trillion of notional value out there in the derivative market is somehow going to work out okay. We learned in 2007 and 2008 that it doesn't work out okay--literally collapsing the entire financial market of the world.

Okay. Speculation? Let it rip. We did that once before. It is insanity to assume that this time it's going to work out okay.

This amendment puts back in the necessary money for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to adequately regulate a huge market beyond the imagination of all of us. We need

this money. We need the systems in place to make sure that this derivative market is adequately regulated so that we do not, once again, find this Nation bailing out or falling into a great recession and depression yet again.

No, I don't think so because, I suspect, I'm pretty much out of time.

Let us understand what is at stake here. It is the very nature of our economy to be able to survive in an era of rapid speculation that has driven up the price of oil. We know from Goldman Sachs and we know from the CEO of Exxon that some $20 of the $100-per-barrel oil price today is speculation. We can take a look at the other markets where speculation is also running rapid, and it is the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that is specifically under Dodd-Frank required to rein in the excesses of this market, to end the speculation, to ultimately make a rational market out there for the futures market.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let us understand that the underlying bill does not provide the necessary money for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to conduct the necessary oversight and regulations to adequately control the derivative market.

Are we in agreement on that?