Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, America's intervention in Libya was initially based on the international community's ``Responsibility to Protect,'' a mandate agreed upon in the wake of the horrific Rwanda genocide. This important international doctrine calls for international intervention in a country where a government is unable or unwilling to protect its civilians, or is actively assaulting and killing inhabitants in that country.

I agree with this doctrine and America's initial response to the Qadhafi threat to wipe out a large segment of the Libyan population. For 3 months, the U.S. and U.N. have engaged in military action. At this time, it is unclear if the mission is any longer one that fulfills the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, or if it has changed into a larger and/or different role. Given the continued military action and the lack of clarity of the U.S. mission's goal, I support House Resolution 292, which requires the administration to provide information on the American military, diplomatic, and humanitarian activities in Libya and seeks clarity on America's objective and strategy to achieve that goal.

I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding.

Will the assault on the well-being and the health care of America never

end? Look over the last 5 months as to what has happened here. This bill takes it one more step.

First is the repeal of the Affordable Health Care Act with provisions in it to protect Americans from the rapacious appetite of the health insurance companies. Providing protections, Republicans would repeal that. Then the next step, which we saw just recently in the Republican budget, is the termination of Medicare for those who are under 55 years of age. What are they to do? Then, for those who are already on Medicare, there will be a significant, serious reduction in the Medicaid program, which provides essential funding for those seniors in nursing homes.

Will the assault never end?

Here in this bill, to protect the American homeland is a deeming of the Republican budget, which clearly terminates Medicare. Is it never going to end? Are we never going to step forward to actually put in place legislation that will assist Americans in getting the health care that they need?

Step one, way back: Repeal the Affordable Health Care Act. Give limitless opportunities to the insurance companies to go after the men and women of this Nation--terminating Medicare. Here, coming back in a Homeland Security bill, slipping in by sleight of hand a repeal, once again, of health care.

By the way, how is it going to be paid for? You're going to take it out of seniors' pockets, but you're not going to go after the oil companies? Come on now. The oil companies, the richest industry in the world, not paying their fair share and at the same time getting subsidies from the American taxpayers?

It is time for that to end. There are ways to pay for the deficit and to bring it down. One of the ways not to do it is to go after seniors.

Will the gentleman yield?

The distinguished chair of the Budget Committee spoke here a few minutes ago. He spoke about a moral obligation.

An interesting definition of ``moral obligation'': An obligation to maintain the benefits that the insurance industry has; an obligation to maintain the subsidy that the American taxpayers give to the richest industry in this world, the oil industry, billions of dollars a year; an obligation to maintain the tax benefits to the wealthiest millionaires and billionaires in the world. Apparently, that's his definition of a moral obligation.

We have a different definition on our side of the aisle. We have a definition on our side of the aisle that says it is the obligation of this society to provide medical care to our seniors. Our Republican colleagues see their moral obligation as terminating, ending, Medicare for all Americans who are not yet 55 years of age.

Say it any way you want, but that's precisely what your budget does. It terminates Medicare. Is that your moral obligation?

It's not ours on our side. Our side is to maintain the promise that when a senior in the United States becomes 65 years of age, they will have Medicare.

Our good chairman comes and he says we're not cutting benefits for seniors. That's not true. In fact, you're cutting $700 billion out of the Medicaid--Medicaid--program, a program where two-thirds of the money goes to seniors who are in nursing homes.

Thank you.

You say it's a moral obligation to cut $500 billion out of the health care bill? No way. That was money that came out of a subsidy to the insurance companies. And you say it's a moral obligation to leave the insurance companies alone so they can continue their rapaciousness against the people of America.

Mr. Cicilline, it does not surprise me at all that you have a passion for this issue. You come from a part of the United States that really started the industrial revolution, the Northeast, and your State in particular, the industrial revolution started there.

And over the years it gave great strength to this Nation, and it was the manufacturing that provided the economic underpinnings for the growth of the American economy. Unfortunately, your part of the State, perhaps for a variety of reasons, some of them having to do with national policies, began to lose its industrial base.

But with your representation and your passion for this issue, I have absolutely no doubt that once again the Northeast will find the resiliency and the right national policies to rebuild the manufacturing base there and across the rest of the Nation.

We are already beginning to see it as a result of the stimulus program, and some of the specific laws that were built into that program are now rebuilding the manufacturing base in the Midwest.

Specifically, a requirement that for the high-speed rail systems and the rebuilding of the American intercity rail programs, those goods, trains, rails, electronic systems, control systems, have to be built in America. And guess what? International companies are establishing, reestablishing, and building manufacturing facilities in America to take advantage of that money that was in the stimulus bill. Simple, little things, not an increase, but rather using our Federal money wisely. We can do it. We must do it. We will make it in America once again, and it will be the great American manufacturing sector. And when we do this, America will make it.

There has been a lot of discussion here on the floor today about deficits. What are we going to do about the deficits? Are we going to raise the debt limit? Of course we're going to raise the debt limit. We have to. America stands behind its debts. We will pay. It will engender a debate. Fine. Let's make this part of the debate. Let's make this part of the debate.

In dealing with America's deficit, are we willing to put in place the policies that will rebuild the American manufacturing sector? And I know it is the Democratic agenda to do just that, that we will rebuild the American manufacturing sector. And in doing so, we will rebuild the American economy and provide one of the critical bricks in solving the deficit problem. Without a growing economy, without a strong middle class, the deficit will never be solved. So we ought to do it.

How can we do it? Well, how about our legislative agenda? Why don't you start us off on a couple of the bills and see where it takes us?

If you would yield, the infrastructure bank is a great idea, and it is one which allows us to build immediately. And over time, as those projects pay off, they repay the loans. It is a very, very wise investment to create an infrastructure bank. Other countries have it. And in the United States, there are certain localities and States that also have it.

Another piece of legislation dealing with infrastructure actually is a bill that I put together that says, we spend a lot of money. It's part of the excise tax money that goes out to build highways, to pay for buses, trains, light rails and the like. And my bill is pretty simple. It's our tax money. Use that tax money to buy American-made equipment. Why would we send our tax money off to China to buy a Chinese bus? Hey, we make great buses. We make a great bus in the Bay Area. The GILLIG Corporation makes a bus that is a superb bus. And we need to spend our taxpayer money buying American-made buses, trains, light rails and the like.

We're going to spend billions. Is the money going to be spent in America or is the money going to be spent overseas? My legislation says buy American-made equipment. Pretty simple. After all, it's our tax money. One of several bills--the infrastructure bank and this particular bill--in building the American infrastructure.

I notice one of our colleagues here from the State of Hawaii.

It's always good to talk about your legislation. This is a great way to get things started. This is a great way to do it. It came from a fellow from the East Coast, the great State of Rhode Island, and it basically is a block grant program to jump-start the infrastructure programs all across the Nation.

The thing that's really good about this is it's a competitive block grant. You're just not going to go out with earmarks because somebody has seniority, but it's going to be based on the quality of the program, the jobs that are brought, the necessity of moving people. I think it must have been a genius out of Rhode Island. Was it you, Mr. Cicilline, who came up with that idea?

I only want to take a second here. I notice one of our colleagues from Texas has joined us. She is a strong advocate of returning American manufacturing.

I want to thank our colleague from the great State of Hawaii for bring to our attention the critical importance of transportation on the sea and in the American flag. Just for a moment, she caused in my mind a memory to return about an article that I read about where the ship is flagged. That is where it is licensed. I recall that I think it is from Florida, the Carnival Cruise lines, a billion-dollar operation with the ships actually flagged, I believe, in Panama. Interestingly, the tax that they pay to the U.S. Government, that is their corporate income tax--zero, nada, nothing--largely because they are able to avoid the American laws by flagging their ship offshore.

We need these ships flagged in America for many reasons, and certainly the issue that she raised about national defense. Corporate tax policy, the R&D tax credit, another one of the bills that the Democratic Caucus has put forward to permanently put in place the research and development tax credits so that we can expand the genesis, the beginning of tomorrow's manufacturing, which actually comes through the research. I can go on and on about that.

Representing California, we think research is really, really important. That is why we supported, without any Republican support, the STEM program, science and technology, which is research and also the education that goes with.

One of the things that I found so disturbing was the effort by our Republican colleagues to back off the research, to reduce the research in America, when in fact that is where the future comes from.

I was just listening to you discuss the situation with General Motors and Chrysler. That was a very courageous move that the Democratic Congress, together with President Obama, made when they made a decision to save the American automobile industry.

Many people, particularly the Republicans here in this House, said don't do it, government shouldn't interfere with business, let the good go and the bad die. Well, this was several hundred thousand small businesses across the Nation that are supply chains that would have died. But the decision was made--a very courageous decision by the President--to support the foundation of one of the great industries in this world and one of the great industries in America. And so General Motors and Chrysler did receive a bailout. And here we are today with two companies back at it, making cars, making it in America, and by golly, we're going to ``Import from Detroit.'' You know, that was one of the greatest advertisements there ever was. But that's what this is all about, that's what this Make It in America agenda really is.

There is another piece of this agenda that we really must pay attention to, and that is the future energy sources of America are going to be renewables, together with gas and nuclear, but these new industries need support in their early days. And this is a tax policy. There has been in place for about 7 or 8 years now a very robust tax policy to support the new renewable industries. The production tax credit. When you put a solar panel up on your roof and you draw down the energy, there is a tax credit available to homeowners. Those are very, very good. We need one more little twist to it. I saw this in my own district with those wind turbines down there. They were being made offshore, and yet our tax money was--appropriately--supporting the energy, but if you add to it one additional fact, and that is the tax policy that supports a wind turbine made in America so that our tax money uses American-made equipment.

Another piece of legislation I have simply says, in the green technologies, wonderful, we need to do it, but let's make sure that those solar panels, those wind turbines are made in America.

A pretty basic thought for me is that it's our tax money; spend it on American-made equipment.

The other piece of this is that these tax policies, these subsidies really work. And I want to give you an example. About a century ago, nearly a century ago America decided it needed a new energy source called oil. Over the years, subsidies were put in place to encourage investment in the oil industry and it worked, it worked phenomenally, created the best, most profitable industry in America, the petroleum industry; $970 billion--just slightly short of $1 trillion--of profit after taxes for the petroleum industry. And after a century of being subsidized by taxpayers, it's time for those to end. Let that industry help us with the deficit.

End the subsidy for Big Oil. Return the money to the American Treasury. Bring down our deficit. There's a lot of money here. Depending on how you count it, it's somewhere between $2 billion, $3 billion, or $12 billion a year in subsidies for this industry. Let's end that. But unfortunately, we're involved in a debate here in Congress over whether we keep the tax subsidy for Big Oil and shift the burden of solving the deficit to seniors, an incredible policy put forth by our Republican colleagues that would force seniors to pay more for their medical insurance and literally terminate, end Medicare for everyone that's not yet 55 years of age. Terminate Medicare, shift the tax burden to them, and keep the tax subsidy for Big Oil. Hello? What's that all about? Big Oil doesn't need any more help. The deficit needs the help. Don't give the tax breaks to Big Oil. And for

heaven sakes, don't terminate Medicare and force today's seniors and tomorrow's seniors to add the burden while keeping the benefit to Big Oil.

This is about choices here. This is about choices. How do we use our tax money? For the future energy industries? Do we use our tax money to benefit Big Oil and force seniors and nursing homes to pay more? That's not out there 10 years from now, that's right now, because the Republican budget reduces Medicaid. The biggest single part of Medicare is to subsidize seniors and nursing homes. So seniors and nursing homes, their families would pay more while Big Oil is protected.

We heard a debate here earlier, and while we're on Make It in America, this kind of moves us a little bit away, but they were saying earlier that in the health care reform, the Affordable Care Act, money was taken out of Medicare. Not true. Money was taken out of the pockets of the insurance industry who were given, back in the Bush era, an additional subsidy. It terminated a subsidy of $500 million that the insurance companies had to participate in Medicare. Why in the world we would subsidize the health insurance companies who this year are showing record profits, I don't know, but the Republicans perhaps want to keep that subsidy there for the health insurance companies just as they want to keep a subsidy there for Big Oil, rather than taking care of our seniors, shifting the subsidies to tomorrow's energy sources.

These are policy choices. And the policy choice of the Democratic Party is to protect seniors, to make sure that Medicare is there today, tomorrow, and forevermore. Let me be very clear about this. If you want to have a fight on this floor, then you fight with us over Medicare. We will not tolerate the termination of Medicare, period. And we don't want to shift costs to seniors. We want to make sure that those companies that are profitable, the oil industry, pays its fair share and terminate the subsidies to them.

If anyone understands the history and the importance of manufacturing, it's the gentleman from Rhode Island. The Black River down through Rhode Island was the very first place that America started its manufacturing base, using water as a source.

And today, as we look to the future of American manufacturing, we do have to deal with the energy issues. And we probably should take a full night here and just talk about how the American economy can benefit from a new energy strategy.

Tax policies we've discussed here a little bit.

One of the things we didn't discuss here on tax policy was we put forth a bill last year that took away $12 billion of subsidies that American corporations had when they shipped jobs offshore. I have no idea how such an incredibly stupid policy got into the Tax Code, but it did. It's gone. It was a Democrat agenda to eliminate those

tax subsidies that shipped jobs offshore. Unfortunately, not one Republican joined us in eliminating that crazy tax subsidy. That money is now back to help deal with the deficit.

Labor policies, education--another full night can be taken on just education. We talked a little bit about science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, the STEM programs. But it's much, much more. It's the reeducation of our workforce. Intellectual property, research, how you protect that, critically important. We did have a good discussion about infrastructure.

This is our agenda. This is the American agenda. This is the agenda about the future. And it is so much an important part of dealing with the deficit. There is not an economist out there that tells us we can actually deal with the deficit unless we get people back to work. And the people that we want to get back to work is American middle class. The American middle class needs to be rebuilt along with our manufacturing base, and we can do it with the set of policies that we're putting forth here.

We ask for our Republican colleagues to join us on these smart pieces of legislation.

Mr. Cicilline, this is your night. You've led us in this. I yield back my remaining time for your closure.

Mr. Speaker, I voice my strong opposition to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540. Unfortunately during a busy legislative day, I missed the roll call for this important bill, which passed the House of Representatives today. Had I been present on the House Floor, I would have cast a ``no'' vote on the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against House Resolution 276 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. This resolution contains a waiver of all points of order, 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 unfunded and unmet mandates, although there are many in this bill. I raise this point of order because we have one of the very few opportunities to actually talk about one of the provisions in the underlying bill. Thus far, this House has been denied the opportunity to properly debate this provision, and I believe we must illuminate what it actually does.

Section 1034 of this bill provides an unlimited opportunity for the administrative branch of government, the President, and the Secretary of Defense, to engage in war virtually anywhere, any place, anytime on this planet. That is an unbelievably broad opportunity that this House should never give to any President at any time.

There are three very specific problems that the authorization for the use of military force has, and I want to make sure that we understand what those problems are.

This provision is particularly dangerous because it does undermine the Constitution. Only Congress has the authority to declare war. Yet this authorization to use military force passes to the President the opportunity to engage in war anywhere anytime, really, without any particular reservations.

This thing was snuck into the Defense Authorization Act. No debate in committee. And had I not somehow been going through the bill and thumbing through and finding page 133 of the legislation, it would never have been discussed in committee. But some time near 12 o'clock, or actually after 12 o'clock, I was able to present an amendment in the committee to strike this section of the bill. That amendment did not pass the committee, and hopefully it will be before the floor as we discuss the entire legislation.

So let me begin the discussion now.

We ought not expand the executive authority to go to war. First of all, this particular section, 1034, is harmful because of three reasons: one, it's unlimited--anywhere, any place, anytime; second, it is very unclear as to who we're going to go to war against; and, third, it's not necessary.

First, section 1034 is unlimited. There's no geographic limitation in section 1034. All that needs to be found by the President or the Secretary of Defense is there is a terrorist out there somehow associated with the Taliban or al Qaeda. And we know that al Qaeda is spread throughout the world, including the United States. So the entire globe is the subject of this authorization to use military force. And it's not just force against an individual terrorist or an individual terrorist organization. It's force against any nation that harbors, supports, or provides some sort of aid to a terrorist organization.

What kind of a nation would that be? Well, certainly we would consider Yemen, Somalia, maybe even Pakistan. And we did successfully go after Pakistan--not Pakistan, but after bin Laden who happened to be hiding in Pakistan. But the point here is unlimited authorization to go anywhere in the globe to go after terrorists of any color, any stripe, anywhere. I don't suppose we intend to declare war against ourselves, so maybe America is not included in this.

Secondly, there's no temporal limit to this, meaning this authorization goes on forever. It's not limited in time. It can go for 1 year, 2 years, 10 years, one century or a millennium. We must never allow any President to have that unlimited opportunity to wage war on behalf of this Nation.

Third, this resolution and this section is unclear. It's unclear in several ways. What is an ``associated force''? What's the ``Taliban''? What is ``al Qaeda''? We know al Qaeda as it existed in Afghanistan. We have a sense of what al Qaeda is in Pakistan. But now we have al Qaeda in the Saudi Arabia Peninsula, we probably have al Qaeda in Somalia and, certainly, according to the FBI, we have al Qaeda in the United States.

So this particular clause, associated forces, is one that we should never allow to go into law and allow any President over any time in the future to use it to undertake a war somewhere.

Finally, the provision is unnecessary. The administration is not asking for additional power. We have a case in point. The administration didn't need additional power to go into Pakistan to get bin Laden. The administration doesn't need additional power to go to Yemen to deal with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, nor did the administration need power way back in the 1990s when President Clinton launched Tomahawk missiles into Afghanistan to go after bin Laden and al Qaeda in Afghanistan at that time.

The President, the administration, is not asking for this authority. They claim and the courts have provided them with sufficient authority to carry out the mission against terrorism as we know it today.

So in conclusion, I want to raise this issue to this House, to the Senate, and to the American public that in the Defense authorization there is an unlimited opportunity for any President now and in the future to wage war anywhere in the world against any nation that has a terrorist in that nation. That we should never do. We should aggressively maintain our authority under the Constitution to declare war and to authorize the use of military force.

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

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. This is about local jobs for local companies.

Many of us have in our districts military facilities of large and small size. All too often those facilities and the work done on those facilities, performed by contractors, often national contractors, totally ignores and provides little or no opportunity for local subcontractors. This amendment would simply require that for prime contractors on military installations across this Nation they would be required to allow 40 percent of their contracts, by dollar value, to be available for local subcontractors.

Not a bad idea, it seems to me.

I know that, in my area of Travis Air Force Base in Solano County, there are constant--constant--complaints from local contractors that the big boys come in, hog all the work, and leave nothing behind except a few more burgers bought at McDonald's.

Not good enough.

This amendment deals with that issue by providing local contractors, often Republican contractors, the opportunity to have work in their communities, and ``local'' is defined as within 60 miles of the base. So I ask for an aye vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am shocked, absolutely shocked that my Republican friend isn't standing firm for small businesses in their communities. Would you like 61 or 60,000 miles? Whatever it is, we want the small contractors to have a shot at it. Be happy to amend to whatever mileage you would like.

I yield 1 minute to the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am delighted to hear that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree there is a problem. I would suggest to them that we put this amendment into the bill so that we have the opportunity in the weeks ahead, as this bill matures in the two Houses and in the conference committee, that we deal with it.

There is nothing special about 60 or 61 miles, but there is certainly something special about providing local contractors with the opportunity. As I understand, Fort Hood is a very, very big facility. Perhaps you would like 63\1/4\ miles from the outside edge of the perimeter of the facility. Whatever. The problem remains.

I would really urge my colleagues to allow this amendment to go forward so that there is a basis for negotiations in this legislation. Otherwise, we are going to wait a year before we will be able to come back to deal with this. And in that period of time, thousands upon thousands of small businesses will be excluded. There is a problem. We know there is a problem. Move this amendment along, and then spend the next month, 2 months until this bill matures, and then we can work out the appropriate language. But let's all recognize there is a problem and we need to get to it. So let's move the bill.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I think the gentleman from Texas missed the point entirely. It is not about mileage. It is

about giving local contractors the opportunity. The offer I made to my colleagues on the right, my Republican colleagues, is put this amendment forward so that we have the opportunity in this legislation to work our way through this. We all understand there is a problem. We all want our local contractors, whatever that means, to have an opportunity at these jobs.

There is a problem. The large national contractors are taking it all. They are coming into our communities and walking away with all of it. That's a problem for all of us who represent any military facility in this Nation. So let's move forward with this, put this amendment in, and then we will work it out. Maybe mileage isn't the best way. Local, maybe that needs to be defined. Forty percent, 39 percent, we can pick a number, or maybe no number at all. But we do know there is a problem, and we ought to be addressing it in this legislation this year. I would ask for your support. If you care about small businesses, then don't wait another year to solve the problem.

I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I find myself in opposition to the underlying bill and the amendment.

You just heard a very cogent argument. I don't understand why we ought to have ignorant doctors. It doesn't make any sense to me. Abortions are sometimes necessary for saving the life of a pregnant woman. And to have a medical system in which the doctors don't know about that procedure is really stupid. I won't say this amendment is that, but it's really not wise to have ignorant physicians. And it's really not wise not to have physicians at all.

What in the world are we thinking here? What's the purpose of this

amendment and this particular resolution? To deny American men, women, and children the opportunity to go to a doctor? We know all across this Nation that there is a shortage of primary care physicians. In most every community of California, there is a shortage of primary care physicians. Plenty of dermatologists, but not primary care physicians.

So what are we going to do here? Eliminate the funding to train primary care physicians.

Now, that in itself is bad enough. But this is just one piece of a much larger plan to dismantle health care in America. The repeal of the Affordable Health Care Act will increase the cost of medical services all across this Nation and particularly increase the cost to government. Not my projection. The independent Congressional Budget Office said clearly that the Affordable Health Care Act will reduce the cost of Medicare and Medicaid.

So repeal it. Increase the deficit. Huh? Is that what this is all about? I don't get it guys and women. Makes no sense to me.

And now in your budget, the Republicans go after Medicare and terminate Medicare for every American who is not yet over 55 years of age? Terminate it. And turn it over to the rapacious, greedy, profit- before-people health insurance industry, an industry that I know a great deal about. I was the insurance commissioner in California for 8 years, and I know those characters. It is about profit. It's not about caring for people.

And when you say the government shouldn't make decisions, the government does not make decisions in Medicare. The physicians make decisions. But if you turn Medicare over to the insurance companies, it will be the insurance companies that make decisions about medical services.

And by the way, you also voted to repeal those sections of the Affordable Health Care Act that protect all of us from the rapaciousness of the health insurance industry. Eliminating a law which eliminates such things as preexisting conditions, age, sex discrimination, and the rest. So you repeal that and give back to the insurance companies the opportunity to discriminate. And now you want to throw tomorrow's seniors into that same pool of sharks.

I don't get it. It makes no sense whatsoever. It perhaps is the worst idea I've heard in the 35 years I have been involved in public health and in public policy. It makes no sense whatsoever.

And this bill on top of it? Come on. We're not going to train primary care physicians? What in the world are you thinking? I don't get it. I don't get the whole strategy. It is a strategy that will put America's health at risk. It is a strategy that will deny benefits. It is a strategy that will provide us, with this latest amendment, doctors that are ignorant about basic women's health. And it is a strategy that will deny us the necessary primary care physicians.

What in the world are my Republican colleagues doing here about the deficit? Come on now. What you're doing is going to increase the deficit. You're going to increase the deficit. If there are not primary care physicians, then you'll go to the emergency room. And everybody knows that the emergency room is more expensive than a doctor's office.

What are you doing? I don't get it, guys. I don't understand. You're worried about the deficit; yet you take action that increases the deficit? It makes no sense to me.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

There is much in this bill to recommend, particularly the way in which it deals with the men and women that are in arms, the support that they need, the benefits that they require, and the care that they require following their missions.

However, there is in this bill a missed opportunity, and I must therefore oppose the bill, the opportunity to change the direction of the war in Afghanistan, a war that seems without end, and a war that seems to be perpetual. A successful raid and the successful taking of bin Laden is an opportunity to pivot, and we are missing that opportunity in this bill, and continuing to spend over $100 billion on that war in Afghanistan.

Also in this bill is section 1034, the continued authorization for the use of force. That too must be eliminated. For those reasons, I oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we just finished a very important debate here on the floor dealing with the ability of the American Government to understand the threats that face us across this world. I want to commend my colleagues both on the Republican and Democratic side for working long and hard on the intelligence legislation that will be up on the floor, probably tomorrow.

In the hour ahead, what I would really like to focus on and bring to the attention of the American people is the necessity for jobs. We spend a lot of time talking about security, as we should, and we've certainly seen that in the successful effort to bring down bin Laden and finally see that justice was properly served. Congratulations to the military, to the intelligence community, and particularly to President Obama for his courage in ordering that action, risky to be sure, but ultimately extraordinarily successful.

The other part of American security is our economy. At the end of the day and even at the beginning of the day, this Nation will never be secure unless we have a very strong, vibrant, growing economy that provides every American that wants to work with the opportunity to go to work. And so the focus of our attention for this hour ahead is economic security: how to secure the economic well-being of every American, how to secure the economic well-being of the American public. It can be done.

There are essentially six elements to achieve economic security and economic growth and strength, and we will cover many of those today as we talk about this issue. Let me very briefly lay them out to you.

The first is education. I think we now understand that an individual who has little or no education has very little opportunity to find economic security. It's difficult to get a job if you don't have an education. So for an individual, a good education is essential. Unfortunately across America, report after report, usually every 6 or 7 years a new report comes out and says America at Risk. Our education system isn't measuring up. Yet here in the last 3 months and in the days ahead, my colleagues on the Republican side have consistently cut the education programs that many, indeed millions of Americans depend upon.

Back home in my State of California, education funding is similarly cut, so that now a class that 5 years ago was 20 students is now 30 students. At the University of California, 10 years ago it may have cost $1,500 or $2,000 to go to school to pay the tuition. Now it's $8,000. And in the budget that's being proposed that was presented to the Appropriations Committee today, the Republicans are virtually reducing to a point of nonexistence Pell Grants necessary for higher education.

So education becomes the first key pillar in building a secure economy for an individual. Similarly, it is the pillar to secure a good growing economy for this Nation, because this Nation will not be able to compete economically unless we have the best educated workforce in the world, and we're not even close today. We were in bygone years, 30, 40 years ago, and we can be in the future, but it's going to take a change. As my colleagues come and join me during this hour, we will be talking about the ways in which the education system can be improved and the way in which we can transition people from education to work and back to education and back to work.

The second pillar is research. Research is an essential element, because from that research comes the new products of the future. I think we only need to think about the things that are in our home. The television, the VCR, the other things that we depend upon, were mostly invented in America. The fundamental research for computer chips and the like, America made, and much of the technology that we now find in our green technology, a lot of the wind turbines, the initial wind turbine industry, the solar industry, the photovoltaic and the rest, research in America's great institutions, our universities, our laboratories, led to these kinds of products. The battery technology that we now find in the hybrids, invented in America, but I think most of you would say, but not made in America today. That's true. So what we have seen is that the research, while done in the United States, did not lead to those things being manufactured in the United States. We need to understand why, and we'll go into that today, also.

So education, research, and then the third element is making those things in America. Manufacturing matters, and that is the core subject of today's

discussion: Make it in America. You can educate, you can research, but ultimately you have to make it in America.

Now, there are ways that we can enhance the American manufacturing sector, and my colleagues and I on the Democratic side have put forth a program that we called Make It in America, so that America can make it, so that American families can make it, and we know that these programs that we're proposing will cause that to occur.

The remaining three things that we will talk about, not today, but I want to make sure we lay them out there: Education, research, manufacturing, make it in America, the next element is infrastructure. You have to have roads and streets and sanitation and water systems, communications systems. All of those things are critically important. Fortunately, part of the stimulus program, not enough of it, but a big part of it was to build the infrastructure. The largest surge in infrastructure investment ever in the history of this Nation was the stimulus program, overlooked and certainly overlooked in the politics of last year's election, but it was there. It was a good point, but we have to carry that forward.

Fifth point. We have to be international. Unfortunately, the word ``international'' in America has come to be that we give it all away. The trade agreements of the past often led to the outsourcing of American jobs, and so, as we look to the future, we want to make sure that as we look international we talk about, as President Obama has suggested, that we once again become an export Nation. We can do that. There are programs that will cause that to happen, and also, we need to be quite sure that when we talk about international we talk about fair trade, trade that is fair to American workers.

And so as these trade programs come before us, we will be taking a very hard look at are those programs good for American workers, or are they simply good for Chinese workers. If they are good for those workers overseas and not good for American workers, you can see strong resistance from those of us on the Democratic side who say, wait a minute, international is good. We understand the need to grow markets. We understand the growing markets of the world, but we will no longer allow American workers to be put at a disadvantage by some trade agreement that is not fair to American workers.

The final element is this: we have to change. We cannot be what we were yesterday. We have to be what we can be tomorrow, and our President very clearly points this out as he talks about capturing the future. We can but only if we do these six things, and the final one is change.

Let me go now to a couple of the specific elements that we need to talk about here. Sometimes it's helpful to put up one of these placards. It helps focus at least my attention and perhaps yours. This is the Make It in America Agenda. These issues we've talked about, trade, tax policy, energy policy. Let's pick up the energy policy here.

It is incumbent upon America to secure its energy future. I think all of us go to the gas station from time to time, all too often it seems to me, and you know now we're filling up with $4 a barrel oil. Why? Why did that happen? Well, it basically has happened because for more than 30 years America has talked about energy security. We've talked about ending the importation of oil. We've talked about how we can provide the energy necessary for this Nation. Yet, we now find ourselves in a situation very similar to what we found in the 1970s, that is, insufficient energy available to us. The ``Drill, baby, drill'' mentality that we saw on the floor today is not the solution to this.

The solution to the energy issue is to transform our energy systems from the 19th and 20th century energy system, the fossil fuels, where we are dependent upon the petrol dictators of the world, and on coal, which I think all of us have come to understand presents enormous challenges for us, challenges of climate change, challenges of despoiling the surface of the Earth as we now find in the Appalachian Mountains and enormous health risks that come with the burning of coal. We need to move away from these fossil fuels to the fuels of tomorrow.

As we do that, we need to use our tax dollars to accomplish this goal. Right now, our tax dollars are used to support the oil industry. The oil industry thinks that is all well and good, but how many of you want to have $4 billion, $5 billion, $6 billion, even $12 billion of your tax money go to the wealthiest, most successful industry in the world as a subsidy? This is oil welfare, plain and simple, to the industry that simply does not need it. We're talking about the wealthiest, most successful industries in the world that have, for a century, for a full century, enjoyed the generosity of the American taxpayer. They receive welfare. Plain and simple, it's a subsidy, to subsidize the oil industry.

Yet we know in the last few days the Big Five oil companies have produced record profits in the last quarter. So much so that in the last decade, the decade 2001 until 2010, the oil industry has had over $1 trillion of profit, $1 trillion dollar of profit. At the same time, they have received billions of dollars of subsidies. We need to bring those subsidies back into the Treasury. Tell the oil industry, for a century you have been living off the welfare of the American public taxpayer. No more. That money is coming home.

And we're going to use it for two purposes: one, to reduce the deficit. President Obama has suggested about $4 billion a year. I think you can go as high as $12 billion if you add up all of the subsidies, bringing that money back into the Treasury to be used to reduce the deficit and to support industries of the future. We're talking about a lot of money here. Take a look at this.

ExxonMobil, $10.7 billion of profit in just the last quarter. Oxychem, $1.6 billion. Conoco, $2.1 billion. Oh, you're going to love this. The CEO of Conoco oil a couple of days ago got in front of a microphone and said it is un-American to take away our welfare, to take away our subsidy. I don't think so. I think it is un-American to give the wealthiest industry in the world a subsidy. We can go on and on here. We see Chevron doing very well. Oh, yeah, BP--we know that bunch. They're the ones that didn't have enough money to safely drill for oil, but they did manage to make $7.2 billion of profit this last year.

So, as we look at the energy systems of this Nation, we need to understand that the money that you and I are presently giving to the oil companies as a subsidy needs to be brought back and used to reduce the deficit and to support the energy systems of the future.

I'm going to wrap this very quickly with 2 pieces of legislation that I've introduced that would take those subsidies back from the oil industry and apply them to tomorrow's energy systems, the green energy systems, solar, wind. Our tax money should be used to buy American made solar, wind, turbines, and other green technologies. Right now, our tax money, we do subsidize those industries. Our tax money is used to purchase products that are manufactured offshore. My legislation says, good, we need to subsidize. We need to promote those industries. Those are the industries of the future. Those are energy sources of the future. Let's use that money to buy American-made equipment.

If somebody wants to go buy Chinese solar cells, fine, use your own money. One of these companies wants to go buy European-made wind turbine, that is fine, do it. But don't use my tax money. Don't use your tax money. American tax money must be used to buy American-made equipment.

Similarly, with our gasoline taxes that are now being used to buy buses, trains, and build highways and bridges, great. Good thing to do, but make sure that those things are made in America.

Now let me turn my attention to my colleagues. Three of them have joined us. I notice that our minority whip has joined us today.

Mr. Hoyer, you've been the advocate, the leader, of developing the Make It in America strategy. Please share with us your thoughts, and then I'm going to turn to my other two colleagues.

I thank you very much, Mr. Leader, for what you've done. Mr. Hoyer, you've been on this, actually, longer than I. You have some history in this House that goes way back. I think about a program that you and the Democrats put forward before I arrived. I've only been here now about 20 months. It was the stimulus bill, the American Recovery Act.

In that Recovery Act, there was about $12 billion for transportation. In that transportation program, you and the Democrats, signed by President Obama, said that the money had to be spent--and this was the high-speed rail program--on American-made high-speed rail.

Guess what happened?

Of the high-speed rail companies of the world--none were made in America--the Japanese, the Chinese, the Germans, the French, and the Spanish all began to find American manufacturing plants because they wanted access to the high-speed rail money that was in the stimulus bill.

The point here is that, if we use our tax money wisely and say to the world ``come and build a high-speed rail, but you're going to make it in America,'' they will establish those manufacturing plants here in America. It's already happening. In Sacramento, Siemens, and in New York, a couple of the European companies are already locating those manufacturing plants.

Sheila Jackson Lee, from the great State of Texas, has now joined us, and she has been on this issue for a long time.

So, if you would, share with us your thoughts on how America can make it by making it in America.

I thank you so very much, Ms. Jackson Lee. You have been a leader in all of these issues over these many, many years and speak wisely and legislate very wisely on that.

The tax issue out there is one that just always befuddles me. It befuddles me as to why my colleagues on the Republican side just don't seem to get the message. We passed a tax bill last year that ended the subsidy that international, multinational companies were given to off- shore jobs. $12 billion a year of our tax money was given to these huge American companies when they off-shored jobs. What was that all about? I still haven't found out where that law came from. But it was in the Tax Code, and American companies were taking advantage of that tax reduction, tax subsidy, corporate welfare to send jobs overseas. We passed a bill. It's over. The President signed it. Not one of my Republican colleagues voted for that. I don't understand. I'm befuddled by their lack of support for American companies who want to keep jobs here. Apparently they're willing to support American companies that want to send jobs offshore. Anyway, one small example.

I wonder what it's like to be the mayor of the largest town in Rhode Island. It was probably an enormous experience. And then to bring that experience here to the floor of the Congress and to the committees and to share with us all of that down-home, on-the-ground experience of bringing jobs to the community.

Mr. Cicilline, if you would care to share with us some of that experience in the legislation that you've brought to us.

Thank you very much, Mr. Cicilline. And we note that your part of the Nation was where the manufacturing started in America, and the rivers, taking the power of the rivers and using it to start the mills and eventually creating the early American economy and continuing on to this day in a very special part of this Nation, the Rhode Island and the New England area.

There are many, many things to say. As you were talking, Mr. Cicilline, and bringing us up to date on how we can do these things, I notice that two of my colleagues came in to join us.

Again, Mr. Tonko, you were here for the very first Make It in America discussion, you and I, on this floor some months ago talking about what we can do in this rebuilding the great American manufacturing base, the strength of America, the incredible innovation that's possible, and you just happen to come from one of those areas where it was done and it's still being done.

You're from New York, right? The Albany area, upstate New York.

Thank you very much, Mr. Tonko.

You started with the Erie Canal. It's interesting to note that at that period of time, which was the last decades of the 1700s and the early 1800s, the

United States Government set out on a course to build infrastructure, and the infrastructure was the canal systems at that time, and you so quickly and correctly pointed out the growth that came from that. That lesson, now more than 200 years old, needs to be repeated in America once again.

You talk about innovation and new things.

Last week, I was out in my district talking to manufacturers. One company is called Bridgelux--``lux'' I think is light, bridge lighting to the future. They make LED lights. The kind of things that are now in the stores--when you get a flashlight, it's an LED flashlight. They have taken those LEDs to a whole new level of technology and advancement.

In fact, if we would put them in these lights here in the Chamber, we could reduce the energy consumption by about 90 percent, which wouldn't be a bad thing for the taxpayers. Their particular system would allow those lights to change color, which might put me in a better color; that wouldn't be such a bad thing, and to dim when people are not here, and move the lights, and in that way improve our ability to see while simultaneously saving us a lot of energy.

The company is 2 years old, has 250 employees, is manufacturing these advanced LED lighting systems in Livermore in my district, and I am going, ``Go Bridgelux, go!''

They need something, though. They need access to the American markets. And that is where the use of our tax dollars, in this case perhaps the local tax dollars in the cities around that area, would reach out and save the taxpayers a bundle of money by buying lights from that company.

Indeed.

Mr. Ryan, you come from a part of the world that was and is going to be, given your leadership and the leadership of this Make It in America agenda, the premier manufacturing place in the world. We will contend in California; we will be happy to contend for that and compete for that title, but you are in the process of rebuilding the manufacturing base in the heartland of America.

Name those places again.

We are talking about what America thinks was yesterday, and you are telling me it's the fastest growing?

I thank you very much for that.

You just reminded me of last night at 2:30 in the morning, the House Armed Services Committee completed the markup that is moving out of committee, the National Defense Act. We do it every year. Seven hundred billion dollars.

A study done by one of the think tanks came up with the number that America spends about 17 percent of its total defense budget protecting the flow of oil out of the Middle East. So you can add that to the deficit. That is over $100 billion a year that we spend of our tax money to protect the flow of oil, not only for us, but for the rest of the world.

We need to build a domestic energy system not based on carbon-based fuels, but rather the future energy, all of the clean green technologies, nuclear and others, that will provide us with the energy security we need.

In doing so, each and every one of those, if we spend our tax dollars on buying American-made systems, will come back, just as you say, and build our communities stronger along the way.

It is actually already there. It is called advanced biofuels, algae-based fuels, everything from cosmetic oils to fuel for the Navy ships. So we can do these things. But, again, it is how we deploy our resources.

We have about 5 minutes, and we are going to do a lightning round between the three of us. I am going to turn to Mr. Tonko.

I look up and find another colleague here. We have just a few moments left.

As a great example, your colleague next to you there has a piece of legislation that calls for fairness in the financial markets, the value of the dollar versus the value of the Chinese yuan. Mr. Ryan, you have put it out there. You say it has to be fair. Wrap it for us.

And indeed we will. Over the weeks and months ahead, we are going to talk about the Make It in America agenda, the legislation that has been introduced by the Democratic Caucus here in the House of Representatives. There are about 25 pieces of legislation, ranging from the ones that we talked about here, using our tax money when we buy solar equipment, make sure it is made in America. A bus, if you are going to use our tax money, make sure where it is made. Innovation, the innovation economy, all of those things. This is legislation that we have, infrastructure financing and all the rest. We are going to talk about it piece by piece.

I thank my colleagues for joining us. I have the sense that behind me we are about to be gaveled that we are out of time. I want to thank the American public for listening to the Make It in America agenda.

Mr. Tonko, thank you very much for what you are doing, bringing up this critically important issue. As you were saying, nothing is more important than the question of who we are as Americans and our values; what is it that we really care about and how do we structure, how do we create a society that reflects those values.

Before 1964, the largest segment of the American population that was in abject poverty were seniors. They had no health care. They couldn't get insurance. They were basically the poor of the poor. But as a result of the fundamental goodness of America, Medicare was created, a medical insurance program for seniors so that they would have available to them doctors' services and hospital services. And it worked.

Now, I was the insurance commissioner in California for 8 years, elected statewide by 34 million people to oversee, to regulate the insurance companies. And in that process we were looking and watching the Medicare program. It wasn't private insurance, but it was part of the health insurance system; and we knew that it worked.

It is exceedingly efficient. It works for less than 2 percent. You got a nationwide insurance policy. Wherever you are in America, you get the exact same insurance policy. Doctors know how to bill; hospitals know how to bill. It is efficient; it is effective. It works. More than that, it is an expression of the basic goodness of America.

I was surprised, shocked, angered when the Republican budget came forward and proposed that Medicare be terminated for all who want to live to the age of 65. Terminated. Ended. That wasn't all that the Republicans proposed. They proposed that not only would it be terminated, but that all future Medicare enrollees would be given a voucher worth about one-half the cost of insurance and told to go to the insurance companies and buy a policy.

Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Time out, Mr. Republican. Time out. What are you saying? You are going to take the population that has preexisting conditions--there are very few that are 65 years of age that don't have preexisting conditions--and you are going to turn them over to the most voracious sharks in this Nation, the health insurance companies? No way. No way. They are going to get chewed up, spit out and uninsured, or else charged a small fortune. This is the most un- American, the most inhumane thing that could be imagined for seniors, for tomorrow's seniors. We cannot let it happen.

Then, on top of that, in the very next breath they proposed to continue billions of dollars of subsidies, taking money literally out of the pockets of seniors and working men and women and giving it to Big Oil, who happens to have big profits, just as you have on your card up there. Not only Big Oil, but the wealthiest people in America, people whose incomes are $1 million, $10 million, $1 billion a year income, and give them an additional tax break, so that in 10 years it is $4 trillion of tax breaks to the big oil companies and those, not millionaires, but those whose annual income is in the millions. What is going on here?

Thank you for yielding. If you add to that destruction, the termination of Medicare, the way in which the Republicans have already voted for on this floor to end the Health Care Reform Act, which regulated the insurance companies and said the insurance companies could no longer discriminate based upon preexisting conditions, discriminate based upon age and whether you are a woman or a man, all of those protections that are in the health care reform law would be terminated.

So not only are you taking the Medicare program and ending it, giving the seniors a voucher that is perhaps half of the cost of a health insurance policy, you are eliminating the restrictions that were placed on the insurance companies for discriminating against people that have preexisting conditions.

So you've literally taken these people and thrown them to the sharks. On top of that, the rest of the proposal was to take the Medicaid program, which is health insurance for impoverished children, and give a block grant to the State that's worth about half of the cost, a $700 billion cut out of that program for children's health care, and you say, What's this? This is not us. This is not America. These are harsh, cruel programs that are being foisted upon the American citizens.

I'll take a lightning minute here.

It really comes down to a question of: Where do you stand? Who do you stand for? It's very, very clear. If there's ever a dichotomy and a clear opportunity to see where you stand, it is in the Republican budget. Let's be very clear. It terminates Medicare; gives seniors a voucher that is worth perhaps half of the cost of insurance; takes $700 billion out of Medicaid. And that is, as you said, the long-term care for seniors in nursing homes. And it continues the tax cuts for people whose income is millions, billions; continues the tax subsidies for Big Oil--$4 billion, $5 billion a year to companies that have made over a trillion dollars in the last decade. And just in this quarter, Exxon, $10.7 billion; Oxy, $1.6 billion; Conoco, $2.1 billion. This is one quarter, 3 months of earnings. Billions and billions of dollars. And then they want to continue.

Where do you stand? Do you stand for the working men and women, the seniors, those people that need to be able to get health care, or do you stand for the very, very rich and the big oil companies? The Republicans have made it

clear. There's a difference here between where we stand as Democrats and where they stand as Republicans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Police Officer Christina M. Golez, who is retiring after nearly 27 years of law enforcement service--24 years of service to the

City of Fairfield and a combined two years with the Yolo County Sheriff's Department and the Antioch Police Department. As her colleagues, friends and family gather together to celebrate the next chapter of her life, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in saluting this outstanding public servant and defender of peace and safety.

Christina started her law enforcement career as a Reserve Police Officer with the Antioch Police Department. She was then hired as a Deputy Sheriff by the Yolo County Sheriff's Department in November of 1985 and on August 18, 1986, she was hired as a Police Officer with the Fairfield Police Department. Christina worked in various capacities that included Patrol, Investigations, Youth Services, School Resource Officer, Cadet Advisor, Gang Suppression, Police Probation Team, Crime Scene Investigator, and Property. She received numerous commendations for her performance including Police Officer of the Year for 1997.

Christina's two most significant contributions to the Police Department were her expertise as a composite sketch artist and her talent in mentoring youths within the community. Her artistic talent and ability to create like images of suspects has helped solve numerous crimes in Fairfield. Her work as a Cadet Advisor and Diversion Officer was also exceptional. She intervened at many different levels by confronting and challenging youths that were showing destructive behavior through the appropriate amount of counseling and intervention opportunities for them and their families. Christina's work has made a difference to the citizens of Fairfield.

Christina was a valued employee and leader and her commitment to the community was evidenced on a daily basis. She was a loyal representative of the law enforcement community and admired for her hard work, dedication, and positive work ethic.

Mr. Speaker, I am truly honored to pay tribute to this dedicated public servant. I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in wishing Christina M. Golez continued success and happiness in all of her future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of my dear friend Anne Manfredi Mack, who passed away April 22, 2011. I ask all my colleagues to join me in recognizing the many outstanding achievements of Anne during her lifetime.

Anne Mack touched the lives of many with grace and generosity. Anne's driven and compassionate nature laid the foundation for a legacy of inspiration to all who knew her.

With great compassion and a heart for service, Anne was a well known and dedicated public servant and longtime advocate for seniors and senior issues. After retiring from Lockheed, she dedicated her time to serving her community and the State of California. In 1998 she was elected to the California State Legislature. Because of her long standing commitment to the Senior Legislature, she was elected chair and had served in this position since 2006. In addition to her service on the Senior Legislature, Anne was a member of various state boards including the Senior Care Commission, Congress of California Seniors, and was Chair of the Advisory Council on Aging.

As an impressive 25-gallon blood donor and CPR instructor for over 20 years, Anne had a strong passion and dedication to helping those in her community. Anne's greatest source of pride and happiness, though, was her family--her six children, 12 grandchildren, and seven great- grandchildren that survive her today. Anne always put family first, and will be remembered most for her smile, generosity, and passion for those who were less fortunate.

Mr. Speaker, while it is with great sadness, I am truly honored to recognize a woman who has had a profound impact on my wife Patti

and me, my family, and on the lives of so many. I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in recognizing Anne Manfredi Mack's lifetime of achievements.

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

Mr. Chairman, we just heard a pretty good discussion here a moment ago about the safety issues in the gulf. And the legislation before us seems to ignore every one of the recommendations that the bipartisan, independent commission made about how to conduct deepwater drilling in a safe manner. Actually, BP did have a terrible record. I am pleased that my colleague from Texas pointed out the 800 violations that BP had. There was, however, a bit of a problem for at least 11 members of the gulf oil industry: They died as a result of the inattention to safety.

The proposal that I have before us deals with one of the recommendations that the commission made, and that is that there be an independent safety organization created to provide an additional level of review of the requirements that drilling be done safely. The legislation before us ignores that recommendation by the commission and basically says that the American Petroleum Institute is quite capable of doing this. Well, the independent, bipartisan commission, said, ``The American Petroleum Institute is culturally ill-suited to drive a safety revolution in the industry. For this reason, it is essential that the safety enterprise operate apart from the American Petroleum Institute,'' and I could not agree more, Mr. Chairman.

My amendment would require that, as the Secretary is trying to determine whether permit applications meet the critical safety requirements, he must consult with an independent safety organization, and that organization must not be affiliated with the American Petroleum Institute.

Now the institute has said, No problem; we'll create our own. Well, I'm sorry, but that's not the way to provide the appropriate safety standard. We don't need to have more deaths. We don't need to have more blowouts. We need to do the drilling safely, and that it be done in a manner that ensures that lives will not be lost and that oil will not be spilled in the ocean. That's what this amendment does by providing an outside independent organization with the requirement that they consult with the Secretary on the applications. We do not change the 50-day requirement. That remains in place; so there is a timeframe. We don't change any of the requirements with regard to losses and the rest, which I think are inappropriate; but nonetheless, we don't change that in this legislation.

I would ask for the adoption of this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

An interesting discussion from my colleague from Colorado. I would note that there are numerous examples where the Federal Government does rely upon outside safety organizations. For example, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations provides safety standards for our nuclear industry, specifically, not allowing the nuclear power industry to do

the safety reviews, but, rather, an outside organization.

We're simply calling for a level of review that is not associated with those two organizations that caused the problem. The Department of the Interior, and I was the Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior in the 90s, has some familiarity of the comings and goings, the shortcomings as well as the strength of that Department.

This particular section of the Department of the Interior has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that, over time, it has not been able to regulate properly the safety and other elements of the natural gas and oil industry. We need to provide an outside level of review on the safety requirements, both to keep the Department of the Interior on the proper course and the industry itself on the proper course.

That's what the amendment does. I think it makes an eminent amount of sense, and we're really talking about both environmental issues here, that is, the health of environment in the coast, which was seriously compromised, and also the well-being of the men and women that work on these oil platforms. And we know that their fate has been jeopardized in the past and should not be jeopardized in the future.

I ask for an ``aye'' vote on this amendment, both here and later on the floor.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I want to really focus today on an extraordinary event that took place on Sunday, that is, American time, but before I do that, I just want to take a couple of minutes having sat here listening to the last 45 minutes on energy policy, just a couple of things.

The President is not suggesting that we raise taxes on fuel but that we eliminate subsidies to the oil industry that has received, for a century, American taxpayers' support, and those subsidies are no longer needed given the extraordinary profits that they are making. We ought to also consider that last year, ExxonMobil paid zero Federal income tax, yet they had billions, about $11 billion, of profit.

The second point, the oil production in the Gulf of Mexico is up this year compared to the previous year, and even though there is more production of oil out of the Gulf of Mexico, we've still seen this spike in gasoline prices. So the notion that somehow more drilling in the Gulf of Mexico will drive prices down is just not the case, because we've seen more production and yet a spike in prices.

Finally, with regard to the bills that were just announced during the middle of this discussion about drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, the Democratic Party wants to make sure that that drilling is done safely; the President wants to make sure that drilling is done safely. And what we have suggested, that when these bills come to the floor, they be amended so that the recommendations made by the commission that studied the blowout on the BP platform, that those safety recommendations be put into the law. I guess that's not such a bad idea, but I want to just get that out here just so we have some understanding about what was discussed over this last hour.

But what I really want to do--and I see my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) here--is focus on an extraordinary and extremely important event that took place on Sunday, American time, and Monday, Pakistani time. The United States persevered for a decade to get Osama bin Laden. The President of the United States, Barack Obama, was determined during his campaign for Presidency and in the very first moments of his Presidency that he would focus like a laser beam on getting Osama bin Laden. It took some time. It took an extraordinary effort by the intelligence community, by the military, by this Congress in providing the necessary support and by our colleagues in other branches of government to get the job done. It was accomplished, and finally that banner on that aircraft carrier has real meaning--Mission Accomplished.

Mission Accomplished. Osama bin Laden is no more. The man that was responsible for the biggest mass murder ever in this Nation's history is no more. President Obama, we thank you. We thank the men and women of this military and the intelligence community that made this happen. We applaud the courage of all that were involved and the wisdom and the determination to get the mission accomplished.

Let me now turn to our colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

Thank you very much, Mr. Clyburn, for your heartfelt and very, very appropriate words.

The mission that was carried out was not something that came about just in a matter of days. It had been planned over the course of many, many years, and, with determination, the intelligence community, led by most recently Mr. Panetta, worked tirelessly to track down Osama bin Laden. It took a great deal of time and many, many years but ultimately succeeded in ways that the news media is now beginning to report. We can only give thanks and congratulations to that part of this mission and their determination and steadfastness to stay on the track, to follow every lead and to find every stone that needed to be turned over so that ultimately success could be had in locating Osama bin Laden.

I think we all now know a great deal more about Abbottabad and what it is, a community, not large, but what was this strange new compound doing in that particular location? We found out precisely what it was doing and we took the steps necessary.

I think all of us have seen pictures of the Situation Room at the White House, with American leaders surrounding a table, looking at the television screens, watching in real time what was going on half the world away. I think all of us could see the concern on the faces of those leaders, the President, the Secretary of State, Mr. Panetta and others who were there who had spent their previous hours preparing for the mission and making a very difficult decision.

They knew that this was an extremely risky program that could quite possibly fail, and I'm sure they had the failure of the mission that President Carter ordered three decades before to go into Iran to rescue the hostages, I'm sure that weighed heavily on their minds.

But nevertheless, the President made a very, very courageous decision to accept the risk of failure and quite possibly to succeed in finally dealing with the mass murderer Osama bin Laden. We must keep in mind that it wasn't just Americans who were murdered here on the shores of this Nation, but in Pakistan and in other countries around the world, al Qaeda murdered far more people in those countries.

I notice now that I'm joined here by my colleagues. I'd like to turn to my colleague from San Diego. Susan, if you would care to join us, thank you.

Thank you very much, Representative Davis. I share your enthusiasm. Not too long ago, I also represented San Diego but in a different role, not as a Representative but as Lieutenant Governor.

Indeed, Coronado is an extraordinary place, and the naval forces that are such a prominent part of San Diego did play a role in this in many, many ways. I was trying to recall whether the aircraft carrier that ultimately did the final burial at sea was stationed in San Diego. I think it was a San Diego aircraft carrier.

So what we have here is another way in which the American Armed Forces, in the many different ways, in the case that you talked about, the role of the Special Forces, the special operations, and the SEALs that actually participated, carried out the mission, and the aircraft carrier, and then in between the Air Force and the Army, all of them playing a role. It's an extraordinary example of the way in which military power, properly focused on a very important task, is able to carry it out.

Absolutely correct, and I thank you so very much for your participation tonight in honoring and congratulating President Obama and the special operations and the American intelligence community for what they were able to accomplish. Finally, mission accomplished.

I'd like now to turn to our new colleague just a little less experienced than myself, Mr. Clarke from the State of Michigan and the city of Detroit.

Thank you very much, Mr. Clarke.

Your concern about the economy of Detroit and, in a larger sense, the economy of the United States is very, very well founded. There is no doubt that the economic and social strength of America is the foundation upon which every other aspect of the war on terrorism must be fought. We have to deal with our economy. And you're quite correct about the allocation of resources.

I notice that New Jersey and Rush Holt, who has been a stalwart in dealing with the policies of protecting America in many ways, energy policy and the rest, has joined us. Mr. Holt, if you would care to join in and share your thoughts on this most important event, the elimination of the world's greatest mass murderer.

Mr. Holt, thank you very much.

A couple of things about your discussion really struck me as being very, very important. You reminded us of the men and women that died not only on September 11, the impact on the community that you represent there in New Jersey, and other communities but also the fact that men and women died in the previous attacks that were sponsored and planned by al Qaeda. You also reminded us that there were men and women not of this country but of other countries, Kenya, Tanzania, Iraq, Pakistan, and other countries, that were also the victims of the vicious evil attacks that were planned and carried out by al Qaeda.

It's not just Americans that were the targets of this organization. And you also reminded us of the importance of our own first responders and police and others here in the United States. We know that the reach of al Qaeda is not just Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan. It includes Yemen and Somalia and other countries and America, that there are Americans that have been radicalized by the message. We need to deal with that and address those individuals and organizations that may exist within our own country.

If I might take it from there, you reminded me that in the newspapers here in Washington and I think across this Nation, there was what we call an op-ed, an article that appeared on the editorial pages written by the President of Pakistan who congratulated President Obama and the United States for ridding Pakistan of a terrible problem.

I thought that that was a remarkable article that he wrote. He noted that his own wife was the target of al Qaeda, not once, not twice, but three times. The final effort resulted in her assassination.

So the point that you made about bringing all of us closer together to deal with terrorism, wherever it may be, and whatever rationale it may perceive itself to have, is a threat to every peaceful person and every country that desires peace. Point well made and well taken, Mr. Holt. Thank you so very much for joining us this evening.

You're welcome to stick around and join us after we hear from my colleague from the State of California, Lois Capps, who represents the Santa Barbara region of the Golden State.

Representative Capps, thank you for your words. As you were talking, you were talking about families. I remember a discussion you and I had just a couple hours ago as we were sitting here in the Chamber and you told me about the birth of your granddaughter.

Congratulations on that. Our own tenth grandchild was born just 8 months ago. And I was thinking about them in the context of what has happened this last week and about what we here in Congress, the people's House, representing 350 million, 360 million Americans, about the task that we have to assure that those children of the next generation will have a world that is peaceful, safe, in which they can live out their dreams as we have been fortunate enough to do ourselves.

I notice that an extraordinary woman like yourself, Mrs. Capps, has joined us representing the great State of Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee. I think you would like to make some comments on the subject of the extraordinary courage that our President and our intelligence and our military have displayed this last few days.

Thank you very much, Ms. Lee. Your comments are so well taken and so well said.

I was thinking earlier when I was talking about the Situation Room and what led up to the actual moment that the program was being carried out, the extraordinary and very difficult decision that the President had to make. But it was a decision that he had made months and years earlier when he spoke to the American people as he was asking them for their vote to become President that he was going to focus like a laser on the man that caused the problem; that he was going to go wherever it may take and do whatever is necessary to settle the score and to bring to justice Osama bin Laden. And when the moment came, when the information was presented and all of the potential disasters that could occur, international relationship issues, loss of men, and even thinking back on the Jimmy Carter incident in Tehran, he stuck by his determination and completed a mission that was accomplished.

As you were talking and as I was listening to your very fine presentation, I noticed that an extraordinary leader had joined us here on the floor of the House, a leader who, in her own way, set a very unique circumstance for America--the very first woman Speaker of the House, who led this Chamber and this Nation to accomplish tasks that had not been accomplished in the previous 40 years but which were highly desired by the United States citizens: a health care plan that would provide service to nearly every American, Wall Street reform, and women's rights in the workplace. It was a privilege for me to join during the time she was the Speaker. Now she is the leader of our caucus, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.

Thank you very much, Congresswoman and Leader Pelosi. I'll say, ``Speaker.'' Is that okay? We thank you for your leadership. We thank you for your remarks.

We have a couple of additional members of our caucus who would like to speak. I think we've claimed the next hour. I believe that it will be available. We're out of time at this point, so I will simply wrap up with these three or four words, which are:

It is with gratitude that I and my colleagues congratulate all who were involved in bringing to justice Osama bin Laden. A job well done. Mission accomplished.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I guess I don't understand. I don't understand what our Republican colleagues want to accomplish here.

They talk about free market. They talk about the need to provide options and opportunities. I think that is exactly what an exchange does, so I don't quite understand what this is all about.

I was the insurance commissioner, the elected insurance commissioner in California in 1991, and we set up an exchange. Unfortunately, Governor Wilson vetoed it; otherwise, we would have had this exchange years ago. And 1 year ago, the California legislature, with the signature of a Republican, Governor Schwarzenegger, created an exchange based upon the Affordable Health Care Act and they want to put it into effect.

The Republican proposal here on the floor would make it impossible for California to do what it wants to do; that is, set up a marketplace in which people have access to insurance. The notion being that, by creating the exchange, you spread the risk over many, many different populations so that, like a huge corporation, you have an opportunity as an individual purchaser or a small business to participate in a large pool and accept the lower rate of insurance.

So what is this all about? What are you trying to accomplish here? Is it some ideology that you just simply can't stand the Affordable Health Care Act and you want to rip it apart piece by piece? Apparently so. And you just don't want to stop there. You are going after Medicare, a program that has been in effect for 42 years, that provides a universal insurance policy to anyone over 65. You are going to terminate Medicare. What is that all about? And give it to an insurance company and not have an exchange?

So what is an individual going to do when they are 65 and possessing all kinds of preexisting conditions? Go without insurance? Be at the mercy of the insurance company? And, by the way, you want to repeal all of the insurance reforms, all of the protections that individuals have in the Affordable Health Care Act.

This doesn't make much sense to me. I don't understand what your goal is here, except maybe to have some political scorecard you can say, yeah, we repealed the Affordable Health Care Act. Good for us. But what effect to the population of America? No exchanges? They are gone. No opportunity for small businesses to enjoy a large market, a large pool in which they can have a lower price? They are gone.

Oh, I see. You can have an association health plan. I spent 8 years of my life chasing after association health plans that were frauds. They were out and out frauds, sold across State lines.

Is that what you want? Apparently so. I don't get it.

I don't understand what the goal is here. The Affordable Health Care Act establishes an exchange allowing individuals and small businesses to be part of a large pool, to have four different options on their insurance. And you want to do away with it. I don't get it. You want to do away with clinics in schools so that kids can have access to health care. I don't understand.

You have cut all the money out from the community clinics so that people have to go to the emergency rooms in a more expensive situation. What is this all about? I don't understand what the goal is that our Republican colleagues have in mind. The exchanges make sense. They create a marketplace for small businesses.

The exchanges create a market, ladies and gentlemen. They create a market. It is a market-driven program in which competition occurs, competition between the insurance companies who have to offer quality and price.

Have you got a problem with competition? Apparently so. You want to do away with the exchanges. Apparently what you really want to do is to hand the entire game over to the insurance companies, removing all of the controls, removing all of the necessity for them to compete, and apparently create some sort of an association plan so the public can be ripped off.

announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Let's be very, very clear about this. The Republican proposal, the Republican budget proposal that is before this Congress, terminates Medicare as we have had it since 1965. For those young men and women who are not yet 55, they will never see Medicare. It's over. And instead of having Medicare, which is a guaranteed health insurance program, when they retire at the age of 65, they will be given a voucher that will be worth a percentage of what the insurance will cost. They will be thrown into the market at an age where they have preexisting conditions. And under the Republican proposal, there are no--there are no ways in which they are going to be protected from the insurance companies, who we know have one motive, and that is profit before people. Profit before people is the way it has been for the health insurance companies from the get-go, and that is precisely what the Republicans want to give us.

We will not have it. While they're at it, they want to take those reductions in Medicare expenditures and continue giving money to the wealthiest people in America so that the wealthiest people in America can continue to enjoy ever more wealth, while the middle class enjoys ever more poverty. It is an abomination, and there is no way this Nation should abandon a proven program that for 42 years has provided quality medical care to seniors.

Now, do you want to go after the cost in medicine? Then let's go after the overall cost of medicine, not deny tomorrow's seniors the benefit of Medicare. It is time to understand precisely what the Republican budget does. It terminates Medicare, while giving benefits to the wealthiest Americans. It should not happen.