tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN February 8, 2012 5:00pm-8:00pm EST
but we were not in town either. both chambers open and close every three days. mr. bishop: i yield myself 30 seconds so we all have the same set of facts, it's my understanding that the chairman of the conference committee, mr. camp, was on a co-dell to south america during the period of time that the gentleman from oregon cites and it is up to the chairman of the conference committee to call the -- to call the conference. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. rotman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. rothman: i thank the gentleman for the time. mr. speaker, this matter of whether to extend the payroll tax for middle-class americans for 160 americans is a no-brainer for most americans. it has to be done. 160 million americans should get a tax increase because republicans don't want to share the sacrifice of cutting spending and balancing our
budget? we have to pay the since of the republican majority who want to balance the american budget on the backs of working class americans, seniors, veterans and the middle class? that makes no sense. it's not right. now, my colleague from the other side of the aisle says, well, the democrats want to take money from social security to pay for this. that's not true, mr. speaker. in my opinion, that is obviously not true. this is from the party, mr. speaker, that wanted to privatize social security. mr. walden: will the gentleman yield? mr. rothman: the republicans wanted to privatize social security and the american people knows it. i will not yield. the republicans just voted last year to end medicare, so the american people are not fooled about what's -- who's side the -- whose side the republican are on. the democrats are for working people, for american hilled
class, for seniors, for veterans, for labor. so the republicans say, mr. speaker, that they want 160 million americans to have their payroll taxes go up. they want 50 million senior citizens in americans to be thritened with the loss of -- threatened with the loss of health care because they want to deny the doctors who treat those seniors and they want to cut benefits which puts food on the table for tens of millions of americans who have looking for work because the republicans don't want to share the sacrifice. they want to cut spending on the backs of the middle class working americans and seniors. they voted to private sise social security. they voted to end medicare. who's anybody kidding when they say that this bill to extend
unemployment benefits to keeps the payroll tax cut for 160 million americans and to keep seniors to have doctors care for them because the doctors will still get full medicare reimbursement has anything to do with seniors? the democrats are for the seniors, social security and medicare and everyone knows that. it is time for our republican colleagues on the democrat who voted for tarp and for the car company bailout to get their priorities straight. vote for this continuation of unemployment benefits, for employment insurance and for doctors who take care of millions of our nation's seniors. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: yeah, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume to set the record straight. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walden: first of all, it was my colleague who just spoke's party who raided
medicare as part of the president's health care legislation by $500 million. that's a fact. now when he says that my party ended medicare, that's not a fact. in fact, "political fact check" said that the notion that is true is the biggest untruth of the year. they gave it that award because they knew it wasn't true and i know it's not true. i guess -- i am trying to figure out what my friend, and he is my friend, means when he said that this isn't somehow raiding social security's trust fund because the payroll tax that's at issue here that's being reduced by 2% is the payment that if it were made would go into social security. that's the payroll tax. mr. rothman: if the gentleman will yield? mr. walden: and i wouldn't.
you wouldn't yield to me. you can use your folk's time. that's being offset. and by the way, the offsets that we are talking about as part of this legislation almost in every case received bipartisan support in this house and sometimes overwhelming bipartisan support, and many of those offsets were actually recommended by the president of the united states, mr. obama, as part of a different package as things he thought made sense and so we said, you know what, maybe there is some common ground here. the president recommended some of these offsets as ways to reduce government spending and pay for other things as part of the supercommittee process. so if he thought it was ok there maybe we can find some common ground and say, ok, you like that there so we'll use that here so we don't increase the deficit, don't hurt jobs and don't leave our kids with an unimaginable debt. so republicans are the ones who said we're not going to let you raid social security. we'll reduce the payroll tax
payment, the social security tax payment but we're going to offset it so the fund is not any further reduced because i think that's an important principle i hope we would all share. and so i just say that it was the president's health care plan that took $500 billion out of medicare and i don't know. i'm a fan of medicare. i've seen what it does for seniors. i saw what it did for my parents and my wife's parents, and i want to make sure it's preserved in the future just like i want social security as well. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. bishop: i don't know a single democrat, not a single one who believes we should diminish the social security trust fund to handle the social security payroll tax reduction. we all believe that the social security trust fund should be held harmless. secondly with medicare. the affordable care act reduces
medicare going forward by $500 million. i point out that every single republican in this chamber voted for that very same reduction in the rate of growth when they voted for the ryan budget. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. kucinich: i thank my friend . we are here as stewards of our nation, and we must care for the people of our nation, to care for those who are working hard every day trying to survive, trying to pay their mortgages, trying to pay their car payments, get their kids in school. and all they're looking for, 160 million americans, is a continuation of a tax cut. we should be for that. those millions who are unemployed are also looking for
help. they're looking for recognition that they've earned these unemployment benefits. this isn't welfare. it's an earned benefit, unemployment insurance. we should make sure they get that benefit. now, why do they need that? it's obvious. people need to pay their mortgages or their rent. they have to feed their families. they have to put clothes on their kids' backs. they need this unemployment insurance. i have trouble understanding, mr. speaker, this proposal that's before the congress in this bill, h.r. 3630, that would discriminate against americans who are unemployed, who don't have a high school policeman, by saying if you get unemployment insurance you have to go to school. well, that sounds good but that doesn't give them any resources to do so. that sounds so much like people
picking them up by their boot straps and then stealing their boots. we should give people unemployment benefits and if they have time -- that should uplift the knowledge level in america and when our economy comes back we will have a better trained work force. now, this other proposal that would allow states to subject all of those who apply for unemployment insurance to drug test needs to be looked at. could i have another possible, is that possible? mr. bishop: 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. kucinich: has anyone suggested that those getting a bailout should take a drug test, those who have oil depletion allowances should take a drug test, those who were recipients of the bush tax break in the top bracket should take a drug test? no. we say the poorest of the poor need to take a drug test. come on. get real.
we could create seven million jobs for the need act, national employment emergency defense act. we need to create these jobs debt free. we don't need to have the unemployment level that we have. we shouldn't be having this debate. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: i yield myself such time as i may consume, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walden: so you know what americans want? a job. i don't think there's any disagreement between us that that should be our goal. that's part of what the republicans put in the bill that went to the senate is a plan to auction off spectrum that would generate upwards of 700,000 jobs, according to some studies. 700,000 jobs, spur innovation, spur technology. that's in this bill that we're fighting for. because this is a sector that could grow good-paying familiarries jobs, keep -- family jobs. so the legislation, the american jobs act, which i authored, is in this
legislation. it's a part of this bill. it would generate net 16.7 billion dollars to help pay for extending unemployment or to help pay the social security trust fund so that it doesn't have to be depleted. mr. chair, mr. speaker, i yield such time as he may consume to mr. reid. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. reed: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my good friend from oregon for yielding me this time. mr. speaker, i have sat on this conference committee now for a bunch of months and there's been a lot of money spent in washington, d.c. and elsewhere around this nation saying that the republican party is the party of no. well, let me tell you, as i sat in this conference committee, what i have heard, and yesterday was the best example of it. i heard commonsense proposals in the house bill brought to the conference committee, brought to the senate democrats and said, look, we have all supported this. 90% of these pay-fors for the
policies we are trying to enact, the president, the democratic president supports. and what i heard repeatedly yesterday was, no, no, no. we are not going to accept these pay-fors even though our president said he'd accept them, even though we supported them in the past. what i heard for yesterday is no, we are not going to pay for it. so there is a clear division here. what we stand on the republican side in this chamber is we are going to pay for the decisions coming out of washington, d.c., going forward, and i have to say my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and my particular colleagues in the senate on the democratic side of the aisle have tried to go back to the old politics of, you know what, let's just call everything emergency spending and we don't have to pay for it. that's old school politics. that philosophy is done and over with because the american hardworking taxpayers back home, mr. speaker, deserve for
us to pay our bills. and that is what we're doing. and i am all for true dialogue. if the senate is not going to accept the pay-fors that are in the house bill, then send over whatever proposals you have to cover this bill especially when we're talking about social security taxes, when we're talking about payroll taxes that are the sole revenue to fund social security. i've had so many constituents back at home, mr. speaker, that are repeatedly told me, why are you cutting these taxes, why are you jeopardizing social security? and i said, i believe you need to keep your money, not give it to washington and let them waste and spend it on policies that are out of here. but what we will do is i will stand and make sure that social security is made whole and that's what i'm looking forward to in this dialogue is that we come together, recognize that the politics of old is done and we will pay for our decisions
and once that happens i am confident we can come together and do what hardworking taxpayers in america want us to do. that is extend the payroll, take care of the unemployment and take care of our doctors so that physicians can see our seniors in america and that medicare is preserved. with that i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields back. mr. walden: and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon reserves his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. bishop: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. peters. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. peters: i rise in support of representative bishop's democratic motion to instruct conferees. if congress doesn't act by the end of the month, americans that have lost their jobs through no fault of their own will begin losing the unemployment benefits keeping their family afloat in these very difficult times. this is why i'm leading my colleagues and sending a letter to the conference committee urging them to preserve current levels of unemployment benefits. families receiving unemployment benefits are already facing significant challenges and
pulling the rug out from underneath them would damage our economy and force these americans into poverty. mr. speaker, my republican colleagues like to talk about uncertainty. when they're not pushing tax cuts for the rich as a cure-all for the economy, they're blaming uncertainty, supposedly created by wall street reform or environmental protections for slow economic growth. if my republican colleagues want to know what real uncertainty is, i suggest they pick up the phone the next time one of their constituents who is staring down the expiration of their unemployment benefits calls. real uncertainty is not knowing if you can pay for heat. real uncertainty is not knowing if you're not able to pay for groceries. real uncertainty means spending a year or more looking for a job and barely scraping by with unemployment benefits while some in washington want to play politics with the livelylyhood of these americans. .
uncertainty is what the republicans are creating by refusing to pass payroll extension benefits and i support the motion to instruct conferees because it will direct conference committee members to stop delay and issue the report next week. american families cannot afford to wait any longer. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. the gentleman from oregon has 4 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from new york has 2 minutes. mr. walden: i'll reserve for the moment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. bishop: i'm prepared to close. will you close or do you have any another speaker? mr. walden: and who ends up being the one to close on this? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york has the right to close. mr. bishop: i will defer to you. and i have no more speakers. i will defer to you and take my two minutes to close.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. and the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i think this is a good and lively debate because we have been able to show that the house has done its work. house republicans put forward a proposal to extend unemployment benefits for a full year, and we paid for it. we put forward a proposal to give working middle-class taxpayers a reduction in the amount they pay into social security, but we backfill that money so that social security's trust fund was not depleted and we said to our physicians out there who take care of our seniors that they would have certainty and not face a 27.4% cut in their reimbursement rates under medicare and they would have that certainty for two full years. so, the facts are clear what the house passed. we also included in this legislation to try and drive new
job creation in the high tech center by auctioning off spectrum that would generate 16.7 billion dollars and upwards of 7,000 jobs. a few00,000 jobs would be a great thing especially in technology and innovation and everything that would come from that. that's in this bill. and what we got back from the senate was two months, two months, two months. and a failure to even come to the table. so the republican confereys in the house have been willing to meet any time and anywhere. and under chairman camp's leadership we have met in public. frankly, we have had good discussions across the table. i want to make that clear as well. between republicans and democrats and house and senate, even though we may have disagreements, we have had good discussions and now we need to get the work done and in order to get the work done we have to
have alternative proposals from the senate which hopefully we're going to get, maybe even tonight and that would be helpful because we'll know what their position is. we had a year bill and they had a two-month bill. it's been kind of an awkward conference for the senate to figure out how to do this and the house has a full year or two-year extension depending upon the items at issue here. we will meet tomorrow morning at 10:00 in conference either in private or in public. i don't know, that will be up to the chairman. i don't care when or where, i'm ready. mr. reed from new york is ready. my other confereys were ready and we were ready to get this done in december and we still are. and those who are trying to struggle and find jobs to make sure they have that unemployment insurance. they deserve that and need that. and we are committed to providing that. so, mr. speaker, on that note, i
don't think there will be any objection on this floor to approving your motion to instruct the confereys to get their work done by the 17th. and i yield back the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. bishop: i will close. let me make it unmistakebly clear, there is not a single democrat that is advocating diminishing the social security trust fund. we all agree that the social security trust fund must be made whole and that is why we are accepting of the fact that this tax cut, unlike every other tax cut that has been passed in this chamber the past 10 years should be fully paid for so the social security trust fund is not diminished. secondly, i want to thank mr. walden and mr. reed for their service on the conference committee. it cannot be an easy conference, and i would just ask as you go forward, you be guided by what
leader cantor has said. what leader continuor has said is we should pass what we can agree on and leave the issues on which we can't agree to another day. and it certainly appears that we agree we need to extend the payroll tax you deduction and fix the s.g.r. and pass unemployment insurance. let's pass it. leave to another day contentious issues like the keystone pipeline and drug testing. let's pass what we can agree on. they deserve a full debate and let's not let them stand in the way for a tax cut of 160 million americans and access to medicare physicians and keeping millions of americans at least with some lifeline with respect to unemployment insurance. and so i urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit. i thank mr. walden for a spirited debate. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the
balance of his time. all time having expired, without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to instruct. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays on that. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered pursuant to clause 8, rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the chair is now prepared to entertain requests for one-minute speeches. mr. lewis: would like to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, our capitol hill community has
endured a great loss this week with the passing of our dear friend frank curbing. frank passed away early monday morning after a year-long battle with cancer. he was 59 years old. frank cushing left his mark on public policy after 30 years of public service in the house and the senate. for those people who understand just how important fine staff are to our ability in the house and the senate to more effectively serve our public, i know of no public servant who has greater respect in this community, indeed around the country, than frank cushing. we will be holding a memorial service commemorating frank's work on our behalf next monday
at 3:00 p.m.. the details regarding that service will be in the revised congressional record. i urge all members who know and love frank cushing to come together and focus upon his service. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, there are more things more universal to the health and lives of women than birth control. it is basic health care. it's essential to women's economic independence and professional fulfillment. in fact with the swearing in of our new colleague from oregon, we now have 94 women in congress. my guess is there would be half that number without the benefit of contraceptives. and that all began 40 or 50 years ago. so when the speaker said this
morning that congress must overturn the president's policy acting on behalf of the american people, i'm not really sure what he's talking about, because the president's decision is on the right side of common sense, sound srns and -- science and public opinion. it enjoys support of majority of americans and majority of catholics and many of my house colleagues who want to deny access to contraception are the same ones who want to cut programs who help women and families. i thank the president for standing up for women's health care and women's freedom. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. are there further requests for one-minute speeches? under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentlelady from new york, ms. slaughter, is recognized for 60
minutes as the diss egg knee of the minority leader -- designee of the minority leader. ms. slaughter: it's common knowledge that inside erp trading of stocks is a crime. martha stewart was sentenced to five months in prison and 2011, wall street titan was sentenced to 11 years for buying stocks based on insider information. the law of the land clearly does not apply. in the halls of congress, there are no clear laws preventing members of congress from using their public office to obtain insider information and trade stocks for private enrichment. we thought we had a chance, mr. speaker, last week when the senate passed the stock act with 96-3 that the house would have a
chance to follow and that we would be moving forward to remedy that wrong. we were unfortunately very much wronged. we had had a markup two months ago in december on the stock act and it's the last moment, the bill was snatched away. the meeting was adjourned and we heard no more. after the senate passed the bill, the house decided that they would pass one any time it was going to be strengthened and made better. we discovered yesterday that what was going to happen is that we would no longer from a freestanding bill but instead, we would have a suspension bill. let me take a second to explain the difference between those two bills. we would have had an opportunity under the regular bill to be able to amend it and would have been given the right to recommit. under suspension, we can do nothing but vote it up or down. this bill, which has the most
support as i have seen in my 20 years in congress, more editorial support all over this country and parts of europe that you can even imagine was taken away. and was it made stronger? absolutely not. we said yesterday that we used the word making stronger is that the bill would be gutted and indeed it was. the part called political intelligence, which is investment that people make in getting political intelligence from members of congress and their staff yields $402 million a year success simply from information traded from members of congress and sold to the clients of hedge fund dealers. we are pretty disappointed about that. it happened in the dark of night and we didn't know what was going to be in the bill until 10:30 and i was pleased to hear from senator grassley and senator leahy of their great
disappointment in what the house has done and we are demanding to have a conference on these two bills so we can have the opportunity to keep political intelligence in that bill because of its major importance and if do nothing and it would continue to prosper in the shadows with no one watching. in a way, the stock act is a statement of how we view ourselves. and it isn't a relationship of how we serve. it is a reflection and while we receive the honor and power confered by our service, we are equal in our rights and responsibilities just to every other single american citizen. no more how powerful our position, no more hallowed the halls we walk, though one here is above the law. with the passage of the stock
act, congress could have moved one step closer to living up to the faith and trust bestowed upon us by the american people, the citizens for whom we serve. unfortunately, that has been snatched away from us at the 13th hour. we are hoping for either a reconsideration by the leadership of this house or that we can, with the help of the senators that i mentioned, be able to demand a conference between the two houses on the bill they've passed and the travesty that we will be passing here. i reserve the balance of my time and yield to mr. walz. . . mr. walz: the gentlewoman was concerned about ethics before ethics was vogue. the incredible honor and responsibility and privilege that are given by our neighbors, we gather in here as teachers and soldiers, as micro
byologistbyologists, as attorneys, as -- microbiologists, as attorneys, from new york city to the beautiful areas of oregon, our members joining us tonight, and our responsibility standing here and self-governing calls the responsibility of us to conduct ourselves in a manner not just equal to every other member, every other citizen but to a higher level. and the absolute perception, whether real or not, the perception that members of congress or elected officials are somehow using their office to profit or tipping people to somehow profit themselves is not only an affront to the neighbors who sent us here, it's a cancer on the democracy. this institution and deliberative self-government will survive long before us. the giants who came before us
and the words that we stand in front of, they will land into the future. this institution requires us to conduct ourselves in this manner. so that's why coming from the high school classroom as a teacher, one of the first people i met in this chamber was the gentlewoman from new york, and she knew that i was sent here to try and do things differently. yes, to be passionate about how we see our political differences, to be passionate about how we educate our children, how we care for our veterans, how we build our highways, how we bring about a system of health care that's fair and to respect our neighbors and to respect our colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their differences. but what's happened and what the american people have lost faith in is not the idea of democracy but the idea that we're all playing by the rules. so i think it's important when the gentlelady from new york speaks and speaks about this idea of tightening the rules on insider trading, she's talking
about protecting the democracy. she's talking about making sure no one gains access so that when the teacher walks through the door, when the microbiologist walks through the door, when the attorney walks through the door and they're representing 650,000 people in their district that those constituents know the decisions we make are based on what's best for the nation. the things we talk about are not being used to enrich someone personally because it's not only wrong and now after tomorrow we're going to hopefully say illegal, it also is so undermining to the system. so i think this debate and this decision we have, the gentlewoman's point goes much deeper than what's possible politically. it's required of us. and what we're asking for and what the gentlelady has so eloquently said is just give us
the opportunity to talk this through. the genius of this system, put us here, put the senators on the other side of this great capitol and it told us to get together. they passed a piece of legislation. we compromised over here with something. let's bring them together and the argument being made on political intelligence and supporting this system is absolutely correct. i think today, and i want to be very clear, mr. speaker, none of us here are patting ourselves on the back and saying, look, we passed the stock act. the gentlelady's worked at it for six years. it feels like a sense of accomplishment not for her, for me or our colleagues who have been stalwart supporters. it's an affirmation to the american public that the system works. and they owe us to do the best job we can before we move that forward. so this isn't good job, we passed a bill to do the right
thing. americans live by this rule every day. what we did was we closed a loophole that existed and we went further and talked about how could this be construed to enrich others and corrupt the democracy. so you're hearing terms like political intelligence. what we're saying is do it in the light of day. sunshine cures many ills. i support the gentlelady's point. i support it because i know it didn't come about by a born-again ethics. it came about by years and a lifetime of not giving the sermon but living the sermon. so i ask my colleagues, listen to what's being said here, take this into consideration, compromise, get this to the senate and then let's give the american public a real unique gift in this political environment -- a win on something important that makes them believe that things can be better. we owe that to them, so i thank
the gentlelady, thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time to the lead author of the stock act. ms. slaughter: i'm pleased now to yield time to my good friend and fellow new yorker, mrs. maloney. mrs. maloney: i thank the gentlelady for yielding and for her hard work on this issue and many others. mr. speaker, i am really very pleased that we are finally working to address the insider trading issue in this body and that it will finally be on the floor tomorrow. we should not have had to wait so long for a bill that has 270 co-sponsors. and i am proud to be one of them and i have been in past congresses. i want to thank my colleague from new york, louise slaughter, who has worked on this legislation for six long years, and my colleague from minnesota, mr. walz, for their
excellent leadership, perseverance on this issue. mr. speaker, i have said it before, elected officials must be like caesar's wife in avoiding the appearance of impropriety. the need to expressly prohibit this activity in statute cannot be overstated. insider trading is illegal on wall street and it should be illegal on capitol hill. the stock act is bipartisan, commonsense legislation to prohibit federally elected officials from profiting on nonpublic information they receive through their legislative duties. this is long overdue reform of how washington does business, and the american people deserve and expect us to pass it swiftly. regretfully, the bill introduced by the republican majority, does nothing to regulate the political intelligence community.
in fact, when they wrote their version of the stock act and they did not go through regular order. it should have gone through the financial services committee of which i serve and others, the republican leadership did not consult with the bipartisan coalition that has championed this bill for years. they did not mention anything to mr. walz or ms. slaughter, and as a result they introduced a flawed bill. this bill is weaker, not stronger, and it has been denounced by senator grassley and senator leahy. like the lobbyists before them, political intelligence operatives use a proximity to power to serve high-paying clients. unlike lobbyists, these operatives are nameless. under current law they are not required to identify themselves as they go about their work, and we know all too well what happens when congress and k street work in the dark. i join my colleague,
congresswoman slaughter, and congressman walz, in calling for a conference committee where senators leahy and grassley and also a bipartisan commission here in the house can work together to make sure that the intelligence, political intelligence community is covered by this bill. i thank my colleagues for their hard work and i will join them in working to make this stronger to really return it to the strong form that my colleagues drafted. i yield back to law ease slaughter. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, it is with great pleasure and absolute delight that i am able to yield to the next speaker who is a newly mentioned member of congress for just a little more than 24 hours, suzanne bon meche from oregon -- bon michie from oregon -- bonamici from
oregon. ms. bonamici: thank you, congresswoman slaughter, for yielding to me to speak about this important bill. congressman walz and congresswoman slaughter's leadership on this bill has been remarkable. thank you so much for your tireless efforts. the idea behind the stock act is simple. members of congress, their staff and other government officials should not be using their access in washington to enrich themselves on wall street. i am already a proud co-sponsor of h.r. 1148, a bill that rightfully enjoys broad bipartisan support. the protection of the integrity of our government institutions is not a partisan issue, it's fundamental to our democracy. the stock act is one critical step we can take to make it clear to our constituents back home that we, like them, will not tolerate the types of activities that we were all shocked to read about in the press. the trust that my constituents have placed in me is something
that i take very seriously. as public servants we are here to work for the people, not outside firms looking to profit. and certainly not to make a quick buck for ourselves. when you hear about scandals like this, it's no wonder the public has so little confidence in our institution of government. in we want to restore stents' faith and earn back their -- citizens' faith and earn back their trust, we must make sure that everyone is playing by the rules. as i mentioned yesterday in my remarks to this house during the incredibly warm welcome i received as its newest member, we have a fundamental belief in this country that if you work hard and play by the rules you can succeed. the reports of past insider trading made clear that the rules as it applied to members of congress and other in the public fear with respect to their wall street dealings are not sufficient. the stock act improves the rules to ensure not only that they are sufficient but there are consequences for breaking those rules.
i'm proud to join with my colleagues both in support of the stock act and in the recent effort to bring the bill forward for consideration by the house. now, it's my understanding that we're going to see an altered version on the floor before we conclude this week's business. now, i'm surprised to learn as a new member that no amendments will be allowed on such an important bill. although the weakening or elimination of certain key provisions such as the intelligence language is -- i ensure that all of us in public office play by the same rules as the people who have entrusted us with the privilege of being their voice in washington. i look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to restore our constituents' confidence in their representatives and in their government institutions. thank you very much, and i yield back my time. ms. slaughter: i'm pleased now to yield to the gentleman from iowa, mr. loebsack. mr. lobiondo: i --
mr. loebsack: i thank the gentlelady, ms. slaughter. i thank her effort and the effort of congressman walz as well for initially bringing this bill forward. at a time when we now heard about some things we heard on "60 minutes" at a time when really nobody was paying attention to this issue. these two folks had the courage to bring this forward. i want to thank them for that. i was really proud to be the fourth co-sponsor of this legislation back in may, at least this version we are talking about, not the current version that's on the floor. i really think that it's absolutely urgent that we fix the current loophole that as already mentioned by so many of my colleagues, that allows members of congress to use information that they obtain in a nonpublic fashion for their own financial benefit. this is something that on the face of it simply makes no sense that we should allow that to happen. not in a democracy.
not certainly in congress and this institution. it was mentioned that this institution's not much respected right now. in fact, the latest gallup poll today showed us at 10%, showed congress at 10%. and it's not surprising given the stories that we heard, given the problems that we've seen in this country and especially when we have something like the stock act in front of us and there's bickering going on that this thing is not being passed as quickly as it should have been passed and that now we find that my good friend and my colleague, senator grassley from iowa, is upset as well because as was mentioned, the political intelligence loophole is there at the moment as well. that's got to stop. we got to pass the bill here in the house. we've got to do what we can to have a conference committee that's going to have real teeth, that's going to take care of that loophole. senator grassley's exactry right about that. we have to show the american people that we in congress play
by the same rules that they do, that we're not above the american people, so when we go home to our districts as i do every week. every weekend i'm home. people have faith in us. they have confidence in the institution of congress, and that they know as we should that we play by the same rules that they do. and i want to thank congresswoman slaughter and congressman walz for organizing this special order tonight. i am very, very proud. this is only the second time i've done this since i've been in congress. this is my sixth year. i could not be more proud to come up here and speak on this important issue. i do it because of the people in iowa, people in my district tell me it's the right thing to do. thank you and i yield back the remainder of my time. thank you. . ms. slaughter: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentlewoman from new york, ms.
lowey, will control the remainder of the hour. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, some decisions are just too important to be based on fear of political repercussions. that is why it is gratifying that president obama heeded the advice of the institute of medicine and concluded that given its importance to women's health, contraception should be covered by health insurance as a free preventive service for all american women. to accommodate religious institutions, the administration appropriately exempted places of worship from requirements to cover could tra septembertives in their health plan. the -- cover contraceptives in their health plan. it respect religions i had
logically opposed to birth control and american people. let me be clear, no one will be required to use con trap septembertives. the rules allow women to exercise their own conscience when it comes to their health. and the vast majority of american women already do. it would be a grave mistake to make it more difficult to access medley recommended services for the 99% of all women who have used contraception in their lifetime. the administration was absolutely right to stand up for women's health by protecting access to contraception. i yield to congresswoman slaughter from new york. ms. slaughter: i thank the
gentlelady for yielding. mr. speaker, i want to commend president obama and health and human services secretary sebelius by including contraception that health insurance plans are required to cover at no cost. this was based on the decision by the institute of medicine and right decision for women. it affirms that women can make choices about their health and their future. finally the administration's decision has received uproar from the religious community. while some claim it is in violation of the first amendment rights, the truth is, this upholds the first amendment rights of millions of women not to have their reproductive rights controlled by religious leaders. this decision stands up for women's freedom and women's right to decide when and how she wants to start a family.
if she subscribes to a religion that teaches against the issue of birth control, then she is free to choose to use it not either. if she chooses to use it for the benefits it provides, prevention of bleeding that cannot be controlled, she should be free to do so. either way the choice should belong to her and her alone. it is also important to note the details of the administration's decision. we're not talking about churches or organizations that exist for the sole purpose of teaching their religion. these organizations are totally exempt from providing coverage for contraception. what we are talking is religious-affiliated organizations, such as hospitals, schools and universities. millions of women employed by these types of organizations and
those women do not necessarily share the believes of their employers. in fact, one of the most egregious things felt by all women is that they weren't going to go by that. catholic churches employ all religions. teachers, cafeteria workers at religious schools and universities are not necessarily members of that religion. those employers should not have the right to decide whether or not the women on their insurance plans can access birth control. they still have separation of church and state. many teach against the use of birth control also teach against divorce, but institutions affiliated with those religions do not discriminate against employees based on their marital
status. they don't have exempt shon from labor laws. the recent decision by the administration shows they are standing with women in supporting their freedom to make the choices that impact themselves and their families. surveys have repeatedly shown that women and men across this country support providing access to contraception and that support is equally strong moon members against the very religions that are fighting this decision. i applaud the president and secretary sebelius in supporting the freedom of women and support the decision to put women's personal health and freedom first. i thank mrs. lowey. >> when it comes to religious exemption, a balance must be struck. mr. quigley: respecting the beliefs of others who may be
impacted by a religious exemption. take a catholic university where jews, hindus, muslims and nonreligious followers work. should they be denied to contraception even though their faith does not oppose it. if we allow religiously-affiliated institutions to deny contraception, we begin to see the beliefs and rights to those who support and require contraception infringed upon. as policy makers, we have to stand up for the rights of all of our constituents regardless of their faith. this means making policies that walk the line between protecting religious institutions while protecting the rights of individuals employed by religiously-affiliated institutions. the administration's exemption strikes that balance. i yield to mrs. davis.
mrs. davis: mr. speaker, i rise to applaud the final ruling issued by the department of health and human services to include birth control at no cost. the pill changed the world. as some have said, it was one small pill, but one giant leap for womankind. it improved women's health. it reduced infant mortality. it increased a women's earning potential. it empowered families to chart their own course. yet, currently, one in three american women struggle to afford birth control. a woman's right to decide when to start a family is meaningless. if she does not have the means to make a choice. all of these benefits could be denied because of a relatively
small amount of money. and that simply is unacceptable. i'm pleased that we are living up to the promises made in the affordable care act and i urge my colleagues to join me in protecting and increasing access to health care for every woman in america. i yield back. mrs. maloney: i rise in support of the president's action and secretary sebelius' action in health and human services to allow birth control benefits for working women across this country. this birth control benefit increases access to preventive health care, while respecting religious freedom. taking this benefit away would be devastating for millions of
workers. and this is accepted practice in 21 states -- 28 states. 28 states require insurers that cover prescription drugs to provide coverage of the full range of f.d.a.-approved contraception drugs. women's access to care is absolutely on the line and they have turned it into a religious versus reproductive freedom debate. birth control is prescribed for women's health, plain and simple. it is not radical. 28 states already supply it and roughly 99% of women who use birth control at some point in their lives. the only way they can use it is if they can get it. the right to choose is absolutely meaningless without the means and access to choice. the president's thoughtful
decision allows insurance companies to cover contraceptives. it does not in any way interfere with one's religious beliefs or the beliefs of the church and does not force anyone to use them and does not require anyone, churches or anyone else to cover it. but if it is a university, if it is a major employer that is employing many people, not people of one faith, but many different faiths, then it's required that they follow the law of this country. so let's end this assault on women's health and listen to the millions of americans who rely on birth control each and every day. and it's important for their health. and i applaud the president and secretary sebelius. and i yield to the great congresswoman from the great state of california. ms. lee: thank you very much. i want to thank the gentlelady
for yielding and also standing up for women's health, not only today and during these very difficult times, but each and every day of your life. as a former devout practicing catholic, i fully understand and respect the church's doctrine on contraception. and even though i disagree with it, i fully respect it, and i understand it. but also, i know that the separation of church and state is a fundamental principle that we must maintain. mr. speaker, the administration's decision to provide choices to access to quality, affordable health care, family planning services, including contraceptives are vital to women's health and well-being. this isn't really about a mandate. the rule would not force anyone
with a religious objection to use a prescribed f.d.a.-approved contraception. the fact is the catholic bishops know that the 335,000 religious institutions and organizations and places of worship, they are exempt, and in fact, no woman will be required to use contraceptions or use contraceptives if she doesn't want to do that. this is about women making their own decisions whether to use contraceptives or not. it's about access. religion must not force discrimination and discriminatory policies against, for example, an employee who works in the cafeteria of a hospital and chooses to plan her family. she should not be denied this coverage because of where she works. low-income women finally,
finally will have equal access to contraceptive services if they choose. and so we want to make sure tonight that the facts are presented appropriately. and yes, we have witnessed this war against women come against women's health for the last year now. and it's about time we start really being truthful to the public and getting the facts out there and not allow the misinformation to really put women once again in a position of not having access to contraceptive care. so i believe that this decision was right. i know that it allows for religious exemptions and this rule should allow now for
employees, for nurses, for health care workers, to access contraception when they want to. and if they choose not to, they don't have to. but we should not allow discrimination any more to take place. thank you, and i yield to the gentlelady from california, congresswoman lois capps. mrs. capps: i thank my colleague, barbara lee, for yielding time and i want to thank our colleague from new york, nita lowey, for her work in organizing this opportunity for us to speak, to speak with one voice, we who are members of congress, women members of congress and speaking for myself, some of us are mothers, are grandmothers, and my career in public health greatly informs what i'm about to say. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the obama administration's decision to
include contraception in their list, their very important list of preventive services which will make women's health care more affordable. let us be clear. this was not a political decision on the part of the administration, on the part of our president. no one intended to attack any religious institution. it was a decision based on extensive science. and the expert recommendation made by these scientists with the goal in mind of keeping women and their children healthy. however, a great deal of misinformation has been spread about this rule. some decided to again use women's health as a political football. but the truth is, this issue is not as divisive as many would like it to be made out to be. virtually almost all women use a form of an f.d.a.-approved birth control at one point or
another in their lifetime. this includes 98% of catholic women as well. and most americans, men and women, believe that women, not their bosses, women, should have the choice of which health care services they can and want to access. but you know, some would have us believe that the administration's rule is in some way radical. it is not. 28 states already require the coverage of contraception in their insurance plans. and the new federal standard is based on one that has worked in my home state of california for many years. it's done so without any religious hospitals dropping coverage or firing any of their employees. it's worked perfectly well. the administration now has made the right call and i speak on behalf of women in this country urging the administration to stay the course. and now it is my honor and
pleasure to yield my time, or our time, to our colleague from maryland, very appropriate person to speak on this topic, donna edwards. ms. edwards: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i want to express my support for the administration's ruling that provides women and families across this country, no matter their -- matter their faith, to take control of their own reproductive health and access these services. the voices we're hearing does not reflect the women across this country who rely on contraception. 97% of women -- 99% of women across the united states and 98% of catholic women use birth control. it's estimated that women use birth control for 30 years. polls find that more than half
of the united states population believe that employers should provide health care plan that coverage contraception and birth control at no cost. unfortunately, over the last week since the administration's ruling, religious readers -- leaders have misintermented and misled the american people on the rule's application. it protects the rights of churches and church associations, the administration limits the institutions whose main purpose is spreading religion and employ and serve people of the same faith. clearly the opposition doesn't express this. extending this exemption beyond these churches to other religious institutions would directly undermine the intent of the health care reform law for the more than 640,000 individuals employed in particular by catholic hospitals. let's be clear. contrary to what some have said this ruling has absolutely
nothing to do with abortion. in fact, the ruling will save women up to $600 per year and keep their employers from absorbing a 15% to 17% increase in health care costs simply not to provide women with contraceptive coverage. women in families across the country deserve the option to receive the comprehensive coverage if they desire. it doesn't provide contraception to women. if a woman chooses to exercise her faith and not use contraception, she's free to do so under this ruling. however, limiting access to contraception to any subseth of the population would be a direct afront to the recommendation of the medicine. where should we draw the lines? should those institutions exercise their role as employers rather than their
role in their faith tradition? i would argue that of course this is about their role as an employer. what, for example, would the government do if these institutions also believed that they should exempt themselves from paying payroll taxes because they believe that under their faith tradition, people' responsibility is to tithe instead. would we allow them to self-exempt from payroll taxes? i don't think so. contraception and maternal health is all part of a woman's health care, comprehensive health care, just like breast exams, screenings, and well women visits. 50% of pregnancies in this cupry are unplanned and it's widely understood that these unplanned pregnancies are not as healthy as planned pregnancies. this can cost taxpayers up to $11 billion a year and at a time when the other side is slashing budgets and proposing reforms to shift costs to states this ruling is about as smart as we get for our health
care system, for women and families, for babies and for american taxpayers. making certain women and families have the opportunity to plan pregnancy is critical for our society. the administration's ruling protects women, families, and babies, eliminates discrimination of one group of women over another and it's important for us. the rule respects the religious beliefs and freedoms of all americans and health care providers while it ensures that women have the full coppings to pursue contraception. i stand with my colleagues in support of the administration's rule, look forward to working to expand health care coverage, and women's health care coverage, and thank you. at this time i'd like to yield to my colleague from connecticut, the honorable rosa delauro, who is a true leader for women's health care and i appreciate her leadership. ms. delauro: as both a catholic and an advocate of women's
health, i believe these guidelines strike the necessary balance between increasing access to health care services for women, while respecting the religious beliefs of all americans. these guidelines are based on recommendations from the institute of medicine, a nonprofit, independent organization that is grounded and rooted in science. they have recommended that women have access to a wide range of services, such as screenings and counseling for domestic violence that pregnant women have access to services such as screening for gestational diabetes that women have access to at least one well-woman preventive care visit a year, and that all women have access to a range of contraceptive services. counseling and methods. let me be clear. the catholic church and its employees are exempt from these guidelines. they apply only to church
institutions that serve the larger community. and they -- and employ people of different faiths on a nonreligious basis and do not meet the clear requirements for a religious exemption. there are many and thousands of non-catholics who work in catholic hospitals and in catholic universitys. -- universities. improved access to birth control is directly linked to declines in infant mortality and helps redeuce unintended pregnancies. that's why 28 states including connecticut already mandate the coverage of contraception and why many private employers already cover these services. i'm proud to support what i believe to be a moral decision by the administration and a well-crafted compromise that maintains the existing federal conscience protections and at the same time allows women access to contraceptive service
and other preventive health care services without mandating in terms of contraceptive services that one use it or be required to dispense it. and i would like now to yield time to my colleague from washington, d.c., the honorable eleanor holmes norton. ms. norton: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. mr. speaker, i think in the next several days and weeks, you'll see people come forward to speak for the silent majority in this controversy about contraceptives, contraception and what kinds of institutions should and should not provide them. if ever there has been a silent majority, it is women of america, particularly women who may happen to work for catholic
hospitals, for catholic university -- for a catholic university as i did for example, when as a protestant i worked as a professor at georgetown university here in washington. the catholic church has long accepted the laws against discrimination, except as to the church itself and the church's own activities. and so, you find that in the catholic hospital or catholic church, you must hire people regardless of their race or religion and the like. now the church seems to be seeking a different rule on how you accommodate for religion. we have accommodated for the catholic church when it comes to hiring their own employees. for example. and the administration has
accommodated to the catholic church when it comes to the provision of contraceptives for those employees. and understand who those employees are. they are hundreds of thousands of women and men who work for hospitals, for universities, for other institutions that hold themselves out as nondiscriminatory and as accepting all people. for that reason, the church, of course, qualifies for federal funds because it is accepted as it is, as acting as a public institution in the place of a public institution. we have a long and treasured history, mr. speaker, of
religious accommodation. when i chaired the equal employment opportunity commission, i recall the many cases in which we tried to err on the side of accommodation. but the accommodation must never be so broad as to trample on the rights of others, to accommodate the institution, which has no conscience and not accommodate the people, whose conscience is being trampled, of course, is precisely what the constitution does not allow. a broad accommodation to the church that would relieve it of offering a health care service that is essential would penalize the rights of thousands of non-catholics.
so whatever the right of the church is, it does not have the right to trample on the rights of others. that's how accommodation works. the administration's own exemption is patterned on identical religious exemptions that have been tested in the courts. and found to be constitutional. i think the administration was looking at two things when it fashioned a very, very joan rouse exemption for the church in the health care law. first, it was rooking for what was necessary to do as vital to the health care of women. but it was also looking to work with constitution -- to what was constitutional and mr. speaker, if i may say so, i believe the broad exemption
that the catholic church seeks, which would penl size the -- penalize the rights of hundreds of thousands of women who work for them, who are not catholic, who do not share their views, whether or not they are catholic, on this issue, that if such an exemption were to be granted, then the administration, it seems to me, would find itself engaging in an unconstitutional exemption. the administration has accommodated the church, it has fulfilled its obligation to see to it that women have a vital health care service and it has prevented an unconstitutional violation, an i'm pleased to yield time now to mr. nadler of new york. . mr. nadler: i thank the gentlelady and her ex position on the law of the
constitutionality which i'm in full agreement. as we all know, the administration announced a critically component of the health care reform law would guarantee that most women have access to contraceptives paid for by their health insurance. this was based on the sound science of the institute of medicine, which recognized that contraceptives are an essential health service fundamental to improving the lives of women and their families. this decision is a major victory for women. 98% of american women, including a similar percentage of catholic women used contraceptives at some point in their lives. women will have one less cross to worry about, that could be a substantial cost. make no mistake, freeing up $600 will have significant effects on working families. the decision supports religious
freedom by providing limited exemptions to places of worship and those organizations who hire predominantly care for those who share the same religious beliefs. they are protected. i'm proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with president obama and his administration for helping to strike this important balance between religious rights and the rights of women to protect their health. yet, there are some people who talk about this decision who have no idea that the religious organizations and the religiously devout have their liberties protected. amid all this, the administration's decisions while significant and important, is hardly new. this measured approach that balances religious rights on one hand and the rights of women on the other is already in 28 states, including new york, because it's not just employers and employees, hard-working families also have rights.
under the approach adopted by the administration, universities and hospitals which serve and employ people from cultures and religions, women should not be denied a basic health service merely because they work or study at a university or hospital affiliated with a religious organization. the difference here is that churches are and should be protected in their religious role. protected against having to violate their religious views. but they must not be protected in their role as employers. we permit a church, for example, to discriminate a religious practice. no one asks the catholic church how come you do not permit women priests, that's their business. we do not permit them to discriminate as employers or discriminate and say we will not permit the hiring of female
doctors or female professors or black doctors or nurses. because that would impinge on liberty and it's that -- even if if a church has a doctrine against hiring female priests, that's fine. but hiring female professors in the university, unless it's a university only for religious purposes, if it's a regular university, they cannot be permit todd have that kind of discrimination. we do not -- we protect religious liberty, but we cannot permit a church to impose its views on others who may not share those views. the church can preach its views but not coerce people that they may not use contraceptives if they want to. the liberty here is the liberty of the employee that must be protected.
the lit of the church must be protected in its churchly function and religious institution. and as an employer, the liberty belongs to the employees and that is the distinction made here and proper distinction. imagine if some other church that thinks that it is wrong to give transfusions to people, blood transfusions, we would not permit them to let people die in that hospital for lack of transfusions because it's not up to them to decide the medical practice by their religious doctrine. if the person wants to refuse treatment because his religious doctrine says i don't want a transfusion rgs that's his religious liberty. but we must not confuse the liberty of the church to propagate its views as it sees fit with the liberty of employees in a secular
institution affiliated with a church to have the normal protections against discrimination and the normal rights we afford all people. that is why the administration's decision to say that contraceptives aresontive particularically a health care service is right. and any attempt by a religious institution to say they should be exempt from having employees allowed to get contraceptives paid for is wrong. and i applaud the administration for making the proper distinction to protect the liberty of the employees and religious liberties of the church, both. thank you. and i yield to the the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt. mr. holt: i thank my friend from new york. this is an important subject. as previous speakers have made clear, birth control is fundamental to women's health, just like cholesterol testing and any number of things and
evidence shows that planned births produce healthier babies and healthier mothers. anyone who is working as a health care aide or a nurse or working in a religiously-affiliated social service agency would want health care provided to them that is not discriminatory, that includes the range of services that provide for good health. religious -- purely religious organizations would be,r has been, will be exempt. but when an institution, even affiliated with a religion, chooses to accept public money, they must follow public employment practices and not discriminate. and now under the affordable health care act, they must not
discriminate against women, and women services in providing health care benefits. that's what we're talking about here. it's really quite straightforward. expanding the religious exemption to religiousing institutions and employ people of all faith would take preventive health care services for millions and result in substandard care and allow religious institutions to be able to discriminate against employees of different faiths. it's only fair, it's only what has become recognized by the courts, by the public, by general public mores as the right thing to do. and now under the health care act, it would be institutionalized for all agencies except purely religious
agencies that hire only in one faith. so, mr. speaker, i think there has been a lot of misinformation about this. i hope tonight's discussion has helped to clarify the matter. with that, i'm pleased to yield back to my friend from new york, mrs. lowey. mrs. lowey: i thank my colleague from new jersey and in conclusion, i want to emphasize again that the institute of medicine found that contraceptives save lives. there are numerous studies that show contraceptives lower the risk of developing ovarian cancer, help prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce abortions. so, my friends, hard to believe that in the year 2012, we are having a debate about whether or
not insurance plans should cover contraceptives. and let's remember that to many women in this country, of the 98% of women who are using contraception at some point in their lives, let's remember that the many women, $1,000 a year is money that they can't afford. so let's support the administrative position recommended by the institute of medicine, and i yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york having yielded back the balance of her time, under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from colorado, mr. gardner, is recognized for 60 minutes is the designee of the majority leader.
mr. gardner: i thank you, mr. speaker, for the opportunity to address the house tonight on american energy. tonight's gathering brings together people from across the country to talk about energy policies and energy costs and rising energy costs and what it means not only to american families, but what it means to the american economy. tonight's organization is brought to us by the house energy action team. it's a group of people throughout the united states elected to congress committed to do everything we can to solve our nation's great energy crisis and make sure we are addressing the price of gas at the pump and taking advantage of all the great resources that this country has to offer, whether they are natural gas, coal or whether it is renewable energy and the opportunities that we have around this great country. this country faces a significant challenge. we all know the situation. unemployment stands at over 8%, just as it has for the last 36
months in a row. along with high unemployment, the american people have a new worry now, rising gas prices. the average price for a gallon of regular gasoline has risen to $3.45, up 11 cents from one month ago. 33 cents from one year ago and up a $1.66 since president obama took office. we cannot allow these high gas prices and energy prices to continue to sometimey our economic recovery and the american people cannot afford to pay these unnecessary costs. just yesterday, in fact, federal reserve ben ben key testified in the senate and i quote, a major disruption could stop the recovery. this is a serious matter that we're facing. the federal reserve chairman has recognized that if energy prices escalate, if they spike, that
disruption that sent oil prices up very standingly could stop the -- substantially could stop the recovery that this nation so desperately needs. price spikes feed inflation and act as a tax on american consumers. the government can approach this problem in a very direct way. we can take steps to increase domestic proil production and refining. finding -- fighting high gas prices isn't a high priority for this administration. other administration policies have curtailed onshore production. in 2007, the united states energy information administration projected total 2010 u.s. oil production on federal lands to be 850 million barrels. actual production was 16% beneath that. about a year ago, the energy and commerce committee had an opportunity to hear from
secretary khu testifying before the house and -- energy and commerce committee, what is the united states doing to relieve the pain at the pump for millions of americans who are trying to get to work and help their families ends meet? after hemming and hawing, he said, in 10 years from now -- i stopped and interrupted, the administration's plan is something we can count on 10 years from now and as we have seen with gas prices that have risen $1.66 since the president took office, their plan is still not in effect. permitting agencies across the federal government need to work to streamline, speed up the permitting process in order to close the production gap on federal lands. energy exploration can lower energy costs while driving the economic recovery.
economic recovery and job creation is the number one priority of this congress and it's time that the president and our friends in the senate get on board. creating jobs and getting people back to work is not a partisan issue and past time that we get wins in the fight against high unemployment and economic stagnation. three years has been filed to build the keystone pipeline stretching from the oil sands in alberta, canada to the gulf coast bringing significant golf supplies. the development would create 6,000 jobs in colorado and it would create 6,000 jobs between 2011 and 2015. the keystone pipeline is an important part of that development. these are good-paying, solid reliable jobs, 20,000 direct jobs and yet this president has vetoed the keystone pipeline. he has said no to jobs and no to north american energy.
and i would like to show a survey that was taken a couple of weeks ago. the american people support instruction of the keystone pipeline. you can see right here, the number of americans from across the political spectrum, republicans and democrats. the people -- a variety of income levels, a variety of age levels, all people, the majority of whom support the keystone x.l. pipeline, because they know in this economy, we can't say no to jobs. we should be saying yes to jobs. they know if we say no, we are saying yes to sending jobs to china. . mr. speaker, i don't think the american public wants china to win our energy race, they want to make sure we're doing everything we can to produce energy in our own back yard. there's only so much congress
can do to create jobs. real job creation comes from the private sector, from small businesses and private employers. unfortunately, our government has a regulatory climate that makes it incredibly hard for businesses around this country to do what they do best, to innovate, to excel, to expand and to hire. the e.p.a. and other agencies have been writing job-killing laws at a record pace. this is against the number one priority of the american people, to create jobs. at a hearing last year, an e.p.a. assistant administrator admitted to me the agency doesn't directly consider jobs, job losses, when analyzing a new rule, when coming forward with an economic analysis. not only is that just unacceptable, it's shameful, that an agency would create rules, issue rules, without taking into account the impact in an economic analysis that
would have on jobs. under this administration, the opaw ma e.p.a. has proposed unnecessary an costly new rules on cement manufacturers, industrial boilers, farmers, power plants, energy providers along with general ozone rules in every sector of the economy with no thought of what the consequence will be on the american job creator. to be clear, the regulatory killing field is not the only problem. in the financial sector, regulators are forcing banks to horde capital, prohibiting community banks from working with their borrowers. businesses are struggling to operate in the face of damaging overregulation. and the financial sector is not there to support them because of even more damaging regulations. it's no wonder unemployment is still above 8%, this is the longest stretch of unemployment exceeding 8% in years.
we have an administration and senate that aren't doing anything about it. i'm joined by my colleagues from around the country, i would yield to my good friend and colleague, somebody who has championed job creation, who has sponsored legislation to create jobs, mr. duncan of south carolina. mr. duncan: i want to thank the gentleman from colorado for his leadership on this issue, not only on the committee on energy and commerce, but also as a leader on the house energy action team. someone that understands that there is no national security without nrnl security. it's been said many times by not only members of congress but by leaders from all across the administration this administration and past, and so something i firmly believe in. let me remind the american people that just recently, the president of the united states decided that he was going to kill the keystone x.l. pipeline. a pipeline that would come from
our friends to the north in canada, where technology is a-- has allowed him to harvest the oil from the oil sands in alberta, and bring that crude oil down to refining capacity that we have here in this country. that's why the keystone x.l. pipeline was so crucial. not only would we be buying oil from a country that likes us, our largest and best trading partner in canada, but we would also be bringing oil to the refineries in the gulf states. the refineries in oklahoma, the refineries in mississippi, alabama, louisiana, and texas. that have the capacity, due to the policy of this administration creating a moratorium on expanded offshore drilling in the united states and the moratorium and poor policies that have kept us from harvesting american resources to meet american energy needs.
i believe in american energy security and american energy independence and lessening our dependence on foreign sources of oil, lessening our dependence on middle eastern oil a lot of times from countries that don't like us very much. but let me read you the president's own words when he the sided that he was going to kill the keystone x.l. pipeline, when he was going to kill the hundreds of thousands of jobs that would have been saved and created, true, not only shovel-ready jobs, mr. speaker, but jobs that exist today in the refineries in the gulf coast states. so not only kill those jobs, but hurt american energy independence. outside of having united states energy independence, why not north american independence, why not trade with canada? this is the president's words, he said, i'm disappointed the republicans in congress forced
this decision but it does not change my commitment to american made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil, period. not reduces our dependence on foreign oil, not reduces our dependence on middle eastern oil, but listen clearly, the president said, lessen our dependence on oil, period. that is the policy of this administration, to end our dependence on oil and promote green energy, to throw your tax dollars at companies like solindra instead of relying on the free market to pick the winners and losers, allow american ingenuity and american entrepreneurialism to chase the things that work and throw their investment dollars, personal investment dollars, into the technologies that they believe in. that the free market, the investors believe in instead of doing that he took your tax dollars, america, he decided
that he was going to pick winners for you. and he was going to invest those dollars in companies like so lynn dra and many others, and realize your tax dollars were invested in companies you wouldn't have invested in yourself because you would have made smart decisions. america can make smart decisions, that's what make us great but his own words said he wants to reduce our fence on oil. i go back to secretary chu, secretary of the department of energy, his own words, he said we ought to be paying the same for gasoline as those in europe are paying, $8 or $9 a gallon gasoline and trust me, we're headed there. we're headed there last month was the most expensive january ever for retail gasoline as prices averaged at $3.37 a gallon, according to the oil price information service in new jersey. that's compared with the previous record average for the month of january, that was $3.95 -- that was $3.095 cents
a -- a gallon, that was set last year. in 2010, january gasoline prices averaged $2.07 a gallon. it's the policy of this administration and its moratorium on us harvesting american resources, we're not talking just about offshore oil. in the deep watts of the gulf of mexico or off the coast of alaska. we're not talking about just anwr and it being off limits, we're talking about the oil fields, oil reserves on federal lands that are currently offlimits from american energy development and american energy production. but guess what, that same oil field spills over into north dakota. and that oil field is on state-owned and private-owned property. you know what? north dakota has a 3% or less unemployment rate. it's an energy economy that is booming because it's on state and federal land and they said,
hey, come harvest our oil resources. north dakota is thriving on an energy economy and you'll hear from the gentleman from texas momentarily, in texas and oklahoma and other states that have energy, that you're seeing an energy economy thrive. that's not the policy of this administration. the policy of this administration is chase green energy jobs, chase wind power and solar power and promoted in areas that really it shouldn't be promoted. let me say one other thing, president obama is definitely being misleading when he's talking about the 75% of our offshore resources are open. the real number should be in acres. listen to this, of the 1.76 billion acres on the u.s. outer continental shelf, only 2.16% is actually leased for energy development.
north america possesses 1.79 trillion barrels in recoverable resources, enough oil to fuel every passenger car in the united states for 430 years. more than six times the proved reserves in saudi arabia in the last 30 years we produced over 150% of our proved resources. but let me talk quickly about jobs. because when the attack from the administration is on big oil and on the oil industry and natural gas industry, that's trying to help with american energy independence, the attack's not just on big oil companies that are harvesting and exploring and producing oil offshore in the western gulf of mexico that, that image may be conjured up as we talk about that. it's an attack on the jobs. if you think about an oil platform that's out there drilling for oil, you think about oil production platform that's out there producing the oil after the oil well is
drilled and we put a moratorium in place and we say we're not going to do anymore of that, we'll cancel the lease sales and take in mind, it takes years to plan the next lease sale, i was on the five-year planning subcommittee that dealt with that. i know it's a multiyear process before the first lease sale happens. when that lease sale happens, oil companies have to drag the rigs out there, they've got to first figure out where the oil might be on that grid square they just leased, they've got to bring the drilling platform out there, they've got to drill that well, many times going down many mile into the earth's surface to find the oil and whether it's recoverable, whether there's enough resources there for them to put a platform and produce that oil. that's a multiyear process. when we have a moratorium on that process, here's what happens. it's not just big oil and the oil companies that are penalized in that. it's the guys that work on those drilling rigs out there
in the gulf of mexico. it's also the guys that take them supplies, their diesel fuel to run their generators, their food to transfer the men back and forth that are doing the work from on shore out there to those facilities. it's the companies that manufacture the pipe an casing that support that industry and as jeff land drew will tell you -- landry will tell you, louisiana is hurting, not because of big oil, but because of the little guys at home who don't get to make that pipe, thread that pipe and fit that pipe, they don't get to service that industry they don't get the opportunity to work on those rigs, to take that drilling mud out there it takes a lot of effort to go out into the gulf of mexico and start harvesting those natural resources. it's the little guy back home that is now bankrupt because his small company that provided welding necessary for the
piping, he doesn't have that work now. so the gulf coast states, due to the president's moratorium, not only lost the revenue they would get from the royalties of offshore drilling that other states would benefit from as well, as a side note if we allowed more drilling on the outer continental shelf on the eastern coast and off the coast of alaska, but it's the little guy. louisiana is not getting the revenue and then the guys that are being put out of work that are providing the welding an pipe fitting and the pipe itself and the offshore industries. they're not able to work either. and so, they're drawing unemployment benefits which further cramps the strained budgets of the gulf coast states so they're drawing unemployment benefits, they're not paying taxes so the state revenues in louisiana, mitches, alabama, texas, are strained because they're not receiving those tax revenues. they're not receiving the corporate revenues from thriving energy-based companies that are providing jobs and
payroll and paying into unemployment and providing corporate tax rurps. it is a tremendous trickle down effect when we stop harvesting resources, it's a tremendous trickle down effect to those gulf states' economies. but i will tell you new york south carolina, when my constituents have to pay more and more of their hard-earned dollars to put fuel in their vehicles, whether it's gasoline or diesel fuel, in their vehicles, to go to work, and they've got to think about that first hour that they're working, just went to pay the gas that it took to get there. when they're digging deeper into their wallet to take out money to buy more and more gasoline just to go earn the money that they're going to turn around and use to buy the gasoline, it's a vicious cycle. we've got the ability, the gentleman from colorado, we've got the ability to lower gas prices in this country. . i look at natural gas.
we found new technology that allows us to harvest those natural gas resources, as you will hear from the gentleman from new york when he talks about the marcellus gas shale and harvesting in new york and pennsylvania, but we also talk about oklahoma and natural gas there, we have an abundance of natural gas. we have seen the price go down, even in an adverse regulatory climate and adverse tax climate that we have got under this administration, natural gas prices have gone down, because there are two factors that affect any pricing of any commodity, supply and demand. world demand is down. world demand is down because we have a bad economy. the number one driver is supply. the supply is going out the roof. america is sitting on the reserves to be energy independent and to provide other parts of the world with the
natural resources that we have been blessed with here in this country. america needs to realize that the policies of this administration is keeping this administration from harvesting its resources and being truly energy independent and providing the good-paying, long-term energy sector jobs. i recommend you go to one of these energy-producing states, oklahoma, texas or north dakota where the unemployment rate is 3% or less and earn $70,000 of driving a water truck if that is any indication. energy independent is a segue to get us out of this economy. and i yield back. mr. gardner: i thank the gentleman for his comments and you touched on the great point, not just energy creation but energy development that creates the jobs that this country
needs. but it's the indirect benefits and cycle of energy production. if you have abundant, cheap energy, people will use their gas and use their natural gas in manufacturing at an affordable price and the businesses that benefit from the production itself. our family, like my dad, owns at the dealership, selling parts to farmers and ranchers. we have seen a boom in natural gas development and seen those same people coming off from the rigs looking for hoses and looking for maintain jobs. when they go into the car dealership, when they go into the restaurants, talk about economic benefit and energy production is key. before i yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. flores, just a couple of quotes to hear it
directly from president obama and directly from energy secretary khu. if you want to know where they stand, these two quotes define where they have been over the past several years. president obama in january of 2008, under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. energy secretary chu, and i quote, somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in europe. that doesn't sound like a recipe for economic success but a recipe for economic disaster and i yield to the gentleman from texas. mr. flores. and i would like to let the chamber now he has great experience in job creation, putting people to work. mr. flores: i do have extensive
experience in the oil and gas business and i know firsthand the impact on jobs and energy security that having a robust supply that oil and gas can have. i highlight another missed opportunity by the obama administration to address rising gasoline prices, to promote job creation and provide for american energy security. while the president may claim his administration supports an all-in approach to energy, the facts, however, tell a different story. here are four examples of rhetoric versus reality. example number one, last november, the department of interior released a draft five-year plan that fails to open any new areas to energy production in the outer continental shelf through 2017. this proposal will send american jobs overseas. forfeit new revenue to the
federal government, cause higher gasoline prices and deny access to american energy resources that will reduce our dependence on unstable and unfriendly middle eastern sources of oil. yesterday, i helped spearhead a joint bipartisan letter with 182 signatures from this house which we sent to ken salazar, expressing strong support in the house for the consideration of new and expanded access offshore for the production of oil and gas. the vast offshore areas of the united states serve as a potential source of the nation's energy supply, significant supplies of taxpayer-owned resources and yet to be discovered fields. opening up access to new areas will bring new jobs, new energy and new revenues to the federal treasury. and all at a time when
economists expect gas prices to skyrocket. our country needs these resources now, not at some far-off date in the future. new access to american resources will reduce our middle eastern energy sfment it is vital that our country have in place a plan to maximizes the opportunity to assess all these resources that we have available so that we can make informed decisions regarding the appropriate shape and scope of domestic offshore activities. unfortunately, despite the overwhelming support of offshore drilling, the administration's plan released last november, severely limits the resource potential of america's offshore areas and it neglects our nation's vital energy needs. that is why the obama administration should listen to the strong bipartisan message that the house has sent
supporting increased access that would allow us to expand offshore energy production. example number two, the president buried the keystone pipeline and the thousands of jobs and the energy security it would have helped provide. in light of the fact that the administration supported an a canadian pipeline in 2009, it is obvious to the american people that the keystone x.l. pipeline was sacrificed solely for political gain. example number three, the obama administration has directed numerous federal agencies to attempt to amendment to regulate and reduce the use of hydraulic fracturing. this is the technology that makes our supply of cheap natural gas available to us today. restricting fracking will reduce natural gas, hurt jobs and hurt american energy security. example number four, this costs about the same amount of money,
$600, as six barrels of oil. in terms of profit, however, apple makes many more times the profit margin on this one i-pad than they make on the sick barrels of oil. the obama administration wants to raise taxes on oil companies. how can we expect american energy producers to produce more oil and gas when we raise the taxes on them? the american people have more common sense than this. the american people know if you raise the taxes on apple computer, apple can't make more of these available at a cheaper cost. but yet, for some reason, the president thinks we are going to have more domestic energy if we go and attack the oil companies with higher taxes. access to affordable energy will always be central to our nation's prosperity, but new
technologies, today's strengthened environmental review and updated safety standards, there has never been a better time to develop energy responsibly. but without the option to even look, we deny ourselves an incredible opportunity for energy security and the promised economic benefits that domestic energy production entails to the american people. the american people want us to get us right, they want washington to get it right and they overwhelmly support an all of the above energy approach. increase offshore drilling and approve the keystone x.l. pipeline. this is important. just yesterday, federal reserve ben bernanke warned, and i quote, a major disruption that sent up prices, could stop the recovery. mr. speaker, house republicans have a plan to wean our economy
from unstable middle eastern oil. if we want an america built to last like the president referred to in his state of the union address, we must have access to safe and affordable, american energy to build that economy, to build that and power that america that is built to last. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support and pass h.r. 7, the american energy and infrastructure jobs act, so we can work together to grow the economy, to create american jobs, to facilitate lower gasoline prices and to provide energy security that this country needs, not only for our current generation, but for future generations of american children and grandchildren. and i yield back to my friend from colorado, mr. gardner. mr. gardner: i thank the gentleman from texas. and he talked about the keystone pipeline and i would point out that the development of the
alberta oil sands for the state of text a as and this was -- texas and this was given by the alberta representative in washington, in the state of texas, the development of the alberta oil sands could mean as much as 27,000 jobs in 2011-2015. 27,000 jobs that could be created as a result of the development of the alberta oil sands and the keystone pipeline is a critical component. and there are numerous firms that do business with suppliers and the contractors that would be building the pipeline and the people who would be working throughout the alberta oil sands. 170 firms in texas would benefit from the development of alberta oil sands. and i would yield to another the gentleman from texas, great colleague, someone who has championeded energy development, mr. olson from texas.
mr. olson: i thank my good friend from colorado, fighting for u.s. domestic production of energy. i'm going to start my comments tonight by focusing on gas prices. we all know that gas prices have risen dramatically under the current administration. this chart here shows exactly what has happened in america. our president took office in february of 2009. just over $1.90. spiked up to $2.70 a gallon and last summer, almost $4.00 a gallon. almost doubled in price since president obama took office. these gas prices are a hardship on american families and american small businesses. families that have to take their kids to school. families that have to drive their kids to practice.
families who have to go to the grocery store. families who have to go to church. no one is immune from these price increases. i represent part of the energy capital of the world, suburb of houston, texas and we aren't immune to these price increases. these are articles from a local newspaper in the past month. i'll read them to you. january 10, 2012, gas prices jumped more than 11 cents. january 17, 2012, one week later, gas price at fort bend have risen 2.2 cents in the past week. one week later, fort bend county, for the bend prices have risen 8.3 cents. three weeks, 25 cents per
gallon, increase in prices in my home county of fort bend county. sfam list and small businesses are struggling to survive with these incredibly high gas prices. why is this happening? well, uncertainty. uncertainty in one particular region of the world. . . the uncertainty is coming from one country, iran. and its threats to disrupt traffic in the straits of hormuz. i had a unique opportunity here in congress, i served as a naval aviator, i served in the straits of hormuz. iran is threatening to shut
down the straits because the united states and the european union have threatened sanctioned against iran because of their threats to build nuclear weapons which is a direct threat to our bestial lie in that area of the world, israel. because of iran's threats, which we have to take very seriously. let me tell you about the straits of hormuz, it's a narrow body of boughter -- of water, about 30 miles wide. if you're familiar with texas, you know where the space center is, drive 30 miles south and go to galveston. as you can see, the transit lanes for the ships are close to these islands that they cannot maneuver through, they have to go close to iran. right here, abu musa, that's an iranian base, a military base. all the tanker traffic flowing
through there have to flow right through iran, through abu musa. let me tell you what iran has as a threat to the straits of hormuz. there are missiles aimed at ships and tankers going through every single day. i know this because when i flew my plane through there, we were tracked by iranian fire control radar. that's the way business work there is. they also have mines that can be anywhere here in the straits, a very narrow body of water. these mines, you don't have to run into them. they can detect changes in pressure or some sound of the ship's engine and blow up when the ship gets close. that's the big threat. there's another big threat, too.
and this is the mosley that will threat the iranians have in the strait of hormuz and the biggest reason to worry about them. this is a submarine sold to the iranians by the russians in the early 1990's. i actually flew over the second one when it was up on the surface in 1994. the reason the submarine is so lethal is it's a diesel powered vote. right now it's on the surface, running on diesel engines. but when it submerges, because it can't get atmosphere necessary to run an internal combustion engine, it runs on batteries. quiet, quiet batteries. s the quietest submarine in the world. but it can't stay submerged forever, it has to recharge its
batteries at specific intervals. look at this traffic, this is just an example, fishing boat with diesel engines. this thing here is called a snorkel, he can push that up just above the surface of the water and get the air he needs to run his diesel engines to recharge his battery. he does that in the midst of all these boats, he is very, very difficult to find. in fact, the only way to find him is with your eyeballs. very much -- actually, he can go down and sit on the bottom, if he wants to, waiting for the proper traffic, whoever he wants to target, to come through. this is a very real threat. this creates uncertainty in the market, this is why gasoline prices are spiking. what's the solution? house republicans have one. the keystone x.l. pipeline.
very briefly, the orange line there is the keystone pipeline. this pipeline is up and running. as you see, it's coming from alberta, canada, all the way down to the midwest united states, going to oklahoma, and going across illinois to st. louis. oil is already flowing through that pipeline. the keystone x.l. pipeline starts in the same place, comes down west of the keystone pipeline, as you can see, goes right down to where my district is in the houston area and port arthur, texas. as we know, the administration and our president has delayed or canceled the keystone x.l. pipeline because radical environmentalists and hollywood elites disapprove of the pipeline. what's that done to our economy? well, 20,000 jobs are in jeopardy.
over 00,000 barrels of oil going through that pipeline to texas. that's not happening. energy security. nasa security. we don't have to worry about what's happening in the persian gulf. we don't have to worry about hugo chavez. just this single pipeline with 800,000 barrels a day replaces what we're getting in from venezuela right now. the alaskans wanted the trans-alaska pipeline. the american people may get confused they hear about the alaska national wildlife refuge and trans-alaska pipeline. here's an example, just to show you, anwr, the alaska national
wildlife refuge is the light green area here in the northeast corner of alaska. this is the great state of alaska. and that's about half of the united states, that's the size alaska. see this little, little tiny part up here? that's is where the drilling to support the trans-alaska pipeline is being done. one little spot. see the point? we have some problems, just to let you know, let's talk about the trans-alaska pipeline. it was designed to be built in 1973, right after the opec embargo on our country. opec shut the valves off for all that oil, that oil flows through the persian gulf, the states of hormuz. why? because we sided with our good friend and ally israel in the
yom kippur war. because of that, we said we should not be dwent on the middle east for our oil. we built the trans-alaska pipeline with all the hoopla and the conflict with the environmental groups. it finally came on hein in the mid 1970's. at the time, before that, alaska had the highest state income tax in the country. 14.5%. because of the trans-alaska pipeline, alaska now is the most tax-free state in america. one pipeline, taxes go away. here are the numbers. 2.1 billion barrels a day were flowing through the pipeline in 19 8. today 671,000 barrels a day are flowing through the pipeline. 17% of our u.s. domestic crude production. as you can see, though, there's been almost a 75% decrease in
oil flowing through the pipeline. and that is a huge problem because if the pipeline doesn't have a minimum amount of oil flowing through it in that extreme environment, extreme cold, it's going to crack and break. it will not be able to be used again. but there's a solution for that too. it's happening -- i yield to my good friend from colorado to talk about the shale oil up there. i -- offshore alaska. >> i thank the gentleman for his comments on our resources in alaska and the poster you have there on drilling in anwr, you can see that tiny dot, it's almost difficult for me to see from here, just a tiny pinpoint within the arctic national wildlife refuge. mr. gardner: they say it's similar to a postage stamp on a football field. that's the area that would be
used to help revitalize our resources with american-made, american-produced energy. early last year, the house energy and commerce committee passed h.r. 2021 the jobs and energy permitting act. it would help do a great deal to spur development of areas that have already been approved for resource development, areas -- this isn't opening up new areas. this is an area that's already been approved for leasing. leases have been old sold. they've said, this is an area where we can have energy production take place. we're trying make sure the energy doesn't get stopped and bogged down by bureaucratic and regulatory processes. what we did in the jobs and energy permitting act is pass a bill, had great bipartisan support on the floor of the house, it is now -- it has now been introduced in the senate by a bipartisan group of senators to say, look, you can't use an environmental appeals board that was bureaucratcally created to hang up a permit for five years as
is this the case with one project in alaska. the end result of this project could be as many as one million barrels of oil a day and nearly 50,000 jobs being created across the country. witnesses said before the committee that it would help reduce he price at the pump. i think when you're talking about energy prices that have risen, $1.66, since president obama took office, we've got to do everything we can to lower the price of gasoline and help american families make ends meet. i thank the gentleman from texas for the opportunity and yield back to him for further comment. mr. olson: so just to be sure i followed my friends comments, one billion barrels a day, if we have the keystone x.l. pipeline, that gets rid of venezuela and this would replace saudi arabia? mr. gardner: we're talking significant, as much as two
million barrels of oil a day, made in our own backyard. mr. olson: i thank my colleague for his leadership in getting the bill through the house, unfortunately, it's a quobs bill, which means it's sitting in the inbox of the majority leader on the other side of the capitol. and the plan concludes the construction of offshore production platforms, offshore pipelines that go across the national petroleum reserve and link it to the strans alaska system. that's going to go on the transamerica pipeline, build up the volume to use it for another 10 years. is that true? mr. gardner: that's true. one of the biggest challenges is we could lose out on one of this nation's great work the trans-alaska pipeline if we don't take care of it and make sure we're using it to its fullest extent. you're exactly correct. mr. olson: but for almost four
years, hay spent $3.5 billion trying to get that permit to drill offshore, shallow water and as my colleague knows, they have a very limited opportunity to drill, very tough environment, so they put in almost $4 billion just to get these permits done because they want to give american source of nrning to our country. mr. gardner: and not only are we talking millions and billions of dollars to produce energy in an area that was approved to produce energy but politiced by the bureaucratic process. they went around the world. it's around 400 wells they drilled around the world in the amount of time it's taken this administration to approve the one permit that they're trying to get system of 400 wells around the world, thousands of jobs created overseas, thousands of barrels of oil being produced around the world, but not a drop right here. so that's the shame of it all when it comes to the bureaucratic mess that we're
in. mr. olson: i thank my colleague, the people of colorado should be very proud. leaders lead and the gentleman from colorado is a leader. one last chart to close. this is a plea to our president. this is a picture of the trans-alaska pipeline. i'd like -- unlike the keystone x.l. pipeline, this was built above the ground. these are wild caribou hovering around the pipeline. mr. president, it's time to stop coddling the radical environmental groups. it's time to listen to the american people. and the caribou enjoying the warmth of the trans-alaska pipeline.
because if these caribou cowl speak, they would say, respectfully, mr. president, drill, by by, drill. -- baby, drill. i yield back. >> i thank our colleague for his comments. mr. gardner: you were in the chamber in the state of the union acrosecrest where you heard the president discuss his desire for an all-of-the-above energy policy. recently, when he talks about that, he forgets to talk about the fact that he nixed the keystone x.l. pipeline and so many other blingchas his administration has put forward when it comes to energy development and our federal resources. thank you for your leadership and i look forward to further discussions. you had mentioned that there were -- our colleague from texas mentioned there's a number of bills that the house of representatives have passed that is stacking up in the united states senate. we have an incredible plan for america's job creators.
bills that are awaiting action in the u.s. senate. i'll give you a few of those bills that you mentioned, a few more than the ones you mentioned, that are all related to energy in some way or another. the regulations from the executive in nude of scrutiny that would take a look at energy -- that would take a look at regulations that impact our economy. to take a look at the coal residual, reuse and management act, h.r. 2273. something that if it's not passed we could lose a number of jobs throughout this country because of regulatory processes run amok. the e.p.a. regulatory relief act of 2011. h.r. 2250. the transparency in regulatory analysis of impacts on the nation. this is something that takes a look at the impact of higher energy prices, rising energy prices, what it would mean to our nation's manufactures and how much more it would cost our nations manufacturers. the -- reversing president obama's offshore moratorium act, the jobs and energy permitting act, putting the gulf of mexico back to work, restarting american offshore leasing,
energy tax prevention, these are all bills that have been introduced in the house, passed, many with very strong bipartisan support, and they're awaiting action in the senate. somebody else in this chamber who has done a tremendous job fighting for natural gas development, making sure that those jobs are created in his backyard, mr. reed from new york, a gentleman from the ways and means committee. mr. reed: thank you to the gentleman from colorado and the gentleman from texas for coming down to the floor tonight and i'm honored to join you tonight to have this conversation about developing a comprehensive american energy plan that will lead to energy independence for america, but in the short-term, put many americans back to work. we've all been talking about it for months now. this congress is focused on jobs, jobs, jobs. and right here, right now today, tonight, we have before us, be it the keystone pipeline, 20 --
20,000 jobs, here you're talking about, the gentleman from colorado talking about another project that is 50,000 jobs immediately available to be put back into place. i just do not understand why we have not been able to come together and have a president that says, you know what? i'm not going to bow to the political pressure, i'm going to lead. and yet he bowed to the hollywood elite, to the folks when it came to the keystone x.l. pipeline and rejected the keystone pipeline with 20,000 people, families, american families, who are ready to go to work and he said no. and i appreciate the effort that you're putting here together because as you know, and as you indicated, in my area of the united states, up in upstate new york, we're dealing with the issue of natural gas development. in particular marsala shale natural gas development. and, you know, i did listen to the president's state of the
union, listened to it intently. and i heard his commitment to producing our natural gas because he had come to the conclusion that natural gas is a safe domestic source of energy of today and tomorrow for all america. to me i hope the president was sincere in that statement because i joined him in that sentiment in that we have, in our shale formations in america, an amount of natural gas equal to 100 years of supply for america. people have described it as if we are the saudi arabia, the united states of america will be the saudi arabia of natural gas supply for the world. that type of resource is a game changer. and we are talking about thousands of jobs, we are talking about the ability to create an energy platform that
allows our manufacturers to come back to america. that is one thing i think we have joined on both sides of the aisle to be committed to. is to build things in america again. and why does a natural gas platform of energy lead to building in america again? it's simple. it's simple. and i know my colleagues know it. because if you can drive down utility costs, if you can stabilize them in the long-term, 40, 50 years, manufacturers will look at america and go, you know what? what we make up by going overseas to china because of the labor difference, the wage difference that they achieve, by going over there and happening into those labor pools, they'll make up by coming back to america because the utility costs will be stable, they will be cheaper and they will be able to build things again in america because they want to build here. because the american worker is the best worker in the world.
the quality of work and products that come from the american worker are the best by far. and the logistics that they don't have to deal with by having manufacturing items over in china and other areas of the world are gone because we're manufacturing in our backyard. so this energy policy all relates to not only energy independence but it relates to the manufacturing sector of america and bringing america back to the forefront of being the leading manufacturer in the world. that is why i am so committed to the issue of developing natural gas. now, we have to do it safely, we have to do it responsibly. the president has conceded that point, many scientists, the data and the information that is out there have come to the conclusion that we can do it safely, we can do it responsibly. but we need to lead and formulate a comprehensive approach to tapping that resource and bringing people
back to work through the development of that resource in a responsible manner. one last point i wanted to bring up and i so appreciate all the comments that you've made here. you know, right today we have before us in this chamber, or will soon have before us in this chamber, the american energy and infrastructure jobs act. and what a commonsense piece of legislation that i think this bill represents. what it is essentially saying is we are going to take our natural resources in america and we are going to use the dollars that come from developing those natural resources on our public lands to rebuild the infrastructure of america. that to me is commonsense policy coming from washington, taking our natural resources from the ground and putting it into our bridges, our highways, our roads, so that generations of people will have the infrastructure in place with its water, sewer, roads, bridges in
order to have the manufacturing of tomorrow, to have generations of people working. and with that i have come here tonight to show my support to you on shoot of developing american energy -- the issue of developing american energy. i haven't even touched on the national security issues or the final point twhay make. i have gone -- final point i will make. i have gone all over the country and the district and i have talked to so many people and we have spent so many taxpayer dollars here in washington to try to bring people out of poverty, to educate people. and, you know, mr. gardner, from my conversations with these individuals in the northern tier of pennsylvania, i have heard repeatedly that because of this resource development, this natural gas that we're developing in a safe and
reliable manner, i'm able to put my kids through college. i'm able to maybe go out and venture into a business that otherwise i wasn't going to be able to do because i didn't have the cash to do it. and that's going to empower generations of american families for many generations to take them out of poverty, to get them an education and it's all being done on private capital. capital not coming from taxpayers, but coming from good, old-fashioned american business, coming out of the free enterprise system, utilizing those natural resources that are owned by those individuals, that are empowering people for generations and it's not being done on the taxpayer dollar. to me we should be joining hands and applauding that type of development of natural resources and commit ourselves to this comprehensive policy and with that i yield back the balance of my time. mr. olson: i'd like to talk about the marsala shale plan and how it's impacting your state.
mr. gardner: being from new york , and being down in the northern tier of pennsylvania -- mr. reed: being from new york and being down in the northern tier of pennsylvania, i have the honor of representing the 29th congressional district which is right along the pennsylvania border and what we have seen is we have seen the spillover effect from the economic opportunities and economic development that's going on in the state of pennsylvania from the development of the marsala shale. we have -- one of my counties in my district is leading the state in sales tax revenue numbers because of the economic impact coming across the border for our hotel, our restaurants, all the activities that we're talking about. i've heard from retailers, i've heard from a dry cleaning outfit in my hometown of corny, new york, that was raising an additional $6,000 a month from cleaning the overhauls and the uniforms from the marshalla -- marsala shale workers that are
doing work in pennsylvania. that means he was able to give his employees a bonus for the first time in years. he was able to hire more people in our home area. i mean, this development touches so many lives and so many people , from the actual polling of the natural gas out but all the indirect benefits and everything else that is out there. mr. olson: i just want to apologize because as you know, shale formation -- marsala is from new york all the way down to west virginia. mr. gardner: i want to thank both of my colleagues from new york and from texas for joining us tonight of the i know we're out of time and -- tonight. i know we're out of time and i appreciate the opportunity to address the house with your expertise and leadership and know that we are fighting for the american people, to do everything we can for american energy independence and american energy security. with that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. i come tonight to deeply troubled about the situation in the middle east as so many people are. and also about the response of this country to our dear friend israel. it's been quite interesting to see, as iran comes ever-closer to having nuclear weapons, just
how much of a friend this administration has, at least from its viewpoint in israel. in recent days we have seen the story a number news services provided a story reported from "the washington post", traveling with defense secretary panetta. "the washington post" columnist and this article from fox news says, traveling with the defense secretary in brussles to cover his meeting with nato defense ministers. "the washington post" writer writes, quote, panetta believes there's a strong likelihood that israel will strike iran in april, may or june. that's awfully specific.
there's some in iran that have believed that we're a paper tiger and so is israel and that we will prevent israel from ever striking at all and that if there were to be some kind of strike it would be much later in the year. there's an article from last october about defense secretary panetta. this one is from the a.p. on october 2 of last year. the a.p. story says that defense secretary panetta warned sunday that israel is becoming increasingly isolated in the middle east and said israeli leaders must restart negotiations with the palestinians and work to restore relations with egypt and turkey. it's really interesting because
it was my impression that it was not israel that had withdrawn from close relations, that it was turkey that had actually allowed the flotilla to go challenge a legal and appropriate block aid of the gaza strip -- blockade of the gaza strip from which israel was being bombarded on a constant basis. so they had a legal and legitimate interest in ensuring that more rockets did not flow into the gaza strip, they would continue to be shot in an effort to kill israelis. the reason that the rockets were flying from the gaza strip was because the israelis had had, really a rather amazing group of towns there, people
making a living, beautiful homes, greenhouses, a way in which people could provide for themselves, grow their own food, a number of greenhouses, just a well-run -- just well-run communities. but the thought that israeli leaders had, apparently, was, if we will show this unilateral offer of good will to people who in the last 40 years have come to be called palestinians, they obviously weren't for most of the history of mankind, but if they would do this amazingly gracious, unilateral act, that it would be rewarded. and what israel has found, that it has been rewarded with rockets flying into israel in an effort to try to terrorize and kill israelis.
previously, years before that, israel had made an offer and did provide land from which it had been attacked which it acquired in southern lebanon. and lo and behold, they were rewarded by being attacked from southern lebanon, having soldiers kidnapped from southern lebanon. so it's interesting to hear this administration and people from this administration in top positions talk about how israel needs to restart negotiations that israel is becoming increasingly isolated, how israel must reach out more, when it seems that each time israel reaches out its hand, its hand gets shot at and efforts are made to chop it off.
this article from back in october quotes secretary panetta as saying, it's pretty clear that at this dramatic time in the mideast, when there have been so many changes, that it's not a good situation for israel to become increasingly isolated. and that's what happens happening. the article from the a.p. says, panetta said the most important thing now is for israel and its neighbors to try to develop better relationships so that in the very least, they can communicate with each other, rather than taking these issues to the streets. this article points out that the palestinians, meanwhile, said they won't return to talks unless israel freezes settlement buildings and accepts the pre1967 frontier as a baseline for talks which is
somewhat akin to saying, well, if mexico were to be launching rockets or doing things to terrorize american citizens, that if we will just go back to where we were before the u.s.-mexican war, then everything would be just fine. the united states went to war because of the same kind of unfairnesses that were seen by the founders of this land. dennis miller put it this way. the founders were willing to go to war when the british simply put a tax on their breakfast drink. so in all likelihood, they would be standing up firmly for
a taking of liberties more so than we do sometimes today. and in fact, if we stood firmly on the liberties of the united states citizens and efforts by others in the world to destroy us, efforts by others in the world who have said they will destroy our way of life, they want to destroy our country, then perhaps we would be a little safer today. i have a resolution that was filed, got lots of co-sponsors, it was filed in may of last year. i'm still in hopes that we can bring this to the floor. this is the response we should have to nations arn the world trying to isolate israel, we should let them know how we stand with them.
we stand with people who are democratically elected, we stand with people who are have -- who have freedom of worship, we stand with people who will not terrorize christians, terrorize jews, terrorize muslims. where all will be allowed to practice their religion. any religion. and those ought to be our best friends. yet to the contrary, this country seems to run to the aid of those, like in afghanistan right now, we were advised last year that the last christian church has now been closed, driven out of afghanistan. this is the afghanistan that american treasure and american lives were sacrificed to secure what we thought would be a democratic nation where they would choose peace. and in fact, there has not been
peace. the taliban have actually increased in number dramatically since the days when we had them on the run, had basically defeated them in early 2002. we come back to this resolution, h.res. 271, and it says it is expressing the support for the state of israel's right to defend israeli sovereignty, to protect the lives and safety of the israeli people and to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the islamic republic of iran including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time to protect against such an immediate and existential threat to the state of israel. this is the solution when a dear ally of the united states
is being isolated by people who want to destroy it. and i know that secretary panetta did a good job at intelligence and i hope will do as well at defense, but would encourage people in this administration, mr. speaker, to go look at what has really been said and who has actually done harm to whom. what you find out is that israel has not moved away from being a friend, and in fact, israel had a treaty with egypt. and a leader named mubarak, with whom this nation had agreements was doing all he could, apparently, it appeared, to keep that treaty, to keep
egypt's word with israel. this administration on the other hand saw fit to encourage mubarak to step down and to make way for what seems to be the military and muslim brotherhood, who seem to have made clear they're not going to honor the treaty with israel. they're not going to honor what was brokered here in the united states. and so once again, we have a united states administration who seems to have been left with egg on their faces as president carter's administration was, i don't know if they ever realized it. but when president carter thought the itoe la khomeini was -- itoe la the aye toe la khomeini was a man of peace and coming back to iran, that it was a good thing.
we soon found out otherwise. by 1979 they were at war with america. it's just that we didn't recognize that there were radical islamists at war with us until after the attack on 9/11. not even the attack on the world trade cren for the 1993 was enough to convince us, not an attack on the u.s.s. cole, not an attack on our embassy, not an attack on different u.s. properties around the world. it took 9/11 before we realized there are radical islamists that are at war with us. and even though this administration has seen to the changing of the f.b.i. lexicon, where in training, f.b.i. agents and others who are trying to -- who are charged with defending our nation, it's no longer appropriate to use words in the f.b.i. lexicon, they're not there, of al qaeda,
radical islamist, we use radical extremism instead. and as some experts on radical extremism, in other words radical islamists, have said, unless you understand what your enemy believes, how in the world can you prepare against an attack from that enemy? as someone else told me, this administration is -- has been in the process of blinding those who are charged with trying to protect us. can't use the terms that were repeatedly used in the 9/11 bipartisan commission -- the
bipartisan 9/11 commission report at a time when they didn't know it was politically incorrect to accurately classify people who want to destroy your way of life system of in this resolution, regarding israel's right to defend itself, it seemed that there was no better thing to do than to go to quotes and to the actual history in the region, it points out that whereas our a -- that whereas archaeological evidence exists that confirms israel's existence as a nation 3,000 years ago, despite assertions of its opponents, and it's been amazing nover israel in november, seing the results of excavations urn what they now know as the city of david in existence about 1,600 years before mohamed was born.
it's amazing now all the evidence that's being found a yo logically that substantiates exactly what israelis have been saying for years. resolution says, whereas with the dawn of modern zionism, the national liberation movement of the jewish people 750 years ago, the jewish people determined to return to their homeland in the land of israel from the lands of their dispersion. whereas in 1922, the league of nations mandated that the jewish people were the legal sovereigns over the land of israel and that legal mandate has never been superseded, whereas in the aftermath of the nazi-led holocaust from 1933 to 1945, in which germans and their collaborators murdered six million jewish people in a premeditated act of genocide, the international community recognize that the jewish
state, built by jewish pioneers, must gain its independence from great britain. whereas the united states was the first nation to recognize israel's independence in 1948 and the state of israel has since proven herself to be a faithful ally of the united states in the mideast, was the united states an israel have a special friendship based on shared values and together share the common goal of peace and security in the mideast, whereas on october 20, 2009, president barack obama rightly noted that the united states -israel relationship is, quote, a bonn that is much more than a strategic alliance, whereas the national security of the united states, israel, and allies in the mideast, face a clear and present danger from the government of the islamic republic of iran seeking nuclear weapons and ballistic missile capability to deliver them, whereas israel would face
an existential threat from a nuclear weapons armed iran, whereas president barack obama has been firm and clear in declaring the united states' opposition to a nuclear armed iran, stating, for example, on november 7, 2008, quote, let me repeat what i stated in the course of the campaign, iran's development of a nuclear weapon, i believe, is unacceptable, unquote. on october 26, 2005, at a conference in toronto called world without zionism, iranian president mahmoud ahmadinejad stated, god willing, with the force of god behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the united states and zionism. whereas "the new york times" reported that during his october 26, 2005, speech president ahmadinejad called for, quote, this occupying regime, israel, to be wiped off the map.
whereas april 14, 2006, iranian president ahmadinejad said, quote, like it or not, the zionist regime, israel, is headed toward annihilation. whereas on june 2, 2008, iranian president ahmadinejad said, quote, i must announce that the zionist regime, israel, with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal, is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene. whereas on june 2, 2008, iranian president ahmadinejad said, today the time for the fall of the satanic power of the united states has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the em-- emperor of power and wealth has started. whereas on may 20, 2009, iran successfully tested a service -- surface long range missile with
an president range of 12,000 miles and they now say they hope to have a missile that would be able to deliver a nuclear weapon from iran to the united states nevertheless, whereas iran continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons, wrast iran has been caught making secret facilities, whereas iran continues its support of international terrorism, has ordered its proxy hezbollah to carry out catastrophic acts of international terrorism such as the bombing of the jewish amia center in bunes arizona, argentina, in 1994 and could give a nuclear weapon to a terrorist organization in the future. whereas iran has refused to provide the international atomic energy agency with full transparency and access to its nuclear program.
whereas the united states -- whereas the united nations security council resolution, 1803, states that according to the international atomic energy agency, quote, iran has not established full and sustained suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities and heavy water-related projects as set out in resolution 1696, 1737, 1747, nor has the corporation with the iaea, under the additional protocol, nor taken the other steps required by the iaea board of governors, nor complied with the provisions of security council resolution 1696, 1737 and 1747. and whereas in july, 2009,'s g-8 summit in italy, iran was given a september, 2009, deadline to start negotiations over its nuclear programs and iran offered a five-page document
lamenting the, quote, ungodly ways of thinking prevailing in global relations, unquote. including various subjects but left out any mention of iran's own nuclear program. whereas the united states has been fully committed to finding a peaceful resolution to the iranian nuclear threat, and has made boundless efforts seeking such a resolution and to determine if such a resolution is even possible, whereas the united states does not want war or seek war with iran but it will continue to keep all options open to prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and whereas israeli prime minister netanyahu said in january, 2011, that a change of course in iran will not be possible, quote, without a credible military option that is put before them by the international community led by the united states, unquote.
the resolution ultimately says that in addition to condemning the government of islamic republic of iran for its threats of annihilation, it supports using all means of persuading the government of iran to stop building and acquiring nuclear weapons. reaffirms the united states' bond with israel. but ultimately number four says that in this resolution we express our support for israel's right to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by iran, defend israeli sovereignty and protect the lives and safety of the israeli people. including the use of military force. if no other peaceful solution can be found within a reasonable time.
now, we know that in may of last year president barack obama addressed the american-israeli pact here in washington, d.c., and one of the statements that has not been lost on israel and should not be lost on the people who elected president obama and it certainly hasn't been lost on iran, the president made this statement. israel must defend -- must be able to defend itself by itself.
may 19, 2011. israel must be able to defend itself by itself. ever since the president made those statements, certainly seems that israel has taken the president's words to heart. and yet instead of the united states doing as had been promised on many occasions, standing by israel, our great ally, instead our defense secretary, knowing that he's talking to a "washington post" reporter, knowing that it's not on background, knows that it will likely be reported basically uses the opportunity to alert the nation whose
leaders say they want to wipe israel off the map, annihilate israel, annihilate the united states, basically tells iran, hey, heads up, israel may be coming in the next few months. look out, israel may be coming in the next few months. it's still a mystery why our defense secretary and he's a very smart man, why he would make such a statement without authority. he's not subject to the slips like outing seal team six as the ones who took out saddam hussein -- osama bin laden or outing the undisclosed location as the vice president has done, a man not subject to those kind of gaffs, this vice president warns iran as if the pressure behind the
scenes this administration's been putting on our dear friend israel was not enough. so now we've got to alert israel's enemy iran? i hope that the administration will come out and give a good and legitimate answer to how such a warning to iran helps israel. and i would commend to anyone, mr. speaker, interested in going online and reading in the "jerusalem post" an article dated february 7, 2012, by my friend caroline glick titled " our word: obama's rhetorical storm would commend that to everyone." the truth is we should stand by israel. iran with nuclear weapons is a threat to us. not merely to israel. and this nation should not leave
it to israel without our best bunker busters, without our satellite, without our stealth technology. we should not put them in the position of having to defend us with lesser weapons capability. and i hope and pray that this administration will look more carefully at who the real enemy is, look more carefully at which nation was willing to come back to the peace table, willing to freeze the development of new housing areas and which one was not and which one of the nations, which one of the groups of people in this case the people of the west bank, palestinians, their complete refusal to even recognize israel's right to exist, their continuing teaching of children in the palestinian areas that the israelis are occupiers of
palestinian land. it's throughout the teaching of the children in the palestinian areas. and they're doing that with our money. we're sending them money to teach children to hate israel so that there can't be peace. it's time to look more carefully at where we're spending our money and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman from have a motion? mr. gohmert: at this time, mr. speaker, i would move that we do now hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until 9:00 a.m. tomorrow.
that worships the religion of self-he reliance and individualism. this is the legacy of theroux and emerson. but it turns out that we're lag ards when it comes to living alone. it's in fact much more common in european nations and especially scandinavia and it's even more common in japan. >> we look at the growing trend of american adults choosing to
live alone and a what that means for the country. saturday night at 10:00 eastern. also this weekend on book tv, sunday at 3:00, the second cousin of former secretary of state mr. conaway: -- condaleeza rice, about gang leaders and police. and at 8:15, georgetown university's bonnie morris on her one-woman play and book of the same name, revenge of the women's studies professor. book tv every weekend on c-span 2. >> they knew america, where freedom is made real for all. without regard to race or belief or economic condition. i mean a new america which everlastingly attacks the ancient idea that men can solve
their differences by killing each other. [applause] >> as candidates campaign for president this year, we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our website, c-span.org/ thecontenders to see video of the contenders who had a lasting impact on american politics. >> process of the radical liberal left continues to offer only one solution to the problems which confront us, they tell us again and again and again we should spend our way out of trouble and spend our way into a better tomorrow. >> c-span.org/thecontenders. >> coming up next on c-span, some of today's debate on health care and a federal mandate requiring insurance plans to cover birth