tv Tonight From Washington CSPAN May 24, 2011 8:00pm-11:00pm EDT
the speaker pro tempore: the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house for further consideration of h.r. 1216. would mr. womeack kindly take the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house for further consideration of h.r. 1216 by the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amendment the public service act to convert medical education fl direct appropriations to an authorization of appropriations.
the chair: when the committee of the whole house -- when the committee of the whole house rose earlier today, pending was amendment number 7 offered by the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york wish to be recognized. >> i move to strike the last word, mr. chairman. the chair: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. weiner: i was standing here approximately two hours ago to speak with other members on the efforts to eliminate medicare and for reasons that are known only to the chair, i was denied the ability to do that and i'm back. to review the bidding, here's where it was before that order was made. we had the chairman of the
republican congressional campaign committee, a good man, a guy i like, stand down in the well and say, oh, no, this is someone elected by the republican members to represent him in races all over the country saying the ryan plan wasn't a plan but a plan "quote, to construct to develop a plan and said the proposal was not a voucher program and one size fits all that medicare was drowning our economy is what he said. well, ladies and gentlemen, that might be the rationale for our republican friends to eliminate medicare, but none of those things are true. it is not a construct to develop a plan. it is the proposal of the republican party of the united states of america to eliminate medicare. if you don't believe me, go get the budget they wrote and go get
the bill that they wrote. if you believe it's not a voucher program, listen to their own members talk about it. the medicare program today is not, i say to my friends, one size fits all. my good friend from georgia, mr. gingrey was on the floor talking about how it is one size fits all. how can you be a member of the house of representatives and not understand how medicare works? each individual senior gets to go to a doctor of their choosing, goes to the clinic of their choosing and decides where to go and the doctor and the patient make decisions. the only question is, are we going to say to citizens who are 65 and older, here's a coupon, go buy private insurance at 20%, 30% overhead than what the
actuary says coast 1.05 in overhead. we heard them say, you are demagogging, we don't want to get rid of it. you do. so there have been plenty of opportunities to see this in full play. now they have been tying themselves in intellectual knots trying to get out from under the facts. i hope your ryan plan includes the twisting arms and limbs explaining this. it is a radical departure from where we are today. mr. beginning rich is -- mr. gingrich is right. it is a radical departure. own it. show that you are prepared to own your own proposal. but now that you want to do it and the american people are seeing the difference in republicans and democrats, now you are trying to squirrel your
way out of it with no disrespect to squirrels. not only did we pass the health care plan a year ago, but i'll go one better, i'll give you a plan, how about medicare not starting at 65, what about 55 or 45 or 35? what is it that health insurance companies do in this country? i know my republican friends are holly-owned subsidiaries of the insurance industry but that shouldn't mean our seniors lose it because of it. republicans who are trying to figure out how to get out, we believe in medicare we created it. we believe in social security. we created it. every improvement to health care in this country, democrats proposed, republicans oppose and now they have a chance to get rid of it and doing it. at least if you are going to do it, at least if you are going to
try to do it, don't silence people who point it out. it might be later, if you had me come back at midnight or 2:00 a.m., i would have said it because the american people are going to see what's going on here. you have a proposal to eliminate medicare and privatize a portion of the social security by investing in the stock market, you have a proposal to take away the benefits of those 25 and younger to get health insurance. that is your proposal. own it. live with it, embrace it, because we aren't going to let you get out from under it. you may gavel me or tell me to come back at 2:00 in the morning, it's not going to change the fundamentals of this debate. if you believe in medicare at this point, you have two choices, tear up your republican party membership or give up control of congress and frankly some of you are going to have to do both.
the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey wish to be recognized? mr. pallone: strike the last word, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: i want to continue this debate on the medicare issue because i do believe from looking at the republican budget that they do intend to end medicare. it's quite clear. and, you know, the irony of this is when the democrats were in the majority, we were trying to expand health care options, provide everybody with health insurance and now what we see is the republicans when they take the majority, are trying to get rid of really the best health insurance program that the nation has ever seen and that's medicare. no one would argue that medicare has not been successful. the fact of the matter is before we had medicare, which as my colleague from new york mentioned was a democratic initiative, what would seniors do? seniors couldn't get health insurance, because when you get
to be over 65 or you are disabled, people don't want to give you health insurance because it costs too much, you are in the hospital too much. and seniors couldn't find health insurance. they were really at the mercy, if you will, of whatever they could find or if they they got sick, had to go to the hospital or had to go to a doctor and pay out of pocket in many cases. when the democrats came along and lyndon johnson said this is something that we need because seniors can't get health insurance, well they initiated health medicare and every republican voted against medicare then and never liked it because they know it's a government program and they don't like government programs. if anyone on the other side of the aisle is trying to tell me and i don't know if theyr but trying to suggest that by voting for this budget that ends medicare that they didn't mean it, i would say look at their history, look at the history of opposing of medicare, opposing
medicaid, opposing social security when franklin roosevelt and the democratic congress put it together. i want to point out, what happens when seniors don't have medicare anymore and they have to go buy insurance on the private market? basically, what that does, it puts the insurance companies back in charge again. this is no surprise. this is what the republicans want. they always stand with the special interests, big oil, big banks, wall street and the insurance companies. and the insurance companies don't like medicare because they can't make money. they want to make money. they want to cherry-pick if you will. if you are over 65 and are in good health and maybe they will give you insurance because they'll figure that you might be a good risk and charge you a lot of money and give you a policy that doesn't cover anything. medicare not only provides a guaranteed insurance policy that
you can buy that you get, i should say, from the government when you're over 65, regardless of your health status or of your income, but you get a pretty generous insurance plan that covers a lot of things. you put the insurance companies back in charge and not only will they not offer insurance to a lot of seniors at a decent price, but those who they do sell the insurance to, it won't be a package what most seniors are going to need. it's not only that medicare is important because it guarantees you coverage, but it guarantees you pretty generous coverage which you need when you are 65 or disabled. some have said -- some of the republicans say, don't worry, senior citizens, we may be ending medicare but only going to be ending for those who are now 55. if you are 65 years old, you can continue to have it. but 55 or under when you get to be 65, it will no longer be
available. if you are a senior citizen, don't worry about it. i don't know too many seniors think that way. they not only worry about themselves but their children and grandchildren. this republican budget eliminates two other things. first of all, we as democrats when we were in charge of the house, we put in place a program to close the prescription drug doughnut hole so if you reach the doughnut hole, now as of january 1, 50% of your coverage -- 50% of your costs are covered and eventually you will have no costs in the doughnut hole and will be eliminated completely. the republican budget repeals that. it leaves this gaping hole where if you are out of pocket in drug costs in the course of a year, $2,500 or more, you aren't go to go get your prescription drugs covered. for current medicare holders
opens up that doughnut hole and pay this money out of pocket. and repeals a democratic provision that is now law that says you don't have co-pays for preventative care. if you need a certain test, you don't pay a co-pay. the republican budget also abottle issues that. this is devastating for senior citizens, current and future. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania wish to be recognized. mr. thompson: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. thompson: i do support the foxx amendment. and as i listened to all the discussion on the floor, much of it dealing -- not dealing with the foxx amendment but dealing with medicare which catches my attention. before i came into this position in congress just a little over
two years ago, three years ago now, i actually worked in the health care field. i worked specifically serving individuals that utilize medicare. i was a therapist, nursing home administrator, rehabilitation services. the balance the budget act of 1997, i was recruited by the medicare agency, health care finance administration then to serve in the panel. when i hear this wrot from the other side -- rhetoric that the republicans are trying to end medicare i find that not accurate and that is based on 30 years of experience working with medicare, developing an expertise of the medicare policy to be part of the technical expert panel on medicare. when i came to washington in january, 2009, i thought all members of congress understood that the loaming crisis in
washington was medicare and medicare was one of them and medicare was going to go bankrupt and going to go insolvent and if we didn't reform medicare it would go away. how i am moral is that, all americans who contribute to medicare, pay for medicare and invest in medicare that it would not be there for them to get medicare. i'm actually just a little shocked, mr. speaker, by the rhetoric. and the fact is, if we want to save medicare, we need to do exactly what the republicans are proposing and that is to reform it, to save it. even the medicare trustees came out two weeks ago and said the medicare program would be insolvent five years sooner than predicted. what does that mean? it means going bankrupt. insolvent means going away. it means all the seniors that
paid into the system will not -- it won't be there for them. we have a duty, an only nation to make sure medicare is there. this side of the aisle is the only ones working to keep medicare for our seniors. no, i won't, i only have about five minutes, i want to continue. what we're proposing is premium supports. it's not vouchers, it's not privatizing, it's premium supports. premium support is the best model you can look at for that is medicare part d. the pharmaceutical program. medicare part d gives seniors the opportunity to pick from plans that work from them. that are customized to their needs. medicare part d has to do with prescriptions with pharmaceuticals and we provide premium supports so they can pick the plans that work for them and make sure they get the prescriptions they need to have. it's actually been a plan that frankly is one of the few government plans that have ever
-- has come in under budget. most government plans don't come in under budget they come in way over budget. medicare part d did. it also speaks to me as medicare part c, medicare managed care. medicare managed care, medicare advantage, which unfortunately the patient protection and affordable care act attacked, went after, medicare part c program, provides for wellness and prevention. folk that was been -- seniors that have had medicare part c has had a program allowed to emphasize prevention and wellness. statistics show that where people engaged in that program, they have been hospitalized fewer times and those hospitalizations for fewer days. and you know, that keeps them well. that keeps them healthy. that's what health care should be about, keeping people healthy. the other thing it does is saves taxpayer dollars. that's a win-win. we're talking about premium
supports that take concepts from medicare part d and medicare part c and we're going to aplay that to the medicare program. mr. speaker, i think this is important to people -- that people understand that if we do not reform medicare, medicare will go bankrupt, medicare will be insolvent and medicare won't be there. the chair: would the -- >> would the gentleman yield? mr. thompson: no, sir. >> it sounded like you were wrapping up and you have time. mr. thompson: when the speaker tells me i'm done, i'll be done. if we don't do this, medicare will be bankrupt, medicare will be insolvent and in the end that's immoral. we have a great opportunity here. we need to address medicare, i think premium supports are a great way to do that and i appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.
the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from north carolina . those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment -- >> i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the congresswoman from north carolina will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york wish to be recognized? mr. weiner: i rise as the designee of ms. castor to offer an amendment printed in the record. the chair: does the gentleman designate a number? mr. weiner: amendment number one. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky wish to be recognized? mr. guthrie: i reserve a point
of order against the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from new york. mr. weiner: i ask that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. mr. chairman, i support this amendment, i hope we all vote for it. i want to take an opportunity to respond to the gentleman just at the microphone, you know, it is one thing to say you're saving medicare but if you leave a different medicare when you're done, then today -- than today if it's entirely different, then how have you saved it i know premium support or price support is the term of art now trying to take he will as you try to explain what you're doing but let me make it clear. if i say anything the gentleman can rise and i will permit to correct me. you should the proposal of the gentleman from wisconsin, under the proposal of the republicans in congress, that at a certain point in the future, medicare as we have it today, as a guaranteed entitlement safety net program for seniors will cease to exist. that's the ryan plan.
i will pause while anyone seeks to correct that. that silence you hear, ladies and gentlemen of the united states of america is because i just said something that is factually correct. the ryan plan, which is now the republican plan, which is now the plan that has passed the house, would end medicare as we know it. now that's never been something that they hid from before. they had a book, "the young guns," they explained it, this is the way medicare is going to look. it's price support. ok, it's price support unless you can't be supported by the price of the voucher. if you're a senior citizen, i say to the previous speaker if you're a signor citizen and you're given this thing, call it what you want, a coupon, a voucher a price support document an look for insurance policy in your neighborhood and can't find it, under the law that you passed, you're out of luck. but you're not entitled --
spirely out of luck. your family can pay out of their pocket and buy insurance. you're a good, fit, healthy man, god bless you, you should remain so. but many seniors can't buy insurance. they won't be able to get it. which is why medicare was crea ated in the first place. because the conventional way of say, you know what, each and every person for themselves is going to get health care was leaving senior citizens out. i want to explain to my colleagues, my republican colleagues a little something about economics. when we join together as a society, as a large buying pool, we get better treatment as consumers. we get a lower price. fewer people buying car insurance, prices go up. all of us in a parimuteul relationship, prices go down. that's basic economics. but it's being violated by the
ryan plark the -- plan, the republican plan, the plan you now own and have to defend. ft but to say, we don't really want to defend it because we're uncomfortable wit, it's yours now and you say we're trying to save medicare. we're trying to save it. if pt to save it, then it has to be a medicare program, it can't just be some kind of coupon. but i want to talk briefly in my remaining time about the idea that we don't have plans. i have a plan that i want you all to consider. it's taking the efficient program of medicare which has managed to keep administrative costs far below any insurance plan in the country, any one of them if any one of them can come close to medicare efficiency, then i would say let's go get that one. but they can't. why is it we say that only people 65 and above should get that efficiency? why don't we say to the roughly 30% profits and overhead
insurance companies are taking and say, who needs you guys? you're taking our money, we're giving it to insurance companies, they're not doing exams, they're not doing any checkups, they're not operating on people, they're taking our money, take 20g% off the top and passing some of it along to doctors and hospitals. what are they performing in the economy? let's take them out of the formula. we didn't go this way in the obamacare plan, which i proudly call that. but i have to tell you, there's a competition going on in this country right now between the for-profit, employer-based model el with a 30% overhead and medicare with a .25% overhead. i say medicare for all americans. it's an american, democratic plan that we should extend to all people. you want efficiency, get more people in the buying pool. let's take advantage of the large numbers of people we have and cover them with insurance at a low rate. but we didn't go that way. we went a republican way.
in the obama proposal, it was essentially a republican, give them all health insurance. now you're saying let's see if we can do that for senior citizens and still call it medicare, you can't. you say you're saving medicare, but you're destroying medicare and we democrats and the people in this country are going to stop you. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. guthrie: i insist on my point of order. the amendment violates clause 10 of rule 21 of the rules of the house because it has the net effect of increasing mandatory spending. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? mr. weiner: i ask to be recognized. it's arguable whether this increases spending, because all it does is changes the date but this is the argument we heard from mr. cantor who said they
would not authorize any spending who were the victims of the horrible tornado recently because that, too, would need to be paid for. sometimes you have things that are emergencies in this country. sometimes you have things that frankly under the emergency powers of this congress we should be able to implement. i believe that while it's arguable that the effective date changes the net effect of the bill, the fact of the matter is we have a responsibility to seniors in this country and to those on medicare to try to save it just as we have a responsibility to the citizens of this country ravaged by storms and to hear your leadership say we would not allocate any funds for that purpose is outrageous. >> the chair is prepared to rule. the gentleman from kentucky makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york violates clause 10 of rule 21 by proposing an increase in mandatory spending over a relevant period of time. pursuant to clause 10 of rule 221 and clause 4 of rule 29,
the chair is authoritatively guided by estimates of the chair of the committee on budget that the net effect would increase mandatory spending over a relevant period as compared to the bill. accordingly, the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. >> mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey wish to be recognized? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five mins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i wanted to -- i wanted to go back to the issue of medicare but i also wanted to respond to the gentleman from pennsylvania because he also brought up the issue of medicaid. mr. pallone: i would point out that the republican budget not only devastates and ends medicare but it essentially does the same thing to medicaid because of the level of cuts put in place for medicaid. senior citizens are very much aware of the fact that if medicare ends, then they're
thrown out into the private insurance market and have to buy insurance on the private market as the whim of the insurance companies. that they're going to be in bad shape. they may not get insurance if they get it, it will be a skeletal package, it won't cover and guarantee their benefits. i think they also realize that the budget if it repeals the health care reform, will go back to having this huge doughnut hole which will cause them to pay a lot out of pocket and will also eliminate the free -- the lack of co-pays that exist for preventive care such as mammograms and other diagnostic tests that are now free without a co-pay. so they're going to pay a huge amount of money out of pocket if the republicans get their way by ening medicare. but the gentleman from pennsylvania also brought up medicaid. i would point out that many seniors are not aware of the fact that most of the money spent on medicaid actually pays for nursing home care.
pause seniors -- medicare doesn't cover nursing home care. and seniors, when they pay out of pocket for nursing home care, usually run out of their money very quickly and end up staying in the nursing home because of medicaid. what this does is cut medicaid by almost $800 billion over the next decade and essentially in half by 2022. that's not sustainable. what that's going to mean is, as i said before when we didn't have medicare, seniors couldn't get insurance an they just basically got no health care unless they went to an emergency room. but if you cut medicaid in half, what's going to happen is, there isn't going to be money for the constituent to pay for nursing home care and either seniors won't be able to find a nursing home or if they get one, it's going to be a nursing home that because it's not getting an adequate payment rate is going to be really awful. in my home constituent of new jersey, i remember in the 1970's, going back 30 years
ago, when nursing homes were just awful, we had fires, we had people with horrible bed sores, i won't get into all the details but the bottom line is in a you really devastate medicaid which pays for nursing home care, you're going to also go back to the days when seniors couldn't find a nursing home. >> would the gentleman yield on that point? mr. pallone: of course. mr. weiner: who is going to be left to pay for it? localities like new jersey and pennsylvania and new york are not going to let people lie sick in the state. local taxes will get raised, state taxes will get raised, it's not whether or not people get health care it's how it's paid for. this just means we're passing it along. mr. pallone: i agree but i would point out that many times the localities may not pay for it at all and so we'll end up with awful nursing homes or not have nursing homes. the other thing is that medicaid haswares that pays for
a lot of senior citizens to stay home and pays for their personal care when they stay home, somebody to come in and dress them, cook meals, clean the house that type of thing. that would also be gone or cut in half when you cut medicaid in half because the state again as mr. weiner said, unless the state stepped in and paid for that, a lot of senior citizens that don't have to go to a nursing home and end up staying home and getting the personal care in their home or apartment and avoid going to the nursing home, those programs are going to be eliminated as well. . it is amazing what the republicans are doing in this budget, cutting medicare and medicaid. and it's an awful thing. and these cuts to medicaid are going to effect immediately and get worse and worse. it isn't going to impact seniors right away? they impact seniors immediately and applies to the disabled
because these are programs that are paying for the disabled. medicare, medicaid, also applies to people who have disabilities. and i just don't understand it. medicare, medicaid, social security, these are programs that the republicans never liked, never voted for, never supported, but i'll mention one more. the other thing that the budget does because of the cuts in medicaid and schip also makes it so a lot of children who get health care coverage are not going to get health care coverage as well. the republicans are walking away from the seniors, disabled and the children. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york. >> strike the requisite number of words. mr. weiner: when i was here at 6:00 and cut off by the chair
and taken off my feet and lost my ability to speak, i was prepared to make my five-minute remarks and other members were prepared to do the same. just as a mat of comity, this is an important debate and if the effort was to figure out a way to silence some of us, it is not going to work. we will find a way to make this debate happen even if it is late into the evening. i want to continue on a point that the gentleman from new jersey made and i want us to understand about how medicare works. many members on other side of the aisle came to the floor today and talked about medicare being a one-size-fits-all plan. medicare works. my father is a member of an h.m.o. or go to a pay -for-service doctor.
all health care is on a rising path that is unsustainable. that is why the republican strategy of doing nothing and drilling its head into the sand for years was no longer sustainable and why we democrats had to do something about it. it is arc of costs stranging our economy and passing along the bills to all of us was an unsustainable model. that's why we made changes that made medicare more fort worth. for example, one of the things my friends want to eliminate is the idea under medicare now under obamacare, preventative care for services are reimbursed 100%. how do we do that? it's because what our parents and grand parents. that by providing coverage for that, you actually save money in medicare. how did we extend medicare by 10 years, that's one of the ways.
and what my colleagues fail to understand is that we acted this last year, you say where is your plan? we extended the services and reduce the cost to the economy, to provide coverage for the uninsured and reduce the burden on localities. that's what we did. and what are you doing? you are saying, let's take not only the affordable care act and eliminate all of those protections, but let's go back 40-some odd years and eliminate the act and replace it and gives taxpayers' dollars and gives it to insurance companies. that's your basic m.o. you seek to enrich insurance companies. if you want to provide care to seniors, seniors with no party affiliation, medicare has turned
out to be efficient. does that mean our rising health care costs across the board? here's this. medicare's rise in cost is less than the private insurance market. how can that be? because as i said, medicare doesn't take money for profit. medicare doesn't take money for shareholders or advertisements or giant call centers and put you on hold. they don't give gipet bonuses to c.e.o.'s. medicare is an efficient program. that's how we roll. we do efficient programs that are well run. and what do you do? you want to eliminate that. you like that. that's how they roll. they want to eliminate these programs. but we are standing in the way, but we aren't standing alone because seniors of all stripes and even young people who want
to become seniors understand a program that works when they see it. and they also understand a party in retreat when they say it, i say to my good friend. we see how you guys are coming down here, it's not a voucher, it's a coupon. earlier in the day,, someone said you are draining the federal government. one size fits all. i have not seen so much defensive talk in years. you ought to be defensive, because we found out what you believe in. you campaign on what you are against and this is apparently it. but here it is, now you have to defend it. you should do a better job. american people are much too smart for this, they know if you are taking away a guaranteed protection and replacing it with a price-support document, we will call on you every day.
you can huff and puff, but we will blow your house down and the citizens will say, i know why we put democrats in charge because they create programs like medicare and republicans want to eliminate them. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. guthrie: i move that the committee do now rise? the chair: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises.
the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: the committee of the whole house of the state of the union directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the committee has had under consideration h.r. 1216 and has come to no resolution thereon. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute to revise and extend. the chair: without objection. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize two individuals from my district who selected to receive nasa's award
. both of which are students at penn state university. the program which is in its fourth program relates to aeronautics studies. they are two of 25 graduate students selected from hundreds of applicants from across the country to receive scholarships. robert and khali interned with nasa and directly work on projects such as managing air traffic and improving safety and will be part of a team of researchers who will have development technology goals. and through this award they will contribute to our nation's solutions to some of the most pressing challenges facing air transportation systems today. i thank kha lmp i and robert for their hard work. i yield back the balance of my
time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. are there further one-minute requests? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. mr. frelinghuysen: for today and mr. hanabusa for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced policy of javen 5, 2011, the gentleman from maryland, mr. bartlett, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority. bart bart bart thank you very much -- mr. bartlett: i would like to
spend a few moments putting the debate we are having on medicare in perspective. this year, our budget deficit will be close to $1.6 trillion. that's a really big number. what does it mean? well, it means about every six hours, matter of fact, less than that, we accumulate another $1 billion deficit that adds another $1 billion to our debt. this $1.6 trillion is about half a trillion dollars more than all the money that we come here to vote to spend. we spend the better part of 12 months debating a large number of authorizing bills and voting
the appropriation bills to spend just a little over $1 trillion. our deficit is $1.6 trillion. that means it's about half a trillion dollars more than all the money we vote to spend. what that means is, mr. speaker, that if we had no military, just don't fund it, send all the service people home, if we had no department of education, no department of commerce, if we emptied all of those large buildings full of government bureaucrats, we'd still have about half trillion dollar deficit. what that means, of course, that there is no chance, no
opportunity of balancing the budget by cutting spending in all of those eogra spend the better part of the year debating here. well, if that wouldn't balance the budget, what, then, must we do? it's very clear that if the deficit is about half trillion dollars more than all the money we vote to spend, that a lot of the spending that accumulates this deficit is in programs that we don't vote to spend money on. these are programs that pay the interest on the debt. that's kind of mandatory spending. you don't do that, you're in big trouble. and it's medicare and medicaid and social security. and so in this debate on
medicare, it's not just the medicare trust fund that we're talking about that will go bankrupt -- it will, because today and every day with no time out for holiday or weekends, 10,000 of our baby boomers retire and they stop paying into these funds and they start drawing from these funds and so as we debate the subject we need to remember that it's bigger than medicare. . even if you argue that medicare will somehow be solvent, it won't matter if the country has
gone bankrupt, because it doesn't matter what you do if there's no government because it's gone bankrupt and that's where we're headed. it's a huge problem. we worked very hard to keep the promise made during the campaign of cutting $100 billion from spending this year. that's a lot of money to cut. but even if we cut $100 billion, that would have been 1/16th of the deficit. it turned out to be an amazing disappearing $100 billion. shrunk to $61 billion. then it is troung $38 billion. then when c.b.o. looked at the actual outlays this year, how much we would save, it slunk to $352 million. that's, mr. speaker, about 1/3 of 1% of what we promised.
even if we delivered what we promised, $100 billion, that would have been roughly 6% of the deficit. 1/16th of the deficit. we talk about these individual programs, it's nice to keep in perspective the overall picture of where we are. if you are excited by by challenges, you will be exhilarated by this challenge, this is a huge, huge challenge our country faces. we now are about a decade into a new century and a new millennium. and it's interesting to look back at the last century and ask ourselves, what was probably the most important speech given in the last century? now, if you were to ask that question of a -- of 100 people, probably not one of them would cite the speech that i'm going
to tell you tonight. as the most important speech of the last century. but i think if you were to ask that question 10 or 15 years from now, almost all of the 100 people would tell you this speech is probably the most important speech of the last century. it was given on the eighth day of march in 1956. by a man named marion king hubbard, generally moan as m.k. hubbard to a group of people in san antonio, texas. at that time, the united states was king of oil. we were the first major industrialized nation in the world. we were pumping more oil, we were using more oil, we were exporting more oil than any other country in the world. and hubbard told this group of oil specialists that in just 14
years, by 1970, the united states would reach its maximum oil production. that no matter what they did after that oil production in this country would fall off. that was audacious. it was unbelievable. as a matter of fact, it wasn't believed. m. king hubbard was relegated to the lunatic fringe. how could it be that a country that had discovered this much oil was king of oil, producing more oil, consuming more oil, exporting more oil than any other country, in 14 years is going to reach its maximum production and then fall off? if you stop to think about it, oil one day will run out, won't it?
i started asking myself that question a lot of years ago when i was teaching school and i taught a class in biology and all of the publishers would send me their textbook hoping that i would use it in my classroom and they could sell to it members of the class. i remember i was asking myself the question, oil can't be forever, when will there be a problem? next year? 10 years. -- 10 years? 100 years? maybe 1,000 years? i had no idea when this crisis would occur. but obviously, obviously there had to be a time in which oil would run out and it's just -- if there's a time when oil would run out, there has to be a time when you reached your maximum ability to produce oil.
the chart i have here shows what happened. he made that prediction in 1957 he said in 1970, that's the peak here, we would reach our maximum oil production. that chart shes where the oil was coming from, texas and the united states, natural gas, liquids. then we made two big oil discoveries, he hadn't included alaska or the gulf of mexico. alaska, just a little flip in the slide down the other side of hubbard's peak. there you can see the fabled gulf of mexico in yellow there, the fabled gulf of mexico oil coveries. it hardly made a difference, did it?
the united states now produces half of what he predicted. and that's despite the fact we find oil in alaska. yet we still produce half the oil we did in 1970. by 1980, if you look at the chart, you could look back and you could say, gee, m. king hubbard was right, wasn't he? the united states did reach its maximum oil production 10 years ago. wow. what that means, of course, is that won't the world sometime reach its oil production maximum? how could you argue the united states is not a microcome of the world? if the united states reached its maximum oil production in 1970, when would the world reach its maximum oil production?
m. king hubbard predicted the world would reach its maximum oil production about now. if m. king hubbard's speech was the most important speech of the last century, one might ask, twheafs most insightful speech of the last century? i don't know if these two men even knew each other, i don't know if hyman rickover, who i think gave the most invitheful speech in the last century, i don't know if he knew m. king hubbard existed. he was going to talk about the same phenomenon from a different perspective. his speech was given the 15th day of maye, just a little over a year later in 1957. the audience was irrelevant but the audience was a group of physicians in st. paul, minnesota. for many years, his speech was
lost. just a few years ago, it was found and it's on the internet now. if you google for rickover and energy speech it will come up. i'm sure that he will agree it is -- you will agree it's probably the most prophetic speech you have ever read. i'm sure you'll agree it might well be the most insightful speech of the last semplingry. i have some quotes here from hyman rickover's speech and you know, i'm sure that speech was still around in 1980 when you could look back and see, gee, in 1970, we really did peak in oil production in this country didn't we? and you know, looking at what hyman rickover said, there really should have been some pause, shouldn't there? there's nothing man can do to rebuild exhausted fossil fuel
reserves. they were created by solar energy. it's really interesting. almost all the energy we use today came from or comes from the sun. it was the sun that made the plants and so forth grow that produced our gas and oil. it's the sun that -- with differential heating makes the winds blow. it's the suns that evaporate water which then the clouds drop on the mountains and creates hydroelectric power. no wonder the ancients worshiped the sun. it took'ons to grow to the present volume. in the face of the basic fact that fossil fuel reserves are finite, the exact lept of time these reserves will last is important. in only one respect, what a profound statement he makes here. the longer they last, the longer we have to invent ways to live off renewable or
substitute energy sources and adjust our economy to the vast changes which we can expect from such a shift. now this speech was given in 1957. that's more than a half century ago. this next quote, i love this next quote. fossil fuels resemble capital in the bank. a prudent and responsible parent will use his capital sparingly in order to pass on to his children as much as possible of his inheritance. a selfish and irresponsible parent will squander it in riotous living an care not one whit how his offspring will fare. i think of that statement when i notice how eager we are to drill, baby, drill. drill more, pay less. i have 10 kids, 17 grandkids, and two great grandkids.
when the vice president came here to try to get me to vote to drill in anwr, he thought i'd be happy to vote to drill in anwr, when he promised we'd use the revenues we got from anwr to invest in alternatives because more than a half semplingry ago, hyman rickover said that's what we should be doing. and we have not been doing any of it. i noted to the vice president that we were going to leave our kids a huge debt. i had no idea then how huge it would be, that was several years ago. i said wouldn't it be nice to leave them a little oil so that they might have something to work with with that huge, huge debt? the next chart is another quote from hyman rickover. will this golden age -- whether this golden age, as he referred
to it and what a golden age it's been, whether this golden age will continue depends on our ability to keep energy supplies in balance with the needs of our growing population. nearly seven billion people in the world and energy from fossil fuels, particularly oil is absolutely essential to their survival. possession of surplus energy is a we can sith for any kind of civilization. for if man possesses merely the energy of his own muscles, he must expend all his strength, mental and physical, to obtain the bare necessities of life. when i first got some statistics on oil and the energy density of oil i could not believe that. one barrel of oil has the energy equivalent of 25,000 man hours of work. i saw that number and i said, that's incredible. that means it has as much
energy in one barrel of oil, 42 gallons, as 12 people working all year long. i drive a prius and then i thought, you know a gallon, not very big a gallon of gasoline will take my prius, the most recent mileage is 53 miles per gallon. i could pull my prius 53 miles but it would take me a spell, wouldn't it? i would have to hook to the guardrail or tees but it would take me quite a while to pull my prius 53 miles and that's just one of those gallons of -- in that barrel of oil. of course that incredibly cheap energy has done is permit us to develop a really, really great quality of life. hyman rickover referred to that
as the golden age. the next chart, and he kind of missed it a little here as you will see, in the ,000 years from the beginning of history to the year 2000 a.d. world population will have grown from 10 million to four billion with 90%, we kind of passed that, didn't we? not quite double that, but past that, so growth exceeded what he thought it would be. took the first 3,000 years of recorded history to accomplish the first doubling of population. 100 years from the last doubling. the next doubling will require only 50 years. as a matter of fact it required less than that. and the path we're on, you know, we're just going to have increasing number of -- numbers of people, while we have a decreasing supply of energy to support them. another quote from hyman rickover, reading this after 1980 when you could look back
and see that m. king hub bard was really right about the -- hubbard was really right about the united states, shouldn't our leadership have sat down and said, gee, what are we going to do about that? one final thought, i should like to leave with you, high energy consumption has always been a prerequisite of political power. the tendency is for political power to be concentrated in an ever-smaller number of countries ultimately the nation with -- countries, ultimately the nations which control the largest energy resources will become dominant. if we give thought to the problem of energy resources, if we act wisely and in time to conserve what we have and prepare well for necessary future changes, we shall ensure that dominant position for our own country. have we done any of that? this is the father of our nuclear submarine. hyman rickover. great advice. the next chart gives a per spectacular thave hyman rickover
talked about and -- perspective that hyman rickover talked about and this is the age of oil. it goes back to 1630, it could go back to the time of christ and the chart wouldn't change because the amount of energy we're using, the world is using, was so small that it wouldn't show above the baseline here. and then we entered the industrial age, the brown line there is when we started with steam engines and fueling them with wood and then we found coal and that's the black line there. and then we found gas and oil. wow. look what happened. when we found gas and oil. now, we're going to see this curve again and we're going to see it again and again. a very steep rise with this very long time in the abscess that have rise is very steep. we'll see in other charts where we have stretched out the time and the rise is not to steep. notice what happens at the very top up there. it fell off and then rose again.
that's the recession of the 1970's, the arab oil embargo. you know you need to thank them for doing that because we woke up. look what would have happened if that hadn't happened and that exponential curve kept on rising. it would be off the top of the chart. our next chart shows that in a different perspective. this is called the oil chart and if you had only one chart to look at to inform you, this would probably be the one that you would want to look at. the curve that we saw in the last one, that red curve, i said would you see it again and again and here it is. this is the curve. it was very steep there because they had suppressivetime times. this is that drop-off in the 1970's. notice what would happen if we hadn't become more efficient as a result of that. this would be off the chart.
by the year 2011. the vertical bars here show the discovery of oil. and we started discovering it in the 1940's and, boy, in the 1950's and 1960's and 1970's, huge peak in the 1970's and then by 1980, the black line here represents the use of oil, by 1980 we were using as much oim as -- oil as we were finding and after 1980 we always have used more oil than we found. that year. but no matter because it's a huge reserve back here. so we're now filling this space between what we found, what we use by dipping into those reserves that we have. how long will they last? this chart indicates the future discoveries will be an ever-decreasing slope, it won't be smooth like that, it will be up and down. i want to you make your own
judgment as to how much of that we're going to find. by the way, this chart was what, 2004 was when this chart was created and they were predicting that the world was going to reach its maximum oil production probably about 10 or so there? as a matter of fact they were somewhat optimistic as we'll see a bit later, the peak oil. oh, the next chart shows that. and we can look at the next chart. there are two entities in the world that do a very good job of keeping track of how much oil we pump and use. of course we use all we've pumped, there's no big reservoir of oil anywhere. and this is the e.i.a. and the i.e.a., one of them is a creature of the oecd in europe and the other is a part of our own department of energy. and these are their records of how much oil we have produced and notice that for about the last six years now we have been
plateaued in oil production at about 84 million barrels a day. we're stuck there. for about the last six years at 84 million barrels a day. when demand goes up and the increasing economies in china and india and the developing world, the demand is really going up, when demand goes up and there is a constant supply, what happens to prices? $50, $80, $100, $147 finally. and that high price of oil combined with a silly housing bubble that we produced in this country and the world's economies kind of near collapsed. and then oil fell to a bit under $40 a barrel. but as soon as the economy picked up again, the price of oil increased and now it's roughly $100 a barrel. the next chart looks at the
world's picture and the dark blue on the bottom here is conventional oil. notice that it increases up to -- they have it about 2006. there is now general recognition by experts all over the world, even the naysayers like exxon mobil and cambridge energy research societies now concede that oil peaked at about -- associates now could be seed that oil peaked at about -- concede that oil peaked at about 2006. but we've had unconventional oil and we've had natural gas liquids. we're finding more and more natural gas and there's natural gas liquids you won't probably put that in your fuel tank because it's propane and butane and that kind of energy source. this chart admits that we have reached a peak and it's going to fall off. doesn't this look very much like
hubbard's curve for our country? falling off? now, i'm sorry i don't have the next chart they created just two years after this, but let me tell you the differences. the chart they created two years after this has two main differences. it went out to 2035 instead of 2030. notice that to the toe -- total oil production adding up all of these various sources of oil came to 106 million barrels a day, they thought by 2030. now, just two years later this was in 2008, about 10 they have produced a chart that said that the peak production five years later was going to be only 96 million barrels a day. they had lowered their expectations. and they also had lowered their expectations of how much oil we're going to be getting from our current fields. because this line had dropped
off considerably lower in their chart, just two years later. now, they have it going up and up, down to only 96 million barrels a day in 2030 in their next chart, but the contribution to that is very little of it comes from our conventional oil. most of it is going to come from oil from fields that we have discovered and not developed, that's the light blue, and the red there is from fields yet to be discovered. and that disparity is even more acute in the chart that they developed just two years later. i will tell you with considerable confidence that those two wedges are not going to occur in anything like that magnitude. the world inevitably will follow the same curve that the united
states followed. we reached a peak in 1970, we have been falling off ever since. today in spite of finding oil in alaska and the gulf of mexico, in spite of drilling more oil wells than all of the rest of the world put together, today we produce half the oil we did in 1970. this relates to the discussion that we're having about the budget and about medicare. paul ryan had a bill which he called the roadmap and it was a way to get at the problem of our debt and deficit. it was pretty tough. it was so tough that only about 12 or 13 of us signed onto that roadmap. and then we came to the budget debate and all but four
republicans voted for that budget, i was almost the fifth one, not because i didn't think it was going to solve our problems, it didn't cut enough. we weren't going to balance the budget. paul says that his budget pays down the debt but it doesn't balance for 25 years and to make it balance in 25 years he projects fairly robust growth. that robust growth will not occur. because as soon as the world's economy picks up and the demand for oil picks up, since we have done nothing that we were advised to do by hyman rickover more than 50 years ago in planning an orderly transition to other sources of energy, when the price of oil goes up again to $125, $150 a barrel, the world's economy -- but even if you believe that our economy is
going to pick up, and it won't, it still takes 25 years to balance the budget. so what we're falking about tonight in this energy -- talking about tonight in this energy thing is really important in our budget debate as well. the next chart is an interesting one. and what it shows is, and this was several years ago, before the peaking of oil, and it shows the exports in the world and when they thought oil would peak. and here's the year they thought it would peak. and some of them a very long time from now. well, one said before 2009, and it certainly was before 2009. but it occurred earlier than 2006 and 2007, it occurred in 2006. the next chart shows exactly these same things in a pictorial form. so you can see some of them, they weren't going to miss the
bed, were they? they could occur any time during those many, many years there. but there's almost unanimous agreement now that oil did peak in 2006. the next chart shows four studies or five reports, but there were only four studies, because two reports came from the same study, your government paid for four different studies. two of them issued in 2005 and two of them issued in 2007. there was a second iteration of the d.o.e. report here that occurred in -- that occurred a little later. but 2005 and 2007. they all said essentially the same thing. that the peaking of oil was either present or imminent with potentially devastating consequences. now, why did your government pay
for four reports? because they didn't like what the first report said. and they got the second one and it said the same thing. they didn't like that either. and they ordered a third one and they didn't like what that report said either so the president finally ordered the national petroleum council report. the next chart is one of the quotes from the first report which is a big saic report and dr. hersch was the leading investigator so it's frequently called the hersch report and i have a couple of quotes from this. the peaking of world oil production presents the u.s. and the world with an unprecedented risk management problem. as peak something approached, liquid fuel prices and price volatility will increase dramatically, up to $149 a barrel. and without timely mitigation, the economic, social and political cost will be unprecedented. the next chart.
and this was all out there since 2005. world oil -- world production of conventional oil will reach a maximum and decline thereafter. they said that with quite some confidence because it happened in the united states unquestionably and the united states has to be a micros could am of the world -- micros could much of the world -- microcosm of the peak. others contend it will occur later than a decade. it occurred well within the decade. the world has never faced a problem like this. more than a before the fact, the problem will be pervasive and will not be temporary. previous energy transitions were gradual and evolutionary.
oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary. this is in 2005. your government didn't like what that report said and ignored it. the same year, another report, army corps of engineers and i have several quotes. the current price of oil is $45 to $57 per barrel and is expected to stay in that range for several years. oil prices may go significantly higher and some have predicted prices arranging up to $180 barrel in a few years. well, $147. demand down, price went down. the next chart is another quote from the same study. petroleum experts, great speech,
google albert bartlett and probably given a speech 2,000 times and best speech i have ever heard on energy. have all estimated that a peak in conventional oil production will occur around 2005. the next statement, not from the corps of engineers but a statement from condi rice. we have to do something about the energy problem. i can tell you nothing has really taken me aback more as secretary of state than the way that the politics of energy is, i will use the word warping diplomacy around the world. we have simply got to do something about the warping now of diplomatic effort by the
all-out rush for energy supply. what did we do? the next chart is another quote from the corps of engineers. oil is the most important form of energy in the world today. historically, no other energy source equals oil's intrinsic qualities of extractability, transportability, versatility and cost. the qualities that enabled oil to take over from coal as the front-line energy source for the industrialized world in the middle of the 20th century are as relevant today. next chart is the same quote from the same study. and our energy department, and just go back and look historically. you can google and find them. there are projections of what energy was going to be available to us. and this is his laherrere's
quote, the usgs estimate implies a five-fold increase in discovery rate and reserve decision, for which no evidence is presented. such an improvement in performance is in fact utterly i am plausible given the great technological achievements of the industry over the past 20 years, the worldwide search and the deliberate effort to find the largest remaining prospects. we are finding oil. it was under 7,000 feet of water, 30,000 feet of rock. and they -- the big discovery of oil is 10 billion barrels. we news 40 million a day. in 12 days, we use a billion barrels of oil. that is a staggering number. what that means is if you found
10 billion barrels of oil and you can get it all out, that will last the world 120 days. the next chart. this is shell oil. by the year 2100, the world's energy system will be radically different from today's, the world's current predict meant limits our maneuvering room. we are experiencing a step-change in the growth rate of energy demand and shell estimates that after 2015, supplies of easy to access oil and gas will no longer keep up with demand. he was generally right, and the next chart presents us with a dilemma that many people are concerned about.
and from national security issue. we have only 2% of the world's oil reserves. we use 25% of the world's oil. we only -- little less than 5% of the world's population. import twird. people -- 2% of the world's oil reserves and using 25% of the world's oil presents an un delirble national security risk. there were 30 proposal meant scientists who wrote a letter to president bush saying exactly that. notice, we only have 2% of the world's oil and have 8% of the world's oil.
it's like several kids sharing a soda and half a dozen straws in one soda and can suck it down pretty quick and that's where we are with oil. the next chart is an interesting one and what this chart shows us is the energy density of these various types of fuel. and notice that oil aviation fuel,, natural gas, which is why natural gas is a great fuel for cars if you have the infrastructure to support that. but notice all these other sources of energy, the energy density and oil is just incredible. there's nothing else, there's no readily available source of energy that even comes close to the energy density in oil as we look at alternatives. the next chart and some people
will tell you, yeah, i know oil is short, but who cares, because we are the king of coal with e we are the scrabe of coal and i have had members tell me it will last us 500 years, a common quote amount of coal. we have 250 yearso supply of coal at current use rates. not too many people tell you how much of something we have at current use rates. think about what increasing use will do to that. if we increase the use of coal only 2% and we'll increase the use more than that as we run down on oil and we have learned to do what hitler did and south africa did to create oil and gas from coal, just 2% growth doubles in 35 years.
that's not enough growth to keep our stock market happy. it wants more than 2 purchases. the 2% doubles in 35 years, four times bigger in 75 years, eight times bigger in 105 years, 16 times bigger in 140 years. so that 250 years of coal shrinks to just 50 years of coal -- well, 85 if you use it as coal. if you are go to go convert it to gas, it shrinks to 50 years. your 250 years shrinks to 50 years. if you only have 5% increase in its use and convert it to a gas or liquid. but the reality is that no way you can avoid sharing that coal or the gas or oil you get with
it with the world. if you use oil or gas, then somebody else buys the oil from saudi arabia or hugo chavez, you have no alternative to share it with the world. we have a fourth of the world's oil, so that means it will last the world 12 1/2 years. the national academy of science says we haven't looked at the coal reserves for a long while and they think we have 100 years of coal at current use rates. even if we have 250 years at current use rates, just 2% growth strinchings to 85. convert it to gas or liquid, drops to 50 and you have no alternative but to share it to the world so it drops to 12 1/2 years. the next chart shows us something very interesting. we don't have to look to a
decreased quality of life if we are using less energy. this is the human development index. a per capita energy consumption and you notice that we share a lone position, way out there at the end of the curve. but notice how flat that curve is on top. the people using roughly half the energy we do, the human development index, life expectancy and relative income is about the same as hours using half the energy. that's where europe is. they use half the energy we use. the next chart looks at some of the same things in a different way. this is how happy people are with their station in life. now here we are, using the most
energy, that's on the bottom. we use the most energy and we are pretty happy about things. i think there are 22 countries that feel better about their call in life than we feel, using half as much energy as we use. in both of these curves, you have to get down to about here, which is about a third of the energy before you start falling off quickly in these indexes or your perception of quality of life. the next chart looks at our energy consumption. where does our energy come from? we have been talking about oil. we are getting energy from other sources, too, from natural gas. most of it from oil, petroleum, from coal, from nuclear, about
8%, which is about 19% of our electricity. this is total energy production, not electricity. but 19% of our electricity comes from nuclear. if you don't like nuclear, drive down the road tonight and note that every fifth house and every fifth business would have no lights if we had no nuclear. so it's a little wedge in there, 6%, which is renewables. just 6%. and notice -- hydroelectric is a big part of that. biomass, that's the paper industry and the wood industry burning byproducts and so forth and waste energy, instead of putting it in the landfill, you burn it. geothermal, tapping into the core of the earth. wind and solar, look how tiny they are. huge potential for growth, but for the moment, they are pretty
small. the next chart shows us something interesting and that's about efficiency. the bar on the left looking at incan descent lights. my wife got a few chickens recently and put a light bulb over them to give them heat because about 90% of all the energy in the light bulb, more than 90% goes to heat. if you use a flourescent, look at it, enormous more efficiency. and go to an l.e.d. look at the ratios. l.e.d. flashlight, i forget when i put a battery in it. the next chart. kind of puts this problem in a global perspective. this is the world according to oil. it's what the world would look like if the size of the country
is relative to how much oil it has. we have to modify this a little because wikileaks just exposed some papers from saudi arabia saying they have been arguing about how much oil they have, 40% less oil. that is true of all the opec countries. they could drive the price of oil down. they could produce a certain percentage of their reserves. they didn't find any more oil but the reserves grew on paper. it was a contest amongst liars. and here's the united states, 2% of the oil. we use 25% of the oil. our biggest supplier of oil is canada.
or third biggest supplier is mexico. canada has few people so they can export, mexico has a lot of people, they're too poor to bite oil so they can export. just a few months ago mexico slipped to number three supplier and saudi arabia now is our number two supplier of oil. i want to you look at the china and india over there. they are tiny. last year the chinese bought 13 million cars. we struggled to sell 12 million cars. they have a billion, three hundred million people and they're entering the industrial age. the next chart kind of looks at this -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from rise? ms. foxx: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: romp to -- report to accompany house resolution 276,
resolution providing for further consideration of the bill, h.r. 1540, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012, for military activities of the department of defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strength for fiscal year 2012 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman from maryland for yielding. mr. bartlett: thank you very much. the next chart looks at this same global picture. in a somewhat different way. the left bar is the top 10 oil and gas companies on the basis of oil production. now, we think exxon mobil and royal deutsche shell and b.p. are pretty bill players, don't we? they have only collectively 22% of all the oil production in the world.
the right hand bar looks at another part of this and that is who has the oil. notice that our big three or four don't even show up over there. almost all -- these are the top 10. almost all of the top 10 are arab countries where it's not a company who owns the oil, it's a country that owns the oil. luke oil, which is kind of private up there, they show it in white in russia, is only 2% of the total amount of oil held by the top 10 countries in reserves. by the way, china is buying up reserves all over the world. and i ask the state department, why would they do sna thank? since in today's world it doesn't make any difference who owns the oil, the person who comes to the global oil auction
with enough dollars and let's hope it stays dollars and doesn't go to euros or we're in really big trouble, you buyle the oil you want. so we have only 2% of the oil, we use 25% of the oil. and we aren't buying oil reserves anywhere. what is the difference? the state department's answer, and i don't think that's the correct answer, they said that china didn't understand the marketplace. come on now. a country that during this recession dropped from 14% growth to 8% growth and they don't understand the marketplace? china's doing something else simultaneously, by the way. they're aggressively building a blue water navy. do you think the time might come when china says, hey, you know, we've got a billion, three hundred million people, and these nine hundred million who are in rural areas who through the miracle of communications know the value of an industrialized society and they're saying, gee, how about
us? and i think china sees the empire unraveling the way the soviet empire unraveled if they can't meet the needs of these people. might it be that china is buying all these oil reserves and building a big blue water navy because the day will come they're going to tell us, gee, i'm sorry but it's our oil, we have 1,300,000,000,000 and we can't share the oil? i went to china a little over three years ago and i was stunned. this wasn't just the people concerned about energy in china, it was everybody we met. they talked about post-oil. there will of course be a post-oil world. it will be a long while from now . hyman rickover had no idea how long this age of oil would last. he was 100 years into what he called this golden age. we now know pretty much how long
the age of oil will last. we're about halfway through it. we're 150 years in it and he was right, in the 8,000-year recorded history of mankind, the age of oil would be but a blip. it will be about 300 years long, we're 150 years in it. from now on, the next 150 years there will be ever less and less, harder and harder to get, more and more expensive. this was a five-point plan. conservation, my wife says that she thinks that conservatives ought to be interested in conservation, they don't seem to be. because they come from a common root and she wonders why conservatives aren't interested in conservation. that's the only thing we can do to buy some time. to free up some energy so that we can invest in the developing alternatives. the second and third were domestic sources of energy and diversify as much as you can and the fourth one may surprise you. environmental impact.
be kind to the environment. they know they're not. but i mentioned they have these nine hundred million people that are clamoring for the benefits of an industrialized society so they're building a coal-fired power plant every week. and they're starting the destruction of 100 nuclear power plants and the fifth, the fifth bullet here, international cooperation. they know that there is no way that any one nation can face this problem alone. that we need international cooperation. but while they plead for international cooperation they are planning for the eventuality that we won't have international cooperation because they are buying up oil reserves all over the world. not just oil reserves, they're buying goodwill, what do you need, a soccer stadium, a hospital, roads? wherever they buy oil reserves they're buying goodwill. and remember, they're simultaneously building this huge blue water navy.
what now? our next chart and our last chart for this evening, what america needs. we're the most creative innovative society in the world. if we understand the problem, there's nothing that we can't do. our people just need to understand the problem we need to have leadership, that understands the problem, i tell audiences that the innocence and ignorance on matters of energy and our general population is astounding. and sadly we have truly representative government. what do we do? we need the total commit amment of world war ii, i lived through that war. i was born in 1926. i know the total commitment we had during that war. there's been nothing like it since. we need the technology, intensity and focus of the apollo program, to land a man on the moon. that cost $275 billion in 2006
dollars which was when oil peaked and we need to have the urgency of the manhattan project. minus that, we're going to face the kind of disruptions that was forecast by the hirsch commission, the world has never faced a problem like this. i like challenges, they excite me. and this is a huge challenge, it's an exhilarating challenge. but i know with proper information, with proper knowledge, with proper leadership the united states is up to it. by the way, green technology will again make us an exporting country. people brag about we have this nice clean service-based economy. if you think about that, no matter how much you charge for cutting each other's hair and taking in each other's laundry, that is not going to be a viable economy, isn't it? only three things produce wealth
and manufacturing is a major one with of those. that's now all moving offshore. we can again become a major manufacturing country, by focusing on this green technology and developing the alternatives that we must develop. we're going to continue to maintain our equality of life -- quality of life. mr. chairman, i look forward to a very challenging future, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair would entertain a motion to adjourn. the chair will entertain a motion to adjourn. mr. bartlett: mr. chairman, i move we do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question son the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. according to the house standing -- the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow for
warm welcome and i'm deeply honored that you have given me the opportunity to address congress a second time. mr. vice president, do you remember the time that we were the new kids in town? and i do see a lot of old friends here. and i see a lot of new friends of israel here as well. democrats and republicans alike. [applause]
>> israel has no better friend than america and america has no better friend than israel. [applause] >> we stand together to defend democracy. we stand together to advance peace. we stand together to fight terrorism. congratulations, america. congratulations, mr. president. you got bin laden. good riddens.
[applause] >> in an unstable middle east, israel is the one anchor of stability, in a region of shifting alliances. israel is america's unwavering ally. israel has all been pro-american . israel will always be pro-american. [applause] >> my friends, you don't need to do nation-building in israel. we're already built. [applause] >> you don't need to export democracy to israel. we've already got it. [applause]
and you don't need to send american troops to israel. we defend ourselves. [applause] where are you have been generous in giving us tools to do the job of defending israel on our own. thank you all and thank you, president obama, for your stedfast commitment to jeal israel's security. i know economic times are tough. i deeply appreciate this. [applause] some of you have been telling me
that your belief has been reafffirmed in recent months that support for israel's security is a wise investment in our common future. for an epic battle is now under way in the middle east between tyranny and freedom, a great convullings is shaking the earth from the kiber pass to the straits of gibraltar. and we can all see that the ground is still shifting. now this historic moment holds the promise of a new dawn of freedom and opportunity. there are millions of young people out there who are determined to change their future. we all look at them. they muster courage.
and so should you that in our free societies you can have protests. you can have these protests -- you can't have these protests in tehran. this is real democracy. >> as we share the hopes of these young people throughout the middle east and iran that they will be able to do what that young woman just did -- i think she's young, i couldn't see quite that far -- we must also remember that those hopes
could be snuffed out as they were in tehran in 1979. you remember what happened then. the brief democratic spring in tehran was cut short by an unfor giving tyranny and this it smottered the revolution and inflicted on that long suffering country the rule of hezbollah. so today, the middle east stands at a fateful crossroads. and like all of you, i pray that the peoples of the region choose the path less traveled, the path of liberty.
[applause] >> no one knows what this path consists of better than you -- nobody. this path of liberty is not paid by elections alone. it is paid when governments promote protests in times squares when limits are on rulers and when human rights cannot be crushed by tribal loyalties or mob rule. israel has always emprays braced this path. in the middle east, that has long rejected it. in a region where women are stoned, gays are hanged, christians are persecuted. israel stands out. it is different.
[applause] >> there was a great english writer in the 19th century, george eliot, george eliot predicted over a century ago that once established, the jewish state is -- will shine like a bright star of freedom amid the december potisms of the east. well, she was right. we have a free press, independent courts and an open economy, parliamentary debates
-- and don't laugh. you think you are tough on one another here in congress. come spend a day with us. be my guest. [applause] courageous arab protestors are now struggling to secure these very same rights for their peoples, for their societies. we're proud in israel that over one million arab citizens of israel have been enjoying these rights for decades. [applause] >> of the 300 million arabs in the middle east and north
africa, only israel's arab citizens enjoy real democratic rights. [applause] >> now, i want you to stop for a second and think about that, of those 300 million arabs, less than one half of 1% are truly free and they're all citizens of israel. [applause] >> this startling fact reveals a basic truth. israel is not what is wrong about the middle east, israel is what is right about the middle east. [applause]
israel fully supports the desire of arab peoples in our we long for the day when israel will be one of many real democracies in the middle east. 15 years ago i stood at this very podium -- by the way, it hasn't changed. i stood here and i said that democracy must start to take root in the arab world. well, it's begun to take root, and this beginning holds the promise of a brilliant future of peace and prosperity because i believe that a middle east that is genuinely democratic
will be a middle east truly at peace. but while we hope for the best and while we work for the best, we must also recognize that powerful forces oppose this future. they oppose democracy. they oppose peace. far most is iran. they brutalize its own people. they support attacks against american troops in afghanistan and iraq. it subjects lebanon and gaza. it sponsors terror worldwide. when i last stood here i spoke of the consequences of iran developing nuclear weapons. now, time is running out. the hinge of history may soon turn.
for the greatest daunger of all could soon be upon us. a militant islamic regime armed with nuclear weapons. militant islam threatens the world. it threatens islam. now, i have no doubt and absolutely convinced that it will ultimately be defeated. i believe it will eventually succumb to the forces of freedom and progress. it depends on cloistering young minds for a given amount of years and the process of opening up information will ultimately defeat this movement. but like other fanaticisms that were doomed to fail, militant islam could have its eventually demise. a nuclear armed iran would
ignite a nuclear arms race in the middle east. it would give terrorists a nuclear umbrella. it would mike the nightmare of nuclear terrorism a clear and present danger throughout the world. i want you to understand what this means because if we don't stop it, it's coming. they could put a bomb anywhere. they could put it in a missile. they're working on missiles that could reach this city. they could put it on a ship inside a container to reach every port. they could eventually put it in a suitcase or in a subway. now, the threat to my country cannot be overstated. those that dismiss it are sticking their heads in the sand. in less than seven decades
after six million jews were murdered, iran's leaders deny the holocaust of the jewish people while calling for the annihilation of the jewish state. leaders who spew such venom should be banned from every respectable forum on the planet. but there's something that makes the outrage even greater. you know what that is? it's the lack of outrage because in much of the international community the
calls for our destruction are met with utter silence. it's even worse because there are many who rush to condemn israel for defending itself against iran's terror proxies. not you. not america. you acted differently, you've condemned the iran regime and passed tough sanctions against iran. history will salute you, america. president obama has said that
the united states is determined to prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons. the president successfully led the security council at the u.n. to adopt sanctions against iran. you in congress passed even tougher sanctions. now, these words are vitally important, yet the ayatollah regime briefly suspended its nuclear weapons program only once, in 2003, when it feared the possibility of military action. in that same year, muammar gaddafi gave up his nuclear program and for the same reason. the more iran believes that all options are on the table the less the chance of confrontation.
the ashes of the holocaust. when we say never again we mean never again. israel always returns. israel always reserves the right to defend itself. my friends, while israel will be ever vigilant in its defense we'll never give up our quest for peace. i guess we'll give it up when we achieve it. because we want peace, because we need peace. now, we've achieved historic peace agreement with egypt and
jordan and these have held up for decades. i remember what it was like before we had peace. i was nearly killed in a firefight inside the -- i mean that literally -- inside the suez canal. i was going to the bottom with a 40-pound ammunition pack and somebody reached out to grab me and they're still looking for a guy that would do such a stupid thing. i was nearly killed there. and i remember battling terrorists along both banks of the jordan. too many israelis have lost loved ones. i know their grief. i lost my brother. so no one in israel wants a return to those terrible days. the peace with egypt and jordan
has long served as an anchor of stability and peace -- and with -- this peace should be bolstered by economic and political support to all those who remain committed to peace. the peace agreements between israel and egypt and israel and jordan are vital, but they are not enough. we must also find a way to forge a lasting peace with the palestinians.
two years ago i publicly committed to a solution of two states for two peoples, a palestinian state alongside a jewish state. i am willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace, as the leader of israel, it's my responsibility to lead my people to peace. this is not easy for me. not easy. because i recognize that in a genuine peace we'll be required to give up parts of the ancestral jewish homeland. and you have to understand this, in judea and sue marea, the jewish people are not foreign occupiers.
we are not the british and india, we are not the belgiums in the congo. this is the land of our forefathers. the land of israel. to which abraham brought the idea of one god, where david set out to confront goliath, and where isiah saw vision of eternal peace. no distortion of history, boy, am i reading a lot of distortions of history lately, old and new, no distortion of history can deny the 4,000 -year-old bond between the jewish people and the jewish land.
but there is another truth, the palestinians share this small land with us. we seek a peace in which they'll be neither israel's subjects nor its citizens. they should enjoy a national life of dignity as a free, viable, and independent people living in their own state. they should enjoy a prosperous economy where their creativity and initiative can flourish. we have already seen the beginnings of what is possible.
in the last few years the palestinians have begun to build a better life for themselves. by the way, prime minister phi yad has led this effort on their farther and i wish him a speedy recovery from his recent operation. we have helped on our side, we have helped the palestinian economic growth by removing hundreds of barriers and roadblocks to the free flow of goods and people. and the results have been nothing short of remarkable. the palestinian economy is booming. it's grown by more than 10% a year. and palestinian cities, they look very different today than what they looked just a few years ago. they have shopping malls. movie theaters. restaurants, banks, they even
have e-businesses but you can't see that when you visit them. that's what they have. it's a great change. and all of this is happening without peace. so imagine what could happen with peace. peace would herald a new day for both our peoples, and it could also make the dream of a broader arab-israeli peace a realistic possibility. so now here's the question. you've got to ask it. if the benefits of peace with the palestinians are so clear, why has peace eluded us? because all six israeli prime ministers since the signing of the oslo accords, agreed to
establish a palestinian state. myself included. so why is peace -- has peace not been achieved? because so far the palestinians have been unwilling to accept a palestinian state if it meant accepting a jewish state alongside it. you see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a palestinian state. it's always been about the existence of the jewish state. this is what this conflict is about.
in 1947 the u.n. voted to partition the land into a jewish state and an arab state. the jews said yes. the palestinians said no. in recent years the palestinians twice refused generous offers by israeli prime ministers to establish a palestinian state on virtually all the territory won by israel in the six-day war. they were simply unwilling to end the conflict. and i regret to say this, they continue to educate their children to hate. they continue to name public squares after terrorists. and worst of all they continue to perpetuate the fantasy that israel will one day be flooded by the desendants of palestinian refugees. my friends, this must come to an end.
president obama abbas must do -- president abbas must do what i have done. i stood before my people, and i told you it wasn't easy for me, i stood before my people and said i will accept a palestinian state. it's time for president abbas to stand before his people and say, i will accept a jewish state. those six words will change history.
now, make it clear to the palestinians that this conflict must come to an end. that they are not building a palestinian state to continue the conflict with israel, but to end it. those six words will convince the people of israel that they have a true partner for peace. with such a partner, the palestinian -- rather the israeli people will be prepared to make a far-reaching compromise. i will be prepared to make a far-reaching compromise. this compromise must reflect the
dramatic demographic changes that have occurred since 1967. the vast majority of the 650,000 israelis who live beyond the 1967 lines reside in neighborhoods and suburbs of jerusalem and greater tel aviv. now, these areas are densely populated, but they are geographically quite small. and under any realistic peace agreement, these areas as well as other places of critical strategic and national importance will be incorporated into the final borders of israel. the status of the settlements will be decided only in negotiations, but we must also
be honest. so i'm saying today something that should be said publicly, by all those who are serious about peace, in any real peace agreement, in any peace agreement that ends the conflict , some settlements will end up beyond israel's borders. now the precise delineation of those borders must be negotiated. we'll be generous about the size of the future palestinian states. but as president obama said, the border will be different than the one that existed on june 4, 1967. israel will not return to the boundaries of 1967.
>> i want to be very clear on this point, israel will be generous on the signs of the palestinian state but will be very firm on where we put the border with it. this is an important principle, it shouldn't be lost. we recognize a palestinian state must be big enough to be viable, to be independent, to be prosperous. all of you, and the president, too, have referred to israel as the homeland of the jewish people. just as you have been talking about a future palestinian state, is the homeland of the palestinian people. jews from around the world have a right to immigrate to the one and only jewish state. and palestinians from around the world should have a right to
immigrate if they so choose to a palestinian state. here's what this means. it means that the palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside the borders of israel. everybody knows this, it's time to say it, it's important. and as for jerusalem, only a democratic israel has protected the freedom of worship for all faiths in the city. throughout the millennial history of the jewish capital,
the only time that jews, christians, and muslims could worship freely, could have unfettered access to their holy sites, has been during israel's sovereignty over jerusalem. jerusalem must never again be divided. jerusalem must remain the united capital of israel. . i know this is a difficult issue for palestinians, but i believe that with creativity and with good will, a solution can be found. sos the peace i plan to forge with a palestinian partner committed to peace.
but you know very well that in the middle east, the only peace that will hold is a peace you can defend. so peace must be anchored in security. [applause] in recent years, israel withdrew from south lebanon and fwa sa. we thought we'd get peace. that's not what we got. we got 12,000 rockets fired from those areas on our cities, on our children by hezbollah and hamas. the u.n. peace keepers in lebanon failed to prevent the smuggling of this weaponry. the european observers in fwa sa, they evaporated overnight. so if israel simply walked out of the territories, the flow of
weapons into a future palestinian state would be unchecked and missiles fired from it could reach virtually every home in israel in less than a minute. i want you to think about that, too. imagine there's a siren going on and we have less than 60 seconds to find shelter from an incoming rocket. would you live that way? do you think anybody can live that way in we're not going to live that way either. the truth is that israel needs unique security arrangements because of its unique size.
it's one of the smallest countries in the world. mr. vice president, i'll grant you this, it's bigger than delaware. it's even bigger than rhode island. but that's about it. israel on the 1967 lines would be half the width of the washington beltway. here's a bit of nostalgia. i came to washington 30 years ago as a young diplomat, it took me a while, but i finally figured it out. there is an america beyond the beltway. but israel on the 1967 lines would be only nine miles wide. so much for strategic depth.
so it's therefore vital, absolutely vital that a palestinian state be fully demilitarized and it's vital, absolutely vital, that israel maintain a long-term military presence along the jordan river. solid security arrangements on the ground are necessary not only to protect the peace, they're necessary to protect israel in case the peace unvalve -- unravels. because in our unstable region, no one can guarantee that our peace partners today will be there tomorrow. and my friends, when i say
tomorrow, i don't mean someties tant time in the future. i mean tomorrow. peace can only be achieved around the negotiating table. the attempt to make a settlement through the united nations will mot make peace. it should be forcefully opposed by all those who want to see this conflict end. i appreciate the president's clear position on this issue. peace cannot be imposed. it must be negotiated. but peace can only be negotiated with partners committed to peace and hamas is
not a partner for peace. hamas remains committed to israel's destruction. and to terrorism. they have a charter. that charter not only calls for the obliteration of israel, it says, kill the jews. everywhere you find them. hamas' leader condemned the killing of osama bin laden and praised him as a holy warrior. again, i want to make this clear. israel is prepared to sit down today and negotiate peace with the palestinian authority. i believe we can fashion a brilliant future for our children. but israel will not negotiate with a palestinian government backed by the palestinian version of al qaeda.
that we will not do. so i say to president abbas, tear up your pact with hamas. sit down and negotiate. make peace with the jewish state. and if you do, i promise you this, israel will not be the last country to welcome a palestinian state as a new member of the united nations. it will be the first to do so.
my friends, the momentous trials of the last semplery and the unfolding events of this century attest to the decisive role of the united states in defending peace and advancing freedom. providence and trust of the united states to be the guardian of liberty. all people who cherish freedom owe a profound debt of gratitude to your great nation. among the most grateful nations is my nation. the people of israel. who have fought for their liberty and survival against impossible odds in ancient and modern times alike. i speak on behalf of the jewish people and the jewish state when i say to you, representives of america, thank you -- representatives of
bonn >> congressman paul brown who served on the homeland's security committee will talk about the threat about titus since the death of bin laden. then john on the defense authorization progress in the situation in libya. later she discusses the cost of eliminating tax credits. washington journal at 7:00 eastern on c-span. on c-span 3, a conference on the federal debt and other fiscal challenges. speakers include bill clinton, paul brian, jean spurling. coverage begins at 9:15 eastern. >> president obama and michelle obama were welcomed at buckingham palace by queen
>> mr. president, i am delighted to welcome you and mrs. obama to london. prince philip and i are so glad that you are visiting the united kingdom again. we have fond memories of our first meeting during the g20 conference in london in 2009. it also gave me much pleasure to welcome mrs. obama and your two daughters here almost two years ago.
your visit to this country inevitably reminds us of our shared history, our common language, and our strong intellectual and cultural links. it also reminds us that your country twice came to the rescue of the free and democratic world when it was facing military disaster. on each occasion, after the end of those destructive wars, the generosity of the united states made a massive contribution to our economic recovery. today, the united states remains our most important ally, and our two nations contribute to the security and prosperity of our peoples and of the world through shared national interests. but our relationship goes far beyond our military and
diplomatic ties. in your inaugural address, you spoke to the american people of the values that lay at the heart of your nation's success -- honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism, and of the sturdy alliances an enduring convictions with which your nation had met past challenges and would meet future ones, too. if i may say so, these values underscore much of the life of the united kingdom, also. together with our alliance, they continue to guide our actions as we confront the challenges of a changing world. it is unfortunate that there are so many troubles facing the
world today. but we are encouraged that in most respects our two countries see these problems in the same light. for this reason, we have been able to act together in fields as varied as science, research, and higher education, to find solutions or to at least make progress towards tackling so many of the social and economic difficulties that confront nations in all parts of the globe. entertainment may not be so obviously an example of our close ties, but it forms part of the lives of a great many of our people. over the years, we have enjoyed some of america's most spectacular musical productions and any number of what we call films, which you might prefer to call movies.
in return, british films and theatrical productions have achieved considerable success in your country. this exchange of people and projects has enlarged and invigorated our common language, although i think you will agree, we don't always use it in quite the same way. [laughter] mr. president, i firmly believe that the strength of our links and many shared interests will continue to ensure that when the united states and the united kingdom stand together, our people and other people of goodwill around the world will be more secure and can become more prosperous. ladies and gentlemen, we are here to celebrate the tried, tested, and, yes, special
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on