is enough money, $2.5 trillion we spend every year. 16% of our gross national product. we spend more than any other industrialized nation in the world. there is enough money in the system that's out there that we can make sure that 46 million uninsured or underinsured people have access to health care. how are we go to go do that, with the five p's. people having access to health care. when they use hospital room as their primary care physician, they will cost us more. making sure they have a portable plan that allows them to tae plan that allows them to take it from job to job to job and end this notion of pre-existing conditions. if you are working at one place and go to another job and somehow being pregnant or being difficult betic or chronic disease, somehow eliminates you from seeking health care from this new provider.

and pre-existing conditions, providing incentives to physicians to not only enter the field and they are making the health care decisions. lastly, prevention, prevention. four cents on every health care dollar is on prevention. we have to do a better job. the president has called us to action. the nation has suffered for too long under a system that has excluded a few and allowed others to seek access. and this delivery system that we have should be about health care and not health sickness plan that we have that is a fee for service, but encompasses all the things we talked about tonight. i thank the gentlelady from maine for allowing me to be part of this. and i yield back my time. . ms. pingree: i thank my colleagues for willing to be here and i yield back the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maine yields

back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher backer, is now recognized for 60 minutes. mr. rohrabacher: thank you, mr. speaker. as i stand here on the floor of the house tonight, i am reminded about the television series and i'm reminded of that series, "the twilight zone." and these days i half expect rod sterling to appear from behind a curtain and announce, this is "the twilight zone." yes, there is an almost bizarre sense of unreality here in the nation's capitol. the transformation of private liability into public debt on a massive scale, the unprecedented level of deficit spending, debt piled upon debt, borrowing from china to give foreign aid to other countries, the willingness

to pass draconian restrictions and controls on our national economy and on the lives of our people. and while seeking to save us from a recession, congress shovels hundreds of billions of dollars into the financial industry, much of which has ended up in the pockets of fat cats and wheeler dealers who have been giving themselves multimillion-dollar bonuses even as they drove down their own companies into bankruptcy. the give-away and the lack of oversight has been mind boggling. and we don't know where hundreds of billions of dollars have went and we don't know to whom. yet, we know that the taxpayers are now on the hook for this increase in our national debt. we've watched as this has been

happening and of course there's so many things that are being done here today to our people but we also note how much is not being done that needs to be done to protect our people, which is just as mind boggling. our nation, our nation's borders leak like a spaghetti strainer. millions of people illegally continue to pour into our country to consume our limited health care and by wait we just heard a lot about health care. why are we not hearing that we should not be picking up the tab for the tens of millions of illegals that have come into this country? but that's not part of the discussion. but millions of people are flowing into our country and they're consuming the limited health care, education and other social service dollars that we have. we have limited money and yet they're taking that money and

they're taking jobs from our people and sometimes they come here and they commit crimes against our people. and our government just sits and lets it happen. even while we're passing all these hundreds of millions on to wheeler dealers in the financial industry. we can't even come to grips with our illegal immigration problem. we can't even build a fence. in california we can't even build a new water system in the middle of a drought. this because we are told is because of a tiny fish, the delta smelt. so our people will have to suffer because of concern over a little, tiny, worthless fish that isn't even good enough to be used as bait. so last week, even amidst california's tremendous difficulties, with drought conditions and a shortage of water at near crisis, this house, the house of

representatives, voted not for the people of california, but for a fish. no water for our people, but if -- because if we would give it to the people, that little fish might be affected in a detrimental way. perhaps the most damaging of the weird policies that i've described is america's long-time commitment not to develop its own domestic energy resources. even as high energy prices have brought suffering and economic hardship to our people, we have not been developing our own resources. even as we see dollars being siphoned from the pockets of our people and deposited in could havers overseas, en-- coughers overseas, enriching foreigners, some of those foreigners who hate us, while our hard-earned dollars are being extracted from us, massive deposits of domestic oil and gas worth trillions of

dollars are untouched, untapped and unused. even as california sinks into an economic catastrophe, off the coast are huge calve earns filled with massive he -- calve -- caverns filled with massive deposits of oil and gas. even as california cuts and cancels public services to our people, billions of dollars of tax revenue could be derivinged by utilizing that oil and gas that's just sitting there right off our shore. yet the state of california lets it sit there while our people suffer and the state goes broke. trillions of dollars have been sent overseas for energy while at home no new oil refineries, no hydroelectric dams, no nuclear power plants. as i say, all of this seems a

bit bizarre. and it may be a bit bizarre, but it is not meaningless nonsense. those who have insisted upon these anti-domestic energy development policies know exactly what they're doing. they want to change our way of life. whether we like it or not. so a few decades ago they grabbed onto a theory. the theory that the world is heating up because humankind uses carbon-based fuels. read that, oil, gas and coal. this theory gives them the ability to stampede politicians and even stampede scientists with a certain amount of prodding and promises of being excluded from grants or promises to receive grants, but that theory gives them the ability to get these people, whether

they're scientists or politicians, to support draconian policies and mandates, changes in our economy and lifestyle, that they otherwise would never dream of considering supporting. all of this is in the name of protecting us from a climate calamity, manmade global warming. well the good book says the truth shall make you free. well, a lie can destroy your freedom. manmade global warming has given respectable cover to advocates of a tax and regulatory policy that no one would even consider, except, of course, unless it's to take care of an emergency. in reality the effort behind the manmade global warming juggernaut is the biggest power grab in history. it gives politicos who always wanted to control the behavior

of normal people a seemingly legitimate reason to do so. even over those normal people's objections. this power grab was set in motion in the very first days of the clinton administration in 1993. when the clinton administration took over, one of the first actions that the administration was to do was to fire dr. william happener -- happer, a man who dare challenge vice president gore. yes, the doctor believed in science, not in the junk science of radicals, and he was skeptical, although not an advocate of either side in the global warming debate. >> he didn't fit in so out he went -- he didn't fit in so out he went. from there on the pattern was very clear and it's very clear in order to receive even one penny of federal research money, a scientist would have to toe

the line on the manmade global warming alarmist theory. any dissident would be quickly cut off from any federal research funding. that went on for eight years. so when approaching this concept of manmade global warming we must examine the science behind it. so let's state right off. the unconscionable intimidation of the science community during the clinton years has ensured that bad science permeates the entire argument of the alarmists who are perpetuating this manmade myth. that is based -- this manmade myth, global warming, is based on bad science and it's very easy to discern this by the efforts made by the manmade

global warming advocates to cut off all debate on this issue. so not only did we see people in the scientific community being intimidated with the promise of having their research funds cut off, but now after this and after the presentation of the global warming alarmist alternative, let's say, alternative projects and alternatives -- alternative policies, that there has been an intense effort to cut off debate on the issue of manmade global warming itself. that is why in congress they are now trying to quickly slip by a drastic life-altering legislation that is based on the science of manmade global warming. and they want to do this without confronting the basic science. so, if we want to take a look at

the science of global warming, the first thing to notice is, why have those people who believe in global warming spent so much effort and so much time and been so abusive in trying to cut off debate? has anyone ever heard the slogan, case closed? come on. if you really are honest, admit, that is an attempt and was a huge eament anticipate -- attempt to cut off debate. the debate is over. how many heard that? again, an attempt not to discuss the issues, not to have an honest discussion of the science, but never to discuss the science. that is what the language -- and that is the language of the debate and what we have here is a language of debate and discussion restriction, not the language being used by the advocates of global warming for let's have an honest discussion.

the words they use are aimed at limiting and restricting and cutting off debate. case closed. al gore has -- never takes any questions. when he goes out and speaks and goes to universities, not only does he not debate, which would be a good idea, he refuses to take questions. how many times have we heard, every prominent scientist agrees, so you must be a cook if you disagree? well, every prominent scientist doesn't agree and the names of hundreds of manmade -- of those people in the scientist community, people who are head -- scientific community, people who are heads of universities, one of the great scientists from m.i.t., from all over the world, there are major scientists who have put themselves on the record and taken a great risk in doing so telling the public that, no, they are very

skeptical and have serious doubts about the manmade global warming theory. the name calling and stifling in this debate by the manmade global warming advocates has been shameful and a disservice to democracy. if someone so much as tries to make a joke it is reported as if it is being serious. the people do that are themselves admitting that they cannot stand a major scientific and truthful scrutiny in exchange of ideas. so what about the science? let's take a look and i would challenge any member of congress to come here and debate me on the science of this issue. . first, let's talk about the global warming cycle that is being caused by human activity. that's the basis of this whole issue. we know that thrb weather and

climate cycles throughout the history of the world, going back to prehistoric times. the global warming alarmists now are using a low point of 500-year cycle of cooling and that was at the end of the little ice age as the baseline for determining if humankind is making the planet hotter at this time. so let's get back to it. there have been all these cycles through the history of the planet. and this cycle, there is a cycle that is going on. but to analyze that cycle, those people are saying, manmade global warming as differentiated from all the other cycles are using the 1850's as their baseline and that is at a 500-year low in the temperature of the earth. it was the end of what they

called the little ice age. is that good science? should we really be upset when there is a one or two-degree rise from a 500-year low point in temperatures? so, come on, let's answer that scientific questions. let's not call me names, which has happened over and again as if i don't believe in science or that i am any number of names. let look and be honest. those people using names do not understand the issues and are afraid to discuss the science and the issues at hand. they're doing a disservice to our country and they are exposing themselves as being people who do not believe in the very issue they are advocating because they can't defend it. so science question number one, are they not using an unreasonably cooler moment as the baseline for analysis? is that an unreasonable thing to

do to start your settings and use as a baseline a 500-year low in temperature in trying to tell us what whehould be concerned about the warming trend. question number two, what about the other weather cycles and others we had long before. thousand years ago, things were much warmer than now. iceland and greenland were farmed by nordsman. there were farms there. there was a time period a thousand years ago, there was not only cattle. people thought that vineland is something that leif ericson made up. the weather was warmer and there was a cycle. was that cycle the decline in temperature of the little ice

age? was that caused by human beings? how about all the other cycles? were they caused by human beings? if we see there were cycles that even happened before prehistoric man even existed, there must be some other explanation. well, what is that explanation? so, if there were cycles before human beings were on the planet, what is the other explanation? it seems to many scientists who believe this that the cycles of climate have followed solar activity. that's why -- the sun is the biggest force of energy on the planet. and they believe that many scientists believe that it's solar activity and not human activity that's creating this cycle, just as it did the other cycles that we have gone through long before human beings even existed on the planet. and that also explains why we have cycles monitoring those on

earth that have been observed on other plan et cetera. that's right. on other plan et cetera. -- planets. in recent years, we have been treated to the outcries of agony about the melting that is taking place in the arctic. this is being used to touch peoples' hearts to get them alarmed so they will accept the draconian controls that will come from those people who are advocating policies to deal with manmade global warming. they're saying, it's our activity that's causing the ice caps to melt. well, who hasn't seen these pictures of these polar bears? the poor polar bears on the ice flow, obviously the victims of manmade global warming. not so fast. yes, the ice cap is retreating. no doubt about that. but what about the ice cap on

mars yes, right now at the same time we have our ice cap that is retreating, the ice cap on mars is retreating at exactly the same time and it seems to be paralleling what's going on on the earth. doesn't it indicate that it might be the sun and not somebody driving an s.u.v. or modern technology that is creating such a cycle, creating the situation that left the bear in a warmer climate? well, if so, let's note this. if it is indeed caused by the sun and yet we have had this propaganda touch our hearts to get us not to think but to feel about the polar bear, let us note that if it is the sun and not us, then that polar bear is the victim and has nothing to do with manmade global warming, but is being challenged like animals

have been challenged throughout the history of our planet by climate cycles. and let me note this, how many have not heard that the polar bear is becoming extinct? the polar bears are not becoming extinct. in fact, the number of polar bears on this planet have expanded. there are four to five times the number of polar bears than there were in the 1960's, but you would believe from what you have seen in the movies and ice caps melting and al gore showing, by the way, a piece of styrofoam that was breaking off in a movie presented to us as if that's the ice caps breaking off the arctic, no, you would think that the polar bears were doomed and we were to blame for it. well, here's another scientific challenge. ok.

if we have cycles already, if the ice is melting on mars just as it is here, what's the science behind his claim that mankind is causing the climate cycle, if there is a climate cycle and what climate cycle it is, so let's have an answer to that. let's not call me names, which someone did, i remember reading this the internet, the polar bear is near extinction, which is clear from many other sources that the polar bear population is going up. but besides that, that's not the point. the point is if the polar bear is in whatever condition it's in is not due to the condition that humans are driving automobiles or we have to be controlled by the government in order to protect the polar bear from climate changes that our

activities bring about. manmade global warming theory and my colleague from texas, if he would like to step in for a few words. mr. gohmert: i appreciate my friend from california yielding. with regard to the polar bears and natural resources committee, we have been hearing that by 20 years ago, we were up to under 12,000 polar bears in the whole world. and now we know there are over 25,000 polar bears in the world. they're doing pretty well. but as we know -- and there's some friends here from texas. in texas, we have a problem with overpopulation of deer, because they don't know when to stop overpopulating, so we have seasons to help them keep from starving to death. it is misleading to stee the ice cap breaking off and the

starving mother bear and the cub, that's heartbreaking and it's heartbreaking that millions of dollars come flowing in. and if you've got millions of dollars coming in from people who feel bad about the polar bears -- and by the way, the bush administration was asked to say that the polar bears were -- should be on the endangered species list, but the bush administration knew they were increasing, just like you are saying. and so what they did was compromise and allowed polar bears to be listed as threatened, even though they're increasing in population. but i'm pleased the polar bears are doing well. and hopefully we won't have to open up additional seasons, and will moderate their behavior. we saw with the caribou.

people talking about how terrible it is to produce oil in alaska and we heard if they ever put that pipeline up to prudhoe bay, it would kill off the caribou in the area. it would destroy their mating habits. turns out that caribou, now when they want to go on dates, invite each other to go to the pipeline on cold weather nights because that oil is warm going through the pipeline and makes them amarous and up to 30,000 caribou in that heard hh. turns out that -- herd. but it reminds one a little bit about the scare that went across the nation about carbons. we had toe outlaw those that

were destroying the ozone layer. and one eruption of mount saint hellens put that into the atmosphere. sometimes i think we think much too highly of ourselves as human beings and the effect we have on the world and the globe when we need to be good stewards of this wonderful planet, but we should not be fear monday engineerers that scare people out of doing things to help themselves and their families. i appreciate my friend from california. mr. rohrabacher: i appreciate my friend from texas reminding us of a past scare that proved not to be based on science. and i remember i was about -- couldn't eat cranberries for two years.

they took sylimates. and 9 same intensity on global warming indicated we needed massive controls on our economy based on controlling acid rain. and what happened to that? ronald reagan held firm. there was a project that went through for $500 million science research program that showed there is a little bit of a problem with acid rain, but not much. but it was not the threatening force that we were told at that time, which would have cost tens of billions of dollars if we tried to use their agenda, what was being put forth in order to, quote, stop acid rain. the manmade global warming theory is just that. it is based on another

scientific factor and that is kth. let's talk about co-2. that's what is in the atmosphere. co-2, carbon monoxide is a miniscule part of our atmosphere. so co-2 is yes, part of the atmosphere, but it was always considered a very small part of the atmosphere. and let me just make sure we get this right, that co-2, most people believe that it is a large part of the atmosphere, because i have asked them, but in reality, it is less than -- it is less than .04%. what we're saying is. it's much less than 1/10 of 1% in the atmosphere is co-2.