brush fires in the minds of people. may the students of iran prevail in their holey cause of freedom and that's just the -- holy cause of freedom and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. ms. woolsey. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> consent to speak out of order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. recognized for five minutes. . mr. delahunt: i rise today so that my colleagues in the house of representatives can join me in recognizing a special piece of americaa, the cape cod baseball league of cape cod, massachusetts on the occasion of its 125th anniversary. widely renowned as the best summer league college ate league

in the nation, the cape cod baseball league today consists of 10 franchises in two, five-team divisions. in its early years during world war i and world war ii, the league was largely populated by young g.i.'s fresh from their service overseas. the modern era of the cape cod baseball league commenced in 1963 when it was officially sanctioned by the ncaa. throughout its existence, the league has been responsible for several cy young and most valuable player awards. and many hall of famers and

renowned scouts and managers, all of whom received their start in the cape cod baseball league. entering its 125th season, the league continues to offer the most talented baseball players from across the country the opportunity to demonstrate their skills in front of professional scouts. as a pioneer among the nation's summer leagues in many respects, including the use of wooden bats, the cape cod baseball league is truly america's league. the young players learn the importance of sportsmanship and modesty, not only on the diamond and in the dug youth, but also through the generations of cape

cod families who open their homes to host them during the summer season. at a time that has not always been conducive to preserving the integrity of the game, the cape cod baseball league continues to embody the golden american tradition of our wholesome national pasttime. that pasttime has been kept alive in its pure and amateur ste owing to the outstanding efforts of this volunteer organization, which enables fans to enjoy games at no expense. where visions of red sox, cracker jacks and lemonade evoke

feelings of nostalgia of the bygone days of america's favorite sport, baseball. the cape cod baseball league stands out as a national treasure that can captivate any young man or woman through nine heart-pounding innings. on this historic occasion, i'm particularly proud to honor the cape cod baseball league for 125 years of success and its well established, beloved republic pewtation among cape cod residents and tourists alike. congratulations to the cape cod baseball logan may you forever be, as the saying goes, where the stars of tomorrow shine tonight. and i yield back, madam speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. jones. mr. burton. for what purpose does gentleman rise? >> unanimous consent to take mr. burton's place and refer permission to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. speaker, when congress passed the american recovery and reinvestment act earlier this spring, the administration and congressional democrats argued that the $800 billion funding spree was necessary. it was rushed through with little time to review the

policies that would implement this massive spending plan. i opposed this for many reasons. it will put an unbefble -- unbeerable burden of debt on our children and grandchildren. it was pork barrel spending. i continue to believe it will not grow jobs in our economy. the government is not nor should it be an employment service that mandates private sector hiring decisions. predictbly, we are seeing these reckless spending decisions are not growing our economy. the june unemployment saw the rate go to 9.5%. this translates into 467,000 job losses in the month of june

alone. before passage of the arra, the obama administration predicted that unemployment would peak at 8% before decreasing this fall. the unemployment has already reached 9.5%. and the situation is not likely to improve until long after the white house predicted. however, the administration hardly has cause to be surprised. after they passed this massive spending spree as a job creation measure, it turns out that jobs don't seem to be a priority at all. i would like to bring my colleagues' attention to the smart grid investment grants which received $3.9 billion in the recovery act. the vice president himself announced this grant in april when he said, this is about jobs, jobs. and the information provided to

the applicants for this grant funding, one of the frequently asked questions is, will d.o.e. use the number of jobs estimated to be created and/or retained as a criteria for rating a proposal for funding? the answer, no. let me repeat that again. will jobs be used as criteria to determine whether or not this project will be funded? the answer from the d.o.e. is no. in fact, it goes on to say that d.o.e. removes the criteria on the extent of jobs creation and will require applicants to report quarrel on the -- quarterly on the numbers of jobs retained. it was supposed to be the primary reck which sit and now it has been changed to a reporting requirement. thinks typical washington. instead of creating more jobs, we are creating more paperwork.

the vice president now says they misread the economy. but the truth is, they misread the solutions. the stimulus bill is a grab bag of democrat spending priorities, not a timely targeted and temporary stimulus package. government spending does not, does not create jobs. it consumes it and destroys it. we are throwing money at a problem that is not increasing consumer confidence, financial certainty or a business environment that will encourage job growth. democrat policies are clearly, clearly not creating jobs. i cannot, i cannot in good conscience justify throwing good money after bad that only leaves a legacy of debt for our children and grandchildren to pay. i will continue to post policies that i believe hurt the american people and the people i represent. and i will gladly work with my colleagues across the aisle whenever there is an opportunity to do so, because good policies

that help tex answer and americans aren't republican or democrat. they are the right thing to do. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. sarbanes from maryland. mr. sarbanes: i wanted to talk about health care, because that is really the most pressing issue that's facing our country right now. it is tied to the economic situation of millions of americans. so even as we struggle to deal with this difficult economy, we can't lose sight of the importance of health care reform. now, we have in this country a real paradox with our health care system because on the one hand, america has the best doctors. it has the best nurses and has highly, highly trained professionals and i believe having worked with caregivers

for almost 20 years, representing providers in maryland, i think we have the most compassionate caregivers you can find any place. we have wonderful, fine institutions. in my district, the university of maryland medical center, johns hopkins health system. these are some of the finest institutions in the world, year after year being identified at the top of their class. and we have amazing technology. every year the advances in technology make it easier for us to address some of the most persistent health care problems in our country. so that's on the one side of the equation. on on the other side, we have the highest health care costs in the developed world. we have tremendous shortages of our caregivers, shortages of

physicians, nurses and many other categories of those who provide care. we have millions of people, millions of people who have no health insurance. and we argue over the number. some say it's 47 million, some say it's less, but we are talking about tens of millions of people who don't have health insurance coverage in this country. it means we have a problem. there are millions more who are underinsured. what does that mean? it means they have health coverage, but they are one serious health crisis away from pitching over the edge in terms of their families and themselves. and then those who do have coverage, adequate coverage, are paying premiums that go up by 15%, 20%, 25% a year. we're all in it together. we all understand at some level that the current system is

broken. this is our chance, this is our time. this is the moment to fix it and the american people have been asking for this for decades. so we have to take up the charge. we're not going to borrow anybody's model. we're not going to import a model from england, canada or france. we're going to design our own american brand of health care and we're going to fix this system. we can do that. there are two parts of the discussion. there's the coverage discussion, how do we get to where everybody has decent access to care. i think we ought to pursue this public plan option, because it will keep costs down and compete with the private insurance plans that had a strangelehold on the system. americans understand this. they moved past this. they know we need the public option, because it will create a more level playing field. and in the words of the president, it will keep the insurance companies honest. in addition to the coverage

issue is the delivery of care. and we have to look at investing in our workforce. and i have interviewsed legislation that attempts to do that, the health care workforce investment act of 2009, which would create a national workforce advisory board to do just this, look at this question of filling in the workforce. we've got to focus more on primary and preventive care, so we can keep people healthy on the front end, instead of looking after them after they get sick on the back end. we need to change our system and move in that direction. and i like state-based health care. instead of expecting people to come to the health care system, let's take the health care system to where people are already gathered. let's go to our schools, where 98% of the people between the ages of five and 15 can be found. let's go to senior centers and provide care to our seniors where they are gathering and

let's go to workplaces and incentivize with tax incentives to put clinics in place to serve working adults right there where they are in the workplace. these are all things we can do to improve the delivery system. let me just close with this. as this health care reform leaves the station, there are three things that need to be on that train so it's a train to somewhere and not a train to no where. those three thingsr universal access to coverage and i think this public plan option is a wonderful way to go. second, investment in our workforce. and third focusing on primary and preventive care. if we do that, we'll fix the health care system for millions of americans across this country. i yield back my time. . for what purpose does the

gentleman rise? mr. gingrey: to address the house for five minutes. mr. speaker, thank you. mr. speaker, today the residents of a town in my district are saying goodbye to a local hero who died while bravely serving his nation in afghanistan. lance corporal seth sharp was killed in action on july 2, 2009, from a gunshot wound to his neck during one of the biggest united states military operations in afghanistan since the global war on terror began back in 2001. later this week i will join seth's family, his friends and supporters at his funeral to honor the life of this brave soldier. a life given as the ultimate sacrifice, a sacrifice of duty and love, for as it is written in john, greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay

down his life for his friends. this was not seth's first deployment in the global war on terror. he enlisted with the marines at age 17 and was serving his nation in iraq at age 18. even at such a young age seth embraced the challenges of the marine corps and took pride in serving his country. his service and his sacrifice will never be forgotten. lance corporal sharp leaves behind his fiance and life long sweetheart, katie, his father and his step-mother, rick and tiffany sharp, his mother, angela preston, as well as many other close relatives and friends spread out all across the country. mr. speaker, my prayers go out to his family and my most

heartfelt gratitude goes to lance corporal sharp for his selfless sacrifice for this nation. i ask all members to please join me in honoring the distinguished memory of lance corporal seth sharp. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. ms. kaptur. ms. kaptur: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: thank you. mr. speaker, tomorrow hundreds and hundreds of americans will gather in new york to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the st. lawrence seaway development corporation, the fourth sea coast of our country, stretching all the way from duluth, minnesota, all the way out to the atlantic ocean, and for communities such as toledo and others, the st. lawrence seaway

water borne corridor is the gateway to the atlantic and the world beyond. the seaway is the lynch pin in our effort to create sophisticated, modern distribution hubs that can skirt the congestion in coastle ports in our country. the seaway, our core corridor that we share with the canadians, is the vital link of commerce between our nation's heartland and world markets. therefore, investments in the seaway are investments in our economic future for the great lakes states but for the nation. as the united states congress considers clean energy legislation and a national power generation policy, it is important that that policy remediate a major national inequity that must be included in any reform bill. power costs are just horrendous in the great lakes states. in fact, double and triple the rates of our western and

southern brethren in our country. and when you think about those regions having had the luxury of federal power support for nearly 75 years and they've enjoyed those power supports, they were really a product of a nation that believed in growing to the west and the south and we made it happen. but our great lakes region along with some northeastern states are the only parts of our country without equal access to federal benefits for electric power generation and transmission, thus denying competitive rates to our residential, commercial and industrial consumers. the high costs of power just in my district here in northern ohio at 14 cents to 18 cents per kilowatt hour, is a serious factor contributing to job loss in fact, the midwest is put at a competitive disadvantage with the entire rest of the country not because we have fewer resources or less skilled workers but because federal

subsidies encourage development in western and southern areas but not in ours. the house version of the energy bill includes a provision members of the great lakes states worked very hard to incorporate. it begins the process of leveling the energy playing field for these great lakes states and creating the startup of federal energy parity. the great lakes region is home to 160 million people that account for well over 1/3 of our nation's gross domestic product and we've long endured these serious competitive disadvantages because of the absence of federal power parity. this provision aims to level the playing field with all other regions of the country, the south, the west, the southeast, the tennessee valley authority, that have benefited for over 75 years from federal power assistance to develop their economies. these regions borrow at very favorable federal funds rates and also receive significant energy infrastructure

investments annually with the western power authority alone receiving over $228 million just in the last year. in the recovery bill passed earlier this year, there was an additional $6.5 billion just for bondville power authority and the western area power authorize, along with $10 million for added infrastructure and administration. for infrastructure, for renewable power generation, really, these federal supports provide a huge strategic advantage. the language we're offering would propose a similar $3.5 billion borrowing authority to create jobs through the development of clean energy platforms and if we don't do this in our region, those green energy jobs are going to flow to the other parts of the country. this provision would allow a federal instrumentality such as the st. lawrence corporation to undertake these green energy development activities across great lakes communities. and as the energy bill moves to the senate, members of this body

must continue to demand equal treatment from the federal government for all regions of our nation. our regions track record -- our region's track record is commendable, it speaks for itself. we have massive biofuels industries, the first solar plant at a u.s. national guard base, establishment of clean energy incubators at many of our advanced universities and an expanding rosser of startup green companies that are pursuing exciting opportunities in solar, wind and other green power sectors. the great lakes deserve to be a part of the solution to clean energy in our country. but in order to do this, we need to have that federal energy power parity with the other regions of the country that have now developed as a result of what the midwest and northeast did for them over three quarters of a century ago. a true revolution in green energy can only be ushered in a balanced way when the great lakes have the same

instrumentalities that ushered in generations of western and southern growth. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. mr. gohmert. texas. that was a plight gentleman. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? -- polite gentleman. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today the obama administration has floated an idea that really is rather shocking and is quite different than what i thought we were going to do with the tarp money that's coming back to us. in fact, last week i had two town meetings where i talked to folks in south carolina's fourth district about how it is that the $350 billion of tarp someone

now coming back to us, the taxpayers of the united states. in fact, $70 billion has been repaid, we're earning interest ranging from 5% to 9% on that and last reports we had, totaling $4.5 billion. that's paid back to us in interest. so we have the principal return of about $70 billion. we have interest coming back to us in the form of the magnitude of somewhere around $4.5 billion. today's story indicates it really -- it's a larger amount of interest, it's $6.5 billion. now, what the obama administration's talking about doing, and this truly is shocking, mr. speaker, is that that money would not come back to pay down the deficit from whens come the $350 billion that we spent on tarp, but rather they would divert this money to troubled homeowners.

there are two problems with this, mr. speaker. one is, a real constitutional question, which is, what gives? the administration gets to decide, not congress, the administration gets to decide, the executive gets to decide, about how to redistribute this money so they can basically take it and use it for the treasury purposes to do something else besides pay back to the deficit or pay back to the federal treasury? i don't think so, mr. speaker. there's a constitutional problem with that that's the first objection. the second is, is this administration absolutely intent on redistributing wealth? isn't that what they're doing here? this money is america's money that we invested in trying to save our banking system from collapse. putting $350 billion in tarp one into this effort to stop the collapse of our banking system. when that money's paid back, it should come to all of us.

all american taxpayers. we invested it, we should get it back. this is what i was telling in the town meeting, this was what i was saying last week, is we're going to get this money back and we got a shot at getting back tarp 1. maybe even at a profit. but now the obama administration's talking about redistributing that money, not giving it back to all the taxpayers, rather, doting on constituencies that they find favorable or that they are favorable to. so they pick up on a sympathetic case which is maybe troubling -- troubled homeowners and they decide that we'll just slough the money to them. rather than pay it back to the treasury and have it enjoyed by all the taxpayers who invested the $350 billion to save the banking system. so i ask you, mr. speaker, and members of the house, there's a constitutional objection here that we really should be concerned about as a congress

and then there's this real question about how far will this administration go in attempting to redistribute wealth? this money belongs to all of the american people. this money we pledged together to try to rescue the banking system. as it comes back, paid back to us, it should be paid back to all of us, not just to troubled homeowners, not just to sympathetic cases, but rather to all of america taxpayers -- all american taxpayers. so i urge my colleagues to join with me in watching the constitutional question here and watching the redistribution of wealth which we must object to, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. quigley of illinois. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. quigley: to speak five minutes to the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for

five minutes. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to congratulate president obama on reaching agreement on nuclear arms control with russian president. this agreement will cut american and russian nuclear arsenals by at least 1/4. this represents a critical step toward more substantial arms control as well as a milestone in confronting our nuclear legacy. i, like most americans, was born into nuclear age. the 1945 bombings in japan marked its beginning, establishing an uncertain peace in a war-weary world. but with global proliferation of nuclear weapons, the threat of catastrophe grew ever closer. confrontations in berlin in cuba, in the middle east, where one miscalculation away from disaster. but rather than learning from these close calls and taking dramatic steps to reduce our stock piles of nuclear armsworks he built more and so did the soviet union. our arms control efforts were limb -- limited at best and at

worst they collapsed under the pressure of pursuing a global containment strategy against the soviet union. today the united states and russia each deploy over 2,000 nuclear warheads. although both countries exercise extreme care in managing these weapons, only one mistake in judgment could be fatal. that risk has grown as seven other countries have joined the so-called nuclear club over the past half century. . as former president eisenhower said, every gun that is made, every warship launched, rocket fired, signifies in the final sense from those who hunger and are not fed and those who are cold and not clothed. for this reason, i stand here today not only to congratulate president obama on his progress in moscow but urge him to take

further steps to reduce the stockpile of nuclear weapons. like president obama, i recognize that we live in a world in which threats to peace are no longer confined to the traditional great powers. i echo president obama's sentment that in this strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of nuclear attack has gone up. rogue states and terrorist organizations are dedicated to acquiring nuear weapons. we must be vigilant in controlling these weapons and making sure that they don't fall into the wrong hands. a nuclear arms treaty with russia to replace the existing star treaty is a good place to start. we should ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty which aims to limit nuclear proliferation around the world. we must recognize that although this legacy belongs to another generation, it is now our

responsibility to enact change. we must stop wasting money on the excesses of cold war and start thinking about improving the present. we must show the world that we are committed to reducing this nuclear threat. we must do everything we can to ensure that nuclear weapons are never used again. thank you. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mrs. maloney of new york. for what purpose does gentlelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: permission to address the house for five minutes, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. the vote i took this afternoon on h.r. 3081 was one of the toughest votes that i have had to take in this house since i have been here in the 4 1/2 years. the problem with the bill and with the decision that had to be

made is because the bill contains funding for aid to israel. our best friend in the world. i have always been and will continue to be an extremely strong supporter of israel. israel has always been a good friend to the united states. and the people of this country and the people of israel share the same values. however, the bill had so many flaws that it made it very difficult for a pro- life fiscal conservative such as myself to vote for the bill despite my very strong support for israel. the bill when emergency supplemental funds were not taken into account were still

32% more than the regular fy 2009 appropriations. i am taking the liberty of using some of the figures from my colleague, mr. price from georgia, that were also presented today on the floor in terms of explaininthe bill that we voted on this afternoon. we are facing a fiscal crisis in this country. this administration and this congress, led by speaker pelosi, are spending this country into a terrible, terrible situation. we are mortgaging our children and grandchildren's future with excess spending. and it has to stop somewhere. had this bill nearly contained the funding for israel, it would

have been very easy for me to have supported it, although i was quite concerned that the bill reduced the funding for israel by 7.2% below last year's funding level and 23.3% below the request. but as i said earlier, the total bill had an increase of 33.8% compared to last year. one of the most troubling increases in this bill was a 20% increase to the united nations' population fund and a 19% increase to the international family planning. the united states population fund age china's one child policy, abortion. international family planning goes to organizations that

promote and provide abortion services through international planned parenthood. in addition, we also, the democrats had rejected four cost-cutting republican amendments that had been presented, which could have made this bill a lot more pallattable to the 97 republicans who voted against it. another problem with the bill is that there was a false assumption that the obama administration will live up to its promise of no more war supplemental for iraq and afghanistan. the president has gone back on every promise that he made during the campaign. he has already asked for a supplemental this year. says it was a carryover from last year, but that won't happen again. however, before the ink was dry

on the full committee report on this bill, defense committee chairman said another bill is necessary to fund the troops because of the low fiscal year 2010 defense allocation. so the promise was that all the money for the war was going to be here and we weren't going to have to do more supplementals. that isn't going to happen. this bill also avoids making hard fiscal choices about spending abroad while we face a financial crisis here. this is not the way we should be going. we should be funding our friends and our allies. we should be helping israel, which is the only true democracy in the middle east and who stands by us year after year, day after day. but funding things like abortion and international family planning is not the way to go. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman's time has expired. mr. price from georgia. for what purpose does the gentleman from rise snr mr. price: ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, america has been the light of liberty and a beacon of hope to the world for centuries, truly centuries. we're the greatest nation the world has ever known. we provided more hope and more opportunity and more liberty and more freedom for more individuals than any nation in the history of mankind. but today, july, 2009, folks in my district and folks across this land are not just concerned

, they're fearful. they're afraid that the very nation that they know and love and that has been the greatest nation in the history of the world is slipping away from them in so many ways, in so many ways. mr. speaker, we all just got back to washington from a week many of us spent at home over the july 4th break and i heard people come up to me and tell me they were concerned, worried and fearful about the amount of spending and the amount of borrowing and the amount of taxing coming out of washington. they say washington's out of control. mr. speaker, they're right. they're absolutely right. the deficit this year, $1.8 trillion. four times the largest previous deficit, four times. borrowing, we are borrowing 50 cents of every single dollar we're spending. mr. speaker, it's out of

control. taxing, raising taxes on every single american. i don't care what the president tells you, mr. speaker, it's not true. they're raising taxes on every single american. now, the solution, one of the solutions, is to allow this deliberative body, this greatest deliberative body in the history of the world the opportunity to allow their representatives in this body to work their will, to say i believe i'm going to represent my constituents in this way and offer this amendment on this bill and thereby allow the house to make a decision. we are in the appropriation season, mr. speaker. it's a time when we decide how to spend americans' hard-earned money, the money they send to

washington. during that season in the past, the house has allowed appropriations bills to come to the floor in what's called an open rule, which means everyone gets the opportunity to amend the appropriation bill. they offer the amendment in the house, gets to vote on the amendment. there were amendments that have been offered on recent bills that have not been allowed. in fact, this is the most repressive majority in the history of the republic if you use the number of closed rules, not allowing amendments to come to the floor. this, mr. speaker, is the most repressive majority ever in the history of this republic. an amendment that was offered, but not allowed to the bill that we voted on today would have prohibited funding for any new international organization for the purposes that would tax american energy companies from abroad. the only conclusion i can draw is that the speaker and the democrats in charge want american energy companies to be taxed by foreign governments. an amendment that wasn't allowed would have reduced the spending 15% on this bill to 2009 levels, a savings of $17 billion.

that amendment, mr. speaker, not allowed. i can only assume that the speaker and the democrats in charge want to increase spending by $17 billion. an amendment, amendment to prevent paying the legal expenses of united nations' employees who have been charged with mallfeasance. i can only conclude the democrats want the american taxpayer to pay legal expenses for united nations' employees who are charged. and an amendment that wasn't allowed would have prohibited assistance to members of foreign terrorist organizations. mr. speaker, the only thing i'm left to conclude is that this speaker and the democrats in charge want the american taxpayer to provide assistance

for members of foreign terrorist organizations. mr. speaker, this isn't the way the house is supposed to be run. it's not the way the house has been run the last 230 years. it's not the way the american people learn about democracy, that their representatives would be allowed to represent them actively and aggressively so people have the opportunity to represent their constituents equally with every other member. but, mr. speaker, right now, in this chamber, we have tyranny from the majority, tyranny that is not allowing the voice of the people to be heard. mr. speaker, i demand that this chamber, that these members of this house of representatives make certain that the rules are appropriately followed and end the tyranny of the majority in this chamber now. the speaker pro tempore: mr. gohmert from texas. for what purpose does gentleman rise?

mr. gohmert: i ask to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to follow up, mr. speaker, on what my friend from georgia was saying about tyranny in this house. we were promised the most open government in the nation's history. that's what we were promised. there's the speaker's website that even talks about how open it's going to be. well, it isn't. and as a result, the nation is being punished, because some of the things that our friends across the aisle said before they were elected to the majority and to control this city and this country were true. you do better when you have open government and open amendments and can debate these ideas. but that's not what we've

gotten. we have an abuse of the rules process. why? because they can. i was asked, as i was around the district this last week why do you let them get away with all these things that are going on? i said you're not following what's going on. every time we make a privileged motion, we try to enforce the rules. it's tabled every time so it's not going anywhere. so no one is held to account for abuses. why? because they can and they didn't want an open government. you know, the founding of this country tells so much -- those guys were so brilliant and so much better read than most of the people in this body now. . they knew what government led to. they knew what the abuse of power led to. and so they weren't content to have one body elected.

let's have two. and not only should we have two bodies, let's make them at odds with each other. we need friction so that there's not this abuse. and not only that, we don't want to do, like we've seen some parliament do where they elect their executive, no, no, no, we want the people to elect an executive and then he'll be at odds with those two houses and he'll be able to veto what they do. that will give us some protection because you can't have enough protection from government. but that's not enough. we want another -- another branch. we'll have a judicial branch and then they can veto things that are inappropriate and outside the constitution. they saw all this coming. and they knew it could be abused if they didn't have these safeguards in the way. but what's happened, what we can have an executive that the congress just said, well, whatever you want, oh, you

wanted an auto task force that will meet behind closed doors, be accountable to nobody, put together a bill, a plan that's signed by a lazy bankruptcy judge because he doesn't want to have all the hearings the law requires and it puts people out of business, it's a constitutional taking? but where's the supreme court? they start to stop the process, no, go ahead, we'll let you be unconstitutional, we won't stop it. and what's the congress done? look, mr. president, if you'll let us keep abusing and running thisountry into the dust heap of history, well then we'll let you keep what you want. it's abusing the process. that's why we had a bill this evening that should have been clean, it should have given money to a friend, a good friend like israel, but oh, no, we've got to put that all bologna in there that ens up doing more harm -- ends up doing more harm to the purposes for which this

nation was founded than good. so i couldn't vote for it in the end. the stimulus. we couldn't do anything with that. presented at the last minute where no one could amend it. i tried to tell the president, friends in here, look, how about a tax holiday for the people that earn the money? how about that? you let them have it, then you'll see stimulation. and what happened? the president liked the idea. and i heard him on the radio talking about that. we're going to leave money in your check. except if he said, if you jump through all the obstacles, then could you have $65, maybe, in your check. i was talking about $6,000, not $65. then would you have seen stimulation in the economy. but the process won't let us do that. we're driving out with the crap and trade bill, we're driving jobs out of america, we're sending manufacturers to companies -- countries that pollute four times to 10 times more than we do. how does it help the environment? it doesn't. and a health care bill that's

being driven behind closed doors so that we will not be able to get the best ideas in there. i've tried to get a bill put through, the democratic leadership has taken all our time, we can't put yours in a form to bring to the floor. so we're having to try to go around behind other ways to get it done. the founders put in place ways to stop it. we need to start following those ways. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. shadegg from arizona. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objeion, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. speaker, i rise tonight to warn the american people. to warn them that they are about to lose the health care they have. to warn the 83% of americans who

like the health care coverage they already have and to caution them that it is about to be taken away. it is about to be taken away, quite frankly, in an undemocratic process that will occur essentially in the dark of night. you see, as you have just heard from the last two speakers, democracy does not exist in this body today as it has in the past. i sit on the primary committee that should be writing this health care bill. i have not been allowed to participate in any way, shape or form. not in any way, shape or form. the majority has written their bill all alone behind closed doors consulting only the majority. they can roll right over the minority and they don't care. but that's wrong. that's dead wrong and only the american people can stop it. now you heard me say i rise to warn you that you are about to

lose the care you have. and you may have said to yourself, no, wait, congressman, i've heard the president say again and again and again that if you like the care you have, you may keep it. i, too, have heard the president say those words. but they are not true. they are absolutely not true. you see, while we do not have a bill to read yet, we have a discussion draft. we'll mark up a bill next week in all three committees with jurisdiction but we don't have a bill yet but we do have a discussion draft. that discussion draft makes the most sweeping changes to american health care, indeed it is the most sweeping peace of -- piece of legislation i have seen in my 15-year career in the congress and the most dramatic piece of legislation in decades.

and yet it will completely change health care in america, it will change 1/6 of our nation's economy and it will destroy the health care ewe have -- you have now. if you like what you have now, if you're one of those 83% of americans who like their health care, maybe it's not perfect, its cost is going up too fast, you'd like more control over it but your employer has the control or the plan has the control, you like to pick your doctor but you can't, you'd like a better system but you still like what you have now, if you like it, be prepared to lose it. because you understand this bill you will lose it. every health care plan in america will change. the bill says that in almost those exact words. it says that they are creating a new health care bureaucracy to exist between you and your doctor. this chart shows that

bureaucracy. you are the patient up here in the upper left-hand corner, your doctor is in the lower right-hand corner, every single little box you see is a newly created agency, bureaucracy, program or plan or brewer contract standing between you and your -- bureaucrat standing between you and your doctor. but here's the one that counts in terms of changing the plan you have. they are creating a new nicely named board. this nicely named board is called the american health care benefits advisory committee. i love the word advisory. it sounds like they're going to give you some advice. wrong. this board will be a federal board that will decide what is in every health care plan in america. if your employer has a plan today and it doesn't fit every dot and tiddle of what the new health benefits advisory committee requires, it must

change. and that means every plan in america will change. now, they're being gracious, they'll let the current plan stand for those who already have them for five years. but at the end of that five years, every plan will change. if you like what you have, it will change. they are inserting all of these bureaucrats between you and your doctor, 48 new agencies. here's the health choices administration, one of the new agencies they're creating. the risk pooling mechanism, the health benefits advisory committee, the many government health care plans, here is the public health investment fund, the qhbp ombudsman, the medicare trust fund, we already have that one, on and on and on and on and they're putting them between you and your doctor. if you like what you have, be prepared to lose it, because

that's the mandate of this bill. now, what are some of the other mandates? every employer in america must provide coverage, health care coverage, for every full-time employee and every part time employee. every, you heard me say every, employer in america. not every big employer, but in the house bill every employer. if you employ yourself, you must ensure yourself and create a plan that meets the demands of this new government agency. now they do have a small business exemption but guess what? in the house bill there's no definition of small business, it's left blank. wonder why? i guess they don't want to tell us that they can define a small business as as little as one employee. it creates a new government health care plan. that government health care plan will compete with your plan. very interesting. the president was asked on abc

television last week, mr. president, you've said if americans like the health care plan they have, they can keep it and yet it appears you're going to take things away. what do you mean by that, mr. president? and the president of the united states responded, the government will not on its own and directly abolish any plan. and the interviewer said, well, wait a minute, what if you write a new set of rules that makes it impossible for american employers to offer the plan they're currently offering? the president's response was, well, that's not the government taking away your plan, that's your employer taking away your plan. if you believe that then i got some land in florida to sell you. the american people need health care reform. we can give them better health care reform. we can give them choice and control over their own health care. we do not have to choose between the flawed current system and a government takeover of american

health care. americans, now is the time to engage. you don't have another minute to waste. please get involved in this debate. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. burgess: i thank the speaker. i also want to thank the minority leader, the leadership on the minority side, for providing this hour for us to talk in some detail about health care and what is pending before this congress over the next three weeks. mr. speaker, it is ironic that as we sit here on the literal eve of the markup of this bill, the committees of energy and commerce, ways and means, education and workforce all beginning next week when we return from our districts, as we sit here on the eve of that

markup, there is no house bill. and it makes it very, very difficult. we're told, if you have amendments, let's get them all together because we want to have a good look at them before we start the markup. how do you amend a bill that you haven't seen yet? now that's the task that's before many of us on the committee and that's where we have been placing our efforts during this past week, but it is a task made much more difficult, mr. speaker, i'll just tell you as someone who was involved in the campaigns last fall, i was a surrogate for senator mccain, it meant that i went all over the country debating health care with surrogates for president obama. it seemed a virtual lock that there would be a presidential directive for a health care bill that would come shortly after the election and certainly by inauguration day. in fact, senator bachus convened a great group over at the library of congress at the end

of last october, produced a white paper to for all the world that looked like a blueprint for a plan for a health care bill. election day came and went, president obama won, no health care bill. we had the holidays, christmas, new year's, no health care bill. the inauguration, all the festivities that took over washington, but no health care bill. and here we are, the week after the july fourth recess, still waiting for that bill. what happened to the promises on the campaign trail last fall where? were they really that he femoral that they could not be condensed into legislative language and produced for the house floor? that's where we find ourselves. now, in march of this year, the president did convene a group of us down at the white house. he spoke very eloquently. he said the words you've already heard spoken on the floor of -- floor of this house tonight, if you like what you have, you can keep it. let me emphasize that. if you like what you have, you can keep it. and of course he says if you

like what you have you can keep it because polls show anywhere between 60% to 80% of americans like what they have and want to keep it. 160 americans receive their health care through employer-sponsored insurance, another 10 million to 15 million through individual insurance policies and they like what they have and they want to keep it. their greatest fear is that something will happen to their employment or their ability to make those premium payments and they will lose what they have because they like what they have and they want to keep it. . the only thing i won't accept out of though congress is the status quo. wait a minute. if you like what you have, you have can keep it would imply if you like what you have you can keep t how do you keep what you have and not accept the status quo? therein is the quandary that's been presented to the other side and that's what's taken the incredible length of time. coupled with that is beginnings of bills began to leak out of the senate side we got into the

issue of cost and coverage. the initial reports that came out of the senate committee on health education labor and pensions was a price tag of $1 trillion. that wasn't the whole bill because we hadn't figured out the medicaid parts. but $1 trillion for the opening salvo and would cover about a third of the reported uninsured. that's not a great bargain. that's not great value for your dollar. the senate finance committee came up with another bill. another score was given to that bill. and the cost was over $1.5 trillion. and they immediately went back and started to rework the bill to bring that price down to at least $1 trillion that appears to be now the new high water mark for health care legislation. the house bill as scored through the committee on ways and means, just this week, also scored at $1.5 trillion, no word, no word on the number of people that would be covered. if you like what you have, you can keep it.

right up until the time we tell you that you can't. and that apparently is the game plan, is the mission statement for the health care bill that would be brought to us from the democratic majority. now, mr. speaker, i'm joined by a number of other people who wish to speak on this very important topic and do i want to give everyone the appropriate amount of time. just one housekeeping detail, the congressional doctors caucus had a d.n.a. an open forum during this past week down at george washington university. different from the white house infomercial on health care. this was an open forum, opened to anyone who could come in and question members of congress who also happened to be physicians, turned out all of us were republicans who showed up, but could come and question the republican house physicians on the issues related to what is going on with changes in the health care system. we had a very lively hour and 45 minutes, a number of questions that were delivered by the staff and faculty there at george

washington. a number of questions that just came from the audience. it was a lively hour. the event was webcast live at the time that it was carried out. and that webcast has been archived and is available on the congressional health care caucus website that's www.health d.c. caucus.org and go -- www.health caucus.org and go to that website and it's been archived there. we are joined by many members of congress. people are eager to speak about this. goodness knows we are not going to get a chance to have a legislative hearing in our committee, but let us begin this evening and we are going to hear from one of the doctors who was there at the forum at george washington, an orthopedist from the great state of georgia, a member of the g-7, dr. tom price. mr. price: thank you so much dr. burgess for your leadership on this issue and so many others. i want to thank you for your participation in the event we had at george washington university and the wonderful

perspective that you bring as a physician to the table. in my previous life i was an orthopedic surgeon. i spent 20-plus years practicing orthopedic surgery in the atlanta area. as we move forward with health reform, it's clear that something is coming. and i get asked by folks, what kinds of things don't we want? what kinds of things can they do to us that would be bad? and i would suggest, dr. burgess, and colleagues, that three things that would be a death knell for quality health care in the united states. the first is creeding -- creding the definition of quality to government. if we say as society we are going to allow the bureaucrats, nonmedical individuals, to decide what quality health care is as has been proposed by the president through his effectiveness research council and others with the list of programs that you heard mr. shadegg describe just a moment

ago, then that would be a death knell for american medicine. quality truly is only known by compassionate caring physicians and patients and their families who know what is best for them. because there is no way that the government can define what's best for each and every individual. a second death knell for quality health care i believe to be any mandate, individual or employer mandate. if individuals are required to purchase health insurance, that's a death knell. if employers are required to provide health insurance, that's a death knell. why? it's a mandate which is a bad idea, but more importantly when we here in washington mandate something what, we do is define whatuary -- what we are mandating. we would define health coverage. dr. burgess, you well know that this congress would define something that doesn't include all sorts of robust things already out there in the marketplace like health savings accounts, medical savings accounts, high deductible catastrophic plans, some

cafeteria plans. they wouldn't only be unavailable, they would be illegal. this congress would make them illegal. and so the notion that if you like what you have you could keep it is just followy. it's pure fiction. final death knell to the quality of american health care i believe to be any government-run program. any government takeover of any portion of our health care system beyond where it already is. the public option as it's described which is a euphemism for a government takeover. why is that? well, i would ask my friends on the other side of the aisle and really folks across this land to think about your health care principles. what are your health care principles? what do you believe ought to be foremost in any bill that we produce? i've got six of them. they are accessibility. we ought to have accessibility to the health care system for all americans. affordability. it ought to be affordable. ought not have the cost rise more than they should. quality, we need the highest quality of health care.

responsiveness and innovation. we need a system that's responsive. and choices. we need choices. those are my six. accessibility, affordability, quality, responsiveness, innovation, and choices. i would suggest to my colleagues that none of those, in fact i would suggest that none of the principles that any american could come up with, are improved by the intervention of the federal government. none of them are improved by more government control. none of them are improved by an administration that believes that a health czar is what we need as opposed to the highest quality of medicine. there are wonderful solutions and i know we'll be talking about them this evening. i want to commend my colleague from texas, dr. burgess, for his leadership on this issue. and can only hope that as we move forward, we do, we are allowed to have an open and a vibrant discussion so that the congress of the united states can have the benefit of the wonderful experience of people on both sides of the aisle as we

move forward to solve this remarkable challenge in the area -- mr. shadegg: would the gentleman yield for a question? mr. price: i'm pleased to yield. mr. shadegg: i couldn't agree more with the mandates. i thought it would be useful to us for the audience to illustrate kind of the kind of poster child for mandates that the other side often recites and talks about. and that's mandatory auto insurance. the gentleman pointed out that individual mandates tend not to work. and indeed the individual mandates in the health care plan in massachusetts are not working. people are refusing to go along with those. people are choosing to refine instead of complying with the government mandate to buy health care. as the gentleman knows, most of the states, matter of fact 48 out of the 50 states, mandate auto insurance. i wonder if you and i could have a discussion about how well mandatory auto insurce works,

because that's the reason we are told if mandatory auto insurance works, why not mandatory health insurance? mr. price: i appreciate my friend from arizona comparing it to auto insurance. that's what you oftentimes hear. we require folks to have automobile insurance. why shouldn't we require them to have health insurance? you allude to the fact that mandatory automobile insurance doesn't result in everybody having insurance. it doesn't work, that's why you don't do it. for health insurance. but more importantly if one mandated health coverage, then we again cede the definition of what that coverage would be to the federal government. and ceding the definition of what automobile insurance is is one thing. ceding the definition of quality health care something so personal to each and every one of us and our families i would suggest is a step in the wrong direction. mr. shadegg: i agree completely. we don't mandate a single auto insurance policy for the entire

country in auto insurance. we let the 50 states define what constitutes auto insurance in their state. but let's talk about how mandatory auto insurance works. i don't know if the gentleman knows it, but 48 states have mandatory auto insurance. so if you own and drive a car, you are compelled by law to buy liability insurance. two states don't. wisconsin and new hampshire. guess what? the percentage of people in those two states who are uninsured is lower than the average percentage in the states where it's mandatory. that's right. in the 48 states where the government says you must have auto insurance, fewer or lower percentage are actually insured than in the two states where they don't have mandatory auto insurance. i think that proves manttory auto insurance couldn't --

mandatory auto insurance doesn't work. what i really love when the other side cites the beauty of mandatory auto insurance is of the 48 states that mandate that you cannot drive a car in that state without auto insurance, 22 of those states mandate that you must also buy uninsured motorist coverage. wait a minute. wait a minute. let me see if i understand this. we have told all the people you must buy as a matter of law auto insurance, but in 22 of the states where they have done that, they are so confident that many people will break that law that they mandate also government putting a gun at your head uninsured motorist coverage. if everybody was going to comply with the first law and buy auto insurance, why in god's name would you need the second law? and the answer is, mandates don't work. and in at least those 22 states,

the legislatures have openly acknowledged that mandatory auto insurance doesn't work so we are going to require mandatory uninsured motorist coverage. it proves -- i would be happy to yield. mr. price: you said that 48 states mandate auto insurance, two states don't, but the two states that don't have a higher level of insured motorist? mr. shadegg: and lower level of uninsured. mr. price: the moral of the story is? mr. shadegg: mandates don't work. mr. burgess: reclaiming my time briefly. for a mandate to work there has to be broad recognition a mandate exists and a broad understanding of the penalty involved and the penalty administered must be significant. if we look at the number, rate of insured in this country is about 85% of people voluntarily carry health insurance, 15% do not. where is a system, where is a model for that broad recognition that there is a requirement that you do something at a very swift

and severe penalty if you don't? certainly the i.r.s. fits that bill. everyone knows in this country you must pay your income taxes, you must file on time or face a swift and sure penalty. i'm not even entirely sure what the penalties are. i do know i don't want to experience those penalties. what do we see with compliance rates with the i.r.s. in this country? 85% comply, 15% do not. in other words, it is unchanged from the voluntary compliance we have under health insurance. mandates are an anathema in a free society. what if we spent our efforts instead of trying to create the men dates and requiring people to do something they are disinclined to do what, if we tried to build programs that would attract people just as we did during the part d part ever medicare. where they created the protected classes of drugs, created the programs people wanted. what do we have now? 92% of seniors with credible drug coverage, satfaction rates in excess of 90%. that's a success story from a

government program that actually worked because the emphasis was put on delivering value to the customer, value to the patient to this case, value to the medicare recipient in this case rather than just simply you do what we tell you to do because we can. we are a free society after all. mr. shadegg: would my colleague from texas be happy to yield? very briefly, we serve on the commerce committee. we are going to get to have a markup next week on this bill, but we will not have ever had a hearing on the bill. and as we pointed out earlier, there is no bill yet. but in the discussion draft that has been released, there is stunning information. it's one thing to talk about the stuff in the bill that's goofy, it's something else to talk about the stuff in the bill that's outright absurd. i want to talk -- the gentleman talked about penalties. thrst a provision in the bill -- there is a provision in the bill that is outright absurd and it goes to the point the gentleman just raised. the bill not only has a mandate that individuals must buy care, it has a mandate that employers must provide care.

ok. maybe that's a good rule. but guess what? here's the absurdity. if you as an employer in america comply with that law and you buy health insurance for every single one of your employees and one of your employees says, you know what, i don't want your insurance, i decline it, you the employer must pay a penalty of 8% of that employee's salary because the employee chose to turn down the coverage. so you are penalized not for failing to offer the care, you're penalized because the employee said they didn't want it. what if the employee said they didn't want it because they preferred their spouse's coverage? that's the story of the shadegg family. my wife for years worked for the school district in arizona. she was offered health care coverage. she declined it because she took it under my coverage. there's no point in buying two

policies. apparently under this bill were she to decline it in the future the federal government that pays my health insurance would have to pay a fine, of course they won't apply the penalties to the government, of 8% of her salary -- my salary -- her salary because she turned down the care. . you got to be kidding me. they come up with something that goofy. mr. burgess: i want to go to our other doctor from georgia, dr. gingrey, who was the leader of bringing the doctors' caucus down in george washington earlier this week. i yield to him the floor for whatever time he will consume. mr. gingrey: i thank my colleague for organizing the hour tonight and for bringing this important issue before the members of this body and the american people. and of course, as my colleagues

have said, next week in the energy and commerce committee, ways and means committee, the health and workforce committee of this house, markups are going to begin on this bill. so we are at the defining point where people need to understand what this is all about. and as my colleague from texas said, yes, we had formed a doctors' caucus on the republican side. we asked members of the democratic side who are health care providers to join that group. they declined. but we have a group of about 14, including a number of doctors who are on the floor tonight participating in this special hour with over 330 years of clinical health care experience and has any one of that group and in that group, i think we're

talking about 10 or 11 physicians. we are talking about a clinical psychologist and three dentists and not one of that member, mr. speaker, has been asked to participate in the drafting and crafting of legislation that would improve the health care system that we have in this country. and when i talk about improvement, i mean exactly that, mr. speaker. we do not need to destroy a good system. we need to make it better. and we can do that. and that's why the district of columbia medical society at george washington hospital this week invited this group of physicians, this gupe of health care providers -- group of health care providers to come and be on a panel and answer questions from doctors from employees of the hospital, from nurses, from people -- from all walks of life, really, to talk about this issue and give an

opportunity for another town hall meeting. president obama had one with abc or nbc or one of the major networks coming from the white house, but totally one-sided. as my colleagues have said, we can fix this system. and we can do it and we don't need to throw the baby out with the bath water, as the old expression goes. we feel that if there are 10 million people in this country who cannot afford health insurance or they are denied it because of pre-existing conditions, that's too many. and we can do a number of things and i'll just briefly mention a couple. clearly, we can agree with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in regard to the efficacy and money-saving aspect of electronic medical records. i would hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle

could agree with us that meaningful tort reform, where doctors weren't constantly having to order just tons of unnecessary tests. and hospitals doing the same thing, knowing that they are unnecessary and maybe downright harmful to the patient, but with this fear, this constant fear of frivolous lawsuits facing them. then all of this extra money is spent for naught. these are a couple of things we can do. surely the health insurance industry needs to reform. and there are a number of things that they could do. and hopefully later in the hour, we can get back to that. i think the most important thing for our colleagues and the american people to understand is that we do have the best health care system in the world. and we have the capability of coming together in a bipartisan way. my colleagues who have already

spoken have plans, have bills that they have worked on for years, but do they get to see the light of day? absolutely not. the president and this majority is so focused on this public plan. and one of my colleagues who's going to speak in a few minutes. he says if that public option so good maybe president owe brahma and mrs. obama and the two children should be in that public option plan rather than blue cross/blue shield. if it is good enough for members of the public then it should be good enough for the president. i yield back to my friend from texas as he continues to control this time. mr. burgess: i thank the gentleman for his insights. and i thank him for the passion he has brought to this. i wonder if i could go back to the gentleman from arizona about

an issue he brought up, but wasn't part of this hour, but i want it preserved for the dvd. but you talked about an voys other panel, health care czar, commissioner of health care, putting someone in there to make a decision for us. and i wonder if you would expound on that again so we would have that as part of the congressional record. mr. shadegg: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i have worked on health care reform since i got here in 1995. it is a passion that i have. i believe we can do better than the current system and i applaud the president for calling for health care reform. i personally believe the current system is damaged by the fact that it's controlled by third parties. your employer picks your plan and your plan picks your doctor. what i heard the president say, what i heard the current

secretary of state, mrs. clinton say, when she was a candidate was, if you like what you have, you can keep it. you know, i think if most americans hear that, they will be fairly comfortable. we are worried about the cost escalating too quickly and worried about the uninsured. as i said earlier, 83% of americans are satisfied with their care. guess what? that promise, if you like what you have, you can keep it, by the current president and by democrats in this congress is simply untrue if you read the discussion draft that's out there. it is blatantly patently clearly unquestionbly untrue and here's why. the legislation creates the health benefits advisory committee. as my colleague from georgia pointed out, what that committee is going to do is it's going to define what constitutes health

insurance in america. it's going to set the standards forever single health care policy sold in america. we are going to literally have a one-size-fits-all dictate from this health benefits advisory committee. they're going to say that is a policy that callfies and that is not a policy that qualifies. the rules they issue will allow the policies sold "across america" today to all of the employers who provide health care to actually fit into their new rules. as a practical matter, i suggest that every american in the span of five years will lose the health care plan they have. the statement, if you like what you have, you can keep it, is not true. we're going to have a board that

defines what constitutes a policy, no policy, currently sold by employers will fit what that board dictates. therefore, in five years, they will no longer be able to give you that plan. you might lose your health care plan the first year, but you will certainly lose your health care plan and not be able to keep what you have in five years, because the law says in five years, every plan must fit the dictates of that new advisory board. so if you like what you have, as i said today earlier, if you like what you have, be prepared to lose it, because you're going to lose it. and i thank the gentleman. mr. burgess: i thank the gentleman. we have been joined this evening by the ranking republican on the committee of energy and commerce, one of the true leaders on our side who as i started this hour, i said here we are on the literal eve on the markup of this bill without a

bill and the ranking member has new information as to when we might expect that bill and what we might find contained therein. i yield to the ranking member of the committee, mr. barton from texas. mr. barton: i want to apologize to dr. fleming for coming ahead of him. but i was watching the debate in my office, catching up on some paperwork and very impressed that congressman shadegg has apparently read the draft or his staff has. we have at least one member and i'm sure dr. price and dr. gingrey and dr. fleming, mr. gohmert, mr. broun have also read it. but i am the senior republican on the energy and commerce committee and as such, i communicate with congressman waxman of california and my chief of staff with his chief of

staff. and as you know, we had scheduled opening statements next monday. we will start the markup on tuesday. at least until today, we were led to believe it would be a full and fair and open markup. well, we just got word about 30 minutes ago apparently that as congressman shadegg has said, there is still no bill. as we are on thursday evening, there's no bill to markup. there is not going to be a bill tomorrow apparently. there may be a bill over the weerked. there may be a bill on monday, but there may not be. but c.b.o., the congressional budget office, we had asked that there be a hearing once the c.b.o. scores whatever it is that they're going to markup, that we have a day of hearing, which is normal procedure.

well, apparently, we're not going to get a hearing, but going to get a closed-door briefing. and we're going to start opening statements on tuesday of next week. then we're going to start the markup, assuming that there is a bill to markup, we'll have a markup that begins on wednesday. and now they want to conclude it by next friday. i just want the country and the members of congress and those who are in their offices like i was listening to the debate to understand the health care industry, which is 15% or 20% of our g.d.p. in which the preliminary scores on the draft and the bill in the senate, somewhere between $1 trillion and $2 trillion over 10 years, which is between $100 billion

and $200 billion per year, which is 2% of g.d.p. a bill that is going to add 2% of g.d.p., which is not yet written, if we're really, really lukey next week, we may get two days of markup in the committee of primary jurisdiction. i want to put that in context. i have been in this body 25 years. i have seen major bills that were not half as important as this bill, have weeks of hearings on the legislative -- once the legislation was out and weeks or months of markup. our former chairman of the committee, john dingell in the clean air act in the 1990's, marked that bill up in committee -- he worked on it for several congresses, but the final work product, he marked up i'm going to say over a six-month period.

it is arrogance beyond explanation, not just to the minority members of this body, to the moderates, conservatives on the majority side, but to the american people that we can attempt to move a bill that affects 20% or 25% of our g.d.p. which adds 2% of our g.g.d.p. over the next 10 years, don't have that out to be studied today and when they start interviewsing it, we're going to mark it up on tuesday and report it out on friday. . the reason i came over to ask

time to speak is because right now i'm in debate with the administrator at the e.p.a., administrator jackson, in which back in april they issued an endangerment finding on co-2 saying co-2 is a harm to public health, is a dangerous element and therefore has to be regulated to protect the public health. we have emails that show a reputable senior ph.d. doctor researcher within the e.p.a. prepared a report as required by law that stated that the science that they had based the endangerment findings on was faulty and out of date and in all probability there really wasn't a danger. and that report was not made a

part of the official record. and the email says it wasn't because his direct supervisor says the decision has been made. at levels above you. we are going to go forward with this. regardless of what the facts are. so here we have on climate change and cap and trade the facts be darned we are going forward, and now we are coming to the next big issue in the obama administration and they are saying the public be darned we don't want anybody to know what's in the bill. we are going to make the majority vote for it no matter what. we are going to do it in two days. now, most of you here medically trained, went to medical school for years, had an intern's program for several years, most of you practiced in private practice for decades. you got experience, you had your

patients that trusted you because you were open and transparent and you had experience behind you. the majority that's running this body doesn't have enough trust in the population to tell them what's in their bill a week or two ahead of time so we can study it and prepare amendments and have an open, fair markup process. i think that's outrageous. we don't know what's in the bill. mr. shadegg has done a pretty good job of going through the draft. he doesn't -- he knows that the draft is scary enough that we ought to have a long fair markup on it. most of of that stuff will probably be in the final bill. but we don't know. the reason i came over, congressman burgess, was to encourage you and all the other members that are participating in this special order, the people that are watching it, they need to get on the phone

tomorrow. we want openness, we want transparency, we want time to see what the bill is. we want it posted on official websites so the public can understand it. we want to give members on both sides of the aisle the opportunity to draft amendments. and then we want a markup process in the committees of jurisdiction that those amendments can be made, they can be debated, and they can be voted on in public and maybe, just maybe the work product that comes from that will be worthy of being reported to the floor. but one thing i'm certain of, the bill that we don't have that's being drafted in secret is not worthy of becoming public law. i can say that sight unseen. mr. burgess: if the gentleman would yield. mr. barton: i would be happy to yield. before i yield back, in the revolutionary war, one if by

land, two if by sea, the british are coming, rationed health care is coming. no doctor choice is coming, private insurance is going away if we let this -- i don't know -- i'm trying to think of a polite way to describe what's about to happen, but it is a travesty of the process and it is a policy that will do much more harm than good to health care in america. mr. burgess: i wonder if the gentleman would yield for a question. we had of course a meeting of our committee this afternoon talking about amendments when we thought we had three or four days which in fact seemed pitifully short in that context. i know our office submitted 50 amendments. i think i saw a list of almost 200 amendments that was being discussed. there is no way in the 10 to 12 hours that will be available to us to debate that bill to allow

members on our side let alone if any members in the majority have ideas about how the bill might be improved, there is -- it's a virtual guarantee that only a very limited number of voices will be heard if anyone will be heard. i yield back to the ranking member. mr. barton: i plan to talk to chairman waxman immediately in the morning and saying at a minimum we need a day to look at the bill once it's out and we need several days to prepare amendments. and then we need at least a week or two weeks to do markup and make sure -- it's not just the minority members. there are a number of members on the majority side that have substantive concerns and substantive amendments. this congress can do good work, but it can't do good work in the dark with a handful of members making deals in the backroom and forcing the majority to almost automatically rubber stampp that

product. -- rubber stampp that product. what you're doing here is excellent work and i commend you and the other members i strongly encourage if people believe in an open, fair process we need to figure out a way to get this out in public and give us time to study it before we go forward. if i have the time. mr. gohmert: would the gentleman yield? do you think there is any chance that something as ridiculous as amendments being filed in the middle of the night might happen? do you think -- mr. barton: if they do what they apparently -- if -- apparently if they do what they have been doing in the past, we won't get the product that's going to be marked up until chairman waxman introduces a manager's amendment in the nay a substitute sometime wednesday afternoon. mr. gohmert: or 3:09 a.m., perhaps? mr. barton: he has to put something in place to start the

markup. if the past is a predictor of the future, whatever he puts in play will not be what's going to be marked up. it will just be a placeholder. mr. broun: i congratulate the gentleman for suggesting the american people contact their members of congress. i just want to say i just explain to the american people when we as members of congress say i associate myself with those comments, that means that i agree wholeheartedly. i do associate myself with those comments. but i wanted to remind the american people that former u.s. senator eric dirk sin said when he feels the heat he sees the light. and we need to put heat i believe on -- the american people need to put heat on members of congress and the house and senate. because the senate has a bill, too, that's disastrous. it will do just the things mr. shadegg was talking about. in our shop we have looked at

those proposals over there on the senate side. it's going to be disastrous if that bill as we see it thus far is passed. and the only way we are going to stop it is for the american people to get on the telephone to call their members of congress, call their u.s. house of representatives as well as their u.s. senators and say no. we as republicans have been accused of being the party of no, n-o. frankly we are the party party of know, k-n-o-w. we know how to fix this problem, lower the cost of health care. we know how to give patients choice. we know how to fix this problem. we know that government intrusion in the health care decisions and health care decisionmaking process and reimbursement and all of the reasons it's so high and not affordable today. and i just wanted to associate myself with the comments that

you made and encourage the american people to get on the telephone, to get on their email, to get on their fax machines, to call their neighbors, their friends, all over this country and encourage their neighbors, friends, and family to contact their members of congress. let's shut the telephone system down tomorrow. across this nation. people calling, faxing, emailing, saying no to this travesty. i'll be outright and say you were looking for a nice word, but it's garbage. it's going to destroy the quality of health care. i'm a medical doctor. i have practiced medicine for 38 years. and this is going to place a government bureaucrat between the doctor and the patient. and it's going to be extremely expensive, the quality is going to go down, innovation is going to be for naught. it's going to go away. people are not going to like this. and we need to have it in an

open process. so i just wanted to interrupt you and say i appreciate your -- mr. barton: their comment should be show us the bill. mr. burgess: let me reclaim the time. i thank the ranking member for taking time out of his evening and spending time with us. there are a number of websites where people can go and sign online petitions. american solutions.com has a petition. galen.org has a petition. another group called letfreedomring has a downloadable responsible health care pledge where you can your member of congress or senator to pledge to have at least read the bill in its entirety and have the bill available for 72 hours on a website so the public can view this bill prior, prior to a vote taken in the house of representatives. he's been very patient. he's a new member and he's probably more patient than i deserve him to be, but dr. fleming from my neighboring state of louisiana, one of two

new louisiana doctors who have joined the republican caucus. i want to thank him for his time tonight. he has a very interesting proposition that he wanted to share with us. i yield whatever time he may consume bearing in mind we have 15 minutes left of the hour. mr. fleming: very good. i thank the gentleman. and i'll be be quick here because i do have something very important. i want to draw the camera's attention to this placard. particularly the website outlined below, fleming.house.gov harding house resolution 615 that really gets to the meat of the matter and again this is another effort to appeal to the grassroots. over the past few weeks members of congress and the american people have come to know the details of the proposed health care plan advanced by the administration and the democrats. call it whatever you like, but at the end of the day, the proposal is still a government-run health care system.

now with its health care plan, the administration and the liberal leadership of this congress are guaranteeing this democracy is on the solid path towards socialism. as a physician i'm amazed at the number of bureaucrats in this house who are quick to claim a government-run health care plan is the reform this country needs. so i come before this body to announce a resolution that i just mentioned, h.r. 615, authored saying very simply, any members of congress who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan should lead by example and enroll themselves and their family in the same public plan. again to repeat that, very simply, any members of congress who vote for this legislation, that is one that includes a single payer or government-run health care plan, should be willing and be willing to commit to enroll themselves in that. you see, it's very interesting

how congress tends to carve itself out and create sort of of elite state in many things. this is one good example. the plans that we see thus far, which we don't know the details of, of course, suggest to us for the next five years the congress members will be still on the federal health plan exchange and not be part of the single payer system. so i think -- in closing i want to suggest to those who are viewing this evening and along the lines of dr. browne, dr. gingrey is that, yes, please call, call your representatives, call your friends, let everybody know we need to defeat this single payer system. the way to do it is hold our congressmen accountable for what they do. if it's good for you, it should be good for them as well. thank you. i yield back. that's h.r. 61 5. mr. burgess: i briefly yield.

mr. gingrey: i realize we are running short of time. i'll yield quickly back to dr. burgess. i wanted to comment on the gentleman from louisiana, dr. fleming's, resolution. it -- mr. speaker, it would be akin to a member of a public school board, let's say in your own community, my community, in fact i was on a public school board. do you think i would have had the audacity to have my children enrolled in a private school while i served on the local public school board? . absolutely not. all four of my children went to that school, i tried to make it aspect as i could. so for this democratic majority and this president, i will take it a step further than what dr. fleming said, i would say to the president and to mrs. obama and

to the children, you know, sign up for public health plan, because you are purporting it to be the best thing since sliced bread better than blue cross /blue shield, whatever is out there in the private market. i yield back to dr. burgess as he wraps up this wonderful hour. and i thank the gentleman from louisiana for bringing up this commonsense point. mr. burgess: last congress, i introduced a bill that would have removed members of congress from the federal employee health benefit plan and give them a $3,000 voucher to go out into the individual market and purchase insurance figuring if we became uninsured, we would be more creative about seeking solutions. i did not get any co-sponsors. i did offer it to then senator obama through his surrogates, but i never got any takers.

i have prepared an amendment, when we do get our bill in committee and i hesitated on this, because i don't want my more conservative friends to get angry at me for expanding an entitlement, but i have prepared an amendment that would make medicaid available to every member of congress and make congress a mandatory population to be covered under medicaid so that again we could experience for ourselves the frustration that patients find when they go to find a prior. medicaid reimburses terribly and it is difficult to find a provider that provides medicaid. and the gentleman is on the right track. i would like to take a few minutes and go to -- we have two doctors from georgia, two from louisiana. i was only able to attract one judge from texas and i will

yield to him. mr. gohmert: i thank my friend dr. burgess and being among such wonderful physicians and i have been listening. since i was a judge, i got to listen a great deal and i have heard so much wisdom from dr. price, dr. fleming, dr. gingrey, dr. broun and dr. burgess over the last 4 1/2 years and i have come to know their hearts and know it is for the good of america. when we hear about transparency and we look at what's been happening, look at the federal reserve. my goodness, what's going on? you look at the auto task force and what they have done with that. and now they're going to do that with health care? the doctors that save our lives, the health care that will save lives. well, that's what it used to be. and then we hear -- i don't know , if the american public know

what former chairman barton was saying, but manager's amendments have been filed after committees have done their work. and what little work was done. and the manager's amendment just completely replaces all the work that was done and it's put in at the last minute and then we have amendments as we can on crap and trade that were filed at 3:09 and supersedes everything and right up here at the speaker's desk, there was not a complete copy, as that was made clear. and i have been listening to these things and i appreciate the work of all these people trying to come together with a plan. and i have been trying to get legislative counsel to put together these ideas, but they have not so far. former chairman barton has submitted this request and i hope we have a bill so america can know about what's out there. but i think dr. fleming has a

great point. congress ought to be part of anything we comply with. how about a system where instead medicare, medicaid and ship, we just put money in a health savings account and all these bureaucracy and the insurance companies and the patient and the doctor and have catastrophic care where the patient and the doctor decide on treatment. these are things that we can do. these are things that would be good for america. these are things that all of us we talked about we would be willing to do ourselves. that's what we ought to do for america. and i'm broken-hearted for what this body is going to cram down into the lives of people. and if they think they didn't like some of the things that were dictated from washington, wait till washington gets to

control your life, because i'm guaranteeing you, when the government takes over health care, they have every right to tell you what to do, what to eat, how to live. they'll have a right to monitor your credit card receipts. whoops, you bought too many twinkies. once the government controls that, it will control your life. mr. burgess: he brings up a valid point and the american people are going to be asked to undergo significant change in the way they receive their health care. yeah, it may be change they voted for in november. it may be change they can believe in, but i don't know it's going to be change they like. i do, mr. speaker, if i could -- i know i must address my comments to the chair and not to the public, but if i could address the public at large, i would tell them, they need to be very skeptical of what this body

is doing during the middle of the night without much scrutiny or study of these bills and processes as they go through. the individual members of congress do need to hear from their constituents on this issue. it's too important, too important for the american people to remain silent. there are web sites out there where there are petitions that may be signed. americansolutions.com, gayland.org. and letfreedomring, which they have a pledge posted on-line, these are worth while efforts that the american people can undertake to make their representatives know how they want to be represented. and i think people got the message on cap and trade and got the message a little late. we might have been able to turn that vote if we had one additional half-day of debate on

that topic. let me yield to the doctor from georgia who we heard from earlier. he may have some wrapup comments that he might want to offer the body. mr. broun: we have six minutes. the american people need to understand what is in this bill, as little as we know about it, there are some things we do know about it. john shadegg just talked about the untruth of your being able to keep the health care policy that you currently have is absolutely in this bill. people are not going to be able to keep their health care policy, we know that. we also know without a question that there's going to be a washington bureaucrat put between the doctor and patient. the washington bureaucrat is

going to be making your health care decisions, my message to the american people, is going to make your health care decisions. your doctor isn't going to make those decisions. you aren't going to be able to those decisions. your family aren't going to be able to make those decisions. some washington bureaucrat is going to tell the patient what tests they can have, what medicines they can have, surgeries they can have, x-rays they can have and can't have. there are going to be more can't-haves than can haves. right now today when people have insurance provided by their employer, that is a tax-free benefit. we already know that this democratic bill is going to put taxes on your health insurance and you are going to have to pay

this. so what you're getting now, mr. speaker, american people, at no tax consequences to you, you are going to have to pay taxes on them. we know this, too, that mr. obama said a few weeks ago that he had to push through this cap and tax bill, cap and trade bill, wasn't about the environment, because he said he needed those taxes to pay for his health insurance program, this single-party payer program. some washington bureaucratic-directed health care system. he needs those taxes to pay for it. so peoples' taxes are going to go up, business taxes are going to go up. we are going to have these energy taxes, which is go to go increase gasoline, heating oil, natural gas, food, medicine, everything is going to go up

because of the energy tax that's over in the senate and i hope the american people will call their senators no to that, too. but it's critical at this late hour, it's the late hour because the majority is going to force down the throat of the american people this health care plan that is going to be disastrous and take their choices away, increase their taxes and destroy our economy and destroy the quality of health care. so i hope that they'll call, fax, e mail their members of congress and say no, let's put everything out in the open so we know what it is instead -- so alternative systems can be looked at it. mr. burgess: it may be late on the east coast but not on the west coast and you have a perfect point to make that voices must be heard. the web cast of the dock doctor'

caucus, www healthcaucus.org. there are headline makers in health care that have been accumluated on this site and i do encourage, mr. speaker, people to consider going. americansolutions.org has a petition. and letfreemring group that has a petition and i encourage people to wabe in with that. don't discount calling the speaker's office. get the contact button and find the number to weigh in on this very important issue and your calls and faxes, constituents they make to their representatives' offices. i hear from people back home, what can we do to help you. you need to make your voices

heard. whichever side you may reside, wherever your feelings lie on this, you need to make your feelings known to your member of congress and the time for that action is now. the markup starts next week. we will vote this out of the house of representatives by the end of the month. don't ask me why we have that condensed time line, but that's what we have been given by the speaker of the house. now is the time to make your voices heard on this very, very important matter. this is the -- as the ranking member of the committee said, this is the one by land, two by sea moment. american people need to make their voices heard which will not only affect their future, but children's future and grandchildren's future. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

mr. ellison: mr. speaker, i am keith ellison and i'm a member of the progressive caucus. it's late and the hour is moving towards the time when a lot of folks are looking to retire for the evening, but we've got to talk health care. but before we do, let me introduce the progressive caucus, message that we have for people tonight. mr. speaker, the progressive caucus, the progressive message that we come every week or come to this chamber every week to talk about a progressive vision for america.

what is the progressive vision for america? progressive vision for america is a vision, mr. speaker, in which people can live free of discrimination. people can live in harmony with the earth. workers can work with dignity. workers can have respect and safety on the job and earn decent pay. we'll all americans can have health care and enjoy the benefits and bounty of this great country of ours. a progressive vision, a vision similar to the one that martin luther king had for our country. a vision similar to the one rampeell carson had for our rsh rachel carson had for our country. a progressive vision which embraces all, which includes all, where human beings living in harmony, free from fear who do not disrespect our environment who believe we should have health care so that people can have a decent

standard of living. . it's what we do when we come to the house floon about what we believe in. the congressional progress caucus is the group that i speak for tonight. and this is our website, mr. speaker, which is cpc. grijalva.house.gov and we'll put this up at the end of our hour so people can check us out. what are we talking about tonight? we are talking about health care reform. patients before profits. tonight, mr. speaker, i think this presentation could not be possibly more different, it could possibly be more different from the hour you just heard because the hour that you just heard a moment ago talked about what we couldn't do, who couldn't get care, why we have to have the status quo, why things have to be the way they

are, why we cannot have reform. that's what you just heard an hour ago. horror stories and horror stories, fear mongering like we hear, we have been hearing for many decades now. we heard the same thing in 1994. remember harry and louise ads? the government will take your health care away. the government's going to make medical decisions for you. let me just say that it's not true. don't fear. the american people should not fear health care reform. the american people, 300 million strong, know that 50 million, nearly 50 million of our number are without any health care at all. the 250 million who do have health care know that the private insurance companies have been reaping enormous profits while you have been paying higher deductibles, you ever been paying higher co-pay, and you have been paying higher premiums, and you have been denied coverage for pre-ex-ising conditions. the fact is that the time for change is now.

and i think for the first time in a long time real change is right within our hands. mr. speaker, if the american people have a will for a greater level of health care, for a greater level of quality of life in which all americans don't have to go to bed at night afraid they are going to be without, this is the time for them to raise their voices. i think a few things are important to know. the few things are important to know, mr. speaker. and that is, that just like in 1994, the scare tactics that we just heard and we'll probably hear again tonight are in full force. and if the american people don't step forward, mr. speaker, you don't know which vision of america is going to prevail. a progressive vision for health care for all americans -- where all americans have health care, where all americans have access to care that says prevention, that says long-term care, that

says that we are going to have a public option which we desperately need, or this situation which leaves 50 million americans out and escalating costs and preex-ising conditions which doom people to a -- pre-existing conditions which doom people to a medical nightmare. i just want to say the fight is on. it's raging, it's happening. and if the people want to be heard, mr. speaker, they need to be heard now. let me just say this, in the first three months of 2009, in the first three months of 2009, the chamber of commerce and the pharmaceutical researchers and manufacturers of america, phrma, paid lobbyists a combined $22.5 million to promote their interest. ok. you didn't hear me. $22.5 million to lobby people like me, mr. speaker, to not

give the american people health care. to keep the status quo. to let it be how it is. to let these preex-ising -- pre-existing exclusions continue on. to let 50 million americans out in the cold. to continue to the increasing premiums and these ridiculous co-pays people are having to pay. you didn't hear me. the first three months of 2009, the u.s. chamber of commerce and the pharmaceutical researchers and manufacturers of america, phrma, paid lobbyists a combined $22.5 million to promote their interest. $22.5 million in january, february, and march. you think that's a lot of money, mr. speaker? it's nothing if you compare it to the amount of money they made by denying americans health care. by denying enrolled americans health care as the way they have been doing and say we don't cover that, we don't cover that.

and by reaping all these excessive profits. oh, $22 million is a rounding error for them but it's an enormous amount of money for us, mr. speaker. monday, july 6, just a few days ago, "the washington post" said, familiar players in health care bill lobbying. the largest insurers, hospitals, and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and completion. that's nearly -- that's not quite one for every member of congress but almost nearly one for every member of congress, and that's just counting the former members of congress and former staffers. just to try to twist and arm to say leave the status quo as it is. three out of every four major health care firms have at least one former insider on their lobbying payrolls, according to "the washington post" analysis.

nearly half of the insideers previously worked for key committees and lawmakers currently debating whether to adopt a public insurance option which is opposed by major industry. so they are going to get people who used to work here to come try to stop progress and keep us from a progressive vision because they care about what? they care more about what? they care about profits before patients. and we in the progressive caucus care about patients before profits. the hirings are part of a record breaking influence campaign by the health care industry. now, you say -- i say record breaking. this is according to "the washington post," mr. speaker. record breaking influence campaign by the health care industry. you know, mr. speaker, you may have been dazzled, shocked, and amazed by what you saw in 1994 when they in fact killed health care. now they are pulling out all the stops and make sure they set a record in the amount of influence they are trying to

campaign for to defeat health care reform. they want the status quo, we want a progressive vision. this bill, mr. speaker, just hold on to something because this number might stagger you, $1.4 million a day, $1.4 million a day. nearly $1.5 million a day to stop health care reform. by paying lobbyists and this is just according to what's been disclosed in their records. $1.4 million a day just to lobby against health care reform? yes. so, mr. speaker, the american people want to be -- want health care reform, they better say something because $1.4 million a day can speak pretty loud. the pharmaceutical research and manufacturers of america doubled

its spending nearly seven million in the first quarter of 2009, followed by pfizer with more than six million. if they are right, if this system is good, why they spend all this money? can't they just let the facts speak for themselves? no, the facts need to be adjusted for them. the "post" examined federally required disclosure reports submit bide health care firms that spent more than $100 lobbying in the first quarter of this year and use current and past filings to identify former lawmakers, congressional staff, and executive branch officials. this is a quote, revolving door offers a short cut to a member of congress to the highest bidder, said sheila crumholtz, executive director for responsive politics. it's a small -- here's her

quote, this is really a shocker, mr. speaker, it's a small cost of doing business relative to the profits that they garner. so again $1.4 million a day seems like a whole lot of money to me, but when you think about the money that is reaped from the status quo in their denial of claims and denial of pre-existing conditions and all of this stuff, it's really not a big deal at all. mr. speaker, let me just show folks just what this profit is doing. is going on. projected spending as a -- projected spending on health care as a percentage of gross domestic product, mr. speaker, has been doing nothing but going up and up and up. if you look at just projected costs in 2007, we are talking about an enormous upward slight

from about 15% upward nearly 50% if these numbers are projected to 2008. medicare's going up and medicaid going up. but those lines are relatively flat. if you look at all the other health care costs, it's just jumping up. this is spending and whatever i spend somebody else makes, this represents the enormous amount of money that will be made under the status quo and it represents why they are willing to drop $1.4 million a day just to defeat the real change that we need. mr. speaker, let me just also point out a few other facts that i think is important. we have about -- we have a growing number of members of this body, the house of representatives, many of whom are progressive caucus members, who are saying they won't vote for any plan unless it includes a public option. i'm one of those. i know i have been accused of being dr. nair, drawing a line

in the sand and not being flexible. well, they are right. i'm flexible but not on this. no public option means a red vote which means no for me. we've got to have a public option. we have to have it. and i'm proud to say that speaker pelosi, charlie rangel, and leaders in this body have said that we are going to have our public option. it's because people have said and the people out there have raised their voices, mr. speaker, the people have -- the people in this body have let the people in america down and they stood up for change. but it's not just in the house, mr. speaker, i'm happy to say that members of the other body, senator russ feingold, senator bernie saunders, senator chuck schumer are standing up and speaking out for a public option right now. senator feingold, senator saunders, and senator schumer having been quiet, mr. speaker.

they are trying to make sure that we get this public option through the senate as we work forward in the house. what we really need, mr. speaker, is for americans to let their voices be heard. because if they say, oh, well, the leaders in congress got it all under control, that's exactly when we lose it. the american people are like the wind that pushes the boat through the sea. i don't care how big your sail is, how pretty it is, what you put on it, if there's no wind it doesn't move. and that's how this democracy's going to work. as i praise representative russ feingold, let me tell you what he said on june 18, and he deserves our respect, mr. speaker. senator feingold said, quote, a strong public health insurance option is consistent with the healthy private market and effective private insurance plans. we have several insurers that

operate in my home state of wisconsin that provide great health coverage to their beneficiaries. responsible insurers should have no trouble competing with a public insurance option on the merits ever their plans, but a strong public health insurance option will provide a powerful incentive for less responsible insurers to re-evaluate their own cost chairing and benefit plans to -- sharing and benefit plans to ensure they are an attractive option for consumers. that's what russ feingold said, mr. speaker. and he went on to add, there's another benefit of a public health insurance option which hits particularly close to home. my hometown of janesville, wisconsin, that's russ feingold's hometown, has one of the highest unemployment rates in the state of wisconsin. recently our g.m. assembly plant ceased production and other related business throughout the community are struggling to stay afloat during these tough economic times. of course these challenges are shared by many other communities

a-- across the state and i would add across the nation. back to the quote, a public health insurance option would be invaluable to families in janesville and many other cities across america. . because they have been laid off that can travel wp an individual from job to job. public health insurance option would make a tremendous difference who are facing crippling health care costs who are trying to keep businesses open. that is our great senator feingold as he spoke about a public option. i want the american people to know, mr. speaker, that in the house of representatives and in the senate, there are leaders who have heard the cries of the american people who have heard the demands for change and who are going to stand up for a public option.

and i think, mr. speaker, that i just want to take a second to that i thank you to all the members in the house and three senators who have gone on record for a public option. mr. speaker, i also want to share a few other points that i think are real important at this time as we just discussed this critical thing. the fact is is that what we need is a real focus on patients nonprofits. the way the health care proposal is working right now and the draft looks is there are basically three prongs.  one is employee-based health care insurance. if you like the insurance, you can keep it. you get to keep your health insurance if that's what you want. two, people who over 65 or who qualify for medicaid can get health insurance.

those people in government programs already can share in that benefit. but the third option is this exchange where private insurance plans and a public option will be available for people and people can bid on these options and purchase their health care. there will be a subsidy of up to 400% of the poverty guidelines. we would ban the exclusion of people with pre-existing conditions. and there's a proposal that anyone who wants to put their plan in that exchange would have to have a medical loss ray show of about 85% which means actual health care delivered to people, the money would have to be 8 % of their overall budget and 15% would be on administrative costs and other things like that. medicare does a whole lot better than that and so does the v.a. that's basically an outline, mr.

speaker. that's basically what it is. but i just wanted to make sure that we really, really hit, really hit this idea of this public option tonight. our system wastes roughly about $600 billion on treatments and procedures that cannot be shown to improve health outcomes right now. a public option would make just charging these kinds of fees to just generate money something that they can't afford to do because you got real competition that's not driven by a profit motive, but driven by quality health care. the fact is, mr. speaker, we are ready. we need to drive waste out of the system and we need ways to make private insurers really compete with this public option, which they will not do. as you know, mr. speaker, under

a previous act, insurance companies are not required to compete with each other. they have an exemption from antitrust laws and therefore can collude. so we need this public option to make them compete. mr. speaker, i don't have to get up here and tell you that health care costs in america are crushing america's businesses and families. but i will offer a few examples. our manufacturers spend more per hour on health care than they do their counterparts in canada and japan and u.k. combined. what i'm saying is if you have a company that is international in scope and has places in canada and subsidiaries in japan and england, the american manufacturers spend more per hour on health care than all

these hour subsidiaries combined. that's making america noncompetitive and putting us at a competitive disadvantage. mr. speaker, i bet you didn't know and maybe you did that health care costs for small businesses have grown 30% since the year 2000 alone. we need health care. we need a public option. the average family premium costs $1,100 more per year because our health care system fails to cover everyone. the individual premium costs $400 or more. mr. speaker, we need a public option and need health care reform. in 2004, half of all people filing for bankruptcy cited medical problems as a cause. that's half. well, mr. speaker, i have a chart right here where this is definitely an out-of-date figure because it's much higher than half now. medical bills underlie 60% of

u.s. bankruptcy, according to a recent study. the news company. medical bills are involved in more than 60% of u.s. personal bankruptcy, increase of 50% in just six years. u.s. researchers reported on thursday. more than 75% of these bankrupt families had health insurance but still overwhelmed by medical debts. the team at harvard medical school, harvard law school and ohio university reported in the american journal of medicine. quote, using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcy in 2007 were medical, 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5,000 or 10% of pre-tax family income, the researchers wrote. quote, most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes and

had middle-class occupations. mr. speaker, this scenario is what the previous -- the speakers in the previous hour were trying to defend. is that not crazy? that is not what the american people want. that is not what the american people deserve. the speakers in the previous hour were literally defending this system and standing in the way of reform. few more facts, mr. speaker, in 2008, just last year, half of all people filing home florks cited medical problems as a cause. medical problems deeply implicated even in the foreclosure crisis. high costs lead to people losing coverage. 14,000 people are louis losing coverage every day. the numbers are staggering and your eyes gloss over and you

can't really hear them. sometimes numbers don't bring much light to the subject as one would want, but let me say, 14,000 americans are losing coverage every day in the midst of this economic crisis. why? because as unemployment creeps towards 10%, when you lose your job, you lose your health care, because we don't have health care or employer-beatsed health care system. mr. speaker, again, serious problem. last month, 400,000-plus jobs lost by americans. either one of them is dealing with no health care or has to carry an enormous cobra payment on their back. mr. speaker, that's not good. 60% of americans say that they or a member of their household have delayed or skipped health care in the last year. 60% of americans say they or a member of their household has delayed or skipped health care within the last year. now, mr. speaker, we need to reform our health care system.

i hope that's obvious to everybody. you and i both know it's not obvious to everybody, though we wish that it was. but let me talk a little bit about it for a moment. bring up our poster -- lost it. patients before profits. mr. speaker, reform will alleviate the burden on families by lowering costs. ensuring timely access to affordable, quality health care, making sure everyone has access to preventive health care will help keep the american people healthy and allowing workers to change jobs without woreying about losing health care. imagine being stuck in a job you have and you can't leave because you got health care. mr. speaker, i talked to a dear friend of mine who i have known for many years, many years, mr.

speaker and i know you know when you know someone for years and years and years but there is something i didn't know. when i had a health care forum in my district of minneapolis a few weeks ago. i won't mention his name, because i'm going to protect their privacy. but this friend of mine who i have known for years, i didn't know this fact about her. let's call her ann. that's not her name. ann, after a health care forum that i held in my district in minneapolis at which 220 people showed up because they demand health care reform, waited around after everybody left, after the health care forum and said she needed to talk to me. and i said, you know, ann, sure i'll take a minute and we can talk. and she sat me down and this is a strong woman. she is not someone who is easily

given over to tears, but she was in tears. she is only about 36, 37 years old and has a beautiful family and is just a great person all around. anyway, ann sat me down and she looked me straight me in the eye, when she looked me in the eye, i knew she was serious, serious, serious, serious. and what she said was this. that i'm on my job and i have a health care -- health insurance at my job. but members of my family, including my sisters and my mom have had breast cancer. and mr. speaker, she told me that she is afraid to go get a test to determine whether she may develop breast cancer because if she gets this test, mr. speaker, then the health care company might decide she has a pre-existing condition and then drop her from the policy.

but if she doesn't go find out, mr. speaker, if she might develop breast cancer, she can't get treatment that she needs that may save her life one day. she's a young mom. she's only about 36, 37 years old and she has kids who she's trying to raise. mr. speaker, imagine being in the case where you can't go get the test to find out whether you have breast cancer, because if you do, that's going to be a pre-existing condition and yet you can't afford not to do it, because if you don't do it like your mother and your sister, you may develop breast cancer. this is a system that these folks, who are standing in the way of reform are trying to preserve. and mr. speaker, it is wrong. it is time for reform to take place and the time for reform is now.

reform will alleviate the burden on families by lowering costs. reform will alleviate the burden on our economy by creating more efficient insurance and delivery system, which will reduce waste and allow more rational financing system where everyone contributes including, instead of shifting costs from some people on to others. it will alleviate the burden on business that has hindered their ability to compete because of these enormous health care costs. mr. speaker, we got to have a public option. i explained the public option a moment ago. a public option is just one of other health insurance coverage programs that will be offered on the exchange. but mr. speaker, the public option, the public option needs to be understood. it means what the public option is is giving the public the

option to enroll in a public plan like medicare. the public insurance option would compete directly with health care insurers. why are they afraid to compete? what are they scared of? the uninsured individuals would get to choose which plans are best for them, a private one or the public option. why is having a public option so important? a broader way of research has confirmed that a public health insurance option is a key component of cost containment because it will introduce more competition, something conservatives say they like, whenever it makes them exorbitant money. it will lower administrative expenses. i talked about the medical loss ratio of 85%. i have a bill which will raise it to 90%. medicare will outcompete them and drive cost savings

innovation. according to research from the commonwealth fund, the net administrative costs for medicare and medicaid were 5% and 8% respectively. that's why i think a medical loss ratio of 90% would be good. they should be able to do it. . if you look up the top five health care insurance companies their administrative costs were 17% and the average is 14%. the fact is they are inefficient, they like it that way, and they don't want to change. but a public option would make them change. it would make them change, mr. speaker. members of the congressional progressive caucus signed a letter to speaker pelosi and the democratic leadership clearly stating that a robust public option must be in the mix. this year in the congress we

must act on health care reform and that health care reform must include a public option. we believe that only a health care plan with a robust public option will provide more americans with greater access to treatment and doctors with less interference in on strucks from big insurance companies and other profit-driven special interests. mr. speaker, if you listen to the hour just before i came on, you heard people spinning scenarios and imaginary ghosts and demons and goblins in the air in which a patient would have a government bureaucrat, their word, in between the doctor. that hasn't happened. that's imaginary. it's not going to happen. now, today, today, a patient has to deal with a bureaucrat in an insurance company before they can get the medical treatment that they need.

their claims have been excluded. some bureaucrat has said we are not going to approve that. we are going to deny that. we are not going to allow that procedure to happen, even though a doctor has recommended it. that's reality. what they are talking about an hour ago was fantasy and it's kind of like on freddie krueger order nothing but a nightmare and horror film. we urgently need to fix health care. for american families, every day americans worry not simply about getting well, but whether they can afford to get well. millions of americans wonder if they can afford the routine care to stay well. premiums have doubled over the last nine years, three times faster than wages. ok, three times faster than wages. the average american family already pays an extra $1,100 in

premiums every year for a broken system that supports 46.5 million uninsured americans. we need the change for american business. soaring health care costs put american companies at a competitive disadvantage in a global economy. small businesses are forced to choose between coverage and layoffs. that's a choice they should never have to make. what about the fiscal future of america? we have the most expensive health care system in the world. we spend almost 50% more per person on health care than the next most costly nation. and we are no healthier for it. we are spending all this money, mr. speaker, but we are not healthier for it. if you look at national rankings of american's health and wellness, we are not at the top although spending is at the top. we are at the bottom. when it comes to diabetes, when it comes to heart disease, when it comes to cancer when, it comes to all these critical things, mr. speaker. what are we going to do about

it? we better step up and do something and that something cannot wait. if we do nothing in a decade we'll be spending one out of every $5 on health care. in 30 years it will be one out of every three. health care reform is necessary. and it's deficit reduction because reform will drive down costs. what we want to offer is cost reduction, choice, security, and quality. president obama and this congress want to reduce health care costs, mr. speaker, and offer people a choice of doctors and plans and guarantee affordable quality health care for all. that's what we are trying to do. this is an american solution. you always hear people talking about, well, what they do in canada what, they do in the u.k. what, they do in france. we are not talking about any of those countries. we are talking about a uniquely american solution. not trying to be like anybody else, mr. speaker. the fact of the matter is, 36

other countries in the world and every industrialized country has national health insurance, we don't. that's why their outcomes are better and their costs are lower, but, mr. speaker, we are not talking about -- comparing ourselves to some other contry. we are not talking about what other countries do. we are talking about an american solution. that will ensure every child in america is covered. that will invest in prevention and wellness. we'll ensure that doctors and nurses get the information they need to provide individuals with the best care available. and never again will your coverage be denied because of a pre-exising condition or your age or gender or ending a system where profits come for people and millions go without vital health care. never again, never again should we make life or a job decision based on coverage. never again should we let our families suffer medical -- excuse me, financial catastrophe

or bankruptcy because of these high costs. mr. speaker, i'm coming to the point where we are probably going to wind up in not too long, but i do just want to just make a few more points before i take my seat. one of the things i want to do, mr. speaker, before we just take our seat is just point out the fact that scare tactics and fear tactics have not served the american people well, not back in 1994 when health care was defeated then. and they won't work now. we learned a lot since 1994 and we are not going for it, mr. speaker. the fact is health care is a social imperative. it's an economic necessity. and the new study by the president's council of economic advisors demonstrates that the current health care system is on an unsustainable path.

without reform, escalating health care insurance premiums will continue to cause american workers and families to experience eroding health care benefits and stagnating wages while rising spending on health care and medicaid will lead to massive unsustainable federal budget deficit. the fact is we need change. just have a few more points to make, mr. speaker, then i'll be able to hand it over to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. i don't know what they are talking about, but if they talk about health care, i want you to remember what i said, mr. speaker, because these facts are critical and we cannot allow anyone to scare us away from the reform that is necessary today. the fact is, mr. speaker, the american people want change and they are going to get change and they are going to be much, much better for it. the fact is, that we do need this public option. we do need health care reform. and as soon as i find what i was looking for i'll tell the folks what i wanted to tell them.

got what i need. so, mr. speaker, as i was saying before the fact is is that we do need the change and we can't allow it to be denied. it's time for the american people to raise their voice, mr. speaker, if they want to be heard. i talked about my friend, ann, whose name really isn't ann, but i talked about her fear of going to get that test to determine whether she has breast cancer or not, because as i said, mr. speaker f. she gets the test she could be denied for pre-exising condition or dropped from her insurance, or if she doesn't get the test she won't be able to get the treatment to fight off that breast cancer. she's in a terrible position. she's not the only one. i want to talk about a few other folks, mr. speaker, before i yield the microphone. i want to talk about mary from

minneapolis. mary says, my daughter needed her wisdom teeth out. at the time with insurance we were told to pay $375, which we did. then i got build for over $1,000. resubmitted, eventually the amount was reduced to $750. meantime my husband has no paycheck. i have calcium deposits in my back which make it difficult to walk, but i can't afford the co-pays so i'm waiting until it's so bad i can't walk. that's what mary from minneapolis said with the status quo which some people in this body want to preserve. denise from minneapolis says, i find more and more often that my family and i are skipping doctor visits for preventive care or even when we would have -- we would have made a visit to the doctor in the past, but now can't afford the co-payment to be seen. this is especially true for a

childhood illness as well as allergy visits and medication, dental problems that could potentially be very serious, and injuries that in reality should be checked out by a doctor. my family is insured yet because of our current employment situation combined with rising health care costs, it has come out of each -- come out of our reach to have the kind of care that we have enjoyed in the past. i feel that being left out for the inability to be able to bear the burden of the costs. this may mean that we will pay dearly in the future for things that could have been prevented or less serious than they had been if they were able to see a doctor. that's denise from minneapolis. here's janice from golden valley, minnesota. i have worked every day since the day i turned 15. and i'm currently 51, married, with two teenage children. i have a college degree and we have always lived a balanced and frugal life.

we do not take exotic trips and mostly by generic groceries or thrift discount drugstore clothing -- discount store clothing. i do not and never have smoke or drank and i have been at my job for over 20 years, yet i bring home less and less each year due primarily to health care premiums and costs. health care premiums and co-pays cost about 25% to 30% of my income. health care premiums cost me more than my federal, state, social security, union dues, and retirement plan deduction combined from each paycheck. the increase has been so great that we have stopped being able to contribute to savings for about four years. the one treatment -- the one thing i fear more than anything is me or family member getting sick because of what treatment will cost even beyond the premium cost. when i have a strange new sensation in my eye or vain hurting in my leg or dull pain

in my chest, i just pray it will go away on its own because i'm afraid of what it will cost me. we pay out so much for health insurance yet we cannot afford to really even use it. and i feel even worse for those who have no health care insurance at all. this reflects so badly on what america has become, a place where only the wealthiest survive and the profit by the few takes priority over the basic needs of all. janice, i want you to know that we are fighting for patients before profits today. i want you to know, mr. speaker, about anita from roseville which is not moo my district but very close by. anita says, i work for a public school and my husband stayed home with our daughter. we started -- we started paying -- i'm tongue tied tonight, mr. speaker, we started paying family health insurance in 2002 at $10,000 out of pocket. this year we are paying $12,000

out of pocket and our co-pays are $40 and $50 a visit. our daughter is school age now, but my husband started looking for work when the economy took its downturn last summer and still does not have a job. health insurance costs severely limit our quality of life by using up our disposable income. let me talk about prescilla from minnesota. prescilla got -- says this, i got on my husband's insurance after the job i had discontinued coverage for me. we paid over $500 a month for this coverage. i had health insurance that came on suddenly with breathing problems. it took several hospitalizations and i.c.u. care before they finally figured out what the problem was. my husband's insurance refused to pay for any of it, calling it a pre-existing condition. by the way these will be banned under the plan offered by democrats.

calling it a pre-existing condition. back to prescilla. and we were left with a medical bill for over $25,000 to pay ourselves. this was at the same time we were spending $500 per month on premiums. the provider sent our bill to collections. it has been a nightmare. my house is now disabled. and we have no coverage. yet this condition requires regular cat scans and nine different medications to make sure his condition is stable. i urge my colleagues who stand in the way of reform to listen to these good decent people. they deserve better. they deserve better. let's not worry about what the chamber of commerce and what phrma want. let's worry about our constituents and patients of america. i'm going to just read one more story from doug, mr. speaker, and then after that i'll make some closing comments.

i recently refilled my mail order predescriptions. i get as many generics as possible. however i'm a diabetic and both types of my insulin are not generic, neither are blood pressure medication or cholesterol medication and glucose test strips. . my insurance company has made them free, quote, unquote, free for mail order while nonen erics doubled in price. i chose the glue coast test strips because i can buy them and ration them by testing less than i should. i'm still spending more money than i can afford and i'm afraid that my bank account will be overdrawn. if that happens, i will not be able to offer food or gas for myself and my son.

i could borrow from my elderly mother, but it looks like they will be losing their insurance coverage from a failing car company. have a good job -- i have a good job with good benefits. that's what his last line says. i have a good job with quote, unquote, good benefits. i hope the constituents won't be disappointed because i wasn't able to read their story. mary from minneapolis, denise from minneapolis, janice from golden valley, mary from minnesota, priscilla from minnesota, maria from minnesota, doug from minnesota, all calling in and sharing very courageously their health care nightmare that they need to be relieved of.

they need reform, mr. speaker. and the time for change is now. they need reform, mr. speaker. and the time for change is now. and so let me wrap up my comments by just saying that it's wrong in the first three months of 2009 that the u.s. chamber of commerce and phrma paid to promote their interests which is to thwart reform of health care. and it is very disturbing that the "washington post" had to report recently that the nation largest insurers have hired more than 350 former government staffers and retired members of congress in hopes of influencing us to thwart reform. and it's actually disgusting that the health care industry is spending more than $1.4 million a day lobbying to thwart health

care reform. mr. speaker, as a member of the progressive caucus who has a vision of an america where people who are sick can go to the doctor, mr. speaker, as a member of the progressive caucus that has a vision that we all can have deesp ent, affordable health care, i urge my colleagues, mr. speaker, to think about these decent people, anita, janice and others, because surely in their districts they have people just like these good people who need change. let's say yes to the american people, mr. speaker. it's been an honor appearing here on the house floor with the progressive message and with the progressive caucus message.

and mr. speaker, people can communicate by going to this website cpc boston grijalva.house.gov. and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, is recognized for half of the remaining time until midnight. mr. king: i appreciate the honor and privilege talking here on the house of representatives. and as i gather here in my preparations i understood the remarks by the gentleman from minnesota he would be glad if i would perhaps address the health insurance and health care issue here in the country and i would be glad to do that.

and i believe also my friend from texas will be glad to do that. what stands out in my mind is this, that the president of the united states campaigned on a promise that he wanted to deliver and looks to me looks like a national health care act, what i would call socialized medicine. that's what we called it when it was hillary care and now obama care. the american people are very satisfied with their health insurance program and they are almost completely satisfied with the health care that they get when they do require that kind of care, the kind of care they get in clinics and hospitals, kind of care that is provided by our doctors and our nurses and our various practitioners is the number one in the world. for example, the canadian people that have the obama care plan come to the united states when they really need medical care. and i happen to notice that people that have socialized

medicine program in the european union, the cue is longer in france and germany and spain and people might have to move around the european union to move around to get their hip replacement or surgery or whatever they might be. it's not the kind of care i want to see in the united states of america. we don't have people waiting in line or sitting outside the emergency room and we don't have people in the emergency room for care because it's more convenient to them unless of course somebody else is paying the bill. because we have at least incentive and a component of it that is a free market system. even though the federal government pays for a large share, the reason our health care system in the united states is so good and the biggest reason that our pharmaceuticals have raced so far ahead in resevere and development and the reason we have so much

technology and such high quality health care, one of those reasons is because of the practitioners that are there. they are in business for the right reason. they want to help people and they want to provide good health care services. but on top of that, there is least incentive for profit. if you take it away, it discourages people from going off to med school and discourages them from developing their skills and education and discourages the entrepreneurs and the innovateors from producing more and more innovation when it comes to health care. and so the rest of the world's opportunities to benefit from the innovativeness from the united states would be diminished if we adopted socialized medicine here in the united states. what are we trying to fix? i would suggest there are 47 million people in america that don't have health insurance. now, no one should be very alarmed at that when they understand that everyone has

access to health care. and yes, it might be in the emergency room. and it might not. and it's more often than not covered by somebody else's contribution or there would be through their workplace sometimes or through some kind of government program or medicare or medicaid, but they all have access to health care and a large percentage of us have health insurance. and a number of 44 million to 47 million who are uninsured according to those on this side of the aisle who never come down here to ask me yield and rebut my arguments. they are bewildered by the truth. i would be happy to healed yield if any of you have an argument, but you don't. 44 million to 47 million uninsured by your nems. when you start carving out of that, those here illegally in the united states, if i.c.e., the immigration customs

enforcement were to deliver a voucher that would provide for about half of these uninsured, pay for their insurance premium, they would be compelled by law to hand them the voucher. you can count that number down substantially. if you take out of these 44 million, the number of people who are in transition from one health insurance policy to another and take out of that, the young people who haven't gotten themselves into a program yet, partly they don't want to pay the premiums for people with higher health care costs, the 20's to early 30's area. the uninsured, according to a recent study, totals about 4% of the american population. if we establish socialized medicine, we are going to get covered 9% of the population. and we are at this point now that the chronically uninsured are 4% of the population. why would we upset and

completely transform the best health care system in the world to try to narrow down the 4% chronically uninsured and maybe if they participate, we could get them down to 1%. for that 3%, we would upset the entire system, mr. speaker. it does not make sense to me. and you cannot, you cannot save money in this health care program by turning it to the government unless you ration and what is happening now, medicare is pushing the cost over to the private car years. that's the real circumstance. and i want to say, mr. speaker, to you, and i want to make sure the american people hear this, when president obama says don't worry if you like your health insurance program that you have, you get to keep it, he's only the president of the united states. he doesn't get to promise americans they get to keep their policy. he's setting up and wants to set up a national health care act, a socialized medicine program and

insurance program that competes with the private sector. and when you use taxpayer dollars to subsidize funding directly against the private sector, you necessarily will shrink and outcompete the private sector because it's going to be subsidized from without the public -- the government insurance program will be subsidized by taxpayers, and if it is, it can't outcompete the private sector. it's the matter of the formula. if you are an insurance company that has to have your administrative costs added in and margin for the profit, always competing for the best bargain, which adds to the efficiencies, i will add, and the government comes in and says we will take you head to head, but pump in 25% of our costs out of the taxpayers here to funnel this in, that means they will be able to lower the premiums down and take these private health insurers out. i can tell you what happened in

germany. bismarck established a national health care there more than 100 years ago sometime in the late 1800's. and today, 90% of germans are covered by the government plan, the taxpayer-subsidized plan. everyone is required to have a plan and 90% have a plan. and 10% are covered by private insurance. that's all that's left. they pushed out all of the private carriers except for 10%. that 10% are for people who are self-employed who can opt into that and have a better program. that's what's kept that 10% margin there. i don't think 10% is legitimate competition. when the government runs and owns everything in the united states, what happens to your prices, efficiency and services? prices go up, efficiency and services gets down. president obama cannot promise the american people that you get to keep your health insurance

plan because they are going to drive the health insurance companies out of business. even if they don't, the employers who control those policies and the employee providers of health insurance will be making that decision on whether they want to opt into the government plan or whether they want to maintain the same or a different private plan for their employees. yes, you can wabe in with your employer, but your employer will have to make a decision on the bottom line. is it cheaper to use taxpayer subsidized health insurance for the employees or cheaper to provide for the unsubsidized health insurance premiums from the private insurance companies. that decision will be made on a dollar-per-dollar basis and what looks good for the short-term and long-term and it won't be a decision made by president obama but by the employer. if the government plan safes the employer money, and you're an

employee that's covered by your employer-covered plan, you can kiss it good-bye. it will be a government plan, it will be a national health care plan, it will be socialized medicine and one size fits all in the united states of america under president obama's proposal. that's a fact. it really is logically irrefuteable no matter how many irrefuteable no matter how many times they repeat it. it comes back to the same conclusion, which is the american people won't get to decide if they keep their own plan. employers will decide. and the government will subsidize the competition to the point where it drives out the private sector providers and then it's all one size fits all, one government plan, all socialized medicine, all canadian model, all england model and what a cruel thing to model and what a cruel thing to do to the canadians.