in whitworth's university center for applied health sciences. now, i can't imagine that any university in the united states would not want federal funding to increase student capacity at their institution. in fact, i doubt these universities would even be picky about the field to which the money was designated. but simply wanting federal money does not equate or merit getting the money. you simply ought to have, to the extent we provide federal dollars for institutions of higher learning, they ought to be distributed on a competitive basis, not on a spoil system, not because one member can designate here or there. we tell the agencies, you have to set up a program by which people can compete for grants like this but then we tell them, all right, but not for this pot of money, we're simply going to designate it. for the rest of the money in that account, then let people compete for that, but i'll get

mine for my university or she's going to get hers for her university or they're going to get theirs for their university. that's not right. if we don't like the way the federal agencies are distributing the money we ought to change the way that is set up about the way they distribute the money. but we shouldn't run a parallel system where we say we don't like the way you're distributing money so you simply -- you simply will have to wait and watch while we distribute off the top. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment and am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from washington state, mrs. mcmorris rodgers, time. the chair: the gentlewoman from washington state is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i appreciate the gentleman for

yielding time. i am in opposition to this amendment. to the gentleman from arizona's point, if there is a way for us to set up a system whereby universities and colleges could compete for this funding, i would like to look at it. bottom line, i think we need to be investing more in this type of education. i am concerned about america's competitiveness, and i look at what's happening in this country. and we talk a lot about our taxes and our tax code and the fact that we have the second highest corporate tax in the world and the impact that that has on our competitiveness and our ability for small businesses to compete. we talk about our regulatory climate, our litigious system. but i think we need to be looking at our education system. we know that around the world other countries are investing in these stem areas, especially, the science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and it is important to our future. if you think of america's

ability to continue to be leader anyone ovation, a technology in leadership and research, i do think we need to be investing more in these areas. you know, i'm one of those that are shocked to know that a third of those will drop out of high school. 50% of those that goes to college need some kind of remedial math or language. we need to be raising the bar. we need to give them more opportunities. as it relates to natural science and engineering majors, it's estimated by the national science foundation that we will experience a shortage of 675,000 natural science and engineering majors in the next few years. we need to give our students the critical skills necessary to compete in the new global economy. utilizing advanced technology and state-of-the-art equipment in our colleges, such as what the funding allows in this bill will help accomplish that goal. whitworth university has seen a 57% rise in the number of students may jorg in science.

the stem project, which is also matched by private funds, will give whitworth the ability to install the necessary technology and equipment to allow an additional 2,500 students to pursue science majors. moreover, inclusion of this advanced technology and state-of-the-art equipment in required research intensive courses will enable students to be better prepared to attribute to our nation's work force immediately upon graduation. this project is supported by a bipartisan group of state legislatures, the greater spokane incorporated and others that are focused on this issue. mr. speaker, there's no doubt what he must be concerned about out-of--- that we must be concerned about out-of-control spending, yet i do think there are worthy projects out there that will allow america to remain a global leader in technology. i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. frelinghuysen: may i yield to the chair, mr. chairman? the chair: the gentleman yields to the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: just to inform the gentlelady that the committee is opposed to the amendment and support her congressional directed earmark. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona. new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield back at this time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: may i inquire as to the time remaining? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes. mr. flake: two minutes. let me say again, here we have a private university. i'm sure that it's a great university. i'm sure this is a great program that it has, but we have private and public universities all over the country that are hurting badly. and would like to receive funding like this and would like to be able to compete for funding like this under a program where they're on equal footing, where the money is not earmarked or cut off the top

and just awarded to individual organizations or institutions. that's the problem with this process. it's one of the problems of this sprose -- process. i urge adoption of the resolution. again, let me just go back to the request for unanimous consent to modify the amendment. again, going back to what the appropriations chairman said the other day to the majority leader or said with the majority leader, we did offer the minority leader the opportunity in a compressed number of amendments to select their own amendments, any amendments they wanted, but they did not want to be limited in number or time. here we're saying, we will be limited to number and time. we simply would simply like to select the amendments. we are being denied that opportunity five times, five requests for unanimous consent, five denials to simply offer

the amendments that we would like to offer. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not fwred to. mr. flake: mr. chairman, -- the chair: the amendment is not agreed to. mr. flake: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk designated as number 11 in part c. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part c, amendment number 11 printed in house report 111-209 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: pursuant to the house resolution of 645, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: mr. chairman, this amendment would prohibit $1.6 million from funding the boston architectural college urban sustainability project. i appreciate the fact that boston architectural college is interested in urban sustainability and green environment. they serve as a model for densely built areas such as the back bay historic district. in fact, the green ally funding for this earmark would be constructed in back bay's public alease. for those unfamiliar with boston, it is a commercial and retail office district. it's considered to be one -- in one of boston's most high-rent neighborhoods. while the construction of the project may be carried out by the boston architect rale college it will benefit an

affluent neighborhood. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i like to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> the school is not affluent. the neighborhood's not doing the work. the school is doing the work. the neighborhood will benefit from it from some indirect way because they live the river. the stormwater runs in the chiles river and pollutes it. i want to make it clear. my presumption is, i don't know yet. i want to make it clear. based on things i read in the paper, this college doesn't have a lobbyist, either federal or state lobbyist. nobody in the school has ever donated to my campaign. nothing at the school is named after me is or proposed to be named after me. and to my knowledge, the school

has not received an earmark from the federal government prior to this. unless there's an objection to the specific earmark i don't know that it fits into all the categories i've heard in the past. not every member of the majority wanted this amendment to be offered today. but i don't mind. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: the gentleman is correct. this goes to the boston architectural college. this sustainable design project program is an online program. it allows students to enroll in classes and complete a certificate without even stepping onto the campus. who then will be carrying out the project? i just wonder how the residents of chicago, for example, whose alleyways have to outnumber just about every city in the world feel about this earmark. in 2006 chicago created its own green ally initiative, one of the biggest street makeovers.

chicago used its own resources and relied on the chicago department of transportation to implement the program. boston architectural college is trying to be an example in urban sustainability. maybe they should be and we should all be looking to chicago for that. not only has chicago implemented several green initiatives on a much wider scale, but it does not appear to rely on an earmark to do it. we simply can't afford to continue to earmark dollars for this program or others where we're running a deficit that could approach $2 trillion this year. i don't know how many times we have to say it or how many times we have to be voted down on the floor on these before we recognize we have to change things here. we are on a path fiscally that is unsustainable. and when we continue to have bills like this that earmark hundreds of millions of

dollars, not on a competitive basis. remember, earmarks aren't competitive. earmarks mean that you forgo it. you tell those who are competing for this, you need to take a backseat because we are going to take the money that you competed for and we are going to give it to somebody else. and so perhaps this program is worthy of federal money. perhaps it isn't. it should have to compete for it. if we don't like the way the federal agencies have set up the programs for competition, we should change them. we should instruct them to change them. that's part of the process of authorizing, appropriating and then exercising appropriate oversight. but instead here, we're saying we don't like the way we do it over there so we're going to create a parallel system and we are going to do it ourselves. and that's simply not right. it's done. it amounts to a spoil system as i mentioned here in congress where a few powerful members tend to get the bulk of the

dollars. it amounts to something in the defense bill where you're giving a no-bid contract to private companies. and that's simply not right. we tell the federal agencies you have to set up a program for competition, but then we do something else. and it's not right, mr. chairman. and i would urge support for the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. capuano: mr. chairman, i will trade every earmark that will be designated for boston for all those designated for chicago any day of the week. and if this gentleman can make it happen, count me in. as far as where the money comes from, let me point out that the commonwealth of massachusetts is a donor state across the board. we pay more in taxes than we get back. might i dare say that the gentleman's state is not in

that category. and i don't mind that. mr. flake: will the gentleman yield? mr. capuano: not yet. i don't mind that because i see myself as an american, not just a citizen of boston or massachusetts. i think that's how we build this great nation. on occasion do i think we have good ideas in boston? yes, i do. as far as the gentleman's concern about our deficit, i think he's 1,000,000% right. i join me in teally dealing with the deficit. one earmark at a time doesn't do it. it makes p.r. i'd rather be reading the health bill right now. but that's ok. i'd ask the gentleman, where was he on november 14, 2002, when this house was voting on roll call number 482 which was the roll call to maintain the pay-go rules that when the only things that kept the entire

federal government constrained? only 19 of us voted to keep the pay-go rules. i was one of them. because i share the gentleman's concern about deficits. you don't deal with deficits one nickel or one dime or $1 million at a time. you deal with them across the board if that's the concern. if the concern is this particular earmark, i didn't hear too many things that designated this, if the concern is the concept of earmarks, well, i didn't run for office to do nothing. i did not run for office to allow the president or the governor in the state, and i was a mayor, i don't believe in imperial executives. so we disagree on that issue. if it's the deficit i will join the gentleman anytime to truly address the deficit problem we have in this country because i think he has a good point on that issue, not on this earmark, which is exactly why i hope this particular amendment is defeated. and with that i yield back the

balance of my time. . the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. flake: mr. chairman, on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendments in part d. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. hensarling: i have an amendment at the desk designated number 1. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part d, amendment number 1, printed in house report number 111-209, offered by mr. hensarling of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 645, the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. chairman. this is an amendment which would strike an earmark for a half a million dollars to the new york metropolitan museum of art. according to the sponsor's website, the money would be used, quote, for needed conversion of various hvac systems from obsolete and high-energy consuming systems to direct digital control systems which will vastly reduce energy costs while allowing for greater conservation and use of existing energy within the building, unquote. mr. chairman, i want to stimulate -- stipulate that i have no doubt this would be a very valuable improvement for the met. i have no doubt this is a good use of somebody's money. but, mr. chairman, i have several questions about this. listen, let me also stipulate that the metropolitan museum of art is one of the great art museums in the world.

when i have the occasion to go to new york city, i love to go to the met. i particularly love to go to the galleries that have the art of the various impressionists. i could spend hours if not days there. so let me stipulate again i have no doubt that this is a good use of somebody's money. but let me give you a little background, mr. chairman. the spending that has been taking place in washington, d.c., is at an unsustainable pace. already this body has passed a $1.1 trillion government stimulus plan costing every american family $9,810. including $100 million for an after-school snack program. $1 billion for the census. an omnibus costing $400 billion. costing every american family $3,534. including $150,000 for lobster

research in maine. $1.9 million for pleasure beach water taxi service in connecticut. a $700 billion bailout program so that folks like chrysler, g.m., a.i.g., and a host of others can get taxpayer dollars costing every american family $6,034. only two weeks ago a new national energy tax passed by the house for the every american family that would dare to turn on a light switch t. will cost them $1,500 and $3,000. just yesterday a new proposal by house democrats for a government-controlled health care plan that will cost a minimum of $1 trillion. the spending goes on and on and on. given that backdrop -- i ask several questions. number one, is the money for the met, is this really a federal responsibility?

according to the chief financial officer of the met, 31% of their money comes from endowments, 28% from gifts, 14% from admissions. is it really the responsibility of the federal taxpayer to pay for this improvement in their heating ventilation and air conditioning system? if it's a federal responsibility, mr. chairman, is it really a federal priority? given that we just had reports that the national deficit exceeded $1 trillion for the first time in our nation's history, i just ask the question, if it is a federal responsibility, is it a federal priority? if it's a federal priority is it equal to other federal priorities? is it as important as spending money for the national institute of health to find a cure for cancer? is it as important as spending money on our veterans' health care system? in particularly in this economy, mr. chairman, is it as important

as giving tax relief to small business, the job engine in america? if it races to that level of importance, i ask one more question and that is, is it worth borrowing money from the chinese to send a bill to our children and grandchildren in order to give this improvement for the hvac at the new york met? as great as the museum is, as great as this hvac system is, mr. chairman i do not think it rises to that level. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. maloney: i thank the gentleman. i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and thank you for offering me the opportunity to talk about the merits of the energy conservation and efficiency upgrade of the hvac controls project.

this has been vetted by my office, the energy and water appropriations subcommittee, and the department of energy that will not only -- and they have decided that it will not only directly and positive lim impact my district, but the nation at large. included in the energy efficiency and renewable energy account, this project will use sold state sensors and controllers and direct digital control systems that have considerable energy efficiency and advantages over conventional systems. these features will yield energy savings of up to 15% when compared to conventional systems. thus a significant savings to the environment and a substantial reduction in energy use by a major museum. one of theoals of the metropolitan museum of part is to reduce the energy consumption of its buildings while improving

cost-effectiveness. to achieve these goals, the museum is seeking to use energy efficient and renewable energy technologies, recycled and sustainable materials, and sight sensitive design to minimize the burden on the environment. and one major piece of this energy efficiency effort is the upgrade of the various systems to boost energy output while allowing greater control per building in the complex. this will reduce energy waste. this conversion project will also help generate 20 employment positions which is needed in this time of job loss. finally i would say that the metropolitan museum of art is a national treasure. it is a cultural and artistic center in our country. and even if the gentleman or others do not recognize the value of funding art in our

society, which i certainly support, it is part of the economic lifeblood of new york and this country. it pays considerable taxes and it also generates revenues in our city from the over five million annual visitors to the museum. it is one of the top tourist attractions in the country. and by supporting this funding request, you support the thousands of small businesses in the community that will benefit from the many who visit it. i might also say that the museum is considered one of the finest in the world. it includes not only the art history of america, but the historical art from around the world, and it is also a center that helps other museums, including texas. the museum recently volunteered its help to the kimble art museum in fort worth which draws attendees from congressman hensarling's district and exhibited the first known

painting by michelangelo. this painting was cleaned, transported, restored, and hung by the metropolitan museum of art without the contribution of the met, the kimble museum in texas would not have been able to support the exhibition of this invaluable work. i am confident this project is a valuable use of taxpayers' dollars, investing and creating jobs and helping other museums and helping the economic development of the district i'm proud to represent. in response to the gentleman's other points, our economic problems were not created in the five months that mr. -- president obama has been in office. and they are not going to be resolved in five months, either. we are facing the most severe recession since the great depression, and it will take time for the recovery to -- act

to take hold. likewise, the recovery act was not designed to work in five months, it was designed to work over two years. and the recovery act was designed to provide a boost necessary to stop the free fall and lay the foundation for recovery. we are working as quickly as possible in my district and across new york state to move the stimulus money into the economy as quickly as be possible. economist standy estimates -- zandy estimates that in the last three months alone over 500,000 jobs were saved as a result of the stimulus spending. so far, $43 billion of the recovery spending has come in the form of tax relief to america's working families and businesses. let's imagine the situation we would have been in if we had not had the tarp money to stabilize our financial institutions and let them fail. the failure of our financial and

credit systems would have followed the failure of institutions crippling our economy. with millions of losse of jobs in so many directions and unemployment to millions of americans. so i strongly support this. i believe it's a good investment in energy efficiency and job creation. and the economic development of our country. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. chairman, may i inquire how much time i have remaining? the chair: 30 seconds. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. chairman. i don't -- i would say to my friend, the gentlelady, i don't have the honor of representing fort worth in congress. my constituents appreciate the kimble museum. they appreciate the met. more importantly they appreciate the fact they don't want to borrow a half a million dollars from the chinese and send the bill to their children and grandchildren and future generations. those are the taxpayers and the citizens of the fifth district

of texas that i have the honor of representing. spending is out of control. let's start somewhere. let's say no to somebody today so we can say yes to our children's future tomorrow. i urge adoption of the amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. hensarling: mr. chairman, on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. hensarling: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk designated number 2. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part d, amendment number 2, printed in house report number 111-209, offered

by mr. hensarling of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution number 645, the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. chairman. this is an amendment that would strike an earmark also known as pork barrel spending, for pier 36 removal in san francisco, california, reduce the overall account by $6.22 million. apparently pier 36 is located along the san francisco bay, apparently according to san francisco's port authority which owns the pier removal of the pier is necessary to begin a new wharf project. again, mr. chairman, i would just ask several different

questions about this particular earmark. although i have no doubt that removal of this pier must be a good thing, i'm kind of curious why the san francisco port authority doesn't pay for it itself. i don't think the federal government owns this particular pier. . again, i don't think this is a good use of the money. i question if it's a good use of the federal taxpayer money at this time. again, mr. chairman, this amendment has to be put in context of the spending that goes on around here. you know, mr. chairman, i think, when will we stop the madness? when will it stop? my democratic colleagues from across the aisle have now brought us a budget which will triple, triple the national debt in 10 years, triple it, mr. chairman.

we will run up under their budget more debt, more debt in the next 10 years than in the previous 220 years of our republic combined. i mean, this is shocking, absolutely shocking. now, mr. chairman, as you well know, for the first time, for the first time in our nation's history, the federal deficit has exceeded $1 trillion. and in just two years, the federal deficit has increased 10-fold. we are borrowing 46 cents on every dollar, borrowing it from the chinese, the japanese, the russians. tin cup in hand running around the world saying, please, please, lend me money, because i can't stop spending. now i heard one of my colleagues say earlier, this is just nickel and dime kind of stuff. number one, mr. chairman, i hope i am never in washington so long that i conclude that

$6.22 million of the taxpayer money is not a lot. now, i know relative to the entirety of the spending explosion that's going on around this place, maybe it's not a huge amount but, mr. chairman, you know, if you don't start saving the pennies and nickels, how will you ever save the dollars? i've seen no attempt around this place to reform medicare, reform medicaid, reform social security. i mean, i'm told that somehow if we nationalize, federalize health care, that if we have a federal bureaucrat somehow stand between people's families and their doctors that somehow that's going to save money when the congressional budget office says it will cost at least $1 trillion, and that's just a down payment. i've never known the federal government to take something over and somehow it's going to cost less money. you know, mr. chairman, this goes to the culture of the spending. and unless you change the culture of spending, you are you a never going to change

spending. -- you're never going to change spending. according to the website this is the request of the speaker of the house. she can lead by example more so than any individual in this institution. she can lead by example. in november, 2006, she said, quote, you can't have bridges to nowhere for america's children to pay for, unquote. well, mr. chairman, apparently you can't have piers to nowhere for america's children to pay for. the speaker of the house once said, quote, it's just absolutely immoral, immoral for us to heap those deficits on our children, unquote, yet the speaker of the house today will heap an additional $6.22 million of deficit on our children. she more than anybody else can lead by example, and i'm disappointed this earmark was brought to us today. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.

for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. pastor: i rise in opposition to the amendment and claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pastor: actually, this pier is somewhere, it's in san francisco. pier 36. i bring to the gentleman that this removal in 2007 -- in the 2007 wrda bill, the funds were authorized so that the corps would begin removing the deteriorated pier 36, which is located at the san francisco waterfront. this pier was built in 1908-1909, and it was built to reinforce concrete for the use as a freight ferry facility. the pier was originally -- excuse me -- 721 feet long and 201 feet wide. the outer wood portions after

70 years of being in the elements of this pier have deteriorated. recently, further deterioration has caused the pier to be closed, and it has been secured with fencing to prevent entry. the deteriorating sections of decking and wooden supports continue to rot, break and float into the bay which represents a potential hazard to navigation in the adjacent federal channel. in addition, pier 36 was constructed using material which contain a class of chemical compounds known to affect the viability of fish spawning. use of the treated wood is now prohibited in new construction

in the san francisco bay. so the removal of pier 36, which was authorized in the wrda bill 2007 is needed to ensure that the continued deterioration, the piles that would fall into the water would not cause a threat to navigation and the chemicals that they were treated with would be mitigated as an environmental hazard. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. chairman, may i inquire how much time i have left? the chair: 30 seconds. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. chairman. again, the speaker of the house has said previously on november of 2006, quote, i just soon do away with all earmarks which

begs the question, why is she bringing at least two of them today? she's also said, it is absolutely immoral, immoral for us to heap those deficits on our children. why is she asking us to heap another immoral $6.22 million of debt on to our children? it's time to lead by example. i urge adoption of the amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: mr. chairman, the committee finds merits in this authorized pier 36 removal, and we ask our colleagues to object to and refuse the amendment as offered. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. hensarling: mr. chairman.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. hensarling: mr. chairman, on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. hensarling: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk designated number 4. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part d, amendment number 4 printed in house report 111-209 offered by mr. hensarling of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution number 645, the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. chairman. this is an amendment that would strike another earmark. this one is for half a million dollars, according to the sponsor's website, quote, funding would be used by the borough of south river, new jersey, to purchase and install

automaticed remote and elect trick meters for utilities owned by the borough. it would use, buy directional real-time facilities by the consumer, unquote. unlike my previous amendments, mr. chairman, i stipulate i assume this is very interesting, useful, cutting edge kind of stuff for the borough of south river, new jersey. i'm sure that this would help the gentleman's constituents. maybe it will help them make them more energy efficient. i would just assume that this is good technology. again, i assume that it's a good use of somebody's money. but, again, i question, is it a federal responsibility, number one? you know, why the citizens of the borough of south river, new jersey? why not the citizens of provo, utah, bangor, maine, not to

mention minneola, texas, which happens to be in my district? should we buy these for every single borough, city, town, village in the nation? again, mr. chairman, this has to be put in backdrop of what's going on in our economy today. since the president took office, what we know, mr. chairman, is that unemployment has gone up to 9.5%, an increase of just 25% since the president has been in office. since he's been in office, the economy has shed 2.6 million jobs. the public debt has increased 13.66%. the federal deficit now exceeds $1 trillion. $1 trillion for the first time in our entire nation's history.

and so i would again ask my colleagues, you know, where do you draw the line? where do you finally say no to someone's project today so you can say yes to our children and grandchildren's future tomorrow? i would hope it would be here. i would hope it would be now. and, again, like another of my colleagues said, i wish we were talking about saving trillions of dollars today. and frankly i as other members of the republican side have offered amendments that would save substantial amounts of money. but a funny thing happened on the way to the rules committee. somehow those, those weren't found in order. and so we don't have the opportunity to debate those amendments on the house floor, so i guess we're left to debate half a million dollars of the amendments instead of half a trillion dollar amendments like we would like.

you know, you got to remember that dollars have alternative uses, mr. chairman. every dollar that is spent on an auto mated remote electric water meter for the borough of south river by the federal taxpayer is $1 that cannot be spent on cancer research at the institute of national health, can't be spent for a rural veterans health care clinic, can't be spent for the job engine of america. that's -- that's the national priority now is to get the economy moving again. and i just ask, number one, is this a federal priority? is it a federal responsibility? why not other cities? and, again, the critical question at a time when we're tripling the national debt over the next 10 years, is it worth borrowing money from the chinese and sending the bill to our children and grandchildren? mr. chairman, i say no. i say no so that i can say to

my 5-year-old son's future, my 7-year-old daughter's future and the future of all the children and grandchildren in our great country. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. for what purpose do you rise? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment, mr. chair. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes, mr. holt. mr. holt: i understand reining in excessive government spending. he's misguided on this spend. this is a project that would provide a real benefit to the residents of the borough of south river and as a demonstration project it would serve as an example for the rest of new jersey and the northeast and indeed the whole nation of how to use technology to conserve energy, to use it more wisely. in fact, every dollar spent to paraphrase my friend here, on smart metering is indeed a dollar well spent. my constituents in my new jersey pay some of the highest

utility rates in the nation. in the borough of south river, they are seeking assistance to help decrease the electric bills of the borough residents and they're seeking to demonstrate that this works. funding for the automated remote electric project would provide relief to the constituents in this municipal energy system, and it will serve as a wonderful example. south river owns and operates its own utilities. it's moving toward implementing a boroughwide smart grid. this metering that the borough intends to purchase is the first step toward this eventually goal. they'll provide real-time consumption information. it would allow the users to make wise decisions based on the real cost of service in real time. it's just exactly what we've been discussing here in the

house of representatives in recent weeks. it's well established in the scientific community that climate change of recent decades can be attributed to the way we produce and use energy, and that climate change is altering our planet in ways that are expensive and deadly. i spoke to the mayor of south river yesterday who assured me that he's ready to go ahead with the project. it's one of their top priorities. they've been working on it for years. one in which they've already made considerable investments in preparing an efficient municipal utility. . this will serve as an example. i might add that the gentleman's hometown state 6 texas -- of texas ranks 32nd in the nation of texas dollars returned from washington. my home state of new jersey ranks considerably lower than that. as a so-called donor state i don't apologize to my constituents for working to return their tax dollars.

i really only regret that all municipal utilities in the country are not funded to convert to smart metering. this is certainly a good investment. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. 30 seconds. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. chairman. i didn't even have to ask this time. i saw that the gentleman from new jersey was lamenting the high energy rates of his constituents, and although don't have the house record in front of of me, i'm under the impression he recently voted for the national energy tax which could cost his constituents anywhere from $1500, to $3,000. i believe in the valu of demonstration projects as well. my constituents would like a demonstration project, of fiscal sanity in the united states congress. they have yet to see one. here is a small demonstration project of fiscal sanity on behalf 6 our -- of our children and grandchildren by adopting this amendment.

i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: i ask the chair the remaining time. the chair: the gentleman has two minutes. mr. holt: i thank the chair. let me try to figure out why it is that the gentleman from texas is proposing to do this. i can assure -- i think it's unlikely he knows as much about this project as i do. i must say energy has been my professional field for most of my life. this is, i would argue, a good investment. to refer to the comments of my colleague from massachusetts a while ago, this approach of trying to deal with the deficit and excess spending one project at a time is sort of a waste. if the gentleman is really concerned about this, i presume that we will find his vote in the aye column next week when we

consider pay-as-you-go legislation. if he's concerned about earmarks as a concept, then i would say, yes, the o.m.b., the office of management and budget, speaking on behalf of the white house, should have included this project in their request to congress and many more like it. but they didn't. and so is the gentleman saying that the house of representatives should just be an up or down vote on what the president sends to us? the president will decide what the budget should be. we take it or leave it. no. that's not the way it should work. this is something that i offer, it provides no partisan political advantage. the mayor of this town is of the other party. no one from the burrough from my knowledge has made any campaign contribution to any member of congress. this is just good policy.

it should have been in the budget sent over by the president. but it wasn't. lots of things should be in the budget sent over by the president, but they are not. that's why we scrub the budget and decide what should be added and what should be subtracted. call it earmarking if you want, but i don't -- i would hope that the gentleman would not think that we should abdicate our responsibilities here as members. i yield back the balance of my time i yield to back my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman fr texas rise? mr. hensarling: on that i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? the question is on the motion to rise. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes have it. the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 3183, directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 3183 and has come to no

resolution thereon. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. the gentlelady from kansas. >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jenkins: mr. speaker, the number of empty storefronts across kansas is growing and the folks who call our towns home continue to ask, where are the jobs? they hear about bailouts and the $1 trillion so-called economic stimulus, but kansans are still struggling. the nation's deficit has topped $1 trillion for the first time. and some say it could grow to $2 trillion by this fall. we should be ashamed. but rather than putting the brakes on this out-of-control spending spree, some think washington needs to spend more. mr. speaker, when does it stop?

instead of taxing small businesses out of existence, we should provide tax relief so they can hire more employees and create jobs. instead of throwing money at programs that aren't working, we should find responsible ways to cut spending. small businesses and innovative americans hold the key to jumpp starting our economy. it's time for washington to let them do their job. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: are there any further one-minute requests? the gentleman from illinois. mr. kirk: thank you. i seek to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kirk: thank you. mr. speaker, this is what the house government health care bill creates. $1 trillion, 1,000 pages, $1 billion per page. here is the patient and over

here is the doctor. now, moderate republicans have a much better plan we will put forward. our medical rights act says congress cannot restrict the decisions of you and your doctor. and eliminates the need for all of this and puts you right next to your physician without the need for $1 trillion in spending. the speaker pro tempore: are are there any further one-minutes? for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today, following ledge business, and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house, revise and extend their remarks, and include therein extraneous material. mr. jones from north carolina on july 22. myself, mr. poe, for july 22. mr. forbes for july 16.

mr. dreier for july 16 and july 17. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. pallone: i ask unanimous consent that may name be removed from house resolution 648. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pallone: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. klein: i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, to revise and extend their remarks, and include therein extraneous material. ms. woolsey, mr. massa, mr. klein, ms. kaptur, and mr. defazio. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. young of

florida for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. pursuant to 10 u.s. code 935-a amended by public law 1 08-375, and the orders of the house on january 6, 2009, the chair announces the speaker's appointment of the following members of the house to the board of visitors to the united states air force academy. the clerk: mr. polis of colorado, miss loretta sanchez of california, and mr. lamborn of colorado. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previous order of the house, the following members are are recognized for five minutes each. mr. poe of texas. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker.

under the united states constitution, article 1, section 2 it states that every 10 years there will be a counting of the people. the purposes are twofold, one, to levy direct taxes, and second, to find out how many people live in the united states so that members of congress can be apportioned percentagewise based on population. that is the purpose of the census and it's a good purpose. next year we will have another undertaking of the census, of the counting of the people in the united states. but also independent of the census there is a survey that is being taken -- given, rather, to american citizens, three million next year, and three million every year. i want to make it clear this is not the census but this is a system of surveying the american people. it just so happens that today i got one of these surveys. it's labeled from the united states department of commerce, the census bureau, and it's the

american community survey. it says, your response is required by law. you open this document, you get a lot of paperwork, you get several documents that says you have to fill this out by penalty of law if you don't. but you get the survey, mr. speaker, the american community survey, is 28 pages. if a person receives one of these and doesn't fill it out, you violated federal law. now, the survey contains a lot of information that makes me wonder why does the federal government even want this information? why should the government even have this information? and here's some of the questions that it asks. the value of your residence. how much your monty pay for your mortgage. how many rooms in your house. toum toilets. what kind of vehicles do you drive? how many pickups are in texas? do you have a stove, refrigerator. what type of fuel do you use? how much does it cost you each month to use that fuel? how much does each person in the

household or in the residence, rather, make? what is their income? where do they work? what do they do? how long have they done that? what is the cost of the mortgage? what is the cost of health insurance for each person? what is the cost of taxes in the house? it goes on and on and. 28 pages required by federal law under the american community survey act. i won't go into all the questions because i don't have time but i'd like to mention one more. one one question is, each person has to answer this question, because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition, does the person have trouble concentrating, remembering, or making decisions? now, should have the federal government have that information? why should a person in the residence make that determination about themselves and then have to answer that question for everybody else in the residence? i certainly hope they are all getting along well. it also asks because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition does the person have

difficulty dressing? doing errands? difficulty shopping? and it goes on and on and on, mr. speaker. back in 2007 two historians found some old documents from the department of commerce archives and the franklin delano roosevelt presidential lie brarery. these documents confirmed for the first time that the census bureau turned over information to incarcerate over 100,000 individual japanese americans after the pearl harbor attack. this information was reported by "usa today." the census bureau information made it all possible. of course the census bureau has denied that it gave that information. but be it as it may, it was legal in 1940. in 1942, documents proved the census bureau turned over these addresses of the japanese americans to the war department. in 1943 they turned over their financial information to the department of treshry. this was all nice and legal in the war powers act of 1940.

it was legal, but it wasn't ethical. we know what happened to 100,000 american -- japanese americans, they were interned. the point is this, mr. speaker, this should be voluntary. if members of the united states, citizens, want to give this information to the federal government, so the federal government can have a file on everybody, then they should be allowed to do that, i guess. but it shouldn't be required by law. that's why i have introduced legislation to allow citizens, not to fill this document out if they don't want to, because it invades, my opinion, their personal privacy rights. i'm not talking about the census, i'm talking about the survey that's being required by law to be sent out. people down in southeast texas, people who live in cut and shoot texas for example, they shouldn't be required to fill this information out. it violates their right of privacy. it's too much government. and maybe well intended but the federal government should not have this information and we as a member of -- members of congress should allow this information to be not required

but voluntary given by the people of the united states. that's just the way it is. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: ms. woolsey of california. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to speak out of order and claim the time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. klein: mr. speaker, i rise today to express strong support for h.r. 3138, the energy and water development it and related agencies appropriations act of 2010. i applaud the subcommittee chairman and the ranking member for moving this important bill through the appropriations committee and to the house floor. this bill funds some of the most critical programs in south florida where i live and my constituents are very much in tune with this particular bill. i'd like to spend a few moments today to focus on how this bill affects our area of south florida. since coming it to congress, i have been committed along with my democrat and republican colleagues to working to make sure in the florida delegation and members throughout the country that they support

federal government obligations to restore the incomparable river of grass which is known at the everglades. i was very pleased that president obama and his budget request made his promise and followed up on that to make everglades restoration a priority. although the $210 million in this bill doesn't quite match the president's request, the fact remains that this bill makes everglades restoration its biggest construction project and i commend the chairman and ranking member for keeping everglades restoration as a national priority. it's historical. mr. speaker, h.r. 3138's commitment to florida's priorities are also something to be mentioned. the beaches of south florida are some of the most beautiful in the nation but our coasts are facing a real crisis. they've become seriously eroded, endangering both the personal property and the personal safety of residents and guests. my district in south florida encompasses over 75 miles of beautiful coast line on the atlantic and has numerous shore construction projects but many

are mired in the army corps of engineer's permitting process. there are a lot of reasons why the permitting process is not as efficient as it could be but one problem we can address right here is the understaffing at the army corps of engineers. for example, palm beach county which is one of the counties i represent was forced to pay out of its taxpayer dollars the salary of an additional corps of engineers staffer for projects awaiting action. palm beach county became fed up with waiting year after year for the corps to act on their permit applications so they're now paying for the extra employee to do his job. this is a ridiculous situation and it's unfair to the taxpayers of south florida who are paying their fair share up here in washington. that's why i filed an amendment that was accepted as part of the chairman manager's amendment. this language will add $11.8 million on top of last year's funding level to find more staffing and support more

personnel to help act in a more efficient basis on these permits. this sizable investment will unclog the permitting pipeline that is hurting so many of our coastal communities. they deserve a timely decision so they can determine the best ways to protect the residents and the natural resources. mr. speaker, south florida and the entire country need greater strategic investment in our nation's priorities. this particular bill, 3138, will put us on a path toward energy independence in addition to a number of other bills we've already put on the table and sent to the president. the only way we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil is to invest in a multitude of technologies and make these technologies right here in the united states, creating the jobs right here. this bill invests in solar and wind energy in order to make our electricity cleaner and at the same time it also invests in weatherization and energy efficiency to bring down costs for consumers and businesses. the bill includes investments in clean coal technology and nuclear energy research so that we can unleash these innovations

and create high quality american jobs. the bill also makes critical investments in vehicle technology so that our gas tankses get more miles per gallon which will save us money at the pump and of course using less gasoline means we'll import less gasoline and that is an essential national security item because currently we're importing 60% of our oil from unstable countries around the world that in many cases are financing terrorism and drug trafficking with our pet row dollars. i believe that a transition to new energy sources will ensure that we do not continue to send billions of dollars to countries that are best not our friends and at worst our enemies. my strongest belief is we should never again have to make a foreign policy decision based on where the next drop of oil is coming from. lastly, h.r. 3183 builds on the recently passed american clean energy security and recovery act which has jumpstarted american investment in this new energy economy i've been talking about.

i truly believe this is a historic moment and extraordinary opportunity to create jobs in south florida and throughout the nation and unleash a new generation of energy technology built right here in america. i am proud to support h.r. 3138 and i'm looking forward to seeing the results on the ground in south florida. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. jones, north carolina. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. jones: i ask unanimous consent that i might speak for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: a true gentleman, the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, many members of the house may have seen a recent "wall street journal" article that documented how existing disclosure rimplets allow many of the costs -- requirements allow many of the costs associated with delegation trips overseas to go unreported. right now when members of congress take foreign trips using commercial airlines, the costs are publicly disclosed in reports published in the congressional record. however, the cost of members to

foreign trips using military aircraft are not. in the past, members of congress have used military aircraft even when traveling to exotic locations that are readily served by commercial airlines. press reports have indicated that the military even maintains a specially outfitted v.i.p. fleet operated out of andrews air force base which aircraft can carry costs estimated at $10,000 per hour. when a member of congress takes a taxpayer funded trip overseas, taxpayers have a right to know how much of their heard -- their hard-earned money is spent on that travel. for this recent i recently introduced h.r. 3036. this legislation would direct the department of defense to provide a report on the cost incurred in taking a member's -- a member of congress, officer or employee of congress on a trip outside the united states. it would then require the member of congress to disclose those costs and these costs would be

publicly reported online. mr. speaker, it's important to note that this bill would not apply to any trip for which the sole purpose is to visit one or more u.s. military installations or to visit u.s. military personnel in a war zone. since there may be vare idea security reasons -- varied security reasons. with our military budget stretched thin, it's more important than ever that congress acts as a responsible steward of taxpayer dollars, bringing sunshine to the cost of foreign travel will help ensure taxpayer dollars are efficiently used. i am pleased this legislation has received the support of the national taxpayers union, equal forum and public citizens congressional watch. it has also been endorsed by the council for citizens against government waste. their letter of support for this bill states, military aircraft is necessary when flying into

war zones or u.s. military installations overseas. however, the military fleet is too often used to shuttle members back and forth to locations served by commercial airlines. members of congress should be held accountable for every bill footed by taxpayers. again, that statement that i just read is from a letter the council for citizens against government waste wrote to support this legislation. in fact, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to submit the text of this letter for the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. jones: thank you. in closing, i hope my colleagues will become co-sponsors of h.r. 3036 and join in bringing transparency to the cost of foreign travel by members of congress and with that, mr. speaker, i will yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. massa from new york. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. burton: ask unanimous consent to address the house for

five minutes, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from indiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. burton: thank you, mr. speaker. this is not a road map. this is the democrat's new health care plan. you can believe that? all these white things, i was just talking to my colleague, mr. poe from texas, over there, and all these white things are new agencies of government. new agencies of government that we're going to have to pay for in order to take care of the health of the nation. now this thing is going to cost between $1 trillion and $3 trillion over the next 10 years. and i doubt seriously if anybody that's writing this 1,200-page bill or whatever it is knows what this stuff does. it's just crazy. look at all these agencies. look at the mind fields that -- mine fields that people have to

get through to get to their doctor to take care of their health care needs. other countries that have used this kind of an approach rationed health care for senior citizen, they rationed health care for people who have certain kinds of diseases, they have to wait months and months and months for m.r.i.'s and other things that we would get very rapidly here in the united states because we have the highest quality of health care in the world. and so we're going to create a government bureaucracy and i hope my colleagues back in their offices are look at this, because most of them haven't seen this, we're creating a government bureaucracy that looks worse than any federal highway system like in california. i mean, you can't even find your way around this thing. but that's not the worst of it. since last october, this is how much money we've spent, $700 billion on the tarp program, which includes $54 billion for the auto bailout, which we really didn't need to do because they filed for bankruptcy anyhow. so that $54 billion was wasted.

that's -- who cares? that's just taxpayers' money. then we had $1.1 trillion, including interests, for the stimulus package, which is not working, because they said that was going to keep unemployment below 8% and now it's 9.5% and going up like a rocket. so that didn't work. that's $1.1 trillion. on the omnibus spending bill we had $410 billion. the defense supplemental, $106 billion. now there may have been some necessity for that. the ship bill, $73 billion. the cap and trade, which is going to cost every family in this country between $1,000 and $3,000 a year in additional expenses for turning on their lights or putting gasoline in their car or getting gas to heat their house. and then this health care bill, $1.-- $trillion to $3 trillion -- $1 trillion to $3 trillion and it's going to be more than that. let me tell you a story. when i was a state senator, the federal government came in and

said, if you don't atake the medicaid bill we're going -- if you don't take the medicaid bill, we're going to withdraw in federal highway funds. they were blackmailing the state of indiana by saying we were going to lose $2.5 million if we didn't take it. and i went to the senate floor and i said, hey, it's going to cost us 10 times this amount of money if we do take medicaid. i said it would cost about $25 million. do you know how much that costs now? between $1 billion and $2 billion a year. i was so far off it isn't funny. and this thing right here is not going to cost $1 trillion to $3 trillion. it's going to cost trillions more than that. it's going to reduce the quality of health care. it's going to cause rationing of health care and it's going to ruin the system of health care we have in this country. it's just a tragedy that this is happening. this administration is moving as rapidly as possible as they can toward a socialistic form of government.

and everybody in this country ought to know it. they're trying to control and are controlling the investment business, the banking business, the automobile business, with cap and trade, the energy business. and now the health care business. this is really a tragic time for america and i hope everybody in this country that may be paying attention will really take a close look at this and call their congressman if they are paying attention. i know i can't address them, mr. speaker, but if i were addressing the american people i'd say, contact your congressman and tell him you don't want this mess passed into law that's going to jeopardize the quality of your health care here in america. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. moran of kansas. ms. kaptur. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak out of turn and address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. my colleagues, i want to call everyone's attention to something that is happening in my district that's actually very disgraceful. there is a plant called stellar dora. when i appeared on a tv show, i took out a package of cookies and i talked with pride about some of the things that were being made in my district. . the company founded in 1932 was family run until they sold to r.j.r. nabisco in 1992. r.j.r. nabisco became a part of kraft foods. took over with kraft and what happened was kraft foods then sold off a piece of stella doro, but a piece of kraft foods. sold it to a company called

brinwood partners. brinwood partners doesn't care about running this place or being fair to its workers. it really only cares about the bottom line. so what they did was they pusd the workers and they told them in order to keep their jobs, in order to finance their purchase the workers would have to take a 25% pay cut for its 135 workers. many of whom had worked there for decades, were proud of the product they created, and besides that, they didn't stop there. they told the workers that they would have to make health insurance unaffordable by imposing crushing premiums on these people. eliminating their holidays, eliminating their vacation, sick pay, and other crippling cuts. and so the workers, people working, they are not making a lot of money to begin with, there is no way they could suddenly accept this. so they went on strike.

and stella doro, again brinwood partners, responded by hiring a bunch of scabs to replace the strikers. in essence dismissed the strikers. the strikers appealed to the national labor relations board, the nlrb, and they ruled in favor of the strikers and it told brinwood who now runs stella doro, they must take the striking workers back with some back pay. what does brinwood partners threaten to do? they are saying they are going to close down, shut the company, shut it down entirely. in essence these workers would totally lose their jobs. how vindictive that is. they win a ruling from the national labor relations board only to have brinwood partners say they are going to shut down this company which has been run since 1932. it's really disgraceful when a company like brinwood partners, which obviously doesn't care

about making cookies, doesn't care about the neighborhood community type of business that it was, only uses this company as the bottom line. so just the other day we had a rally in front of stella doro company in the bronx in my district to show the workers that we stand by them and support thefment -- them. i want to let brinwood partners know that i am not going to be quiet about this or take this lying down. there are other things that brinwood partners own, and we really ought to scrutinize and watch everything they do, because if they are allowed to get away with this, they can get away with anything. it's nothing more than the bottom line as far as i'm concerned, corporate greed. something ought to be done for these workers. again the national labor relations board ruled in favor of the workers. so the reaction of the company

is to just close it down. that is a disgrace. should not be happening in 2009. and this congress needs to take note of it and needs to stand behind these workers. thank you, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. defazio. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from california, mr. dreier, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, this evening i have taken out this special order to talk about an issue that is of grave importance to the american people. there is no doubt about the fact that the american people are hurting. we are seeing tremendous losses across this country. people are losing their homes and in california, the state i'm

privileged to represent, we have an unemployment rate statewide of 11.5%. people are losing their jobs. people are are losing their businesses. and people are are hurting. it's something that has been recognized by democrats and republicans alike. we right now are witnessing the implementation of policies that i believe very sincerely are are exacerbate the problem. -- very sincerely will exacerbate the problem. we were promised when we were provided with the so-called economic stimulus bill of -- including, $787 billion, if you include interest $1 trillion, $1 trillion stimulus bill, we were promised by the president of the united states if we implemented that measure we would not see the unemployment rate exceed 8%. we all know today unfortunately as i said in california the unemployment rate statewide is

11.5%. nationwide it is 9.5%. and economists across the board and the president of the united states even in an interview yesterday have indicated we are going to see a continued increase in the unemployment rate. that was again after we were promised that implementation of the so-called economic stimulus bill would prevent unemployment from exceeding the 8% level. and since that period of time we have seen this house pass a massive tax which is going to be inflicted on families across this country as it relates to energy. you recall one of the hallmarks of the president's platform and the statements made repeatedly by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, has been that we would not see any kind of tax increase imposed on americans earning under $250,000 a year. yet we know based on the very

modest report that came from the congressional budget office that we will see at least a $175 increase in the energy tax imposed on americans as we -- as it relates to this so-called cap and trade measure. the debate that's going on right now relates to health care. we all want to do everything that we can to ensure that those 40-plus million americans who are uninsured have access to quality affordable health care, but the measure that is before us i clearly believe undermines the quality of care and the insurance that people will have access to quality health care. and we also know that the cost imposed on small businesses and big businesses across this country will be very great and those numbers as have been shown

in a wide range of reports that have been brought before us, have led many to indicate that there will be tremendous job loss because of this, because the increased costs as it relates to health care inflicted on small business the will -- businesses will lead many of them to reduce the number of jobs. i'm very concerned, obviously, as are the people whom i've privileged to represent from the los angeles area and people across this country, and frankly i think many democrats as well as republicans here in the house of representatives. they are very, very concerned about this issue of dramatically increasing the size and scope and reach of the federal government. very well-intentioned, of course, mr. speaker. very well-intentioned, because we all want to make sure that we focus on improving our environment, decrease our dependence on fossil fuels. we all want to ensure that every american, every american does have access to quality,

affordable health care. and we want to make sure that we get the economy back on track. but i believe that the trillion dollar economic stimulus bill, so-called economic stimulus bill, the so-called cap and trade bill that has been put forward, and the measure that would dramatically increase the cost of health care and diminish the quality of care are are troubling signs. the reason i have taken out this special order and i know i'm going to be joined by colleagues of mine, mr. speaker, is that we are in a position where we still have a chance, we still have a chance to actually focus on job creation. i'm going to talk this evening about something that has been very near and dear to me for many, many years. it goes back to my education in college and that is the notion of the united states of america playing a leading role in global

economic growth so that we can increase the number of good american jobs, that means good jobs right here in the united states of america. and i believe that trade is key to that. trade, global trade is going to play a big role in creating jobs, jobs, jobs. because the natural question that has continued to come forward with this promise that we would not see the unemployment rate exceed 8% is where are the jobs? we have a chance, we still have an opportunity, mr. speaker, to turn the corner on that. with a shrinking economy and mounting job losses and anxiety for what the future holds, we need the job creating power of open trade. more now than we have ever needed it.

it's one of the very sad ironies of the trade debate, the tough economic times often lead people to say that we should pull up the draw bridge and lead to a term that i know no one likes to have hanging around theireck, but that term is protectionism. protectionism is a bad thing, but frankly during tough economic times there are many people who happen to respond by being proponents of protectionist measures. in fact avoiding the notion of more open trade. there is a fundamental and very dangerous misconception held by many, including, frankly, many here in the congress, a few i'm happy to say, very few, on the republican side, but many on the democratic side. i also want to add as i say this, as i talk about this, mr. speaker, i hope very much we'll be able to get back to the bipartisan consensus that one existed in our quest -- once

existed in our quest for open trade. so the fundamental and very dangerous misconception that is held by many is that engaging with 95% of the world's consumers who live outside the united states somehow hurts job creation right here in the united states. let me repeat that, mr. speaker. we need to remember that 95%, 95% of the world's consumers don't live here in the united states. they live outside of our borders. and so the notion that engaging with those 95% somehow hurts job creation here is preposterous. nothing could be further from the truth. mr. speaker, even during these difficult economic times, even during this economic recession, even during this time when people are looking for jobs,

they have lost their homes, they have lost their businesses, we continue to be the world's largest exporter of both goods and services. 57 million jobs are directly supported by this engagement in the worldwide marketplace today. that's more than 1/3, more than 1/3, mr. speaker, of our entire work force that has trade as the actual -- actually responsible for the fact that they have jobs today. 57 million americans have their jobs today because of our engagement in the global marketplace. it also means that more than 1/3 of our work force would be threatened if trade were to be diminished. but the impact of trade engagement is even more far-reaching than these 57 million jobs with a direct connection to global trade. there are tens of millions of additional jobs that are

indirectly related to trade as well. manufacturers that lower costs and become more competitive by importing parts of their supply chain actually benefit from trade. that means raw materials coming into the united states for manufacturers so they can engage in export of finished products, there are a tremendous number of jobs related to that. manufacturers that lower costs and become more competitive by importing those parts for their supply chain actually benefit from trade. so do the retailers and wholesalers who sell the goods these manufacturers produce. there are thousands of small businesses who provide services for exporters whether it's information technology, the i.t. sector support, printing services, logistics, or any of the countless business service that is help facilitate companies that are globally engaged, all of these companies, all of these companies are indirectly tied beyond the 57

million jobs here in the united states that are directly tied to global trade, all of these support efforts create again tens of millions of jobs right here in the united states and -- so we as americans benefit from both imports and exports as well. unfortunately that message gets lost amid the constant paradge of anti-trade rhetoric which we -- barrage of anti-trade rhetoric which we regularly hear. the protectionist who want to disengage from the worldwide marketplace have been adept and relentless of making their case against trade. that's why we are here tonight to take a look at the actual facts and try to set the record straight on the tremendous benefits of open trade and the opportunity it presents to help begin -- to help to begin restoring job creation in this country. . again, mr. speaker, as we talk about these items that i

mentioned, the economic stimulus bill which hasn't kept the unemployment rate at the 8% level that was promised by the president, gotten instead to 9.5%, the health care measure and the so-called cap and trade bills, which many studies have shown will cost jobs, we can help reduce the numbers of job loss if we were to focus on creating jobs through greater trade. it's instructive to look at past trade agreements and see what the impact has been on our economy and on our workforce right here in the united states. let's look at the u.s.-chile free trade agreement, for example. it passed with bipartisan support but it also drew the usual criticism from protectionists who oppose open trade at every opportunity. this agreement was passed in 2003 so we now, mr. speaker, have six years of experience in data to -- and data to draw from in analyzing what the u.s.-chile free trade agreement has been. since implementation of this agreement, since implementation

of this agreement five years ago, our exports to chile have increased by 345%. now, when congress considered this agreement, the international trade commission had estimated that there would be a 12% to 52% growth in the first 12 years. so far we've seen growth that is nearly seven times higher than even the highest estimates that we had back in 2003. more than 10,000 u.s. companies are sharing in this success by exporting to chile. this includes large manufacturing companies like catter pillar which relies on export -- caterpillar which relies on export markets for that have of its sales to small family-run companies like lion apparel in dayton, ohio. they've been boosted by the explosion of new trade that was made possible by this u.s.-chile

free trade agreement. mr. speaker, this is a success story that has been repeated throughout every agreement that we've implemented. again, i underscore that. throughout every agreement that we have impled -- implemented we have success stories to which we can appoint. which is why we actually have a manufacturing goods trade surplus with our free trade agreement partners. let me repeat that, mr. speaker. we have a manufacturing, we're constantly hearing regularly from critics of trade that tremendous loss of manufacturing jobs because of trade agreements, but we actually have a manufacturing goods trade surplus with our f.t.a. partners. the key he to increasing manufacturing jobs in this country -- the key to increasing manufacturing jobs in this country is more and not fewer free trade agreements. the same holds true throughout all sectors of our economy. i spoke today with the c.e.o. of u.p.s., one of the great companies, scott davis, who, in yesterday's "wall street journal" pened a fascinating

piece talking about the new jobs that trade enables his company, u.p.s., to create. and these are the words from mr. davis, he said, for every 40 internationally shipped packages, u.p.s. can create one new job. this only is common sense. he explained to me today when we were talking about this that if you look at those who were moving the packages, not just the drivers, but those who have responsibility for handling packages and all, it creates the equivalent of one new job for every 40 packages that the u.p.s. exports. greater engagement around the world means more economic growth, greater competitiveness and more job creation. just that simple. now that's the good news, mr. speaker. the bad news is that failure to expand our trading relationships or even worse, withdrawing into isolationism, which tragically is what has happened in the past couple of years, will have very

and already has had and will continue to have very negative consequences at a time when wed a americans cannot afford to ush -- we as americans cannot afford to lose a single job here in the united states of america. because jobs, jobs, jobs here at home in the united states is what this is about. it's what the american people are talking about. it's what they're asking for. it's what they were promised in last fall's campaign and which they have been promised throughout this year and so we have before us a great opportunity that will in fact help us create more jobs. on monday, u.s. wheat growers announced they were on the verge of losing half of their exports to colombia if we do not quickly act on that agreement. well, the u.s. has stalled this agreement, colombia has moved forward with other negotiations. it's just signed an agreement with the trading group known as the south american trade block led by brazil which includes

argentina, paraguay, uruguay. colombia also intends, along with linking up with them, to conclude an agreement with canada, our northern neighbor, this fall, our nafta trading partner is engaging with colombia now in large part because we have failed to comply with the agreement that we made to have an up or down vote here in the you the house of representatives and in the senate -- here in the house of representatives and in the senate. without the u.s.-colombia f.t.a., our wheat producers who already face tar itches that can range as high as -- tariffs will not be able to compete with their arnl tinian and canadian counterparts who will enjoy duty-free access into the colombian consumer market. this is just one example, just one example, mr. speaker, of the competitive disadvantage our farmers, manufacturers and service providers face and will continue to face if the united states refuses to move forward

or takes a step back. now we have three pending agreement -- agreements. i mention the colombia agreement. we also have pending agreements with panama and south korea that were negotiated in good faith. the first two, the panama and colombia, are two very, very important key allies, as we all know, right here in this hemisphere. their goods and services already enjoy duty-free access to the u.s. consumer market. that's a good thing. we're able to get cut flower, coffee and things like that, that come from south america from colombia especially, duty-free here in the united states. these agreements would simply level that playing field, providing us access to their consumer market. the latter, the colombia, is a strategic ally and it is the world's -- or excuse me, south korea is a very important strategic ally as we know and it is the world's 13th largest economy.

the potential for economic growth and job creation by entering into what would be the world's largest bilateral trade agreement ever is staggering. with our unemployment rate at 9.5% and job losses as we all know mounting every month, we cannot afford to delay another moment. these agreements, mr. speaker, are job creation agreements and american job creation agreements which is something that democrats and republicans alike want to see happen. job creation is at the forefront of americans' minds right now. we know that. well, i believe comparisons of our economic situation and the great depression may be misguided. there is a very significant lesson to be learned from that time in our nation's history. conservatives and liberals alike agree that the economic decline that began with the stark market crash in 1929 was dramatically exacerbated and prolonged by the

republican-initiated, i'm embarrassed to say, tariff act which instituted dramatic, drastic protectionist measures. it began as aning a culture measure to impose tariffs on ac consult issues, items, products, but it expanded and it was very, very far reaching. this was precisely the wrong approach it take, plunging us as a nation further into an economic depression. i would hope that we have learned the basic lesson from our history. isolationism is always bad for an economy. but it is especially, especially dangerous when we are already facing hardship. mr. speaker, this congress has tried nearly every possible kind of bailout in order to stimulate our economy and as we have seen in the past several months, not one has worked. certainly not as has been

promised. it's time for us to turn to a proven policy that again will create good jobs right here in the united states of america, well paying jobs. we know that jobs that relate to trade pay significantly higher than those that do not. so the time to move with this trade agenda. we can move it forward. we have an opportunity to do that. and i'm very pleased, mr. speaker, to be joined by a number of my colleagues who have been very active in our trade working group and, well, no one is on their feet at this moment, i'll be happy to yield to my good friend from san diego who immediately lurched to his feet, and understands full well how important the issue of trade is, as he represents the very, very important gateway city he into latin america and san diego and i'm happy to yield to my good friend, mr. bilbray. mr. bilbray: thank you. i appreciate the gentleman from california who, bringing this item up, and, mr. speaker, one item i'd like to discuss is the

issue of our neighbors to the south. every country in central america has taken on the issue of free trade with the united states. and at great political risk, their political leaders have been able to step forward and say for the prosperity of the hemisphere, we must cooperate and work together. not just militarily, not just through aid, but through that long-term relationship of trade. and it's sad to see that while they have the political bravery to do the right thing for their economies and for their citizens, our political system stands frozen in our tracks, speaker pelosi refuses to bring forward the agreements that their leaders have been brave enough to step forward and support. and let me just say -- mr. dreier: just to add a comment to that, not only has there been a refusal to that, for the first time since the

implementation of the trade act when a commitment is made to a country in good faith, with which we embarked on these negotiations, for the first time ever after that vote was promised we here under the leadership of speaker pelosi utilized the rules committee where i sit and it was over my protest, of course, to actually subvert and prevent the up or down vote that was promised to our very, very important allies in colombia. and i'm happy to further yield to my friend from san diego. mr. bilbray: i appreciate that. you can imagine the frustration of somebody that sits down with you, negotiates in good faith, a give and take, comes down to an agreement and you tell them, go over and get your country to support it and then we'll go over and get ours and you go ahead and do your part, you expend the political capital, you're brave enough politically to ask your people to support a proposal, then you turn around with your partner, who asks you to agree and to move this agenda, to sit there and stonewall and refuse to even

allow a vote, that kind of stab in the back with our partners, and these are not partners, mr. speaker, that are far away. these are our neighbors to the south, these are people that not only we but our grandchildren and great-grandchildren are going to be living with for centuries to come. mr. dreier: let me just add that not only are they our neighbors to the south but they are, without a doubt, our strongest allies on the south american continent, playing a big role in dealing with the interdiction of illicit drugs coming into the united states, and i regularly point to the fact that there is no country in modern history that has gone through a greater transformation for good in a five-year period of time than colombia. and the reason is that you understand the leadership of president uribe, he has not only taken steps to demobilize the farc and the paramilitaries in his country, but he also has made great steps toward dealing with the labor issues and

tragically there have in the past been labor killings and problems that continue to exist in colombia, but he's been so helpful with us and we do know that on the south american continent today there are leaders who are not only not friendly to the united states, but are subverting the cause of freedom and we know those leaders, rafael can rea in ecuador and hugo chavez in venezuela, daniel ortega in nicaragua, we are seeing very serious problems here and yet we have this important, strong ally dealing with these issues we promised them we would have a vote so that we can create good american jobs for caterpillar's workers, for world pool's workers, for the other small businesses that exist and that's why i think it very, very important that we continue to hold up our tradition of supporting our global leadership in trade and continue to do that

i'm happy to further yield to my friend. mr. bilbray: colombia's a good example. somebody who was brave enough to take on the drug cartels, was brave enough to take on the extreme leftists in their con nent and brave enough to be an american ally and for to us stiff arm them and basically punish them, it appears, for being a friend. who in the world will want to risk themselves of being an ally of the united states if this is the example we're setting? and moving on from colombia, panama is really a time-sensitive issue. mr. speaker, while we sit here today, panama is moving forward with an aggressive program to rebuild the panama canal, one of the greatest, if not the largest capital expenditure that latin america has seen in our age. we are sitting on the sidelines while panama's moving and looking to build this new project. and you can imagine at the turn of the last century if america had sat back and allowed other countries to be able to take advantage of the economic

opportunities, if teddy roosevelt had ignored the challenge of panama and central america, where we would be today and how history would be different? today the pan mainians are building the canal, they want to buy caterpillar equipment, they want to buy john deere tractors, they want to see companies come down there, they want to create american jobs because they want to have a prosperity zone down there working with us to build a new canal. . while they are moving forward we are stiff arming them and doesn't have the political bravery to do the right thing and allow a vote on a proposal that they were brave enough to move forward to. anyone here who is listening and looking at those factories that could be buying tractors, bulldozers, equipment, could be getting the contracts for the canal, just remember it's your political process here in washington that's freezing it out, giving china, giving people from iran, giving the rest of

the world the leg up to get jobs out of the panama canal while americans are being obstructed. i yield back. mr. dreier: just to take his great example on panama and to further build on colombia, it's very interesting. it has been and as i look at my colleagues here, mr. herger, mrs. biggert, mr. conaway who have been involved in this issue for many years, it's hard to believe when i have given this number today, it has been 967 days, 967 days since we signed the agreement with colombia. people from the state of the great gentlewoman from hinsdale, illinois, who worked for caterpillar and others have been forced in that 967 days to pay $2.1 billion in tariffs that otherwise would not have been there. if one could think of the tremendous number of jobs that could have been created right

here at home because that's what this special order is about, mr. speaker. it's about creating good jobs here in the united states of america. this special order is actually the brainchild of my friend from hinsdale, we were having a meeting of our trade working group and she proposed that we come to the floor and talk about how we can create more good u.s. jobs by expanding open trade. with that i'm happy to yield to the author of this special order, my friend from hinsdale, mrs. biggert. mrs. biggert: i thank the gentleman for yielding and heading up this special order. i thought hi better get down here since i had proposed it. i think it's a great idea because we -- trade is so important right now during this recession. it is more important than ever that we continue to advance freer, fairer global and not regress towards harmful protectionist trade policies.

and free trade agreements. are one of the many ways to improve all americans standard of living and get our economy back on track. you mentioned caterpillar. let me just say that there's two plants that are very close to my district. i have had the opportunity to drive a top loader. mr. dreier: reclaiming my time. i find it very hard to believe, the gentlewoman from hinsdale drove a high loader? caterpillar high loader? mrs. biggert: a 10-ton loader that has a basket. mr. dreier: if i witnessed that i would get out of the way. mrs. biggert: i was afraid people might know it if i crashed it. coy drive it forward and backward. it is a huge vehicle. i think it holds a million golf balls in its basket. you can imagine how big this is. but this is such an important piece of equipment.

colombia has had so many of these vehicles to go -- for trade, and here as you said we have the tariff that has to be paid by colombia is $200,000 per vehicle for an off-road tractor going into colombia. while colombia exports come into the united states nearly duty free. so this trade agreement is so right. because that $200,000 per vehicle could be used and stay in america with a free trade agreement and supply many more jobs in my district and nationwide. in fact since the colombia free trade agreement was signed here and has not been put into place, u.s. companies have paid over the $2 billion in tariffs on goods and service that is are exported to colombia.

and the money could do so much more. let's go back for a minute to the chile trade agreement because the republican whip on that, you put me in that position. it was really an eye opener i think for so many peoples members on this floor. so many of them were skeptical. so many thought that this was -- we shouldn't be entering into this -- all these global trade agreements. the benefits that have been provided by that have -- american exports to chile grew from $2.7 billion in 2003 to $12.1 billion in 2008. mr. dreier: reclaiming my time. i'd like the gentleman to repeat that number so again the actual raw number in dollar value of the increase in our exports from the united states to chile is what? mrs. biggert: that number is, our exports to chile grew from

$2.7 billion in 2003 to $12.1 billion in 2008. and u.s. imports from chile grew from $3st7 billion in 2003 to $8.1 billion in 2008. now, i love those green grapes that come in from chile. and this is a thing where food products, anything that's coming from there, is that we send over our products when they are having their winter. they send over their food products when we are having our winter. so it works out. then another statistic is that in 2008 the u.s. was chile's top source of imports and the second largest designation -- destination for chilian exports. chile was the 25th largest export market for u.s. goods. we are doing really well to have that partnership. that's why we need to move ahead with these other trade

agreements. let me just say one more thing about peru trade agreement also that was passed. in my home state of illinois we exported $198 million in goods to peru in 2006. so as seen with chile and other countries we have a fair trade agreements with the amount of exports to peru that will only increase. we should do everything to encourage the trade agreements that are now on the table. and the cost, the cost of stalling these free trade agreements, for example, it's not fair that illinois company like caterpillar should have to pay the $200,000 tariff, and in so many other companies that face the same thing, plus the national security issue, the fact we are dealing with countries so we are not allowing some of the countries that are

hostile to us to just have such a foothold there. with the colombia agreement, i think that a couple of things -- so many of these agreements have gotten into whether human rights or labor protections, and i think colombia in particular has worked so hard to further reduce the violence and increase labor protections thereby improving the labor and human rights in their nation. we actually used to meet with president uribe for so up long. it was a shame we -- for so long. it was a shame we could not get this agreement through. it was unfair to change the law. to have the speaker not allow this to come up within 45 days. mr. dreier: i would say to my friend, it was not just -- it was not just a change, it was from my perspective a complete abrogation of the responsibility

that we had. my concern is we embark not only on other free trade agreements, but any other international negotiation, with any other partner in the world to deal with national security issues and other challenges out there, what good is our word after a commitment was made that there would be an up or down vote because of trade promotion authority that was granted by the congress to the executive branch, negotiate this agreement saying we would have an up or down vote, and all of a sudden reneging on that commitment that was made. i'm happy to yield. mrs. biggert: i think you are right. that is a much stronger statement than the statement that should be made to abrogate our agreement. and i think that after all that colombia had done with the labor protections, for example, in 2005 and 2006, colombia issued new presidential decrees and regulation that is addressed the

concerns about the -- regulations that address the concerns about the workers. they agreed to an establishment of a permanent representative of the international labor organization to be stationed in colombia to promote the fundamental rights of workers. in 2007 the colombian legislature passed laws that significantly expedite proceedings and enhanced colombia's existing labor courts. all of these changes. yet we could not get this labor agreement -- and the trade agreement through after so many negotiation that it really is a shame. these significant efforts to improve labor relations in colombia have led to the colombia labor unions representing 79,000 colombian workers to fully support the u.s.-colombia free trade agreement. all of these things. it's an embarrassment. mr. dreier: if i could reclaim

my time. the gentlewoman is saying that the unions in colombia are supportive of this agreement. i'm happy to further yield. mrs. biggert: 79,000 workers in the union support this agreement. mr. dreier: we are constantly hearing, mr. speaker, that unions are opposed to this agreement. seems to me unions here in the united states of america are opposed to it. i never understood that. how can creating more jobs for the union members and workers at cat pill', whirlpool, and wide range of other companies across this country would be the wrong thing to do. opening up markets so that their products can be sold into those countries, to me i can't understand it. when we've got the unions, i'll accept one union, i'm told, it's basically the public services union which has nothing to do with the issue of global trade, is the only union in colombia that has opposed this. i have had the chance in bogota to meet with a wide range of --

i know my colleagues have, of union leaders who were passionately supportive of this measure because they know that it's going to end up being beneficial to their country and to their workers. i'm happy to further yield. mrs. biggert: i think there's a dig connect in the country with some of the unions they don't understand this is what creates jobs in the united states. when we have the products we are going to export. and the more we export the more jobs that we have. and this is what moves our economy along. let me just make one more -- talk about one more issue. that is that the u.s. trade deficit is shrinking. in may this year there was a 9.8 decline in the u.s. trade deficit. that means that we are exporting more and more. we are -- we have been in a deficit where we have been importing more. so we are running a trade surplus. mr. dreier: reclaiming my time. i will say to my colleague something i mentioned in my opening remarks and i know

you'll agree. people are always saying these trade agreements cost manufacturing jobs here in the united states. people are thrown out of work because of these trade agreements when in fact the opposite has been the case. we actually run a manufacturing jobs surplus with our partner countries with these f.t.a.'s. i'm happy to further yield. mrs. biggert: i think that the surplus has been running $9.3 billion for january through may of 2009. mr. dreier: very, very impressive number. mrs. biggert: i thank the gentleman so much. mr. dreier: i thank the gentlewoman for recommending that we take time to talk to our colleagues about this important issue. again i will say i know that she and mr. conaway and mr. herger and others join me in hoping this will be a bipartisan agreement. let me just take one moment as i prepare to yield to my other colleagues and i'm happy to yield again to my friend from

hinsdale, to talk about the much maligned north american free trade agreement. my friend comes from texas, my california colleague is here. we represent states that border on mexico and we so often hear people describe virtually every ailment of society is being tied to the north american free trade agreement. when in fact more than 1/3 of all u.s. exports, more than 1/3 of all the exports leaving the united states of america go to our nafta parters in, and for some states that percentage is significantly higher. . michigan, we know what a devastating economy michigan has. the number actually in michigan is 68% of the exports from that state go to our nafta partners. obviously a great percentage to canada, but obviously much to mexico. in ohio, and we so often hear

our colleagues from ohio maligning any kind of trade agreement, and yet 54% of the exports from ohio, where do they go? to our nafta trading partners. those jobs created in ohio, 54% of them, go to our nafta partners. in indiana it's 52%. in fact, without the north american free trade agreement, the manufacturing workforce of these states would be devastated. let's say that again, mr. speaker. while we hear that nafta's responsible for any job loss that takes place in ohio, in michigan, in indiana in other states, in fact, were it not for the north american free trade agreement, the manufacturing job loss would be tremendously higher than it is today. since implementation of the north american free trade agreement, between the can -- canada, the united states and mexico, we have actually seen our trade triple to nearly $1 trillion between 1993 and 2007,

28 million american jobs have been created or a 25% expansion in our workforce between 1993 and 2007. u.s. industrial production, 3 fourth of which is manufacturing, rose by 57%, almost double the productivity increase in the 12-year period before implementation of the north american free trade agreement. and more than 110,000 small and medium sized businesses export to canada and mexico. 110,000. i know many of them are in texas, many in california, many in illinois and other states. these companies are spread all across the country, but the top exporters to canada and mexico are in fact texas, california, michigan, ohio, illinois, new york, indiana and pennsylvania and so while we regularly hear the northern american free trade agreement is being maligned and responsible for any economic challenge we face in this country, the opposite is the case. have there been any people

displaced? well, of course there have been. and that's one of the reasons i supported trade adjustment assistance as i know my colleagues have, so that any people who do in fact face job loss, that they will be in a position where they are able to be retrained and put into positions that will end up being very beneficial for them. so i'm very pleased now to be joined by one of the great champions of the trade agenda, who's a member of the agriculture and intelligence and the armed services committee and he's the gentleman from midland, texas, mr. conaway. i'm happy to yield to him. mr. conaway: i thank the gentleman for yielding to me and those are some pretty startling facts. i'm a c.p.a. and i tend to work better with facts than i do with hyperbole and make things up and guesses and wishes. those facts are pretty startling when it comes to the -- mr. dreier: it's unusual for me to use facts. i usually subscribe to the earlier -- mr. conaway: for the much

aligned free trade agreement. you hear many people criticize it but they do it off of old data and misconceptions. when you lay out the facts to them, particularly from the states who, some of the most inflammatory comments i've heard on this floor come from members of ohio. that's a pretty startling fact that we'll have to confront them with perhaps next time they bring that up. i'd like to move back to colombia. i think given the free trade agreements that are the most ripe for execution and for completion, colombia would certainly be in that category. my colleague mentioned that it had been 967 days that that bill has languished in our system. let me point out that over 925 of those days were under the leadership of speaker pelosi. so it has been the speaker who has stood in the way of reducing tariffs by $2.1 billion that my colleague mentioneded earlier,

insisting -- mentioned earlier, insisting that the tariff on automobiles remain in place, the 10% tariff on contain -- cotton remain in place, and other things made in the united states remains in place. mr. dreier: will my friend repeat those numbers? i think it's very, very telling. that's a tariff level that is in place, basically undermining the ability of sending the products of u.s. workers here in the united states into colombia. mr. conaway: it's interesting that we now own, between the unions and the federal taxpayer, we own general motors. and so a general motors car made in the united states bears a 35% tariff if you try sell it in colombia. so you have 35% to the cost of that car and that competes with the car, say, made in korea or other places that don't have that tariff. then we're out of -- we don't compete well on a cost basis. so those are american manufacturing jobs and speaking on behalf of the american taxpayer and the unions, for a change, which i don't normally speak to, if we're going to

prosper general motors, why not do something that drops the tariff, makes us more competitive for the taxpayer-made automobiles to be sold in colombia? as you mentioned earlier, colombia's continued with the unilateral trade agreements that they're doing that continue to disadvantage american businesses that compete with businesses from those countries that colombia agrees -- mr. dreier: reclaiming my time. let's state for the record, i would say to my colleague, why it is that colombia has resorted to these agreements with canada. the reason is very simply, 967 days ago, when this agreement was signed, president uribe and our friends from colombia assumed that within a relatively short period of time, that we in both houses of congress with would do our due diligence at looking at the agreement and then then we would have had an up or down vote. so the hard to blame our friends and allies in colombia for having embarked on negotiations with canada and with mercaseur

as we have renegged on our vote. mr. conyers: i thank my friend for yielding. i was startle -- mr. conaway: i was startled last week when mr. kirk said trade still was a high priority with the white house. high rhetoric, but no action. i've not seen any pressure from the white house on the speaker to tell the speaker we've got a great friend in colombia. we have a -- an ally, a stalwart ally in president uribe, and we need to quit thumbing our nose at him, quit treating him like a step-child and start treating had him like the friend and ally we know him to be by recognizing the importance of this free trade agreement and getting it passed, getting it signed and implemented into law. the only reason i can see -- i can see so far is that our trade union's opposition so this particular agreement.

and i'm not sure why they picked out colombia, because in the grand scheme of things, colombia's overall economy doesn't threaten any particular business in the united states. but the remaining issue is with our trade unions. it's been my experience that colombia has addressed almost every single one of the issues with respect to union organizers that was the pushback. they've reduced the violence significantly. they've agreed to i.l.o. standards as mrs. biggert mentioned earlier, they've agreed to the office of a high commission. all those things have been agreed to so there's no rationale reason -- rational reason to continue to maintain the 35% trade barrier in automobiles, there's no rational reason to maintain the 10% to 15% trade barrier on movies and d.v.d.'s. there's no rational reason to maintain the 10% tariff on cotton and there's no rational reason to maintain the 10% tariff on computers. that hurts american businesses. my colleague mentioned a while ago that our trade unions don't

understand that when we make things in the united states and sell them overseas that creates jobs. i would respectfully disagree. they are bright, smart people. it's counterintuitive to why they would be against creating jobs in america, so we can build stuff and sell it overseas but i think they full well understand the mechanics of how that works. i would encourage my colleagues to continue to push on the colombia free trade a-- trade agreement -- agreement. at a time when there's unrest in honduras and bolivia and throughout that region, we need strong -- a strong apply that country. we need to put our actions where our mouth is in effect and put this agreement in place so that we can -- so we can quit insulting our grood friend, president uribe, by refusing to bring this up. i thank the gentleman. mr. dreier: i'd be happy to yield to my friend from hisdale. mrs. biggert: i meant to say

there are people on the other side of the aisle who have blocked these agreements and not the trade unions. so many of them do know how important this is. mr. dreier: i thank my friend for her contribution as well. it has been an unfortunate -- unfortunate thing. i believe there are intelligent people within the union movement here in the united states who understand that creating jobs in the united states hinges in large part on opening up markets where 95% of the world's consumers are, outside of our borders, and yet they have for some unknown reason and there's lots of speculation as to why they do this, they have continued to drum up and really pander to what is the lowest common denominater of fire, frightening people, my gosh, if we embark on an agreement, we're going to lose jobs, when in fact, every shred of evidence that we have is that the opposite is the case. and i thank my friend for her contribution, i thank my friend from middleton as well and -- midland as well and now i'm very pleased to yield to our very,

very hardworking colleague who for many years served as the top republican on the ways and means committee subcommittee on trade, who's been a great champion of it, a fellow californian who represents important agriculture industry and his state, the largest industry, i say, is in angrily know that i know full well that agriculture is the number one industry in our state of california and the idea of opening up new markets is very important and actually as the gentleman begins, i want to talk a little about the u.s.-korea free trade agreement because i know that would play a very big role in benefiting the constituency he has, the farmers whom he represents. with that i'm happy to yield to my friend. >> well, i thank my good friend from california, mr. dreier, for yielding and also for the leadership that you've given over the years in this incredibly important area of trade, of fair trade, of free trade, and how important -- crucially important it is to our

economy, not just at the district i represent, but to our entire nation. and, mr. speaker, the number one concern for americans right now is the economy. americans know that the health of the u.s. economy directly impacts their job and their ability to provide for their family and keep a roof over their heads. at the beginning of the year, democrats pushed through the congress an unprecedented measure to spend $787 billion in attempt to stimulate the economy. that was money we had to borrow, creating a national deficit that will reach almost $2 trillion by the end of the year. the president assured the american people that this was the only way to prevent unemployment rate from reaching 8%.

yet with this mammoth deficit spending, the unemployment rate has skyrocketted not to 8% but to 9.5% with estimates indicating it will reach 10.5% before the end of the year and no end in sight. while americans continue to struggle to find work, congress has moved on to other issues, ignoring one of the most obvious and efficient vehicles that promote economic growth and create jobs, trading with other countries. importantly, this solution doesn't require the government spending billions of dollars, nor does it require a huge expansion or invasion of the government into the free market. it is as simple as removing foreign barriers to u.s. goods and services so that our workers and businesses can compete on a level playing field in the

global economy. most americans don't know that the u.s. is not only the number one trading nation in the world, but also the number one manufacturer and that our record exports last year were the one bright spot in our economy. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, let me ask my friend to repeat that. we are the number one manufacturing country in the world. so few people realize that. people believe that it's china, people believe that mexico is, but we continue, even with this struggling down economy, to be the number one manufacturing country in the entire world? mr. herger: that is absolutely correct. the number one manufacturing nation in the world. the number one trading nation in the world. trade is part of the foundation of a strong economy and high standard of living. today, for example, more than 57 million american jobs depend on

trade and these jobs pay 13% to 18% higher wages. clearly it would be in our nation's best interest to build on this record, helping us through this difficult economic time. the premise is simple, reducing tariffs and other barriers would make our goods less expensive and therefore more competitive in foreign markets. the additional sales from exports would help sustain and grow our u.s. businesses in this economic downturn, creating much-needed job opportunities in the united states. when you combine the fact that demand is sluggish in the united states due to high unemployment and general uncertainty about the economic outlook with the fact that 95% of the world's consumers live outside the united states, it

seems like the common sense solution would be to encourage u.s. exports by reducing barriers abroad. the best way to do this is to negotiate market-opening trade agreements with other countries. mr. speaker, my district in rural northern california is typical of many districts across the united states that are largely dependent on agriculture. we produce more almonds, walnuts, rice, and prunes than we can possibly consume and heavily rely on exporting these goods to foreign markets. the bottom line is, promoting free and fair trade through these agreements is an essential component of economic recovery. unfortunatelying house democrat leadership has failed to take this necessary step for our wokers despite the fact that we have three agreements, three

agreements already negotiated and just waiting for congressional approval. two of these pending agreements are with close u.s. allies in south america, panama and colombia. both these countries largely already have duty-free access to u.s. markets, due to trade preference programs, while our goods face high tariffs in theirs. yet, these nations want to move from a one-way trade relationship to a two-way relationship. why? this congress is preventing that from happening when our workers would benefit from new opportunities in these markets. it is mind bogtology me that the u.s. government continues to ignore the needs of our workers in such a way. we have a pending agreement with south korea, which is the most commercially significant

agreement for the united states. as korea is already our seventh largest trading partner, together these three trade agreements would increase u.s. exports by at least 10.-- $10.8 billion as estimated by the u.s. international trade commission that clearly means more businesses for u.s. companies and more jobs for american workers. these benefits are spread throughout the entire economy. all sectors benefit, manufacturers, agricultural producers and services. yet, instead of providing this true stimulus to our struggling economy, congress and the administration have chosen to tie our hands behind our back. we must realize the cost of this inaction. if the american people knew that denying a vote on the

panama agreement is causing u.s. workers to miss an opportunity to export heavy machinery to panama for their $5 billion panama canal expansion project, would they think congress is acting in their best interest by sitting on the agreement? i think not. if the american people knew that if canada ratifies their agreement with colombia before the u.s., colombians will be buying canadian wheat instead of u.s. wheat. would they think that loss in market share to our competitor is acceptable? i don't think. so if the american people knew that if the european union ratifies their agreement with south korea before the u.s., koreans will use european services instead of services provided by american workers. would they think their members

of congress are doing what's best for american workers? absolutely not. by not finalizing these agreements we not only miss out on opportunities for our businesses to expand, we will also start to lose our current market share to our competitors. e.u., canada, china, other nations aren't standing still. they will continue to push for their market opening agreements that will put u.s. goods and services at a competitive disadvantage. mr. dreier: let me thank my colleague for his thoughtful contribution, especially mentioning the important korea agreement. this is about jobs, jobs, jobs, created here in the united states of america, and that is exactly what these trade agreements will do. i thank my friend and all my colleagues for their participation in this very, very important special order. i say, mr. speaker, we will

continue this conversation and continue to work in a bipartisan way to get the agreements through to create more good job opportunities for our fellow americans. 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 connecticut, mr. murphy, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. murphy: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank speaker pelosi and my colleagues for allowing us to come down for the next hour or so and speak to you. we're doing a joint hour here, occasionally those of us who are pushing for health care reform to happen for our constituents, this year, have come down to the floor to share our thoughts about the urgent need for reform. we're sharing this hour with the 30-something working group, which i'm honored to be part of and i know, our hope is at the

very least representative ryan will be able to join us later this evening as part of this hour. but we are here to focus our thoughts and energies and to talk to our colleagues about the need to pass real, comprehensive health care reform for this country and for our constituents. we know what the problem is out thering because when we're out there at our town hallsing when wie setting up our office hours at the supermarket or grocery store, it's our constituents that are coming to us and telling us about the fact that they just can't afford this health care system any longer. if you're lucky enough to have insurance, you've seen your family have to pick up more and more of the share. as the cost of health care goes up for businessesing they're passing more of it along to individual consumers. so now, if you're a family of four out there, you're likely to be spending $3,000 to $5,000

on health care even when you have insurance. your deduckable is in the thousands of dollars, rather than the hundreds of dollars that co-pay you have to bring with you to the doctor's office isn't $5 or $10, it's $150 or $ 100. the co-pay for your drugs, if it's in the wrong tyre of drug you may be paying 50% to 75% of the cost. if you're a senior citizen and find yourself in the dreaded doughnut hole, you're not only paying too much for the drugs but you're paying the highest prices in the entire health care market when you show up at the drugstore. you're paying more than the federal government pays, you're paying more than blue cross, blue shield pays for that drug. you're paying through the nose for it. this health care system is broken. it's broken because you've got a lot of people who don't have

health care. and it's broken because the people who've got it can't afford it any longer. much of the cost is viz to believe people that cost that you now bear as an employee, that you didn't used to have to pay that increased deductible or co-pay you see that now. that -- we're feeling it for you because we're hearing those stories increasingly about people who can't come up with the money to pay the high deductible, people who don't have the cash to fill in the drug company doughnut hole. that hurt is visible and real for our constituents. but there is an invisible pain. there's an unseen hurt that we need to talk about here on this floor. because there are a lot of businesses that are passing along the cost of health care, but there are also a lot of businesses eating the cost of health care, that don't want to have a high deductible plan for their employees system of what they do is they pay it, instead.

the business decides they'll pay the 10% increase in premiums, but it just means that their employees don't get a wage increase that year. or when they were supposed to get a 5% bump up, they only get a 2% bump up. there are millions, millions of employees in this country who should be making more in take-home wages, but aren't, because the businesses they work for are paying more in health care costs than they have before. that's not just me talking or anecdotes i hear from the business owners and people in my district, that's data. that's data that shows that over the last 10 years, the premiums charged to employers from health care insurance companies have risen by 120% during the last 10 years. 120% jump. more than double. a more than doubling of health care premiums charged to businesses. during that same time, average

wages have grown by only about 20% or 30%. during that same time, wages have grown at less than the overall rate of inflation. guess what, that's because the cost of health care eating into the money that people take home from their paychecks. lastly, the invisible cost comes here. guess what. mr. speaker, my colleagues, we've got a system of universal health care in this country. we're not inventing a system of universal health care. we've got one. it's just the most inhumane, most unconscionable health care system in the world because our federal law guarantees you health care but only until you get so sick that you get so crippled that you get so desperate that you, as an uninsured individual, have to show up to the emergency room. and so you get care, but it's too late. it's the most expensive, most

inefficient way of delivering universal health care. there's a cost to that. because when that individual, who could have just got an prescription to cover their growing infection and instead lets it get to such an extent and degree of severity they have to show up to the emergency room and they have to have major surgery to cure that festering illness and infection, there's a cost to that. of ten to -- of 10 to 20 times what it might have been. that cost doesn't evaporate into the air. it's real. it's substantive. the hospital picks up that cost and forces private insurers to reimburse them more to help them cover the cost of uninsured. charges some of it back to the government. every taxpayer in this country, a position of you tax dollars you send to the federal and state government goes to

hospitals and messenger rooms to cove costs to those $50 million people who walk in without insurance. there are costs through the the system, both visible and invisible, we cannot sustain. we've come down here to the house floor today to not just focus on the problem. i think you've got to talk about the disease in order to get a diagnosis, but to talk about the fact that for the fist time in almost a generationing we are on the verge, as a united states congress, of rising to the massive challenge that confronts our health care system. we are on the precipice of passing real health care reform that lowers the cost of health care for everybody in the system, whether you're an individual paying it or a business having to bear the burden of the cost and at the same time, makes the system more fair for people right now that are paying more for health care because they happen to be sicker than somebody else. for those millions of people who can't find health care in

the first place because they happen to have a pre-existing condition. for all those senior citizens out there trying to decide between 20 different plans that dedifference -- that the difference can only be deciphered in the fine print of the paperwork they send you in the mail. we're going to make the system more transparent, we're going to make it more fair, we're going to give people more choice. by doing that we are going to lower the cost of the american health care system for everybody. so that those very visible costs that are holding families back are controlled and those invisible costs that too often aren't seen by wage owners or taxpayers, disappear over time. so i'm really glad to be down here this evening. i see representative spears joined us, so i would love to hear from her as well. we'll be joined later on, i know, by representative ryan and others to focus some

attention on this problem of health care and the approach we're going to take in this house. so i'd love to have representative speier from california join us to talk a little bit about the challenges that we confront and some of the solutions that we put forth. ms. speier: thank you to the gentleman from connecticut. i want to thank you for your leadership and for your comments because this issue dant -- can't wait. i think we know that better than most. tonight what i would like to do is talk to the 80% of americans who have health insurance, who basically ask, well, why should i care about health care reform? i have health insurance. and to the 80% of americans who do have health insurance, i have a few things to tell them. right now, for all of us that have health insurance, we are in a position of paying for those

that don't have health insurance. it's called cost shifting. so for the premiums that we pay, part of each premium is actually paying for the uninsured. it's called cost shifting and it's estimated that every american family pays $1,100 per year for the uninsured. so, for instance, you go into the e.r. with a broken ankle. you get health care. the uninsured person goes into the e.r. for that same broken ankle, they get health care. because we have a federal law that requires that all people get health care when they return to the emergency room. but we pay $2,000 for that broken ankle not because it costs $2,000, but because the individual who came in with no health insurance didn't pay and that's where the cost shifting

takes place. so with health care reform it's going to be much like many states in the country have as it relates to auto insurance. there's a mandate for auto insurance and now we're going to mandate that every american have health insurance. and for those who can pay, they will pay, and for those that can't pay, we will help them pay. now, the next question i want to answer is why is health care so expensive? currently the united states pays twice as much as any other industrialized country in the world for health care. $6,700 for every man, woman and child. now, compare that to what's paid in germany or canada where it's $3,000 or take the country of japan where it's $2,500. and the cost of living in japan is just as high as it is here in america. now the conventional wisdom

would suggest that, well, our health care is more expensive because our outcomes are better. you get better care if you pay more money. well, that's simply not true. the u.s. ranks first in unnecessary deaths among the 19 industrialized nations. let me repeat that. the u.s. ranks first among the most unnecessary deaths that take place as a result of a lack of health care. in fact, the number is pretty staggering. it's like 22,000 americans will die this year for lack of access to health care. we want -- we waste a lot of money on health care spending. recent estimates are that 1/3 of the care provided in this country to the tune of some $700 billion doesn't improve anyone's health. now, if 1/3 of the care that's

being provided isn't providing additional health care, then it's wasteful spending. and when they talk about $700 billion of wasteful spending, it's time for all of to us sit up and think, well, wait a minute, what's really going on here? and 20% of the health insurance premium goes for overhead and profits. now, when i tell you that in 1994 only 4% of the health care premium went for profits in overhead, you got to scratch your head and ask, how did we go from 4% in 1994 in overhead and profits to 20% in 2009? next question that i want to answer is, how does this health care reform make it safer for me? i want to tell you a dirty little secret. it's a dirty little secret about health care that no one wants to talk about and it's about

medical errors and we've known about it for decades. the institute -- institute of medicine put out a report that said there are 100,000 deaths in america every year because of medical errors. 100,000 deaths. now, i'm going to talk about a specific bacteria infection that people get typically in the hospital. the called mrsa. now the mrsa infection rate is growing by leaps and bounds. in fact, there's 100,000 cases of mrsa a year. 2/3 of those people that get that infection get it in the hospital setting. now, of the 100,000 people that will get a mrsa infection, 19,000 of them will die because of that infection. now, that's a stunning figure.

if there was a 747 that crashed in the united states every week, that's the equivalent of 19,000 deaths. and if there was a 747 that crashed every week in america, we wouldn't tolerate it. we'd call on the f.a.a., we'd call on the airlines, we would stop it. but we've done very little to stop the spread of mrsa in hospital settings. now, this health care reform bill takes an important step, not a full step, doesn't go all the way, but it does now require that hospitals will have to report their hospital-acquired infections. what we need to do furthermore is put the protocols in place so we can stop these infections from occurring and we can stop the deaths as well. now, the last thing i want to talk about is something that not everyone is necessarily familiar with if you're in a group health

setting and it's called a pre-existing condition. if you're in a group health setting it doesn't mat father you have a pre-existing -- matter if you have a pre-existing conditioners, you're covered. but if you're in the individual market and have a pre-existing condition, good luck. i'd like to show you this health care horror story, pre-existing conditions. these are the types of pre-existing conditions that can prevent you from getting health insurance in this country. depression, sprained ankle, how about a misdiagnosis for bipolar disorder? this is an actual case, a young woman was given a bad diagnosis. her doctor confirmed that she never should have been diagnosed, yet when applying for individual insurance she was denied due to her psychological history. even though it was a misdiagnosis. well, look down that list. diabetes, anxiety, stress, how about tested for multiple

sclerosis? not that you had it, but you were tested for it, becomes a pre-existing condition and you can be denied health insurance in the individual market. let's move down to bunions, how about too thin or too heavy? how about too healthy? believe it or not, this was a reason given to a gentleman for not giving him health care. in florida he sought insurance in the individual market because he was working for an architectural firm that didn't offer it. he'd been healthy all his life, never been to the doctor, he did all the right things, was a health nut, stayed in shape. and so when he went shopping as he was declined coverage, it was because there was a, quote, lack of current medical records, unquote. now, he explained that he didn't have any medical records because he hadn't been to a doctor because he's been healthy. but for that reason, because he

was too healthy, he was declined health insurance. i have a story, this just came into my office today. it's a family in my district and they called because they were concerned, they have twin sons, one of their sons just had a dislocated shoulder from an athletic event. not unusual. but because he had that dislocated shoulder they have been told by their health care insurer that they will now exclude coverage for any shoulder injuries for both sons, even though the twin brother was not engaged in the athletic activity and didn't dislocate his shoulder. so, health care reform makes preexisting conditions a thing of the past. all of this would be wiped away. all of these horror stories would be gone. americans could breathe a sigh of relief that now no matter

what your ailment, and believe me, all of us have a pre-existing condition of one sort or another, it just hasn't been tested because we've been in the group health market, but all of us will be able to access health care and health insurance through the health care reform proposal. you know, much like you, i came to congress to make this country a better place. with real health care reform, i believe we'll have an opportunity to do just that. thank you and i yield back. mr. murphy: thank you very much, representative spear. thank you for drawing attention to what this reform effort that we're talking about here tonight means, not just to these people that you're talking about that have been denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, but what it means to all the folks who have insurance out there. if i had a dime for every person i've run into that has talked to me about the fact that, you know what, they're not really happy in the job that they're in, they want to go do something else, or that they really have a great

idea, a business that has been germinating in their mind and they want to go out and start it, but they can't leave their current job, they can't go out and start that business because they're going to lose their health care, because their daughter is sick and they've got some health care for her now but if he or she leaves and goes out and does what they really want to do with their life or starts that small business, that they're going to lose that health care coverage. there are millions of americans who have health care today and are trapped, are trapped in their job, are trapped in their place of employment, because they can't dare lose the coverage that they have. now, in the most powerful country in the world, in the beacon of freedom from around this globe, that kind of servitude to your employee, just because your -- your employer, just because you have insurance that you can't leave, just doesn't seem right. but it also is just absolutely silly economic policy. think of all of the innovation that we're stifling. think of all of the great

entrepreneurs who never get to go out and invent, who never get to start that business because they can't leave the insurance that they have. so, you know, this really is fundamentally about trying to make health care for those that have it more meaningful, more real, but also more flexible. and i thank you for drawing attention to this issue. well, we are blessed to have with us on the floor representative ryan. we were talking earlier, this is kind of a hybrid health care hour, 30-something hour, and, you know, one of the things we're talking about here, mr. ryan, is that, you know, this is hard, right? this is a big problem. we got one of the most confusing, most complicated health care systems in the world. and we're going to take on a very complex and con have a looted system at a lot of different angles.

so the bill that's going to come out is going to be big. it's going to have a lot of pages to it because in order to tackle a really complicated and confusing health care system you have to have the guts to think big. you got to take on all of the various problems that have been created in this system. whether it be high cost health plans, pre-existing condition exclusions, post claims, underwriting, all of the various tricks of the trade that insurers and others have used to try to make money and exclude people, we got to take on and do things with. but it also makes it really easy for folks who are critical of health care to just sit back and say, well, you know, what you're proposing isn't any good and we're just going to sit back and criticize rather than propose alternatives. and that seems to be the dynamic once again that's playing out on this floor, that the democrats are going to offer real solutions, real opportunities for this country to move forward on health care and we're going to be met with opposition that

defends the status quo and really doesn't offer alternatives. so we're here tonight -- mr. ryan: will the gentleman yield? mr. murphy: absolutely. mr. ryan: we have hot off the presses here a copy of and a chart of the republican health care plan. and it has been the republican health care plan for a good many years now and it will continue to be the republican health care plan and it looks very similar to the republican energy plan. not quite sure exactly what it is. lots of question marks no, real solutions for the american people. and as you, i think, articulated a few minutes ago, this is a major issue for real people all over the country. for people who have lost their jobs because of the downturn in the economy, for people who come

from communities who have been dealing with the global restructuring, the loss of manufacturing jobs, many people from my district for the last 30 years, whether they were in the rubber industry in akron or the steel industry in youngstown or the auto industry in warren, they have had to deal with this change in our economy. this is prior to wall street pulling the rug out from the national and really the global economy. the bad policies over the past, you know, eight to 10 years that our friends on the other side have consistently pushed, you know, a lot of people who do have some criticism maybe for what's going on, i don't hear anyone saying, you know, the answer is to cut taxes for the top 1% and to get defense spending kicking.

we've been doing that. we spent, prior to democrats coming in office a couple of years ago in the house and president obama getting elected, we had a policy where there were tax breaks if the top 1% and they were supposed to invest all of that money into our economy. it never really happened. never really happened. i think what happened over the course of the last couple of years was that the reaganomics, supply-side economic, cut taxes for the wealthiest and hope the crumbs fall somewhere in youngstown, ohio, for the workers to get a bite of them, has not worked. the deregulation of wall street , we saw what happened there. it has caused a global recession almost to the likes of the great depression. and the only thing i feel like that's saving this from being a great depression is the great depression programs. unemployment insurance, medicaid, medicare, social

security, pension benefit guarantee corporation, the health care tax credit we increased from 65% to 80% in the stimulus bill, this is the only thing preventing people from being on the streets. they've lost their homes, they have no health care, if it weren't for these basic safety nets that we set up, there would be cheese lines again, let's be honest about it. no one wants to admit it. what we're trying to do here with energy, quite frankly, and now with health care is to shift what's going on in our country and it took us a long time, since 1980, this supply side economic policy has been happening. what we're trying to do is shift 30 years of this nonsense that has been implemented and to restructure our country to unleash the power, as mr.

murphy stated earlier, of the american people. those people in our districts that don't have health care or have lost their jobs and are scared, in america, need to be helped. i make no bones about it. i don't think anyone else does because the top 1% has been fine, they'll be fine. and what we're trying to do is restructure the system, take the health care system as it currently is, mr. speaker, and squeeze the fat out of it. squeeze the special interest out of it. take the savings to help cover everyone, and invest in the front end by making sure we don't have co-pays for preventive care, to make sure that no one will lose their insurance have to go bankrupt because of their health care issues. to me, this is basic common sense.

the security for the american people is what we're looking for so that they can confidently go about their business, create wealth, take chances, be entrepreneurs. that's what this is all about. you take these two pieces of legislation with the health care and with the energy, you are talking about unleashing the potential, the innovation, the entrepreneurship, the talent, the intellect of the american people. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. ryan: i'd be happy to yield. >> over the last 10 years, a time during which republicans had control of this house and the senate, republicans had control of the white house, the employers in my district have seen health care costs go up by 120%. they've had a lot of things increased in that time,

probably, frakly, mr. ryan, the only thing that competes for that is energy cost. probably depending on what oil was costing you from coming abroad, energy costs may have gone up by 120%, but nothing else has gone up by 120%. that's an unsustainable rate of growth for employers. it puts them at a tremendous disadvantage vis-a-vis the rest of the world. we live in a global economy and if we want to go back and diagnose why our economy went into free fall at the end of last year, abated at the beginning of this year in part by the actions congress took, you've got to look at health care costs and look at the fact that $1,500 of every car produced in this country is related to retiree cost obligations. that number is zero for competitors in asia or europe this economy is way down by a health care -- is weighed down

by a health care system that costs twice as much as every other health care system in the rest of the world. if we want to talk about economic revitalization, if we want to talk about making the country globally competitive again, about coming out of this recession stronger than when we went into it, we've got to do something about cost. we spent time today in our economy with the nonpartisan congressional budget office as they outlined for us the economic effects of our bill. they made it very cleerk the reforms outlined in our bill are going to lower the cost of health care insurance for individuals and employers. that the menu of options we are going to present, increased menu of affordable options for businesses and individuals, is going to lower the cost of health care. in an erwhere most businesses are crossing their fingers and hoping and prying that this year's premium increase is only 10% or 11%, a decrease in cost is almost unthinkable for those

businesses. it's central to why we're doing health care reform. mr. ryan: if you look at these numbers, they are from 2004, but they illustrate the point and we'll get them updated. the united states in 2004 spent $6,100 per person on health care. with the life expectancy to be 77 years -- 77.5 years. in canada, france, and germany, they spent $3,000 and a little change and their life expectancy is three years more than our, two years more than ours and a year and a half more than hours. we're spending double. so what we're saying to employers is, the status quo can't stand. we are being wasteful with our health care dollars. we are wasting money in this system. if you're a conservative if you're a businessperson, and you're standing in the halls of congress and you have to look

at and analyze the health care situation, you will come to the conclusion that it is better for us as a country to put money up front in preventive care and save money on all of these costs that happen down the line. now we have universal coverage now. but it's through an emergency room, mr. speaker. that's no way to run a health care system. don't come to us if you're, you know, unless you're completely -- unless it's an emergency. then come to us. then we'll take care of you. no business would run that way. you would put money up front, we'll give you a prescription, we'll help you with your wellness, we'll hep you deal with stress reductions, we'll help you deal with mental health and a lot of these issues system of you don't come to our emergency room as often. for health care. and you know, i have a c.e.o.

in my district who talks about his hospital, and he says, and he said to me more than once, if you would give me the opportunity to get that person and give them a $20 prescription instead of me having to deal with them when they come to my emergency room and cost me $100,000. that's what we're trying to do here. that's what this whole health care reform is all about. and i want to yield to a friend of mine that we worked on a variety of issues together and will continue to who is a great member from rhode island and a very dear friend, mr. langevin. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to echo your comments, because you're right on target. clearly in the united states, we have a health care system that is broken. we are in crisis. it's unsustainable. it is clear when you look at statistics from around the world, we have the highest cost

and worst outcomes when it comes to health care and that's because when you look at the number of uninsured, when youing a gate it, almost -- over 47 million americans without health insurance, that is the reason. that we are on a path that we cannot sustain. it's not serving anyone in terms of good health care and good quality. we have a system with so many uninsured and we're spending our dollars so inefficiently. so i wanted to be here tonight to add my voice to this clarion call for health care reform. i want to begin, of course, by thanking my colleague from connecticut, mr. murphy, for organizing this special order to discuss health care reform. i thank mr. ryan for his contributions to this effort tonight and the other speakers that have spoken or will speak later. let me say that i believe that

we need to -- we have a frank discussion and honest discussion about the -- with the american public about this issue. it's an issue that directly impacts everyone in this country, individual, family, businesses at every level of our government. regardless of one's age, gender, race, religion or income level, everyone has a direct stake in our system. it's porn that americans are properly informed of their choices as congress moves forward with health care reform. i think every member of congress is in agreement on one fact. our current health care system, as i said before, is not sustainable. i'm really disturbed, i have to say, by allegations from my colleagues on other side of the aisle, if offering real solutions we're somehow seeking to socialize medicine or ration care, this is something we need to address.

i'd like to offer some insight into this issue, some clarification. first of all, the thing we must acknowledge, and mr. ryan was talking about it earlier, the unfortunate truth, is we are already experiencing rationing under the current system. we experience it when insurance companies deny individuals coverage based on their health status or pre-existing condition. we see it in millions of families whose premiums and co-pays are so high they have to forego basic care and life sustaining treatments or choose between medications or groceries. we see it in businesses that can no longer offer insurance as a benefit to employees, not because they don't want to, but because they can't afford it. each of these circumstances represents a form of market-based rationing, a basic failure of our current health care system, of our private health insurance markets, due to skyrocketing costs. i want to be clear to my colleagues and the american

public, reducing costs and expanding health coverage to all americans doesn't mean reducing quality, access, or choice. on the contrary, we can and must use the money already in the system more efficiently to ensure access and expand everyone's choice of insurance coverage. doctors and more effective treatments. now the most recent draft -- draft of the house proposal, while far from a finished product and far from perfect builds on the strengths of our current system, the employer-based system, and supplement this is a with a health insurance exchange. what does that mean? it mean this is a americans who are happy with their current health care coverage can keep it. but those who don't have coverage through their employer will be able to shop for their choice of a private health plan, just like federal employees and members of congress can do. they'll also have the option to choose a public plan alternative which i think is vitally important. those mens who cannot afford to

purchase insurance in the private market will receive assistance in paying for the coverage they do choose. under this new system, private health insurance companies will have to play now by a new set of rules. insurers are no longer going to be in the driver's seat. we're put thinking american people in the driver's seat. we're going to make sure there's a basic new set of rules in fairness, in our health insurance system. again, health insurance -- health insurers will no longer be able to deny coverage based on a person's previous health condition and they'll have to participate in a more transparent and competitive marketplace. this means reducing out of pocket costs or unexpected 2350es when patients become sick and need the care they have paid for and have been promised. greater transparency will translate into more manageable costs so when we open our bills or statements, we know exactly w