bill now, is really a we're-in-this-together option. that's what it's about. that's the point. we'll talk more about that later. i think it's important when we talk about a public option, we're talking about an option that's available for americans to select which really says we're not going to leave you out in the cold. you're not by yourself. this ownership society is not a you're on your own society. in fact, it's a society in which we're all in this thing together. .6 c1 so, mr. speaker, as i said before, here's what drives our vision. but the system, the status quo, has something else driving the vision, health care reform means patients before profits. that's what health care reform means. health care reform doesn't mean there will be profits, but of course there will be private businesses on the exchange, there will be people making money, doctors will continue to make good salaries, nurses as well, other people who do good

things for our society will be compensated, of course. but the fact is, we will not have the insurance companies who are not allowed to just charge anything they want and pay their c.e.o.'s anything they want, we will have something with patient care will be just as important in this health care reform system. so i want to talk tonight, mr. speaker, about exactly what health care reform must include. so let me just get to this board and then i have a chart which will simplify it. because, mr. speaker, i believe there are folks who want to make this thing complicated. and people switch off their mind and say it's really complicated, i don't get it and seem to be talking bad about it and won't plug in. but i want the americans to know what this health care reform bill is talking about. it makes care the operative

phrase in health care and puts patients before profits, although profits are not out of the picture, they're still around. but patient care is what really is driving the conversation. a health care reform bill must include guaranteed eligibility. no american will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or preexisting conditions. mr. speaker, how many americans are at home right now who are checking over their bills, who are perhaps anxiety ridden or maybe even in tears because they've just been dropped or denied coverage because of a preexisting condition? i told a story last week, mr. speaker, about a dear friend of mine who called me aside in a community forum i had on health care in my hometown of minneapolis, minnesota, and said to me with tears in her eyes that she had a dilemma. she didn't know what to do. her sister and her mom had

succumbed to breast cancer. she thinks she's at risk. she knows that if she goes to get the tests to find out, then she will be presumed to have a preexisting condition and could be dropped. but if she doesn't and she does have the early stages of breast cancer, she will not be getting the care she needs. so she gets the care, gets the test, now she can be dropped for having a preexisting condition. if she doesn't get the test now, she has -- her breast cancer could be advancing. this is the situation that so many americans are in today and it's wrong. and the health care reform we're talking about, guaranteed eligibility, no american will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or preexisting conditions. meaning that the health care company and insurance companies just can't insure the people who are well, the people who never make claims, they've got to insure everybody. comprehensive benefits. the new public plan, this is

you're-not-on knife your own plan will include maternity, mental health, and disease management programs. this is comprehensive benefits and different from some of those plans you get that's a good plan for health care only it doesn't cover anything, only it has a high detectable, high co-pay and high premium and doesn't offer any real coverage, that's excluded, doesn't cover this, doesn't cover that. that's not the plan we're talking about, comprehensive benefits. affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles. as i said, they've got a certain version of health care out there now that the private market has cost up, where they have high co-pays, high premiums, high deductibles, meaning if you go to the doctor, you've got to pay a lot, you've got to pay a lot out of your check every two

weeks or every month when you get paid. and then if you need a procedure, you've got to cough it out of your own personal money because they don't cover anything or even nearly everything. so participants will be judged with fair premiums and minimum co-pays and deductibles for preventative services. that means if you want to stay healthy by doing preventative health care that option will be available to you. subsidies, individuals and families who don't call phi for medicaid or s chip but still need assistance will receive subsidies and keep health care affordable. we won't leave anyone out. even the people on the low income scale will have to get preventative services and see the doctor and this will be covered. health care reform, guaranteed eligibility, no exclusion for a preexisting condition, comprehensive benefits, a good

plan that covers things you need, affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles and subsidies for people who need them. so this was a chart that we developed, mr. speaker, to try to make it simple for folks because it is complicated. it's our job in congress to try to boil this stuff down and make it digestible so we came up with this little chart to try to talk about what's going on. let's just say we're here at the path to health care for all. so up here at the top of the box, mr. speaker, you've got every american. right now in what the plan will yield is basically three of these levels you'll fit into. one is employee based insurance. you heard president obama say if you like your health care, keep it. that's what that is. if you like your health care, keep it. it's exactly what you have now if you have employee based health care. that is going to cost less. there will be no more discrimination for preexisting conditions. there will be no discrimination

for age or gender. and we'll have medical ratio of 85% because 85% of the premiums must go to patient care. so they won't be able to dress up their pockets with those $100 million salaries some of these health care insurance company c.e.o.'s make. then there's the plan -- so this is a lot like we have now only we'll have improvement because of cost, because of the medical loss, what's known as the medical loss ratio and because of the banning of the exclusion for preexisting condition. then also we have public programs that exist now, medicare, medicare, s-chip, available to seniors and families below poverty line. we'll have all of that. still there. what's going to be new, mr. speaker, is health care insurance exchange. this is going to be -- this bubble is going to be kind of new. and it's going to go into effect in a few months perhaps after we pass the bill.

perhaps as much as 12 months, but it will be counted in months. health care insurance exchange. eligible individuals and small businesses will be able to go into the exchange, and what will be on the exchange, private insurance plans for the people can purchase and will be what you'll have there is a public option. now, people who go into the health care exchange will be subsidized up to 400% of the poverty level. that means if you're at the poverty level times four, you take that income you have at the poverty level, times four, you know, if you make 400% of the poverty level, meaning you make well over the poverty level but till still -- but still don't have enough for health care, you did receive -- you can receive some sort of subsidy to make sure you can afford coverage. then you can go into the exchange and it might be on a -- you might be able to pick your policy because the

policies will be standardized and you'll be able to get -- pick one, a public plan or a private plan. and you'll be able to get your health care policy picking the one that you want. guaranteeing that you'll have a choice. guaranteeing that you'll have options and you'll be able to select based on your needs. we're going to revisit this chart in a moment, mr. speaker, because it's important to go back to it. so i just wanted to say that tonight what we want to do with this progressive hour, with had progressive -- with this progressive hour we want to talk to folks to help them understand the health care reform plan, helping folks to understand what the public option is. as i said before, the public option should be understood. it's something that's going to help you. it's something that means this is our commitment to each other. like social security is our commitment to each other, like other important programs are a

commitment to each other, so what we all do together to make sure people can make it, this is what the public option represents. so, mr. speaker, many in congress, the house and senate, believe that any significant health care reform package must include a robust public option. we've seen leaders, brave, courageous legislators like russ feingold in the senate and bernie sanders and chuck schumer in the senate over in the other body talking about the importance of a public option. but here in the house we've heard the same commitment from some great leaders like john lewis, lois capps and like congressman pingri from maine who is new to this body all making important commitments to support a public option, on both sides. and of course we heard the president talk about the public option as well. so we have people in both houses and in the president's office talking about the public option. we talk a little bit about what it means.

but let me just elaborate on that a little bit. what it means at its heart is it means giving the uninsured the option to enroll in a public health care plan sort of like medicare. that's what it means. giving the uninsured the option , the choice, the choice to enroll in a public health care plan like medicare, a public insurance option would compete -- we're talking competition here, mr. speaker. we're not talking about not competing. we are talking about competing. under the system we have now, we don't have much competition, but with the public option we will have some competition. and this public option will compete on a level playing field with private health insurers and the uninsured individuals will get a chance to choose which plan is best for them. if you look at the health care market today and you go into a given area, everybody knows that one or two firms dominate

in that particular area, maybe three. sometimes you just really don't have any options at all, mr. speaker. and so we have a lack of insurance right now. a lack of competition now and what we need to do is get some real competition. and why is having a public health care option important? many reasons. but here are a few. a broad number of research and a broad spectrum of research has confirmed that the public health insurer's option is a key component of cost continuum, to drive down the cost of health care, you need a public option. because what it does is it introduces more competition, lower administrative expenses and drive cost saving innovation. some folks don't know our health insurance industry right now is exempt from anti-trust legislation and doesn't really have to compete. but a public option will drive

them to competition which is a good thing. also, need for a public option, according to research from the commonwealth fund, the net administrative cost for medicare and medicaid are 5% and 8% respectively. these are plans, medicare and medicaid, which already drive reasonable costs down so that folks who participate in these programs are not being charged for a bunch of stuff that they don't need, they're getting low administrative costs. i just want to say i've been joined now by one of my favorite colleagues, donna edwards, who by the way is a pretty good softball player, that's an aside. but congresswoman edwards is here. she represents the district of maryland. and let me just give her a chance to sort of jump in on this important conversation going on in congress right now. congresswoman edwards. how are you doing tonight? and let me yield to you. ms. edwards: thank you for yielding.

good evening. it's good to be here this evening. i want to say a few words because i don't have a lot of time and know you're really holding the forth here -- fort here talking about the importance of health care to all americans, the importance of a public plan option that really covers all americans, gives them a choice of their doctors and you know, what do they want for their services, and i just want to say, you know, the u.s. health care system is really one of the most expensive systems in the the world. we know that. we spend about $2.2 trillion each year on health care services and products. and at the same time, 46 million americans are uninsured and a whole bunch of others, 80 % who have insurance are actually from working families. they have insurance but it's not enough and it's not the right kind of coverage, and premiums are going up and deductibles are going up, and it's become really an unaffordable system for american families. almost half of all personal bankruptcies are attributed to

medical debt. i had that experience myself. i almost went bankrupt because i had a huge health care bill. i couldn't pay it. i got very, very sick, and, you know, i needed a choice. fortunately i was able to pay that off and then end up getting good insurance. but the reality is that when that happens, it can almost cripple a family. and i don't want any other family to have to face the kind of choices i did about whether to take care of myself, my son or to pay for health care coverage. and at the same time, we also know that sometimes people make the choices. do i buy my medications, do i go see my doctor when i'm sick or do i wait until i'm really sick? those are choices that are unacceptable. and let's look at the practices of our insurers. an insurer will say something like, you've been a victim of domestic violence, so we're not

going to cover that in the cost of that because it's a pre-existing illness. i bet a lot of people across the couldn'tly ry don't know there are health insurers who odeny coverage because of domestic violence. it's hard to believe that, but it's true because it's considered a pre-existing condition. we need not just a public option, we need one that's robust, we need one that says to insurance companies, here are the dos and don'ts, let's take care of the american people and give them some choices. 80% of americans have health insurance. so that means that most people you run into in your schools, your communities york -- communities, your neighborhoods have health insurance. but for so many people it's completely inadequate to do the task. i think again about another situation of an insurer where my son had a little bit of an accident he went up he came down on his head he needed an

m.r.i., betalked to an insurance company, they said, you couldn't go to the 24-hour m.r.i. center, you had to go to the emergency room and the emergency room was more expensive than getting the same examination that was a critical examination ordered by a doctor in an m.r.i. facility. so these choices don't make sense for the american public. as i said, mr. ellison you know, premiums are going up. premiums have gone up 114% from 1999 to 2007. that's greatly outpacing incomes in this country. so the high cost, what are they doing? they're crippling the american middle class, crippling working families, crippling businesses. most of the small businesspeople i know want to be able to provide good health care coverage for their employees. i'll tell you if you're trying to apply health care coverage

and you're suffering the cost of $10 or $20 per employee -- $10,000 or $20,000 for per employee, you can't stay in business like that we want to be sure they can provide low-cost coverage to all employees. we want to make sure that those who are unemployed, uninsured or underinsured are cover. we want to make sure there's a standard set of benefits everyone should enjoy so you get the advantage of preventive care, diagnostic treatments ordered by your physician. we want the patient and the doctor to have control of their coverage. not the patient and the insurer, not the doctor and insurer, nobody in between, not the government or anybody else in between. but the doctor and patient. then we want to make sure doctors are paid so they can make a viable practice. so that they can engage in the

kind of primary and preventive care we think is most important to preserving and protecting our health and quality of health over a long time. so i'm excited, actually, about where we are right now. i mean, i am so heartened. i think we've learned a lot over the years and this time the american people aren't just going to get a promise, they are going to get the kind of health care they deserve system of we should be both excited and proud to prepare to cast a vote for the american people for small businesses, for working families, for the uninsured, for the underinsured, for all americans. it is the most we can do for the american public and i'll have to tell you, i cannot wait to cast my vote for a public plan option that's robust that covers all americans that insures what i call the three c's, you know, we want lower costs, we want quality care, and we want continuity of care. shouldn't matter where you have this job or that job or another

job you keep your health care coverage. when we cast that vote for the american people, they're going to stand with us because it's the right thing to do. so it's so good to be here this evening in this house, in the people's house, saying that at last on health care, we are going to do what's right by the american people d i yield back. mr. ellison: would the gentlelady yield to a question perhaps? congresswoman edwards, we've been hearing a lot of rhetoric about this health care plan. this health care plan, which i agree with you, we need to be excited about it, because this is a great and propitious moment in america, but we've been hearing detractors. we've been hearing that government-run health care, all this kind of stuff, have you heard this kivende rhetoric before? and should anyone listen to it? i yield to the jeament. ms. edwards: i've heard the rhetoric before, it rings hollow on somebody who has not had health care and who has

also had really good health care coverage. so you know, i think the detractors, we know who they are, they're all the vested interests who are making a boat load of money off the american people while they don't have health care. so we have to just stop that. it's a pretty simp formula. i think the american people really get that. i think the american people understand that. you know, we want quality care and want to lower costs for everyone. and we want to make sure that we engage in the social responsibility we have for all of those who at some time or another might find themselves uninsured or underinsured. so the detractors actually don't have anything good to say so they want to try to kill our opportunity and a meaningful opportunity for the american people for health care reform. i think those of us who know what the problem is, who understand what the solution is, who believe we have to have a public option that competes with the private insurers, we

know that that kind of competition in the marketplace will lower costs so we've got to, you know, zone out the detractors and focus on delivering health care reform for the american people. mr. ellison: if the gentlelady would yield, i hope the gentlelady doesn't mind me asking her a few other questions, my next question is, why do you think it's been reported that the detractors to health care reform are spending up to $1.2 million a day here to lobby congress? i yield to the gentlelady. why are they spending so much money? ms. edwards: you know, i don't like this mix of money and politics and what it says to me is that somebody with that skin in that game stands to lose. that means detractors know that the cost of doing business for them is to spend the $1.2 million every day to fight against health care reform because they know without

reform they get to make billions of dollars off the backs of the american people no more to that. the american people are pretty smart about this. i know the people in my congressional district, the fourth congressional district in maryland, understand health care. many of them work and they have health care coverage, but they know that they're being burdened by increased premiums and deductibles. they know their insurance companies and bean counters and people on a telephone who stand between them and their doctor and good medical care, they know that they have family members, young people like my son, getting ready to come out of college, will lose his health care coverage that's covered by his parents, and will be on his own. those young people need to have health care coverage. we know that they don't believe they're ever going to get sick or injured, but that's not true. so we have an opportunity to fight all those interests and you know what i say? stop the advertising. we don't need to advertise for good health care reform.

we don't need to advertise for pharmaceuticals that benefit us if that's a decision that our doctors make, yet billions of dollars are spent in that industry. millions and millions of dollars spent in lobbying against reform. so that is a clear message to the american people that those detractors do not stand on the side of health care reform. mr. ellison: i agree with the gentlelady and couldn't agree more. i want to thank her for making the point she's made. we've been joined by congressman -- hank johnson from the great state of georgia and we're talking health care reform tonight, progressive caucus, offering a progressive vision to care for americans and we were just speaking a moment ago about how we need a robust public option that we're excited about the possibility to pass health care for americans, this is a 60-year

debate. some people go back to 1994, but we all know this degate -- debate gos back before that. this is an opportunity equal to passing, in my view, civil rights legislation, equal to passing environmental protection legislation, equal to making a leap forward for the benefit of all americans. my question to you, i don't want to tailor what you want to share with us tonight, congressman, but i do want to see if i can get your views on why, for example, the washington post-reported that the nation's largest insurers, hospitals, and medical groups hired more than 350 former government and staff members and retired members of congress in hopes of influencing colleagues in opposition to health care reform to the tune of about $1.4 -- i was going from memory before, i'm reading now, $1.4 million a day. why would they do such a thing

unless they thought this was a reasonable cost of doing business? does the congressman have any views? i yield to the gentleman. mr. johnson: thank you, congressman ellison. i want to also recognize my great freshman colleague when we came in, now we're all sophomores, ms. donna edwards, who's been a real champion on this, as you have, mr. ellison. and mr. speaker, i just want to respond, it is a civil rights issue. it's just not racial. it is a matter of demographics. it's a matter of who has insurance and who does not. and you'll find, looking at it, you'll find that most poor people and most at this point, i would venture to argue, middle class people have no

health insurance coverage. so the question is, after spending $780 billion in a wall street bailout, do we have the will to handle, to address this civil rights issue that is so fundamental to our country? to me, it's mind-boggling. we just heard reports of goldman sachs hitting the jackpot for $3 billion in profits over the last quarter. of the taxpayers' money. and people want to know, well, how much does this health care plan cost? i'm going to tell you, it's going to cost us a whole lot more if we do nothing. like my colleagues on the other side, we do nothing, it's going to cost us a whole lot more. you know why?

because health care costs will continue to skyrocket through the roof. in 2005, a study by the families u.s.a. and the center for american progress showed that the cost of treating uninsured added $330 to the average individual plan in georgia and $900 for the average family plan. that's close to $1,000, mr. speaker. every year. and high costs are what blocks access to health care because people don't have the insurance coverage to be able to become healthy individuals and certainly for our economy, mr. speaker, we can't have a majority of the people in this country sick with some kind of

chronic illness that if left untreated will kill them. and that if there was preventive measures to keep those chronic diseases from happening, or if there were some treatment regimens to address and arrest these chronic diseases, then you would find the american people would be ready to -- our children would be ready to go to school and learn and become great individuals who carry our economy into the 21st century. that's simply one of the items that we're addressing here. we ought to just continue -- if we are to continue to do business as usual, tax cuts for the rich and famous and

wealthy, as is vad -- advocated by my friends on the other side, are we going to continue do to the do that? we see where that has left us. we see where we are now. we're in a bad situation. and so we've got to take some important steps to address it and people didn't -- the same folks who supported the wall street bailout, now they're talking against our investing in the lives of people in this country who should be in a position to save us money by having -- everyone having health care. that demand will drive down expenses in and of itself. . so i would thank the gentleman. >> if the gentleman yields back. mr. ellison: i'll do a quick update for the folks that just

tuned in. we're talking about progressive health care reform and it must include guaranteed eligibility which means for american will be turned away from an insurance plan because of an illness or preexisting condition. the bill also includes confidence of benefits. this is what we need to have and what the bill offers. affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles. participants will be charged fair premiums and subsidies of families who do not qualify for medicaid or s-chip but still need assistance. what this bill calls for- again, i think it's important and i hope my colleagues agree, to make it simple, people can get a grip on it. health care for all, under the proposed bill, what would happen is under these three bubbles, if you have the employee based health care insurance now, you'll be able to keep that, but you'll have certain things that should control costs, including no more discrimination for preexisting conditions, no discrimination for gender, and

no pre-existence for -- no discrimination for issues like that. also, medical loss ratio, 85%, so at least 85% of the premiums must go to patient care. people who have public programs now, such as s-chip or medicare or medicaid can keep their program if they qualify and there won't be much that they have to worry about, it will be pretty much how it is now. but then there will be this exchange, which is new. and who will qualify for the exchange, people who are the uninsured, individuals and small businesses and they will be subsidized for up to 400% of the poverty level. within this exchange will be a public plan and will be private plans which have standardized benefits which they will have to compete for and drive down costs. the fact is it's not complicated, it's not that difficult. of course the bill has a lot of pages because there's a lot of

things to consider. but the fact is this is not a difficult thing and we're going to be working to make sure people understand it. i'd also like to mention that change is necessary. change is necessary. the fact is only 1.2% of american households will have to pay the proposed surcharge for health care reform. that leaves about 98% of american households who will not pay any surcharge. and you know, people who are blessed to be at that top -- tip top part of the income scale, i really believe as good americans who care about their fellow country men and women that they would not mind helping to cover the cost of health care. i think it's an act of patriotism and act of good government and social responsibility that says if we, the top 1.2% have been able to benefit from the massive tax cuts that have benefited this group of people over the last numbers of years, that now that

the country needs health care insurance, now that it's not given up a substantial part of their income, that they would be able to contribute to this. i think it's important to talk about the fact that under this bill, a family making up to $350,000, which is a pretty large amount of money in adjusted gross income, will not owe any surcharge at all. and a family making $500,000 a year in adjusted gross income will contribute about $1,500 to help reduce costs and provide access to affordable health care for all. the fact is that it's important to try to keep on talking about what the bill calls for so people can understand. we've been very fortunate to be joined by jon hall, congressman from new york, who is out front on nearly every progressive issue. let me welcome the gentleman and yield to him so he can get in this coverings. -- into this conversation. from hall -- mr. hall: thank you for

spreading the word of this health care plan which will include for the first time from the united states a public plan, a public option, patient option, some call it, so that all americans will have access to some kind of coverage. i just want to follow up on what you were just saying in terms of what a family making, say, adjusted gross income of half a million dollars a year would be paying. it's important to recognize the average american family is already paying an estimated $1,100 a year in extra premiums to cover those 47 million to 57 million uninsured who walk into emergency rooms and trauma centers with the flu or with a child that's sick or with a sprained ankle, something that should be handled by a primary care physician but because they don't have health insurance, they go to the e.r. instead. and those bills don't get paid. and the costs get spread over the rest of the population. and all of us wind up with higher premiums as a result. we're already paying for it.

we're paying more than any other country in the world. in fact, 16.2% of our g.d.p., our gross domestic product, is going to pay for health care, but we're not getting the best results. we're not at the top in terms of lifespan, in terms of infant mortality. we're not even close to the top. and i think it's also important to realize that first of all, this plan is still being tweaked, the bill is still being worked on. there are those who have questions about one aspect or another. i'm particularly in my district concerned that small businesses be protected as well as possible. although many small businesses have come to me, including the chambers of commerce in my district have come to me and said the number one issue for their member businesses is health care, the costs are spiraling out of control, costs of providing health care to their employees. they want to do it but just will be broken by doing it. the other question i hear --

well, a couple of things. i hear some people say, and they've heard this from tv, from the ads running already against this. i don't want the government between me and my doctor. well, neither do i. but i also don't want your insurance company between you and your doctor. and that's the situation we have now. people say i don't want rationing. we already have rationing. people say i want to have my choice of doctors. you don't. if you have an h.m.o., they give you a list of doctors and if you're not in the system you wind up paying for it yourself and filing for reimbursement later. good luck. it won't be the sa rate if you do get it at all. but the main myth that i would like to dispel is the idea that the government can't run a health care program well. not that this is going to be government-run health care. it's going to be a standard set of plans, the exchange, in which any business or individual can go and choose

from among five of the choices and one of those choices will be the public option. but just think about our military, for instance. all of the many members of the military and folks i know who work at west point, which is in my district, are covered by tricare. tricare is a single payer government funded one source health care plan. same goes, medicare is another one. and the veterans administration, there are certainly problems with veterans getting into the system. once they're in, they're very happy. in fact don't talk to a veteran about taking away their v.a. care because most of them, once they get that card, it's so portable and goes anywhere in the country and their records pop up instantly on the computer. so there are several examples already of -- my parents are quite happy with their medicare coverage. they buy supplemental sometimes if they need it and that option would also be available under the bill we're talking about. but i mainly just wanted to thank you and add my voice to the chorus of those saying it's

time for this change to happen, for us to join the rest of the g-20, the rest of the industrialized developed world in having some kind of a universally available and accessible health care for all our citizens. mr. ellison: and we'll be back to the gentleman in a moment. but now let's hear from the congresswoman from maryland, congresswoman edwards. congresswoman edwards, how do you react to this? ms. edwards: i thank the gentleman. i was listening to my colleague, mr. hall, and mr. johnson. i want to say particularly something about the critics' charge about we don't want government running health care and government is going to choose your doctor. i grew up in the united states air force. my father was in the military. when we were young children and had to go get health care coverage, we called, made an appointment, you know, got the tonsils checked, got whatever medication was needed, and went home. we saw a primary care physician. the government provided system. my father on his retirement was in the v.a. system, got

excellent coverage through the v.a. system. my brother retired from the united states air force. excellent service and care through the v.a. system. those are government provided systems, medicare. medicare is one of the most efficient, efficient health care systems that we have. so what are we talking about here? the critics can say what they want, but they know that when it's medicare or veterans coverage or coverage through these systems that people get quality care, that it's low-cost, that it's a very efficient system -- now, do we need to make some changes and tweaks? absolutely. and you know what, in this bill we're going to be voting on, those tweaks and changes are made to medicare to reform it so it actually saves taxpayers money and so i just thank my colleagues for pointing out that while government can

provide the mechanisms for health care, you still get to choose your doctor. under a private system, you choose your doctor, under the public system you'll choose your doctor, and then you can decide what works best for you. and that's the beauty of this. for people who believe in the marketplace, they need to believe in a public plan option because the public plan option is all about making the marketplace work for the american people, making it work for health care. and so i thank my colleagues because i think that we are going to do something very special for and with the american people, and at the end of the day we will celebrate because all of us will have quality, affordable, and accessible health care. and as i close, i want to say to the gentleman as well, that quality and affordable and accessible health care can't be just for that top 1%. it has to be for the other 99%. and the same choice that i get

here in the united states congress for my health care where i can look at an array of plans and make a choice, we want to deliver to all of the american people, and i yield. mr. ellison: i thank the gentlelady for yielding back. i go to the gentleman from georgia. i actually have a question i'd like to pose to the gentleman though the gentleman will obviously talk about whatever he wants. and the question i would like to pose to the gentleman is, is this thing that we're embarking on, this health care reform plan which includes a public option, historically, is this a small thing or is this a big deal? is this a time for rejoicing? is this a big moment in history people should be excited about. i yield to the gentleman. mr. johnson: like i said earlier to quote you, this is a civil rights issue, and 100 years from now people will be looking back and seeing what a fundamental change in the delivery of health care in this

nation was accomplished by the 111th congress. and so we cannot continue as things have gone in the past. 17.7% of georgians do not have health insurance, and those that do, their premiums have increased 88% since the year 2000. this is a big number that cannot be sustained, congressman elson. and we just simply must do what is right, and i feel proud about being on the right side of this issue, along with my fellow members of the congressional black caucus. we've got rising bankruptcies across the nation. 62% of those involve medical

bills that have resulted from a catastrophic illness, or even just -- not even catastrophic, but an illness. and you know, more people going into bankruptcy because of this. bankruptcy courts are overwhelmed with new bankruptcies. i would like to also address this issue of small businesses, as that -- as small businesses defined by the broadest definition, which means basically any individual with as little as one dollar of small business income, those people will not be impacted by a health care surcharge whatsoever. in fact, 96% of small businesses will not have to pay any surcharges at all. and those that make basically

$250,000 or less, they won't pay anything. if you made over $250,000 in gross -- excuse me, payroll, then you would have, i believe it's $500, those employers who don't offer health insurance would have to pay about $500 per year. and it goes on up. folks that make $1 million or more would sustain a responsibility of -- it's close to $1 million a year, like $900,000 a year, something like that, if you have payroll,

you're going to pay that much. and so this -- those are the same folks who got the tax breaks back in 2001 that cut in their capital gains taxes with more spending in this congress by my colleagues from the other side of the aisle. which contributes to the mue monogouse, which caused the humongous deficits we are experiencing today and we have nothing to show for them expect for the people -- except for the people suffering. i yield back. mr. ellison: i want to thank the gentleman again, this is the progressive caucus coming with the progressive message. on the floor tonight with three progressive leaders who have been speaking up with health care reform. let me turn now to congressman hall for a moment, we've only

got about 10 minutes left, i'd like to see the three colleagues share this time equally, i don't need much time to close, i'd like the public to hear from these three leaders in our congress and i guess i'll just hand it right on over to congressman hall. mr. hall: thank you, congressman ellison. i'll tell you a brief story about my mother, who was on a trip to the slovak republic with my dad and my brother, the priest. going back to see her great garntes' hometown and -- great grandparents' hometown. as she was leaving a restaurant, she turned around to say good-bye,? slovak, by the way, and she tripped and fell down the stairs of the restaurant and broke her right femur below the hip. it was too much pain for her to get on an airplane to fly back to the united states and have her leg repaired here. so she went into a hospital in

a little town in what was scheck slovakia when her real -- czechoslovakia when her relatives lived there a post-soviet country that most americans probably think of as a backward nation. she went there, spent two week, had pins put in through the marrow of her leg to hold the bones in alignment, had a plate put in the side of it, screws put in, it's an elaborate operation, spent two weeks in the hospital, at the end of that time, my father went down to the office of the hospital and asked if he could pay the bill because they were leaving to get on the plane to go home. and the administrator said, what bill? send us a postcard, tell her to do her exercises and have a good trip. now i'm not sure we're going to be able to do that, you know, certainly not for, you know,

every visitor to this country, but we ought to certainly try to do that for our own people, for those who can't afford it. for people who can afford it, pay for it. people who can afford the insurance, buy it. for those who can't afford it because they're at or below the poverty level, we have found ways and are still adjust waying -- adjusting ways to do that. for the first time in this country we'll do what israel, canada, the slovak republic, sweden, holland, france, taiwan, you can go down the list of all of our allies and all industrialized, developed countries in the world, what they do for their citizens, that's make sure that every one of them can go to bet at night and have that certainty, not worrying that they or their children might get sick or injured and not be covered by some kind of health care. i yield back. mr. ellison: that was a very

important story for as we wind down. now i turn to the jeament from maryland, congresswoman edwards. ms. edwards: i thank the gentleman for yielding. each time mr. hall has spoken he reminds me of something else. i have to tell you, i, too, left my appendix in spain in a clinic but i didn't get a bill. now that is not what we're doing here. but we are doing something really important for the american people. i believe that the strongest health care reform we can pass out of this congress also embraces a robust public plan option that gives people choice, that's competitive in the marketplace, that -- a bill that makes certain that we cover -- we don't have exclusions for pre-existing conditions like domestic violence or any other pre-existing, so-called pre-existing condition. so i think that in order to meet the test for real eform --

for real reform, we have to have a system in which patients choods their doctors, doctors and patients choose their care and insurers and government bureaucrats alike stay out of those decisions. so i say to the american public, we're ready to cast a vote for real reform and so, let's bring on the choice, let's bring on the competition, and let's bring on the care for patients, and i yield to the gentleman. mr. ellison: i thank the gentlelady, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia. mr. jackson -- mr. johnson: thank you, congressman ellison. they are having a tea party outside of my -- one of my district officers on friday. i would venture to speculate that many of those people who will come don't have health insurance, or recently lost

their health insurance and they are frustrated, they feel like this is going to cost them some money, but actually, when you stop and think about it, some folks have only the choice of going into the emergency room when their illness becomes so dire that the family makes them come and that's the only health care that they have, but with this bill, with a strong public option, those folks will be able to choose whether or not to be enrolled in that program or not and if so, then they'll get coverage for their medical throughout their lives. that's exactly what we need in this country. because this plan that would enable public -- a public option will keep the insurance

companies honest because it'll be competitive and so we're talking about lowering the cost of health care, taking some of that 88% of health insurance, rising costs off the backs of the middle class and i will yield. mr. ellison: let me thank the gentleman. let me remind everybody,s the progressive caucus come -- caucus coming together, and i want to leave us with this. mary from minneapolis says my daughter needed her wisdom teeth out. at the time with insurance, we were told to pay $375 and we did. then we get billed over $1,000, eventually it was submitted to $750. meantime, my husband had no paycheck. her second story, she had

calcium deposits in her back which make it difficult to walk. yet she has to delay treatment until it gets to be an emergency. there are health care nightmare stories across america. this democratic caucus is bringing -- is hearing the cries of the american people and bringing forth reform with a bill that includes robust public option, will stop people being dropped and denied for pre-existing conditions and we hope that people all over america talk about the fact that hope is on the way, change is on the way, and i'm looking forward to pushing green on this bill just like my colleague from maryland talked about feeling good about this change that's coming, not that we don't have some tweaks to do, but, hey, look, any tweak is nothing compared to the hope that this bill represents to the american people system of mr. speaker, i want to thank you and the congress and yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. fleming is now recognized for 30 minutes -- i'm sorry, for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. fleming: ok, thank you mr. speaker. we're going to be spending the next hour, i and my colleagues, are going to be talking about issues that are really on the

forefront right now of debate. we've been talking for weeks and will continue to talk about health care reform but as these bills are rolling out of committee, we're rolling new facts that are, i think, disconcerting to many of us, particularly those of us who are of the pro-life persuasion. so we're going to be talking this evening about the subject of life, we're going to be talking about abortions, the up and down, the frequency of abortions and may get into end of life issues, because all of these are relevant, of course, to what's going on with the health care debate today in washington. i want to start out with the first slide and notice it says from 1973 until the hyde amendment was passed in 1976, federal taxpayers were paying

for 300,000 abortions per year, even though abortion was never mentioned in the original medicaid statute. think about that. there's no provision, there was no provision for abortions to be paid for under medicaid statute, yet 300,000 abortions per year were being provided all to the taxpayers' expense. how can this happen? how can this happen in america? where something is being paid for, something that is unconscionable for at least today, over 50% of americans and yet it's paid for by taxpayers? it's interesting in the abortion debate, some of us are definitely against abortions, we call ourselves pro-lifers, there are those in favor of abortions, they call themselves

pro-choice but the interesting thing about this matter, many who call themselves pros-choice actually say that they would like to see fewer abortions, perhaps even no abortions if it could be done, even though they would prefer that there not be a law against that. in fact a recent study showed that 69% of americans are against taxpayers-funded abortions. so you have many different issues here. you have whether or not there should be abortions in the first place. you have the issue of those who even want to leave it to the mother would rather not see abortions and many americans who really see no problem with the taking of life, don't want to have to pay for it, at least not through their taxes, of course. but it's, you know, it's very interesting that again, from 1973 until the hyde amendment was passed, there was 300,000 abortions per year. in 1976, something very

interesting happened. the hyde amendment was attached to an appropriations bill and it prevented any further taxpayer funding of abortions except in the unusual cases such as rape, incest, the health of the mother, of course. and we've seen a tremendous dip in the number of abortions. and again this slide illustrates a fact that i mentioned a moment ago, 69% of american os pose taxpayer funding for abortion. that's a vast, vast majority. of americans. we go to slide three, abortion advocates are using health care reform to advance hidden agenda. here is a quote from wendy shafkin, former board chair of physicians for reproductive hell and choice, obviously a

pro-abortion advocate. she says public option, and that's referring to the current bills before us today, that is, the option of choosing a public plan, a government-run health care system, public option is key to the health reform and using medical standard of care in language instead of listing reproductive services that will siphon off votes. is tiki to this. what is she referring to? well if we talk about reproductive care, that, of course, implies reproductive services including abortions. . if we leave it to the medical standard of care and let someone else define it, what we end up with is a standard of care out there that can be dictated to all that means of course abortion services. so really what are we getting

into in this entire debate and discussion? we'll get into the weeds on this in just a moment with my colleagues. but the bottom line is that if, according to the courts, and according to the rules that can be provided by the administration, if abortion is not explicitly excluded under taxpayer funding, under medicaid, any kind of single payer government-run health plan, it is not specifically excluded, then it is included. let me repeat that. if it is not explicitly excluded, it is included. what does that mean? it means it is a de facto mandate. the court's over and over have judged that if congress does not say it's not to be paid for, then it's considered a standard of care and therefore will be covered. again, i want to give you another quote here. the national abortion federation, supports health care

reform as a way to increase access to comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion care for all women. so you see the pro-abortion people are using this to advance their own goals and that is to get the number of abortions again back up. i don't understand how that is in any way a desirable goal, but it's obvious they are doing that. so what we are seeing here is a history that the more accessible abortions are, that is the easier they can be provided and certainly for free without any cost, the fewer barriers there are, the more abortions there are going to be. i have a quote from barack obama , our president. in my mind reproductive care is essential care, basic care, so it is at the center, the heart of the plan that i propose. insurers are are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive

care, including reproductive care, that's going to be absolutely vital. it's very clear where our president is going with this. again between the judicial branch and the executive branch, the judicial branch of course in courts again and again saying if congress does not exclude it, it is included. and then a president who feels very strongly that it should be included, then it's going to be there unless we do our job and we amend this bill and exclude it. it has been attempted on the senate side and failed. and certainly we are going to try. this bill, of course, equals the largest expansion of taxpayer funded abortion in history. in fact i would say that it stands to increase the number of abortions greater than any time in history since roe v. wade.

so we are really on the edge of another giant leap in terms of abortions. and i'm going to end my originating comments here with this, and that is many of you may recall when our president was asked when does life begin? what was his response to that? he said, as candidate for the president of the united states, he said, well, that's above my pay grade. well, i ask rhetorically, what is a higher pay grade than being president of the united states? if he can't decide when life begins, then who do we go to? and that's going to be perhaps a matter of debate tonight. i'm a physician. i can say very clearly and without hesitation that life begins at conception. it's a biological truth. it's a biological fact. there is no way to argue around that. many have tried. some say that, well, it's at the

point of viability. that of course is a moving target. babies are surviving younger and younger in gestation. so as we go forward in the debate tonight, we certainly want to include all these issues relative to abortion. my colleague, joe pitts, tonight, congressman pitts, who has been at the forefront of the abortion debate for many years really brings a lot of experience to us tonight. and i want to recognize the gentleman and certainly give him the opportunity to use as much time as he may desire. mr. pitts: i thank the gentleman. i appreciate your overview and scheduling this hour over this so-called health reform a the abortion connection. because this health care reform plan contains a hidden abortion mandate that the american people don't even realize is there.

it will mean that health care insurers will be forced to cover abortions. it will mean that taxpayer money will be used to subsidize abortions. both a mandate and a subsidy. against the moral objections of millions of pro-life americans. under the proposed health care reform bill which we are considering now in energy and commerce committee on which i sit, and we began opening statements today. we'll begin markup tomorrow. it will continue next week for three more days. virtually under this bill every individual would be required to have health care that meets what they call minimum benefit standards. the bill does not define these minimum benefit standards. but instead it establishes a new government health board called, the health benefits advisory committee. this committee is chaired by the

surgeon general and in concert with the secretary of health and human services will issue binding decrees on what is and is not considered a minimum federal benefit standard. there is absolutely no doubt as the gentleman from louisiana stated, that this process will result in mandated coverage of abortion along with federal subsidies for such coverage unless congress explicitly excludes abortion services. when talking about health care reform, the gentleman mentioned president obama himself stated that reproductive care is essential care, basic care. secretary clinton just recently clarified that, quote, reproductive help includes -- health includes access to abortion, end quote. history has demonstrated that unless abortion is explicitly excluded, administrative agencies and the courts will

mandate it. we have seen this time and time again. the federal medicaid statute was silent on the issue of abortion. but the 5d mcmorris rodgers -- the administration and the courts deem abortion on demand to be mandated coverage. as a result, over 300,000 abortions a year were paid for with taxpayer funds before it was stopped. in 1979, congressman henry hyde asked the indian health services where they found their authority to pay for abortions. they responded, quote, we would have no basis for refusing to pay for abortions, end quote. in both of these cases, explicit exclusions had to be added to ensure that taxpayers would not have to continue to pay for abortion. so every year when labor-hhs that covers medicaid is adopted, we have to adopt the hyde amendment.

it's an annual event. under this bill, any individual who does not have a plan that meets the minimum benefit standards, they will be forced to pay an additional 2.5% penalty, tax penalty. any employer who does not provide coverage to his employees that meets these standards will pay upp to an additional 8% tax penalty. so that means all premium payers and taxpayers in america who do not want to plan that pays for abortion will be penalized for it. in addition to mandating this coverage for abortion, the bill will also provide massive subsidies for abortion. the bill, both authorizes and appropriates, funding for premium subsidies. we won't have to appropriate money in the future if we pass this bill. and without explicit language to

clarify, the taxpayer dollars cannot and should not fund abortion, massive subsidies for premiums and cost sharings will be used to pay for abortions against the moral objections of, as i have said, millions of pro-life americans. the issue here is simple. americans should not be forced to have their tax dollars pay for abortion. that's why i'm going to offer amendments in energy and commerce committee and the markup. to eliminate the mandate. to eliminate the subsidies. and also to keep the bill from preempting state laws. this bill is basically an end run to establish folka, freedom of choice act. all the pro-life community knows what that is. this bill would preempt all state laws that would interfere with this bill. and access to abortion. we should not be forced to be

unwitting participants as the abortion industry uses this law to mainstream the destruction of human life in the american health care industry. health care is about saving and nurturing life not about taking life. abortion is not health care. this bill seeks to establish that. the majority of americans as was pointed out do not support public funding for abortion. use of their taxpayers dollars for abortion, and they should not have this abortion coverage forcefully thrust upon them. and so with that i thank the gentleman for scheduling this hour. it's very important that we alert the public as to what is coming down the pike in the next couple of weeks so they can get involved and express their views to their members so that they reflect their views here on the floor. mr. fleming: if the gentleman would allow, i would like to ask

a question. congressman pitts, are you saying, then, that perhaps the other side of the aisle, the pro-choice or the pro-abortion folks are really piggy backing on to a bill that has nothing to do with abortion in order to reach their goals, their aims that they perhaps have been trying to attempt for many years? mr. pitts: they know, in response to the gentleman, they know that if the bill is silent on the issue of abortion, they will control who is appointed to the benefits advisory committee, and they have expressed their intent from the president on down to all the organizations who have lobbied for this health care bill, that they intend that abortion will be a basic essential service. and so they are relying on that advisory committee, on the secretary of health and human service, on the courts, on the administrators to guarantee that

this will be provided. friends, this is the big battle for our time. this is the greatest simple rights -- civil rights issue of our generation. if we lose this battle, it's over. now is the time for all citizens to weigh in. if they don't want their tax dollars used to set up this massive abortion scheme that's coming through this bill. mr. fleming: i thank the gentleman for his comments and certainly will be happy to discuss this further as we go along this evening. again i want to underscore and emphasize the comments here that as the gentleman says abortion is not health care. in fact, i would say the taking of innocent life is not health care. in fact, as a physician i have a sworn honor not to take life, of course, unnecessarily and certainly innocent life. only to do so if it of course

protects other life. such as in the case of perhaps and atopic pregnancy or mother who is bleeding to death when there is no viability of the fetus or embryo to begin with, that's a lifesaving measure. but elective abortion, that is not what this is. that is not health care. that is taking innocent life and there is no way -- in as many ways as we tried to debate this over the years and the courts have looked at it, no one has been able to come up a solid response to that argument that killing the unborn baby at any stage in life beyond con exception is and always will be the taking of innocent life. well, this is an extremely interesting debate. i want to turn to my friend from the corn state of iowa, steve king, congressman king, and i know he is itching to add some very important comments. so i yield to my friend. mr. king: i thank the gentleman,

the doctor from louisiana, for organizing this special order this evening. and my colleagues that have come to the floor to stand up for live and make this argument, mr. speaker, before the american people tonight here on the floor of the house of representatives. and i think first and foremost dr. fleming made the point this profound question, this question about when does life begin? . it's a question i won't hear answered from over on the other side of the aisle where we find so many people promoting the idea that we should compel all americans, even pro-life americans to fund abortions, not only here but in foreign lands. i'll lay out how i deal with this from time to time when i go into a school auditorium and i've had the principal hand me the microphone and say, they're

injures for 50 minutes or whatever the time might be. i ask them to ask themselves two questions. i say, you're young people. you're establishing your principles and values for life. these are profound decisions you'll be asked. so the first question i'll ask is, is all human life sacred in all of its forms? do you believe in the sanctity of human life? they'll look at each other and some will understand it instantly, some won't understand at all, some get it after thinking about it. i say, is your life sake read redd? is the life of the people around you, the people in your class, your closest friends are their lives sacred? do you think -- do you believe in the sanctity of human life? they come to a unanimous decision, yes, every human life on this planet is a sacred, unique creation from god. when they come to that

conclusion, it's always unanimous in the gymnasium or auditorium, whatever it might be. i ask them, now that you've answered the first question, do you believe in the sanctity of human life, and you've all said yes and amen, the next question is at what instant does life begin. dr. fleming has said and i agree that life begins at the instant of conception. you have to choose an instant, otherwise it's a moving target. otherwise it's guesswork with sacred human life. so throughout the nine months of gestation and it came to me this way, when my first son was born, first child, i held him in my arms and i just looked upon a miracle. i thought, how could anyone, how could anyone take this child's life at this moment, this moment shortly after his birth. then i asked myself, what's unique about this, what would be different about his life the moment before he was born? he's still a child a unique

creature from god. so i just quickly rationalized back through that period of time, the nine months he'd been forming. there's no instant there when you can say, he was a sacred human being at this point but not a moment or a moment earlier. so you have to choose an instant that life begins. the only instant that exists in the whole process is fertilization and conception. so i asked the students then another question. that would be, what if someone walked by the door to this gymnasium and stuck a gun through the door that's full of you students, looked the other way away and pulled the trigger and run down the hallway and the security people chased him down and captured him outside, cuffed him, now you're all safe, except for what might have happened, did he kill somebody or didn't he? they look at each other and say, we don't know. i said, that's my point. but if there's a dead body in the gymnasium, he killed

somebody. whether he knows or you know, it's still a fact and he's still guilty of murder, premeditated murder. so it isn't a matter of saying, well, i don't know for sure so i'm going to go ahepped and err and have an abortion. it's a matter of the precise line, the precise moral question. i'm not casting aspersions or blame or guilt on anyone. i'm asking people to think about this, adults, think about this, i have never found anyone i debated this issue with, and there have been many, who can respond to those questions when the first answer is, to the first question, if human life is sacred in all its form, they say yes, as all of us do, there's no escaping the fact that that life begins at the miami of conception. that's at the core of this debate. here we have a congress that seems to have political power and support and campaign contribution this is a flow into the coffers of, at this point, a majority of the

members of the house of representatives, and i've watched members gravitate toward their power base and put up the vote that flatters the people that show up at their fundraising events and i will never forget the night we had the vote here and -- in early 2007 on the mexico city language, and the gentleman from new jersey, whom we'll hear from in a moment, offered that amendment. i was over about that far back and we, as they said we won the debate and lost the vote. over on this side, there were 30 or so that were jumping up and down, clapping, cheering, hugging each other, if i'd been closer, i could have told you whether they had tears of joy, but they were elated they had defeated our effort to block federal funding for abortions in foreign lands. and i looked at that and i thought, how could anyone have it in their heart to exhibit

such joy at funding abortions and the end of life of innocent babies in foreign lands. as i think it over, it was more that they believe they had landed a blow against the political opinions of the people here most of us on this side of the aisle, about a good 30 pro lifers on the other side of the aisle, political opinions. these are profound, deeply held, moral convictions that are tied and rooted in our conviction as well. that's what this discussion and debate is about. when i see language that comes out and sets up essentially a mandatory national health care plan that has no exemption in for abortion and the funding for abortion, if it's not an explicit exclusion, as the gentleman said, we know by deep and long experience, it will be federally funded abortions and

by the way, i don't believe there's a conscience clause in all these hundreds of pages of the bileither and president obama wouldn't allow a conscience clause, he's opposed that along the way. he appointed as his office of legal counsel, a young lady who has been a strong advocate for abortion and argued a number of casers in national abortion rights action league. it looks like the senate is poised to confirm a justice to the supreme court who has a fairly significant record in advocating for or coming down with decisions that enable more and more abortions. we need to draw a moral line. laws we pass in this congress are laws rooted in the forl foundation of our people. if we see that 51% of the people in america characterize themselves as pro-life, and that's the number we're looking at here tonight, but if you slice and dice that and go on up the line and define, you define pro life as maybe someone who makes an exception

for the life of the mother, and then someone who makes exception for rape and incest, maybe someone who makes an exception that says, we should not do partial birth abortion and you get almost 100%. hardly anybody believes you should take a baby that's almost born and draw their brains out while they're struggling for life. we put an end to that in this congress. it was a struggle to do so, it was twice before the supreme court but i've seen numbers that take us us up into the 7th and higher percent -- the 70th and higher percentile of pro life people. and we have 60% of people arguing you should not use taxpayers' dollars to fund abortions. i'm among those, i think we're unanimous in that. this is a big debate a profound debate, that goes to the heart of the moral core of the people of the united states of america. i'm grateful that the gentleman from louisiana who demonstrated

a lifetime as a practitioner in medicine brought to this to the floor. i yield back. >> i want to highlight something the gentleman from iowa said. i think this is a good way to explain it. when does a baby's life have value? we know no one in this congress would kill a month-old baby or 2 week old baby but if you could make life a line and put that dividing line at birth, what makes a baby that's 2 weeks old any more valuable than a baby two weeks before birth? or a month old baby, any more valuable than a month before birth or a 3-month-old baby more valuable that a three month premature baby. if you go back in that line, when on that line does this baby's life begin to have

value? those of us who hold the sanctity of life ethic believe that from the moment of conception, as a little embree yow, that small, tiny human being has value. we know that its blood type is different than its mother, couldn't receive a blood transfusion from its mother, couldn't receive a skein graft from its mother. by about 9 or 10 weeks, 11 weeks, when most abortions are done, that baby has its fingerprints that are completely unique from any other individual ever born. it has dream patterns on its brain ves, it sucks its thumb if you put a light intra-uterine are, it will hold up its head and turn its head. it feels pain. little unique individual, a little life support system, not very big, but certainly just as

valuable as any other baby. that's why we speak up for these little ones who can't speak for themselves. and who are subject to the most gruesome, horrific procedure known to mankind. i remember the chairwoman of the feminists for life speaking to a group of us. she said, abortion is the most violent form of death known to mankind. abortion always has two victims. one dead, one wounded. one is the baby, one is the mother. she said, abortion breaks a woman's heart. and there are a lot of people who have suffered from this. we need to do something about that. but i thought your illustration was really right on. it's a good way of illustrating why we're speaking up tonight for these little unborn children and their moms. i yield back.

>> before i go to the gentlelady, i want to follow up on that, the perspective about having unique fingerprints, for instance, at the moment of conception that baby has a d.n.a. pattern that is unique unto history. no one has ever had the same d.n.a. pattern, no one will -- ever will have the same d.n.a. pattern that does make that a unique human being. but here's something else to ponder, i think. why is it that we think so differently about the born child versus the yet unborn child who may only be a few days' difference? and i've thought about this and pondered this. that is a unique capability that human beings have, that is to dehumanize. we have the ability to dehumanize other human beings. and i can give you some great examples. look at nazi germany. millions of jews and poles and others were exterminated

because they were not thought to be true humans. a human cannot do this to his own species unless he thinks that's a subhuman or nonhuman. look at, of course, the days of slavery. how could we have the nounding fathers of our country -- the founding fathers of our cubtry think in terms of freedom for all, yet enslave our fellow man? the only way is to think of those people as not being humans. that's the reason why people today can abort children even to the point of partial, late-term abortion, that's to think of them as nonhumans. i think that's something we really have to reassess in our lives, certainly our religious values, my values as a christian suggest that a life is a life and think of all the george washingtons and the abraham lincolns and the einsteins that are being aborted every day. people who could add so much to our future. anyway, we have a lot to cover

and i want to thank the gentlelady from north carolina, virginia foxx, for all of her -- she's about the hard workingest congressperson i know up here and always like to turn to her for valuable advice on things and so i yield to the gentlelady. ms. foxx: thank you, dr. fleming. i appreciate your organizing this special order tonight and the comments of my colleagues from pennsylvania and you and my colleague from yea have been very eloquent tonight and i won't try to add a lot to the really terrific comments you all have made but i did want to come and lend my support to the special order tonight and say that i certainly share with you the horror of the fact that

this bill is going to be the largest expansion of taxpayer funded abortion in history. we spoke out against it in the rules committee. we've been speaking out against it for days, but to no avail. i was thinking also what you were saying a few minutes ago about dehumanizing. i think that one of the big concerns that i have and that many people are having in the debate that we've been having with health care funding and with the attempt by the obama administration and speaker pelosi to turn our health care in this country upside down, the greatest health care system in the world, to turn it upside down and have it be given over to government control, is the great fear that many of us have

about rationing care and the fact that we are concerned that the attitude toward abortion which has permeated our colleagues on the other side is going to be extended to other people in our culture, particularly to the elderly and i agree with you, it doesn't take much to go from not recognizing the humanity of an unborn child to not recognizing the humanity of someone with a handicap or a challenge, a physical challenge, to not recognizing the worth of an older human being, and i think that is a great fear that many of us have in our country and i was thinking about the rules process, being the newest

member of the rules committee, and going through my first time through the appropriations process, we have been protesting this last three weeks the way the majority has handled rules and the way it's handled amendments. we have been closed out from being able to offer amendments that would put folks on the record for how they feel, not just about this issue, which i think is by far one of the most important issues we're dealing with in this congress but on lots of them. . today we voted -- we had 11 amendments from our colleague, jeff flake. i voted for every single one of those amendments because it cut pork barrel spending and earmarks. however the argument from our colleagues on the other side is that there isn't enough time to have an open rule process

because they want to get through appropriations right away. and yet if we had an open rules process, we could have put some of the amendments that have been -- been put together by you, congressman pitts and others, one dealing with access, for example, to abortion. we know, again, that this bill you have been talking about is going to require abortion clinics in communities that don't want abortion clinics. we know that 85% of communities in this country do not have them and yet this bill is going to mean that they are going to have to be abortion clinics or abortion providers made available in those communities. and the reason we were told that we couldn't offer these amendments to try to stop these things was because there wasn't enough time. and yet we spent a whole afternoon.

the other point i would like to make is this afternoon the rules committee met and we are going to deal with a bill that is not at all needed right now, but it's going to deal with opening up more federal lands to wild horses and donkeys. and yet we are passing legislation that is going to result in the deaths of millions of unborn children. people are saying to me, what has happened to our country? i am frightened to death for our country and the direction in which it is going, and i think there are very few things that will point out the inconsistencies in the way people around here talk about things and what they actually do than to say, we took up the time in the rules committee today and

we are going to have on the floor tomorrow a rule which is going to deal with that issue about wild horses and wild donkeys, and yet we don't have the time to debate whether or not we want to take money from people who are strongly, morally opposed to abortion and allow abortions to be done with our taxpayer money. i believe the american people are waking up. i just hope they come out with a strong voice and say, this is not what i want my country to be doing. and with that i yield back. mr. fleming: i thank the gentlelady for those comments, of course. very adroit, to the point, and essential and important and also it speaks to the process we are going through in which these really weighty debates, weighty issues are being ignored and

much more trivial issues are focused on here in this body. again we are talking? evening -- talking this evening about the pro-life issues and the potential if this bill passes, the obama care, the single payer health care reform plan that's coming out of the house and the senate as well, and the fact that by not addressing, just simply by not addressing the issue of taxpayer funded abortions is actually allowing for them and providing for them through what is really a de facto mandate process. with that i want to recognize my friend, chris smith, from new jersey, congressman smith has taken the point on pro-life issues so often. we have so much of course to thank him for in this respect. with that i yield to the gentleman. mr. smith: thank you very much for your leadership. it is reassuring in so many ways

to have a distinguished medical doctor like yourself leading the fight as you have done so ably and to have some of our other dogs who are speaking out so -- docs who are speaking out so eloquently on behalf of the most fundamental human right of all, and that is the right to ly. i find it appalling and i know you do, and our colleagues here tonight, that unborn children and the preciousness and the value, innate value of their lives is so easily cast aside by this congress, regrettably by the abortion president, president obama, who has systematically since he has taken office through policy reversal, through policy reinterpretation, and through legislative proposals that he has made, including one that passed today that will force taxpayers to pay for abortion on demand in the district of columbia, and we know when that happens, there will be more abortions. and the tragedy of that is

beyond words. young boys and girls who will never taste sunshine, never see the light of day, never enjoy the everyday happenses -- happinesses and joy and challenges that all of us face, their lives will have been snuffed out, killed, in a very -- as joe pitts said a moment ago, a violent procedure. as you know so wrell as a medical doctor -- well as a medical doctor, of dismembering a child. i hope the american people finally at long last rip awade the facade, vail -- veil of secrecy that has enveloped the abortion issue whereby children are hacked to death by the abortionist. poisoned as you know so well with chemical poisons that effectuate the death of a fragile innocent boddy, a little child who wants to live and yet is killed. mr. fleming: reclaiming my time for a moment. in the late-term abortions, i

have never seen one but my understanding is a trocar is inserted into the wound, into the skull of the baby anti-brain is sucked out. here we are concerned about waterboarding. yet these kind of techniques are done on our innocent children. mr. smith: i would also point out this congress almost four years ago passed legislation -- got 250 votes in favor of legislation i offered, co-sponsored by mr. pitts and many other colleagues, that basically said unborn children feel pain. the evidence is overwhelming at least from the 20th week on and probably before, and while this hacking maneuver, the d and e. abortion is occurring, the child in the first few minutes of that gruesome, brutal, decapitation but it starts with arms and legs, suffers. and feels excruciating pain. and as one of the pioneers in anesthesia for unborn children

for benign reasons, surgeries and fixing children, helping to ameliorate spine i bifida and other problems, you have to give anesthesia to these children or they feel it. the abortionist has no concerns and brutally kills the child. let me just say a couple points, again we've got to ask the questions, americans really have to ask the question, why the rush? to enact mr. obama's exceedingly expensive, complex, and potentially ruinous health care restructuring plan without the benefit of comprehensive hearings on it, and a thorough vetting of the actual bill text? rushing right to a markup before the americans can look at it and decide what are the consequences , shea-porter, intermediate, and long-term to the -- short, intermediate, and long term to the legislation. the obama care is the greatest threat ever to the lives and well-being of unborn children since roe vs. wade itself

legalized abortion. we have made serious, modest but serious attempts that have passed at the state and federal level to mitigate abortion's reach by denying federal funding, by putting in things like women's rights to know laws, parental notification, waiting periods, all of which have lessened, reduced the number of abortions. all of that is at risk right now with this obama care recommendation. despite mr. obama's often repeated statement he wants to reduce abortion, just last week he told that to the pope, a couple weeks before that to a big audience at notre dame university. he says it over and over again. words should have meaning. they should have consequences and actions should be -- should comport with those words, in this case they are opposed. he says one thing and does precisely the opposite. the ugly truth is that his so-called health care reform bill, if enacted, will lead to

millions of additional deaths to children and millions of mothers will be wounded. even the pro-abortion institute has found between 25% and 35% of medicare eligible women who would choose abortion carry their pregnancies to term when public fund something not available. i remember when henry hyde was told, it was like a revelation, the great henry hyde, human rights leader, finest orator perhaps in the history of this institution, and the hyde amendment author that proscribes federal funding for abortion in the medicaid program, when he learned that by this extrap plays it was really true that millions of kids had survived because of his legislative leadership, and jim oberstar who was there the day and helped craft that legislation in the 1970 's, henry hyde had a big tear in his eye knowing there were kids walking all across america, now some of those kids,

young adults, having their own children because the money wasn't there to facilitate their violent death. henry hyde and all of us who have been part of this know that because of these efforts, uphill as they are, children will survive and mothers will avert this decision. obama care opens the spigot of public funding and does more to facilitate abortion than any action since roe and this is the big issue. i hope every american realizes despite what's being thrown about here what's at the core of this is an borgs promotion and facilitation of it and spending for it. despite the fact that the majority of americans don't want to fund abortion and every bowl shows that, the obama-dingell-kennedy bill will force every taxpayer and premium payer in the united states to pay for and facilitate every abortion in the country. obama care will mandate abortion on demand even in private

insurance plans which will lead to many more abortions. on april 2, second see we'llous -- sebelius admitted most do not cover abortion services. that radically changes under obama care. the legislation vests new, you have gotten into this, new huge sweeping powers and an obama appointed committee that will be crafted after the legislation is signed into law, establishing essential health benefits, all plans must include. that's the dirty little secret about this bill. they wait until it's after inc.ed -- inked and signed by the president and the experts will say this is what every minimum plan needs to have in it. we have no doubt whatsoever that abortion will be in the mainstay. naral's president has said if we -- if we can advance a panel or commission that i'm very optimistic about reproductive health being part of the entire package. in 2007, mr. obama told planned

parenthood reproductive care is essential care. we are absolutely in favor of reproductive care. as hillary clinton said in response to a question i posed at the foreign affairs committee, she said of course reproductive health includes access to abortion. they use word games that cloak and stealth it the bottom line is what they are talking about is abortion on demand. pro-abortion organizations believe they are on the verge of the biggest expansion of abortion ever. the president of the religious coalition for reproductive says let there be no mistake basic health care includes abortion service. obama care will expand the number of abortion mills in this country by requiring any insurance provider contract with essential community providers. guess what? planned parenthood, which itself does over 300,000 abortions every year, a staggering loss of children's lives, many of those children are from adolescents, minor girls who get abortions

there, often without parental -- parental notification, build itself in a media blitz as essential community health care providers. they'll be integrated with the health care insurance companies, and the number of clinics which had dwindled and gone down over the years as well as doctors willing to committee these grizzly acts will grow because there will be a mandate from uncle sam, from the white house, and from this congress if this is allowed to happen. i just want to say to my colleagues, one last thing, the early 1980's as the prime sponsor of the federal funding ban under the federal employees health benefits program. . we had a bitter floor battle, we won it, president reagan signed it into law. the plan i'm in, and most government employee, all of a sudden did not provide for abortions. in the first year when

president clinton had his presidency and the democrats controlled the house and senate we lost that rider in the treasury postal appropriations bill. the clinton administration swung into action and ordered all insurance companies to carry abortions. there was no pro-life language or pro-abortion language, but that meant they could order, just like they did with the hyde amendment under president carter that the sess kated -- necessitated the hyde amendment in the first place. let me say to my democrat friends, if there's no language proscribing abortion, it will be there. the advisory committee will order it and as we've found with public funding, no language equals abortion subsidization which leads to a significant skyrocketing of abortions in this country.

we want fewer abortions. affirm life and love them both, mother and child. i thank dr. phlegming for giving us this opportunity to hopefully alert the american people -- dr. fleming for giving us this opportunity to alert the american people that really the american government is looking to take the most offensive acts against innocent children and with their taxpayers, yours and mine. i yield back. mr. fleming: thank you, to the gentleman mr. smilt, truly passionate, eloquent statements. it's -- mr. smith, truly passionate, eloquent statements, it's obvious you have a deep passion that sits on your heart very heavily. it's one of the things that is deeply distressing for you and many of us here in this body. just to reframe again what our discussion is and what we're

really talking about, we're not really debating abortion, that's been debated endlessly and everyone knows where we are. what we're debating is a tremendous federal expansion of abortions that will occur with this bill. why? not because there's a single word, no language at all that says there must be, but simply from an absence of language and what that means is, and it's because of the courts and the administration, just the way the law works around here, but just to suffice it to say, if it doesn't exclude it, it includes it. that mean this is a you, the taxpayer, and those paying premiums will be paying -- that means that you, the taxpayer, and those paying premiums b will be paying for abortion. we're also represented tonight by another new jersey congress penn, congress lady, smith, who has probably run more marathons than the rest of the body put

together, her physique reflect this is a fact. she has a lot to bring to us in this discussion. with that, i yield to the gentlelady. mrs. schmidt: i'm actually from ohio, not new jersey. i'm from the area where the right to life movement was born under dr. the direction of dr. jack and barbara wilke. but i'm also chair of the congressional women's pro-life caucus. i think our movement is at its best when we speak for the populations that are most vulnerable. we all believe that human life is sacred. we are the female voices for the fight to life here in congress. you know, our movement has made great strides in create agriculture of life and a recent gallup poll shows that a majority of americans do consider themselves pro life and a zogby poll recently said

that 69% of the respondents support the hyde amendment to prevent taxpayer dollars from funding abortions unde medicaid. most americans, i truly believe, feel that abortion should be rare and we should be looking for ways to reduce them. the number of abortions performed. unfortunately, the massive health care bill this house is considering seeks to take us in the opposite direction. unless amended, this bill will mandate abortion coverage for nearly every insurance plan in america. because, as has been stated before,ened i'll state it again, if abortion mandates are not specifically excluded, courts will rule they must be included. the coming days and weeks are the most important, i believe, for the pro-life movement since roe vs. wade. as our congress, this body takes up comprehensive health

care reform, i believe we the pro-life group in this body must mobilize and ensure that our voices are heard so that our nation's voices are heard. because if we don't act, every american will be forced to pay for these services, whether through their premiums, or taxes. abortion rates have fallen over the last 30 years. but if we fail to act, i whole heartedly believe we will see abortion rates skyrocket. health care, you know, dr. fleming, and you know this all too well, you took that oath, is about saving lives. it's about saving lives. it's about providing our help, our love, our compassion, our prayers to the young women who need it. health care should be -- health care reform should be about finding ways to do that better, not mandating coverage that we all agree will not do that.

we should be doing things to make abortion rare. after all, everyone, including that unborn child, deserves the right to life. dr. fleming, thank you so much for bringing this to the attention of this body and of the american people. you are a great american and hopefully you will save a life because of this action. thank you. mr. fleming: thank you. i thank the gentlelady for yielding back and i apologize from ohio, instead of new jersey, i'm getting my schmidts and smiths mixed up this evening. i want to briefly in the final moments, i want to pitch back to mr. smith from new jersey. mr. smith: thank you, and i say to my friend from ohio, thank you for that extraordinarily eloquent statement, as usual. mrs. schmidt: thank you. mr. smith: the abortion

industry is seeking a bailout. this is the abortion bailout bill. the number of abortions are going down because of ultra sound and educational efforts. this would force private insurers to mandate, it would mandate them to cover abortion and public as well. it would expand venues, killing centers to do abortion. but there's something that i'd like your take on. the former director of the national abortion federation has said that the number of abortions are going down also because there are physicians who either can't or won't perform this, quote, essential service. the american medical news reported that abortion is a matter of choice not only for women but physicians as well. all over the country, most physicians are choosing not to do it. and the "san francisco chronicle" has said, those who run abortion clinics, even in large cities, say that recruiting doctors is now their most serious problem. to which we say, thank god that

doctors are doing what the hippocratic oath has told them and admonished them to do. your take on that? mr. fleming: i appreciate the gentleman, we're going to be running out of time, i'll give you a brief response to that. when i was in the navy, i had a friend who was an on gin, who refused to do abortions. -- an ob/gyn, who refused to do abortions. he retired and went into the local town nearby to go into practice and his practice began a little slow and soon, within months, he became the most prolific abortionist in town. so in answer to your question, the reason why so many people are those -- those who have done it in the past have done it, it's obvious. it's money. it's a lucrative trade. on the other hand, in the medical communities, in the communities at large, there's been tremendous social pressure against that. and as a result, i think many have decided it isn't worth the money. this has been a wonderful hour.

i do think evening thank my colleagues for visit -- i do thank my colleagues for visiting and adding comments. we could spend another couple of hours on this. i yield back. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. boccieri, for 60 minutes. mr. boccieri: mr. speaker -- it's an honor to be in front of this body to talk about an issue that's important to our country, i'm happy to be joined by my colleague, steve driehaus, from cincinnati, a fellow ohioan, and my good friend and neighbor in the longworth building, tom perriello, from virginia. tonight we'll have a spirited dialogue about clean energy and the american clean energy and security act that passed this chamber and the necessity of

enacting this legislation very soon as it results and as it pertains to our national security. so with that, let me begin by suggesting this, my friends. in this congress, we were elected to represent the people of ohio and virginia collectively here with my colleagues, but to represent the interest of the united states in much broader terms. and after having spent 15 years in the united states air force as a c-130 pilot, flying all other the world, 60 different nations, visiting places i never dreamed i'd see, seeing people, meeting people i never dreamed i'd meet and doing things i never dreamed i'd do, it only takes one trip outside the borders of the united states to understand how good we have it here. when you think about all the blessings that this country has been given in terms of the abundance of natural resource, in terms of the opportunity to write our own destiny, we are

truly a blessed nation. i say this because we find ourselves at a crossroads, a crossroads in our history, and as -- as it pertains to energy. we have 3% of the world's population but consume nearly 40% of the world's natural resources. the united states has a very big demand, whether it's electricity, whether it's our dependence on foreign oil or whether it's overreliance on other fossil fuels that make this country very dependent on international geopolitical forces. i've got to tell you, what specifically concerns me with respect to our energy policy, what specifically concerns me with respect to our energy policy is the fact that 60% of our oil comes from overseas. 60%. and 40% comes from the middle east. where we find ourselves, our

military, engaged in two wars on two different fronts in a region with an abundance of oil but a lack of democracy and a lack of attention to humanitarian interests and a democracy that workers in people. while we become very dependent on overseas demand -- supply of oil, we find ourselves now at a crossroads and we were elected, we're freshman members here, it's our first term serving in this august body, but i will tell you this, we will be judged by two measures, we will be judged by action or inaction and now is the time to take action for our national security to create jobs in this country that cannot be outsourced and to make sure we move away from our dependence on foreign oil. it's in this spirit and this dialogue i look for a robust conversation about how this protects our national security. i yield to my colleague from

ohio. >> from 1996 until -- 1996 until 2006, the republican party ruled congress and the house of representatives. they were at the root of the inaction. this energy crisis didn't sneak up on us, this health care crisis didn't sneak up on us. the housing bubble and the financial crisis didn't sneak up on us. we could have done something. we could have done something about our reliance on foreign energy. we could have done something about health care. we could have done something about the financial institutions. but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle rather than act, they chose not to act. so i agree wholeheartedly that

we will be judged on what we are willing to do for this country. i have a couple of observations about the bill that we passed. and i have never seen so much information, misinformation on a bill in my life as i saw on this one. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are chatting were spreading rumors. they were spreading rumors about costs of $4,000 a year in tax increases on the energy bill. now, i don't know about you, but i talk to my energy friends at home and they suggested that the potential increases, if there are increases, and i would argue that those increases are going to be offset by savings, and they are going to be offset by job creation, but they were spreading misinformation about the cost of this bill. yet it went on and on and on and

on. and then they talked about the fact that no one had read the bill. as they searched the chamber, as they searched the chamber for an amendment that sat right in front of them. their leader came to the floor with the very amendment and went through page by page that he had earmarked, clearly having had time to read the bill. the fact of the matter is we have been discussing our reliance upon foreign oil. we have been discussing energy for years. mr. king: you made an allegation i would be happy to respond to that. mr. dry house -- mr. driehaus: i am talking about the integrity. mr. king: i wonder if he would kindly yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio, mr. boccieri, controls the time. mr. boccieri: it is up to the gentleman from cincinnati if he would yield.

mr. dehouse chon -- mr. driehaus: i have heard misinformation to misinformation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio will suspend. the gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. mr. king: mr. speaker, is it inappropriate under the rules of the house to challenge the mendacity of any of the members in this house? >> mr. speaker, point of clarification, i am challenging the facts. mr. king: mr. speaker, i made a proper parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio did not refer to any individual members. therefore that should answer the parliamentary inquiry. mr. king: i can't hear you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio did not refer to any individual member. mr. king: further parliamentary inquiry, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. mr. king: the gentleman from ohio alleged intentional misinformation on the part of members of my conference and that i believe challenges the mendacity of members of this congress. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman did not mention any individual member. mr. king: further parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his parliamentary inquirery. mr. king: is it the ruling of the chair that the gentleman from ohio can challenge the

mendacity of a member provided he doesn't name them specifically? the speaker pro tempore: it's not the policy of the chair to interpret what the member intended. the member did not refer to any specific member. mr. king: mr. speaker, i think everybody gets the message here. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. boccieri: i want to yield to the gentleman and colleague from cincinnati to finish his remarks. mr. driehaus: i will further clarify for my colleagues that i believe there was gross exaggeration engaged in on the debate with regard to energy. and the attempt wasn't to solve a problem. the attempt was to scare the american people. they scared the american people rather than addressing the problem, rather than taking on the problem. the attempt was to scare the american people. to scare the american people and

suggest to them that this was some type of massive tax increase. when in fact this is about the energy security of the united states of america. that's what this bill is about. that's what we had the courage to do. it is about job creation for our state, ohio. it is about job creation and clean energy and new energy jobs across the united states. and it is about ensuring the energy security for our children and future generations. and that's the courage that it took to pass this bill. rather than letting it go, letting it go, taking the ostrich approach of sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the problem. so i appreciate the opportunity to speak. mr. boccieri. i yield back to you. mr. boccieri: thank you for those comments. there was very clearly misinformation about there. i have had a number of inquiries into my office both here in

washington and back in the district in ohio that have clearly been misrepresented of what the bill -- mis-- what the bill stands for and means. with that i yield to my colleague, the gentleman from virginia. mr. perriello: it's easy to focus on the normal misinformation and bad news people expect from politics, but what we miss in that is this tremendous opportunity, the excitement of this moment. we are betting on america again. we are betting on innovation. we are better at this than any country on earth. and the fact of the matter is i'm sick and tired of going to the gas pump and knowing that my hard-earned dollars are are going to support petrodictators overseas instead of american innovation back at home. sometimes you have to put america ahead of ahmadinejad. this is one of those moments. we can make a choice that america will be at the forefront of the clean energy economy. this is our time. both parties for the last couple

of decades have had a disastrous strategy on international trade and other things that have sold the middle class and working class of this country down the road. it is time to reinvest in america again. and the new energy economy is a big part of that. we are one of the only countries in history that have been funding both sides of a war. under president bush's department of defense in 2003, they wrote the risk of abrupt climate change should be elevated beyond the scientific debate to a u.s. national security concern. we spent $357 billion last week -- last year on foreign crude oil. 2.3% of our g.d.p. that's the bad news. the good news is we are getting ahead on this now. and this bill helps create the incentives to reward success, to reward clearedship instead of continuing to reward failure, and reward the lack of innovation that we have seen in recent years. and with your discretion, mr.

boccieri, i would like to brag on southside virginia for a second. my part of the country has been hurting. we have had 20% unemployment in parts of my district. we have been hit hard by the exporting of manufacturing jobs, textile, furniture, tobacco farming. but we are now hearing phrases like first in the nation, best in the nation, the first and best on energy efficient modular homes, red birch, a truck stop owner who turned his truck stop into the frontlines of the freedom fight for energy independence by developing the first farm to fuel close loop system. not only is he keeping those dollars in america, he's keeping them in the community. when you go to that truck stop to buy premium diesel fuel, 92 cents on every dollar stays in the community. red birch, windy acres, these are things to be proud of.

let me mention one other things, mr. boccieri, i don't care whether a good idea comes from the democratic party or the republican party. i only care that it's a good idea. and the fact is, you wouldn't know it from this debate, but cap and trade was a republican idea. the tradable permit scheme was invented and produced under the first president bush in the effort to combat acid rain. one of the most efficient and effective environmental laws ever created under the leadership of bill riley at the e.p.a. and the first president bush, tradable permits were a smart republican idea that said we can use the free market and capitalism to drive that innovative edge and competition. it's something that senator mccain, the former senator warner and others have supported as being a right mix of a national security solution using free market strategies. so this was a republican idea that was good enough for this country until democrats also supported it. this is what americans are sick

of. they are sick of the idea we are going to put scoring political points ahead of patriotism and problem solving. the fact is this was about putting the best ideas on the table to solve what is one of our leading national security threats, one of our leading economic threats, and get america right back on to the cutting edge. it's a great thing that we have done. we have stood up to the special interest groups. for once in a few years we are going to be able to start supporting an energy economy that's creating jobs right here in america and selling that technology all around the world. mr. boccieri: i appreciate your comments. he's exactly right on. a good idea doesn't have to be a democrat or republican idea, it's an american idea. while we may disagree about some of the approaches, let's look at and revisit some of the comments of some of the leading leaders who ran for the presidency last year and talked about how climate change and our dependence on foreign oil is a matter of national security.

let's visit the presidential candidate for the republicans last year, john mccain, who i incidentally flew out of baghdad, was a man of honor and integrity, this is what he has to say. it's cap and trade. there will be incentives for people to reduce gas emissions. it's a free market approach, let me repeat that, it's a free market approach. the europeans are are doing it, we did it in the case of acid rain. if we do that we will stimulate green technologies. this will be a profit making business. and it won't cost the american taxpayer. it won't cost the american taxpayer. joe lieberman and i introduced a cap and trade proposal several years ago which would reduce greenhouse gases with a gradual reduction. we did the same thing with acid rain. this works. it works. i yield. mr. driehaus: this goes back to the question of action versus

inaction. the question is if you don't embark down this road, if you don't address the energy crisis, if you don't work toward a system of cap and trade, what's the alternative? and the alternative is simply this. the e.p.a. comes out with rules, cracking down on utilities and emitters of carbon. which would in fact be a massive tax, a massive government mandate on utilities and manufacturers, killing jobs, raising rates for businesses, raising rates for residential consumers. instead, instead the choice we made, the choice for action was about using a free market approach to incentivize job creation. to incentivize creativity just like we did with telecommunications. we now have the opportunity to do the same with energy. we believe in the american economy. we believe in the innovation

that can be released through the use of a free market system like cap and trade. that's why we went down this road. that's why we chose to act. mr. boccieri: let me expound on the gentleman's remarks there. i believe that this truly is about our national security. i'm going to go over some facts here in just a moment. back to revisiting what some of our colleagues have said running for president. mike huckabee really summed it up best when he said a nation that cannot feed itself, that cannot fuel itself, or produce the weapons to fight for itself is a nation forever enslaved. he further added, so it's critical that for our own interest economically and from a point on national security we commit to becoming energy independent and we commit to doing it within a decade, within a decade. we went to the moon in less -- we can do this in less than decade. we have to take responsibility

in our own house before we can expect others to do the same in theirs. it goes back to my basic concept of leadership. leaders don't ask others to do what they are unwilling to do themselves. this gentleman was right on with his remarks. i yield to my gentleman from virginia. mr. perriello: mr. huckabee is a great man of faith. i was meeting with unanimous of evangelical leaders today and they were talking about the frustration they had with some people in the pughs about the seriousness of the issue. some people get so caught up on whether climate change is a partisan issue or some democratic conspiracy theory to tax or some republicans denying of scientific evidence, and the evangelical leaders were saying to me, do you realize over the next 10 years, 250 million of god's children in africa could be denied access to water because of the effects of climate? how willing are we to roll the dice on this uncertainty to do

nothing, to accept inaction? when we know our national security demands it, when we know that our innovation and our job creation demands it, when we know that our conscience demands it, when so many of those who had nothing to do with creating a problem, the most vulnerable amongst us, 250 million in africa alone could be denied that access to water. . million in africa alone could be denied the access to water. mike huckabee has been a leader on this. he's talked about the importance of climate, as has john mccain and sarah palin and others. the reality is we all know how important this is but somehow in this body here we can get lost in scoring political points for the next election instead of doing what's right for our country and our economy. you served in uniform. we appreciate that service. and once again here we're doing what we need to do to keep this country safe and keep it strong. and i yield back. >> i cannot agree with my gentleman and neighbor that so eloquently suggested this is

about the faith that we have in our own innovation,ed faith we have in our own country, in our own people to come up with ideas that can make our country stronger in the long run. and let me revisit some of what our faith leaders have said. billy graham said the growing possibility of destroying ourselves in the world with our own neglect and excess is tragic and very real. pope benedict said the brutal consumption begins with god is not and i think therefore true and effective initiatives to prevent the waste and destruction of creation can start only where creation is considered as beginning with god, particularly attention must be paid to the fact that the poorest countries are likely to pay the heaviest price for ecological deterioration. pat robertson said, i have not been one who believed in global warming but i tell you, they're making a convert out of me. it is getting hotter and ice caps are melting and there's a buildup of carbon dioxide in the air.

we really need to address the burning of fossil fuels because if we are contributing to the destruction of a planet, we need to do something about it. dr. rick warren, author of "the purpose driven life" said we cannot be all that god wants us to be without caring about the earth. now, our faith leaders are telling us, our national security folks who are in charge and responsible for our national security are saying it. the congress has spoken that this is a matter of national security, creating jobs here at home, jobs that cannot be outsourced, and moving away from our dependence on foreign oil. let me touch on just a few points before i yield back to my friends. 80% of the world's reserves of oil are in the hands of governments and their respective national oil companies. 16 of the world's 20 largest oil companies are state-owned, are state-owned. we import 60% of the world's

oil. we know that we're going to -- with the senate version of this bill, we're expanding exploration and drilling right here in america, in the gulf of mexico, knowing that that's not going to be enough to sustain our 20 million barrels we consume every day. we only have 3% of the world's oil reserves but we can consume 25% of the world's oil. it is very clear we have to move away from our dependence on oil. one last point before i yield to my colleague from ohio. the largest consumer of oil in this country, the largest consumer of oil in this country is not the american people, it's the department of defense. the united states department of defense consumes more oil than some countries overseas. in fact it consumes more oil than greece in one year. so our nation is dependent on 60% of that oil coming from overseas sources, from venezuela, from mexico, from

saudi arabia in particular, which is one of our largest producers and suppliers of oil, and this makes our country an -- puts our country in a compromising position. i yield to the gentleman from ohio. mr. driehaus: i appreciate that, congressman. i think it begs the question, do we want the future of this country dependent upon the innovation of the american worker? do we want the future dependent upon green energy and new technologies that will be driven by the american people? or do we want to rely upon and depend upon the sheiks in saudi arabia as we do today and as we have in the past? our dependency is growing, not declining. this bill provides us an opportunity for a future, a destiny controlled by

americans, controlled by the american worker. and unleashing the innovation of the american worker. i was dismayed during this debate when i heard critics suggest that maybe we shouldn't go first, maybe america shouldn't lead. that we should wait for others, maybe developing countries, maybe others in asia to lead before we move forward. i don't know when we became a nation of followers. i am not of that belief. i believe the united states of america has led time and time again for this globe on issue of freedom, on issues of democracy, on issues of economic innovation, and we should be the leaders on new technology when it comes to energy. we need to lead and we should set an example for the globe.

i am not one to follow the examples of countries on the other side of the world suggesting to us what we should be doing on our energy policy. we should be leaders. and we need to restore our place as leaders when it comes to energy. mr. perriello: i couldn't agree with the gentleman from ohio more. and i think he speaks with passion and conviction about what this means and what stake we have in making certain we move away from our dependence on foreign oil. i'll yield to the gentleman from virginia. mr. perriello: i think the gentleman from ohio makes a great point. they're not climate skeptics. we all come from manufacturing areas in this country that led the world and we sat by while both parties let that manufacturing go overseas. we have a chance to be the first to crack carbon captions technology. we have a chance to lead on nuclear and lead on biofuels and biorefineries.

this isn't about switching from one fuel to another. it's who's going to make those wind turbines or batteries for those hybrid cars that can free us from this dependence on foreign oil? who's going to make those? you want to buy them from china or sell them to china as they are building what would become the biggest auto consumer market in the world? i want to build them here. and those climate skeptics who are america's septics want to sit on the sidelines and let all that technology and manufacturing happen overseas. we are better than that. we can lead. we can do this better than anyone else. we can outinnovate. we are better entrepreneurs. we will do that. but we don't do it by sitting on the sidelines. we don't do it by making easy choices and waiting for others to lead. we do it by putting solutions above special interests, by putting this country first even if it means an unpopular vote and going out and explaining to the american people that this is why this is going to be great for our country and great

to our region. i am proud we have put ourselves back in a position to lead. that's what the american people deserve and i yield back. mr. boccieri: i couldn't agree with you more and before i yield to my good friend mr. ryan, let me revisit a few quotes from our colleagues who ran for president and suggested american innovation and american entrepreneurship and american ideas are stronger than our dependence on oil overseas. mr. giuliani, a fellow italian, he said we need to expand the use of hybrid vehicles, clean coal, carbon sequestration. we have more coal reserves in the united states than they have oil reserves in saudi arabia. this should be a major national project. this is a matter of our national security. mitt romney said there are multiple reasons for us to say we want to be less dependent on foreign energy and to develop our own sources. that's the real key, of course

additional sources of energy here as well as more efficient use of energy. this will allow the world to have less oil being drawn out from the very sources it comes without dropping the prices to a high level. it will keep people, some of whom are unsavory characters from having an influence on our foreign policy. ron paul who we serve with here in this chamber said true conservatives and libertarians have a right to police their neighbor's property -- have no right to pollute their neighbor's property. you have no right to pollute your neighbor's air, water or anything and we should all contribute to protection of all air and water. mr. gingrich said the concept of reducing the amount of carbon emissions over the next 50 years is a totally sound concept. these are not democrats saying this, these are republicans who are standing with us tonight in spirit, i know, saying that this is about our national security, saying this is about

geopolitical balance and this is about creating jobs here in our country. i yield to my gentleman from ohio. mr. ryan: i appreciate it. and i want to take off on what the gentleman from virginia was saying. i was reading an article the other day, in china 400,000 people a year die from air pollution. and if you look at the history of china, you'll see that they have periods where there is a very tumultuous uprising within the country, and if you can read the tea leaves here, you will see that at some point china and the people of china will demand for clean air. there's no question about it. and they're using dirty coal. i mean, it's dirty. and those of us who have been there recognize, with the olympics especially, how many months ahead of time they had to stop letting people drive cars into the city and everything else. so the point that the gentleman from virginia was making is that this is an opportunity for

us, and some people say well, china and india aren't going to do this so why are we going to do it? let them not do it. let us jump ahead. my goodness gracious it would be like saying the soviet union is not going to continue their space program back in the 1960's. great. we'll jump ahead of you. that's basically what we have here and we have an opportunity to seize this moment and then begin to develop this technology, invest this money, get our manufacturing going here in the united states and export. things we've been talking about in our district for a long time. when are we going to manufacture? when are americans going to make things again? when are we going to export? and this is the opportunity. and the same people that call in on the talk radio saying when are we going to make things again are the same people against the cap and trade bill. because the dots aren't connected here. this is the opportunity. take the $700 billion we're

shifting abroad, focus on the united states, revitalize manufacturing and export this stuff because china at some point is going to recognize they're wasting a lot of energy, their people aren't as healthy. their people are dying because of this and they're going to want them to be healthy. that's one point i wanted to make. the other point i wanted to make is congressman boccieri and i, mr. speaker, on a radio show a few days ago and a gentleman called in who had some business issues -- other issues, but he said, i'm for -- he says, i like the alternative energy stuff. and so i asked him what he did. he makes the technology, manufactures the products that go into the scrubbers, that go into the power plants that go into the steel mills to keep the air clean. here's a businessman in youngstown, ohio, i think he said he had 70 employees who is

manufacturing these scrubbers that were a result of the clean air act, because of the clean air act, someone in youngstown is making these products. and i think it's important for us to let everyone know, this is opportunity for us. these are jobs that are going to be revitalizing communities in all of our districts. i'd be happy to yield to my friend. mr. driehaus: just to back up that point. china is moving down that road. they're not waiting. a week after the vote, duke rogers went to china and he went to china to check out the carbon sequestration they're currently employing on new chinese coburning power plants because the chinese aren't waiting. the chinese are moving ahead with new technology. so we have a choice. we have an opportunity. do we want to continue with business as usual and just sit still as china moves forward? or do we want to be at the

cutting edge? do we want to be leading when it comes to new energy technology? this is an opportunity. and we need to seize that opportunity. and this legislation allows the free market to do that. so that's what this is about. this is about creating jobs and an economic future for the united states. mr. boccieri: in my district i have poultry farmers coming to me who want to turn the waste in their farm not only the energy, but produce a waste that's a low sulfur fertilizer that's bert for our aquifers and bay areas. we aren't on the cutting edge of smart grid technology. we don't have the technology in place. and we don't have the incentives this provides. what this does is give a profit mowive to people for doing the right thing. i think we have had far too much

and our financial system elsewhere of rewarding people for failure, for irresponsibility. for once we have a system that's going to reward everyone from the homeowner to the capitalist for doing the right thing. again i just -- i know i'm surrounded by folks from ohio but i can't say enough about the people in south virginia. mr. ryan: you are so lucky. mr. perriello: my grandparents grew up outside of toledo, ohio. i am from virginia. like you-all we have a lot of manufacturing plants that have shut down. we have hardworking people ready to go to work doing this. they would love nothing more to have a job and one that's making this country safer. keeping our country safe. you have done that in uniform. this is a chance for every worker to be part of that effort of national security and we are fired up to do it. mr. boccieri: people are asking what does this mean for the average consumer and ohioan or virginian?

this is what it's going to mean. when you roll into a fuel station someday, you are going to have a choice between traditional gasoline, traditional oil. you are going to have a blended fuel that maybe ethanol based or cellulose based. you may have an opportunity where you plug in your electric hybrid or drive by the gas station altogether because you have a fuel cell that allows you to get 100 miles to the gallon. how is that for american innovation? how's that for opportunity? how's that for standing up for the innovation entrepreneurship and the longevity of american ideas and thinking? that's what this bill and that's what this idea of moving away from our foreign dependence on oil, our reliance on overseas oil to make our economy drive. let me just say this. in my district we are researching fuel cell technology. we are very close to having some sort of prototype ready to go.

they are researching this with the department of defense, stark state technical college. we have the opportunity there to be leaders in ohio. we also have the opportunity to do research at the ohio state agriculture research and development center that is in wayne county in my district that right now is using anaerobic guy -- digest tures. congressman ryan, whose birthday it is today, happy birthday. mr. ryan: what does that have to do with anything? mr. boccieri: you may be too young to remember when i was standing in line with my waiting for oil in the 1970's, but i remember seeing that movie "back to the future" when the professor comes in and opens up the trash can and starts jamming in waste, garbage, into his delawyerian to fuel his engine. they are taking sewage sludge, manure from dairy farms and

adding 20% biomass. cooking grease from a local restaurant. by adding 20% biomass they are increasing the b.t.u.'s by 50% of that compressed natural gas. they are selling it back to the grid. and the german who -- this german c.e.o. who was doing this research, he suggested this, he said, you americans are doing in two years what it took germany 20 years to do. and we have 3,800 of these digest tures -- digest tures producing -- digestures producing energy. could you imagine if they turn that to renewable energy and created compressed natural gas sold it to the utility or heated homes or turned on lights in the city in this is the type of innovation that has driven america to be one of the great producers of wealth that we are. mr. ryan: if the gentleman would

yield. i don't know if anyone followed when barack obama was in russia, but there was a deal made and struck where exxon is obviously doing business there, and they are opening up a refinery somewhere in new england to process the oil coming back from russia. so this is what we are trying to get away from. this is what this energy bill is all about. we can't get in the position where, yeah, maybe over the next five, 10 years this is something that needs to happen for the transition, but this is an example of the road we don't want to go down. relying on vladimir putin's russia for oil for the united states. the american people don't want that. that is not good geopolitics. that's not good for our manufacturing base. and it's not good for a variety of reasons, all obvious to

anybody who has blood running through their head right now. this is pretty basic stuff here. we don't want to rely on russia for our oil. another point is that whether it's in cincinnati or in virginia or canton, akron area or youngstown, we have these manufacturing facilities that are just sitting here. in our district, my district, a company called parker hanifan, big company cleveland, youngstown, thousand workers, steel workers, they make the hydraulics that go in the back of waste management garbage trucks and they do the hydraulics. these same hydraulics go into windmills. we have a specialty steel company called thomas steel in warren, 300 workers, make decent wage, their specialty steel goes in the solar panels. we have a company called roth brothers in the youngstown area. there is a new wind cube you can put on top of big buildings and downtown areas and it generates

wind and you plug it right into the building, right into the grid to generate energy that can turn and face the wind and really harness all of the wind no matter what direction changes. they said if this wind cube takes off, we'll hire 100 people like that. so we have it here. it's not so much new businesses, although there will be a piece of that. but it's also about the business that is we already have that can grow and manufacture and they are good paying jobs and they are steel workers. they are people who can make some money. and revitalize the middle class again. mr. perriello -- mr. boccieri: let's discuss something important to all our states. the use of coal. we have heard a lot of talk about the fact that at least from the detractors of this bill who have now somehow fallen off their plateau of suggesting this is about national security, who are suggesting that coal intensive states are going to be

disproportionately hurt. that is completely false. we have worked together to make sure that coal, which is the most abundant and cheapest source of energy we have in this country, is going to be used for a long, long time. and we right now in ohio are investing in some very, very awesome opportunities for job creation. there is a company, babcock, wilcox, and ba tell are researching right now using pure oxygen and pulverized coal to make zero emission burners. they capture this carbon and then they inject it back into the wells, very wells that we are drilling for oil to push out those last remaining drops of oil. i have a chart here that i'm not going to get into the technical parts of it, but those scientist that is may be watching and listening to us tonight can refer to this because it is very important that we understand that we will continue to use

coal. carbon capture and sequestration , the bill provides $180 billion for this type of research that is going to be the next generation of coal use. in the 1940's, when the united states of america bombed the romanian oil fields, we essentially cut off the oil for germany. what did they do? they quickly transitioned to synthetic fuel, which is a derivative of coal. we are testing this right now at write patterson air force base in ohio. we are testing blended fuels on our military aircraft. we are testing the new fuels that are going to drive the innovation of tomorrow and make our country stronger. i yield to the gentleman from georgia. mr. perriello: i wanted to pick up on something that congressman ryan said which is to call out what i call paper tiger patriotism. this ability to talk tough about chavez and ahmadinejad and putin until you actually have to do something about it. it's one thing to give speeches against these guys on the floor,

but then not to have the guts to vote for the very policies that will cut them off at the knees. here we are at one of the most crucial moments in iran's history, we have people risking their lives in the streets of tehran, and people in this body will stand up and vote for the very policies that keep a petrodictator in place. this is about crushing that paper tiger patriotism and putting in its place the courage that american people deserve. because we do in our core have it in us to lead in all of these areas. this is an unprecedented renaissance for clean coal technology. it's the first bill in a generation that actually opens up opportunities for nuclear energy. at the same time we see wind, solar, and biofuel. but we also know that the cheapest energy is the energy you never have to buy in the first place because of energy efficiency technologies. and that's what we can see through smart grid technology,

the advanced battery manufacturing. this is our chance to crack that technology for the whole world in the same way we did when we had the guts to go to the moon. so this really is one of those moments. i go back to the point where you started, mr. boccieri, which is why was this idea good enough for republicans when it was their idea but as soon as we started to support it, they ran away from it as cap and trade. cap and trade was something the republicans should be proud to have come up with. the first president bush was a great conservationist, a true conservative. who understood what the challenge of acid rain, the challenge of the earth's summit and other things this was a time for america's leadership heading into the 21st century. we need to focus on what are the ideas that keep us safe and keep us strong, not what are the ideas that score us points for the next election cycle. i think all of us came in in change elections because people were sick and tired of that. these are the kind of solutions the american people deserve. mr. boccieri: you're right. i remind the folks listening

tonight, mr. speaker, the gentleman here, that teddy roosevelt said that the welfare of each of us is dependent upon the welfare of all of us. that in a moment of decision the worst thing we can do, the worst thing we could do is nothing. is nothing. what is the cost of doing nothing? we are going to continue to be dependent on foreign oil, maybe it rises from 60% to 80%. maybe we don't create the jobs that we need to right here in our country that can't be outsourced like a nuclear reactor, congressman ryan always talks about the 8,000 manufactured components that go into making a windmill. these are the types of jobs and type of innovation that makes our country stronger. mr. driehaus: i would go back to the analogy to telecommunications. if you remember it wasn't more than a decade or two ago when you were paying exorbitan rates on your long distance bills. there were very limited number of tv channels on tv. and then through the

telecommunications act we made sure that we allowed for innovation and competition. we allowed for the cable companies and the telephone companies to use those same broadband lines. we required that that happen. and now today broadband is across the country. we have the potential today to unleash that same type of innovation that was unthought of 20 years ago in telecommunications but we all know it today as people send i.m.'s, as people email each other. that wasn't thought about 20 years ago. the hundreds of tv stations that you get on cable tv. i don't think we can begin to imagine the innovation that we are going to see over the next several decades in the field of energy because the steps of this house, because of the steps of

this congress, the courage to move us from the status quo toward energy security for the future and unleashing the innovative nature of the american people. mr. ryan: if the gentleman would yield. if you think about the history of this country, i don't want to get corny, but there's never been a scenario where we said as a country, we want to do something and it's not happened. let's be honest. because of the system of government that we have, because of the--whatever all the d.n.a. that's in our -- happens to be in our great country because of people having courage to get on a boat with no money and all that d.n.a., all that courage that it took to get here, is here now. and it's been replicating itself. there's something special about whether it's world war ii and it's storming the beaches of normandy or it's going to the moon or it's getting out of the depression or it's -- we need to be educated or the number of

patents that we get or whatever it may be, we have the ability to do this. and i think when you look at this policy in particular, the energy policy, the more i read about it, the more i like it.he and when people say, you know, well, how's it going to work, i get excited about explaining it to them. because here we are in ohio, northeast ohio, where we have all this manufacturing and it's been dead for 30 years. we've not had any opportunity that's coming down the pipe like clean energy in 30 years. and this is something that is so exciting for so many people because they recognize that, you know, i think it's 400 tons of steel that go into a windmill or 8,000 component parts that go into a windmill and the midwest being the saudi arabia wind and the southwest being the saudi arabia solar,

my goodness gracious, what an opportunity. we can't let this slide by, we capture it. we take advantage of it. we make it work for us. and that's what we do as americans. and this is an opportunity for us to do that and grow all these companies. chavez be gone, middle east sheiks be gone. we're going to take care of our own business. mr. boccieri, let's revisited three pillars of the legislation. number one, create jobs that can't be outsourced. number two it's about national security moving away from our dependence on foreign oil and other energy sources and making sure we have those homegrown energy jobs here in our country. those are the three pillars of legislation. when we think about the two largest producers of natural gas or i should say the two largest countries that market natural gas are iran and russia

, are iran and russia. if we invested in the technologies we recently talked about, anaerobic digesters and the like, we talk about these different opportunities, we can actually create natural gas and harvest natural gas from our part of the country. it's important that we understand that moving away from dependence on imported sources of energy is going to make our country stronger. national security, creating jobs, moving away from our dependence on foreign oil, that's what this legislation is about. that's what this opportunity is about. and i believe in the innovation and entrepreneurship of americans. i believe in our success as a country when we challenge each other to think outside of the box, to move ahead. and if we just allow ourselves to be bogged down by the fear of the past and bogged down by those detractors who are saying this is not the right time. well, when is the right time?

when is the right time? when we have 80% of all oil coming from overseas? when is the right time? when energy costs are through the roof? now is the time because our country can make these investments and create jobs here. gentleman from ohio, you have a comment? mr. driehaus: -- mr. ryan: i don't think anybody is anti-nuclear and we all recognize how important this is as a part of our portfolio, there is no one against coal and represent virginia and ohio and think it's a good way to do it and why there's $180 billion in here to figure out how to make it clean and work for us it. so we're not saying that there's only one specific way to do this. we recognize you may need to drill a little bit. you may need to take advantage of nuclear and coal and all this. but look at the advantage. we have $700 billion going to these other countries that could be coming here, revitalizing the united states of america. and i think that's important for us to remember. and lastly, because i think

we're winding down and i want these guys who are a lot smarter than me to be able to talk, that our friends on the other side who have been so critical had control of this government, had control of the house, had control of the senate, had control of the white house. their energy policy was nonexistent. it was more subsidies for oil companies, more subsidies for the big power companies and got us to where we are today, which means over the last eight years, $1, 100 in gas prices are an increase for the average family. the same group of people who thought that cutting taxes for the top 1% were somehow going to be the -- go to the the benefit of all hasn't worked. and you know, we've got two wars going on and a war our friend has served in here, that's $1 trillion, $3 trillion when you factor in the cost of all the veterans health care. so that's not good energy

policy of us having to go over and get in the middle of the desert and get ourselves all, you know, in this little sticky web of politics in the middle east, why are we doing that? we don't have to do that anymore. that's what this bill -- that's really at the heart of this bill and i think that's the magic of this bill, rely on the innovation, spirit of the american people and reduce our dependency on all of these other countries. and i yield to my friend from virginia. mr. perriello: i agree with you. mr. boccieri: we have six minutes left and would like each of the gentlemen to take a minute or two. mr. ryan: i get a minute to talk? mr. boccieri: happy birthday. mr. perriello: your preference to back of the future where we're going we don't need roads and as a member of the infrastructure committee i have to take inference to that. but on a serious note, everyone here is also a supporter of the second amendment. we're pro freedom people. what you described before is

the freedom of me to go to the gas pump without having to support petro dictators. the ability to buy a car with a battery that's manufactured here in the united states. that's the kind of freedom we believe in. this is also about honor and integrity and part of integrity is being true to your word. i think this is about rising to bipartisanship on the way you said. sarah palin wrote a article bashing the trade bill but there was a quote in the campaign where she was asked do you support capping emissions. she said, i do, i do. you have a quote from john mccain. these are leaders, leaders who understood when they were ready to lead this is what it looked like, it looked like taking on the biggest national security challenges we faced and using the free market and i ovation that make america great. if those ideas made sense then they make sense now. it's an exciting time for america and south side

virginia. it's using free market and innovation to make america great. but it's going to bring jobs back to the inside and i will be very proud looking back on this. mr. boccieri: it's about jobs that can't be outsourced and national security and moving away from our dependence on foreign oil. john mccain said it. he introduced the cap and trade bill three times. he said it's a free market approach that will stimulate green technologies, a free market approach. and he said that this is a matter of our national security. that's what this legislation is about. and it's so important that we enact this very soon so that we can move away from our dependence on these foreign sources of energy. i'll yield to the gentleman from ohio. mr. driehaus: i appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight with you. and i think there's a reason that you see four relatively young members of congress standing here talking about the future of energy in the united states. we all have a vested interest

in this. we all understand how important this is -- this issue is for our future. and the future of our kids. and we sat on the sidelines for far too long as the other side did nothing, as congressman ryan explained. they had an opportunity to act. when it came to energy policy, creative energy policy that would move us forward. into the next generation. but they failed to do it. you know, we have been elected to take responsibility and to take responsibility and move forward on critical issues that are impacting our families today and will impact them in the future. that's what we're doing around financial services. that's what we're doing on energy. that's what we're doing on health care and on energy, this bill takes us down that road for ensuring a future of prosperity for our children. it's the right thing to do for

the country today. it's the right thing to do for our children tomorrow. mr. boccieri: let me wrap up by saying this, this is about jobs in our country that can't be outsourced. it's about our national security, and it's about moving away from our dependence on foreign oil. we've set up a free market approach, one that's supported by both -- or was supported by both democrats and republicans before we introduced it and passed it. but one that's a free market approach with no taxes that invest in regional opportunities for states like ohio and virginia, to make certain we have an energy policy that works for this country. i flew wounded and fallen soldiers out of baghdad. and it's very clear we have two fronts over in the middle east, in afghanistan and iraq and much broader the region because of the oil that area produces. and that this is about making our nation stronger.

we have to do this now. the department of defense realizes this and that's why they're testing alternative fuels. we can make this innovation. we believe in the american people. that's what this bill is about. and i want to yield to the the congressman. mr. ryan: i want to add, the answer that our friends on the other side have given when we said increase the pell grant, no. increase minimum wage, no. change the energy policy, no. change health care policy, no. add a stimulus bill that will keep people working, no. that is not leadership. and this is bold stuff we're trying to do and we're trying to lead the country and that's at the end of the day is going to pay off for everyone. and i yield back. mr. boccieri: you're exactly right. we'll be judged by two measures in this congress, by action or inaction. and i am so happy we had this opportunity to speak tonight on clean energy and our national security. i'll yield back, mr. per. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is expired. under the speaker's announced

policy of january 6, 2009, the chair now recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for 60 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the privilege to be recognized here. here on the floor of the house. i would remark that the common courtesy is to yield and i am happy to yield to the gentleman that are here if we can carry on the dialogue without that particular yielding and i know it's four to one and would be an interesting engagement that could take place but i have to correct a few things on the record. and one of them is, as the gentleman from ohio challenged the mendacity of the republicans who had said that there is a $4,000 increase on the payroll, that's exactly the number you get if the payroll is $50,000 and you tax it at 8%. that's in the bill, mr. speaker, and that's a precise number. and that's what i thought to offer and could have been injected in for an open

dialogue. but we do deal with the facts. it's hard to get those facts when you have a bill that's drafted and a bill that has to be drafted to match a c.b.o. number, and when the congressional budget office comes out with an estimate of $1 trillion health care plan, and we find out that the congressional budget office came out with that number, without having read the bill, mr. speaker. and so we're poised to go down a path by tying a blindfold around our eyes and charging off into the abyss of socialized medicine with a $1 trillion price tag, a little less than that, that is slapped upon a bill nobody has yet -- i suppose some now have completely read, but the congressional budget office did the estimate on the cost of the socialized medicine policy over the telephone with the staff of the committee of the democrats. not even a bipartisan staff. and that's how we make policy in the united states of america?

and it's adequate to stand here on the floor and utter platitudes about what your political philosophy might be? and i think it's interesting that i get to hear the quotes from republicans, john mccain on cap and trade. well, i can think of the time not pretty recently, it would have been after this particular quote that we saw a few moments ago, the time i most emphatically agreed with john mccain and that's when he said president obama has more czars than the roman office. -- romanoffs and was something that illustrated the part of the big picture we should be talking about. this is a government out of control and overreaching and creating the nationalization of industry after decision in this country. it's breathtaking the scope of the reach of this white house that's supported by the democrats in the house and in the senate. and who would have thought -- let's just say if we roll back in our memory and our mind's eye back to election day in

november of 2008, what if someone would have said you're ready to go to the polls, think about what you're going to do, because if you elect president obama, he's going to go in and nationalize three huge investment banks, the largest insurance company, a.i.g., fannie mae and freddie mac, two general motors and chrysler, all of those huge eight entities all wrapped up together will all be controlled, if not controlling interests in the hands of and in control of the white house. and then he's going to manage those by appointing 32 czars and this will be hundreds of billions of dollars, and the idea will be the economic stimulus plan is going to be f.d.r.'s new deal on steroids. and now never mind that if one goes back and reads the data from the 1930's from that great depression, there was nothing great about what people had to go through during that decade go through during that decade of the 1930's, if one goes back