debate. there's been not a great deal of openness, a lot of it's been conducted behind closed doors and he said the people are going to see almost every aspect of it because he was going to have round table discussions throughout the entire debate. he said he was going to cut spending and there would be no new taxes on people under $250,000. this is the highest amount of spending since world war ii. there's been a $1.4 trillion in new taxes. he said he was going to cut each budget of each cabinet by $100 million. that has not yet been accomplished. he said he was going to try to block and oversee the problems with the tarp plan. that's $700 billion. he said there'd be no big government but there's been a takeover of the auto industry, the financial industry, the energy industry, the health care industry and it's the largest budget inistry that he proposed.

. he said he would allow people to withdraw from their 401-k accounts if they were unemployed and having a difficult time. that was not in the stimulus bill. he said there would be a $3,000 tax credit for every person hired by business. that was not in the stimulus bill. then of course we come to the health care plan. he said this plan is going to be very good for america and i want all of my colleagues to take a good look at this plan of the democrats' health care proposal which the president supports. all of the white spots are new agencies that are going to be making determinations about people's health care. looks more like a road map that's been messed up. you can't figure it out. you have to go from here over to there to get health care. it's going to cost a great deal of money. in fact, the plan is supposed to cost, we believe, between $1 trillion and $3 trillion. that's $1 trillion and $3

trillion that we don't have that will have to be raised through tax increases and fees. they'll tax everybody for this health care plan. finally, this is going to result in about 4.7 million jobs lost because when small business in america has to pay for this con gloom racial of health care, they are going to have cut back on employment of their employees and a lot of those jobs will probably go overseas and gp wanting. this is a terrible thing for america right now. the reason i bring all these things up that the president has promised, he's promising the american people a very good health plan, trust him, everything's going to be fine, there's nothing to worry about. yet it's going to cost so much money. it's going to cause rationing of health care. it's going to cost everybody in this country and the future generation as great deal of money that we don't have. and i think that's a heck of a legacy to leave to our young children and our posterity. i want to end up by reading what

was in the "wall street journal" in the front page. congress' chief budget scorekeeper cast a new cloud over democrat efforts to overhaul the nation's health care system telling lawmakers thursday that the main proposals being considered would fail to contain costs. they say it will, but this article and this man says it will not. will not contain costs. one of the primary goals and could actually worsen the problem of radically escalating medical spending. i hope everybody in the house is paying attention to this. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. defazio of oregon. mr. moran of kansas. mr. souder of indiana. ms. foxx of north carolina. mr. bilirakis of florida.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, is now recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. today 134 republicans came here to the floor and spoke for one minute each about the issue of jobs and where they have been. for indeed we were promised that there would be jobs that would be created and saved if we simply passed a stimulus bill and didn't take the time to read it like a couple of others we did. unfortunately the reality has not been quite the same. in fact this is basically the report card that we came up with . this administration said that if we quickly passed that huge stimulus bill, there would be some unemployment but it would only be 8%. in fact the dark blue line here is what they said would be the

recovery path of our economy. they said if we didn't do that, we would follow a trajectory of the light blue line and actually have 9.5% unemployment. that's a difference of three million workers being out of a job if we took the time to actually read the bill and think about it. the sad part is though after 5 1/2 months, the trajectory line is actually the red dots there which means we are far exceeding anything that was projected whether we did the stimulus or didn't do the stimulus. in fact, you can arguably say that we might have been better off not doing anything at all. the vice president was correct when he said that this administration totally misread the economy. nonetheless, speaker pelosi and president obama have teamed together to put the largest budget and we are still in the process of voting for it. we are on track now, mr. speaker, of actually spending $4

trillion in this year's cycle. we are spending money like it was monp interoperable pli money with the possible ex-- like it was mon interoperableably money with the possible exception of you can't pass go. to put this concept in place, at $4 trillion we would be spending $1 trillion every 2.2 hours. to put it in perspective again, if you tried to pay off the $4 trillion, that means every household in america would have to cough up 35 grand to try and cover that. and the problem that we have with that is simply, we don't have that kind of money lying around. whether we spend it or not. in fact, we will be predicted to be in a deficit. the c.b.o. scores this year's deficit at $1st85 trillion. that's the amount of money we'll spend that we have absolutely no funds for. you can see on this chart back

there at the turn of this century we actually had a surplus. you can notice when 9/11 hit we went into deficits. those gray lines are the deficits that were run up by the big spending george w. bush. at least he was accused of that. what we have over here is what we have been spending ever since. the light red lines are are the estimates of the obama administration, the dark red lines are the estimates of our congressional budget office and they predict this year it's $1.85 trillion we'll overspend. this isn't perhaps the best view -- this is only one-year shot of what we are doing as far as our finances. if we actually took a bigger view of it and tried to find all the things we still owe, we are actually at about $11.6 trillion in total debt. if you add things like the bailouts and the bank rescues and the auto recovery loans we have had, we are about $23 trillion in debt which is

difficult when our total gross domestic product is about $14 trillion. let me put that in perspective for you. when we went to the moon, if put the money we spent on that effort to go to the moon in today's dollars, we would have spent around $200 billion. everything f.d.r. did in the new deal to try to get us out of the ole original depression in today's dollars would be about $500 billion. if you took everything we spent on world war ii, that's about $4 trillion. today we are spending in real dollars $4 trillion and a deficit of almost $2 trillion and a total deficit of $23 trillion. of everything combined. that was not the change that we were promised. and the proponents of the stimulus package quite frankly view its failure in the fact

that we didn't put enough money into it. and that we perhaps should have another stimulus factor to spend more money. the democrat solution quite frankly is we need to spend more money. the bottom line, though, is spending money is not the same thing as creating jobs. there are other alternatives that are out there. republican party has introduced almost 1,000 bills of alternatives that have never been allowed to be discussed on this floor. we had one called the no cost stimulus bill. it was estimated that it would grow our gross domestic product by $10 trillion and create two million jobs and would cost the taxpayer exactly nothing and has still yet be to be allowed to be discussed on this particular floor. we come here today as part of a western caucus. with understanding that much of what we do and the west is a catalyst for us solving this particular problem and moving our economy ahead.

unfortunately this administration which misdiagnosed what the stimulus would do has also misdiagnosed the opportunity that so much of our public lands offer to us. it is not an effort to try and destroy the environment. but there are enough resources we have in this country that we could create an energy policy that would indeed build real jobs. unfortunately, this administration looks at the gift that it has at its disposal and instead goes in the opposite direction. it creates an environmental policy that is aimed at benefiting special interests groups so that instead of using our resources to create jobs, we actually are sacrificing jobs to a false ideology. we have in this opportunity today, we are going to be talking about some of the things

this administration is doing which actually harms this country and loses jobs when we have a great opportunity to try and grow jobs. if we just use the resources that we had wisely. i am joined and will be talking with representative mcclintock of california, has a unique area that deals with the forest area that has a chance of actually bringi people together for a benefit that could grow jobs, help the economy, help the environment, and for some reason we simply are not doing it. we'll be joined later by representative thompson, pennsylvania, not necessarily the west but he has the same situation which with a forest in pennsylvania and once again the administration's misuse of land policy is costing people jobs and should not be there. i'm joined by my good friend, representative browne, from -- broun, from georgia going to try

to put this into perspective as we deal with this issue and other issues. all of us has the same problem of costing us jobs a hopefully there will be a few more members that will join us before we are concluded. and i'd like to talk to a couple of policies this administration started which in reality cost american jobs when we should be be producing jobs with the resources that we have. but, mr. speaker, with that said, i like first of all to yield time to representative mcclintock of california who has a wonderful opportunity of creating jobs in california desperately needing the jobs, desperately needing the income, but is faced with a unique barrier that's going to be extremely difficult to overcome. representative. mr. mcclintock: i want to thank my colleague from utah, mr. beneficiary yop -- mr. bishop, for yielding and organizing this special order for the house tonight and the attention he's devoted to the suffering in my district that's been caused by the lunatic fringe of the environmental movement that now

seems to be so firmly in control of our national policy on public lands. at this point we are not just trying to create jobs, we are desperately trying to stop losing them because of these policies. a generation ago we recognized the importance of proper wildlands management. we recognized that there is a balance between the environment and the economy and that both can thrive through proper policy. we recognize that nothing's more devastating to the ecology of a forest than a forest fire. and we recognize that public lands should be managed for the benefit of the public. we recognize that in any living community, including forests, a dense overpopulation simply unhealthy. and so we carefully groomed our public lands. we removed excessive vegetation, and gave timber the room that it needed to grow. a surplus timber and overgrowth were sold for the benefit of our communities. our forests prospered and our

economy prospered. and forest fires were far less numerous and intense than we see today. that was before a radical ideology was introduced into public policy that we should abandon our public lands to overgrowth and overpopulation and in essence to benign neglect. we are now living with the result of that ideology. forest fires fueled by decades of pent up overgrowth are are now increasing in their frequency and their intensity and their destructiveness. one victim of this wrong-headed policy is the environment itself. a recent forest fires in my region make a mockery of all of our clean air regulations, and anyone who has seen a forest after one of these fires knows that the environmental devastation could not possibly be more complete. but these policies also carry a tremendous economic price.

timber is a renewable resource. if it's properly managed, it's literally an inexhaustible source of prosperity for our nation. and yet my region which is blessed with the most bountiful resource in all of california, has literally ben rendered economically prostate by these policies. a region that once prospered from its surplus timber is now ravaged by fires that are fueled by that surplus timber. . that brings me to the story of the townspeople of quincy and co-mee noah, towns in northeast -- an comino, towns in northeast california. recently, families in those towns received notice that the saw mills they worked for must

close. the underlying cause was the fact that 2/3 of their timber they depended on had been held up by environmental litigation. despite the regular re-session they had enough business to keep the mills open and keep the families employed if the environmental left had not cut off the timber those mills depended upon. bear in mind the population of the town of quincy is about 400 families. the greatest quincy area, about 1,250 families. we're talking about pink slips going to 150 of those families. they're not the only ones who lost incomes. many more jobs were lost indirectly. the folks who drive the trucks and sell the supplies, all lost their jobs as well this occurred despite the groundbreaking work of a local coalition called the quincy library group that caused a compromise between environmentalists, businesses and forestry management decades ago.

that cullmy nated in an act that was adopted 11 years ago in this very chamber by a vote of 429-1. this consensus agreement provided for sound and sustainable forest management practice this is a in turn would support both local jobs and healthier forests. as senator feinstein a democrat, pointed out at the time, every single environmental law, including the national environmental policy act and the national forest act would be followed if this proposal was implemented. yet despite a model compromise that produced a model law, the will of the congress, the livelihoods of hundreds of innocent families and the fire safety of scores of mountain communities is being challenged and undermined by a constant stream of litigation from groups purporting to support the environment. i say purporting because as the website of one of those grubes

declares, their number one policy goal is to and i quote, elimb 2345eu9 commercial logging from all public lands in california. end quote. their policy is not to protect the environment. their policy is deliberately to destroy commercial enterprise. we held an informal hearing in quincy after the mill closures and my friend from utah was kind enough to join us. the stories at the hear wrg heartbreaking. it's a story of how despite the law, this constant litigation which is ultimately rejected by the courts is nevertheless -- has nevertheless delayed the recovery act until the mills collapsed. that's what they're dealing with today. they know they don't have to win the litigation, they only have to draw out the process and they have done that until 150 families in quincy and another 150 in comino lost

their jobs. we held another hearing in washington which congressman herger introduced a measure to stop this litigation and from those hearings, i'm in the final stages of preparing legislation to at least grant litigation relief for the land that's actually within the quincy library group territory defined in the legislation. of course these bills are already being attacked by the same radical groups responsible for the litigation and regulation that is destroying these job, destroying these families, destroying these communities and destroying our forests. the extremists oppose the salvage og of timber that's already destroyed by fires disease. think about that trees that are dead cannot be salvaged because

of lawsuits filed by extremist groups. they know if they can sal delay the salvage for two years, the trees delay to the point they can't be recovered and they'd rather let the trees rot on the ground rather than be removed and salvaged to provide jobs for families and lumber for homes and revenues for the national treasury. the economic suffering this is now causing is immediate and it is acute. but an even more ominous effect is placing at risk our mountain communities and our national forests to intense wild fires made possible because overgrowth is no longer being removed. as one forester told me, those trees are going to come out of the forest one way or another. they'll either be carried out or burned out. when the excess timber was carried out we had a thriving lumber industry that put food on the tables and clothes on the children of thousands of working families throughout northern california. more importantly we also had

much healthier forests and far fewer and milder forest fires than we suffer today. this isn't environmentalism. true environmentalists recognize the damage done by overgrowth and overpopulation and recognize the role of sound forest management practices is to maintain healthy forests. we're also watching them system matcally shut down public land for public use and public benefit. every time a little town like quincy or comino is strangled to death by these policies, it has a ripple effect throughout the nation. our nation loses tax revenues, commerce withers, the price of raw materials rise, public resources are diverted to provide economic relief and our forests suffer as well. but there's one infinitely higher cost that i haven't mentioned yet. that brings me to the tragic news i must impart to the house tonight. there is a raging fire in the

shasta trinh dity national forest as we speak right now, it's called the backbone fire. about two hours ago i received word that a young man, thomas merivetch jr., 22 years old from the little town of aden in my district was killed this afternoon fighting that fire. every time a little town like aden mourns for think loss of a promising young man like thomas, it's not only a tragedy. it's prevent -- if preventable, it's an outrage. mr. speaker, the time has come for the great silent majority of americans to rise up against the most radical elements of the environmental movement that seem to control so much of our public policy and to demand that we restore our public land for public use and public benefit and that we restore the sound forest management practices that once minimized the forest fires that are now again destroying communities and taking lives.

with that, again, i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. bishop: would the gentleman yield for a moment? this is a tradge dill you've mentioned taking place in your home district. i was out there in the community of quincy. i was noticing that the concept that they said is that if they could thin those forests, they could minimize the risk of forest fire as well as using the resources that would be pulled out to create jobs at the same time. could this fire have at least been mitt gated if we'd gone through these practices of thinning the forest under proper procedure this is a would help the forest and the economy? mr. mcclintock: that's why we thinned those forests for many year, reduce the risk of forest fires and from the excess timber we provided a thriving economy throughout the region and provided a tremendous revenue stream to the national

treasury because the timber is on land owned by the people of the united states system of we had healthier forests and we had a healthy economy. both have been imperiled by these policies. then you have to add the tragedy of the human loss of the heroic young men like mr. marevitch who gave his life today to try to stop the fires which are more intense today and more numerous today than a generation ago when we practiced sound forest management practices. mr. bishop: to the gentleman from california, i thank him for joining us here. i know all of us send our sympathy to the community and the family in this time of loss. part of the problem the gentleman from california is talking about is because of the land that is owned by the federal government. this particular chart, everything that is in red is owned by the federal government. you'll notice that it has a

preponderance in the west. where mr. mcclintock is talking, it's an area surrounded by red. if you live in the area surrounded by red, you don't have a lot of options. the federal government controls what opportunities you do or do not have. let me give you one example in my state of a different area and i want to introduce you to a young man by the name of mr. pitchford. he's a young and exciting schoolteacher who got 12, 13, and 14-year-olds excited about geography and history, which by itself should give him a hero's medal this september, though, he's not going to be teaching school. he's not going to be teaching school because the district in which he live is one of those red areas in which this administration unilaterally and arbitraryly decided to take 77 oil and gas leases and suspend them, take them off the market, making them unusable and in so doing, took neighboring and

abutting pieces of property owned by the school trust lands and made them also sterile for this time period. the schools lost money. in so doing, their reaction was to fire the first teacher hired, mr. pitchford is not there anymore this doesn't deal with just people who are working in oil and gas. there is clatral damage from every one of our decisions the government makes. he isn't working because of a choice he made but because of some bureaucrat back here in washington made. it's not fair. it's not fair for him or his family. there are other collateral damage that takes place in this area where the secretary of interior decided to pull these leases, suspend these leases, for the rationale that the bush administration did them too quickly. actually, the bush administration took seven years to go through the process. i guess seven years was not enough time to decide whether we were doing the right thing

or not. at least that's what the secretary said. let me read to you a letter from somebody is who is the -- who is not directly employee bud is in the transportation business that does the shipping of material to and from potential sites. as he wrote the county commission, let me applaud your efforts in trying to get your efforts to the interior department that their actions caused great harm to the economy of our area and individuals living there at the end of 2008, we employed over 230 truck drivers, leased 204 trucks. our payroll was $12 million a year. but since the first of the year, we have laid off 36 trucks, 47 drivers, there are now 47 families without income. nor payroll benefits socialed with them. our overall payroll is down $29 million, projected to be -- 29%, probblingted to be down to $9 million by the end of the calendar year. on a personal note my son who

has worked in the oilfields for the past eight years has never been unable to find employment until now. he's been off now for three months and is getting very discouraged my daughter is a single mother of two growing boys. she has been struggling to make ends meet with the economy the way it is now and it seems she has lost hope of ever finding employment elsewhere. to brett, the field manager, laid off on july 1, july 13 he and his wife had a baby. to jody and jeff, two truck operators, jody lost his truck because he couldn't make payments after he was laid off because this of the decision made by the secretary here in washington. curtis was a craftsman and cabinetmaker who lost his job due to the canceled contracts once they realized these leases were taken off the table. travis, a construction worker, husband, father of two children, laid off once again as soon as a bureaucratic

decision here in washington was made that had unintended consequences far beyond what was anticipated when a bureaucrat in washington decided to make decisions on what should take place on the ground out there and took the opportunity of solving our problems and creating problems and job -- creating jobs away from people. we talked about the numbers unemployed. each of those unemployed numbers is a face and a real person with a real family and a real issue. i'd like to donate -- yield some time, i'm sorry to the gentleman from georgia, to try to put this in perspective and we'll be joined by two other members of the western caucus. mr. broun: i thank you, mr. bishop, for yielding me some time. mr. bishop, i was really touched by the faces that you brought forward to the american people tonight here on c-span about these people who lost their jobs and my good friend

tom mcclintock talking about the national forests and the mismanagement that's going on because of the endless environmental backo lawsuits going on -- wacko lawsuits going on and the unfortunate, untimely death of this young man fighting those fires. probably could have been prevented if we had managed the forest in a better way, in a correct way, according to normal forestry practices to the best extent for the economic purposes and i thank both of you for bringing the face of people to this discussion tonight. . mr. speaker, i'm a medical doctor. i have seen the face of a lot of patients who have struggled with the cost of health care expenses, the cost of health insurance, medication, and

hospital bills. in over 3 1/2 decades of practicing general medicine in rural south georgia, now northeast georgia, i have literally given away in my services of over several hundred thousand dollars of my services if i charged for them. we have a proposal i call obamacare that's being debated here in the halls of congress. mr. speaker, director of the congressional budget office last week said if obamacare is passed, it's going to cost 750,000 people their jobs across america. three quarter of a million people are going to be put out of work just because of passing a bill that supposedly is going

to make everybody covered by health insurance. but the congressional budget office director also said even in the next 10 years not everybody would be covered. let me say that again because what we keep hearing from the democratic side is we got to cover everybody. everybody's going to have health care. everybody does have access to health care today. federal law requires it. what everybody does not have is health insurance. but our democratic colleagues want to give free health insurance to illegal aliens. but that's what obamacare does. it gives free health insurance to illegal aliens. 12 million, 15 million illegal aliens here in this country, who are criminals. they have interthundering herd country illegally. they virtually all of them have illegal documents. they have broken many federal laws.

they are criminals. my democratic colleagues want to give them free insurance. it's going to cost 750,000 american citizens jobs to do so. mr. speaker, this house considered a bill just a few weeks ago that they -- democratic colleagues called cap and trade. i call it tax and trade or tax and cap because it's about taxes. it's about revenue. we hear over and over again 's going to create all these green jobs. it will create some green jobs. i saw a friend, my next door neighbor in my hall over in the office building bring in a chart where he's going to talk about green jobs. it indeed will create green

jobs. but what you're not being told is what happened to spain. our president has lifted up spain as being the model of what we need to do on these green jobs and environmental policy. well, about a decade ago spain put into place a similar piece of legislation as our tax and trade bill that's languishing over in the senate and i hope the senate will defeat it. but in spain for every single green job that was created, 2.2 other jobs were cost. in other words, 2.2 people were put out of work for every one person put to work by these green jobs that tax and trade is going to create. i know my democratic colleagues

can add and subtract. i don't want to accuse them of not doing so. if you subtract 2.2 from 1, you get a mus 1.2. and that's exactly what's going to happenp. if the american people don't stand up and say no to tax and trade, or tax and cap, whatever you want to call it, and tell their u.s. senators, mr. speaker, that this is going to be disastrous and it's going to cost american jobs and defeat it over there in the senate, there will be 2.2 people put out of work for every one person that is put to work. i have already said the c.b.o. c.b.o. say 750,000 people are going to lose their jobs because of obamacare. but it's going to do many other things, too, that are are disastrous. obamacare is going to insert a

washington bureaucrat between every patient and their doctor. and that washington bureaucrat is going to be making, mr. speaker, every single individual in this country's health care decision. the patient, patient's family won't be able to make those decisions, the doctor won't be able to make those decisions. it's going to be a washington bureaucrat that makes that decision. we are told by our democratic colleagues that's all about lowering cost. but just last friday the director of the congressional budget office said it's not going to rein in the cost of health care. it's going to cost more money. so let me see, let me get this right. it's going to cost more money to put in place obamacare. it's going to take decisions away from patients and their family and their doctor about making health care decisions, and it's going to put a washington bureaucrat in charge

of those decisions. and that washington bureaucrat is going to say whether the patient can get needed treatment, surgeries, x-rays, m.r.i.'s or not. we already know in countries such as great britain and canada that in those socialized medicine government-run programs that the death rates for cancer overall are much higher than here in the united states. women get breast cancer in canada and great britain, roughly 50% of them are dead after five years. prostate cancer the same. roughly 50% of people that are diagnosed with prostate cancer in those countries, 60% are dead in five years. here in the united states it's over 90% are still alive.

so what's going to happen here? our death rates are going to go up for all cancers. just today we had a bill here on the floor that i talked about. it is one to try to encourage people to underdiabetes. as a medical practitioner i have treated diabetes for many years. the reason why it's so important to catch it early and treat it is that people die at a young age when they have diabetes. a lot younger than they should if it's treated. but the thing is as we ration health care and the washington bureaucrat tells patients they can't get the test that they need, they can't get the lifesaving coronary bypass surgery or stints, the

procedures they need to help them not die from heart attacks or from strokes, the washington bureaucrats are going to say, particularly to the elderly, you can't get the dialysis you desperately need because you're old and it's not cost-effective. it's not competitively effective and that you must die and not get the treatment that you desperately need. so people are not only going to be put out of work, but people are going to be in poor health. we are going to degrade the quality of health care delivered by doctors and hospitals across this nation. because a washington bureaucrat's going to say no to patients and no to doctors. this is going to be disastrous. we are creating a debt and deficit that's unprecedented in the history of our nation. we are going down a track right now, mr. speaker, that every great nation in history has gone

down. great britain, spain, even rome. we are going down a track of spending money we don't have. creating debt that we cannot pay. we are robbing our children and grandchildren of their future. they will live in a lower standard that we live today because of this huge debt that we are creating, mr. speaker. this huge deficit that this administration is creating. i hear from our friends on the democratic side even just this week i heard them blame president bush for the debt and deficit. i blame president bush for being a big spender, and he was. while i was here during the tail end of his presidency, i fought all those big spending bills. i fought the washington bailout of wall street. but presint bush was just a

piker compared to what this administration's doing. we are creating unprecedented debt and deficits that our grandchildren cannot pay so their standard of living is going to be worse than it is today. mr. speaker, there are going to be a lot of people put out of work. during the great depression all the spending that f.d.r. did did put some people to work, but the unemployment rates bounced up and down and stayed very high. mr. speaker, in my district in georgia, many counties have over 13% unemployment today. i have talked to several managers of plants, manufacturing plants in my district that tell me that if this tax and trade bill that the senate has over here that this house passed, they are going to lock the doors. those jobs are going to go

overseas because they can't afford to pay the higher energy tax. most americans are going to have a hard time, particularly the poor and the people on limited incomes, are going to have a hard time paying the higher energy cost. mr. speaker, republicans have stood up over and over again and have talked about the proposals that we have made, proposals to stimulate the economy and create jobs. proposals to lower the cost of health care expenses to all americans. proposals that would stimulate the economy. proposals that don't cost our grandchildren their future. in fact, we are not even -- would not even cost the taxpayers today any increase in their taxes. but those proposals are not heard because the leadership of this house, and the leadership of the senate across the way won't let those proposals get to

the floor to be discussed. it's not right, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, we are robbing america of its future. we are robbing america of their jobs today. we are going down a track that's going to put more and more people out of work. it's going to create more problems for people paying their utility bills, their gasoline, their home heating cost, and things like that. even with the mandates from our friends on the democratic side that they are are putting on health care, it's going to literally lower the income of people who are working. it's not right. and it's not fair. mr. speaker, it's got to stop. and the american people need to stand up and say no to obamacare, no to tax and spend policies that this administration, that this leadership in this house and the senate are bringing forward

because it's going to destroy america. i thank my friend from utah, mr. beneficiaryp yop. i see he has a poster here that we have a lot of these unemployed people, mr. bishop, in my district. praise god we don't have 14.7 million people in my district out of work. but more and more people are becoming unemployed and they are going to continue to lose jobs in my district in georgia and i'm sure they are in yours in utah, mr. bishop, if we don't stop this outrageous spending that the leadership of this congress and this administration are doing. we've got to stop it. it's up to the american people to demand from their senators and their congressmen and of this administration say no to this outrageous spending that's going on. i thank the gentleman for yielding.

mr. bishop: i appreciate representative browne -- broun from georgia joining us. he provides a unique element to the western caucus of giving a southern input which we find so similar to the problems we are facing, as well as the medical background. part of the problems he's talking about is the reason that the policies we have been creating as a job is part of the problem why we have 14.7 million unemployed right now. i'd like to go to the eastern part of the country and yield time to representative thompson from the state of pennsylvania who also has a similar problem, similar situation with the similar heavy-handed result of bureaucratic washington decisions. it has direct impact so that these unemployed are not just faces, they are real people. then we'll be happy to be joined by representative lummis from wyoming. representative thompson. .

mr. thompson: i thank the gentleman for holding this. i'm proud to represent pennsylvania's fifth district and proud pob part of the western caucus. we have a lot of wonderful natural resource this is a help to make, mr. speaker, help to make this country strong and i believe as part of our promising future frning we use them and use them wisely. federal policies that lead to job losses is a very personal one for me and many of my constituents in the pennsylvania fifth congressional district. my district is home to pennsylvania's national forest, 513,000 acres. the a.n.f. is as special as the district i represent and has a long history as an economic and tourism center for the region. nearby in titusville, pennsylvania, colonel edmund drake founded the first commercial oil well in 1959.

the -- 1929. and that has been the economic backbone of my district since. it has operated for multiuse purposes, tourism, timber harvesting, oil and natural gas production. before the forest was formed 86 years ago, it was an oil and gas field. since oil and gas has been the economic engine of the region for 64 years, the federal government only purchased the surface rights. this was done intentionally by the federal government in order to leave the mineral rights, meaning the right to oil and gas and minerals in private hands. for some 85-plus years, there's been a positive working relationship between the federal government who owns the surface rights anded the private and oil gas developers who own the mineral rights. however this long-standing and

beneficial relationship recently has been ruptured. last fall the forest service was sued by three environmental groups, sierra club, the allegheny defense project and think forest service employees for environmental ethics. the sierra club is based in the speaker's home district in san francisco, california. the allegheny defense club is based somewhere in oregon. the forest service employees for environmental ethics won't identify themselves we don't know. these groups are attempting to apply the national environmental act to the permitting processes which effectively will shut down energy production in the forest. let me be clear. oil and gas production is the major economic force in the region and has been since the first oil well was drilled 150 years ago. penn state university performed a study and concluded that for over 100 direct oil and gas sector jobs in northwest

pennsylvania, 23 industry support jobs are created with an additional 40 ancillary jobs in the retail and residential sectors a true economic -- want a true economic stimulus that leads to energy independence, let's support this i can't say how important these jobs are to us and the local economy. the forest service indefinitely suspended the permitting process for all new oil and gas leases in january of this year. to make matters worse, the forest service released a settlement this past april that sides entirely with the 1r50eur789al groups. it was reached behind closed doors and was reached with no industry input. there was no judge no court that told them to do this. applying nepa will was a decision made by the forest service and did not take into

account the people it would hurt directly the most. no court told them to do this, which mean it was a policy change that occurred within the national forest service. now what these environmental groups would like everyone think the oil and gas production is unregulated, it's rigorously regulated by the pennsylvania department of environmental protection. they do a great job and always have. today, i, along with mr. bishop and three other members of the congressional caucus sent a letter to tom vilsack. the secretary knows the forest service is part of the agricultural department, not the interior department. the bottom line is that congress and the president have this year alone spent about $1 trillion in the name of job creation yet some within the administration are also actively trying to make policy

changes like this that kill good-paying jobs which existed for 86 years. not too long ago, i was in bradford, pennsylvania, on a sunday morning and picked out a small church to worship in and at the end of the service, i had a young mom come up to me, she had three little kids in tow. they weren't very big. the oldest, maybe was 4 years old. she come up to me and she said, you're mr. thompson. i want to thank you for what you're trying to do do to stand up for the right things to make sure we have access to the subsurface rights. her husband makes his living working on oil wells. at that point, he was struggling to find a job. struggling to be able to support his family because of a policy change by this administration which attacks a subsurface private property rights. that's not right. i've talked with businesses that have been in business,

have lived their entire life for generations in the allegheny national forest that een subsurface rights and have every right and have for 86 years to access that oil, natural gas and minerals they own. because of that arbitrary policy change by the administration, that's been shut down. these folks who have been in business for just generations are no longer able to support themselves. this type of attack, this type of policy by this administration on private property owners, impacts timber workers, it impacts drillers, excavation companies, businesses, schools, townships, and families. frankly, they're all suffering. they're suffering because of the arbitrary and devastating policies of this administration on private property right owners. i thank the gentleman from utah and i yield back.

mr. bishop: i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania. it clearly shows we are desperate to create jobs yet we have an interior an agriculture department whose decisions are killing jobs an the ripple effect those jobs have. i'd like one other illustration of how this is true, mrs. lummis of wyoming, this chart shows the blue line is what wyoming pay theirs school teachers and the red is what montana pays. wyoming clearly realizes what can happen and what you can do when you develop the resources in that particular state. i yield to the jeament from wyoming. mrs. lummis: i thank the gentleman from utah for yielding and the chart he shows is exactly right. the fact that wyoming chose to develop its mine regular

sources and montana chose a path that retarded the development of its mine regular sources is the difference in the teachers' salaries as pointed out in that chart. we have been blessed in wyoming by having low unemployment and it created an opportunity, until recently, for people from other states who have suffered job losses to find gainful employment and make a new life in wyoming. a number of families have relocated, especially from michigan, to the state of wyoming, and predominantly the community of gillette. gillette, wyoming, has become wyoming's third largest city, and is growing in a way that brings young families, vie brancy, activity, and the arts and recreation to a wonderful

wyoming community in northeast wyoming. it's brought a lot of new people to wyoming from michigan. looking for a new life and looking for work. many of them came from a -- an automobile industry and manufacturing industries and mining industries, quite frankly, that were devastated due to the economic downturn. but they were able to find jobs in wyoming and we're so happy to have them. then along comes waxman-markey a bill that creates a national energy tax and a bill that creates a tremendous threat, especially to coal mining jobs. jobs in the wyoming mining industry are high-paying. 86% higher than the average wage in the state. the average annual wage in the mining industry in wyoming was 73 -- was $73,000 in 2007.

it is an extraordinarily livable wage and a very high wage in wyoming. but if you look at the total coal mining jobs in the u.s. and the changes in policy under waxman-markey and other bills going through this congress, the outlook for those michigan residents who have relocated to wyoming is not very prosperous. job losses related to waxman-markey, optimistic projections, total u.s. job loss in five years, 14,000 jobs, lost in coal mining alone. a pessimistic number for job losses five years from now in coal mining alone, 35,000 jobs. let's project it out because as you know, waxman-markey doesn't take effect completely until

the year 2050. let's go out 10 years and 15 years. the projected loss in jobs in 10 years due to waxman-markey, under the most optimistic scenario that can be put together, 20,000 jobs lost in coal mining alone. and the pessimistic number, 67,000 jobs. that's the entire population of my community of cheyenne, and then some. and of course 20 years out, the optimistic job ro loss in coal alone, 50,000 people. and the pessimistic number, 125,000 people in coal alone. these are not jobs that can be replaced by green jobs. these green jobs are not projected to pay 86% higher than the average wage in my state. not only is the waxman-markey

cap and trade bill, the national energy tax an attack on coal producing states around the nation, but other bills going through the congress are having the same consequence. let's take for example, the interior appropriations bill, that just passed the house, had a provision in it that when a company acquires a federal lease to mine more coal, they will pay a bid bonus payment nasm occurs now. the problem is, these bid bonus payments are such a large amount of money that they've been spread out over five years, the companies can borrow less money or use production that they're currently accomplishing to pay in five-year increments for those big coal bid bonus payments. under the interior appropriations bill that just

passed this house, they will have to pay that all up front. these are staggeringingly large numbers in the ten -- staggeringly large numbers in the tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars. companies in this financial crunch cannot boar though lowe rowe that kind of money. consequently, there will be company this is a co-not bid, reducing receipts to american taxpayer, when there's not bidding for the coal, or there may be no bids at all because no company can borrow enough to borrow five years' worth of money up front. one little amendment with tremendous consequences to coal mining jobs that went through without discussion. and there are many such amendments on these bills every day. that are an attack on jobs in this country, an attack on jobs in my state, the attack on jobs

in the appalachian states is unbelievable. under the cap and trade bill. if i ran an appalachian -- if i were in an appalachian state, i'd be more concerned than i am for my state of wyoming and as the number one coal producing state in the country, i'm tremendously concerned about the loss of jobs. these policies are not good for america, they're not good for my state, they're not good for the west and they're certainly not good for the hard working people of america. i thank the leader, mr. bishop of utaher, for allowing me the time to speak this evening and i yield back. mr. bishop: i thank the gentlelady from yime who has clearly pointed out how small decisions we make here still have enormous impact. we have seen what this administration has done in an effort for whatever reason to harm the creation of jobs when it deals with land policy. this week the secretary of interior decided to have a time-out on new leases of

uranium mining. he earlier decided to put a halt on the development of oil shale projects. that could be up to a million jobs. the delay on outer continental shelf development, that's estimated at 160,000 jobs that will be lost. an effort to stop the timber harvest in western oregon, immediately costs another 5,000 jobs. mr. speaker, as we look at what we are doing here, it is very clear that small business and families are struggling today. republicans have put forth thoughtful, serious alternatives which have been ignored and not even discussed. and it's also clear that the president's economic decisions have not produced jobs, not produced prosperity, simply have not worked. it doesn't mean we're out of options. we can still have a real recovery. if we emphasize and create an environment that empowers small business and empowers americans

and we focus on job creation, that we stop the attack on the west and other areas of public lands and the people who live there and allow them to develop the resources that we have been given to to create real jobs in this country, we can do that. that is still an option that we have. but we have to do it and we have to do it together. there are a lot of other examples that i would like to go into, mr. speaker, but time does not allow that. maybe it's some other time, decisions by this administration have harmed families and their creation of jobs and once again we have to change directions. that has to stop. mr. speaker, we yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. before the house the following communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam, this is to notify you formally, pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i

have been served with subpoena for trial testimony issued by the u.s. district court for the eastern district of virginia in connection with a criminal case now pending in that court. after consultation with the office of general council, i have determined that compliance with the subpoena is consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. sinned sincerely, justin cox, physician. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from new york, mr. mcmahon, is recognized for 60 minutes at the designee of the majority leader. mr. mcmahon: thank you, mr. speaker. it's my privilege and honor to stand here in the house of representatives representing the people of the great areas of brooklyn and new york for the freshman energy hour. and i'm privileged to be joined by my colleague as i come from the hudson valley in new york, my colleague from the ohio valley, the great john boccieri, the gentleman from ohio, and he will join me in this freshman energy hour.

mr. speaker, we're here today to talk about the american energy and clean energy and security act which was passed recently by the house and to speak to its merits and in order to urge the senate to pass it as well. and i've sat here and listened to our great colleagues from across the aisle for some time this evening speaking on this issue and they conclude that they hope that the senate looks upon this bill unfavorably as they criticize the initiatives of this bill. and i know that my colleague will mention it, but i'd just like to remind them what their former candidate for president and yet last year's last election, senator john mccain, said about the cap and trade legislation as recently as february 17, 2009. he said, it's cap and trade, there will be incentives for people to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it's a free market approach. the europeans are doing it, we

did it in the case of addressing acid rain, look, if we do that, we will stimulate green technologies, this will be a profit-making business, create jobs, it won't cost the american taxpayer a thing. and so i'm pleased that those who spoke before me from across the aisle in opposition to this bill referenced the opinion of the united states senate and i'm glad that senator mccain was honest and forth right enough to admit that this legislation does indeed create jobs, provide for the security of our nation and take care of the environment as well. it is indeed important for our future. as we know, the recently passed energy and security legislation comes at a time when inaction will have undue consequences. this comprehensive energy and clean environment bill is a necessary vehicle to ensure our future economic and environmental viability in the 21st century green economy. i would like to start out by

commending the leadership of the house who brought forward this bill and saw that it was passed. the regional differences arising from energy-based issues are often quite lofty but the leadership did an outstanding job of moving through the legislative process with consideration for different members' interests. since the bill's passage before the independence day recess, many members, myself included, have experienced varying degrees of concern from our constituents. particularly regarding the cost and impact of the bill to their wallets. and quite a lot of this concern has been raised because of misrepresentations from our gentle colleagues from the other side of the aisle as to the aspects of this bill. together with mr. boccieri, i'd like to address some of these concerns and the pervasive misinformation that has been put out there today and explain how this legislation will be a cost saver for consumers and homeowners, will cut down on pollution and will increase our

national security. at a time when we were importing increasing amounts of energy from hostile regions of the world, we cannot afford to go down the path of energy insecurity. this legislation will redirect us on a path towards energy independence. mr. speaker, you know, i sat here and listened to our colleagues from across the aisle this evening and all day long. hundreds of minutes, i understand, that they spoke about this issue and the creation of jobs in this country. and what i found very disconcerting as a new yorker is that they've totally forgotten the issue of national security and how important energy independence is to this nation. and it's so important to me, mr. speaker, because i come from staten island and brooklyn, new york, where 9/11, over 10% of the people who were killed in the attack on the world trade center, came from our areas, although we have less than 5% of the population in that area. i remember that day as clear as

any other in my life. in fact, more profoundly. it was a bright, sunny day. i remember it because i was involved in my first election campaign that day. it was a primary for the new york city council. we were in church, about 9:00 in the morning, as we do on every election day after opening the polls and campaigning a bit. and a police officer who i was with received an emergency call and took us out and said something terrible had happened and we have to go down to the harbor. when we got down there we saw the world trade center aflame and the second plane had just struck. we went back to our office to close down the election and as we were there we saw the horrors of what transpired on television as the buildings collapsed. i will never forget it. i will never forget being on the pile the days after and the bucket brigade. i'll never forget seeing president bush say to our nation and to those who lost their loved ones that we will never forget. after we closed down the election, we weren't sure what to do that day.

so we went to the local hospital and set up a blood bank to await the injured people to come back from the site. but as hour and hour went on, we realized that no one was coming back. and that the enormity of the tragedy. i mention this because i think it's so important that our nation does not forget the cost of dependence upon nations around this world for oil who want to see our great american democracy torn down. our way of life is an affront to them and they will do anything to tear down america. so when you have this discussion about energy and whatever they want to call it, let us never forget that this is about energy security first and foremost. america cannot go on the way it has relying on foreign oil from countries who want to tear our country down. and even though we made a pledge at that time to end dependence on foreign oil, the chart that i have here will show that just

last year in 2008 the amount of oil that we imported from foreign countries was 66.4% of our usage and the dollars we spent overseas, $475 billion. how many of those dollars go to al qaeda? how many of those dollars go to terrorists who want to bring destruction and terror to our country and to our ally countries around this world? how dare anyone stand on the floor of this house of representatives, this noble and esteemed body, and not talk about this any time they talk about energy, any time they talk about this bill? i consider it an affront when people misrepresent the facts of this bill for their open political reasons and not to bring the true facts to the american people. look again at the way since the time that the attack occurred, the way that our dependence on foreign oil, our imports, have gone up so dramatically. we have indeed forgotten.

we have forgotten those who we lost that day, we've forget -- we forget our pledge to have security, to have energy independence and it is something that this bill will seek to do. at this time i'd like to ask my colleague, mr. boccieri, to share with us some of his thoughts from the perspective of the people of the great state of ohio. mr. boccieri: i thank the gentleman from new york and his insight and accuracy with respect to this issue and the importance that it has for our nation. now, i must give you this prelude. i approached this legislation from a very deep perspective that i've had throughout my life, for the last 15 years i've served in the united states air force as a c-130 pilot and i have to tell you that there is no matter before this congress more important than the steps we are taking to create a situation by which our nation can become energy independent.

and i must tell you that i hail from the midwest and i know my friend from new york, but i have to tell that you this bill and this legislation coming before the congress is about midwest innovation and breaking our reliance on mideast oil. the pillars of this legislation, creating jobs, thousands of jobs in our country and hundreds of thousands of jobs alone in my district in ohio, the 16th congressional district, the pillar of this legislation about national security, about moving away from our dependence on foreign oil, those two noble causes right now are a track worth defending right now and i stand here with my colleagues today to tell you that we must do something. we'll be judged by two measures, mr. speaker. two measures. by action or inaction. i remember in the 1970's when i stood with my father in line to wait so that we could fill up for a tank of gas. back then, back then we had a

democrat-controlled congress, we had a democrat president, but we didn't have the political will to make this happen. this congress and this president are saying no more, no more to outsourcing our dependence to foreign petro dictators, if you will, that don't have the interests of the united states at stake. my colleague talked about some of those and let me just put this down to you right now. in 2003 the u.s. department of defense study concluded that the risk of a abrupt climate change shall be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a u.s. national security concern. we talked about how much oil we have used from overseas. 66%. over 66% just last year, 60% accountinging for nearly 16% of all import spending. my friends, we must do something. now, this is not just john boccieri saying this on the

floor of the house of representatives, this is not my friend, mike mcmahon from new york, saying this, or my friend, frank kratovil, from maryland suggesting this. every presidential candidate running for the highest office in our country last year said that this is a matter of national security. you heard the words of my friend from new york when he talked about senator john mccain, who i have great respect for, a man who i flew out of baghdad while he was visiting our troops, a man who put his life on the line for the country. i want the american people and our colleagues here tonight to listen to this. it's about cap and trade. there will be incentives for people to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. it's a free market approach. let me repeat that. it is a free market approach. the europeans are doing it. we did it in the case of addressing acid rain. we're doing a cap and trade program right now in the united states here that's been in existence for 19 years. look, if we do that, we will stimulate green technologies.

this will be a profit-making business. it won't cost the american taxpayer. let me repeat that again. john mccain said that it's a free market approach and it won't cost the american taxpayer. joe lieberman and i have 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. my friends, this is about our national security. john mccain and every other presidential candidate running for office last year said that it's a matter of national security. the department of defense is saying it's a matter of national security. but all of a sudden our friends here that we have this debate are running away from national security. for what? i have no idea. but i'll tell you this much, this is our opportunity to put america on a track where we can create jobs in the heartland and in the cities of great new york and in the suburbs of maryland. we can create jobs and we can

protect our national security. . one last point. after having served overseas, flying wounded and fallen soldiers out of baghdad, it is very clear that our presence in the middle east is about that 66% that congressman mcmahon talked about. because 40% of that 66% that has come from overseas comes from the middle east. this is the time that we have to act. mr. mcmahon: thank you, congressman boccieri, for that passioned insight on this issue. as you point out i talked about the horrors of our energy dependence on middle eastern countries here on the foreign soil, on our domestic soil and through terrorism, but certainly we thank you for our -- your service to our country and also it's quite clear that the men and women who are wearing our uniforms right now fighting in iraq and afghanistan are doing so.

so much so because we can't get off our addiction to that foreign oil, particularly from the mideast. that's what this bill is about. we'd like to hear from our equally great colleague from the great state of maryland, frank contractoville -- cra toeville -- kratovil. mr. kratovil: i thank my friend and colleague from ohio for his passion. i want to follow-up on a couple of things you mentioned talking about this issue from a historical perspective. so many times in this country we talk about for years and years of things we need to do. yet when push comes to shove we don't always have the political courage to do what needs to be done. you were speaking about discussions you had with your father. every u.s. president since richard nixon has advocated the need for energy independence. in 1974 nixon promised it could be achieved within six years.

gerald ford promised it could be done in 10 years. and jimmy carter pledged to wage the moral equivalent of war to achieve it. yet here we are in 2009 and for the first time really we have made steps really aggressive proactive steps in reducing our dependence on foreign oil. i want to read you something that president nixon said in the state of the union address in 1973. looking at the year 1974 which lies before us, there are 10 key areas in which landmark accomplishments are possible this year in america. if we make these our national agenda, this is what we will achieve in 1974. we will break the back of the energy crisis, we will lay the foundation for our future capacity to meet america's energy needs from america's own resources. that was nixon in 1973. gerald ford in 1975 said, i am proposing a program which will

begin to restore our country's surplus capacity in total energy. in this way we will be able to assure ourselves reliable and adequate energy and help foster a new world energy stability for other major consuming nations. we must develop our energy technology and resources so that the united states has the ability to supply a significant share of the energy needs of the free world by the end of this century. president ford in 1975. so looking at it from a historical perspective we have talked about this for years and years because presidents in the past have recognized and congresses in the past have recognized that it is essential for our own national security that we reduce our dependence on foreign oil. in 1970 our oil imports have grown from nearly 24% in 1970 to nearly 70% of our total consumption now. last year alone the united

states spent $475 billion on foreign oil. needless to say as mr. boccieri mentioned and as you mentioned much of this funding benefits nations that support terrorism or at the very least anti-american political extremism. how long should we continue to provide dollars to nations that seek to destroy us? so although this bill focused also on the issue of climate change, for me and i'm sure for many other members, this issue had more to do with, from my standpoint, an issue of national security, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and doing what we should have been doing back in the 1970's and moving our country forward. let me say something about our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. objections have been raised with a number of bills that have come before this congress and arguments that we are moving too quickly.

some of those arguments i have agreed with. but the key in moving this nation forward is not simply to have people that stand in the way of making progress regardless of arguments that they make if we were to give as much time as our opponents on the other side of the aisle would allow, many of them would still object to moving this country forward. so we need to find a reasonable balance between some of the objection that is are made in terms of process and yet at the same time make sure that we are not simply standing in the way of progress simply as a result of being in opposition for whatever we do to move this country forward. with that i yield back to the gentleman from new york. mr. mcmahon: thank you, those points are extremely well taken. you can only wonder whether president nixon and president ford would be very disappointed having understood how important this issue is to our national security to have the other side of the aisle as you say, have really giving out such

misinformation about the effects and particulars of this bill. to really scare the american nation. i can tolerate that when it's issues of more domestic nature and whether we should -- when it comes to different types of issues we vote on, resolutions before the house, or domestic issues. when you talk about national security, it really borders on unpatriotic in my mind. to use misinformation to scare the american people at a time when we can really get ourselves off foreign oil. how many times have we heard about the study from the myth -- m.i.t. economists according to the other side of the aisle will cost every american family $3,100 under this bill? that very economist has come out in public and said that it is untrue. that they are misrepresenting the conclusions of thinks report. and everyone from the c.b.o. to everyone else has pointed out when you take in all the

different ramifications of the bill and considerations that at worst in the year 2017 i believe it is that the average american family at most would see an increase of $175 a year. that's in eight years. so between now and eight years from now there is no increase. fact, in some parts of the country like the northeast which i represent, there will be a decrease in cost because of the way that we generate our energy now and the way it's transmitted. in fact, the national resources defense council says that in the northeast you'll see a decrease of $5 per month on your electricity bill. that's why three republicans in new jersey voted for this bill. that's why republican in new york voted for this bill. they didn't listen to the misinformation. they understood it was about national security. and it delivers electricity to homeowners at a cheaper cost. i believe to engage in

misinformation on this very vital issue of national security is wrong. congressman boccieri, i yield to you. mr. boccieri: i thank the gentlemen from new york and maryland for their insight. we talked about what our friends on the other side are suggesting about the cost. let me ask you this profound question. what is the cost of doing nothing? what is the cost of doing nothing? $500 billion? $1 trillion overseas? this is a matter of our national security. i must tell you that if we -- if 27% of all america's car were hybrid electric gasoline vehicles, much like ford has produced with its escape and much like we have with some of the other models coming out before the market, if just 20% of all american cars were hybrid gasoline electric models, the united states could stop

importing oil from the persian gulf. just 20% of the -- 27% of the vehicles on our road we would end our dependence on oil from the persian gulf. this is the pillar of our legislation. national security, creating jobs and moving away from our dependence on foreign oil. that's what an energy policy of the united states should encompass. that's what it should evolve into. that's what this legislation is about. if you will just indulge me. i want to read some quotes here from some of our colleagues who were running for president on the other side of the aisle. rudolph giuliani said we need to use and expand the use of hybrid vehicles. remember, just 27% of all vehicles on the roads of the united states would end our dependence on oil from the persian gulf. clean coal, carbon sequestration which is very important to state like ohio where we have a great abundance of coal and carbon capture. we can use that in ohio. $180 billion in this bill for carbon capture.

the united states air force is testing synthetic fuels right now. blended fuels at wright paterson air force base. they know back in the 1940's when the united states bombed the romanian oil fields and cut off the german supply of oil, the germans quickly transitioned to synthetic fuel. we are researching that in ohio and the united states military is doing the same. we have more coal reserves in the united states than oil reserves in saudi arabia. this should be a major national project. this is a matter of our national security. let me reference our friend, mitt romney. a good american. suggested that there are multiple reasons for us to say we want to be less depend interon 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 that will allow the world to have less oil being drawn down from the various

sources it comes without dropping prices too high of a level. it will keep people, some of whom are unsavory characters, from having an influence on our foreign policy. let me add mr. huckabee. mr. huckabee, good american, plays the guitar very well. he said so it's critical that our own interest economically and from a point of national security we commit to becoming energy independent and that we commit to doing it within a decade. we sent americans to the moon in a decade. we can become energy independent in a decade. we have to take responsibility for our own house before we can expect others to do the same for theirs. it goes back to my basic concept of leadership. leaders don't ask others to do what they are unwilling to do themselves. very, very profound statement right there.

and we know it's often been said that fear is not a tool of leadership. it's a tool of the status quo. one last one. our good friend, mr. paul, we serve with here, i just spoke with him the other day on the floor. mr. paul said, true conservatives and libertarians have no right to pollute their neighbor's property. you have no right to pollute your neighbor's air, water, or anything. and this would all contribute to the protection of all air and water. one last point, mr. mchey hon, the truman project. suggested that economic disruptions associated with global climate change are projected by the c.i.a. and other intelligence experts to place increased pressure on weaker nation that is may be unable to provide basic needs and maintain order for their own citizens. this is a matter of national security. mr. mcmahon: you are so right. you put that so eloquently. you have to wonder why it is

that the national leaders of the republican party get it. yet it seems to be the members of the house of representatives from the republican party don't get it at all. before i yield to our great colleague also from the great state of new york, mr. paul tonko, i want to make two points. on the issue of national security i was shopping in my local supermarket over the weekend and i spoke to a gentleman that had heard some of the myths about the bill, and we spoke about national security. he said, why don't we drill oil in this country, we wouldn't have this problem? we know that physically that couldn't happen immediately. even if it were to happen, the truth of the matter is a generation there now those resources would be depleted as well. we would be in the same place that we are now. the point of the matter is that we cannot go on the way that we have. certainly i know that there are some who will say, global warming that's a myth. ok. take that, if you want to make that argument, go ahead. but pollution and the effects of pollution are not a myth.

in my district we have the highest rate of lung cancer in america. and why? because we are downwind from the factories in new jersey and ohio and across this country and it blows across into the people of staten island and brooklyn and we breathe and also from the cars and smog, the terrible air. it's time across this country in all those places and great states i mentioned and in my area as well to have clean air. . there was a very disturbing report on tv this morning. you know, children who are conceived and born in areas that have high levels of pollution, high levels of hydrocarbons or phh's, if they're in the womb and exposed to that, their i.q. rates are four or five points less than children who are conceived an born in areas that do not have that pollution.

so you can argue about global warming to the -- until the cows come home. we know it's real but even if you think it isn't, pollution is not a fiction. and as john mccain mentioned and as we know in new york and my great colleague's about to speak from upstate new york, as i had rain was a problem, congressman tonko, that bedeviled certainly the lakes in upstate new york and they were dead. the lakes were dead and that was caused by pollution from sulfur dioxide and we now now because cap and trade -- and we now know because the cap and trade, in half the time projected to clean up is now very successful and those lakes are again alive. referring to upstate new york, it's a privilege and honor to welcome our colleague from the great state of new york, a real leader on the issue of energy and a clean environment, mr. paul tonko. mr. tonko: thank you, representative mcmahon.

it's a pleasure to join with you and our colleagues from ohio and maryland in dealing with the facts of the matter, not the fiction. and, you know, i know you had earlier gone through the mathematics and the calculations of the impact as reported by the opposition in the house as to what this is costing us. to take claim of $3,100, basing it on a study done where the author has said you have misapplied that information from the m.i.t. study, to grossly inflated from -- at $3,100 when more appropriately it's between the range of $65 and $80 as an impact on a family, and then further addresses it, the author addresses it by saying that it needs to be additionally calibrated to go toward the final package that was passed by the house which is an even lesser impact. but leave that aside and talk about the cost of doing nothing. you know, many people will lament, i'm certain in each one of -- one of our districts, about the job loss, the

exportation, offshore, across the shore, of american jobs, well, no one is there to talk about that same impact of sending $400 billion a year to regimes that are unfriendly, that are terrorist in nature, that are certainly not the most secure or stable governments in the world. and we're supplying $400 billion a year. that is a cost today, that is a tax. call it what you want, it's a tax on the american public. and we can go forward and address in a more secure and energy-independent manner the sort of solutions that will then grow american jobs. american clean energy jobs are what this whole proposal is about. so it speaks to our sustainable quality that we can encourage, that allows to us grow energy security. how so? well, the union of concerned scientists has said that the renewable electricity standards in our package, in the house

version, will produce well over 300,000 jobs. and then we also have the american council on an energy efficient economy talking about energy efficiency standards that are again part and parcel to this package, that will grow over 225,000 jobs. so, there just in a sampling of what can happen you see how american jobs begin to grow, get cultivated, from this very aspect of legislation. those are real jobs, those are factual bits of information that need to be exchanged and shared with the american public. people know that our destiny here is controllable by our own actions. they know that. they want constitution forward, they want to us grow this green energy market, they want us to be able to respond in analytical terms where we embrace the intellectual capacity of this nation. and as we grow those technical jobs and there are incentives in

this legislation, there are those underpinnings of support to again foster those kinds of jobs so that we can stretch this innovation economy and enhance the number of jobs that are science and tech related, or coming through ancillary forces out there that further extrapolate the good outcome, that grow the jobs that are so essential. american jobs producing american power to then retrofit all of that activity into the american job market. manufacturing, making it more efficient, we want to keep jobs here, let's produce a package that retrofits american manufacturing centers to allow them to produce a product more wisely, more effectively, efficiently, and then, yes, more exetively and the glob market, it all begins with sound energy policy and they don't want to face those facts. they want to just use politics of fear and say it will cost every family $3,100, when they have been defied in that statement by the very author of the study they cite.

that is unacceptable and the public deserves better than that. they deserve the facts that show how we can grow jobs, create united states jobs, american jobs, and make us a global technology leader. and we need to do it so that we can compete globally. if we're not creating these products, if we're not implementing those sorts of changes we're falling drastically behind places like china and germany and japan and we can continue to list those countries. it's imperative that we do this. mr. mcmahon: i think it's rather telling and before i defer to my colleague from maryland, that today the other side of the aisle did 130 one-minute speeches asking the question, where are the jobs? and quite clearly, as you have stated and from these independent studies, with he know that the balance of the studies, beebe 2020 there will be 250,000 or 350,000 green jobs in this country created as shown

in this map of our country and where the jobs will be created all across this great nation. and each circle indicates from 4,000 to 85,000, 250,000, all of these jobs across this country will be created. this is where the jobs are. it is in doing legislation that is insightful, that is thoughtful, that takes some courage to stand up and deal with difficult issues and doesn't run away from the fact that this is indeed an issue not only of domestic financial security but first and foremost national security. congressman kratovil from maryland, i yield to you, sir. mr. kratovil: thank you for yielding and, mr. tonk o', thank you for your comments -- tonko, thank you for your comments. i want to follow up with something you said, you were talking about the misstatements that were made in terms of the cost and i want to come back to that in a minute, but one of the misconceptions you hear when you're back in your district and elsewhere across the country

that was played up nationally is that, you know, the status quo is acceptable. congress doesn't need to take any action. we're good where we are and at this time we don't need to do anything. of course that is not accurate. as you folks know, the supreme court ruled in 2007 that the environmental protection agency has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the clean air act. meaning that e.p.a. today, without congressional action, could take action on their own to reduce greenhouse gases without any of the protections that were provided under the bill that we passed here in the house. so the argument that congress could sit back and do nothing is clearly you inaccurate, simply based on the supreme court case in 2007 that demonstrated otherwise. so that ship in a sense has sailed and congress had an obligation to do it, not simply because of the supreme court case, but as we're talking about here, obviously we needed to do it in terms of national security, reducing our

dependence on foreign oil and as mr. mcmahon pointed out so clearly and also you, mr. tonko, in terms of moving us forward in these new green energy jobs that we need. terms of the cost issue that you raised, that is the best example of how in the national debate statements are made that are so clearly factually inaccurate. as you folks know, i spent 14 years as a prosecutor and was my life and profession was governed by facts. and when you see the misstatement like that in terms of facts, it's somewhat overwhelming, particularly as you said in the study that was cited by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that study that was cited, the author of it came out publicly and said that he was being cited inaccurately and that was not what he said. the interesting thing is looking at it in terms of energy efficiency, that not only arguably will it not cost our constituents more, but arguably it will cost them less because of the energy efficiency savings

that will result as a result of that bill. in maryland, as an example, the study that you cited, mr. mcmahon, indicates that marylanders could arguably save $8 per month as opposed to the arguments that they're going to pay $3,900 more. soccer the facts that have been given are oftentimes inaccurate. interesting enough, you know, as you go around and you're having this discussion with people on whether we should have the policies that were included in that bill, it's interesting from a maryland perspective, i heard quite frequently people saying to me, you know, mr. kratovil, we don't want cap and trade. well, in maryland we've had cap and trade since 2007. maryland has participated in a regional greenhouse gas initiatives since 2007 so we already had that. again, the interesting thing is in terms of the federal standards that were set, in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 17%, in maryland it's 25%.

so in many ways in maryland the argument wasn't so much as whether or not we should have these policies, the question was, whether or not we should have these policies nationally so we're all playing by the same ruse. so many of the facts that are -- that have been given are inaccurate and as i said, it is incredible when you think about the fact, for the last 40 years there's been a recognition among presidents that in terms of national security we must reduce our dependence on foreign oil. ronald reagan, the best answer, while conservation is worthy in itself, is to try to make us independent of outside sources to the greatest extent possible for our energy. 1981, ronald reagan. president george h.w. bush, october 25, 1991, when our administration developed our national energy strategy, three principles guided our policy, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, protecting our environment and promoting

economic growth. arguably this bill does all three. and yet again, despite that recognition, dating back to nixon, despite the fact as mr. boccieri has correctedly pointed out that every major republican presidential candidate acknowledged the need for reducing our deimportant on foreign oil and was mentioned -- our dependence orn foreign oil, and senator mccain promoting cap and trade, yet, when we take the vote in the house we only have a few brave republicans that are willing to cross party line. now why is that? the answer is, in my view, is that despite arguments that are made in terms of process, despite arguments that are made somewhat substantive related to the bills, the bottom line is, ultimately the votes that are being taken on major issues facing this country are still predominantly based on politics and not what is in the bes interest of this country. and i am, as we talked about

after this vote, were we to have the vote tomorrow, i would make it again, it is a -- it was a vote that was very important to this country, it is a vote that will move this country forward and we need to do what we're doing tonight to convince the people of this country that we were right, as i think we were. with that i'll yield back. mr. mcmahon: thank you, mr. kratovil. you did that very eloquently and moved some of the people watching. before i yield to our great friend from ohio, mr. boccieri, you pointed out about how facts are so important for a prosecutor and the author of that study, as it was being misused, publicly said, no, you're misusing my study, these are the real facts. i can see people misused it until he made that statement. maybe they misunderstood it. but when he clarified it and said he was misstating it, can you imagine i heard it cited on the floor of this house this evening, just prior to our hour here, i find that incredible and certainly something that speaks to the fact that for some unfortunately the more about politics here than doing what's

right for the american people. i yield to our great colleague from the great state of ohio, john boccieri. mr. boccieri: thank you, congressman mcmahon. so let me great this straight. the pillars of this legislation are about creating jobs right here in america that can't be outsourced, when you mr. a brand new nuclear reactor, when you build an electric hybrid car, when you build an electric grid, those are jobs and those are feerls that cannot be outsourced -- jobs that cannot be outsourced. another is about national security and moving away from our dependence on foreign oil. who wouldn't be for that? let's go over this again. in 2003 a department of defense study said -- suggested that the risk of abrupt climate change should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a u.s. national security concern. the c.i.a. and other intelligence experts said that the economic disruptions

associated with climate change are projected to put pressure on weak nations that may be unable to provide the basic needs that maintain order for their civilians. . if we invs.ed in hybrid cars for 27%, gasoline, electric hybrid models, the united states could stop importing oil from the persian gulf. 64% -- 66.4% of our oil came from overseas last year. 40%, over 40% came from the persian gulf. we are fighting two wars there. our nation's military is there. it's time to bring our troops home safely, honorably, and soon, and end this addiction that we have to middle eastern oil. teddy roosevelt, a great republican, said this, in a moment of decision the worst thing you could do is nothing. what about drilling? in the senate version we are going to expand drilling here in

the united states. expand it in the gulf of mexico. we know that we can't sustain that, though, with 22 million barrels of oil consumed here in the united states every day and only 3% of the world's reserves here in the united states after we consume 25% of the world's oil, we can't sustain it. do the math. what about jobs? manufacturing. in 1950, accounted for over half of every job in america. we are at 10% now. let's produce jobs here. let's make solar panels so they can recharge our batteries. let's do things like fuel cell research. let's do electric hybrid vehicles, plug-in hybrids like we are doing in the 16th congressional district. let's research clean coal. coal is an abundant and cheap source of energy. we are going to use it, we are going to make it cleaner, and make certain it is a long and sustaining source of energy for us for years to come.

let's talk about the 8,000 manufactured parts that go into a wind turbine. can you imagine the roller bearings being made in my district, making the roller bearings for these turbines? can you imagine sara plastics making the molding that would go into making the fiberglass infrastructure? these are just that cannot be outsourced because we are going to use them. we are going to consume them right here. consume that energy right here in the united states. this is one of the most important issues that we have to tackle. this is about the longevity of our country, quite frankly, my friends. this is about what my four children will have to look forward to. a nation where we become like mike huckabee said. a nation that can't feed itself, fuel itself, or produce the weapons to fight for itself will be a nation forever enslaved. are we going to be economic slaves to a condition that we can correct? i think not. we have the courage. we can make that happen if we

can find 60 patriots in the united states senate to make sure that the united states is ending our addiction to foreign oil. mr. mcmahon: thank you, john. before i yield to my colleague from new york, i'd like to yield to the gentleman from the great state of colorado who has a very important message to the speaker this evening. mr. perlmutter: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 665, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 29920 to reinstitute and update the pay-as-you-go requirement of budget neutrality on new tax and mandatory spending legislation enforced by the threat of annual automatic sequestration. mr. perlmutter: i thank the gentlemen. and i thank them for their eloquence. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend.

referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. mr. perlmutter: i do thank the gentleman for yielding to me. i thank them for their eloquence on this energy independence issue which is so important to our country. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york, mr. mchey hon, controls the time. mr. mcmahon: thank you for your hard work on the rules committee and leadership as well on this issue of energy independence and national security. i now yield to the great gentleman from the great state of new york, paul tonko. mr. tonko: thank you, representative mcmahon. it's a pleasure to join with my colleagues in this colloquy. just yesterday and today in this nation's capital a number of people got to meet the apollo crew. they got to shake hands with astronauts who made history. they set foot on the moon. we won a space race that took and demanded a huge investment by this nation in science, technology, and growing our intellectual capacity. in creating a vision, in stating

in bold measure how we were going to reach that goal. we are at that same moment of challenge. just think of it. if we had allowed defectors that perhaps divided us or shared misinformation or preached politics of fear, we perhaps wouldn't have won that race. and that was so critically valuable and important to the american nation. to americans at large. that same sort of challenge, that sort of boldness of leadership, the demands for truthful exchange are upon us today. and to grow these opportunities we'll deal with the facts. i'm impressed by this house for the leadership and membership that has really embraced that factual information and advanced an agenda like the legislation that we are proposing -- promoting here this evening. when we look at situations as

representative boccieri made comment, we can grow jobs, but we can also grow intellect. we need to grow the brain trust of this nation. this measure invests in that development of the human infrastructure and certainly when representative contractoville talked about -- kratovil talked about previous administrations, talking about reducing our demands on foreign importation of oil, 60% of of what we consume today imported from some of the most troubled spots in the world with unstable governments, it's more than that. we have a glut us in dependency. efficiency can reduce the demand side. for far too long we did not have demeff energy policy in this nation. we addressed only the supply side and ignored the demand side. now we are talking about both sides of that equation. producing our own supplies and reducing per capita usage of that precious resource. that's what this is about. we talk about innovation.

we talk about growing those jobs. all of us have cited moments in history that have inspired us. i represent the city of sken neck taddy in upstate new york. dubbed the city that lights and hauls the world. just over a century ago they were the epicenter of invention and innovation. they allowed the world to be changed by the simple dynamics of creative genius in that location and an outstanding work force. blue collar, white collar workers that rolled up their sleeve and got the job done. well, over a century later we are at that same point where we need an energy revolution. this nation is poised for that sort of development. are are we going to walk away? i don't think so. i think it'ses that boldness of leadership that will bring -- i think it's that boldness of leadership that will bring us to the point we need to be. speaking of g.e. they are already inspired by this legislation. because we have advanced within

the framework and the multiple needs that are addressed by this legislation battery innovation, advanced battery manufacturing. batteries that can respond to energy generation, batteries that can respond to storage of intermittant power like wind and solar. and batteries that can address transportation sectors, both heavy fleets and lighter fleets. they have a battery application that they believe can respond to those multiple needs. and they have proposed at a press conference to be the cite in my -- site in my district to do advanced weightry manufacturing. they are competing for the dollars at d.o.e. that are part of this package if successful and certainly working on the input that came from the stimulus package from the recovery act, working with those applications they want to go forward and make certain that we can build in this state of mine, in new york state, and your state, michael, in a way that

will have 350 to 400 jobs in the manufacturing sector of advanced batteries. that is progress. that is stability. that is security. that is a greening up of thinking. that is job growth. that is intellectual capacity that is stretched to a far greater degree. think of it again, 40 years ago this week we accomplished our goal because we committed to that goal. we didn't stand up in the house of representatives and deny the facts or twist the facts or reject the truth. it all began with an honest exchange and that's what we are doing here. we are going to make certain the facts are addressed. mr. mack may hon: thank you, congressman tonko, you put that eloquently -- mr. mcmahon: thank you, congressman tonko, you put that eloquently. when the other side was engaged today with the long winded speeches where are the jobs? you tell them with the stimulus package and with the energy

security act, we have jobs in staten island, new york, and anywhere else we can build wind turbines and get back to technology we invented. gentlemen we have about nine minutes left or so. so maybe i could ask you-all to make a final remark and start with certainly the most youthful -- that's a tough one to say. we'll start -- mr. kratovil: i think mr. boccieri is younger than i. mr. boccieri: look younger. mr. mcmahon: who lives the closest to washington. mr. kratovil: that's fine. since this will likely be my last round here as we go through this, let me thank the three of you for the courage to take the vote that you took on this bill. as i mentioned in the last few discussions that i have had, i do think that it's important in moving our country forward that we do have people in this house that are willing to make

difficult choices and to take difficult votes that ultimately are the best for this country even at times when it's politically difficult to do so. i thank you for the courage to do that. people forget that just last year when we were run aring for office we had $4 a gallon gas. and people were looking at congress and saying what are you doing about $4 in gas? i mentioned when that was going on that what we do oftentimes in this country is we deal with the crisis but we don't always deal with the underlying issue that led to the crisis. so now as the gas prices have dropped, many have forgotten what we were facing just a year ago. many have moved on. and yet my view is, we should not forget the position we were in one year ago because we could

at any time in the future be again paying $4 a gallon, $5 a gallon for gas as long as we are held hostage by those that control our energy. and until we make a decision as we did in this vote to move forward towards renewable energy, renewable fuel, and ending our dependence on foreign oil, we could at any moment face the same situation we faced last year. and none of us as americans should forget the anger that we had last summer when we were doing that. many have forgotten. we should not forget in a. we should deal with the under-- forget that. we should deal with the underlying issue that led to the energy crisis we faced last year and that is reducing our dependence on foreign oil, moving towards renewable energy, and making positive steps in terms of our own national security. with that i yield back to you. mr. mcmahon: thank you, mr. kratovil, thank you for participating. mr. boccieri before iield to

you, i hope you will accept my heartfelt apology for even thinking that congressman kratovil could be younger than you, sir. mr. boccieri: you are forgiven this time. let me just thank my colleagues for joining us here tonight on this very important dialogue about the course of our country. now is not the time to let up off the accelerator. now is the time to put the gas down, put the pedal to the metal because this is about our national security, my friends. the c.i.a. is saying it. the department of defense is saying it. both democrats and republicans alike running for president said it last year. and a whole host of presidential candidates and presidential minds before that said that this is a matter of our national security. this is not an issue of partisan politics. it's about patriotism. this isn't an issue about democrats or republicans, it's about america. and where will our course be in

the years to come? 40% of the oil from from the middle east. our friends are putting their lives on the line for our country. let's bring that home. let's become independent. let's create jobs here in this country. let's protect our own national security and move away from our dependence on foreign oil. folks talk about the cost. what is the cost of doing nothing? what is the cost of doing nothing? we are going to outsource $1 trillion of america's taxpayer money? $1 trillion to enrich regions of the world that don't believe the same that we do? when we can believe in midwest innovation instead of relying on immediate oil? this is the time that we can -- in mideast oil? this is the time we can make the decision. this is the time to move away from the politics of the of the past and look towards the future. we can't allow the detractors to use fear as a toofl leadership when we know it is a tool of the

status quo. my friends, we will be judged by action or inaction. i'm glad we chose to act. thank you for having me tonight. mr. mcmahon: thank you, congressman boccieri. congressman, tonko. . mr. tonko: representative boccieri asked, what is the cost of doing nothing? beyond the lack of progress that we should naste this nation, this is the denial of this generation's children and grandchildren who will need those career paths developed by us. we need to cultivate that thinking that will allow them to have these new energy jobs, these new environmental jobs, these new plans for economic recovery. that's what gets really lost in the discussion. when china's now the number one producer of solar panels in the world, when germany's the number two export after cars is wind turban's, when six of the 30 top advanced battery manufacturing companies are american, we need to do better than we're doing

today. as i made mention, the space race of decades ago was an investment made by this nation in robust fashion. today we're in a green energy race with far many more global competitors. whoever wins this becomes the go-to nation. they will be the exporter of energy ideas, energy intellect, energy invention. do we want to deny this generation, future generations from those concepts? from that prize? i don't think so. and if we're going to deny them, let's at least deal with the facts. let's talk factually, let's not create a $3,100 price tag when we've been warned over and over again by the altogether of that study that it's grossly misstated. let's move forward in green fashion, let's provide for an innovation economy, let's speak to the generations of americans that are counting on to us do the job, do it thoroughly, do it correctly. thank you, representative mcmahon. mr. mcmahon: thank you, congressman tonko, for those inspiring words and thank you all, congressman boccieri, congressman kratovil,

congressman tonko. you know, it's funny, but in conclusion i think we all have hit on the very important themes. congressman kratovil, you pointed out that it is about domestic side, how much we pay for oil and gas and what happened last summer, $4 a gallon of gas, america was outraged yet somehow a year later we've forgotten that because there are those in the house of representatives of the united states congress who use misinformation and misstatement of facts to somehow take the american people's focus off what has to be done. just think about how many people you talk to at home who said, what? now i have to have an energy aud knit my house when i sell my home? we know that's not in the bill. yet there are those who on the other side of the aisle have used that misrepresentation of fact to scare the american people. and that's wrong. congressman boccieri, a great veteran, a great flier of planes for the united states military service, we thank you for your service and you reminds that

right now there are young men and women wearing the uniform of our country in placing like iraq and afghanistan and other places, standing in harm's way because we have not dealt forcefully and effectively with our energy policy and it's time that we end that. and as i said to you, coming from new york city and having lived first-hand the horrors of acts of terrorism on our shores, in our country, we cannot forget the sacrifice that was made that day by those who lost their lives and those who got to the site and came to the rescue and continue to suffer the health, the affects of their health. and lastly, congressman tonko, i ask just 30 second, mr. speaker, to conclude my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mcmahon: you remind us as president den itdy said, we choose to go to the moon, not because -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mcmahon: we must inspire this generation to do more. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: permission to address the house for five minutes, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the time. i find that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are going a bit through revisionist history again. we hear them talk over and over and over again about the things that have happened, what was happening about gas prices last year. they never mentioned that the democrats were in charge of the congress when a lot of these things that they talk about were happening. but i think it's important that we always point that out. i just -- a rule was just reported in by my colleague from the rules committee and i've

just come from the rules committee myself where we've reported out a rule for a bill that's going to be heard on the floor tomorrow called the pay as you go act of 2009. and i thought it might be important to talk a little bit about that rule and that bill tonight because i know this is going to create some confusion in the minds of the american people as to what in the world are we doing passing something called pay as you go act of 2009 here just before the august recess? it's also a confusing thing, i think, to people because they don't understand why we have to pass legislation that says you should pay for things as you go. most people in this country do that. that's what they expect us to do in the congress. but that isn't what's going to

happen. and there's several things going on with that bill that i think need to be explained. some will be explained tomorrow. but, first of all, that bill did not go to the committee, the budget committee, from which it is coming. and when i asked the chairman of the budget committee today, he said there just wasn't time to do it. we're dealing with the appropriations bills, we're dealing with the health care bill and there simply wasn't time to do that. but just like the american public expects us to read bills before we vote on them, i think they expect our bills to go through committee and go through the process of legislating. that's what we're here for. but, no, there's no time to do that. we keep hearing from from the majority party. there's no time to do what we're sent here to do. but we know that this is just another diversion on their part and i think i have an appreciation for why that's happening.

today the headline in "politico," "poll, public starts to lose trust in obama," "health time line on life support," "obama good for k street ." energy health care and financial agenda." i think what the majority wants to do is sort of take some of the attention away from some of the headlines that are coming out. one of the interesting things about this bill that's going to be dealt with tomorrow, which is it's supposed to be pay-go. you pay as you go. however, it exempts 40% of our budget. so 40% of the budget is not going to be included in pay-go. and yet they are increasing spending on that 40% of the

budget at least 8% a year. so how in the world are they going to control spending if 40% of the budget is exempt and you're allowing it to increase 40% a year? you simply ignore that. it's as though the family sits down, they're always comparing what we do here with what the family does. it's like you sit down at the family table to talk about your budget and you say, well, we're only going to deal with 60% of the budget, we're going to put 40% over here and we're just going to ignore it and we're going to spend whatever we want to on that side of the budget. that's exactly what they are doing with with this and it seems just really ridiculous and i think the american public needs to understand that a little bit. now, what they say is, well, this was all instituted in the past. republicans were just exempting things republicans exempted. but the very first pay-go bill

was passed under democrats in 1990, bipartisan effort, to try to rein in spending. but what's happened since then is they've ignored it. they even had a pay-go rule in the rules that the democrats passed when they took over the congress in 2007. but the rule is not strong enough for them so now they want to put it in statute. i think it's simply to divert attention from the headlines. the president's approval ratings are going down, the health care bill is creating many, many problems, we asked today 134 times on this floor, where are the jobs that were promised? the economy is going south and what do the democrats want to do? they want to divert the american public's attention away from all of those things and say, but we've passed the law that says we have to pay for these things

as we go along. passing this law is going to make no difference to them than their rule does. you know, i find it just so interesting that when you say you're going to do something, you don't do it, but that's normally the way the democrats do it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. carter, for half the remaining time until midnight. mr. carter: thank you, thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank my friend, virginia foxx, for getting up here and kind of giving us some indication what have we mean by pay gd. that's a very confusing word. been hearing a a lot and i haven't seen anything pay or go since they've been talking about it. but we seem to be pretty good at spending money around here and we don't seem to be very good at paying for it. just a thought here, we had a

stimulus package that was over $1 trillion and i believe that was borrowed money. we have a budget that was increased our taxes by $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years, so that's money they're coming after to pay for it but i don't think that pays for that $1 trillion. their appropriations request increase all the nondefense spending by 12% this year. and the number of months that jobs have grown under the democrats since we've got started this year is a whopping zero. so they were talking about why were we asking today on the floor of the house where are the jobs? then i heard very -- you know, i get really excited about green jobs and green energy and the things people talk about and i heard our colleagues in the previous conversation here, one

of them said that, you know, he showed us a map of the united states and he said this would create 250,000 new green jobs. i think that's fabulous. it's just unfortunate in the last month and a half we've lost 1.2 million jobs in the united states. so, they got to have a comparison. the conversation that was going on in the previous hour was about energy independence and i'm for energy independence. and any american that's got any sense at all is for energy independence. i once asked a man how big a ray of solar panels would it take to power austin, texas, this man was a physicist at the university of texas, to power austin texas for a period of time and what would that period of time be?

he said, a property size panel in a nonair conditioned time, and you know in texas it's hot, so air conditioning is our biggest problem, not heelt, in a nonair conditioned time, a properly sized panel could power austin, texas, for about an 18-hour period of time before the sun went down. and the power went away. and then you'd have to have alternative power to power it during the night. or storage capacity, which our friends were talking about. so i said, well, that doesn't sound too bad. how big would that panel be? he said, approximately the size of the panhandle of texas. which is about 280, maybe 300 miles long and about 150 miles wide. i'm not saying solar's not a

solution, but are you going to replace the coal-produced power in pennsylvania with a solar panel in today's world and do it economically? no. but it will help. and we can help on an individual basis and we can power businesses with it. let's be realistic about energy and let's go after every form of energy and clean up that energy. that's the solion to our problems. that's a real energy plan. you know, we in texas have been having an abundance of natural gas for a long time. we're real proud of our natural gas. we think it's good stuff, burns clean and we like it. and a lot of our folks up here on the east coast, they didn't like our natural gas. until they found some. and all of a sudden, guess what? they found some gas shale, a lot of gas shale, in the state of

pennsylvania, and i'm hearing an awful lot of colleagues that a year and a half ago were bad mouthing natural gas, saying, hey, natural gas sounds good. i'm with boone pickens. let's power our automobiles with natural gas, let's produce natural gas, and rightfully so. they should be proud of their resources. i'm not knocking their resources, i'm proud they've got it. . i predict there's shale from pennsylvania all the way down to texas. i think the geologists will prove t and there's a lot of natural gas in that shale and we ought to use it. that's how we free ourselves from foreign oil. we free ourselves by drilling offshore. in a clean drilling procedure which we have and we haven't spilled a drop of oil in a drilling procedure in 15 years. in the seas. and all of our spills you read about are shipping spills not drilling spills. so let's go out and seek our

energy where it is and let's create our alternative energy, wind, and solar. and let's not forget nuclear. the cleanest energy out there. ms. foxx: would the gentleman yield? i in having this energy debate that we were having a few weeks ago before the democrats passed their national energy tax, which they call cap and trade, that predict that c.b.o. -- c.b.o. predicts will levy $846 billion in new taxeses on the american people d.d. taxes on the american people -- taxes on the american people. we talked a lot about this issue. but i heard during that debate that during the last 18 months of president bush's term that his administration doubled the

use of wind and solar. and that they did that in 18 months. but they went from about 1.5% to about 3%. did the gentleman hear the same information i heard? you know, president obama has said he would double the use of solar and wind in his first four years. and yet president bush did it in 18 months. the last 18 months of his term he did it. so going ahead and doubling it again going from 3% to 6% doesn't seem to me is going to be a terribly difficult job. but i heard this also, and i'd like the gentleman to tell me, check my facts, is that at the most we are going to be able to absorb 10% of wind and solar in

our electric grid because wind and solar are not as dependable as other forms of energy and that to put more than 10% into the grid would jeopardize the nation's energy source. have you heard that figure, too? mr. carter: reclaiming my time. i do not claim to be a physicist, but i have talked with people in the power industry and because it is not a continuing flow of power but is an alternating flow of power, to make it effective over a 24-hour period, 365 days a year, the power has to be boosted. it's the only way it can be effectively done. i'm not saying it's not going to be a good source of power. most -- what's kind of interesting is most projections as to what percentage of our overall national power, wind and solar combined, actually wind,

solar, and hydroelectric combined, would be between 6% and 10%. so at maximum effectiveness -- by the way, those -- there's a lot of folks that have a lot of texas envy in this world and they are always picking on us like we don't know anything but oil and gas. let me make this very clear. we have the largest wind farm in america in the state of texas. the city of austin has the largest newnies pli owned wind powered farm of any municipality in the united states. and by the way, they are very disappointed and it was on the front page of the austin america statesman less than three or four days ago that the wind farm is not going to be -- it seems to be an unreliable source of power for them. even though it's a green source. they have been very proud of being the greenest city in america because of that wind, but over a liability and this

same different flux of power issue, the only way it can be reliable is you put a gas powered generator side by side to keep the flow going. so that's not saying i'm not for it. but i'm saying the reality is we are a long way from replacing the massive amount of power that it takes to run this machine called america from wind and solar power. ms. foxx: would the gentleman yield? i think many people don't realize that one of the things that made us such a successful nation has been the extremely reliable energy that we have had over the last 200 years. we developed energy and learned how to use it very, very well. and i believe we are the smartest people and most innovative people in the world. what helped us become a

manufacturing giant was not just our intelligence, not just our innovation. but our reliable sources of energy. i worry a great deal about our -- the pie in the sky promise that is have been made about alternatives -- promises that have made -- been made about alternatives. including foot power and walking a lot more. i do think that we have a problem because we are hearing these unrealistic expectations of how we could go to alternatives and simply abandon carbon. i don't think we can do that. you pointed out our colleagues who were here the hour before talked about the creation of 250,000 new green jobs. i wanted to point out that i have heard that spain, which went very much to green jobs and alternative energy, now has the

highest unemployment rate in europe. it appears that many of our colleagues have established europe as the standard to which we should aspire. but when you start breaking down what the situation actually is there, you'll see that simply making the goal of switching these jobs that we have now in manufacturing that are going to go away with this national energy tax, that are going to go away with the national health tax, all of these new taxes which they want to put on are going to throw jobs out of this country. we need to look a little bit deeper. i think so much of what's happened, particularly in the last year and a half, as promises were made, lots of promises were made, a lot of those promises were made in 2006, which have not been lived up to also. the american people are

beginning to see that it's easy in a campaign to make promises. a lot more difficult once you're in office to fulfill those promises. i think that's one of the things that we are seeing now. we have seen a tremendous change in our economy since the democrats took control of the congress. they keep talking about problems that they inherited, problems that president obama inherited. but as i have said earlier, they conveniently leave out the fact that in 2007 and 2008 and up until this time they have been in charge of the congress. both houses of the congress. and it's the congress that establishes the budget. it's the congress that appropriates the money. and much of the problems that we have had have come from the expenditure of money. i want to point out something.

i know that you're -- we talked today as you said earlier about jobs, jobs, jobs. 1 34 of us came to the floor today. we all needed -- i think we should have had magnifying glasses to say we are looking for the jobs that have been promised to us. that's what was promised by president obama, promised by the majority in the house. we ought to talk about the fact that during the month ofune alone the national debt increased by $223.7 billion. and as of june 30, 2009, the national debt had increased $2.9 trillion since the democrats took control of congress on january 3, 2007. that works out to an increase of

$9,342.83 per person. and we know now that the american people are getting very, very concerned about that debt and about our deficit. you pointed out the deficit earlier. but we have to keep pointing out to the american people who is in charge, who spends the money, and who is responsible for putting us into the situation that we are in. i yield back. mr. carter: that's a good point to look at this chart that another one of our colleagues prepared. he calls it o.m.i., obama misery index. those of us who have been around for a while remember the misery index was first created back during the jimmy carter administration. it was about the misery that was coming upon people by the economic woes of the country. and it's basically a combination of unemployment, that's the loss of jobs, and the accumulation of

public debt. now, as my colleague from north carolina pointed out, there seems to be an overwhelming trend in this house to blame everything on the bush administration. so let's look -- let's just assume for the sake of assumption, because remember obama got elected and sworn in as president in the latter part of of january, so we'll just make february the leftover bush stuff. because that's the next month, and i'd say it's a carryover. so the misery index was 11.6%. the blue indicating the unemployment numbers and the red indicating the public debt. how much we owe to other people. or to ourselves.

in march the next month of the obama administration, we see our unemployment has risen to what looks like about 13% and our public debt has increased by, i don't know, another 10%, something like that. so a 21.7% in march. from 11.6% to 21.7%. april it jumps to 28.0. look at the public debt. look at the unemployment. the unemployment is the huge figure here. they say we wonder why we are seeing where are the jobs? look, wait a minute. here's may. 36.2% misery index. look at the unemployment figures. they are getting off the page

here. and this month, 40.6%. oomi, o.m.i., obama misery index. look at the unemployment figures and look at the national public debt. this is just five months of the obama administration. we have gone from a ms. run decks of 11.6 to 40.6. and so somebody says why are you asking the question where are the jobs? well, because unemployment went from 9% looks like about nine, wouldn't you say, right there to 30%, roughly 31% on the index. that's not the percentage of unemployment. but that's the increase. now, there's a real good reason we are asking where are the

jobs? i did a telephone town hall tonight and i got to talk to some fine people. junction, texas, is out west of san antonio. it's not in my district. in fact i believe it's in congressman rodriguez's district or -- or it may be in lamar smith's district. it's not in my district. but the lady who was talking to me, her fean was registered in temple, texas, she told me she was calling from junction. how that happened on my telephone town hall is anybody's guess. i don't know. i didn't try to figure it out. but she -- i called a number in my district and i got a lady in junction. you go figure. i don't know how it worked. but the lady had something interesting to say. she said, by some people's analysis we would probably be one ever those rich small businesses that are going to

have to pay taxes under this new health care plan. but although we may handle a lot of livestock and a lot of cash temporarily, the reality is i'd say we are in the category of folks that are just barely scratching through the drought to get by. . and as we realize that something we can live on is very meager, along with me and my family and my boys who also in our ranching business with us. we get by on a meager amount. she said, sir, i'm worried that somebody thinks we're rich enough that they're going to put a 1% surtax on our small business. which is a ranch. now, not everybody lives in texas and lives in the southwest and they may hear the word

drought and think they understand what drought means but in texas we kn what drought means. because we've lived through a period of time back in the late 1940's and early 1950's that they wrote a book about it, "the time it never rained." and in fact it didn't rain. and cows ate prickly pear cactus and ranchers burned the thorns off the prickly pear cactus so that the cattle would something to eat because there was no grass. and the hard folks that settle in west texas and central texas worked from sun up to sun down and into the night burning what we call burning pear, burning prickly pear so their cattle wouldn't get those thorns in their lip and get infected and they wouldn't get worms and other things that were the blight of the 1950's. until we were able to eradicate

that problem. we know what hard times is in texas because we've been in hard times. and right now we're going through a drought. lake travis, which is just about 40 miles where the crow flies from my house is a huge lack. right now it's a pond. we have islands everywhere on it. it's the lowest it's ever been in memory, they tell me. i haven't been out to see it because i'm afraid i'd get too upset looking at it. but the alcra tells us they're in terrible shape for water. that lady luve living out in junction, texas, she's in terrible shape for water. and so she says to me, sir, not only am i worried about them taking my health care plan away from me, making me go on some government plan i don't want to be on, but they're talking about taxing me as if i'm rich when i'm not. i've got a family, my family and my two boys or three boys, is

running this ranch operation and we're fighting a drought and we're short on water. and we're losing livestock. and i said, ma'am, i understand. she said, that's not all. what they're doing with the fuel of this country, what they're doing with their cap and tax scheme that they've got there, i think that's going to make the cost of my farm fuel and my ranch fuel go up. and i'm worried. we cannot survive our fertilizer going up and our fuel going up, all of which comes from the petroleum industry. we can't afford it. we just can't survive it. and why do they want to do that to us? what did we do to them? i said, ma'am, i hear you. i'm sorry. you know, all my life i've lived

under a system that i believe in, i still believe in it. i think it's important that the rule of law prevail in a constitutional system of government. i think the rule of law is as sacred to democracy and to a republic as the constitution is to that republic and as to the holy book is to the church. and it is imperative to every american that we support the rule of law. it should be sacred to us, that says we say this, i think it's the -- i think it is the rotary club, but it may be another one of the clubs that says, before their club, we are a nation of laws, not of men. i think that is extremely

important for to us remember as americans. we are a nation of laws. these laws are created by this body and other bodies at the state level. those laws are not to be circumvented and no man, no matter how high a rate, no matter how much of the population votes for him, how many people love him or think he's the greatest -- or her, and think they're the greatest thing since sliced bread, they don't have the right nor the ability nor should we allow them to circumvent our laws because of their programs. it is our american responsibility to uphold the law. for 20 years i served as a judge of the highest trial court in texas at the state level. i did my best to uphold the law. those lawers were written in

books and they were passed by the texas legislature and they were passed by the united states congress and we tried our best to uphold those laws. the supreme court and the court of criminal appeals told us, interrupted -- interpreted the laws for us in texas and in the united states. and we as a court tried our best to follow that direction from our court system. because the rule of law has to prevail. i am very concerned and i express this tonight that procedures and rules are as important to an institution as anything else that there is. because they are the standard by which a group of free men and women decided to govern themselves by law. thomas jefferson, a man held in

highest regard and at least many democrats call the founder of their party, even though he called his party the republican party at the time, but times change, thomas jefferson wrote rules for this house and one of the rules has been repeated by our president of the united states and i would point out our speaker of the house. when she came in and took her oath and told us how this congress was going to operate, she said, we will give -- give this congress every time at least 72 hours to examine a piece of legislation. thomas jefferson said, three days for any piece of legislation before it's voted on, it should be given to both sides for their examination and

prermings for debate -- preparation for debate. and that three days did not include saturday and sunday. that's what -- when he wrote the rules for this house, which were followed religiously, i guess you'd say, for years and years and years, decades, that's the tradition of this house. and it has been waived for every major piece of legislation since barack obama's been elected president. as was pointed out in the last piece of legislation which had by john boehner right here on the throor of this house, they dropped 350 pages of amendments to the cap and tax bill at 2:00 in the morning to be voted on the next day. and that meant that we hasn't seen a completed bill even -- hadn't seen a completed bill even at that point of time, we

voted on it the next day. i'm not here to cry about procedures. i play under the rules that their rules committee writes. but i want you to know, when your historical procedures as american people are circumvented by this house consistently every time, you should be concerned about those who do not follow the established rule of law. this should be a concern of the american people. when the president of the united states and his white house friends go strong-arm the automobile companies into making a deal that circumvents the laws of this land, there's something wrong. and creditors' rights are

established laws of this land. and yet the bankruptcy court was perfectly willing to let the parties make an agreement. but the parties were strong-armed by the politicians in the white house, strong-armed and threatened to the point that preferred creditors gave up their rights under the law out of fear and the preferred creditors came -- became -- their rights went to the unpreferred creditors, the labor unions. and now we have the government motors, we used to call it general motors, that is owned by the federal government and the labor unions. and those people who loaned money as secured creditors for years to general motors had to

take pennies on the dollar because they were strong-armed beyond the rule of law. and i'm sorry, that's not right. if we don't stand for anything in this house, if we let our people down on every vote, if we don't try our best to stand up for the rule of law then we ought to be ashamed of ourselves. i don't care what party you're in. i respect my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and in fact many of them stand up and speak out for many of the things that i stand up and speak out for. and i am not saying this as an appointed -- as pointing a finger in terms of politics. let's throw politics out the door right now. let's talk about what our founding fathers intended for us to do if they're to keep this republic tomorrow and that is they expect to us set rules and

follow them. they expect us to honor contracts between people. now, you say to yourself, well, sure, we honor contracts between people, but i don't know about those big corporations. you know, they're so evil, maybe we shouldn't have to respect those people. so if at a time when the country, when the price of oil was $6 a barrel, if the clinton administration says, we need to get some money into this -- niece covers here, we're going to -- could havers here, we're going to sell -- coughers here, we're going to sell some offshore leases, and we'll give you a good deal, even though we know you're not going to produce them at $6 a barrel, so oil companies say, ok, we'll buy them and they buy these offshore leases, pay money for them, continue to pay money for them as they -- as the leases progress, and then lo and behold

the price of oil goes to $100 a barrel or $80 a barrel and guess what? base they start providing -- producing oil out there and we have people in this house that say, that's an excess profit. although the federal government got what it contracted for. and the oil companies got what they contracted for and we believe in the sanctity of contracts, whether they be between corporations, governments or people. and it's what keeps the glue together to our society. and yet we were willing to say we don't care what the contract says, we want it renegotiated and we're going to put economic pressure on you to do it. that's not the way we're supposed to act. we're supposed to hold the contract sacred because in reality what created our nation

was a contract, a contract called the constitution of the united states, where the states got together and said, we will surrender our sovereignty in a bargain to protect us in our national defense to work out our disputes of commerce and to make this country one nation gathered together from 13 colonies and 13 states. and that contract is sacred. and every contract that comes therefrom is sacred. and if we don't treat it that way, now, if we don't like it, change the law. that's fine. we can do that. but i am concerned when we use the power of political might to strongarm people out of their rights, under the laws of our

country. and if the republicans do it i'm going to be just as mad as them as i am about anybody else. it's not a political thing, it's what's right and what's wrong. if we don't have rules. if we don't have things we hold sacred, we are bound for destruction. we've got plenty of issues to keep us busy worrying about our country without trying to change the rules of the game. so i hope, and maybe people think that guy's half crazy standing there talking about that stuff, but i believe in this stuff. i believe passionately in the american people, in the constitution, and in the history of of this country. -- in the history of this country. you can rewrite it all you want

to, it is what it is. what makes us noble, what makes us fine, what makes us exceptional is that we are willing to for the good of the nation hold certain things important. and i would say the rule of law is what separates us. i'll tell you a story, i had the opportunity to go with the foreign operations committee down to a very lovely country, nicaragua, in central america, and when i went down there, i grew up in my colleague days i lived with a bunch of ranching boys out in west tacks and visited several of their operations out there. being a native texan we are all kind of caught up in the magic of ranch life. so i learned a little bit about what good looking country looks like and what grass looks like

that cattle will eat. and look for how much water's out there that's available for livestock. i looked at nicaragua, the part i went to, i thought, man, this is some good looking cattle country. this is -- boy, a fellow could raise a lot of nice cat until this country. there's plenty of water. you could even irrigate it because they got water that's less than 18 feet underneath the ground. you don't drink that water but you could irrigate with it. so i started asking the question, why are these poor folks having such a hard time economically? you know why? because they never quite established the rule of of law. in fact, they don't even have land titles in nicaragua. one of the things that they are trying to do with our foreign aid is somehow establish a method of land titles.

a method of saying, you bought it. here's your title. you own it. and you can sell it to the next guy. but instead they have to worry which regime is in power in nicaragua as to whether or not they get to keep their land. so after a while, after 100 years of a system like that, people start to not really invest too much in their land because you never know whose land it's going to be next year. we have the rule of law. we have land titles. we know when we buy our home and we pay for it and it's free and clear and our debts are off of it, we own that piece of ground and whatever's on top of it. we could pass it on to our children. it can be part of our accumulated wealth that makes the next generation healthier and richer and more prosperous. they don't have that ability. and yet they got a beautiful place and a potential.

what's missing? the rule of law. it's sad. it's sad to think a bunch of nice people who need to make that country work are limited by the fact that men and their political strength are overpowering what they should have which is the rule of law. i do not mean this as any criticism of the country of nicaragua. and i hope it's our goal as americans to try to help them establish the rule of law, especially the rule of land titles. i think it's important. my point is our forefathers gave us that blessing. when we count our blessings, sometimes we forget some of of it is right there in -- some of it is right there in that constitutional document we have. i had somebody from dell computer tell me that they --

what they have to sell is what's in their minds, what they have created from their brains. guess whose country wrote it into their founding document that your intellectual property belongs to you? the united states of america. it's in our constitution. that what you create with your creativity belongs to you and you have an ownership right in it and you can enforce it in a courtroom. the rest of the world is coming around to that, but what we have been given is so many blessings by forward thinking people in our past. i'm here tonight as we talk about all these issues of the economy and what's going on, i just don't let us forget that this is not a country of men. this is a country of laws. and the way we operate on this floor of this house and the way

we operate at the courthouse and the way we operate as human beings is governed by the rule of law. if we ever lose that, we lose our country. we've got lots of issues going on right now. we've got health care. we've got this cap and trade or cap and tax bill that's supposed to be protecting the environment. we've got run away spending. we've got mounds of debt that's mountain up in every direction. the debt figure is unbelievable. all of these things should be dealt with through this body and its democracy and its democratic principles. that's the way it should be dealt with. the rule of law. if we do that, we will have met our obligation to the people who sent us here.

and i challenge both sides to let the rule of law rein in. let's -- reign here. let's don't stop debate, let's talk. everybody says we need bipartisanship. how can you have bipartisanship if one side writes a 2,000-page bill and the other side doesn't get to do anything but say yes, i like it, or no, i don't. how in the world is that bipartisan? you know i think our founding fathers really thought you're going to have liberals over here, you are going to have conservatives over here and you're going to try to address an issue and you are going to sit down at a table and talk about what you can and what you can't do and you're going to come up with a solution. i think that's what they thought we were going to do. we are not doing it right now. and i do honestly believe it would work. and i think there's an awful lot

of people that sit in this room every day that feel the same way. let's have the courage to do that. let's follow the direction of our forefathers. let's remember our history and let's start talking to each other. instead of imposing our will one group of men and women opposing their will on another group of men and women. i really don't think that's what we intended when this house was created. we like to say this is the greatest deliberative body in the world. it's the cradle of democracy. it's the cradle of freedom. that liberty was born here and thrives here. if liberty is born here and thrives here, it's up to us to continue to keep her breathing and keep her thriving. and i don't believe we do it by ignoring the rules or changing

the rules. i believe we do it by working together to come up with solutions. and probably kind of like the good verdict you get in the courtroom, if you give a verdict in the courtroom and both sides are not completely happy, you probably got the best verdict you ever could create. but if you got a verdict that only one side gets everything and the other side gets nothing, it probably wasn't the right thing. nine times out of 10. the best thing to do -- i was always happy if both sides walked out mad at me i figured we did a good job. because at least both sides had some give and take that would happen in the courtroom. that's where we ought to be in here. when it's over with, both sides ought to say, we didn't get all our way but at least we got something done. and we didn't impose the will of man over the will of law over the rule of law. i guess i just felt like preaching this late at night and

that's probably enough of all that. i do ask that the people back home, now we are not supposed to address the people back home, but will i say that every man and woman in this house are addressing life changing issues now and will be in the very near future. that the amount of accumulated job loss and debt is getting critical for all of us whether we be in this house or whether we be at home. and let's all try to work together to come up with something that will work. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. braley, for 60 minutes.

mr. braley: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm here tonight on behalf of the populace caucus which is a caucus i founded this year along with many that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks colleagues who felt there was not enough emphasis in this chamber to discussing values that promote and expand the middle class. so one of the reasons that we founded this caucus was to provide a voice that was going to be consistent in pursuing policies and adopting

legislation that were going to help promote opportunities for middle class families to survive and also to expand opportunities for people to enter the middle class because we all feel and this country's history has shown that this country does best when we have a large robust middle class and that's why when we passed the populace caucus values, these are the primary things we wanted to focus on. good jobs, middle class tax cuts, affordable health care, quality education, fair trade, consumer protection, and corporate accountability. now, some of those basic values have been part of the ongoing discussion in terms of our health care reform bill that is currently pending in the house of representatives. as a member of the house energy and commerce committee and the health subcommittee, much of my time this year has been consumed in making sure that the health

care bill that we are putting forward addresses these values, particularly affordable health care, consumer protection, and corporate accountability. so today the populist caucus announced its health reform principles. i'm going to spend some time tonight talking about those principles, talking about the importance of these principles to middle class families and those seeking to enter the middle class, and then sharing some stories from constituents of mine back in iowa's first district who are struggling right now to provide for their families and address growing health care burdens that affect every american. no matter where they live, no matter what they do, as we have seen over and over and over again, health care costs continue to grow every year. they represent a larger and larger share of our gross

domestic product. we see more and more families faced with the burden of bankruptcy because of unsustainable health care costs that aren't covered by their insurance plans. we see more and more americans without any insurance at all, almost 50 million uninsured americans. we also see many americans who are underinsured. that is they are taking policies out that don't provide them the type of coverage they need because they can't afford either to buy their own coverage, if they are self-employed, or if they are without employment, or many of them have insurance offered through their employerser who are increasingly forced to put more and more of the burden of that insurance coverage on to their employees. one of the reasons why we have been having this national conversation about health care reform is because we have to come up with a system that works for the american people and finally realizes the goal