expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. brady: mr. speaker, what is the speaker trying to hide? last week america got the first peek at what the democrat plan would look like. what people saw based upon the economists at the joint economic committee is 31 new programs in between them and their doctors. ensuring that unelected bureaucrats will choose what doctors they can see, what treatments they deserve, what medicines they can receive. this is not the type of health care system americans want. but today the democrat house is blocking republicans from sharing this important flow chart with their constituents. wry we sensoring the american congress? why are we preventing the public from seeing what the democrat health care plan will do?

we deserve our -- our public deserves the right to know what our health care will do their lives and their families' lives. it is time to let america know, stop the sensoring, let us share the health care chart with our constituents. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from minnesota rise? mrs. bachmann: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. bachmann: in congress, this is considered contraband. this is very controversial. even though this represents the democrats' health care plan, we are not as members of congress, allow to put -- allowed to put this chart up on the websites or allowed to send this out to our constituents. what are they worried about? because this is the latest board game in the united states? that the american health care consumer stands on this side of

31 bureaucracies and they have to figure out how to get through 31 bureaucracies before they get to their doctor? or could it be, mr. speaker, because this will cost five million jobs, or cowl it be, mr. speaker, because this will cost $2 trillion in additional deficit. i can understand why the democrats wouldn't want the american people to see this. but i don't understand how you can make the claim that this is the most transparent congress in the history of the country if you won't let the american people see that there are 31 bureaucracy this is a stand between average americans and their doctor. it's time the american people get to see the truth. this shouldn't be contraband. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. burton: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. burton: i can't believe it. the democrats have 70-something

more members in this chamber than we do, yet they're afraid to let the american people know what's in their health plan. this thing, and i call it a thing, has 31 new federal agencies, commissions, and mandates in it. that's between the doctor and their patient. and the american people have a right to know these things. and they're saying we can't put it on our website. we can't mail it to our constituents. we can't tell them about it. that is censorship. they shouldn't have to worry. with 70-something more votes than we have, they ought to be able to do anything they want to in this house. even democrats don't like this plan, that's why they can't get it out of the house or even out of committee right now. the american people have a right to know, censorship should never happen in the house of representatives, the people's house. i say to the speaker, let's get with it. the american people should see what they're going to get if they pass your plan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the

gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: -- mr. gohmert: to address the house for one minute if i'm not speaker -- censored. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized he won't be censored. mr. gohmert: in the american revolution, voluntary was quoted for saying, i disagree with what you say but i will defend to the death your right to say it. the revolution is turned on its head. now we're told you cannot use government resources to use the term government-run health care because that offends the majority so they are censoring the mail, censoring the resources here. but now, we are, until they turn off the mics and lights again this year, we are able to hold posters here on the floor. there's another thing that's been censored. mr. speaker, this is outrageous.

just because anybody disagrees with what we say, it's no reason to shut down our right to say it. this country can't proceed with this kind of censorship. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lungren: mr. speaker, i serve on the franking commission for this body and the purpose of the commission is to make sure that government resources are not used in a way that would look like it's campaign purposes. that is, we are very careful about how many times you use the personal pronoun i, how many times you can have your picture in a newsletter. but never in the history of this house have these rules been used to censor members from articulating a point of

view on an issue that is before this house. this chart has been introduced into the record, the official record of consideration of the health bill before the ways and means committee. and yet we have been told by the majority, we've been told it's been taken above the level of those of us on the commission, we've been told they cannot -- we cannot use this. why? because they disagree with our opinions expressed herein. i didn't know that one the obligations of the minority was to accept censorship because the majority does not want our efforts to get in their way of passing a health bill that takes control of health away from people and puts it in the government. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. are there further one-minute requests? the chair announces a correction to an earlier vote

tally, on ral call vote number 628, the ayes were 105 and the nays were 328. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. burton: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. poe, yull 30, for five minutes, mr. jones, july 30, for five minutes, and mr. lungren, today, for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. woolsey: i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following member mace be permitted to address the house for five minutes to revise and extend their remarks and include

therein extraneous material. ms. woolsey, california, mr. salazar, colorado, mr. -- mrs. maloney, new york, ms. kaptur, ohio, mr. defazio, oregon, mr. spratt, south carolina. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previoused orer of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mr. poe of texas. >> i ask unanimous consent to take the gentleman's time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. burton: mr. speaker, i've been in this house for a long time. i've served with a number of presidents. i served with a number of democrat and republican speakers. i've nerved -- served with

colleagues that are good friends of mine who are democrats and republicans. i have never had a problem getting along with them an even though we have strong differences with my democrat colleagues, at least i felt they were fair most of the time. in fact they always tried to be fair. and i've talked to the majority leader about problems, we've talked to a lot of members, the chairmen of committees, about problems. they've been very fair in most cases. but i have never, ever, seen anything like this. this is a chart that shows the democrats' health care plan. we've been talking about it tonight. kevin brady worked this up and it's very, very accurate. it shows all the committees, agencies that are going to be created the american people will have to go through to get health care. there are 31 new federal agencies, commissions, and mandate this is a will come between patients and their doctor.

now, we have had problems dealing with the post office. you know the post office has had their stamps going up because they're not making the profit they should. we have problems with h.h.s., we have problems with the automobile industry now that's now call odd because ma motors. we have all -- obama motors. we have all kinds of problems because the government cannot handle things the private sector can. we do need to improve health care. we need to make change this is a will be positive. the republicans have a plan to do that. to say this is something we should not show the american people is really tragic. it is censorship. the american people have a right to know. we're their elected representatives. i represent almost 700,000 people in indiana a lot of them are calling asking what the new health care plan is going to do to them. we wanted to send this to them to see what they're going to have to go through to get

health care. how much it's going to cost and how long it will take. but they're saying, the democrats are saying, we cannot send this out to our constituents. that is just wrong. it's censorship. in all the years i've been in this body, i've never seen anything like it. there have been a lot of differences with the speakers and democrats in the past, but there's never been anything like this. i say to the speaker, if she were here tonight, change this, madam speaker. this is something even you should never tolerate, the censorship of a member of congress from telling his constituents what's really going on around here, especially when their health care is concerned. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, five americans soldiers have been killed in afghanistan so far this week. that brings the death toll in july to 31. making this the deadliest month for our troops since the

conflict in afghanistan began. we also passed another tragic milestone this week. according to official department of defense statistics, over 5,000 american troops have now died in iraq and afghanistan combined. of course, the human tragedy is even greater than that, because the 5,000 figure doesn't include the number of wounded american troops or the casualties suffered by the troops of other nations. it also doesn't include iraqi civilian casualties or the military family members whose lives have been devastated. the human tragedy is so great, you can't really calculate it. you must add in afghanistan civilian casualties as well. what has been the reaction of this, in this congress to the catastrophe? well, we passed yet another supplemental funding bill to keep the fighting going.

but the situation in afghanistan is becoming more and more dangerous. the u.s. command expects that roadside or suicide bombings against our troops will be 50% higher this year than last year. the first week of june alone, there were more than 400 attacks, the highest level since 2001. the pentagon has admitted that we are losing troops at an alarming rate. i voted against the sup represental funding bill because 90% of it pays for the military only approach that h been such a failure in afghanistan. less than 10% of the supplemental goes to pay for nonmilitary activities that can actually prevent extremism in afghanistan. these include economic development, reconstruction, humanitarian aid, civil affairs, and diplomacy. even national security advisor

james jones has said that nonmilitary approaches are vital and that they have always been lagging. well, it's time for them to stop lagging, mr. speaker. it's time to put those ideas front and center. we must also launch a new regional diplomatic surge that engages afghanistan's neighbors in efforts to help the afghan people and strengthen the central government's ability to deliver services and protect the citizens. in addition to afghanistan, we must also pay attention to other parts of the world where extremists take advantage of poverty and lack of opportunity to recruit new members. in these areas, america must invest in basic human needs like jobs, like health, education, education especially for girls and women who are often completely shut out of the classroom. this is what the people want. this is what they need from

america, not more invasions, not more occupations. this is what would bring real hope for the people's future and this is what will help to avoid adding extremists in the first place. mr. speaker, by changing and supporting smart power over other priorities and goals, we can give the gun -- we can give the people of afghanistan help. we can help them build a stable and functioning state. we can save the lives of our troops, and we can go a long way toward defeating extremism and stopping those who threaten our national security. . and it would save billions of dollars as well. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. mr. jones, north carolina. >> i ask unanimous consent to assume the gentleman's time.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: good evening. since the wright brothers left the ground for the first time at kitty hawk, aviation has fascinated our collective imagination, contributed to unprecedented interaction among people, and grown to become one of the most important industries in our nation. whether it was aviators of the past like charles lindhburg or amelia erhardt or those more recently steve fosset who flew a solo trip around the world, aviation has a unique ability to capture our attention and inspire us to achieve things we once thought were impossible. advances in aviation technology and engineering have led to the development of larger, faster, more fuel efficient planes that carry passengers and goods around the world. the ease of travel and shipment of modern aviation allows -- has contributed to worldwide economic growth and new opportunities for leisure traveler for far more people than ever before.

and in america the aviation industry accounts for more than $1 trillion in economic activity each year. millions of americans are employed by this critical industry that facilitates so many other economic transactions. as a kansan i take special pride in the aviation industry which has deep roots in our state. pioneers in the industry such as glen steerman, walter beach, clyde cessna, all have important connections to the sunflower state. many of these innovators helped establish wichita as the air capital of the world. today a who's who of aviation companies operate in the city of wichita, including boeing, airbus, cessna, spirit aerosystems, and raytheon. in kansas the aviation industry accounts for about 20% of our state's manufacturing employment and employs tens of thousands of kansanses. engineers, machinists, exmechanics, scientists are dedicated to producing the best aircraft in the worrell.

these employees take great pride in what they do and they deserve our support. yet the industry faces significant challenges. the recession has hit aviation hard and many workers have lost jobs. during the difficult times that we are in, congress especially needs to be supportive of this critical component of america's manufacturing base. efforts to demagogue about the use of private planes and business aviation by private corporations harms this industry. i was troubled in january during the consideration of the tarp reform and accountability act that provisions to limit business from leasing or using general aviation for business purposes were almost included in that final legislation. doing so would have lowered the national aviation production and hurt workers everywhere, but especially in kansas, where more than 54% of our country's aviation products are manufactured. congress must remember the importance of this industry not only to our national economy but to so many local and regional economies within the country.

it is in our collective interest to protect and encourage growth in the general aviation community. as a member of the congressional aviation caucus, i work to inform and educate members of congress about the importance of this industry to our nation. congress is right to once again reject the user fee proposal that would have further harmed general aviation. user fees would have unfairly burdened the aviation industry. congress must continue to impose unnecessary taxes or fees on general aviation. those in congress must also question and fight the impractical regulations such as the transportation security administration's large aircraft security proposal, which would apply to many planes owned by individuals and small companies. when it comes to key american industries, aviation is at the top of the list. i encourage my colleagues to join me in pledging to do all we can to promote aviation through responsible policy. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. salazar. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york rise?

mrs. maloney: i ask unanimous consent to claim time for five minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. maloney: thank you. mr. speaker, the american medical association has given a ringing endorsement of h.r. 3200, america's affordable health choices act. this legislation contains a strong public insurance option which would guarantee that quality, affordable health care is available to all americans. the a.m.a. hasn't always been onboard with health care reform. many of us remember their opposition to president clinton's efforts. yet the a.m.a. and the millions of doctors it represents now realize that the status quo system is broken. they understand the urgency of the problem and they recognize that the pending bill is a major part of the solution. the a.m.a.'s strong voice joins the chorus of americans who want this congress to pass a health care reform bill that includes a

public option. nearly 3/4 of all americans want the option to participate in a government administered health insurance plan that competes on a level playing field with private insurers. popular support for the public option is not a partisan issue. 71% of independent voters support the public option and so do half of all republican voters. americans want this bill, they want the public option, and they want us to act now. americans understand the critical role the public option plays in slowing skyrocketing health care costs. a government administered plan can provide quality insurance at a low cost leading by example to make the health care market more efficient. efficiency will save families money. if we fail to act, the cost of health care for the average family of four will rise by

$1,800 annually for years to come. the public option is not just important for families, it's also key to putting our nation's economy on the road to a full and sustainable recovery. if we don't contain health care costs, then our nation's budget deficit will continue to spiral out of control. let us be very clear, the public option is not an attempt to drive private insurers out of business. some state governments already offer their employees a choice between public and private health insurance, and private insurers have faired just fine. a public option is critical to containing the health care cost that is weigh so heavily on our nation's families and our nation's economy. the public option does what a good private policy should do. it promotes primary care. it caps out-of-pocket spending

so that a family medical crisis no longer means a family financial crisis. it establishes shared accountability between doctors, patients, and the insurer. it institutes new payment structures to promote critical reforms. it will ensure that patients are able to get the medically effective treatments their doctors recommend. in short, it provides high quality care at an affordable price. just like private plans, the public option will be financially self-sustaining. receiving no special government funding beyond a loan to get it off the ground. the public plan will be bound by exactly the same rules that regulate private insurers. in other words, the public plan will compete on a level playing field with private insurers. some powerful industries have spoken out against the public option. they prefer the status quo where

decisions about that treatment that a patient receives are determined according to a company's bottom line rather than according to what a patient needs. on the side of meaningful reform the most important voice of all is calling for the inclusion of a public option. that loud chorus is the voice of the american people. now is the time to listen to them. now is the time for health reform and a strong public option. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. mr. lungren. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. lungren: mr. speaker, when i served in this house the first time around, the cold war was still ongoing and there was a term that often appeared in the press, it was called, samizdat. that word was used to describe communications which conveyed the opinions of people disfavored by an oppressive regime. it was the personally published commentary among peoples who felt they were oppressed in communist countries.

why? because their opinions were not allowed to be expressed in the official press. today we have a situation in this house in which mr. herger, mr. lamar smith, mr. lamborn, mr. bonner, mr. westmoreland, mr. olson, mr. shuster, mr. roskam, mr. mccotter, mr. gingrey, mr. fleming, mr. boustany, mr. conaway, mr. price thus far have been refused by the majority permission to express their point of view with respect to one of the most critical issues facing our country, that of reforming our health care system. one of the most distinguished members of this body, a member of the ways and means committee, congressman kevin brady from texas, working with the

republican economic staff of the joint economic committee came up with this chart outlining what we believe to be the bureaucratic nightmare contained in the majority's proposal for health care. now, the majority disagrees. with our interpretation of the facts. that's part of politics. that's part of this body. but the majority has now said we will not allow you in the minority to use any official communications mechanisms to share your view of the impact of this legislation on your constituents. why does this seem strange? it just happens in 1993 when we were faced with what later became known as hillary care, an

attempt by the clinton administration to take over health care by the federal government, at that time republicans also came up with a flow chart that showed the bureaucratic morass that would result from that proposal. and i have with me a copy of the permission from the franking commission at that time that this be allowed. the only difference i can see between the two charts is that one is in black and white and one is in color. what has happened in the interim? well, hillary care was defeated. the president has said we can't stand to defeat his particular proposal. that they somehow have all of the answers. now, some people may say, what is it that the franking commission is supposed to do? what are your rules? the rules have been established essentially to make sure that members do not abuse the right

of communication by turning their publications into campaign pieces. so we limit the number of pictures you can have there. the number of references that can be made to the member himself or herself. but to give you an example of what we on the republican side have approved, i have a newsletter that has gone out by one of the members on the democratic side in which the claim is made that the stimulus package has helped create and save 3.5 million american jobs. i think that's absurd. i think that is a point of argument. but i don't believe that we ought to stop a member of congress from the democratic side from making that assertion to his constituents. i have another one with me that was approved which a democratic member has claimed 3.5 million jobs nationwide have been

created, 215,000 jobs in new york, 7,200 jobs in her particular district. and then i have a copy of a letter that was approved last year from the speaker herself in which she says the new direction congress, that's how she defines it, also fought to increase compensation nor our -- for our troops in the face of opposition from the bush administration. then goes on to criticize the president even though he signed it. we disagree with the characterizations that were in speaker pelosi's letter. but we didn't think it was our purpose to sensor her -- censor her. let's get rid of sensorship and allow the american people to hear the facts that they are argued on both sides. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. ms. kaptur of ohio. mr. defazio. mr. spratt.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. wamp is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. wamp: i thank the speaker. what we will see over the next 60 minutes is a conversation here on the floor of the united states house of representatives about our economy, this issue of energy, and innovation. frankl our free enterprise system in the future, the role of the government, and i think the problems with excessive spending. but i want to open by talking a little bit about how i have vested my time and energies as a member of the house over these last 15 years, because it's a privilege to serve my last term here in the house as i'm a candidate for the governor of the state of tennessee now, but i'll tell you, i am one on the republican

side that's been extraordinarily active on alternative energy. for eight years, i chaired the renewable energy and energy efficiency caucus here in the house with congressman, now senator, mark udall of california. we built a caucus of over half the house, almost evenly divided between democrats and republicans and javow kated while the republicans were in majority, for investments in renewable technologies. none of us got as far as we'd like to have gotten, but we need to be realistic about how far we have gotten and what the capacity is for renewable resources today. in 2005 we wrote the energy act, some people didn't like it, others did. it had more investments in the renewable and energy efficient sectors than any bill signed into law before. i was proud to write the

language in the bill. i've got a long history on alternative energy and moving toward new sources. but i voted against the recent cap and trade legislation because the differences today are not differences in goals or motives, because i think all members of the house want the united states too move away, as much as possible, from fossil fuels or dirtier ways to create energy. for our country's competitiveness. but the fact is, we have not developed these alternative sources yet to move as rapidly away as the leadership of the congress now proposes. if we're going to remain competitive. their approach is much more a regulatory approach and our approach is much more an innovation and technology approach. a year and a half ago, i was in china, in shanghai, where you couldn't see from one side of

the river to the other. extraordinarily bad pollution. 10 we broached the subject with the chinese, where are you on the environment. basically the answer you get from the chinese is, you're entitled to your industrial revolution, we're entitled to ours. there's a big difference between when the united states had their industrial revolution and china having theirs now if there's no environmental regulation. because they're literally 1/5 of the world's population and climbing and they are far and away the biggest polluters in the world. if you think they're doing a cap and trade scheme to regulate their pollution, or their air quality, or their carbon emissions, you're kidding yourself. they're exactly the opposite. here we are, seriously considering a scheme that will dramatically regulate our productivity and our

competitiveness, raise the cost energy, frankly, raise taxes to pay for it, and at the worst time since the great depression, strangle our ability, actually, pull out of this economic downturn. and that is the beauty of american innovation. not long ago, i was personally speaking with the prime minister of australia. he was telling me that he had great hope for the future because the u.s. had such innovation that we would lead the world out of this economic ma lace. i've got to tell you, we are now moving more toward big government regulation and the lack of innovation than at any time in modern history, instead of moving toward it. i think this is a challenge we share in the house but we have got to get back to a reasonable middle ground because american innovation is the only way to turn this economy aaround. our entrepreneurship is the beautiful, what i call the goose that lays the golden egg.

the engine that creates the revenues to get back to the balanced budget. that's how it happened in the 1990's. we did slow spending to below the rate of growth, but it was innovation. we led the world so long in the information revolution that income was greater than spending. we could have a robust, u.s.-led new energy solutions instead of this regulatory scheme that says we're going to actually limit the amount of energy that can be produced by certain sources and mandate a certain amount by other sources and the harsh reality is those sources are not available. the irony of ironies on the floor of this house is that the very people who are opposed to coal and clean coal and new investments on how to better

use fossil resources are the same people, many of them, like the gentleman from massachusetts and the gentleman from california, whose very names this legislation is under, waxman and markey, that are anti-nuclear. the one single technology in the united states that can rapidly move us away from fossil eelect trissties production, they're against it too. so if you're against nuclear and coal, what you end up being for is a lack of electricity and a lack of energy and a lack of competitiveness and a lack of innovation and a lack of manufacturing and the question was asked on the floor earlier this week, where are the jobs? i hate to admit this, but a lot of those jobs are in china and india and they're going other places, that's where the jobs are. because our manufacturing sector is leaving because we're not unleashing the innovation and the entrepreneurship and the incentives for people to take risks and invest.

just the opposite. back to back, behind this cap and trade scheme, which is a big regulatory and tax burden on the american people, and small business, then you talk about this health care scheme? this is a one-two punch that lands america flat on its back. i've got to tell you, the american people are turning against it, that's why the majority party can't pass the bills even through the committees. they've punted for the week even though they're in a big hurry because they want to do it before their approval rating falls too low and they don't have the capital to do it. why would you rush the largest transformation in history through before your political clout evaporates? that's an un-american approach. we've got people on the floor that want to speak, dr. virginia foxx, outstanding member from north carolina comes, i want to yield her such time as she may consume.

ms. foxx: i want to thank my colleague from tennessee, mr. wamp, who -- whose loss to this house is going to be immeasurable, his contribution here in the house of representatives, representing his district in tennessee, has been outstanding. not only has he done a fantastic job as a legislator, but his leadership in our weekly prayer breakfast has been exemplary. i should think of some better adjectives to say, but exemplary will have to do. he is really a tremendous role model for all of us in his attendance, in his caring for others, and he is going to be very much lost -- missed in the house when he leaves here. he didn't pay me to say that, he didn't know i was going to say that, but it needs to be said.

fortunately, we have him for the next 17 months, still in the congress, and i'm very, very grateful to him. he has set the stage very well on this issue of the cap and trade bill. which the majority in this house pushed through the house with no chance for people to read, a 300-page amendment brought to the rules committee at 2:30 in the morning, and then the bill brought to the floor later that day. there's a lot of sentiment out in the public now by the american people about the fact that people voted for that bill without having read it. now fortunately, for our side, most of us voted against the bill. we knew pieces of it and we knew there was enough bad in that bill to vote no because the bill is going to do a lot

of negative things in this country. it's going to raise taxes, it's going to raise the cost of utilities. the president warned, during his campaign last year, he admitted it, we're quoting him he admitted that under his energy plan, utility rates would necessarily skyrocket. well, skyrocketing means probably an average of $3,000 more to pay for energy for the average family. the average family. is going to have to pay over $3,000 a more a year for energy. the american people deserve better. as my colleague from tennessee, mr. wamp, said, we are the most innovative people in the world and the reason we are the most innovative people in the world is because we are the freest people in the world. this country was founded on the concept of freedom, founded on

the concept of innovation. many people don't realize that until this country was formed, never before had people believed that they weren't the property of another human being. we believed in freedom. god-given freedom. that's what formed this country. now, through the people in charge of this congress, the democrats in charge of this congress, and a democrat president, they are working at every level of our lives, every aspect of our lives, to take away that freedom. they want to take away our ability to have low-cost energy. many people also don't make the connection between the fact that the reason we were such a manufacturing power house for so long was that we had low-cost, reliable energy. india and china didn't have low-cost, reliable energy. they couldn't count on having the energy they needed to run

their plants 24 hours a day, seven days a week like we did. it helped us tremendously to become a manufacturing powerhouse. but with the cap and tax bill and the concepts that the democrats have put forward, tst going to seriously -- it's going to seriously undermine that ability. we want -- republicans want us to be energy independent. i am highly insulted when over and over the president and the leadership of the majority party say, that republicans don't have an answer. we just want the status quo. that we're the party of no. we're not the party of no. we're the party of doing things right. let's stick with what has worked in this country over the years. we can look at europe and see what they've done. they tried cap and tax. what has it done? bankrupted them. spain wanted to create lots of green jobs, they said. they have the highest unemployment rate in europe.

over 15%. we can look across the ocean and see how this has failed and it just is mind-boggling that the people who are in charge of this congress, and in the white house, think that they can replicate what was done in europe and have a depincht outcome. it's never happened before -- and have a different outcome. it's never happened before, it's never going to happen again. as my colleague from tennessee said, we are facing one of the greatest takeovers of our freedoms through cap and tax and the health care plan that's being proposed. but you know, the american people are still in charge. they stopped a bad immigration bill a couple of years ago that was being debated in the senate. they stopped it cold. we can stop these things too. what i'm urging people to do is you don't have to write to most of us, all of us are going to be on the floor tonight, and

say, don't vote for this health care plan. we know that. we're not going to do it. cap and tax passed the house, gone to the senate. but put the pressure on your senators and write to somebody who lives in a district that's -- who is represented by someone who voted for cap and tax and tell them you're going to remember that, they're going to remember that. encourage them to do that. we have other eloquent members on the floor tonight who want to speak on this issue, i'm going to yield back to my good friend, mr. wamp, from tennessee. . mr. wamp: she raised two issues i want to address before yielding to the gentleman from georgia. one, she said sometimes republicans be are called the part of no. i would say to the gentlelady, if that means saying no to tax increases and large rate increases in your electricity

bills at a time of economic duress by the people we represent, then, yes, we would be the party of no. she said something about bad legislation was stopped. i remind the people that the immigration reform proposals were made by a republican president and they were wrong and republicans in the congress stopped the president from going forward with that. one question i would ask today is, at what point are the democrats in the majority here going to stop the democrat president from a wrong-headed proposal when the american people are clearly against it? yet that is where you have to stand up and say this is not only bad for america, mr. president, it's bad for our party. and we said that. and immigration reform did not go forward under bush because it was wrong-headed and the american people weren't for it. and here today we would ask, are you just going to follow the president of the united states and his chief of staff down this

very liberal road? for how long? and for the 52 so-called blogs -- blue dogs, it's going to be a real test. what are you for? more for the liberal leadership of your party or the values that you say that you represent? i'd like to yield to the gentleman from georgia, dr. browne, who has been a really dynamic member of congress in his relatively short tenure, but he worked a long time and worked really hard to get here. he brings a depth of experience. yield to dr. broun of georgia for as much time as he may consume. mr. broun: thank you, mr. wamp. i appreciate you yielding me some time. mr. speaker, government is growing, freedom is going. many of us came to the floor through special orders and said where are the jobs? mr. wamp very eloquently told you, mr. speaker, where the jobs

are. they are going to china and yeas and nays are ordered and sri lanka and all the different countries around the world where the energy cost and the environmental regulations aren't such a hamper to industrial growth and development. mr. speaker, i have several manufacturing plants in my district in northeast georgia that have told me that if that tax and trade, cap and tax bill passes the u.s. senate, that they are just going to have to lock the door. they are going to lock the door. and all the people who are working in those factories in northeast georgia are going to be out of work. right now today, this very day many of the counties in my 10th congressional district of georgia have unemployment rates pushing over 14%. in georgia just a couple days ago it was announced that the

state unemployment rate is 10.1%. today in augusta, georgia, which because of all the job producing entities that have to do with government, state and federal government such as the eisenhower army hospital on fort gordon, the savannah river site, the department of energy facility in my good friend gresham barrett's district. and the medical college of georgia, my alma mater, those four entities plus the v.a. hospital, we have two in augusta, georgia, those give a buffering effect to job losses. but in augusta, georgia, it's 10.1% now from what i understand. so where are the jobs? they have left. and why? if you look at what has happened, we see over and over again our colleagues on the democratic side blame george w.

bush for this bad economy and all the things that are going on today. i heard members of the democratic party just this week blame the stagnation and poor economy on george w. bush. george bush was a big spending president, no question about that he did create some deficit and debt. no question about that. i was against that. i wasn't here during most of that period of time in congress, but the last almost two years of his presidency i was here and i voted against every big spending bill, every tax increase. but i want to remind you, mr. speaker, and i want to remind the american people if i could speak to them directly, that it's been under democratic leadership for the last 2 1/2 years that most of the jobs have been lost. and if we look at the deficit and debt that's been created just in the last six months under this democratic

administration and under the rule of nancy pelosi and harry reid and congress, we have seen more debt, more deficit created than george bush ever thought about doing. the democrats need to quit talking about george w. bush because it's their deficit, it's their debt. then they passed this tax and trade bill, call it that, also call it cap and tax because it's about taxes. the president himself a few weeks ago said that he had to pass this cap and trade bill to be able to fund his health care reform. now, what's that mean? it means that he needs the revenue. it's about revenue. of it's not about the environment. in fact, that bill if it passes in the u.s. senate is going to cost more jobs. and it's going to hurt the very

people that i hear over and over again that the democrats claim that they represent. they claim the republicans only represent big business, but actually, mr. speaker, it's the democratic nic party that represents the big -- democratic party that represents the big business because big business pros first under big government. it's small business that we as republicans represent, and this energy bill that sitting over in the senate is going to hurt small business. it's going to hurt everybody. it's going to hurt the poor people because they are going to be paying for higher energy cost. dr. foxx was talking about it and i think my good friend, mr. wamp, from tennessee was saying that everybody in this country's going to have to pay more. they are going to pay more for gasoline. when you flip on the light switch in your home, are you going to pay more for that electricity.

when you go buy groceries, you are going to pay more for groceries. when you go to the drugstore to buy your medications, are you going to pay more. because those energy costs are going to be passed to every single good and service in america. every single one. it's been estimated that it's going to cost because of higher energy cost, the average family, dr. foxx was saying, over $3,100 per average family in america. some people try to refute that. the m.i.t. scientist, economists, actually, said, well, we are taking this a little out of context. but the thing is what he looks at is not what's going to cost people out of there pocketbook. in reality is going to cost every average family in this country over $3,100 per average family for higher energy cost if that bill passes the u.s.

senate. so we are going to lose jobs. we are going to lose jobs because small businesses are going to have a hard time paying the energy cost with this tax and trade bill that this house passed. and all small business could do is increase the cost of their goods and services to the public. or they have to cut back, and/or they have to cut back on their expenses and the way they do that is by letting people go or reducing salaries or cutting hours to their employees. so the average worker in this country is going to take home less money if that tax and trade bill passes the u.s. senate. this health care reform bill that we hear the democrats are going to bring before the august break is going to cost more jobs. how many jobs are these two

bills going to cost? mr. speaker, it's estimated it's going to cost many millions of americans, working class, blue collar, small business jobs all across this country. just last night the president said if the burden primarily falls on middle class, he won't be for it. that's hogwash. because his bill, his plan is going to fall on the back of everybody, including middle class. it's not true. middle class is going to pick up the bill for this health care reform, for the tax and trade. we've got to stop it. now, republicans aren't going to stop it. only the american people can stop it. former u.s. senator dirksen said when he feels the heat he sees the light, mr. speaker. what he was saying is that when he gets calls and letters,

faxes, emails, visits about an issue, he starts feeling the heat. most members of congress, the house and senate, are going to be running for re-election at some point. most want to get re-elected. so when their constituents contact them about an issue, that's how we feel the heat. so, mr. speaker, if i could speak out to the american people and tell them what to do to defeat this, mr. speaker, what i would tell every single individual who wants to solve the economic problems, to stop this tax and trade, cap and tax bill that the senate is debating, also this health reform bill that's going to destroy the quality of health care, put a washington bureaucrat between every patient and their doctor and the decisions are going to be made by that washington bureaucrat, not by the patient, not by the patient's family, not the doctor but by a washington bureaucrat.

it's not going to even cover everybody. it's going to be extremely expensive according to the congressional budget office. if the american people really understood what was going on in those two bills, they would rise up and say no to their u.s. senators, no to their members of this house, their u.s. congressmen. they could call, mr. speaker, they can email, they can fax, letters, they can visit the district office, state offices and say no to cap and trade. no to barack obama's plan obamacare. and it's critical that we do that because if we don't, our economy's going to be destroyed, jobs are going to be destroyed, the environment's not going to be any better worldwide. in fact i think will be worse. and we are going to go down a road towards exactly what mr. obama's good friend, hugo chavez, has taken venezuela. we have a clear picture what's

going to happen in america if we continue down this road that this administration and the leadership in this house and this senate today in the democratic leadership is taking us, all we have to do is look off the shore of florida at cuba and see where america's going because that's the picture of what this country's going to be like several decades from now when we go down this road the way we are going. i hope, mr. speaker, that the american people will understand. god says, my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. please, please our american people need to be informed. we need to have that knowledge spread among the people. and the american people, mr. speaker, need to rise up and say no to obamacare, no to cap and trade, yes to jobs, yes to a strong economy, yes to creating

jobs. we are accused as dr. foxx said of being the party of no on the republican side. but actually we are the party of know, k-n-o-w. we know how to be good stew warts of the environment and we will be -- stewards of the environment. and we will be. i thank the gentleman from tennessee for yielding. mr. wamp: thank you. before i yield to the gentleman from virginia i want to follow up a little to say in my 15 years here i have tried to temper my partisanship. this is not to me about republicans and democrats. it truly is about all americans and how serious these choices are for everyone that we are making. don't think either party has an exclusive on integrity or ideas. the truth is in 2009 neither party has a whole lot to brag about because as dr. broun said

the previous administration, i think president bush restored honor and integrity to the white house at a time he needed it, and and laura bush are two of the finest people in history, but we lost our party's identification over these last several years by spending too much and making mistakes and not being consistent, but that doesn't mean that what's happening today is either ok or better. as a matter of fact it's like the mistakes we made on steroid. . the budgets proposed by this president so far exceed all of the deficit spending that president bush had over his eight years, it's remarkable. it's actually breathtaking that we would be doing this. the whole question of where are the jobs this week came up over the stimulus, nearly $800 billion of one-time spending, no way any analyst would say more than -- say more than 15% of that spend woog even create a single job, 85% of it was

frankly pin up welfare and social spending, their priorities that they didn't think had been funded adequately and they threw all that money at new government programs and spending and that's why the unemployment rate in washington, d.c., is the lowest in the country today, because washington jobs are growing but jobs in the hinterland are shrinking. now, economies rise and fall. they're cyclical by definition. but the government can either make it worse or make it better by their policies. and unfortunately these policies are actually making it worse. that's why the question comes after the stimulus and the bailouts and the borrowing and the spending, where are the jobs? because we're going the other way. the more you do that, it didn't work in japan, they called it the lost decade because they tried to borrow their way into success and a good economy. it doesn't work. you can't borrow your way out of debt. you can't spend your way into prosperity and other countries

have tried it and it failed and here we are making this big mistake and it's not a republican-democrat thing. it's whoever's doing it need to stop for the good of the american people and i yield to the gentleman from virginia who is now the ranking member of the energy subcommittee of agriculture, so he is very well schooled. used to be the lead republican on the agriculture committee, the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, for as much time as he needs. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman from tennessee, my good friend, for yielding me this time and for organizing this excellent discussion about what we need to do about america's energy policy and about creating those jobs. because we know, we have the ideas, we have been talking about them for well over a year now in terms of the american energy act and things that we have been doing to try to bring this congress in the right direction on the creation of new jobs, by creating an america that is not dependent upon foreign sources of energy.

and i've had the privilege of traveling to the gentleman's district in tennessee to talk about one of those areas. we held a conference down there, talking about renewal fuels, particularly fuels generated by switch grass and other forms of agricultural production other than corn, which has been such a problem in our country today. and that is right there and that is something that we can do and we all support developing other forms of new technology. we want to find a cheaper way to build solar cells. he want to find a less expensive way to generate electricity from wind or to generate power from geothermal and other new technologies. and we also want to encourage as much energy efficiency as we possibly can. all of those things will help our families, help our businesses, it will help them remain competitive and preserve and create jobs. but we also know that it is absolutely important if america

is going to create new jobs that we have to utilize the resources that we have in this country, that we have been dependent upon, for a long time and until you have new technologies, you don't raise the cost of the types of energy that people are dependent upon. more than half of our electricity comes from coal, a resource which we have in tremendous abundance in this country. 20% of our electricity comes from nuclear power, another area that the gentleman from tennessee and i share a very strong common interest in. he having oak ridge in his congressional district and i having lynchburg, a major nuclear power center in the country in my congressional district. the legislation that we voted on a month ago here in the congress did nothing to promote the most greenhouse gas reducing form of electricity generation, nuclear power. that to me seems to be something

that was completely and totally neglected in that legislation. coal on the other hand wasn't neglected. it was thrown out in a way that will raise the cost of electricity to my constituents and anybody in the country from areas that are heavily dependent upon electricity generation from coal. which, by the way, is most of the country. so that was the wrong approach. the right approach is the american energy act. many of us, i think everybody who's here this evening, came back here to washington last august when gasoline prices were $4 a gallon, when oil was $140 a barrel, and we took the floor in a darkened chamber day after day after day to talk to the people who were touring the capitol, people around the country who were aware of what we were doing to tell the story of what needed to be done. we came back into session in september and that was completely ignored and we never have revisited the need to have

a comprehensive energy act where if we really made this a top priority of our country we would become free of dependence upon foreign oil and other foreign sources of energy in 15 years or 20 years and even more importantly we would create millions of jobs exploiting those resources that we have in this country. and this is not a new idea and this is how america came to be a strong nation, a competitive nation, a nation with millions of jobs. and the reminder of the importance of doing this is right there above us on the wall above our speaker's ross trum, above the american flag, about our nation's motto in god we trust, at the very top of the wall, a famous quote from daniel webster that says, let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests and see whether we also in our

day and generation may not perform something worthy to be remembered. that saying, more than 150 years old, is as every bit as important today as it was back when daniel webster said it. that's what we have to harkin to. not the idea that somehow government will solve all of these problems, that government can provide people with all the health care they need, paying for it with taxes on small businesses and losing jobs, mandating all kinds of new agencies and institutions, more than 30, to run this crazy program. not with the cap and tax proposal that will cost american jobs, raise the cost of living for every american, make it harder for manufacturers and farmers and others to be competitive with other countries around the world that have no intention of engaging in a practice that raises unnecessarily the cost of the

basic ingredient for manufacturing and agricultural success and really enjoying a good standard of living for anyone's life and that is having access to affordable sources of energy. and it is certainly not going to be solved by having this government spend through the roof. we saw back in january the most amazing single appropriations bill ever. the so-called stimulus package to create jobs. and now here we are six months later and the question is being asked day after day after day, not just by those of us here in the congress, but by people all across america, where are the jobs? well, you don't get them by government spending. you get them by returning to the ingenuity of the american people, their hardworking spirit, their knowledge that it is the free enterprise system that will bring this economy back. but we delay day after day after day and dig the hole deeper and deeper and deeper when we pile

up debt like this. $1 trillion. that is a stack of $1,000 bills, 63 miles high. and then in march we went on to pass the budget for next year, we said, we'll outdo that. i voted against it, mr. wamp voted against it. others here talking tonight voted against it. every member of our party voted against it but also a lot of members of the other party voted against a budget that has a $1.2 trillion deficit for next year. that's a stack of $1,000 bills 75 miles high which reaches up into outer space and we don't see any he end to it. the 10-year projection for the budget passed by the majority party and the president never sees it going below the highest deficit ever before this year was $450 billion. it never gets below $600 billion ever again as far as the eye can see. that will cost jobs, that will raise the cost of living, that

will raise interest rates and inflation. it is devastating to our country, we need to return to sound fiscal responsibility. we need to return to an opportunity to have an american energy policy that creates millions of jobs here by drilling for oil offshore and on federal lands, by extracting the huge resources we have of natural gas, by building new, safe, more modern, the latest technology nuclear power plants, by using clean burning coal technology and advancing that and developing new technologies. all of these things coupled together will lead to a bright future, but the path we are on now worries all americans and we need to turn off of it as quickly as possible. i thank the gentleman again and hope that the message that sits on our wall, let us develop the resources of our land, not venezuela, not nigeria, not saudi arabia, let us develop the resources of our land, that will lead to the creation of the jobs

that people are looking for in the restoration of our economy. i thank the gentleman. mr. wamp: the gentleman's comments are spot-on. we're grateful he came and participated and for his really brilliant leadership here in the house. another one of our smarter members from the republican side is the gentleman from michigan and there are other members coming to the floor so i'm going to with hold my comments and yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the house republican policy committee, thaddeus mccotter of michigan. mr. mccotter: i thank the gentleman from tennessee. when the cap and tax national energy tax bill was passed from the house, the congress went on a break. and when people went home on a break they find out how much the american people did not like the cap and tax bill that this house passed. in fact, i remember being home, i'm sure a lot of members had this moment, both people who voted for it and voted against it, you go in the grocery store, somebody might recognize you. they look around and they'd walk

up and say, are you my representative? and you would say yes and they'd they'd look around again and say, dude, this is crazy. this cap and tax is crazy. and i would just say, yes, it is. and i'd say, especially in michigan, our state where we have a 15.2% unemployment rate. where we are a manufacturing giant now in difficult times. why the federal government would make it harder to manufacture in the united states, why we would be but a senate vote and a presidential signature away from a radical ideological imposition on america's energy future that will raise people's energy taxes and will kill their jobs. and i still can't figure out why we would do this. it is absolutely insane to add

massive government spending and debt and regulatory burdens on a recessed economy and why you would threaten to raise tax rates on people. at the very time when the entrepreneurial genius of the american people, we need them to grow this economy, create jobs and stabilize ourselves for the future and the international competition in this age of globalization. now when i say it's insane, people say, isn't that a little harsh? isn't it a little harsh? i say, no. i'm 43, as i was growing up we had a new book put in front of us in school. it was called ecology. had a nice picture of the world on it from outer space. it was like, this is nice. and in the course of learning about ecology, my generation, generation x, was told that the greatest threat we faced wasn't

governmental intrusions, regulations and taxation. now, what our commerce secretary said was this, it's important that those who consume the products being made all around the world to the benefit of america and it's our own consumption activity that's causing the emission of greenhouse gases, then quite frankly americans need to pay for that. . after president clinton signed the trade relations with china, before the rest of the country started asking where are the jobs? why is manufacturing in america hurting? why is it going offshore? where is it going? we knew where it was going. it was going to communist china. we have a twoer if here. we have a twoer if -- two for here. we have the commerce secretary saying that he doesn't seem to mind that the jobs are going

over there. and that what we really need to do is if the united states decides to continue to pass legislation that impedes and impairs and harms its manufacturing base, not that we should seek fair trade with communist china, what we should do is borrow money from communist china with interest to pay them for their greenhouse gas emissions. to get them to adopt the very thing that the american people do not want to adopt in america. i want to think about this. i'm going to borrow money with interest from communist chinese to give to them so they can be environmentally sound. i do not understand why given what happens to our party here in the house, why the commerce secretary did not say, the communist china is the party of no. i think it would have been appropriate. but i also would not expect that from an administration whose vice president says we have to keep spending to keep from going bankrupt. hi no idea that meant not only

would we spend the money here, he would spend the money over in communist china and borrow from them to give it back leaving you the taxpayer with interest. it would also not be be surprising to me from the administration who said we have to spread the wealth around. i don't think the president said quite how far he was going to spread your wealth. i don't remember him saying the world will be a better place if we take u.s. taxpayer monny, send it to communist china to make red bureaucrats green. i would have liked to have heard that. i'm sure a lot of people would have liked to have heard that around october of last year where their money was going to wind up rather than have it announced now. the frustration that the american people feel is that they realize our prosperity comes from the private sector not the public sector. they understand that we do not want a radical cold turkey shift from fossil fuels into nebulous green energy future. what we want to see is maximum energy production, commonsense

conservation, and free market green technological innovation that is will transition us -- innovations that will transition us into a more environmentally sound economy of the future. what we see in an ideologically ripe house, senate, and administration is the opposite. they want to do cold turkey on fossil fuels and the existing economy and move us into a radical and again ill defined green economy that in many ways with the absence of nuninglar and others, proves -- nuclear and others, proves impossible to obtain in a reasonable period of time without doing more damage to a recessed economy. i thank the gentleman from tennessee for his time. mr. wamp: i thank the gentleman from michigan. before i yield time to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. speaker, can you tell me how much time we have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: i believe you have approximately 8:30. mr. wamp: i just want to point

out that i believe there are shared goals in the house. but there clearly is some great difference in the approaches, again, to these goals. and the problem with these two big issues that are pending before the american people is that they involve energy and health care. and energy is the one big issue that can bring us to our knees economically. we have seen that because of the price oil, the availability of electricity can paralyze our economy and frankly the cost of this move is heavy. the price is high. and that's why it's so important. there's really -- the big issues in the world today clearly are water, it's a big issue around the world. it's going to be scarce, hearter to come by, can create conflict -- harder to come by, create conflict. energy will be scarce, hard to

come by, can create conflict. we are all interested in air quality and the environment is important. but there has to be a balance of regulation. then this issue of health, the american people do not want the government to get between their health care provider and themselves. particularly between the doctor-patient relationship. i have to tell you this leap does that. and you don't see people leaving here to go to canada and great britain now for their health care. it's the other way around because they have already gone to these systems that are being proposed here. i want to come back before the bottom of the hour. but right now i yield to a member of the commerce committee, the gentleman from louisiana, who has brought great expertise to the congress. is an energy production expert because of the state he comes from and knows we have to increase the energy capacity in order to maintain our competitiveness globally today in a global economy. we can't restrict our sources of energy and stay competitive, mr. scalise from louisiana is recognized for such time as he

may consume. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman from tennessee. i appreciate your leadership on this issue and the fact you are willing to come here tonight and talk about some of these challenges our country is facing. when you look across our country today, people are facing many challenges, but i think what's even more concerning to people when they look here in washington and they look at what's happening in this congress and they look what this administration is doing, i think it's frightening people across the country. the fact that they see these policy that is are being proposed. some of these policies that have actually passed. in january when president obama took the oath of office, one ever his first steps was to pass this unprecedented spending bill that he called the stimulus bill and he rammed it through congress. a bill that everybody knows that nobody that voted for the bill had time to read because they rammed it through so fast because they said it needed a pass because it was going to stop unemployment from reaching

8%. now we are at 9 1/2% unemployment, that number is climbing. the problem is our deficit is climbing even higher. we exceeded $1 trillion in deficits just a week ago, unprecedented in our country's history. people are looking at that and they are saying why is it that every american family is cutting back to manage and live within their means? state governments have been cutting their budgets to live within their means. washington and congress especially is spending money out of control at a rate that is unprecedented and cannot be contained. then they look at the policies. i think that's what's concerning people, especially today. they look at this crazy energy proposal, this cap and trade energy tax, and this proposal to have a government takeover of our health care system. clearly reforms need to be made to health care, but there is bipartisan agreement, bipartisan agreement on a number of reforms that can be made to allow people

to have the ability so if they move from one job to another, they can take their health care with them. competition in health care. or address pre-existing conditions. there's bipartisan agreement on those issues. not one of those is in the president's bill. he chose to go it alone. he said i don't need to work with republicans. he's not even working with moderate democrats. he's decided to go with the most far extreme leftist that want to just have a government takeover of health care where literally a bureaucrat in washington that's not elected didn't even go through senate confirmation can have the ability to tell you which doctor you can see or even if you can get an operation. we have seen a devastating result in countries like canada, england where they have done the exbe act same thing and now those people who have the means in those countries come to america to get health care because even with our flaws, we have law -- flaws in our system

that need to be worked out, we have the best medical care in the world, yet they want to destroy that system and government taking over and add $800 billion of new taxes on the backs of american families. if that wasn't enough, that leads us into the topic that i know my friend from tennessee really started off talking about and that's energy. this cap and trade energy tax that actually passed this house, i sit on the energy and commerce committee and we debated that for weeks, i strongly opposed their bill because their bill doesn't address the energy problems in our country. we don't have an energy policy in america. imagine that. the greatest country in the history of the world, the most industrialized nation in the world doesn't have a true energy policy. we've got the ability to create a comprehensive energy policy that eliminates our dependence on middle eastern oil. we filed a bill.

some people would lead you to believe that there's no alternative out there. it's just this cap and trade energy tax or nothing. well, there's a different approach. there was an approach called the american energy act which i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of. i know my friend from tennessee is a co-sponsor of. it's an all-of-the-above policy. it says, yes, we should pursue those alternative sources of energy like wind and solar power. unfortunately those technologies aren't advanced enough yet. you can't run your car on wind and solar. you can't run your house exclusively on wind and solar. you surely couldn't run a hospital on wind and solar because they are intermittant sources of energy. you need other forms to keep power generating in this country. so, yes, you have coal production. and we should advance the technologies to make clean coal technology. but you also need advanced nuclear power. nuclear power emits zero carbon. it's a zero carbon emission source of energy. 80% of europe is on nuclear

power now. yet it wasn't even in their bill. they discouraged nuclear power. we need to move towards some of those other alternatives. we need to also recognize the existing sources of energy we have in our country. that's oil and natural gas. it's also some of the new sources and technologies that we have like these tar sands in the midwest which right now are prohibited from being explored by federal policy. in fact, if you go into the gulf of mexico, there are many areas of the gulf of mexico where there are huge reserves of oil and natural gas that are banned from even being explored. i take -- i have taken a few members out to the gulf of mexico a few weeks ago. we went to the largest natural gas exploration facility in the country. 900 million cubic feet of natural gas a day, actually represents 2% of our entire country's natural gas needs, is

out there in the gulf of mexico and they have greater capacity, in fact we keep finding more and more reserves of natural gas every day in north louisiana i' proud to have gone -- i'm proud to have gone out and visited the area, haynesville shale find is a new find in our countries -- country's history. there are all kind of natural resources our country can use and yet federal policy blocks it and the only answer president obama gives us is, this cap and trade energy tax which actually limits our ability to explore american resources of energy and gives greater power to those oil opec barrons in saudi arabia and other countries in the middle east that don't like our way of life. we've got to move away from this idea of taxing business, tagsing families, raising electricity costs which their bill does, and go to a policy that actually

adopts a comprehensive all-of-the-above approach. i'm going to yield back to my friend fromtown tfpblet as we are talking in the same week that neal armstrong and buzz aldrin and collins landed on the moon, the apollo 11 mission, the 40th anniversary this week, hi the honor of meeting the three of of of them, true american heroes, when -- in meeting the three of them, true american heroes, what you did and what your crew did, what all the nasa officials did they inspired a nation because they showed us the greatness america can be if we truly set our minds in a bipartisan way, back then under president kennedy when he said and set that objective we are going to go to the moon by the end of the 1960's, the entire country came together. republicans and democrats. we can do that again. but president obama's got to setaside the bipartisanship and

this extreme radical policy. we can get there. so with that i yield back to my friend from tennessee. mr. wamp: as i close out our hour tonight i want to say when the question is asked where are the jobs? if all the applications pending right now before the nuclear regulatory commission for nuclear plants were approved, that would be 14,000 permanent jobs, 62,000 construction jobs, 17,500 permanent jobs, and 62,000 construction jobs. nuclear is maybe the single largest step towards stimulus, economic opportunity, a global warming progress, all of those things that we need. we can reprocess and recycle the spent fuel. this administration doesn't want to bury it in yucca mountain, they won the election. that's their prerogative. let's move as france and japan and other countries towards taking the spent fuel and turn it back into energy. we can deal with this. we built 14u7bd reactors in less than 20 years, now we know so much more about it, if we said we are going to build another 100 reactors in the next 20

years, we have a robust u.s. economy with new electricity capacity and when we bring on new capacity, we will lower the cost instead of increasing the cost, which this regulatory cap and trade scheme increases the cost, reduces the supply by definition because we are going to need new electricity and energy capacity. . so tonight we close by saying american innovation and entrepreneurship, free enterprise, can help solve these problems without the government burden and we yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. ellison: i will claim the hour, i just need a moment to set up. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

mr. ellison: mr. speaker, mr. speaker, what a pleasure it is to claim this hour, this special order, on behalf of the congressional progressive caucus, the congressional progressive caucus is the body of members of congress who believe that we're all bet ever a -- better off together than we are separated and apart. we believe that we need a mixed economy in which, yes, people are entitled to pursue their private dreams and make their money, but also there are certain things we should do together, things like take care of the water, things like provide for transportation, things like provide for education and things like health care. the progressive caucus is the body of people here in the congress who stand by the idea that the civil rights movement

was a great moment in american history. that f.d.r. and the new deal was another great moment in american history. that the steps forward to end slavery was a great moment in american history and yet the great moments in american history have not yet been written but are really still in front of us. we still have more people to bring in to the embrace of this great american ideal, this progressive ideal, this idea that america's not yet done the best it can do. we have more people to include, more people to help find that internal light of their own and that this is the time to walk forward into that history. we have the progressive -- the congressional progressive caucus that comes together today. we started out, mr. speaker, as a group that said we would like to see in the area of health care a single pair system. this was our position. but we've compromised because we're practical progressives. we said we can have health care

reform if we have a public option but we can't go any further than that. there must be a public option in the health care plan and it looks like we're going to have one. we're excited about the prospect of seeing this public option. it appears as though it's moving forward, mr. speaker, and it's a good thing because it's what america needs. it's what america needs. this is the progressive message and we're here to talk about health care tonight. health care, mr. speaker, is the boiler issue, it's the issue that's all the talk around the congress. it is the issue that's all the talk around america. and the fact of the matter is, mr. speaker, it is a fact, it is a belief, a firmly held belief of my own, that health care is a movement that is essentially a civil rights movement. it has the same level of intensity as that movement. and it has the same urgency as that movement. and i'm inspired by the words of martin luther king, mr. speaker, who said that we have the fierce

urgency of now, the fierce urgency of now, that we can't say that somebody else can get their freedom at some other time, at a more convenient time, at a time when it makes sense and it's comfortable for everybody. no, he said, civil rights now, not later, and i have to say today, we got to have health care for all right now, not later. the fierce urgency of now, mr. speaker, and i want to let you know, mr. speaker, that when i was watching television last night i was tuned in to president barack obama and i want to let you know i was very proud of president obama last night, mr. speaker. president obama came before the american people and articulated a case as skillfully as any argue or oratorer ever could for health care, health care now. and the thing that really grabbed my attention, mr. speaker, is when he was asked by

a reporter, why does it have to be now? and the reporter asked in somewhat of a challenging and slightly dericive tone of voice, why does it have to be now? can't it be some other time? mr. speaker, president obama said, you know, i can't delay it , when i read the letters that i get, the letters tell me that we've got to act now. we can't put it off another day. we've got to do it now and i actually was cheering at the television screen as president obama was saying these things. it's so nice to have a president that you truly believe in and agree with and think is a real champion for the people who elected him. and so in that spirit of president obama saying that he -- the letters and the stories people are going through propel him toward action, let me share a few stories of my own, mr. speaker, because my constituents write me letters, too, and those help move me and motivate me toward action for true health

care reform. instead of hitting you first with the facts and figures and all those things, i just want to start out tonight, mr. speaker, with stories, letters from my constituents. let me talk about mary from minneapolis, minnesota. mary says, my daughter needed her wisdom teeth out. at the same time with insurance we were told to pay $375, which we did. then got billed over $1,000, resubmitted eventually the amount was reduced to $750. in the meantime my husband got no paycheck. i've -- i have calcium deposits in my back which make it difficult to walk and i can't afford the co-pays so i'm waiting until it's so bad that i can't walk. mr. speaker, mary needs help. mary needs a caring, committed government that's listening to her and is going to help bring

forth legislation which can allow her to work with her doctor and her health care provider with the solutions that she needs. no government official in the middle between mary and her health care provider. that's nothing but spooky, scary stuff and it's not true. let's hear from denise. i find more and more often that my family and i are skipping doctor visits for preventive care and when we would have made a visit to the doctor in the past, but now can't afford the co-payments to be seen. this is especially true for childhood illnesses such as allergy visits or dental problems that could potentially be serious. and injuries that in reality should be checked out by a doctor. my family is insured yet because of our current -- because of our current employment situation combined with rising health care

costs, it has come out of each -- out of reach for -- to have the kind of health care we have enjoyed in the past. i feel that we are being left behind for an inability to be able to bear the burden of the cost. this may mean that we will pay dealer in the future for things that could have been prevented or less serious had they been able to see a doctor initially. you know, as i listen to denise from minneapolis' story, i'm thinking, mr. speaker, about the things, the larger trends in our society that are sweeping her up. and affecting her. she's talking about being insured, having a job, but having to go without because of the costs of co-pays and premiums. well, mr. speaker, one of these startling facts that you might want to know is that over the last nine years premiums have doubled for people who have insurance.

and while wages have been flat, premiums have been increasing much faster thanl wages have and -- wage -- than wages have and this has made a squeeze on the household american budget. denise need as hand, mr. speaker. denise needs somebody to care. janice from golden valley, minnesota. i've worked every day since i turned 15 and i'm currently 51, married with two teenage children. i have a college degree. we've always lived a balanced and frugal life. we do not take exotic trips and mostly by generic thrift or discount -- mostly wear generic or thrift store clothing. i bring home less and less each year due primarily to health care premiums and costs. health care premiums and co-pays cost about 25% to 30% of my income. health care premiums cost me more than my federal, state, social security, union dues and

retirement plan deduction combined from my paycheck. the increase has been so great that we have stopped being able to contribute to savings for four years. the one thing i fear more than anything is me or my family member getting sick because of what treatment will cost even beyond the premium costs. when i have a strange new sensation in my eye or a vein hurting in my leg or a dull pain in my chest, i just pray it will go away on its own because i'm afraid of what it will cost me. we pay out so much for health care insurance yet we cannot afford to really even use it. and i feel even worse for those who have no health insurance at all. this reflects badly on what america has become, a place where only the wealthiest survive and profit by a few takes priority over the basic needs of all. mr. speaker, let me tell you about the story of anita and i'm

armed with statistics tonight, mr. speaker, and i have them, but they don't mean a thing next to the stories of these citizens, these good, honest americans from my state of minnesota whose stories i want to bring to you tonight. let me talk to you about cynthia from minnesota. cynthia says, as an asthmatic and a mother of an asthmatic, i would think the insurance company would be happy that we go for our annual checkup and are willing to -- would be willing to cover our medicines so we stay healthy and don't end up costing them more. much to my surprise the insurance company would not cover our asthma checks and the cost of our prescriptions has gone through the roof. unfortunately our meds are not part of the formlary drug list. what ends up happening is i cover my child's meds and i don't get any. i just hope we're near each

other if i have an attack. mr. speaker, that's no way to treat americans who are trying to make it in this society. how about this one? maria from minnesota, my daughter is 24, she has, ok, a -- an ovarian disease since she was 15, requiring three surgeries, five hospital visits and many, many office calls. this is a chronic condition which will probably result in infertility or in the least difficulty in achieving pregnancy. this is physically draining as she is often in pain and has been on many narcotics pain meds, including vicatin and perk set. in addition, the idea of not having children is a tough thing to face as a teenager and young adult. if that wasn't enough, she also has a degenerative disk disease in her cervical spine. this is resulted -- this has

resulted in a herniated disk and chronic constant pain. there is no cure for this and no real treatment. since she's an adult she no longer is eligible to be under our insurance plans. she has a b.a. degree but has not been able to find long-term employment in her field which would offer benefits. rather, she is managing a bar-restaurant, which is a good job, but it's not what she went to school for. . she's working as a bartender at least 60 hours a week on her feet all the time. she pays her own bills, is on her own, but because of her chronic condition is not able to get cobra insurance and instead has a policy through a private insurance company paying over $200 a month which doesn't cover many of her needs. this is outrageous. please, please understand she is not sitting at home waiting for a handout. she is so motivated and such a hard worker, but the insurance costs are eating up her

paychecks. she is my hero as i can't imagine facing these conditions and then having minimum coverage while paying the maximum bill. mr. speaker, i just thought i'd start off this progressive hour with some real stories from real people. real stories from real people who are dealing with a very difficult situation. mr. speaker, let's not relegate them to the status quo. my colleagues, many ever them on the other side of the aisle -- many of them on the other side of the aisle, are essentially saying let's keep it how it is. let's stop moving so fast. let's not let this process move along too quickly. and some have been caught off handedly making the comments that they think that they can take president obama down. is that what this is about? taking somebody down? this should be be about lifting somebody up. the american people lifting them up. not trying to score a partisan

point in a political game. this is real life people are going through. real life like the minnesotans i talked about. as i speak here tonight, mr. speaker, i can assure you that in every state in this union and in every territory of this country there are stories exactly like these. mr. speaker, i want to talk about what the bill actually does a little bit. before i do i want to talk a little bit about the cost of this health care reform because, first of all, there is this big fear thing about cost and this is one of the major ways that some destractors are trying to stop things -- detractors are trying to stop things. so first let's talk about the individual cost. the cost to the person. without reform the cost of health care for the average family of four is estimated to

rise $1,800 every year for years to come. and insurance companies will make more health care decisions. ok. status quo, hand the insurance companies $1,800 every year, in two years that's $3,600, in four years more than that. the fact is this is the status quo. and i was so proud to hear president obama last night saying, if somebody offered you a plan that was going to double -- guarantee to double in cost, and was going to push more people into the ranks of the uninsured, would you want that? because that's what we have now. again, another brilliant or ftorekal flourish rooted in the truth. so what cost $1,800 every year estimated to increase. let's talk about the individual costs a little more. if we have health care reform, if we have health care reform,

mr. speaker, no more co-pays or deductibles for preventive care. that will help a family budget. no more rate increases for pre-existing conditions, gender, or occupation. that will help the family budget. no more annual cap on out-of-pocket expenses. that's going to help the family budget. group rates of a national pool if you buy your own plan. that should hold costs down. guaranteed affordable oral hearing and vision care for your kids. that will definitely help the family budget out. the fact is that this bill is designed to help families deal with the escalating costs of health care. it's not about increasing costs or increasing debt or anything like that. it's about helping the family budget stay in a place where families can actually get ahead a little bit for the first time in a lock time -- long time. for the first time under a

budget, under an economic philosophy where the rich didn't have enough and the poor had too much in the minds of some people. the fact is, mr. speaker, we need to talk about cost tonight. we need to talk about it. i want to go now to a recent -- the c.b.o. budget scores have been tossed around a lot. we have heard a lot about what the c.b.o. says. the c.b.o. says this and that. let me talk about what the c.b.o. actually says, really says. on july 17, the congressional budget office released estimates confirming, confirming that the health care insurance reform policies of h.r. 3200, america's affordable health care choices act, are deficit neutral over a 10-year budget window. that means that they don't add to the budget. they are deficit neutral. even producing a $6 billion surplus. c.b.o. estimated that the cost of the bill's insurance reforms

was, $1.042 trillion while the bill's cost savings and revenues totaled about $1.48 trillion. this is over a 10-year period. c.b.o. estimated that these reforms will provide affordable coverage for 97% of americans two years after the program starts. now, that's really something, mr. speaker. it was also reported in the press, c.b.o. also estimated that the overall bill has a net cost of $239 billion over 10 years, but this is entirely due to additional provisions in the bill to maintain current medicare physician payment rates. costing $245 billion over 10 years. by preventing scheduled draconian cuts. the house agreed earlier this year that this $245 billion cost would be exempt from pay-go. the president's budget acknowledged the flawed medicare

physician payment formula and allotted money to address it. then in voting for the budget resolution in april, the house voted to exempt medicare physician payment provisions from pay-go. the statutory pay-go bill to be considered by the house this week, passed through the house this week, also exempts provisions -- these provisions from pay-go. mr. speaker, let me also add that this bill preserves and increases options, plan options. those eligible for the exchange and i'll talk about that in a moment, choose from all option, private and public, no one can steer them to any particular plan. c.b.o. projects that by the year 2019, about nine million to 10 million americans, or a little more than 3% of americans will choose the public option. c.b.o. projects that the most of these using exchange will choose private sector plans. this confirms that the bill creates a level playing field where a public option will compete with private plans on a fair basis and that the public

plan will not necessarily push them out of existence. again, i'm a single payer. i wanted to talk about a little bit about this cost because this is the very thing that detractors are using to try to scare americans away from real health care reform with. i think americans had deserved better, they deserve the truth, they should know that this plan is one that's designed to help save them money. let's talk a little bit more about health care costs. health care costs for small businesses have grown 30% since the year 2000. the average family premium costs $1,100 more per year because our health care system fails to cover everyone. the average individual premium costs $410 or more. the fact is we are joined here tonight by one of the great, great, great stalwart and heroes of health care reform, none other than john conyers,

chairman of the judiciary committee, second most senior member of the house of representatives. good evening, congressman conyers. i yield to the distinguished gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you. to our colleague and friend who is also on the floor. enjoying the proceedings. i came down merely to let you know how much i admire and respect your determination to make sure that every american can listen and learn about the importance of health care, the issues as you see them developing, and what it means for all of us to come up with

the best possible result that we can. the 44th president of the united states brought his case to the public last night. a brilliant explanation, very persuasive, very intellectual. then answered more than a dozen questions from the press. it was very instructive. i was moved by that tonight and i'm moved by the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, this night. as well because what you are doing is so very, very important . i get calls in my office and i have the unique tendency to answer my own phone.

people are very surprised when i answer the phone. they are telling me what to tell the congressman and i explain to them who i am, and they are pleased and flattered by that. but i get a lot of those calls are about health care. some of them are very moving like some of the stories that you have related here tonight. other people are not happy about health care. and some hope that we don't come up with a bill, few. but most people realize that this struggle has been going on for 30, 40, 50 years. harry truman began talking about

universal health care. then lyndon johnson was able to come through with medicare. and in respect to harry truman's determination, although unsuccessful, he went to the harry truman library in missouri to sign the medicare bill. there's a rich history, a legacy , about how we have gone through these different changes. and now with the president after only a few months calls us together in the white house at a white house summit to declare his determination to do more

about this system, we call it a system, it's a broken down, nonworking system, about health care. so it's so interesting to study what all of our president's, what our leaders have done, and why it's so important when we think of the millions and millions of people that don't have health care. i'm going to say something here tonight that to me i want to put in perspective, the issues. the plan as i understand it that's being proposed does not relieve everybody of the threat of not having health care. it is not a universal system. let's put these things on the

table. i am for a universal system of health care. i have worked with doctors, medical scholars, nurses for years now and they say that that's the only way we are going to reduce costs. for anybody that's talking about it's bad enough that we don't have single payer health care involved in this except for the tremendous efforts of the gentleman from ohio, dennis kucinich, who's got it in one of the committee's bills that would allow states to develop health care, if they chose. an option. we don't even know what the public option is finally going to be.

there are those that don't even want to give the opportunity of americans to choose between their health care plans and the controls of the insurance industry have been legendary. it's been written, spoken about. people own experience. . and then if i hear anybody talk about the government controlling medicine, it's the health insurance companies that are controlling medicine, not the doctor. and so i just want to listen, take in the wisdom that you've brought to this body and enjoy this discussion. i hope any of our colleagues that want to join in this can

participate as well if they choose and i'm just so proud you're doing it tonight, that i can just add my comments to this decision of yours to once again take out special orders to discuss this subject. >> well -- mr. ellison: if the gentleman yields back to a -- for a moment, i want to thank the gentleman from michigan for coming down here. we have we have a chance to do a bit of give and take. i want to ask the gentleman a few questions if the gentleman would yield to a question. and my question is for you, mr. chairman, is, why did you author h.r. 676, the single payer bill, and why did you work so hard to try to get so many authors in the house and you ended up

getting 80-plus authors and why did you go all over the country, you came to my state of minnesota, and talk to so many people? why did you work so hard to push this idea of single payer forward? i yield to the gentleman. mr. conyers: well, improving our health care system is the most single fundamental domestic issue that we can deal with. the second most important is creating a full employment society. and the both go together because if you've got your health and don't have any employment, i don't know if you're in worst shape than a person who has employment and doesn't have any availability for health care. they're both fundamental rights

that adhere in a constitutional system of democracy and we've been working on this for so long. i remember when the first lady, then hillary clinton, called us into the white house and asked us to hold back on our push for universal single payer health care when her husband became president because she and another were going to work on health care reform. and we did. we met, i remember, and said, look, we should honor her request. there'd never been a first lady in the white house designated by the president to work on an issue this momentous and so we pulled back. it did not succeed.

it wasn't her fault. she had no way of estimating how powerful the corporate medical sources in health care were and that were determined not to make this universal or make any changes at all. and so this to me is one of the highest issues that all of us in the congress can repair to and i'm so proud that we now have a total of 85 members in the house now on h.r. 676. i'm proud that we have it in the health care reform as an option for states so that we can overcome some of the

restrictions that will be relieved through the kucinich amendment to allow states that want to begin this noble experiment. that's how it started in canada. it was a province in canada that first passed it. and then another and yet another. and of course canadians are overwhelmingly, extremely proud of the system that they have. no, the not perfect. but very few things in this life are. they're working on it. and we're not copying it. we're looking at health care systems from around the world, everywhere, all countries that have them and the problems in countries that don't have them. and so this is an exciting

global study. i was even in china not too long ago examining their systems which is sometimes they're very efficient and in other places they don't exist at all. but we're putting this study together so that the plan that we create is an american plan. created by us. benefiting from all the improvements and problems of other countries that have universal health care systems. and so even though my primary concern are the judiciary committee issues, some of which tie into health care, the bankruptcies caused by health care are in our committee and,

as a matter of fact, we're having hearings on medical bankruptcies next week in the judiciary committee and i know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will no doubt attend these hearings. and so there's a relationship. there's a relationship in creating a full employment program. i'll be talking to some of the caucus members tomorrow morning about unemployment and the importance that we sever the link between unemployment and health care because what has happened in detroit is that as the plants are closed and people lay off and no longer have employment, guess what? they no longer have health care

either. so the relationship of employment-based health care to unemployment is profound and a person without employment needs health care guaranteed and assured, needed health care, whether he's working or not. he needs it even perhaps more than when he is working. and so as the unemployment continues, unfortunately, to rise, more and more people who once enjoyed health care from the employer-based system don't have it anymore. mr. ellison: will the gentleman yield for another question? do you think, chairman conyers, that your advocacy for single payer health care, h.r. 676, which was widely supported, wildly supported in my district when you showed up to talk about it in minnesota, we packed the

house, everybody was so excited, we've had several other hearings on health care since then, people always mention that because the spirit was so high, do you think a that -- do you think that that effort for a single pair gained enough mow men -- payer gained enough momentum so we have you a public option? mr. conyers: i think there's a distinct relationship and there are many people that have told me and i'd like to compare it with your experience and our colleagues, there are those who have said, first of all, they're disappointed that a single payer system, which is the most popular in the country and the most -- and has the most numerous supporters in the congress of any other plan, did

not get more consideration. but they said, well at least we ought to have a strong public option at a minimum. and so, yes, there's a relationship between those who still seek a single payer system , who demand that there be a public option. unfortunately there are some of our colleagues who are still not persuaded that we need a public option even. there are reservations in the senate, in the other body, and so it still remains to be seen what's really going to happen in that regard. mr. ellison: if the gentleman would yield back, i wonder if the gentleman would offer another question, as the chair

judiciary, the chief author of h.r. 676, we're talking about a public option, could you offer your opinion as to why anyone who claims to be in favor of free markets would be afraid of having the public option included in other private insurance offerings in the exchange? you know, the health care proposal is that if you have your health insurance, employer-based health insurance, you can keep that. and that some improvements would be no exclusion for pre-existing condition, no discrimination for age and gender, and then the second thing, if you have a government program now, like medicare, you can keep that, and if -- we try to get more people enrolled in medicaid who are eligible for that. and then of course the third option, the new option, would be the exchange, standardized benefits, which would include a private insurance offerings

together with a public option. and so my question to you is, why the free market ears are a-- why are the free marketeers afraid of the public option? i thought they were in favor of competition. i yield to the gentleman. mr. conyers: well, it's clear that many in the insurance field, and remember, there are over 1,200, 1,300 different insurance policies for health care, dozens and dozens of companies writing their own policies and plans, creating huge administrative overhead for doctors who are practicing who frequently have to hire more and more administrative people just to sort through all of the policies of patients that come to visit them. so they don't want competition, they don't want a free market.

they want a market in which the ones that have the business and have been in it for a long time don't have to share it with anybody and they certainry don't want to have to face the competition -- certainly don't have want to face the competition of a public option which would almost surely be less expensive and perhaps more efficient than most of the private insurance systems. why? because they don't -- they won't have the advertising costs, the overhead costs, the administrative costs, all of these things that burden and raise the costs of private insurance. the same way with medicare. medicare costs are -- have an overhead of 3%. in the private sector, the

insurance policies are around 10%, 15%, 17% or more in costs. all the advertising we see, at least in my area, these huge billboards, come to this hospital because we're better at this particular health service, another hospital, come to this hospital, we're specialists in this particular service. and so on. m.r.i. equipment, the overuse of equipment and doctors tell me this, if they're in a hospital and another hospital nearby gets new m.r.i. equipment, they have to go get it to compete with theirs and they don't really -- they don't really need it, but they want to have state-of-the-art, the latest thing, and so this fee for services notion keeps raising

the costs of health care and many of the people that complain about these costs don't realize that the public option will almost surely lower the cost of health care. . mr. ellison: put food on the table. rely on credit cards. just to be able to make it through the week. i yield to the gentleman. mr. conyers: answer, yes. no question about it. and this is what the goal of a health care reform is about. is to lower the cost, which by

the way each year the costs keep increasing and we have to find ways to deal with it. there are other reasons that costs go up. but we've got to tackle this on a realistic basis. this isn't about emotions or whether a capitalist system is being challenged or not. we have plenty of systems -- in which -- highway systems are run by different companies. your water systems, your electricity, health care is a matter of having availble -- available to every citizen regardless of their ability to pay and people end up in bankruptcy, they had health insurance. they didn't know that what they

needed it for wasn't covered by the health insurance that they have. so for me it's been such an interesting field of endeavor to meet and talk with these really wonderful doctors in different parts of the country, at the medical schools, and to have made their acquaintance. then to learn of all the innumerable citizens who are so grateful to us for dealing with their problems. by wait this isn't some kind of circumstance that applies in rural areas as opposed to urban areas or in conservative areas as compared to liberal areas. this is the same -- people are in the same fix all across the

country. in every one of the congressional districts. mr. ellison: that's an interesting point. do people who live in conservative areas where their representatives are fighting for the status quo, are these people exempt from these escalating health care costs and these escalating premiums and these -- do people who live in the so-called red states, folks being excluded for pre-existing conditions being dropped? do people who have representatives who fight for the status quo get some sort of a pass under our current health care system? mr. conyers: not on your life. we are all experiencing much the same thing. i had hearings around the country on this subject and i remember going to the upper peninsula of michigan, our good colleague, the gentleman from

michigan, bart stupak, had invited me up there for hearings. and i thought the urban areas were in trouble. i got a lesson. the rural areas were even in even more difficulty in some respects. let me explain what i mean. they were of the opinion that they couldn't get doctors or nurses to come up there to serve their population. i remember telling me about one doctor whose wife had said at the end of this year, i'm leaving. i'm going back. i just don't fit in here. i'm not comfortable. there are people that would love to be in the upper peninsula of michigan, it's beautiful.

i have people rhapsodic about the beauties of the outdoors. but this was the only doctor. they were begging the doctor not to leave. and his wife, they knew if she left, he would leave, too. they were flying people from upper michigan to which is wigs -- wisconsin because they didn't have any way to serve people who needed serious hospital treatment. so we find that -- then in minnesota i think thatas minnesota, up there at the canadian-michigan border, in that state i remembered distinctly talking with farmers who called their health insurance agents and said, please, i want to -- i'm a

successful farmer. please, come out and help me. i remember distinctly this one farmer said, the insurance agent said, you don't want me to come out and quote you a price, because i know you can't afford it. we don't even want to bother even trying to sell you insurance because i don't care how successful a farmer is, you and your family, you won't be able to afford it. so we don't even need to try to sell you the policy. there are all sorts of circumstances going on that i learned of as i accept invitations around the country to meet with health care experts, in hospitals and medical schools, in town hall meetings where people are trying to get some relief from this terrible fact that originally 37

million but now 50 million people are are without any insurance at all. and more people that are losing their jobs end up going into that column as well. mr. ellison: the gentleman yields back. i want to point out you mentioned medicare has an administrative fee of about 3%, 5%. the fact is, however, that if you look at thep top five health insurance companies, their administrative costs are 17%. if you look on the average overall, private insurance is about 14%. what do they spend all that money on? how come they can't get down to a reasonable percentage of medical loss ratio? does the fact that some of these c.o.e.'s just get exorbitant pay have anything to do with it? if there was a public option, the c.e.o. of the public option would be i guess it would be

governor see billous --cy billous, the secretary -- sebelius, secretary of hhs, she's not making $10 billion a year. what are they spending that money on? how come they can't be more efficient? mr. conyers: exorbitant salaries to the chief executives and the managers of the company. as you imply, it runs into millions of dollars annually. many of them are the precise people to, through their lobbyists on k street, are having -- are fighting any kind of serious health care reform. it's not a pretty picture. mr. ellison: if the gentleman would yield. it was recently reported that the lobbyists are spending $1.4 million a day to try to stop

health care. why would they want to spend so much money? does this amount of money, $1.4 million a day, how does that compare to the profits they reap by say excluding people, cleeding their enrollees and not covering medical procedures? mr. conyers: that's a relationship. that's what makes it so can i have -- difficult for us to come to a conclusion and to do something about this. notwithstanding the great intellect of the president and his determination to correct this situation. they are people that put profits before health care. i'm sorry that's the case, but that's what it comes down to. mr. ellison: if the gentleman would yield back. i just want to say in this last five minutes that we are here tonight, with this progressive

hour, that the goal and the purpose and the sole of our efforts to -- soul of our efforts to reform health care should focus on the word care. health care. we should act like we care. in the beginning of this hour, mr. speaker, congressman conyers, i shared stories about people from my district. i know you could have done the same thing. you get letters. the president gets letters. we all get letters. care should be be what drives us. i believe that you, mr. conyers, have worked so hard and done so much to get -- to start with a single payer, but because of your advocacy, we have gotten to a point where a public option is a real option. i thank you for that. this is an option, public option is not the best name. it could be called patient option or we are in this together option. an option that says that we are going to have a public plan that can compete with the private plans, that can have some real

cost drivers. but not just drive down costs but can offer best practices so we put emphasis on health care and wellness not just on processing people, fee-for-service over utilization which as you know has been a very serious problem. i think that as we close up, mr. speaker, i want to leave the gentleman from michigan time to make some closing remarks and we'll give him the final word since he's so eloquent, i just want to say that it's important for us to understand that if americans want real health care reform, the time is now, i think, mr. speaker, to raise your voice. i'm not saying what people should and shouldn't do. but i'm saying if you want health care reform, this is not the time to be silent. this is a time to raise your voice. if you happen to live in an area where you have a representative who is not for reform, i think that this is especially

important time to have something to say about that. and exercise your constitutional right and offer your views on that. i just want to say that, we fought hard here and this piece of legislation we are fighting for now is every bit of a civil rights issue as the 1964 civil rights act. the 1964 civil rights act was a bill that was passed only a few years before you came to congress, mr. conyers. so you really were in the aura of this great triumph of american democracy. you were a friend of martin luther king. rosa parks worked in your office for many years and was a dear friend of yours throughout her life. i feel, i think i feel something like what you must have felt then. that we are on the doorstep of seeing great change in the american democracy. but it's going to take the energy and the prayers and the

voices of everyone to get us over the line. when the president comes out on the television during prime time, it's not just because he doesn't have anything else to do. it's serious. it's important. and it's very essential that everybody click in and raise their voice and make sure that if you want health care reform, if you want an end to being dropped and kicked off and denied for pre-existing condition, if you are tired of discriminationecause of gender and age, if you feel that a public option should be able to compete with a private insurance to drive costs down, and if you really believe that in our country that a health insurance company should be able to operate with a 5%, 4%, 6% administrative costs as opposed to 17%, 18%, 19%, inefficient, it's time to step up and do something about it. if you want to do something

about health care disparates between people of color and -- disparities between people of color and other people, it's time to step up and do something about it. this is not the time to sit back and figure conyers will probably save us. obama will save us. somebody will do the right thing. no, this is the time for everybody to step up and demonstrate their own leadership. with the moments remaining i want to yield i think that's it. the gentleman from michigan has yielded to me. so therefore what i'm going to do is thank the speaker for allowing us to come before them tonight and talk about the progressive caucus arguing for a public option, starting out our debate, starting our debate for single payer health care, but being reasonable and being practical and saying that we've got to have a public option, but that is where we stop compromise. we have done our part already. being proud that people like congressman kucinich has made it possible for states to be able to pursue single payer. so we have been -- we are

practical progressives. we are not doctrine air. we are practical. we want good results for the people of the united states so we can join the 36 other countries in this world who have national health insurance w that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for 60 minutes. mr. king: i thank the gentleman from idaho for recognizing me. the speaker. and i want to acknowledge the presence of the chairman of the judiciary committee here tonight and mr. ellison both. i appreciate the young man from minnesota coming down and spending an hour here. i expect that out of him since he has all that youthful vigor but the chairman of the judiciary committee could have found something else to do and i think this is a testimonial commitment to his belief in the policy. so as much as i was tempted to gauge in -- engage in that

debate, i was also interested in the exchange between the two gentlemen. there are other members that are off doing other things tonight or perhaps doing nothing but some of russ interested on the future of america and i want to point out this chart that i'm sure will be something that the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, will recognize. or at least when i describe it he'll recognize it. this is the flow chart from hillary's national health care plan from 1993. and it has some differences between that and the current plan that we have. but i had this chart on the wall of my construction office when it was available in 1993 and it hung there throughout the decade and i believe it's still somewhere in my archives unsorted. there are still some things left over from that from the time i sold my business out to my oldest son. but this chart animated me.

it animated me because i'm a private sector person. i'm a person who's had to make a living competing on low bid and being efficient, producing and building things, and i provide health insurance for my employees. and retirement plans for my employees. and i was one of the early people to do that. i recall back in the 1980's that was an exception in the people that were within the scope of the business that i was in and many other businesses. and i was happy to do all i could do because i wanted to keep employees working for me. i wanted to give them the best job, the best employment we could, the best employment package we could. and when i saw this come out, this hillary's plan, i began to look through all these new programs, acronyms that i don't know that the gentleman from michigan could come up with what these mean today. i thought i knew them all back then. but they were, many of them, new government programs. and some of this is similar to the proposals that are out there today. the stark difference is this is

black and white. the new flow chart is in tech color. a generation from now it will be 3-d. it creates a whole bunch of new programs and new different agencies and that was enough to put the brakes on this program back in the early 1990's. when the american people got a look at all this government that was pried that they were going to all the hooli-- prescribed, that they were going to all these hops, they decided they didn't want to make that big change. and so just the idea of this chart, i think, if this chart had been pulled out of the equation, i think perhaps hillary's health care plan would have passed. but the american people can see in one snapshot pick thur huge growth in government that comes about and the loss of freedom. this is about freedom. and when i look down through this list, i see h.m.o. provider plan, global budget plan, the global budget plan for a national health care plan. all of these agencies over on this side, d.o.l., pwba, i don't even know what those mean

anymore. but growing, creating new government. how it it's interrelated with state government. executive office of the president sitting on top of that. but this chart was something that caused the american people to wonder, how many lines would they stand in? how many government agencies would they have to deal with? and when you look at americans standing in line, it's pretty, you know, we do that occasionally in the cities when things are busy in the grocery store or wherever. but if you're standing in line, you're giving up some of your freedom. you're giving up some of your time that you could be doing something different with. and when you stand in line for retail, you always have an opportunity to go to another line. when you stand in line for government there's only one line. and you shall wait until that line slowly progresses through the door. well, we have a new chart here and this is the chart that reflects the new language and this chart -- this is a chart that when the american people

absorb all the components of this, they will also understand that there's freedom that will be lost. and i put this out here because i want to make sure that the gentleman from michigan can see this. it and i want to make this point, because this is a dialogue situation that we have here on the floor. when i looked at this chart, i will say that reading the bill over and over again doesn't draw a description that that you can see in your head the way you can if you have the chart to follow. this is 31 new government agencies. this is 31 new hoops that people have to jump through. they won't have to jump through every one to get their tonsils out but they'll have to jump through some new ones to get their tonsils out or a hip replacement or a knee or whatever it might be. but in this whole flow chart that reflects these many pages of legislation, the one that i bring my attention to and the one that causes me concern is this little segment right here, traditional health insurance plans. these are the 1,200 or 1,300 plans that the chairman of the

judiciary committee alluded to, i call that a lot of competition. 1,200 to 1,300 insurance plans competing against each other for the premium dollar, they're out there trying to device new packages and new ways to market and different ways to accommodate the needs of the health insurance consumer. 1,300, in fact, my number is over 1,300 of these policies. well, under this proposal, this new national -- the house democrats' health plan, this new health care plan, any health insurance policy that you have today would have to go into this circle, this purple circle here called the qualified health benefits plans. they would be the private sector plans. so these 1,300 or so plans would have to meet the new -- newly written government regulations in order to qualify under the qualified plans. those regulations will not be specified now the this bill. they won't say in the bill that

you have to have a certain deductible object a certain co-payment or no co-examente. there will be regulations written in there, perhaps portability, but in any case, the qualified health benefits plans, that's the pool that this whole box of 1,300 would have to go into, they'll have to meet the new standards, the new standards that will be written by the health choices administration commissioner. whom we can confidently define as the health choices administration czar. commissioners have a better sound to it today because we have 32 czars, we're kind of worn down on czars. but commissioners are ok. this commissioner will, with whatever board that directs him and whatever direction he gets from the white house and perhaps with input from the house and the senate, perhaps, will write new regulations and he'll tell these 1,300 and some health insurance policies, you'll conform to these standards in order to be qualified. if you're not a qualified health

insurance plan, will you not be allowed thunderstorm law to sell insurance in the united states. america -- of merks. -- america. so when the president promises that if you like your health insurance plan you get to keep it, i do not believe that the president could be able with any kind of confidence make that promise because in reality he doesn't know yet what these qualified health benefit plans are. but we do know that they aren't going to qualify every plan as it is. they may not qualify any plans as they are. but they will be pushed into this circle here and they will have to be written in such a way that the new plan, this other purple circle, the public health plan, that's the public option that the gentlemen have been speaking about over this past hour. the public option is designed to compete against these 1,300 and some private health insurance plans. now, there are a couple of thanges can happen. if the public option is having trouble competing, they he can either lower the premiums and subsidize them with tax dollars

or can they can raise the regulations on the private plans so that the health insurance plan today that people have, one of those 1,300 and some plans that are there, they have to meet the new government regulations. you raise the regulation, you raise the costs, you raise the premiums. these policies will not be the same policies if this health insurance plan changes. that's why the president can't make that promise. he can make the promise but he can't keep it and the american people know he can't keep it. so the difference between this full techny color plan and the hillary care plan behind that's in black and white is this, that the hillary care plan was a single pair plain -- payer plan. it was a plan that was not quite one size fits all but it was one government plan for all. this is a transitional plan to hillary care plan. this is a plan that sets up and transfers all private health insurance today into government approved qualified health benefit plans. the government will write the

regulations, they will say what's mandated, they will tell the companies what they have to provide for insurance, what they have to cover, whether they can have deductibles, whether they can have co-payments and what kind of portability may or may not exist and i think the portability will exist and by the time they write the regulations you won't be able to tell whether you have a private health insurance plan or whether you have the public option. because they'll be written under the same rules. so it will just be the difference in whether someone is out there still hanging on. but i can tell what you happened in germany. germany has the longest history with public health insurance plan of any country in the world. they put it in under autovon bismarck for political reasons and today even though they have a private option as we're being promised here, 90% of the health insurance in germany is the public plan. it's the plan that they write and they put the dollars into it. the 10% that are out there that

have private plans are mostly people that are self-employed, that are making a kind of an income that allows them to go outside the government market to buy some health insurance that they think might give them a little bit better access to health care. 10% private, 90% public. 90% government. now i don't know what's in this dialogue or in the bill that's going to change our way of thinking, that would change what happens here in the united states, but we know that as much as people say about how popular the canadian health care plan may be, they keep coming to the united states for health care from canada. and in canada, it's a law that prohibits the canadians from jumping ahead in the line. they have lines now that, let's see, the numbers, i will recall them, 360 days waiting period for a knee joint, for a new knee joint. 196 days waiting for a new hip

joint. in america that's, well, we can get you in tomorrow or next week, what's your pleasure? we'll make sure we adjust the schedule of the health care providers so that we do get people in for that kind of surgery, whether it's heart surgery, knee surgery, hip surgery, whatever it might be. we don't have waiting lines in the united states unless they're waiting at the emergency room with people that are walking in there. and i will point out also, mr. speaker, that the dialogue that we have heard, not just here in the previous hour ahead of me speaking, but constantly throughout this entire health care debate, has been, the blending, the merging and the confusing of the terms health care and health insurance. for example, when the gentleman said just previously, millions and millions of people who don't have health care, that was the chairman, well, we don't have anybody in america that doesn't have health care. everyone in america has access to health care.

but we don't have everybody in america that's insured. and when we blur the terms and we say that there are millions of people that don't have health care, we need to drag that thing back to the reality of the truth and make it the point that, no, everybody has health care, excuse me, at least if they will access it, they have health care, but they don't all have health insurance. and when you take the full numbers of people in the united states and you start subtracting from that the numbers of people who are just simply not exercising an option of picking up health insurance, we'll hear the number that there are 44 million to 47 million people in america that are uninsured. but when you start subtracting from that, first, i'm not interested in insuring the lisles in america. i think those people that came into the united states illegally should go home. we have an obligation to put them back in the condition they were in prior to them breaking

the law. we should not reward them for violating our immigration laws so the illegals should be subtracted. also, newly arriving immigrants are supposed to take care of themselves, they he can't hardly press themselves on the public doll and plead with us that the minute they arrive here we should provide them health insurance, we provide them health care, nobody gets turned away, but they cannot demand health insurance. then when you subtract from that the people that are making over $75,000 a year, they can surely find a way to take care of some heament insurance with some income like that. and you shake this number down, what are we really after here? we're after a number that identifies those people who apparently can't take care of themselves, who can't take care of their own health insurance, the chronically uninsured. the chronically uninsured in america are a number between 10.1 million and 12 million depending on whether you believe

the two professer's study at pe in, n state or the one from our committee here. someplace in that zone is the total number of those who are chronically uninsured in america. divide that out, say, 11 million, and divide it by 306 million, you're in the zone of about 4%. we have the best health care system in the world. . we get the best health care system in the world. i won't argue we shouldn't take dollars out of this because there are a lot of dollars in our health care system. but we are looking at upsetting the best health care system in the world to try to address the 4% of our population that are chronically uninsured. why would we do that? what's our goal? don't we know some things from all the experience that we have had in dealing with people who have had public policies offered to them? if you look across the states what, percentage of those kids that are eligible are signed up

for schip? we look at how government abuses schip when in wisconsin 87% of those signed up for state children's health insurance program were adults. and in minnesota, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison's state, 66% were adults. they were abusing the system. they were not using the system. and if you look at the numbers of people who are eligible for medicaid versus those who are actually signed up for medicaid, just slightly over half of those that are eligible for medicaid are actually signed up. so why would we think that we can fix this problem of the 4% of the population that's chronically uninsured even if we do bring a public plan and public option? why would we think they would sign up? i don't think they are going to sign up in any greater numbers than they do for schip or any greater numbers than they do for medicaid. one of the reasons is because a certain percentage of the population is just simply not responsible enough to step up to

that responsibility. and there's supposed to be a reward in this country for people who do take the initiative, take care of themselves. but i'm concerned about this loss of freedom. i'm concerned about this transition of the traditional health insurance plans crowded into the qualified health benefits plans with new regulations written that may compel them to pay certain benefits that would be morally objectionable to many of us, and then is written so they would compete with the public benefits plan. and seeing also that this is a transition to get us to the hillary care plan which was a complete substitution of the private health insurance in america and replaced with a government-run plan. another major moral objection that i have. i will say this is actually the moral objection. i will tell this as an anecdotal form, but sometime in the literal 1980's my congressman

was fred grandy and many people will remember fred as gopher on "love boat" a very smart grad. policy wonk. he's still left an impression upon colleagues i serve with here on how smart and how policy able he is and was active in in those years. it was unusual for a member of congress to come to my little town. and fred did do a stop in my little town and we bet in the basement of the lutheran church. it was a pretty good crowd for a small town. about 80 people there. i went and sat down in the front row, most of the reason is because i can't hear very good in the back row. of those 80 people there, congressman fred grandy proposed his model for a national health care plan. as he described it, i listened to it carefully, and then he stopped and he said, how many of you in the room provide health insurance for your -- how many of you in the room are

employers? i raised my hand and remember looking around the room. there were 12 of us with our hands up. a dozen out of 80 or so that were employers. then he asked the question, how many of you provide health insurance for your employees? i left my hand up. but it was the only hand up out of the 80 in the room. and then congressman grandy came directly in front of me and he leaned down and he said, and of the way i have described this national health plan, how much will this change the way you do business? and i gave him the answer that was in the front of my head and i think i do that pretty much today as well. i said, well, congressman, it probably won't change the way i do business very much unless you're going to compel me to pay for abortion in which case i quite likely will no longer be an employer. that was my answer. it was a blunt answer. it was exactly what i was thinking. and the place erupted in applause. i had no idea that there was a

nerve out there to be touched in that fashion. i had no idea that i'd ever enter into public life in any fashion. i had no idea that i would be serving on the judiciary committee at a time like this. no idea i would be standing here on the floor of congress relating a story that's more than 20 years old. where i found out it wasn't just me that considers requiring americans to pay tax -- take their tax dollars to fund the ending of innocent human life and calling that the expansion of freedom is abhorrent to many americans. that is, at the core of this, don't know how this administration avoids the position that they have taken, but i don't know how american people step up and get out there checkbook and write a check to the i.r.s. if that check is going to go into, or write a check for health insurance premiums for that matter, if that check is going to go into planned parenthood, the abortion clinic into this snuffing out of

innocent human life, when it gets to the point where it is a moral principle, the american people i don't believe will tolerate the imposition of a policy like that. this policy, some will say we don't have any proof that it's going to be -- we are going to be compelled to pay for abortion in this health insurance plan. the history of the entire funding of abortion since roe vs. wade has been if there is not a specific exemption in the bill, if there is not a specific exemption passed by congress, then government will fund abortions. that's how it has been since 1973. so this bill when there was -- when it was offered in committee to prohibit any of this money from going to abortions, that amendment was shot down on almost exactly a party-line vote. so this congress has already spoken. if anybody thinks that this massive technicolor flow chart new health care plan crowd your

private plan into competing against the public plan and eventually the public plan swallowing all the private plans f. anybody thinks this isn't designed today by the people in power in this congress to fund abortion, they would be wrong. and we had the opportunity, the white house budget director, when asked the question, he would not rule it out that they would be funding abortions under this program. we all have to take them at their word. their spoken or unspoken word. but if the legislation doesn't explicitly exclude abortion, we know that they are going to be seeking to fund abortion. 69% of americans oppose taxpayer funding for abortion, according to a zogby poll last year. 69% opposed. in may of 2009, a gallup poll finds 51% of americans identify themselves as pro-life. but if you start dropping off some of the exceptions, you go right on up the line as high as 75% or more.

no one can win the argument if you ask them what instant their life began if they believe in the sanctity of human life unless they take the position that they are pro-life. i think that this legislation that goes after a big chunk of our economy, at least 17% of our economy, it goes directly after a strong moral objection that many of us hold against abortion itself, let alone compelling people to fund abortions here in the united states or in a foreign land. and now, mr. speaker, i take you back to the president's basic principles that he's argued about as to why he says we need to establish this national health care plan. his principle is this. the economy is a mess. it's not quite any longer in free fall, but we are in an economic situation that's quite difficult. and, he says, president obama, health care is broken. and he also contends that we

can't fix our economy unless we first fix health care. well, health care/health insurance, let's put that all together because i think he's talking about the package. so here's the situation. the economy is in a shambles, it's limping along, it doesn't show any signs of recovery, it may still be declining. and when -- so with a bad economy and the president says we have to overhaul the health care system in america in order to recover economically, here's the principle. how do you bring something out economically if you're going to propose a $1.2 trillioto $2 trillion plan that's going to require increasing taxes to buy $800 billion or $900 billion and leave by all accounts at least a minus $239.1 billion in deficit created by all of this, how do you, if we can't afford a health care plan that we have, how do

you create one that costs $1 trillion to $2 trillion more, increases the deficit, and increases the taxes, how do you create all that and say it's a fix? it looks to me like, no, it's more of an addiction on increasing taxes and government. here's a conclusion i have come to, mr. speaker. no matter what kind of logic this side of the aisle will apply, no matter what the met tricks are from an economic approach. no matter what we can point to that shows that this is the best health care system in the world. and by the way, before i get to the conclusion on the no matter whats, i want to list the things do i agree on. we spend too much money on health care in this contry. too high a percentage of our g.d.p. we have to do something about portability in america. because when people move from job to job, they should not have to stay in a job because their health insurance doesn't go with them if they leave. we agree on those things. something else that's missing from this flow chart, though, is

liability reform. medical malpractice insurance is too high. and it is a significant part of this. if you can produce all government workers producing all the health care, then you can end up with sovereign immunity and we can maybe get rid of this litigation in the end. i wonder if that's where it's going. i suspect it's not. so those are the things that -- two things we agree on. cost too much monny, we need to make it portable. aside from that, there are many other solutions that i would apply. one of them would be if health insurance premiums are deductible for anyone, if they are deductible for the corporation or the employer, they should be deductible for everyone. the same kind of compodit should be deductible for an individual, for the ma and pa shop for the farms they should be deductible for everybody in america in the same fashion they are deductible for the company. that would move a lot of people out of their existing programs

and let them market and -- shop and own their own policy. so i'm for full deductibility. i'm for expanding health savings accounts. i'm for limiting the liability under medical malpractice. adopting the language we passed out of the judiciary committee and off the floor of this house about three or four years ago that caps the noneconomic damages at $250,000. i'm for doing those things. i don't know anybody that's for doing nothing. we want to do all we can to fix this program, but we can't to keep the competition in place and we want people to keep their freedom. but it does not follow logically, mr. speaker, for the president to claim that we are in an economic difficulty of proportions not seen since the great depression and that we can't fix the economy without first fixing health care/health insurance and that the fix for health care and health insurance is a $1 trillion to $2 trillion government spending program with an $800 billion or $900 billion

tax increase with a $239.1 billion deficit, how -- how does going further in debt spending more money solve a problem for a health insurance program that already spends too much money? if you put more money into the system, where are they taking it out? i don't see where they are taking it out except squeezing down medicare. that's one of the components that are there. i have seen numbers as high as $500 billion. it might not be in here on this flow chart, but in the finer print of the bill. if they squeeze down medicare, medicare that in my district, on average, is paying only 80% of the costs of delivering the service, and in iowa, out of the 50 states, we have the lowest medicare reimbursement state in the entire country. the lowest reimbursement rate. we are in the top five in quality year after year. there are a number of different categories.

sometimes we are number one in some of the categories. but out of all 50 states when you look at the aggregate, the quality of health care, iowa ranks in top five consistently year after year after year. we are last in reimbursement rate in the country year after year after year. and so this idea of squeezing $500 billion out of the medicare reimbursement rates because they think somebody's making too much money, what happens is, it pushes those costs over on to the private payers, called cost shifting. you shift the costs. at some point this bubble has to burst. i think this bill squeezes it to the point where the bubble busts -- bursts. so i would make this point, too, that we should get our verbiage right. we should call health care, health care. that's the providers, that's the service, that's when we are taking care of patients. we should call health insurance, health insurance. that's when a premium gets paid to an insurance company and the insurance company pays t