hit a hot spot for me to. the fact that china has such a high savings rate and we do not. i am a big saver myself and am a bit disgusted with the typical american consumption binge. not just of the consumer, but of the government. who has gotten us into $13 billion of debt which china owns. the personal savings rate is 28%. the government savings rate adds up to about 47%. the u.s. is in the single

digits, recovering from close to zero. savings gives people power. when you accumulate wealth you can go on around the world and buy whatever you want. china has been doing that, by and mineral resources in australia, buying from ecuador. i would love if america would return to a nation of savings. one way is to take the tax rate of of interest rates on savings. i get taxed when i earn the money to save, on the interest iron on savings, and five build ua legacy for inheritance i get taxed on accumulated wealth when it transfers from one generation to the next. we are taxing savings, and therefore it goes down. host: austin, texas on the line for democrats ,vivian. guestcaller: the only people

benefiting from wto are the multi-national corporations. when my granddaughter goes to college and does everything right, then has to get out and get a crummy job, she can survive. but i'm so mad. when i see these things that show these brazilian hardwood floors-- do you know what that is doing to the rain forest? you cabalists are going to destroy the world. those people are making money off of that brazilian hardwood, but not for people. not the brazilian people. they are not making the money from destroying the rain forest. the only thing free trade is, is the spreading of the greed of capitalism on the over-populated world. guest: come one up, i will take

you to lunch. host: go ahead and address her issue. guest: there is no one who loves to put more than me, in a big outdoorsman. i have a lot of questions about this global warming business. it is government and the benefits. and gives government more power when we have to have a big national and international plans to stop it. the anti-global warming people have gotten smarter about knowing where the money comes from, just like economists did a few years ago when they figured out how to get grants. you had to come up with papers that said we need a bigger government. the same thing has been learned by the global warming folks. i think it has been revealed that having -- rather than having an inconvenient true, having a convenient lie. of hardware andtrees, but let's

give the truth of to. it is not capitalism destroying the planet. host: how much does the strength or weakness of the dollar have to do with the fluctuations of the trade surplus, and does a services-based surplice, is it willing to withstand more of the dollar fluctuation? guest: the dollar is a very difficult thing. trying to figure of what causes it to go up or down is a the house will come to order. the house will be in order.

>> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute out of order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman from california is recognized. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i think all of our colleagues are aware of the fact that a week and a half ago, after a more than 3 1/2 year battle against ovarian cancer, effie

radanovich, the wife of our california colleague, george, tragically passed away. i'd like to ask for a moment of silence. she was a wonderful, wonderful human being. i'd like to ask our colleagues to join in a moment of silence for effie radanovich and to extend our thoughts and prayers to george and their 11-year-old son king. the speaker o tempore: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the question on adoption of the amendment printed in part b of house report 111-413 by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, on which the yeas and

nays were ordered. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number two printed in pb of house report 111-413, offered by mr. flake of arizona. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the amendment. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

there is no way to determine which version of it is due to a service econom verseus manufacturing note no way to tell the effect of the current administration's situation where it might of been the opposite compared toreagan years. reflexed to me a belief that america is doing itsswan song because we're not embracing principles that is what the in the first place. hard work, honesty, savings, in addition, education -- those principles.

the proper role for government and a capitalist society -- to create an environment in which people have the incentive to work hard, be honest, save money, engage in productive at risk-taking like starting a business. as a getaway from this principle, you will not have greatness. the president has been great in this country when he departed from capitalist principles. free-market principles on which 150 million people get up and go to work everyday to make a living for their family. that is what makes us a great. host: walter on the line for independents, macon, georgia. caller: thank you, mr.cox. the lady on the phone -- capitalism made that high- definition camera and the car she is driving. that is what built this country. i saw on a stock market channel,

ceo of one of the largest natural gas drilling corporations in america. he says as long as the talk about taxing corporations, they will withhold their expansion. there's plenty of natural gas here. he said if we start drilling like t. boone pickens said, we will have jobs, build better powerplants and produce a lot more energy without pollution. a west virginia company lied about the pollution looking for on theirpipes up there. he said we can export natural gas to japan and europe, and other developing countries. guest: you are right about that. the most useful part of your discussion there at the

beginning was about the video camera. the excellence of the product brought to market. i remember the first cell phone in 1984 which cost $4,200. that product today is much improved and has a camera and lots of other pitchers and cost 100 bucks. it was bought by nothing other than markets. people seem to put down the whole word of "capitalism" as if it is a four-letter word. free-market, comers, not government. over the same time from 1984 until today, what has happened to government schools? we call the public, but they're really government. do they improve education? which form of schooling got better? host: albert, from san antonio. caller: good morning.

i like your discussions, but i would like for the gentleman to remember -- we cannot just lay off everybody. if you do that, they will not buy anything. stopped shipping jobs overseas. please put us back to work. guest: right, i am with you. you cannot lay off everybody. historically, look at the data on where people used to work through 1800, 95% works onfarms. under five a data100 put food on the table, only 5% left work for all the other things like medical services, things we like and need. 1.5% of americans today work on farms. we are so productive with that amount that we export food to the rest of the world.

we have created jobs in all other sectors for america. you are right, you just do not destroy jobs -- we typically create more than we destroy. when the leader is released from one job because we ha improvements in farming which make us more predict of, the fund its way into another job which is typically higher-paint with shorter hours. our wages go up, our work week goes down. in the 1830's every person worked 76 hours per day, six days per week, plus how s ofunday. today the work week is down into the mid-30's and we are more productive than ever. host: is there an optimal balance between manufacturere

export and services export that brings in the most money? or does the bush we with the dollar and needs of people we export to? guest: good question. i have not found the tipping point yet. i noticed manufacturing when it gets over 30% of th the amendment is not adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the question son the amendment in the nature of a substitute by the gentleman from hawaii, mr. abercrombie. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentleman from washington -- >> mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of a recorded vote please signify by rising.

a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

caller: our unemployment rate is still close to 10%. our country is in a downturn. i know why most of the fortune 500 companies have moved to texas. it is closer to the labor market, at south of the border. now, when you talk about free markets, are you talking about an arab oil market or the number one cost is energy? is that a free market or cartel? i would say to you that that is a cartel. when you talk about china,

venezuela, some of these other countries that we allow our labor to go to, are you talking about a free people, a free market? no, you are not talking about a free market. you guys have installed the highest bidders, whether it comes to the labor market or the oil market -- you guys are making money but i doubt very seriously that you have ever had a blister on her hands. had a blister on yo+#ñç hands? i]guest: you could not be more wrong. my first job was cutting grass. i have had every man will labor job in the country. -- every manual labor job in the country to working from 6:30 in the morning to 8:30 at night, as a 13-year-old, working for my

dad. no child labor laws their br-- no child labor lawsxdñr there. we have to understand what makes this nation rich. çwew3ç have to produce materil goods in order to get ahead. tellt( me what material could ce at the material which you consume -- you want eyeglasses? eyeglasses are made of matter.

host: massachusetts, on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. how are you? thank god for c-span. you have been telling us all about these obscure little things, things that are taxable or whatever. i was wondering whether he thought that the united states is going to be completely filled with lawyers and doctors and indian chiefs in the future. guest: no -- caller: where is this -- guest: the united states will be filled with people who produce the goods that folks wanted folks are always saying, where is my good açç job?

the industry wants to know, where is my qualified worker? if somebody is up to the task, i will hire them. implement those to 82.5% for drilling operators -- employment goes to 82.5% for drilling operatorserssssssssssssssssssss.

the first clue to figuring out how to become employable and valuable and in this nation is to look at the data on unemployment rates. you will see what industries want and what they don't want. we need to educate people and train people for the jobs industry's one. you will get a job. host: there is a headline in "the financial times" that "u.s. needs to fill in blanks on a trade deals." what are the blanks that need to

be filled in? guest: we cannot come to the table with a something for nothing attitude. that is what we have done, thinking that foreigners will open up for our business without us opening up for their spurted -- without us opening up for theirs. india and china together for 2.5 billion people. do i believe that the sum total of japan, germany, and south korea changed the world and made the u.s. better off? i certainly believe they did. we won that battle and our income stayed above all three of those nations. we still have the highest income even with those three competitors. consumers are better off. now we have thes#1 opportunity-

those three nations -- germany, japan, and south korea -- to water 60 million people,qtz'd china and -- 260 million people, and china and india are 2.5 billion. we need to move up the hierarchy of human talent. physical labor, manual dexterity -- we need to move up to more analytic reasoning. there are a lot of programmers in india who can do the job and we need to move up in creativity and people skills and emotional intelligence. we need to be managing the global labor force. it is not that we are outsourcing to many jobs, it is that we are not creating enough global entrepreneurs. you can connect over the internet. so people are doing that, but not enough.

host: michael cox was the former -- work at the federal4á+ reserve bank of dallas, where he was chief economist and senior vice president for 25 years, the only chief economist in history at the federal reserve bank in dallas. tennessee, bill on the line for republicans. caller: good morning, c-span. good morning, mr. cox. in spite of this high rhetoric about the ability and wonders of the service industry nation, we are absolutely self diluted. it is disgusting. i have been a businessman all my life. i am retired right now, and a lot people are still out there, and nobody is going to invest, and nobody is going to expand, and nobody is going to develop, and nobody is going to do the r&d work, nobody is going to hire. with this maniac we have in washington right now imposing

these monstrosities, monstrous pieces of legislation -- specifically, i want to talk about exports. we don't make anything anymore. we cannot compete in the global market if, in reality -- mr. cox, let me just in like a new -- in central america, we are trying to compete with 11 cents- an-hour labor -- excuse me, 11 cents in china. in the country of mexico, they are paying 75 cents an hour doing on the manufacturing work. we're not going to be able to compete with this. i do not know where anybody gets the idea we can compete. america destroyed its ability to compete when we allowed commerce and industry and entrepreneur ship to go offshore because the cost of government -- hostile government murder, is in america with these unions, -- murdered

commerce america with these unions and the bureaucratic nightmare. they crushed businesses in america. guest: interesting mix of things i agree with and things i don't. i agree with what you said about what is happening in congress right now, and the administration, and what he said about all of these nightmare of legislation that government has imposed on us. i happen to know a lot about south america. my wife is from south america. the wage figures are a little bit lower their -- the wage figures are a little below their -- a little bit low there. how can u.s. workers in manufacturing which make $20, $25 an hour compete with workers in china? the answer is productivity. if you are 20 times as productive as they are, you can

20 or 30 times as much. that will always stay that way. how do you maintain productivity? you do so by having the capital and equipment which allows people to become more productive. what kind of capital by talking about? physical and intellectual capital. the machinery you put in my hand, which is very sophisticated and in bodies a lot of knowledge and technology, makes me more productive. i've learned how to do it better. i don't have to do it better from u.s. manufacturing -- i learned how to do it better for u.s. manufacturing, become more productive it is knowledge, no how. we can maintain our advantage -- if we are going to be exactly like them, we will make what they make. we have got to stay ahead of the curve, and that is what we are doing. host: at next call is from ohio, david on the line for independents.

caller: thank you for c-span. my question for michael cox -- he is all for free trade. under free trade, money and products can cross the border, rich people can cross the border, and corporations can cross the border. but it is getting harder and harder for average people and poor people to cross the border and traded their labor. do you think we should just open up the borders and let everybody -- free trade just like they do in the european union? or is it just for rich people? guest: no, i don't. in terms of immigration policy, immigration policy was indicted by unemployment rates. in those occupations -- immigration policy was guided by unemployment rates. we don't need more people to come here to become a janitor. on the other hand, low unemployment rates, and things like computer services and

programming, the whole thing -- you can look at these unemployment rates. the data is available from the bureau of labor statistics. in the areas where unemployment rates are low, that is where i would recommend we let people in. the first thing you learn and economics is to create and order, i repeat, what do i need the most, what i need -- to create order, hierarchy, what do i need them most, what i need the next most. host: next is the line for democrats. caller: mr. cox, first of all, you being in the federal reserve right there tells me you are corrupt. it was started in 1913 by the corrupt congress. the corporations --

[unintelligible] since clinton signed that, i thought it would bring the world up to our standards, but no, it has brought us down to third world standards. you know it and i know it, and you are sitting there and lying to us. that is all you are doing, lying. look at how this country -- what is going on with this country. china getting the money to put the military up against us? this is crazy. i cannot believe what you are saying. guest: i really cannot understand much of what you were saying. caller: let's go on to maryland on our line for republicans. jack, you are on "washington journal." caller: the reason i called is i am probably involve myself more in government than i ever did watching it growing up. what other things that bothers me most is that my grandfather worked in a paper mill -- one of

the things that bothers me most is that my grandfather worked in a paper mill and was the second largest producer of paper in the world. what bothers me the most is when i have got to go buy a pair of hunting boots and i look at the label, and it disgusts me, because i never see anything made in the usa any more. we have men who fought in the wars and died and gave the lives for freedom in this country. i took pride in our country, and when i see these products, and they all come from, like, venezuela, china, and these third world countries, i think, where is the people who run our government? where is the pride in this country anymore? guest: well, it goes back to the same old thing. what i'm hearing is a lot of people who feel like america has

been at dethroned because we are not manufacturing. that same feeling was 100 years ago when we were moving out of the agrarian age. the value derived from the land and was crazy that america could move from an agrarian nation to an industrial nation, that there is nothing valuable about industry. it is the exact same sentiment that comes from having so much change at once. i am in favor of progress, it is the changes i don't like. that is what i hear talking to the changes going to come and it is going to make us better off -- that is what i hear, talking to but change is coming and it is going to make us better off. the sooner we get the tools, the better off we are going to be. it happened when we move from an agrarian industry to a manufacturing industry, and will

happen as we move from manufacturing to services. there is no label on services. i can see the label on boots, but i cannot see the label on services. why can we have this and the country? -- why can we not have this in the country. unions. host: billions have a role in helping us to move from a manufacturer -- will unions have a role in helping us to move from manufacturing to services? guest: no. will they help us in moving from manufacturing to services? they help us in moving away from it. workers had a lot of grievances, they had been working on the farms, and it is hard when you are there changes to an assembly line all day long.

people had a lot of objections to the orchestra and were putting -- with the -- people had a lot of objections to the work style and were quitting at ford motor right and left. i worked in several manufacturing plants, most notably for repair. -- for root beer. as we move out of manufacturing to service jobs, the jobs of better working conditions. host: michael cox, we will have to leave it there. we have run out of time to thank you very much for being on "washington journal." guest: thanks.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 245 the nays are 164, the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the house will come to order. without objection, the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, today i had the honor of speaking with chicago firefighter anet nance hope and chicago police officer ronald hope. their 16-year-old son blare was shot and killed when a gang

member opened fire on a bus. blair jumped in front of another student to save her. when the son of two public servants gives his life because of gun violence, i ask, are we prepared to do this for kids? this congress has allowed unlicensed gun dealers to sell gowns at gun shows to people on terrorist watch lists and refuses to re-authorize the assault weapon ban. congress has failed to hold the middle ground on guns. blair hope was willing to take a bullet to protect a stranger. is it too much to ask to ask this house to take vote to protect our kids.

thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i'm a physician, i still give uninsured patients at the hospital where i've worked for 20 years. to give uninsured patients access to health care, we have to lower costs. this is also about a stronger economy. according to the white house council for economic advisors, there's a study that explains that lowering health care costs lowers unemployment, raises the standard of living and prevents disastrous budgetary consequences. unfortunately, the house and senate bills, neither lowers cost. the congressional budget office says that each will more than double costs over the next decade. now, yesterday, the president released a new proposal combining the house and senate bill. but combining two bills that don't lower costs results in a third bill which certainly

doesn't lower costs. if you don't lower costs, access and quality suffer, our economy suffers, people lose their jobs. the american people, republicans, democrats, and independents, want health care reform. but they want reform which controls costs and re-- in reality, not just in rhetoric. they know their health care, economy, and jobs depend upon it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> i rise as a result of a bill on kilo tur. they say the bill for transportation will be on the table by the end of the year. i ask, why not now? why not last february when we

were talk act the stimulus bill? only 4% of the stimulus bill went to roads and bridges. while it's widely acknowledged that government spending doesn't end recession the money that has been otherwise squandered on portions of the stimulus that have been highly contested could have within used to maintain our infrastructure. above all it could have led to a more productive country. the american people deserve certainty, whether it's looming health care mandates or others wondering if highway dollars are going to be there. we would re-authorize surface transportation legislation immediately. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> to address the house --

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. speaker, ski unanimous consent to adreads the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> network news coverage of the administration's so-called stimulus package has been overwhelmingly one-sided according to anagecy sis by the media and business institute. since the president signed it into law, abc, cbs, and nbc featured supporters of the stimulus over those who oppose it by a margin of 2-1. incredibly, about half of the network news reports have shown no opposing opinions about the stimulus bill. americans are not buying the media's spin. three of four say the stimulus money has been wasted. and only 6% think it has

created jobs, according to a cbs/"new york times" poll. 3.3 million jobs have been lost since the stimulus was signed. the national media should give americans the facts about jobs, not tell them what to think. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, if americans are believing that the stimulus isn't working, then the media must be telling them that. so i'm kind of curious about the previous argument. the facts are that the stimulus in my district, in california, is working. without it, there would be even more layoffs. it's not that this whole thing started in january of 2009, the great recession started the previous two years so we've been trying to catch up. the stimulus is actually working.

thousands of teachers are working in california as a result of the stimulus. thousands of jobs have been created and in my own district, schools are being repaired and major transportation projects are going forward. so i know, from my district that the stimulus is working regardless of what the media may be saying. it is working. without it, there would be even greater layoffs. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? >> mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, mr. speaker, i rise today in memory of my friend, dr. frederick "fritz" cuban, husband of former wyoming congressman cuban who served the state for 14 years in this u.s. house. after a lengthy illness, fritz passed away this past monday. our condolences go out to barbara, sons bill and eric,

and their family and friends. fritz had many passions. his family always first. hunting and politics taking the silver and bronze. doctor cuban served his country in the united states air force. he served his family as a confidant to his wife, a devoted father to his sons. a family doctor for many, he also served his community, making his appointed rounds to the caspers retirement home to the very end. fritz cuban was a fierce patriot with apologies to no one. he will be missed. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor the distinguished careers of navy sales petty officer second class larry allen stone and petty

officer second class mario miestis. these were seals who dedicated themselves to serving our country and gave the ultimate sacrifice. stone was a member of the united states navy seal team two, little creak amphibious base where he was a lead communications instructor for the team. his superior kill of communication and equipment earned in the job instructing new seals and his athletic prowess earned him the title of outstanding athlete in his unit. mistis served five years in the navy before becoming a navy seal in 2000. as a seal he participated in combat missions in kosovo, including deployments in support of task force falcon kosovo for which he earned the navy accommodation medal, the national defense service medal, the good conduct medal and a flag letter of commendation. we are honoring these fallen seals during a memorial and

building dedication for the naval special warfare facilities in arkansas saturday, february 27, 2010, they've devoted their lives to our country. they are truly american heroes who will be remembered for their service and sacrifice. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. mr. boehner of ohio requests -- the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. cull bersome of texas for today -- cull ber son of texas for today. >> without objection, the request is granted -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise?

for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> 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 you the house, revise and extends their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. poe on march 2 for five minutes, mr. jones, march 2, for five minutes, mr. moran, march 2, for five minutes, mr. turner, february 26, five minutes, mr. boozman, today, for five minutes. mr. posey, today, for five minutes. ms. foxx today for five minutes. mr. murphy today for five minutes and mr. brady today for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the

gentleman from ohio rise? >> 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 dreals the house for five minutes, to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. cummings of maryland, five minutes, ms. woolsey of california, five minutes, myself, mr. space of ohio, five minutes, mr. mcdermott of washington for five minutes, mr. defazio of oregon for five minutes and ms. kaptur of ohio for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mr. moran of kansas. mr. cummings of maryland. >> i ask to claim mr. cummings' time.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. space: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. space: thank you, mr. speaker. and i rise today to discuss our economy. i do not rise, however, to cast blame, engage in political posturing or cast against my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. i rise to speak to what i believe all of us, all of white house have been blessed with the right of representation for our constituents, have an obligation to do and that is to deal with our economy. our constituents don't really care how we got here, they don't care who's to blame, they frankly don't care who comes up with the solutions, but they deserve and need resolution to these economic problems that we're facing right now. what our constituents on both sides of the aisle deserve is vision. vision of the future, a vision

of a new economy. back in ohio's 18th congressional district, mr. speaker, things are especially difficult, it is the area known as appalachian, ohio, consisting of 16 counties, 16 fortunate poorest counties in the state of -- 16 of the poorest counties in the state of ohio, with the you highest unemployment rates, the highest poverty rates and with those high poverty rates come the manifestations of poverty including hunger, homelessness, the breakdown of the traditional family unit, the lack of access to health care, lack of access to education, the list goes on and on. what i have been attempting to do in southeastern ohio and what i urge my colleagues to consider doing around the country is to look forward to a future of economic prosperity, one where we know that things will be better. for example, the area of energy. i have organized an effort

called renew ohio that is designed to focus on the jobs of the future. one of those fields that we know is an emerging sector is the field of energy. not only will developments in technology and investments in energy sectors ultimately bring down the cost of energy, ridding ourselves of this dangerous and cancerous dependence on foreign oil, it will also create millions of jobs. it is obvious and it is promising. another sector, health care, because of the aging nature of our society we know that there will be future prospects for employment in the field of health care. another sector, technology. by bringing broadband, for example, to unserved and underserved areas of america we're going to be advancing opportunities for economic growth and bridging the divide

that exists right now in rural america when it comes to access to health care and education. and finally, agriculture. agricultural jobs of tomorrow are quite different from the ones we know of today and the jobs of yesterday. it's a field that shows promise when it comes to trade, field that shows promise with its relationship to energy and one that if we position ourselves correctly in will create jobs for tomorrow. this crisis that we are dealing with in this country, which has become very personal to every american, is one that we must address without regard to partisan politics. our constituents clearly are ahead of congress on that issue. they don't want blame, they don't want aspergses, they don't want excuses, they want answers and they want vision and they want leadership and with that i

urge members on both sides of this aisle in this hallowed hall to work together to find consensus and to move forward for a brighter -- brighter tomorrow and with that i yield back the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mr. burton of indiana. mr. burton: thank you. i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. burton: mr. speaker, one of the biggest problems facing the middle east and the entire world is the nuclear development program that iran is involved in right now. the international atomic energy agency in just the last few days has said that iran is probably developing a nuclear warhead that they could use at some point in the future as their nuclear development program continues to expand. they have three or four -- 3,000 or 4,000 centrifuges over there, refining weapons grade nuclear

material right now. and the reason this is important is because it not only affects the united states and our capability to provide energy for this country that will be very important for our economy down the road, but our biggest ally and friend in the entire middle east is israel and israel right now does not yet have the capability to hit a major underground nuclear development site that may be developing a nuclear warhead that could destroy tel aviv, could destroy much of israel and kill millions of israelis who are friends of ours and great allies. it's extremely important that this administration do everything they can to support the government of israel in order to make sure that they have the capability and the ability to stop iran's nuclear development program when it starts to imperil and jeopardize the entire middle east.

our energy sources that come from there, maybe 35% of our entire energy is dependent on the middle east, and if we have a conflagration over there, it's going to really hurt us, but it will hurt our great ally israel even more and that's why we need to tell prime minister netanyahu that we support him and we're going to give him the material and the equipment necessary to deal with iran should they continue down this path. and that means the bunker -busting bombs that will be able to go down 50, 75, 100 feet underground or maybe 150 feet into a mountainside to knock out a nuclear development program if it empir -- imperils the existence of israel or threatens the entire middle east. i can't stress how important this is. the leader of iran, mr. ahmadinejad, has said numerous times that he wants to see israel wiped off the face of the earth and they're developing a nuclear weapons program and now

the ieae is saying that they are developing a warhead, a nuclear warhead that will be able to strike should they be able to use their missile program and so we have to pay real attention to what's going on over there and give israel the ability to do what's necessary and we should support them in every way possible. it we -- if we don't do that we're going toru the day that they finish that nuclear development program in iran and so netanyahu is going to be here before too long speaking here in the united states, i hope that the president will reach out to him and say, we're going to give you all the tools necessary to be able to stop the nuclear risk that iran poses over there if we have to do it. and the united states and president obama should work with mr. netanyahu to make sure we get that job done, we certainly don't need a terrorist state like iran developing a nuclear weapons program with a delivery system that could deliver a nuclear warhead. and with that i yield back the

balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: ms. woolsey of california. mr. poe of texas. without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, i have introduced h.r. 4639, the text is to authorize the adoption of a military working doll by the family of a deceased or seriously wounded member of the armed forces who was the handler of the dog. this act may be cited as the corporal dustin lee memorial act. mr. speaker, two years ago it was brought to my attention that a family in mississippi, rachel lee, their son, dustin, a marine, was killed in iraq for this nation. also with dustin was his dog, lex, who was also wounded.

and in fact the marine corps brought the dog, lex, to dustin's funeral. all that mr. and ms. lee ask, they gave their son for this country and all they ask of this nation was to please let them have lex, the dog that their son loved so much. well, we all live here in washington in a bureaucratic world and there's some reason, i guess, for that. but the marine corps said to the family that lex has two more years of service before he can be retired. i heard about this story and i called mr. and ms. lee in mississippi and they told me, congressman, we understand that this dog is very important to the cause of our nation, but this dog meant so much to our son that that's all we would like to have. well, i want to thank general mike regna who i called and

asked mike regna, general regna, is there any way we can expedite the retirement of lex and he said, we'll do our best to make this happen. well, these dogs that are trained and they work magnificently for this country, in fact, they give their lives many times to save a service person by seeking out these i.e.d.'s and other explosives, well, it took about three weeks, that's not a whole lot of time, it really is not, but i think in the situation of these dogs when the handler is killed for this country or seriously wounded that we should be able to expedite this small gift to the family. . i'm going to send a dear colleague letter to say that the

department of defense support this legislation and let's move this through the house, i hope expeditiously. this is a photograph taken by the family. when they got lex home, they had let lex remember dustin by having his clothes and his boots that had been returned from iraq and they let lex remember the fragrance of their son. and they took lex to the cemetery. this is a rather large cemetery and they said to lex, find dustin. find dustin and the dog ran around to the cemetery and same up to the headstone. a picture of their son dustin with lex. lex came up to this headstone and laid down beside the headstone.

i will ask my colleagues join us in 4639. this is the least we can do for the family of the wouppeded individual. i ask god to bless our men and women in uniform, ask god to bless our families, ask god to hold our families, like the lee family who gave a child. i will ask three times from the bottom of my heart, god, please. god please. god, please continue to bless america and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. mcdermott of washington. mr. inglis from south carolina. without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i come to the floor today joining with my friend,

colleague, congressman, to speak out on an issue that is important on the over the air classical association. a legislation is currently pending before the f.c.c. and we have been contacted by our constituents that the purchaser of the station may cease the classical program in the st. louis that they have benefited from. they have been a part of the st. louis area and it is heard classical 99 and features large amount of programming for the fine arts institutions of st. louis, including the symphony orchestra, the rerp tower theater, the st. louis art museum and historic art museum

and historical society, botanical gardens, arts center of university of st. louis, the bach society of st. louis, the st. louis public library and children's choir. it is a virtual partnership with these institutions as many hours are given to these organizations for live broadcast, education as well as promotion. the close of classic 9 is a loss to the community, and may have a negative impact on the quality of life. as many of my colleagues know, i'm married to a classical musician. i met karen at legitimate le hem lutheran church in california. when i started my life with karen, i began my life with karen. she has been an elementary music

teacher. she is guiding our children musicically. my sons david and josh have sung with children's choirs. i credit it not only to my wife's teaching but exposure to classical music. and to remove that atmosphere of influence would be detrimental. without classic 99, i don't know if many of the musical institutions that rely on this station would be able to get their music heard. our local high school students have a chance to play on the radio station and i'm sure is a highlight. i felt this issue was especially important for me to weigh in today because as a doted lutheran, i'm concerned that the church does not realize how

important it is important to the st. louis area. christian broadcasting and classical broadcasting are synonomous. eliminating this music would be a detriment and would not be able to hear composers and programs devoted to christian musical heritage. and christian programming such as "sing for joy" and chapel from the cross. music is an important part of christianivity and was an integral part of the start of the lutheran church. one of the most important quotes, beautiful music is an art of the prophets that can calm the agitations of the soul. it is one of the most delightful presence god has given us. from bach, they helped form the

lutheran church. i cannot imagine a church service without music just as i can't imagine st. louis without radio 99. it is part of the residents as music is to sunday morning spent in worship. it is my hope that the lutheran church will realize this. it would be a loss to both the christian community and the music community, a loss which i hope will be prevented. mr. speaker, i'm not here to say that the f.c.c. -- and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: mr. defazio of oregon. mr. poe of texas. for what purpose does gentleman rise? >> speak for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. speaker. when the white house summit occurs at the white house to talk about health care, i'm disappointed that not a single member of the house of representatives who has a

background in health care has been invited. despite the fact that medicare and medicaid alone spends several hundreds billions of dollars it would be nice that someone who prescribes medication and treats a patient would be invited to be there. there are great differences between what one is looking at and the other party may be looking at. we cannot have a system that simply is based upon raising taxes to pay for a broken system. there are 31 some taxes that my friends on the other side of the aisle such as taxing employers for providing health insurance, tax if you don't, tax if you spend, oil, payroll, capital gains, smoking, health care and tang bed tax. this does not change the system. in fact, it's something to akin to saying take two taxes and

call me in the morning. republicans have talked about allowing people to join groups. i believe people should choose a plan on what you need ivensted of the government telling you what you need. quality reforms are not being addressed yet. in a $2.5 trillion system we waste from inefficiency. we waste from changes, perhaps $ $800 billion. an article described it well from dartmouth university medical school and they said part of the nature of the problem is the present value of projected lifetime medicare cost for a 65-year-old in los angeles is $65,000, the differences between portland and miami is $125,000 lifetime. much of the health policy is based on the assumption that

geographic out laysation is driven by local prevalence. in reality prevalence of illness doesn't drive spending. 4% of the variation in medicare spending among groups is associated with regional variation in the presence of severe chronic illness. when they look at medical centers, we see the same pattern, equally sick patients receive different care depending upon which they go to for care. higher spending may be justified if in-patient care resulted in better quality of care but does not appear to to do so. research has shown that patients with severe chronic illness who live in communities where in-patient care is the norm do not have improved survival quality of life. outcomes may be worse. they propose changes which are

things that i talked about, make sure we are doing disease management. they say things such as, we recommend that the federal government fund a program of clinical research designed to transform the management of chronic illness where care is based on illness level and patient preference. detailed specification of the clinical pathways when hospitalizing a patient with patients with pulmonary disease, when to schedule a patient for revisit and schedule for additional testing are all critically important. unfortunately in the bills proposed by the house and senate, they cut the funding for the very things they could do that. medicare advantage, cutting 500 billion from the very program that invest money into disease management. they go on to say that the transition for pay for performance should be based upon

care. the end game is cost effective and coordinated care, enrollment of patients and cohorts for care management requires risk adjustment management not only for illness level and socio-economic status. this care would be supported by adequate infrastructure, information technology system and medical records to provide care coordination and a program for monitoring quality inefficiency. mr. speaker and my friends, we cannot continue to pay for a broken system. there is a lot of great health care in this country. as long as we have a system that continues to save, we will pay doctors for procedures, whatever that might be, as opposed to paying doctors and hospitals to help patients get better and continue to see costs spiral. i hope that the house and senate work on reforming health care and pushing for coordinated care. that, my friends, is the answer

of how we lower health care costs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.. ms. foxx from north carolina. mr. brady from texas. without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. brady: this past week was the one-year anniversary of the 862 billion stimulus bill, every dime of it borrowed from our children and grandchildren. we were told when that bill was rushed through the house, we were promised that the bill would restore consumer confidence. fact of the matter is we have lost four million jobs since the stimulus was passed. unemployment has risen dramatically and continues to hover around 150% and 6% believe that the stimulus actually created jobs in america, most of

them feel that extra debt has hampered the economy. 6%. and i would say 7% of americans still believe elvis is alive so you know the range has for the stimulus. that stimulus wasn't designed to create jobs. it was designed to bail out government workers at the state and local levels. truth is, if you are a government workeror belong to a teacher's union, you probably got a pay raise. if you worked in construction or manufacturing, you probably got a pink slip. government's grown since the stimulus has passed the jobs in the private sector and small and medium-sized business are disappearing and that's because it wasn't designed to create small business jobs. more money was set aside to buy public art in america than to help small businesses create jobs. and it shows.

and too much of it was wasted. too much of it was exaggerated claims where the white house announced jobs created in state congressional districts. you heard about the waste, fraud and abuse, three 3 million in florida, $50,000 hand puppet grants, the $4 million bike trail to taco bill in massachusetts. i love taco bell, by the way, but that's not how it should be spent. $390 -- this is one of those too hard to believe, $390,000 was spent at the university of new york in buffalo to in a study to compare the relationship between drinking malt liquor beer and smoking marijuana. so the american taxpayers have given to 100 people for three weeks to do what? drink malt liquor beer and smoke

marijuana according to a published report. those types of abuses are spread throughout the stimulus. one of the reasons there is no public confidence and today they are looking at a second stimulus, but it's much like the first one, just smaller. over the district work period, i met with small businesses in orange and lumberton and asked them what they would do to create jobs and they turned thumbs down on this stimulus spending. what they said is that government is in the way. in orange county, a dry ener there and on the port commission said, we need to get rid of the fear, the higher health care mandates and taxes, fear of cap and trade, fear of new tax increases. marg inch e who runs a cafe in orange county said we need

certainty. sue cleveland said there is so much fear about what's going to happen in congress with all these tax increases, cap and trade and lori from state farm said people are too scared to increst. businesses aren't willing to risk their hard-earned capital and not backing greenback workers. they aren't going to hire new workers as long as government continues the job-killing agenda in washington and with the president's budget, kills more jobs than any budget in american history. new tax increases on small businesses, on energy companies, local real estate companies, on families, on professionals all across the board, u.s. companies that compete overseas, all those kill jobs. we aren't going to get rid of this recession by government spending. private enterprise, from the small and medium-sized

businesses start hiring again, that's what sustains an economic recovery in america. america hates being in a recession. they hate even more being in a depression. they are gnat try prone to pull themselves out, but now the government is clearly the obstacle in the way of it and as we see this president and congress pursue more extreme agenda, a bigger health care bill. the president actually announced a bigger health care bill than the senate one, more spending, more subsidies and tax increases. they aren't listening to the american public and our small business community and we are in trouble. it is time to get back on track. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i keep, mr. speaker, i keep hearing this discussion that the stimulus didn't work and i don't know what people are looking at

because in my district in california and in the state of california the stimulus has been of utmost importance in maintaining at least a base. california receives some $63 billion from the stimulus. where did the money go? well, it went $9 billion for the school systems in california so we didn't have to lay off teachers and janitors and bus drivers. those people continue to be employed and they continue to do an extremely important piece of work, that is investing in our children. along the way we also invested in those schools in my district some nearly $100 million went into repairing schools, painting, figuring, improving their energy efficiency and $197 million was money that the state of california couldn't put up to build a tunnel through a pass -- the mountains. that tunnel, 6,000 jobs will be

under way now and into the years ahead as people work on building the tunnel and we're going to eliminate one of the great traffic jams in the bay area. it goes on and on and on. the university of california and the state university system, instead of laying people off received stimulus money so they were able to continue to provide classes. i don't know where all this talk the stimulus doesn't work comes from. it certainly doesn't come from the reality of hass taking place in california -- what's taking place in california. i also notice on television many of my republican colleagues who have come here on the floor and say the stimulus does no good go home and show some huge checks taking credit for stimulus money providing jobs in their district. so perhaps there is the speech on the floor and then there's the reality out in the country. yes, we do need a second stimulus and we need it to be a big one. people want to work, they don't want to take unemployment insurance, they don't want to

have to be tax takers, they want to be taxpayers. the first stimulus did that, a second stimulus should do that. and i'd also point out that around the world every industrialized nation in the world including china and india did the same thing that we did in america and they did far more. they actually put up a larger percentage of their g.d.p., most of them borrowing as we did here in america. it is required that we put people to work, otherwise you're going to have tax takers, you're going to have greater unemployment. let's give people a chance to have a job. yes, it is deficit financing, but the second stimulus is going to be paid for fully by taking back the money that was given to the wall street ripoff. so, mr. speaker, i think we need to understand that the stimulus -- one year and one week old actually worked and the second one is desperately needed because there's a world of hurt out there, if you're listening to your constituents you know

they want to work and that's what the stimulus one did and jobs for main street will do the same using wall street money for main street jobs. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. i'm a little bit tired of hearing we inherited. we were on the floor today and we were trying to have some dialogue about jobs in the economy and all i heard from the other side of the aisle all day long was, you guys are the party of no, you guys don't have any ideas, you guys put us in debt. and i left the floor after that a little bit dismayed and got to committee and what do i hear in committee the whole time? you guys are the party of no, you guys left us all this debt, you guys this, you guys that. and it's a little bit hard to take and you turn your cheek the other way seven times and seven

more times but sooner or later somebody ought to set the record straight. because if my colleagues here can be so misinformed, i'm a freshman, i'm new here, but i know that final budgets do not come to the white house. they come from congress and the part that have control congress since january of 2007 was the democratic party. it's not rocket science, it's a fact of life. you know, one more time, a brief civic lesson for anybody who doesn't understand that, i hope there's nobody in this chamber who doesn't understand that, the final budgets don't come from the white house. they come from congress and the party that controlled congress since january, 2007, warks the democratic party. they controlled the budget process for fiscal year 2008 and 2009 as well as 2010 and 2011. in that first year they had to contend with george bush which caused them to compromise on spending when bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

for fiscal year 2009, though, the democratic-controlled house and senate bypassed the president entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until president obama could take office. at that time they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the fiscal year 2009 budget and where was brome during this time? he was a member of the congress that passed those spending bills and he signed the omnibus bill as the president to complete fiscal year 2009. let's remember what the deficit looked like during that period. if the democrats inherited a deficit, it was in 2007. the last of the republican budgets. that deficit was the lowest in five years and the four straight decline in deficit spending. after the democrats in congress took control of spending, and that includes the then senator obama who voted for the budgets, if the president inherited anything, he inherited it from

himself. in a nut shell what my colleagues across the aisle are saying is that they inherited a deficit that they voted for and then they voted to expand that deficit four fold since january 20. as paul harvey would say, that's the rest of the story. now, can we get together working to solve the problems instead of trying to rewrite history? the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. broun: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm a medical doctor. i've practiced medicine in

georgia for almost four decades. as a medical doctor with all that clinical experience i'm a family doc, primary care provider. i've examined the proposal that the white house put forward just two days ago. and frankly i've got a diagnosis. i cannot give obamacare 2.0 a clean bill of health. but i can diagnose for the american people, though, is this, it's going to make the american people sick. sick in their wallets because it's going to cost more. health care costs in this country are going to skyrocket because of this obamacare proposal that the white house recently put out. and as "the wall street journal" just very aptly said in an editorial this morning, the white house has accomplished a great thing, they took the most onerous pieces of the house bill and the senate bill and combined

them to make the current proposal of obamacare that the white house is putting forward even worse than either of those bills. the quality of health care in this country is going to go down. it's going to go down because doctors and patients will no longer be able to make health care decisions. it's going to be made by a federal bureaucrat here in washington, d.c. one that doesn't in all probability have any medical training whatsoever. as the health care provider, as a medical doctor today, i see fellow bureaucrats who have no medical experience telling me and my colleagues, whether we put a patient in the hospital or not, whether we give them a certain medication or not, how long they can stay in the hospital, what kind of care we can give so there's already control particularly in the medicare patients of health care. and the problems that medicare

has today are going to be exacerbated or made worse by what this administration's doing and the leadership in this house and this senate's doing. it's not going to only destroy the quality of health care but it's going to destroy the budgets of states, local communities, most especially small business and people who are working class americans. the reason it's going to do that is because the cost of health care is going up, it's going to go up for everybody, it doesn't contain cost at all. we've been told by the president that this -- in fact they claim on the white house website that this is going to help the federal deficit by $100 billion. well the reason for that is they are going to markedly raise taxes, over a half of a trillion dollars in increased taxes. and those taxes are going to be

on everybody. we hear from the president that he doesn't want to tax anybody but the upper 5% of the population, 5% of the income. but that's not factual. everybody's going to be taxed because of the mandates. we told -- we've been told over and over again that if you like your health insurance you can keep it. nothing could be further from the truth. folks, mr. speaker, if you like your health insurance, you can't keep it because even this new obamacare 2.0, the second version, has so many mandates and requirements on private health insurance that it appears to me that what our administration is doing is they're putting up a system that's going to put everybody onto the public exchange. the president told as you couple

of months ago that he cease the public option or in the senate it's public option light, they call it a public exchange, and that's what is in the president's current proposal, it's just the first step towards federal bureaucrats controlling every health care decision in this country. federal bureaucrats are going to run the health care system for everybody and the playing field has been laid by this latest proposal by the president that is going to put the squeeze on everybody in this country, not only the insurance companies, and i'm not a friend of the health insurance companies, i fight them all the time as a health care provider, as a medical doctor, but it's going to put the squeeze on everybody to force them off of private insurance into a public exchange or a public option and the president told us just a few months ago that his game plan,

what his purpose of all this is is to try to force everybody into a government-controlled health care system. . i think this proposal of a bipartisan meeting on thursday, the 25 of february, is nothing but a ruse, nothing but a dog-and-pony show, even to try to make the republican party and republicans to be a party that has no ideas, which the democrats over and over claim or are an obstructionist party that want to be the party of no. the american public needs to understand, the republican party is the party of k-n-ow.

we are the party of know because we know how to lower the cost of health care, lower the cost of energy, to seek energy exploration here in america so we are less dependent on energy sources from countries that hate us and want to destroy us. we are the party of k-n-o-w because we stimulate small business to give them tax breaks and they can hire new employees, so they can expand their business and can buy new inventory. we are the party of k-n-o-w because we know how to give individuals money in their pockets so they can be good consumers again. mr. brady of texas in his five-minute speech talked about

the folks that he talked to just recently there in texas. and these are small businessmen and women who said we need to get the fear on it tft system. we need to give assurance. mr. speaker, i'm here tonight as a medical doctor to try to give some assurance to the american people that there are people here on the republican side that are fighting against this government takeover of the health care system. mr. speaker, the american people have spoken very loudly. recent polls showed that 70% of americans either want us to scrap the obamacare plans, the house plan and the senate plan and it would include his new plan, because it's the two plans put together, or do nothing. well, frankly, as a medical doctor, i don't want to do nothing.

i have introduced my own health care finance overhaul plan, h.r. 3889, which is a comprehensive overhaul of the health care system. a little over 100 pages and it would put patients in charge of health care decisions along with their doctors. and even medicare patients, it would stop the government control of health care dollars and would put those decisions back in the hands of the patients and the families where they should be. so republicans are the party of k-n-o-w, know. we have tried real hard. but the president has proposed this bipartisan summit. a senior white house official said thursday that democrat negotiators, talking about this summit that's going to occur this thursday, the democratic

negotiators are resolving final differences in the house and senate health bills. that's what we solved this week and obama's administration proposal that's on the white house website right now, 11 pages, no bill, no legislative language. we do not have a bill. all we have are bullet points and ideas, that they have now resolved the differences and have one bill that passed last year with virtually no republican help. our leadership went over over to the white house and said we'll be glad to come and be glad to try to solve this problem for the american people. our republican leadership has offered a hand out to the white house and said to the white house, we want to find some commonsense solutions, it's good for patients, small business and

for america. we need to start all over again. let's find some areas of mutual agreement. let's find where we can agree on issues, where we can pass something to lower the cost of health care for all americans. let's try to find some solutions to help those who are struggling to pay their bills and can't buy health insurance, by making it more affordable. let's find solutions to those who are uninsureable because of pre-existing conditions. what was the answer from the white house? the white house's answer was no. we will not do that. you have to accept our plan. we're going to start there. we'll talk about our plan and well see where we go from there. we're not going to start over. we're not going to try to find

some common ground. you have to accept things that you do not like. that was the answer from the white house. our leadership said, at least do this, let's take the ram rod out. the ram rod is -- has to do with the rule on the senate side called budget reconciliation and it's a way to try to ram things through the senate. the white house said no. we won't do that. we're going to ram it down the throats of the american people whether they like it or not and we'll do it without your help. and we'll do it solely with democrats doing this and we don't care what you say or believe. we don't care what you bring to the table. we're not going to consider your proposals. we're not going to consider anything that you're offering.

we're going to do it our way, like it or lump it. that's what the white house told our leadership. is that what the american people want? i don't think so. i don't think so at all. but that's what the white house has said. that was in a private meeting. they have suggested that we have this open bipartisan meeting televised. and frankly i think it's just nothing but political theater to try to force down the throats of the american people a government takeover of health care so government bureaucrats in washington, d.c. makes your health care decision if you are out there in america. it's going to tell doctors, patients and families whether they can get care or not, whether they can have a

medication that may be even a life-saving medication or not, and the cost is going to go up. what's that going to do? the costs are going to go up and it's going to hurt small businesses, workers and middle class. we are told one thing by the president, but the president says one thing and does something else. it's a sad day. it's really a sad day. it's a sad day for my patients. it's a sad day for working men and women in america and people struggling to make ends meet. it's a sad day for people on government assistance. it's a sad day for america, because i think this dog-and-pony show, this ruse that the white house has put together for thursday is nothing

but something to try to pull the wool over americans' eyes. the good news is i don't think it's going to survive because the american people get it. the president said, they're not just articulated enough to understand how this government will takeover the health care system. he is focused on himself. the american people do get it. they understand very firmly that this is not what they want. this is not the change that they thought they were getting. this is not the hope and change that was promised. i have been joined tonight by several of our doctors' caucus

members. folks who have come, a couple freshmen and long-standing member of the house that have come tonight to talk to the american people about obamacare, to let people know that republicans are the party of know. and to begin with, i would like to welcome a freshman, another family doctor from the start of louisiana, dr. john fleming. and i yield as many time as he may consume. mr. fleming: well, mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman from georgia, paul broun, fellow family physician, a great member and under whose leadership, many

of these issues have been valuable to me. mr. speaker, what i'm going to do is touch lightly, just highlight on where we started with this and where we are today and certainly yield back for others to weigh in on this. it's been less than a year ago that we have seen the passage of health care reform. i ran on health care reform as a physician and i'm sure dr. broun sees many a things that can be fixed in our system that are problems. having said that, we have the best system in the world. how do i know this? well, just one of many facts as the gentleman, i believe his name is mr. williams, who is premiere of newfndland who

needed heart surgery and it was not available in canada. so he came to the u.s.a. to have that heart surgery because this is where the cutting edge is for health care. if you really need health care, the best of health care and you have the resources, u.s.a. is the place to get it. but we need to make sure good health care is available for all. less than a year ago, there was launched by both the house and the senate efforts to pass health care reform which turned out to be in my view nothing more than government takeover of health care. both bills are very similar. both passed each house. one or two major differences would include, the house bill has a government option, the taxation is heavy in both, the financing is heavy in both, but they're similar. but to cut to the chase, it cuts half a trillion dollars from medicare. it taxes people $800 billion and

it does not bend the cost curve down. even the c.b.o. says that. now we have a situation, despite the fact that all of us here who are speaking tonight have been working very hard many months, day after day, night after night, attempting to drive a wooden stake of this vampire, the government takeover of health care. and even when it's there, it seems to be rising again. it started out with a slight approval rating in the early days. i mean, who wouldn't be for health care reform. it sounds like a wonderful idea. as people began to learn about it and certainly when we got to the august recess where there were town hall meetings, we saw situations where people became so angry, they were almost out

of control at times, very angry at their representatives across the country who would dare would want the government to take over the most intimate part of our society and that is health care. and that is little by little and maybe not so little by little, but perhaps even rapidly, we saw the approval rating of the government takeover has dropped and two-to one are against it. it doesn't matter what party you're in. the only bipartisan thing about these bills we can actually say is there are people on both sides of the aisle who are against it. but the bottom line here is that americans do not want this. i perceive us today at this point in time to be ahead and two minutes left in the fourth quarter. the debate is among the american people. we have the president and the

members of the house and senate, democrat party, who want to find a way to cram it through. and one of the things they have come out with is just the release, less than 24 hours ago perhaps, maybe less, of a compiled version of the two bills and here is what we have. . the bill is most like the senate bill, obama 2.0 as it's referred to, it is most like the senate bill, increasing spending by $2.1 billion, it increases premiums and it does something unimaginable, it taxes by 2% unearned income, a capital gains tax, interest income. these are all things that come to people who in many cases have fixed incomes.

yes, of course, it is the people who make over $200,000 a year. but you know what? we're all dealing with the a.m.t. tax, it was never indexed for inflation, now we have middle class people paying it. this is not indexed either. sooner or later, middle class people will be paying those taxes. mr. broun: would the gentleman yield? i want to point out something too, we keep hearing from the president, we want to tax the rich. most small businesses in this country file their income taxes individually because they're sub-s corporations, meaning their income taxes are filed individually, as a person or a couple. over half of those people that make over $200,000, which is in the president's current proposal are small business men and women and it's taxes on

their business so by taxes folks making over $200,000 or $250,000, it's going to take money out of small businesses so they can't expand. so they cannot give their employees the kind of salary that the employees deserve and i've talked to a lot of small business men and women in georgia who are going to have to let people go. this is going to cost a lot of jobs. manages of jobs all over this country are going to be lost because of this tax, so-called tax on the rich. because it's really a small business tax. it's a tax on small business that's going to cost millions of people their jobs in this country. they're going to be out of work. so we're going to have more joblessness in this country if this monstrosity gets passed into law. i thank you and i yield back.

mr. fleming: i appreciate the gentleman, mr. broun, yes that's a tax on small businesses, plus an 8% payroll tax for businesses that couldn't pay for health insurance, they'll have to pay insurance without getting that, and their employees who won't be able to afford to buy insurance, instead of paying $750 per person under the senate version, it'll be $2,000. so we have many things that are going to be job killers out of this bill. and last but not least, just when we thought all those bad deals that really got this thing in trouble to begin with were going away, we find that the louisiana purchase, $300 million for medicaid to louisiana. which louisiana needs money to offset an f-map problem, no

doubt about it, but the problem is, if this bill goes to signature, that $300 million will be swallowed by $3 billion of additional cost down the road with no real benefit to the state of louisiana. the uconn deal, for a hospital he liked, the handout montana, the north dakota senator's deal hawaii got a special exemption for higher medicaid d.s.h. payments. on and on and on. there are all sorpts of deals still in this bill that have not been cut out. so i agree with the gentleman, as we go into this summit, this health care summit on thursday, there's no doubt about it. the american people need to understand that this is not about a true negotiation. the republicans have been locked out of negotiations.

we've been locked out of amendments, we -- despite what i hear my democrat colleagues say we do not agree with 80% of this bill, not by any stretch of the imagination. why now would we have this summit in front of cameras? the reason is, as i said, because this bill is nearly dead, it's trying to be revived around now this is time for the hail mary, the president's going to jump in there and try to revive it somehow at the last minute system of i submit, mr. speaker, that it's time to kill this once and for all. let's go on to true health care reform, stand-alone bills starting with low-hanging fruit, one at a time, attacking the things we know we can all agree on. pre-existing illnesses,ing a gating employees into large buying pools, purchase of insurance across state lines, tort reform, these things are

straightforward, we could improve health care and lower the cost overnight by doing these things and then give back -- get back to the people's work, creating jobs for this country. i thank you and i yield back. mr. broun: thank you, dr. fleming, i appreciate it. now i want to yield to another great member of our dr.'s caucus, dr. boozman from arkansas. before you start, i want to say that just to tag on to what dr. fleming just said about the louisiana purchase, he's from louisiana. but what this new proposal that poth because ma has put forward is going to extend the louisiana purchase to every state. now the government is going to -- the governor is going to love thatch. the state legislature is going to love that. it's going to take some of the financial burden off them for health care costs that are skyrocketing because of the

federal government. but what it's also going to do is put a heavy burden on all taxpayers in this country. the taxpayers are going to hate the louisiana purchase. and it's just a cost shifting, basically from a state level to federal level and it's, again, it's a federal takeover of the health care system. to get the states, as well as private insurance, out of the health care system. i appreciate dr. fleming bringing up the louisiana purchase. dr. boozman, i yield to you whatever time you may consume. mr. boozman: i agree and the problem, that sounds good in the sense of taking additional role by the federal government, paying for these things. the problem is we've got a proposed budget by the administration of $3.8 trillion, almost half of that money is borrowed from people like saudi arabia, china, people that don't like us very much. and the american public knows

it just doesn't work. you can't -- these things sound good but at some point, you've got to pay your bills. and you know, we've got to start paying our bills. the president outlined his plan and the reality is that he's not hearing the concerns of the american people, he's not hearing the concerns of the people of arkansas. what he's doing is he's telling us what health care coverage we can have as opposed to what the american people want. the american people now, an overwhelming majority have said no. this is not the bill we want. right now, we're spending more than any other country in the world by far with our health care system. the proposal we have will spend almost another $1 trillion. and yet costs will continue to rise. so again, instead of trying to do something in the free market way to lower costs, what the bill actually does is basically

say, we're going to do that by setting price criminals -- controls. price controls don't work, what we're going to do is have rationing and we'll have decrease -- decreased quality of care. another concern i've got is the abortion coverage, the hyde amendment has always said that we're not going to pay for abortion with taxpayer funding. yet this bill leaves that wide open. the medicare payroll tax. we're talking about -- they're talking about the administration's talking about putting a 2.9% tax on non-wage income. i don't think the american public understands yet that that's in their -- in there being talked about, the ramifications of that. when you start taxing dividends, start taxes interest and capital gains and things like that, those are the kinds of things that are creating jobs and my frustration is instead of coming out with things that are job creators in

this economy, we continue to have these things thrust upon us that are job killers. the group he's not talking about, or two, we were discussing this earlier, i'll yield to my colleague there, are the health care providers. tomorrow, thursday, there's going to be the meeting and yet, what did we figure? 17, 18, 19, 20 members of congress that are health care providers and none of those are over there actually talking about what's going on. mr. broun: let me reclaim my time here. let's say that again because we understand, the american people say, what? you're not including doctors who are taking care of patients in how you're going to form a health care system? so dr. boozman, please say that again, very clearly, so that the speaker and anybody watching tonight can understand. mr. boozman: again, this is not a republican or democrat thing,

i'm just saying health care providers amongst all of us. this is the group, when you add the experience up, the years of practice and things, you would think that this was a group you'd call on first. to get over and give you good advice. mr. broun: i agree with you, in fact, when i introduced h.r. 3889 a comprehensive bill, 100 pages, to totally change health care, financing -- to change health care financing in america and give patients the power to make decisions along with their doctor, i wrote the president that -- he said if you have any ideas, my door is always open. but i've been knocking on that door over and over again and it is slammed shut, locked, and i've been trying to open that door that he said was open and it's not been open. i know other members on our side, dr. price of georgia, another physician, orthopedic surgeon, has introduced the

republican study committee bill, h.r. 3400. dr. price has offered to talk with the administration. the door is locked. bolted. closed shut. republicans, go away. the -- that's the sign on the door. we're not being included in this so-called summit, bipartisan summit, on thursday. why don't they want us there? because we know about health care. they're not interested in what we as physicians know. they're not interested in our ideas. they're not interested in any republican ideas. this is a ruse, nothing but a dog-and-pony show to try to boost the president's approval ratings or make him look as if he's reaching out a hand of bipartisanship, trying to find solutions for the american people. actually, it's a fist he's showing us. it's a closed fist. it's the closed, locked door

and it's nothing but a charade to try to look to be something different than it is. thank you, dr. boozman. i'll yield -- don't run off if you don't mind, because i want to come back to you in a minute, but we're also joined tonight by another colleague, louisiana is blessed by having three physicians as members of the republican delegation here. we heard from dr. john fleming a moment ago. we have dr. charlie boustany from lafayette, louisiana. that's one of my favorite towns, i've got some great cajun buddies down there. one called today, he's coming to georgia, wants to go turkey hunting, he's a good friend and turkey hunting buddy. he told me today, keep fighting. he doesn't want to see this health care bill passed.

anyway. we've got another physician, dr. bill cassidy who has joined us today. louisiana is like georgia. we have three physicians from georgia in the republican delegation and we have three physicians from louisiana in the -- in their delegation. i want to welcome and yield to dr. bill cassidy, any time you may consume. mr. cassidy: dr. boustany will be at the summit meeting. there will be one physician there. mr. broun: really? that's news. hallelujah, place the lord. mr. cassidy: we can all agree on goals of health care reform. we want access to quality care at an affordable price. it gives us a nice way to judge each of these. i'm struck, medicare is going bankrupt in seven years, medicaid is bankrupt today, and we're about to create a third entitlement to rescue the first

two a third entitlement based on the house bill and senate bill the congressional budget office said of both the house and senate bill that they more than double costs within 10 years. so we're going to go from a status quo which may double costs in 10 years, a reform which more than doubles costs in 10 years. . we passed a reform to control costs. and that's important, because the american people since august have been saying, mr. speaker, that we need to control costs. they understand that you can give everyone access, but soon, costs are out of control and access is gone. you can give everybody the highest quality, but unless you control costs, again, you break the bank. the american people, since august, and with the senate election in massachusetts

putting the point behind the senate, are saying control costs. it turns out that the proposals before the president, the senate bill, again, according to the congressional budget office, more than doubled costs in 10 years. and the president's proposal will be $100 billion more expensive than that. the president is billing this as a tax cut to the american people, but really it's a shell game. some folks will have their taxes raised and subsidies increased. that is a crazy thing, but if you are going to subsidize here, you must tax there. some of the things that are being taxed are insurance policies, insurance policies owned by union folks, for example, who negotiated this through their wakes, there will be a tax on folks who most are considered middle incomes. you mentioned something dr.

broun, and you talked about empowering patients. the fundamental difference between the republican and democratic proposal is that the democratic proposal is top down, control cost from washington, d.c. -- mr. broun: it dos haven't control costs. mr. cassidy: the price controls is the ultimate in a top-down bureaucratic, doesn't matter what the market says, we're going to control your costs from washington. never has worked. on the other hand, the republican approach is patient-septemberered. and i'm still seeing patients and i see them once every two weeks, in my practice, i work in a public hospital treating the uninsured, if you involve the patient in her care, she typically is healthier. she saves money a and the system safes money. and dr. broup, i know you know

this, a patient will put with pre-tax dollars before you are taxed on it will fund a bank account and that bank account is used to pay for medical care. with traditional insurance, say a family of four puts up $12,000 and year later puts up another $12,000 and year later they put up another $12,000. if you don't use the money, it rolls over. and some families will tend to accumulate until the amount they have to put in is zero because they have been so wise with how they spend their money. a good example of this is, dr. fleming talked about medical h.s.a.'s. and he has an employee who was smoking and she complained before the insurance company paid for inhalers and now has to pay for it out of her own pocket. before she was cost insensitive

and now because it's out of her bank account, so to speak, she's aware of it. dr. fleming said, if you stop smoking, you wouldn't need the inhaler. and she says really? she stopped smoking, her health is better and no longer pays for inhalers and controlling costs overall. by involving somebody in her care, her health is better, the system safes money and she has more money in her pocket. and by the way, one last thing before i yield back, the kaiser family foundation has a study and found that a family of four with a health savings account, that that policy is 30% less expensive than a traditional insurance policy for a family of four, that the family with the health insurance account, not only is that policy 30% cheaper, but they use preventive services as frequently as a family with a

traditional insurance policy. if our goal is to give high quality care to all at an affordable cost, well, what we just found out with the h.s.a., you lower the cost by 30%. that's one of your goals. and they are using preventive services frequently. so they have access to quality care. and it turns out, because it is lower cost, 27% of people in this study who had a health savings account with a catastrophic policy were previously uninsured. 50% had a income of $50,000 or less. and 60%, income of 70,000 or less. people who were formerly uninsured have access to quality care, that is a patient-centered approach far different from the bureaucratic approach that is being offered by the senate and

house bills, but from our experience as practicing health care providers, i think we can say it's the right approach. i yield back. >> thank you, dr. cassidy. one other thing i want to add, not only is it less expensive, people can afford to buy insurance. they use more preventive services, but take care of themselves better, so they're healthier. difficult betics control their blood sugar better. people with high blood pressure control that better, folks with high cholesterol tend to get their cholesterol lowered, they have less heart attacks, strokes. so they're healthier, live longer, more productive, feel better, have more energy. so it actually promotes wellness . if you really think about it in the health care system today,

we're not taking care of healthy folks for the most part, we are taking care of sick people. that's what doctors and hospitals do, take care of sick people. some people say we have a sick care system. well, the system is sick because of the government. before i go back to dr. boozman, i want to tell a couple of stories about my practice and how a government intrusion in the health care system has driven the cost of health care up for everybody. several years ago i was practicing medicine in southwest georgia. congress passed a bill called the clinical laboratory improvement act. it shut down every doctor's lab. prior to that, i had a quality control lab in my office. when the patients came in to see

me, i would do a complete blood count to see if they had a back terial infection and need antibiotics and problems that may come from that or whether they had a viral infection who don't need to spend that money and don't need the exposure to the antibiotics, less chance of having antibiotic allergy reactions, less chance of developing the super infections. i could do that test in my office in five minutes and it cost $12. that's what i charged medicare, medicaid and the patients. so this was a tool that i could use in my office, fully quality controlled. but congress in its supposedly infinite wisdom and mr. waxman who is in the middle of trying

to push forward this government control health care takeover was one of the ones trying to push clia. after they shut down my lab, to do that same test, i had to leave my office, spend two, three hours to do what i could do in five minutes, $75 for one test. $12 to $75, five minutes to two to three hours. what do you think that did to the cost of everybody's health insurance in this country? what do you think it did to the cost that medicare has to pay for lab services? it rose the cost of health care markedly all across this country. and that's with one government intrusion, clia. we have hundreds. not long ago, congress passed hipaa. hipaa has cost the health care

industry billions of dollars. totally unneeded regulation. it has cannot the health care industry billions of dollars and has not pass paid for the first aspirin. what does that do for my insurance costs? it drives it up markedly. somebody has to pay that billions of dollars that that one government regulation that was put in place by congress and the president signed into law, it has cost the health care industry and cost all of us a tremendous amount of money. so it's government regulation, government intrusion in the health care system that's raced the cost for me and my patients. here we go with another government bill, another government takeover that's going to put cost control and going to put taxes up the wazoo for

everybody in this country and it's going to cost everybody and it is totally designed to go back to what the president said a couple of months ago that he wants to go to a government control, centrally-run health care system, health care system run by washington, d.c. i want to point out a couple of things on this new chart. what's in the new bill? more of the same. worst of the house bill and worst of the senate bill. it is a government takeover of health care. there's no question about it. there are no price controls. there are a lot of individual and employer mandates. so if you have health insurance and you like it today, it's going to go away because the federal government and the federal bureaucracy in washington, d.c. is going to put mandates on your health insurance to the point that it's going to go away. in fact, i believe it's geared

up to try to put all health insurance companies out of business so there's only one health insurer in america, and that's the u.s. federal government. there is no medlinlt reform. the president talked about he wanted to have medical liability reform. it's not in the house bill, senate bill nor is it in obamacare two. it still puts washington bureaucrats in charge of defining what's quality health care. in fact, in the nonstimulus bill, the failed stimulus bill, the democrats put in something that's called -- what is it called, i'm having a brain freeze here, effectiveness research and effectiveness research council or comparative effectiveness research is what it's called and what that is

geared to do look at the comparative if he cantiveness of different treatments, cancer, surgery, chemo or combination of two or all three is better. that's what we in medicine. the comparative if he cantiveness that the democrats have put in -- effectiveness that the democrats have put in place is how to spend dollars and spending the dollar on a 40-year-old versus a 65 or 70-year-old. and so the way the whole system is set up, it means that the medicare recipients are going to get the shortened of the stick. senior citizens are not going to get the care and will be denied it by the federal government. cuts medicare advantage. still raises taxes. over half of a trillion dollars

of crin creased taxes and only way they can get it anywhere close to the kind of numbers that the president promised. and he and his administration have used what i call voodoo economics. you have to be a dead man walking around with no soul that there are economic parameters of the economic issues they have put in place. but this obamacare raises taxes and will raise taxes on virtually everybody. . it still gives the government-reason plan a beachhead. this is the purpose that henry waxman, ted kennedy, nancy pelosi and george miller and a lot of people have been pushing is the government takeover. they're very open and frank

about it. i congratulate them for being at least halfway honest. but the whole purpose of the pelosi bill in the house, the reid bill in the senate, both obama care, and now the proposals the president put forth yesterday morning is a government takeover of health care to tell the american people what kind of care they can get, whether they can get it or not, it's going to take the decision-making process out of the hands of patients and families, out of the doctors' hands, all those decisions will be made by government bureaucrats here in washington, d.c. with that, dr. boozman. mr. boozman: i would add i was a health care provider but i was also a small business person in the sense that we had about 85 employees that we had to meet payroll with. always, our biggest cost of doing business, our biggest expense, was health care

insurance for our employees. every year, the guys would come along and say, your premium is going up 10%, 15%, 20%, whatever it is. the major problem we have going on right now is increased cost. and as was discussed earlier by my colleague, things like health savings accounts, those are free market reforms, it's a free market reform that lowers costs. associated health plan, allowing my barber with his two or three employees to team with thousands of barbers to get a lower rate. lastly, controlling the nuisance lawsuits. those are free-market reforms which would lower costs which we desperately do. i don't know who the president is listening to, but those types of things are not included in the bill that we see. mr. broun: reclaiming my time, i want to stipulate -- the only thing i would say is, instead,

-- mr. boozman: i want to stipulate, what we have is wage and price controls, they're saying, we're going to dictate the cost. as my colleague said earlier, that doesn't work. that's been proven with several administrations in the past that that's going to lead to rationing and decreased quality of care. i yield to you. mr. cassidy: we can see that when you try artificially controlled price, it doesn't work. let me give an alternative between this top-down bureaucratic means of control and a patient-centered controls. i was talking about h.s.a.'s and a patient-centered approach with a constituent and he said, you know, doc, i take a pill for my ulcer. i have an h.s.a. my physician wrote a

prescription and i said, physician, i know this is going to cost me $159. he didn't say $160, he said $159. i have an h.s.a., i pay for this out of pocket. can you do something different? the physician said, oh, you have an h.s.a., her to it up and wrote one for a generic. i have another patient who called me, i'm a liver specialist, a patient calls me up, she says, i have a bad heart, my doctor said i needed this test because of my bad liver, not my heart but rather my liver. i said, from your liver perspective, i need it. she said, i'll pay for it if i need it. i said, no, ma'am, you do not need it. the system saved $1,000. because she had an h.s.a., she was motivated, she was motivated to find out how much it cost and then see if she really needed it.

mr. broun: will the gentleman yield? under these plans -- mr. boozman: under these plan the generic is not covered under h.s.a.'s. can you comment on that? mr. cassidy: it's a crazy thing if an h.s.a. is used for a generic price, an over-the-counter drug -- mr. boozman: which lowers cost. mr. cassidy: which lowers cost, and in this way, the patient reacts so as to take care of her health and lower her cost. in millions of those interactions across the nation, not from washington, d.c., but rather from the exam rooms themselves, is how the system saves costs. recall, dr. brown, mr. speaker, how we spoke of the h.s.a.'s being 30% cheaper. that's why they're 30% cheaper.

because patients are incentivized to control their cost. one last thing i'll say, when you ask a crowded room, who is most responsible for each person's snelt when you ask who is responsible for each person's health we all know that it's that person in particular. so with the health save -- what the health savings account does, the patient-centered approach does, it says the patient is most responsible for his or her care and in so doing we trust that the patient, with her physician, will make the right decision. the story of health savings accounts, is that that is true. that's a well-placed trust. mr. broun: i'll reclaim my time, i thank you, dr. cassidy. in fact, my health care overhaul bill, h r. 3889, expands health savings accounts, creates medicare health savings accounts, so it puts medicare patients in charge of their own dollars and they own those dollars. those dollars, if they're not expended would roll into their estate so that their heirs

would get them. we pay our medicare taxes to the federal government and we should get it back. i'm an original intent constitutionalist and i understand that some people would say, well, dr. broun, an h.s.a. is not constitutional on the medicare but we've got to fix medicare and it's a bridge to help medicare patients start controlling their own costs and controlling their own money and criminaling -- controlling their own health care digs. that's exactly what my bill, h.r. 3889, would do. but i wanted to go back to this summit in the last few minutes that we have. actually, the mainstream media has written some articles that just came out today and i wanted to read a couple of things from the mainstream media. "the wall street journal," in

fact, the president has talked about he wants to reach out in a bipartisan way. "the wall street journal" wrote today, democrats have decided to give voters what they don't want anyway. the "san francisco examiner" said in an editorial, quote, republicans publicly wondered if obama's proposal represented a refreshing new attempt by the chief executive to display genuine bipartisanship and whether they should trust him to come to the summit with a truly open mind. that's what we had hoped. going on with what they said. we now know the answer to both questions is a resounding no. "the washington post" said, quote, president obama's opening bid on health reform is not decide -- designed to entice republicans to join the came. -- the game. as we said earlier, i don't believe the president wants republicans to join the game he

doesn't want anyone to join the game because he has set the game rules himself, stilted toward what he wants and what nobody else wants. it's just the leadership meeting in secret, behind closed doors work no input, actually, from my democratic colleagues or republican colleagues nor governors, health care providers, nor anybody except the leadership have brought forth obama care 2. even in his hometown newspaper, the chicago tribune, not known to be a conservative newspaper, said this, quote, obama wants republicans to approach the summit in a spirit of compromise. too bad he's not leading by example. mr. speaker, we spent an hour with my colleagues talking about health care. republicans are the party of k-n-o-w, know. we can lower the cost of health care. we can empower patients and

doctors to make the decisions and start health care reform, health care financing reform that makes sense economically that will cover those that are uninsured, that will cover those who have pre-existing conditions, that can't get insurance today. we can do those things if the president and the leadership of this house and the leadership of the senate would just listen to some of the proposals we have put forward. doctors have not been enjoined in this process, the american people have not been in this process. the american people need to say no to obamacare. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? >> permission to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, mr.

speaker. today on the floor, we had a rare occasion when we were able to congratulate one of our colleagues, mr. kildee of michigan, for casting his 20,000th vote. it was a great opportunity for us to show our appreciation and affection for a member who is extraordinarily well-respected and i would say even loved by his colleagues. it's unfortunate that so much emphasis in the media is placed on the partisanship that occurs here in the house. we do have strong philosophical differences, but on a personal level we respect each other and have genuine affection for each

other. that extends even to our staff. a few weeks ago, we had a similar situation when we had the unfortunate passing of congressman boehner's chief of staff. she was eulogized here on the floor by both democrats and republicans. and i'm so pleased that we've been able to show again that we do care for each other personally in this house because that's not the image that people have of us. i want to come back to speaking some more about dale kildee. there's nobody in this house, or very few people in this house who feel any stronger about my philosophy than i do, but i have the greatest respect and administration for mr. kildee.

as john boehner said today on the floor, that's what he calls him and that's what i have always called him. i've had the great pleasure to serve with him on the education committee as well as on the page board and i want to say that i have learned a great deal from serving with mr. kildee. he is a fabulous role model for us all. he is, as was said today, he is always a gentleman. he is always very calm. he always gives the impression, and i believe it is the true impression, that he cares a great deal about the people he is dealing with and the people he's serving. he loves the house and he does his job with great thoughtfulness and diligence. i want to say that he is, i

think, a great role model for all of us. it has been my pleasure to be able to serve with him again on the education committee, on the page board and here in the house. i think the comments that were made about mr. kildee today were comments that we all agreed with, there was great applause after each one of the sets of comments that were made, and i think that it was a terrific, again, example of how we may differ philosophically on issues but we care for each other on a personal level and respect each other despite our philosophical differences and i want to pay my tribute to mr. kildee for the wonderful service he's given to the people of his district and to his steadfastness in coming to

this floor day after day after day and voting and missing only 27 votes in 33 years, and being in a very elite group of people who have served in the house of representatives and cast 20,000 votes. mr. kildee, we love you and respect you and we hope you're going to be around to cast many more thousand votes. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from virginia, mr. perriello, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. . mr. perriello: thank you, mr.

speaker for giving us this time to talk about the important issue of health care reform and specifically about a simple idea where we believe folks across the political spectrum should be able to agree, which is if the health insurance companies should have to compete like every business in my district, like every business around the country. we come together on a two-page bill, front and back, 24 lines long, it removes the monopoly protection that our insurance companies have enjoyed for 65 years, enjoyed because of free-market principles? no. because of the money spent lobbying political parties to protect that insurance monopoly. one thing we should agree on, health insurance companies should not be protected as monopolies. the consumer federation of america estimates that this could save americans $10

billion, this is a simple american principle of competition, of ending the health insurance monopolies. i have been joined by several much my freshman colleagues tonight who have not been stuck in washington where the protection of monopolies make main sense, where people still believe in competition and accountability and kind of principles that will ensure that consumers get a better deal. when they are forced to compete, prices come down and quality goes up. it's a very simple principle. my co-author, bet si markey, has been a champion of good commonsense solutions. and with that, i recognize the gentlelady from colorado. ms. markey: i operated two small businesses, one was an internet company and one was a coffee shop. before i sold one of my businesses, a national coffee chain came into town and we

weren't given any special federal protection. when you are faced with competition, you do with what any small business does, you know how to compete, and serve a better product at a lower price. the insurance company has been abeen afforded this special exemption. there are only two industries in the united states that enjoy this, the insurance industry and major league baseball. i can understand major league baseball, it is our national past time, but why they have been able to have no competition in the industry, also affords no innovation in the industry because there is no competition. there are, over the past 14 years, there have been over 400 mergers in the insurance industry, so that now 95% of the insurance market is considered

highly concentrated. there are states that have one or two insurance companies that are serving them. again, when we had a small computer business, we had several employees who were across state lines and we had the availability of one insurance company. the prices were expensive. wasn't necessarily what my employees wanted to do, but there was no competition in the industry. this is commovensense regulation. as the congressman noted, two pages long, easy to understand, and again, it does what we want to do with health insurance reform, number one, bring competition to lower prices and still maintain affordable health care in this country. with that, i would like to turn it over to my colleague, representative tonko. mr. tonko: it is so important for us to underscore the value of competition that drives the american economy.

we have seen it in so many industries and where competition provides choice for consumers. i think it's very interesting to note that over the last decade as average house holds have stayed flatline and as insurance premium costs have more than doubled, the consumers have had no choice in some situations. they have had to tolerate price fixing or insurance groups dividing up territories amongst themselves or certainly just subterfuging any of their come petition out -- competition out there. it is time to make sure there is competition, certainly by moving with this reform. we now have hope for a better day. it is so important for us to make certain that this 65-year-old prohibition is undone.

and as representative perriello said it costs government nothing. and it is the reform that could drive wonderful benefits for the people of this country as they look at the exorbitant prices and huge increases where there is a need for regulation, making certain that the double-digit percentage increases are not tolerated or rubber-stamped in a way, that engages the efforts out there that with that monopoly power have enabled them to suck it to us. we need reform. i applaud representative perriello and representative markey for putting forth this initiative. that will meet with success in this chamber and hopefully we can march forward for that progress to be struck. mr. perriello: i'm new to washington and i understand that

it's a city where a lot of things are gray rather than black and white. but this is a bill that seems to me it's a clear situation of black and white. two-page bill, 24 lines long that does one thing, removes the monopoly protection of the health insurance companies. no carveouts, no exceptions, no loop holes, it is a clean bill. it is good to go back to understand that this is not a new thing. 65 years ago, the reason we were stuck with this problem is the insurance lobby came in in 1945 and able to get this carveout of monopoly protections that no other industry enjoyed and it was supposed to be a three-year faceout and what happened? a special deal was cut that removed this three-year phaseout. the insurance industry has spent billions and billions of dollars

buying monopoly protection in this town of washington. they spent $400 million last year while they were jacking up premium rates and out of pocket expenses. sometimes there is a very clear choice, do you stand with patients or stand with the profit earing of the health insurance companies. that is that clear choice. do you stand for protecting specialp interest groups? we have a chance tomorrow hopefully on a bipartisan basis to come together and do this one thing. while we can agree or disagree on the overall health care approach, can't we aagree to ensure competition and accountability is a good thing we can all agree on and read over a single cup of coffee and move forward with that sense of competition and accountability. with that, i yield to a gentleman who spent much of his

career understanding the insurance industry. i yield to the the gentleman from california. >> thank you, my colleague. i thank you for your continued pushing of this issue. it was a century ago that teddy roosevelt established an effort to push back against the greed of wall street and those who were raping the american environment and began the progressive movement. competition was at the heart of that effort to bring about justice and opportunity f justice and opportunity for the small guy to make it. right now, those of us who care billion individuals and small business and the future of this economy are pushing back against those very same forces who over the last 65 years have been able to embed themselves firmly in the american system in a way

that has created greater profits for them at the expense of people. the health insurance industry has clearly put profits before people and it's time for us to end that. with this bill, we force that industry into the same competitive market that we want all of american industry to be in, and that is in the free market competitive system and no longer be able to monopolize the health insurance marketplace. let me tell you what happens in california. blue cross of california has 80% of the individual market. last year in 2009, they raised their rates an average of 30% in that individual market. they came -- as a result of that, the fourth quarter profit year to year, 2008 to 2009 increased some 700-fold from

$300-plus million to $2.7 billion. how did they do that? they did that by controlling the marketplace, having a virtual monopoly on the market. that was haven't enough for them. because of their market control, they have been able to institute, although it has been delayed a 39%, up to 39% and 30% average increase in this same marketplace. it is time, it is absolutely essential that this two-page, 24-line bill that establishes the antitrust law in this field of health insurance be enacted. later when we come back with another comment, i will tell you how it worked when we instituted proposition 103 that eliminated the ability automobiles, homeowners, eliminated their

ability to monday opolize and take advantage of the outside antitrust laws. let me congratulate you for putting forth this bill. it is essential. mr. perriello: before we go on, i do believe when you instituted those reforms in your state, the premium rate increased at 1/10 of the rate of the rest of the country, is that correct? mr. garamendi: what happened in proposition 103 and i was newly elected insurance commissioner responsible for enacting the law, the insurance industry had the ability to work together to set rates and to monopolize the market in a way that was in a pattern to be able to have a uniform rate system using what was called rating bills. we simply outlawed rating bills

and forced each company to use its own statistical analysis to set rates. over a 10-year period, $30 billion reduction in costs to homeowners and automobile insurance consumers in the state of california. i will tell you this. when you force these companies to compete, when you eliminate their protection from the antitrust laws, you will see a significant rate decrease. and when you have a company such as blue cross that dominates a segment of the market, that is what is outlawed under the normal antitrust laws of this nation. ms. markey: you're right. the rate increases that families are experiencing right now are absolutely unsustainable. i was home in colorado last weekend and i spoke to one woman and had gotten an increase for her premium 35%. another small business owner in greeley told me he got a rate

increase of 39%. how can you afford that? this is at the same time we are hearing on the news that the insurance industry as a whole has realized an over 50% increase in their profits in 2009 and 2008. and yet insurance premiums are going through the roof. now, this isn't anything new. we have seen the ford commission, antitrust commission recommend that congress take action on eliminating this exemption. prarb's modernization antitrust commission recommended that congress take action. and in 2007, republic can senator trent lot and democrat pat leahy got together and proposed legislation that was actually more sweeping than this that affected more parts of the insurance industry. at that time, senator lott t