outsourced, ending our dependence on foreign oil, these are traditional values, american values, we should champion. what are they talking about? cap and trade. come up with a better free market idea. it was a republican idea. john mccain has three times introduced a cap and trade bill. in 2007, a.e.p. in connecticut -- and connecticut were in a court battle. the supreme court said they were allowed to curb pollution under the clean air act. we decided to have a free market approach, cap and trade has been in the -- in existence since 1e the 1980's, it reduced acid rain and led to creativity in that market. if you have a better idea, let's hear one. it was your idea. so by champponing your idea, now they're demagoguing our energy policy of cap and trade.% ms. wasserman schultz: and ppusing that free market base f

innovation and investment is going to take us through the 21st century. we are risking, without passing that legislation, and making sure that we have we can make those significant -- spark those significant corporate investments in those technologies, we're risking giving over our leadership in this area to china and india. because that's what's going to happen. they are certainly not sitting around waiting for us to decide whether or not to pass alternative energy and climate change legislation, they're focused on making sure they can be the leaders in innovation and technology in the area of alternative energy. we have so many opportunities to create tax incentives and to help create jobs through that legislation and again, it would be nice if we weren't being stiff armed. mr. speaker, i see you rising and wantee to thank my colleagues -- my colleague from

ohio for joining me tonight. mr. speaker, we, among house democrat, really spend quite a bit of time interacting with our constituent we do it in many way in live town hall meet, telephone town hall meetsing -- meetings, as well as through social media networking and interaction. i know that i really encourage people who aae listening to this and encourage our colleagues to reach out to me and provide me with feedback on my facebook page, which is rep debbie wasserman schultz. anyone interested in giving us feedback on the facebook page, that's welcome. mr. boccieri, i don't now if you want to promote your own. we'reeall interested in adding folks to our facebook and twitter accounts so -- mr. boccieri: absolutely. and our website is

boccieri.house.gov. please join our facebook there and reeve us -- leave us your comments as well. i enjoyed the conversation and dialogue we had. let's work together to put america back on track. ppamerica has played second pla to no one. we can invest in our greaaestt asset, our work force, and we can do it together. ms. wasserman schultz -- ms. wasserman schultz: we invite our colleague on the other sidd of the aisle to join us to create jobs and restoring the prosperity americans have enjoyed for our entire history. with that, mr. speaker, we yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. . of january 6, 2009,, the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa mr. king. mr. king: i look at the data and

looked at the poster, here is the economy as we know it and a very short snapshoo and billions of chain dollars. i never discussed an economy within chain dollars. i have not discussed it ithin trends that are compressed down within the few quarters that is presented in this graph within the floor of the house. here's what i would present. let's back up little bit. 1929 and think about what has haapened. this nation has been challenged over anddover again to come forward and determine where we are with this economy. are we the managed economy proposed by the democrats on the other side of the aisle that believe the president of the united states, the cabbnet and the pelosi congress and the harry reid senate should be the

ones to make these economic decisions to manage the nationalized economy. are we the kind of people that should be nationalizing more of our economy?? i have gone through this list and i can recite it in my sleep. this federal government rkts albeit started under president bush with the support of barack obbma all the way through and most of it picked up by him has nationalized -- and when i say nationalized, owned, managed or controlled of the sectors of the economy, three large investment banks, the three that have been ttken over by the federal government, a.i.g. nationalized by the federal government, freddie mac and fannie mae, the entities that the chairman barney frank saad he would neve+ support a federal bailout, only

supported the federal take over of freddie mac and faverple. we have watched chrisler be taken over and a bankruptcy proposal pitched by the administration to the chapter 11 bankruptcy court that dictated the terms of bankruptcy and among those terms were hand over shares of the auto makers to the auto makers union. and while that was going on, the only term and i have it in my hand, the only bidder was the federal government. the structure of going into chapter 11, the only bidder was the federal government. it was the federal goverrment on both sides of that equation, unprecedented. a federal take overdictating the terms and handing over 17.5% of

the shares of general motors over to the auto makers union. that is all taking place, including the takeover of the student loan program by the federal government. if we add this up, three large banks, freddie mac and fannie mae, chrysler. that's 1/3 swallowed over the management, control of thee federal government. you add to that the student loan program and you add to that the finannial services that are being regulated right now that are being negotiated inthe conference committee between the house and senate that would put the federal government too regulate every single credit transaction in america. i don't just mean one of the large bailed out investment banks is doing business with one

of the other investment banks that the federal government regulates that. i don't just mean that when a small community bank is doing transactions with people who are coming in to borrow money for a mortgage that the federal government regulates that. i'll take it down to the question that was posed. would their transactions that are set up to pay for the braces on the tithe of their children be regulated by the federal government and the white house? answer, yes. under this bill that is coming at us under the language we are ddaling with, the federal government would regulate the credit transaction between the dentist and the parents who would want to finance the braces on their children's teeth. uncle sam injecting itself into the american people.

pot just into the american people but right down into a neighborhood friendly poker game and i had to analyze the lannuage. where does it stop? % what are the restraints on the legislation that would give the federal government to regulate every cried transaction in %- america. and i asked would you analyze the language, could the federal government if they chose to do so regulate the creeit transaction that is embodied in an i.o.u. thattcould be put in the pot in a poker game in a family poker game that might even be an i.o.u. for toothpicks? yes, the federal government injects thementsee into every credit transaction in america. we have the nationalization of

1/3 of the private sector sector in the form of three large investment banks, a.i.g. taken over, freddie mac and fannie mae and general motors and chrysler, that's eight. that's 1/3 of the private sector according to the arizona state university professor and add to that -- and i don't know what the overall percentage is and i don't want to speculate without some basis of knowledge, but we have 33% of the former private sector taken over by the obama administration now in control of the management or ownership or control of these private sector entities and now we are at 33%. obamacare has passed. that's about a consensus of the counts right at 17.5% of the overall economy of the health care.

17--- 17.5%.%- 18% bus 13% is 51% oo the former private sector activity under the ownership, management or control of the federal government. 51 mrs. what did tyler tell us out of scotland and in summary terrs, when the public understands that they can vote themselves benefits on that day, democracy ceases to exist. here wer we are seeing data that only 47% of the households that 47% of the households zoont pay taxes. 47%. we don't have a number to show us the percentage of individuals. if 47% don't pay federal income

tax that tells us we are only 3.0001% away from the majority of american households that don't pay income tax. we are within the emergencyin of error. who can think that the public hasn't figured out that they should game the system. if you are a marginal employee individual, are you belter off to game the system and tap into federal wrelf programs that are out there or go to work every day? if we fall back to the statement made by jimmy carter back in 1976 in iowa as he campaigned for president of the united states, impressed me -- i didn't support him, i want that to be clear, but he impressed, that people who work should live better than those who don't.

i don't think he lived by that but it impressed me, the logic of clarity that shoold be delivered on this floor. of course the people that woirk should live better than those that don't. he had problems following through on that. he was a piker. by today's standards, anybody who doesn't live up to an average standard of living can go to the public welfare rolls and have their rent and heat subsidized and other programs that they can have access to. we have become a welfare state. that works good. that is clearly what is going on with the obama administration, establishing and expanding the depend si class in america because they understand that people who are dependent want to make sure they go vote for the

people whh require them to be dependent before they will send more benefits their way. independent people say i want less government, i want less taxes, i want a smaller role, i want the constitutional rights and all of the powers that are % not enumerated to the ederal government go back to the states. i know that when people are responsible for their own activities and rewarded for positive behavior and the markets and conditions of a just society provide disincentives for people who are not taking care of their familiess dishonest, hoe might be indulging in substance abuse, they are punished in a+ just society and posstive behavior is rewarded and you don't have to rule or regulate a just society

ii you have the financial structures in place, the moral foundation in place and if you aren't afraid to stigma advertise negative behavior. ttis has capped off the effort so far of previous, shall i be nice and call them progressives? their effort, their effort to expand the depend sip class in americc. and whenever that happens, if this congress expands the ppdependency class, it is the equivalent of taking the jack hammer and econommes elling the pillars of american exceptionalism. breaking down the foundation. we aren't a nationnthat is created for greatness. the dependency class is against the american people and spirit. independence is our spirit.

self-reliance is our spirit. our liberty and freeeom is our spirit. tha what are these fellows of american exceptionalism under assault by the active left in this congress every single day, jackhammering away at those beautiful marble pillars of american exceptionalism. what are they? they're easy to find you look in the constitution of the united states. take a look into the bill of rights. go down thrrugh the list. freedom of speech, religion, the press, freedom of agemmably to petition the government for redress of grievances. boy, that is beautiful. are those marble pillars, mr. speaker? of course they are. freedom of speech, to speak outward and openly of the thiigs we believe in without restraint or punishment, knowing that the state can't come in and crush us for our opinion. the freedom with a full-throated objection to our government if they're going

down a path we object to or a full-throated support for a president or a congress or a judiciary branch of government or any agencies within the government that is serving our people in a constitutional nd just fashion. that's freedom of speech. freedom of religion. freedom of religion to worship in the choice of -- church of our choice or not to worship or worship in our home or under a tree or out in a pasture or while we're in a traffic jam, in any way we choose. freedom for a pastor or anyone in the congregation who he might accept to come up and step behind the podium to preach to the word and preach the aw of god and do so without fear, without fear the i.r.s. might come in and rule these words were political or partisan and take away the 501c3 not for profit status

that exxst -- exists for our churches in this country. the i.r.s. has intimidated pastor after pastoo, congregation after congregation, the core of our faith in this country has been eroded because of i.r.s. intimidation of preachers and pastors, even though that speech is guaranteed in the constitution, it doesn't guarantee you get a tax deductionnif you speak out too openly. so i tell my pastors, preach the word. preach the law. preach your convictions and your faith to your congregation in a full throated way. ppand if the i.r.s. comes in an threatens to take away your 501c3 status, tell them, sseve king stands with you, i stand with you figuratively. if you need me to stand next to you, literally, i will do. so and if you still don't have the courage to preach the word, then stand next to me and i

will come and i will preach he word. and if that doesn't give you enough conviition, remember ttis. not in the history of this country has any church lost its 501c3 status because a pastor spoke from his faithful, religious heart and preached the word, the gospel of the lord to the congregation that's gathered together to hear that message. not once, not ever, not in the history of america has the church lost its 501c3 not for profit status because of preaching the word from the pulpit. the threat goes out continually. when a conservative christian %- takes a position that has impact, then you hear from the people like, oh, let me see, let me just say, liberal united states senators who would like to use this -- use the i.r.s. to intimidate their

competition. pot alive today. but there is a histoy ry of it. that's juut the first amendment, ffeedom of speech, religion, press, freedom to petition the government for redress, and -- freedom to assemble. second amendment, the freedom to bear arms thhs eright to own guns and not have the federal government take away our guns. i've been a second amendment defender for a long time, will be for as long as the lord grants me breath, but mr. speaker, many of the people that defend the second amendment think it's about owning and keeping firearms to target shoot, recreational shooting, hunt, or for self-defense. and i will make the --- take th

position here, mr. speaker, that those three things that i've talked about, hunting, ppself-defense, target shooting are all residual benefits, kind of like extra benefits that come with the second amendment. we would have they second amendment whether there was ever target shooting, whether or not there was hunting or %- self-defense. our founding fathers thaund we needed to have an armed populace to defend against tyranny. they understood that a tyrant would come and confiscate our guns and subjugate us to his armed forces and we would have to knuckle under and thereby would go our freedom. that was understood by our founding fathers and they put the second amendment in so we could defend our freedom and liberty and be an armed populace to defend against the tyrants. and the good stuff hat comes from that is we get to also hunt, target shoot, and defend

ourselves. pretty simple concept you look around the world, i don't know of a country or a civilization that has registered firearms that's not confiscated them. when a nation has confiscated firearms that sur presses our freedom of speech. pt suppresses our free do religion, it suppresses our freedom -- our ability to assemble and petition our government for redress of grievances because we'd be intimidated by an all-powerful state. we need the state intimidated by the eople. the power in our government comes from god, our rrghts come from god, they are vested in the people. the people confer that authority to their elected representatives. that's the very definition of a constitutional republic. we have these rights, freedom of speech, religion, press, freedom of assembly, and the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. because that is a deterrent for tyrants. that might want to sub jew gate

us as a people, might want to take away our god-given rights we have vested in our representatives. that's just the first and second amendment. those are all pillars of american exceptionalism. no other country has these rights. they have politically correct laws in canada and great britain and those plays are freer than any other places in the world. we provide a full-throated defense of whatever our position happens to be. we are americans, we don't cowered n shrink from conflict. i had a lady approach me on the street, about the time when obamacare passed she said to me, you have tt find a way to get along, kind of the rodney king statement, can't we compromise, can't we get away from the friction and tension that's going on over obamacare. i listened to her. i had never had a conversation

with her. she impressed me with her deep conviction to following what goes on. i said to her, we have these arguments here, we have this tension, we have this disagreement. and i think we do so because we're called to come to washington to have these debates, have these argument, to have the disagreements, so we don't have to come to blows in the streets of america, so we don't have to clash with each other all the way across from sea to sea. we bring our conflict here. we have these debates here. we test each other in the battle of ideas here. it's even more effective and i'll say significantly more effective than it was in the era of the founding fathers because we have real-time communication. we have, mr. speaker, we have c-span, we have live radio, we have internet, we have podcasts, we can have realtime, interactive town hall meetings that interact all the way

across america. we can carry this message all across this country this constitutional republic is more effective today from a communications standpoint than it was in the era of our founding fathers. we should be grateful for that it's our job to use it, our%% j to utilize it, to continue to build on this. let's have the debate. let's have a nationwide debate, let's get after this. come november, the american people will decide whether this path of the federal takeover of first 1/3 of the former private sector activity of our economy, then adding obamacare to this, another 18% of our economy going o 51%. then sitting in conference committee right now, being deliberated and debated by the conferees, another 15% of the economy, the financial sector of our economy, roughly 15% by some estimates, you add that on to the 51%, and we get up there

to 66% of our economy, i think that's close. then we have the cap and trade argument, roughly 8% or 9% of our economy. if cap and trade is 8% of our economy that means, in case anyone wonders, cap and trade is about this, it's about capping carbon emissions and trading the carbon credits that% you get so if you are an electrical generating plant and burning coal like crazy in 2005, that's the measure, capping at 005 levels of co-2 levels, you're burning all kinds of coal, belching this co-2 out into the atmosphere, which doesn't alarm me, i don't think there's a scientific foundation for their hypothesis, but that's going on. the measurement of the emissions of co-2 would be capped in 2005. presume that same electrical generator takes after half his

coal consumption down, replaces it with a nuclear generating plant. actually a new plant that will come online in 2017, probably the first one in 30 grires then. you get carbon credits for taking the coal generation offline, that co-2 that's not emitted, and you replaced it with a nuclear, just the tool that reduced the co-2 emotions. -- emissions that coal-fired generating, which might be a network, will have half their co-2 emissions that have been cut by the -- because of the replacement of nuclear become their carbon credits. what do they have now? they have something with value. they can take their carbon credits and they can sell them, through an exchange, on the board in chicago, two exchanges that exist, as far as i know right now, any organization that has any hint that any utility that has to burn more coal or natural gas or more diesel fuel and emit more co-2

wouud have to buy the carbon credits from the entity that had created them by replacing the co-- emissions with, say, nuclear, or wind, or solar or some other source. so these exchanges go on. carbon credits are expensive when they start and as they dial this down, the idea is to reduce the co-2 emissions from the standard, the cap, ast the cap at 2005 emissions levels, and trade these co -- trade the carbon credits, dial them down by 17% by a certain year, which seems to me is 2013, way too soon. and then from whatever that year is, the 17% reduction, out to 25050, re-- out to 2050, down to -- reduce them. the vision is we'd be emitting 17% of the co-2 we are doing today.

i expect we'll use the same amount of energy. do you expect, mr. speaker, that these carbon credits are going to be worth more or less as the cap gets dialed down year by year? ppuntil the year 2050, where 83 of the co-2 emissions are shut down by the economics of this. it doesn't just shut down the co-2 emissions and give us the % same kilowatt hours or some other type of energy for that matter, consumption that could be diesel fuel, gas, or anything. no, mr. speaker. it doesn't do that. what it does is, it shuts down some of the emissions but the economics of it require that the cost of power goes up. as the cost of power goes up, the consumption of power goes down. we use less energy between you and 2013 or 2017. and 2050. if we use less energy, why? do we turn the air conditioner, do we turn the air conditioner, set it on 80 degrees?