reduce greenhouse gas emissions. we did it with acid rain. this works. the republican presidential candidate last year introduced a cap and trade bill three times because he believes it's a free-market approach and won't cost the american taxpayers. . mr. ryan: i had an interesting conversation with someone the other day, they're in your district, congressman, and, you know, they do a lot of defense work, a lot of work with the military. but i asked the guy, what portion of your employers work on these kinds of green technologies? he said, half of their workers are employed, the engineers and other workers, on the issues of cleaning up the air. the scrubbers, the technology

that goes into power plants and other facilities to help clean some of the poison out of the air that was causing all kinds of health problems. there are industries that pop up to clean the air. this is -- these are economic development opportunities. now, that $750 billion that goes abroad will come back to the united states, they will -- the money will be invested into wind mills, solar panels, batteries, new autos, all kinds of different things. we were in kent the other day. they're making a liquid crystal technology that's film on windows that darkens when the sun comes out to keep the house cool in the summer because the

window darkens. they just opened up a manufacturing facility in kent, ohio, they have 45 people working there now, and once this product catches on, there will be hundreds people working there making this special liquid crystal technology film that will be going in the homes to conserve thrg -- energy. the economy will adapt. people will find ways to make money and make profit off of these things. but if you get $750 billion -- you go to the gas tank, you might as well send a check to the opec countries. now let's be honest with each other. what we're saying is, when you stop at a gas station or whatever kind of station there's going to be in the next decade or two, we want that money staying in ohio. in the midwest, in america. not going -- so, you send the $750 billion off, then you pay your tax bill at the end of the year and you send money to the federal government and then you find out that the defense department sends $120 billion of

your tax dollars to escort ships going in and out of the persian gulf. does this make any sense to anybody? this makes no sense what we're doing here. we got to stop it. and then we send subsidies to the oil companies so they can keep going. this doesn't make any sense. i'm sorry. i don't know any other way to say it. we need to stop doing this. and it's going to have some disruption and everyone's going to have to figure this out but we have smoothed this over over 20 years no one's jamming this down anybody's throat. and these manufacturing facilities have all kinds of credits, we're holding harmless a lot of manufacturers, a lot of consumers will see increases 10 years from now. it may be $100 a year. but the benefits are that $750

billion is going to come back to the united states and get invested here. the defense department won't be spending money escorting oil ships in and out of the persian gulf. i mean, let's stop this. this is insane. doesn't make any sense. it's wasting all kinds of money. it's polluting the air. it's empowering countries that are on sand. and then they hate america and we get entangled in all these geopolitical problems that we don't need to be involved in. let's invest the money back into the united states. i mean, you want to talk about a pro-american position, there couldn't be a bigger one. you know that. you've been in iraq four times, five times, this young man has flown in and out of here. and by young i mean five years older than me.

but he's flown in and out. he's flown soldiers who have died serving their country back over here and he's saying, we can't keep doing this. john mccain, who served the country so nobly, said the same thing. we can't keep doing this. stop. and that's what this is about. but it's about leadership. it's not about just going down the same road, doing what's comfortable. that doesn't get you anywhere. this is about leading. and there's gb to be a transition but -- there's going to be a transition but at the end of the day you're going to provide a safer country for your kids, a less entangled geopolitical situation for our country and you're going to create jobs in the united states. this is a win-win-win. mr. boccieri: if would you yield, just yesterday we had wonderful news in the 16th congressional district.

rolls-royce is anchoring its world headquarters for fuel cell research in our part of ohio. the research that they're doing, robust research they're doing on fuel cells, is going to be anchored in our part of ohio. because we're beginning to take action where there was none previously. and let me just say this quite frankly, i believe that we will be judged in next year's elections by two measures, whether we acted or whether we did not. by action or inaction. fedy roosevelt said the worst thing you can do in a moment of decision is nothing. and we know that the status quo is unsustainable with an energy policy in this country that continues to empower petrol dictaters to hold america hostage by importing 66.4% of oil from around the world. we're going to expand drilling

in the united states here, we know that's not going to be all the answers to our energy woes here because we only have 3% of the world's oil reserves in this northern hemisphere, but we consume 24% of the world's oil. so we've got to find a diversity. we've got to find the way to become diverse as a americans -- as americans in our energy consumption and that is by investing in these alternative energies. whether it's switch grass or algae or whether it's ethanol or biofuels or whether it's fuel cells, we've got to make this transition now. because it is about our national security. so next year when we go before the voters and we go before our citizens and constituents, they're going to ask us, did you act to make america stronger? because all of us know we still have relatives and friends serving in the middle east right now because we are there fighting for countries that provide us a whole lot of oil.

in fact, 40% of our oil comes from the middle east. but if we put, like rudolph giuliani said last year, 27% of the vehicles on the road were gas electric hybridded, like the prius -- hybrids like the prius, we could end our dependence on the middle east. he said we need to expand the use of hybrid vehicles, clean coal, $324 million of research in clean coal in ohio every year, congressman ryan. we have more coal reserves in the united states than we have oil reserves in saudi arabia. this should be a major national project. let me echo that again in this tchame ber -- chamber. this should be a major national project. this is a matter of our national security. we've got to act, congressman ryan. now i graduated with a baseball degree and minored in economics

from college but let me tell you this, in 2003, our former president said this with the department of defense study, he said the risk abrupt climate change should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a u.s. national security concern. the department of defense was saying this under our previous president. he also said that the economic disruptions associated with global climate change are projected by the c.i.a. and other intelligence experts to place increased pressure on weak nations that may be unable to provide the basic needs and maintain order for their citizens. we got our c.i.a. saying this, we have our department of defense saying this, we got every candidate running for president last year saying this is a matter of national security and what did we have? we had a vote along partisan lines. national security is about america, it's not a democrat or

republican challenge, it's not a conservative or liberal challenge. it's about making america stronger. and when we invest in ourselves we will become stronger. this is about our future. our children's future. and about creating jobs here in ohio, congressman ryan, like we did with rolls-royce and like we will do with so many others that are beginning this burgeoning industry. having a dweverts of energy, we should all agree, is going to make our country stronger. and these two long-term challenges of health care and of energy should be national projects, national projects that make our country stronger and protect our national security in the long run. i yield. mr. ryan: the thing is too with this manufacturing, the green manufacturing, we have thomas steel in ohio, it's now making this specialty steel, about 300 steel workers signed a contract with the solar panel company from toledo, very exciting

proposition, because when the solar panel industry takes off, a local steel company with united steel workers of america that have good health care benefits and a decent pension, are going to benefit from this. and the more solar panels happen, the more steel they're going to buy from ohio, the more steel workers that are going to go to work. ohio's star four, they make a bearing that goes into the wind mill. 4,000 component parts -- or no, 8,000, 8,000 component parts that go into a wind mill. that's what we do. does anyone else have a better idea how to revive manufacturing in the united states of america than to have us supplying 8,000 component parts and 400 tons of steel that go into a wind mill? does anyone have anything better? cut taxes for the rich people and hope it trickles down? that's not a manufacturing

policy in the united states of america. but what we're doing here with the volt at general motors, with the new battery, the hybrids, we drove in a car the other day, went from california to washington, d.c., on algae. on algae. you know how you grow the algae? you pump a bunch of co-2 in it and it grows the algae. so here you have an opportunity to make cars that run on algae, grow the algae and place -- in places like ohio that unfortunately or maybe fortunately at some point give off all this co-2, grow the algae, put it in cars and we have a clean economy. and it's a new economy. and let me tell you something, there's not a lot going on

manufacturingwise in the united states anymore. but if you take this $750 billion that we keep sending abroad to oil producing countries and that money comes back to the united states, that's a heck of a lot of investment here, to go into companies that are going to make these 8,000 component parts that are going to go into the wind mills, that are going to make the 400 tons of steel that are going to go into the wind mills. and the cars and the solar panels and the biodiesel facilities. i haven't heard a better idea. you know, it's nice to be against everything but does anyone have another idea on how to get $750 billion that's going right out the country back here? you know, come on. let's be smart. let's keep our money in america. and that's what this is all about. this is the most pro-american, pro-independence, pro-freedom, pro-liberty bill you could ever get your hands on. because it directs investment

into the united states of america and puts americans back to work. you know, if you're refitting homes with insulation, with special roofing to capture rainwater, those are sheet metal workers, those are carpenter, those are building trades people that you and i live and work with every single day. put them back to work. this is great. i don't see it. other than being against it. mr. boccieri: they weren't against it last year, congressman ryan. in fact, i point to my friend, mike huckabee, who suggested that a nation that can't feed itself, a nation that can't fuel itself, or a nation that can't produce the weapons to fight for itself is a nation forever enslaved. he also said that it's critical that for our own interests economically and from a point on national security, that we commit to become energy

independent and we commit to doing it within a decade. we sent a man to the moon in a decade. i think in 20 years we can become energy independent. i believe we can. we have to take responsibility in our own house before we can expect others to do the same in theirs. it goes back to his basic concept of leadership, that leaders don't ask others to do what they are unwilling to do themselves. and that's why leaders who ran for the office of presidency last year believed that a strong national energy policy is about making america stronger. . relying on the innovation of the midwest. that makes america stronger. 1950, over half of the jobs in this country were manufacturing. we are at 10% now because we exported our ability to produce and build things here. we are the movers of wealth, rather than the producers of

wealth. let's invest in our own future, produce things here. let's build windmills here. let's make canton, ohio build the wind tushins and build the plastic moldings for the wind turbines and let fuel cells be developed at rolls royce so we can use the solar panels that are developed in ohio, recharge the batteries that are being developed in medina county and let's use that compressed natural gas that we are using at the ohio state and agricultural center in worcester, ohio. let's turn our generators to heat and produce elect for our homes. that's the time of innovation that will make america stronger

in the long run and focus, focus on our economic interests as a country. as john kennedy said, we do these things not because they are easy but because they are hard, because they are hard. but we know that if we don't make this transition right now, decades later, we will make america very, very vulnerable. when i go back and answer to the people, i want to tell them i stood with them and stood with making stronger. mr. ryan: with that, we yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair recognize the gentleman from georgia, mr. price, for 60 minutes. mr. price: what a glorious evening it is to come to the floor and to remind my colleagues about a little fact and about a little truth. i have heard so many things over the last 15 or 30 minutes, mr. speaker, i'm not quite certain where to begin, but i guess i

would begin by imploring my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to talk to the speaker, goodness gracious talk to the speaker when they talk about expand drilling. they could talk to the president as well. you betcha, mr. speaker, we want to expand drilling. when they talk about clean coal technology and advancing clean coal technology, you betcha, mr. speaker. the speaker of the house and the president don't support it. that's the problem. i would encourage them to talk to their own leadership because the principles and the policies that they just espoused over the last 15 to 30 minutes are as strong as we have ever on our side of the aisle, the republican side of the aisle espoused over the last number of years. i would encourage them to talk to their leadership. i would point out that one of the things that was said is absolutely correct is that these aren't democrat problems and these aren't republican

problems, they're american problems. and to that end, i want to talk about what america has been concerned about. and mr. speaker, if you think about what happened in august in this nation, all across this nation, it was a remarkable outpouring, a remarkable outpouring of concern, yes and of fear, yes and of anger about the direction in which the american people see their nation headed. and what they said, i believe in town hall after town hall and meeting after meeting after meeting was washington, you're not listening, you're just not listening. we thought we were electing change in november of 2008 and in fact, we have elected change as a nation. the problem is the change that's being instituted by my friends on the other side of the aisle and the speaker and the president are not the change

that the american people wanted. that's the problem. and so, they come out to these meetings and they come out to talk to their representatives, if, in fact, they'll meet with he them. so many of my friends on the other side of the aisle refused to hold town hall meetings, but they have come out and say please listen to us, listen to what we're telling you. your policies are killing us. they're killing us from an economic standpoint, too many taxes. you're spending our children and grandchildren's money and you just can't do that. we can't do that at home. you can't do that at the federal level. and so what they want are solutions. and my friends on the other side of the aisle talked about solutions and i'm going to talk a lot about solutions this evening, because even this evening my two great colleagues from ohio reiterated this

fabrication, this falsehood. oh, yes, mr. speaker, something that isn't absolutely the truth when they say when they say republicans don't bring any solutions to the table. i'm going to talk about a couple of solutions just in the area of energy and health policy. and if you, mr. speaker, would like to go look at our solutions, they're on our website. i'm privileged to chair the republican study committee, the largest caucus in the house of representatives that puts solutions on the tail for every single american challenge that we face, solutions that embrace fundamental american principles that are optimistic, forward-thinking and upbeat and realize that the reason we're the greatest nation in the history of the world is because we have followed fundamental american principles. so you can google republican

study committee or rsc.price .house.gov and look at our solutions and look at our solutions that we have seen a nonstimulus bill that are driving individuals into unemployment and four million jobs this year alone. look at our solutions which is a contrast to a budget which was passed by this house of representatives that spends money that we don't have, borrowed from the chinese government, money that makes us $1 trillion in debt year after year after year after year. and the american people are fed up with it, mr. speaker. look at our solutions that say the way to be able to utilize american resources responsibly so we solve the energy challenges that we have, there's a way to do that to make it so that the government isn't put in charge and aren't taxing the american people to death.

mr. speaker, look at the solutions at rsc.price.house.gov , look at the solutions to the health care. i want to start with the health care issues because one of the things that drove me into public service after 20 years of practicing medicine. i took care of folks who had broken bones as an orthopedic surgeon for 20 years and i took care of them in the best way i knew how from the best training and i took care of them that led me to believe that the state government and the federal government was impacting the ability of myself and my staff in an adverse way, in an adverse way, not a positive way, in an adverse way to be able to care for those patients. when my friends on the other side of the aisle, the presentation that we just saw, mr. speaker, the gentleman had six p's, i only caught five of

them. mr. speaker, i would suggest that none of the challenges that the gentleman from ohio described, none of them, are improved by the intervention of the federal government, not one. not one. so when i talk about principles in the area of health care, which is what i think we need to be talking about here in the united states house of representatives and the congress of the united states and by the president, we ought to be talking about principles of health care so we create a system that is responsive to patients. that's the goal, correct, mr. speaker? responsive to patients. when we talk about principles, most of us have the top three, most americans have the top three principles. they are affordability. you ought to be able to afford the system that we create, accessibility, you ought to be able to get into the system.

and quality, you want the highest quality of care in the world, which is, in fact, what we have right now. i have three more principles to those, affordability, accessibility and quality. one is responsiveness, you have to have a system that is responding to people, which is not the case in other nations, which are systems taken over by the government. the second is innovation. we are a nation that has allowed for the greatest amount of innovation in the world, in the world in the area of health care. and that has resulted in the highest quality of care for all of our citizens, for every single american. we want a system that creates and incentivizes innovation. and third and finally, choices. the american people want choices. they want to be able to choose their doctor and choose where they're treated, choose when they're treated and how they're treated.

and that ought to be their right. that ought to be their right. so principles of health care, affordability, accessibility, quality, responsiveness, innovation, choices. those six principles, mr. speaker -- and you may have some others. you may have some others. people listening may have some others. i would suggest to you, mr. speaker, that those six principles, and the ones outlined by my friend from ohio earlier this evening, that none of those principles are improved by the intervention of the federal government. think about it. accessibility to the system. the federal government runs four specific medical programs, medicare, medicaid, v.a. health service and indian health service. accessibility, all of those systems have some kind of rationing of care. you don't have to take my word for it. when i worked at the v.a.

medical center in atlanta, we would get to a point every single quarter where they would say, i'm sorry, you can't perform any more total joint surgeries this quarter, and it wasn't because we run out of total joints. it wasn't because we ran out of prosthesis or patients for whom it was to provide a total joint, no, mr. speaker. it was because we had run out of money and that's because when you get a government-run system, the decisions are controlled by money, not controlled by patients and by quality. accessibility is limited in every one of those. for example, the mayo clinic, the mayo clinic, one of the finest health care providers in the nation in jacksonville, florida, is limiting the number of patients it sees. limiting the number of medicare patients that it sees. why?

not because they forget how to take care of seniors, it's because the system is bone and flawed. the system limits accessibility. when veterans call up for an appointment, are they given the appointment that happens in a personal or private setting? no. because accessibility is limited in a government health care system. not just in the united states, in every other system in the world that is run by the government. it's limited. accessibility is limited. affordability is compromised. accessibility is compromised. responsiveness and innovation, certainly not consistent with anything that the federal government does. responsiveness and innovation? no. we know responsiveness is in the private sector. we know that innovation is in the perm, private sector. not in the governmental sector. certainly the government tries to catch up and sometimes it

does with relative efficiency. there is nothing in the federal government that demands that you have responsiveness and innovation. and then the final principle of choices, the federal government and choices are inconsistent with each other because the federal government defines what individuals ought to do and must do and determines basically what is available to people. and if it's available in something that doesn't mean anything to folks by and large, it doesn't really make a whole lot of difference. but in the area of health care. in the area of medicine, in the area of personal decisions that make it so that you are able to care for you and your family in the most personal and effective way, the government has no place in those decisions, mr. speaker. none. and they ought not. and so our friends on the other side of the aisle say, oh, no, the government is the only entity that can provide the

balance, the balance to this equation. mr. speaker, you know that the balance in this equation in the area of health care means that individuals will not receive the kind of care that they desire, not receive the kind of care that they and their family choose for themselves. they'll receive the kind of care that the government chooses for them, but won't receive the kind of care that they and their family desire. so nothing could be more important here in washington, here in the united states congress in the fall of 2009 as we try to talk productively about this issue that is of incredible importance to the american people. . one of the greatest concerns i have is that at least half and maybe more, at least half, the of the members of congress have been shut out of this debate. i mention that i'm privileged to chair the republican study committee, the largest caucus in the house of representatives.

we have attempted to solicit and take the president at his word when he said, if you have an idea, if you'd like to discuss the issues that we have before us in the area of health care, come on down to the white house. my door's open. right, mr. speaker? that's what he said. my door's open. come on down and we'll go over the bill line by line. well, mr. speaker, this may come as a surprise to some folks but we, the republican study committee, have been asking for a meeting with the president of the united states since the week he was sworn in to office. and the response has been every single week, well, thank you very much. thank you very much. this is an incredibly important issue. there are nine members of our conference who are physicians like i am who have significant passion about the issue of health care and the reason that we ought not put the government in charge.

our friends on the other side of the aisle say cavalierly, you ought to just let the government compete for this. the fact of the matter is, mr. speaker, if the government competes for it, it drives hundreds -- over 100 million individuals, over 100 million americans from personal, private shealt insurance that they elect for themselves and their family and it drives them, it shoves them, it forces them into the government program. mr. speaker, that's not what you want or at least that's not what you say you want. and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that's not what they say they want by and large. but that's the system that we're going to have if in fact the speaker of the house and the president have their way. so we've got some incredibly important issues to discuss here in the united states house of representatives and i'm joined this evening by a great friend and colleague, the gentlelady from north carolina, who has been front and center on the health care issue and on the energy issue and i know that she has been frustrated by much of

the information we've heard this evening, especially in the area of energy policy. because we have been fighting tooth and nail to make certain that we could put forward an all-of-the-above energy strategy and my friends on the other side of the aisle earlier this evening talked about the lack of solutions that we have. so i'm pleased to yield to my friend from north carolina for her comments on energy or whatever else you'd like to chat about this evening. ms. foxx: i thank you, dr. price, for beginning this hour and bringing an extraordinarily comprehensive discussion to the health care issue. i did hear more of our colleagues that were here the previous hour talking about energy than health care but i did hear them say that if we were to adopt the health care proposals and i assume that they mean h.r. 3200, that that would

bring long-term economic growth to this country. and i thought that i must be living in either never-neverland or wonderland or some place other than in the united states of america and serving in the united states congress. because having the government take over health care in this country is a formula in my opinion for harming economic growth in this country, not creating economic growth. and i think that the american people have caught on to that. i want to say that the thing that kept running through my mind as i was listening to that, and let me say here that many folks wonder why we often are here speaking to an empty chamber, but we're usually in our offices listening to what's going on in the chamber, along

with about 800,000 other people in the country and so we do listen to each other and sometimes it is very frustrating to hear what's being said because i believe, in many cases, the merge people are being misled -- the american people are being misled by the comments that are being said. we don't expect to see long-term economic growth from health care and one of the best things i think that has happened this entire summer is that the american people have been paying closer attention to what's being proposed in the congress. the h.r. 3200 has been looked at by the public and they understand that what we have been saying about the bill is more accurate than what our colleagues have been saying about the bill. i have read the bill, i know you have read the bill, and i want to encourage more and more

americans to read it because i don't think that the time has passed for us considering that bill. i think that or something similar to it is going to be dealt with on the floor of the house. but what i wish is that more americans had paid closer attention to the bill that our colleagues call cap and trade and which we call cap and tax. because i think if the american people had paid as much attention to that as they have to the health care bill they would have been up in arms earlier this year. most of them don't realize that, again, what our colleagues were saying is just the opposite of what they do in legislation. last summer we were here talking about the problems with energy, gas prices were skyrocketing and as you pointed out we stood for an all-of-the-above energy policy in this country.

we want to be able to use the resources that are available to us in this country. i believe the good lord gave us the resources in this country to take care of our energy needs. but our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and let's say it, the democrats are in control of this congress, it's very important that people understand that our colleagues who were speaking a while ago were speaking of the folks in charge who are of their party. they make it seem like they're not in control, that they can't make the things happen that they're talking about, but they are in control. and every day they make us more and more dependent on that foreign oil that they say they don't want us to be dependent on. we have seen here how they have shut down accessibility to shale and oil and the outer continental shelf. over and over and over again

they stymie every opportunity that we have to increase the sources of energy in this country. mr. price: i appreciate those comments because i was stunned as i was sitting here listening to the gentleman from ohio say, and i wrote it down just because i was so astounded, say that we ought to increase our use of, quote, coal, nuclear and oil shale, unquote. and he said that and in fact that's exactly the opposite thing that his party has done. isn't that the truth? ms. foxx: it is absolutely the truth. in fact, in the cap and trade bill that they call it, we call it cap and tax, what it will do will make us more dependent, it stops the use of coal in this country, we have much more coal resources available to us than saudi arabia has oil resources, and we know that. but they seem to hate coal and want to do everything that they possibly can to diminish the use of it.

there are no plans for creating nuclear energy, increase nuclear energy, and yet we know if we're going to maintain our standard of living in this country, we need to be building in the next 30 years 30 to 50 nuclear power plants. we also know that france has gotten 85% of their electricity since world war ii from nuclear power and they've never had one tiny problem as a result of that. but the radical environmentalists in this country seem determined to create blackouts in this country. they don't want coal, they don't want us to drill for oil, they don't want nuclear, they're even protesting now putting in solar panels out in the mo halvey desert, they don't want wind farms. that's not -- solar and wind are not the solutions to our energy needs and we know that.

president obama said he would double the use of alternative energies, meaning wind and solar, and yet president bush did that in the last 18 months of his administration. we went from 1.5% to 3%. well the president in four years -- president bush did that in 18 months. president obama has said that he would double it during his first term. well, going from 3% to 6%, given how the technology's growing, isn't a very big leap. but we also know that we can only absorb in our current electric grid, only 10% of solar and wind. beyond 10% we put our wonderful system of energy in great jeopardy. because we simply don't have the grid to handle it and we can handle up to 10%, as i

understand it, from listening to the experts, but even that, for us to absorb 10% of wind and solar, which are undependable, that's the main reason that we can't absorb more than 10%, would take $3 trillion to redo our grid. they never say anything about that cost. and to be able to put in cap and tax would be enormously expensive to the average american consumer. we know that it's probably going to increase energy costs between $1,700 and $3,000 for the average american family. they never mention that when they're talking about what they want to do in terms of alternative energy. and i think it's very important again that we call the attention of the american people to that bill.

i'm sorry i forget to write down the number of the bill, but if people again would pay some attention to that bill and read it as they have 3200, h.r. 3200, i think they'd find that we are telling the truth about it and that rather than it expanding domestic energy sources, it's going to contract domestic energy sources because of all the rules and regulations and the cost of them. and i think it's a cruel hoax being put out to the american people, along with what they have been saying about health care also. and i want to switchback to that subject because you're such an -- well, you're an expert in both of these areas, but you're really such an expert in the health care area, i want to take it down, though, to, i think, a conversation that everybody can understand. when i was growing up in western

north carolina in the 1950's, my family was extraordinarily poor. i mean, dirt poor, as we used to say. and yet we could afford health care. i had chronic asthma and allergies and often had to get health care treatment. and my family could pay for that. the costs were very low. and i began to think a few years ago, now, what has happened since i was a child living out in the country, very rural area, the poorest county in north carolina, and yet we had a small hospital, we had doctors there who would treat us and we could pay cash and meet our obligations, what's happened since that time, the 1960's, the mid 1960's, medicare was created, medicaid was created, government policies encouraged companies to provide health insurance for their employees

because they could tax deduct it, but individuals could not. so the rules changed dramatically. i know also that we have wonderful technology, we have many, many more specialists in our country and our health care has gotten better and better in this country. and i get really furious when i hear these statistics from our colleagues that want to say that we are 35th in the level of health care that we provide. well why is it that everybody comes to our country to get health care? and why is it that our average life span is now 80 years old and people are living such vibrant lives right up almost until death, most people are? it's because we've created government-run health care in medicare and medicaid and in the other areas that you talked about and third party payer. we have taken away the sense of responsibility from americans

for how much things cost and everybody thinks, well, if insurance is going to pay for it, it's not costing me anything, i'll utilize it to the full. but i make the analogy, we all have to buy car insurance because as we drive our cars, there's the chance we will harm someone else. and so we all have to have liability insurance. but our car insurance does not pay to change our oil or put new tires on the car and yet week of come to accept that. same thing with homeowners insurance. we buy homeowners insurance because it's the practical thing to do but if our roof gets a leak in it, we don't turn that into the insurance company, we fix the roof because we know if we don't fix the roof pretty soon the ceiling's going to be leaking, then the floor's going to be damaged. so we assume that responsibility for our cars and our homes and yet over the years, this insidious growth of government

and third party payer through insurance have taken away the sense of responsibility that we have for taking care of our own bodies and taking care of our own health. and the more we involve the government, the worse it's going to be. . we need to follow the principles you outlined and i think you did a beautiful job. we keep hearing republicans have no alternatives. our alternatives fit exactly the principles that you outlined. and i want to say -- i just want to mention a couple of bills here, h.r. 2520, the patients choice act, by mr. ryan from wisconsin. the patients choice act would transform health care in america by strengthening the relationship between the patient and the doctor by using choices and competition rather than

rationing and restrictions and seeks affordable health care for all americans. and there's the bill that you introduced, which i don't think you have spoken of, but it's h.r. 3400. we want people understand the difference. the empowering patients first act, to increase patients' control over their health care decisions by offering more choices and the highest quality available. we have comprehensive bills out there that do what needs to be done. but the speaker refuses to pay attention to those. as you said, the president refuses to pay attention to them. they are determined to control every aspect of our lives and taking over health care gives them the wonderful opportunity to do that. and i want to thank you again for leading this hour tonight and getting us on the right

track on these issues. i yield back. mr. price: thank you ever so much, my dear friend from north carolina, ms. foxx, who outlines very pesk points both in the s energy and health care policies. one of the takeaways i would talk about, we have been desireous of what we call an all of the above energy solutions. that our friends on the other side talk about but have never voted or introduced policy legislation that would accomplish that. and by all of the above, we mean sincerely that america has been blessed with incredible resources, remarkable resources and we ought to be able to utilize them in a very environmentally responsible and sound way. what does that mean? that means that offshore from the united states there are

resources that we can utilize. onshore, there are resources. oil shale technology that allows us to gain the fossil fuels from oil shale sands, shale out west to be able to use that and supply the american people with appropriate resources in the area of oil. clean coal technology, which my friend from north carolina discussed. and our friends on the other side talked about, but in fact they vote against every time they it comes up. nuclear technology, we ought to use increasing nuclear resources to be able to provide energy for the american people. and we ought to be able to do so, not because it's the right thing to do for our nation and not because it is available to us and the good lord has blessed us with this remarkable knowledge, expertise and resources, but because in so doing, we don't -- we make it so

that we aren't helping people across the world who don't like us. there are people that we are supporting to a huge degree. the government of wens waila, which is headed by an individual that has and mossity for the united states. there are governments in the middle east that we are sending hundreds of billions of dollars to that are not fond of the united states or our government or our people. we are not utilizing american resources, american tax money, american labor to fund folks that don't care for us. that's just wrong. if it were the only option available, that would be one thing. but, mr. speaker, it's not. it's not. there are wonderful resources that we have, but we're blocked by the democrats in charge and the majority party. and that's wrong. and the president has said over and over again that he doesn't

believe we ought to utilize our resources in this way. as the gentlelady from north carolina has said, he wants to double wind and solar energy, and that's fine. that's wonderful. that's great. but it will be ultimately 6% to 8% of the energy out lization of this nation. that's not going to get us out of the hurdle, mr. speaker and not going to get us where we need to be. we need to conserve more. we need to utilize american resources for americans. that's a common sense thing to do. if one was elected to the united states house of representatives or the senate that one would have that as a responsible feature of their policy is to out liz american re-- utilize american resources and incentive the creation of new form of energy without the government picking winners and losers. that's an all of the above

energy policy and we have been fighting about and clammering for for years literally and have been blocked at every single turn by our friends on the other side of the aisle in their beholden nature to folks who would not allow us to use american resources. i'm going to talk about health care because it is driving the entire debate here in washington today. i have talked about principles in health care, accessibility, affordability, quality, responsiveness, innovation and choices and none of those principles are improved by the intervention of the federal government. and i don't think there is a single american who sincerely believes they are improved by more imposition of rules from washington. so if you believe that, if we believe that, then the president would have us believe there are only two alternatives, either the government is in charge or

the insurance companies are in charge. well, mr. speaker, that's a false choice. that's a false premise. in fact, it's not just the government in charge or the insurance companies in charge, in fact, there's a better way, the right way, the correct way, and that is to put patients and their families in charge. and how do you do that? to put patients and families in charge so that accessibility, affordability, quality, responsiveness, innovation and choices are all improved. in fact, all of the principles in health care are improved if the parets are in charge. in fact, the system moves in the direction it ought to move. mr. speaker, the direction that our health care system ought to move isn't the direction that i, as a physician or a member of congress believe it ought to move. it isn't the direction you believe it ought to move. it isn't the direction in which our collective intelligence here in the house believes it ought to move, the direction it ought to move is the direction that patients want it to move.

and the only way to do that is to allow patients to control the system. and the bill that will do that is h.r. 3400. h.r. 3400. go to the web site for the republican study committee, rsc. price.house.gov. look it up. look it up side by side between speaker pelosi's, 1,000-plus page bill or there is a responsible way to do it h.r. 3400. what does it do? five things very specifically in addition to a lot of other things, but five big things. it gets americans insured. it's imperative that we make certain that those individuals who are unable or appear to have the lack of resources to be able to finance health coverage for themselves or their family have

the wherewithal to do that. how do you do that snu make it so that for every single american, it makes sense to be insured. americans are bright people. they're making financial decisions right now not to be insured. so we devise a system, creates the rules of a system that will respond to patients, that will make it so that each and every american citizen sits down at the end of the day and then they realize it makes more sense for them financially to be insured than not. and do it through a series of tax deductions, tax credits, refundable tax credits, advance ed refundable tax credits, purchase insurance with pre-tax dollars. get folks insured. secondly, you got to solve the challenges of the health insurance system right now. there are wonderful things about

our hement care system and there are things that are flawed and they are relatively easy to solve. for example, the two main issues, portability, you ought not lose your insurance if you lose or change your job. pre-existing illness. if you have a diagnosis that results in an event from a medical stand point or injury that results in a major expenditure, you ought not lose your insurance. that's wrong. how do you solve that? you make it so that individuals own and control their insurance policy so they can take it with them if they lose their job or change their job or, in addition to that, you make it so they can pool -- americans can pool together with millions of other people for the purchase of insurance so you get the purchasing power of millions even if you're one individual or a small group or a small

business or small employer in that market to purchase health insurance. so you solve those challenges, get folks insured, make certain that you solve the insurance challenge. third and as important as anything else to make absolute certain that it's patients and their families and doctors who are making medical decisions, not government bureaucrats, not insurance bureaucrats, not anybody else. medical decisions are some of the most personal decisions we ever make in our lives for ourselves and our families. we ought to have the right -- we do have the right and exercise the right of making those decisions ourselves. it is a sad commentary, mr. speaker, right now in america that in order to get that accomplished, you have to write that into law. that's a sad commentary, but it is indeed where we find ourselves right now. h.r. 3400 says that, says that nobody else in the federal government or the insurance

industry will be able to make decisions as it relates to the provision of medical services and care for individuals or members of their family. fourth, we solve the issue of lawsuit abuse. lawsuit abuse, the lottery mentality that we have created in our society that makes it so that individuals believe that if they just hit the right note, if they just are able to find the right cause of action against a physician or a hospital, that they might make millions. and that results in the practice of defensive medicine. and the practice of defensive medicine, mr. speaker, those tests and examinations that your doctor performs or orders in order to make certain, make absolute certain to as much scientific certainty as one can that the diagnosis or the procedure that he or she proposes for a patient and then carries out is backed up by all the knowledge and evidence that

is available to them. so that if they find themselves in a court of law, they can look at the judge and jury and said, i did every single one of these things and what i did was appropriate for this patient. and the judge and the jury nod their head and say yeah, he or she did. it doesn't make any difference the first two of those things was necessary to make the diagnosis or perform the procedure to cure the patient. the next 15 or 16 >> redunt ant, but that's the practice of defensive medicine. hundreds of billions of dollars each year. and it's not that it harms the patient, it doesn't, but makes it so that the system spends so much money than it has to in order to provide the care that it currently has to. mr. speaker, we can have mr. speaker, we can have everybody insured, solve the