Floor Statements

There's no question. Congressman Ryan has been a mainstay for supporting those types of projects throughout Ohio in his position on the Appropriations Committee. Congressman Ryan and I both came up together in the legislature. We cut our teeth together in the State capital, and now we're in Washington, trying to fight for our part of Ohio, to move our State and to move our country forward.

The gentleman from Niles is correct that the two largest issues that confound our economy, confound our Nation and really threaten our long- term competitiveness as a Nation are energy and health care. Energy and the fact that we bring more oil to the United States than any other country: 66.4 percent of our oil is imported from overseas, 40 percent comes from the Middle East alone. I talk to my friends who are still serving in the military in the Persian Gulf right now, and we often chat. I remind them of what we did as a country, the Greatest Generation, back in 1944 when we bombed the remaining Ploesti oil fields and we effectively cut off the German supply of oil. And they quickly transitioned to a synthetic fuel which is a derivative of coal.

Ohio has a lot of coal. And we know that right now, the single- largest user of energy in the United States is the Department of Defense. This is a matter of national security, and this Congress stood up and took bold initiative to take on the big powerful special interest groups that always challenge us and act as barriers to passing good, sound public policy. It is about time we put America first, and it's about time we put the American people first, and we put the special interests on the back burner, because we can no longer continue to operate the way we've been doing.

We've seen what happens when we have an administration that really doesn't reflect on the amount of money that we're spending and the amount of money we're borrowing from overseas interests, doesn't reflect on the amount of oil and the amount of energy that we bring in from different countries. This is about putting America first. The gentleman is right; health care is affecting our long-term competitiveness as a Nation. I can't go to any small business in the 16th Congressional District of Ohio or any large business, for that matter, and every governmental agency from the most local to the most Federal, has said the fastest-growing line item of their expenditure sheet is health care costs.

We know we spent $2.5 trillion every year on health care. There was an article, Congressman Ryan, that came out at the beginning of this year in the spring, and it said that one-third of that $2.5 trillion never reaches the doctors or patients. It's lost somewhere in the administration of the system, in the delivery of health care. So we're losing almost a trillion dollars in inefficient practices. And when you start peeling back that onion, really, quite frankly, where the fingers meet the onion, when you start peeling back that onion, you find out that insurance companies have over 15 percent administrative costs, administrative costs of 15 percent.

I went back and spoke to some of my doctors, and it may shock some of the folks who are listening tonight, but I've got to tell you they said the most efficient payer out there is Medicare. Medicare, with 3 percent, 3 percent overhead costs.

There was a study that came out last year, Congressman Ryan and Mr. Speaker, that said that $84 billion is spent every year to block, deny, and screen people from seeing their doctor by the insurance companies, when it will only cost $77 billion to cover all those uninsured and underinsured people in our country. It would actually be cheaper. Keep the $77 billion, insure everybody, make sure that they have access. Let's help reduce our costs in the long run. That is sound public policy.

Now I agree with what Congressman Ryan has said when he stood at his county fair in his district, that folks are concerned about the fact that this is going to be some encroachment on their own health care policy. Look, government has the role of setting the goalposts, of setting the out-of-bounds markers, of letting the free market act in between, but act as a good referee. When someone goes out of bounds, you throw the flag. And we ought to throw the flag right now, because we have citizens in this country who are being denied access to health care because they were sick before they got a new job, and to me, that makes absolutely no sense.

The gentleman is correct. I've seen more and more constituents coming into our office suggesting that they had health care insurance, that they had good private insurance, but when they got into that age group of 62 to 65, seemingly they were pushed off and pushed into the Medicare system, the government-run program, if you will, the Medicare system.

To me, I think your insurance policy is something that you and your employer pay into for all these years, and then all of a sudden when you get to the age of where our seniors are when you're going to have to rely more and more on a very good health insurance program that you're going to be using it more because you may become ill or have to use it to see your doctor more often, this is the time when they push you into the Medicare program. Now, you should have some ownership of that policy. It should amount to something, as an annuity, or you should have some ownership like a whole life policy.

But more than that, we ought to focus on what the guideposts are in this public policy debate on where we go with health care, Congressman Ryan. And I have always talked about, when I cross my district, the six Ps of health care. The first P is to make sure that all people have access to health care insurance. All people have access to health care insurance.

I don't know if you know this, but in 2004 our Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, flew to Iraq with one of many billion dollar checks in hand to make sure that every man, woman, and child in Iraq had universal health care coverage. So while Americans are sending their tax money to Washington so that we can send it to Iraq to make sure that when Iraqis get sick they can see their doctor, and I have constituents showing up in my district who say they can't see their doctor because of being denied because of a preexisting condition, something's got to change. We need to have this debate, Congressman Ryan, and that's why all people need to have access to affordable health care coverage.

The second P is to make sure we have portability in our system. That factory worker in Canton, Ohio, that gets a pink slip, their health care effectively ends when they get that pink slip because they cannot afford the COBRA premiums, oftentimes as much as their own salary, to pay for coverage while they're unemployed or looking for another job. So they oftentimes go without health care. But if they were a diabetic and got rehired at another factory or another company, well, guess what. They're not going to have access to health care because they have a preexisting condition now. And when they have to show up at the hospital emergency room because they had no health care insurance in that time when they were unemployed or looking for new work, they cost all of us in the system five times more, and that's why we need portability and we need to end this practice of preexisting conditions.

That's correct. So making sure that all people have access to health insurance, making sure that we end this discriminatory practice of preexisting conditions, and making sure that we have portability in our system so that workers can take their health care from job to job to job without any interruptions or without any distortions in their coverage.

The forth P is to make sure that physicians, physicians, not bean counters or bureaucrats, are making the calls for health care.

I had a woman show up in my office. She was crying. She was a middle class worker, showed that she had this condition and the doctor said that she needed to get an MRI. She knew she was going to have to pay some out-of-pocket expenses, so she went to her health care provider, her private insurance company, and they said, No, we don't want you to get an MRI. We want you to do therapy. So she went and did therapy, went back to her doctor with the results, and the doctor said, No, we need an MRI. She went back to her insurance company, and they said, No, you're going to do an X-ray, not an MRI.

Now, to me, Congressman Ryan, that sounds like rationing of health care. Rationing of health care. Some bean counter at an insurance company somewhere is telling this person in my district what type of health care she can get. One out of every five individuals that asks to get some sort of health care coverage or some treatment is being denied by an insurance company, and that needs to be corrected. We don't need bean counters or bureaucrats deciding who is going to get health care. Physicians need to make that call.

The fifth P is about prevention. And Congressman Ryan was a stellar, stellar athlete back in his day, could throw the football a mile.

He was a good athlete. And we know that prevention is worth so much. For every $1 that we spend on prevention, we can get, on average, and this is a conservative estimate, $3 in return. Prevention, living right, eating right, exercise, diet, and nutrition to help correct these chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease, and asthma that costs 75 cents out of every health care dollar that we spend, prevention should be a big part of this discussion.

Am I right?

That is a good distinction, Mr. Ryan.

Mr. Speaker, when you enact a policy that helps people live healthier, live longer with screenings--and I had someone in my district argue with me, that is going to cost money over the long run, enacting provisions that are going to require people to be screened. I argued with them that I believe if we let that go to a point where they have prostate cancer or some chronic disease that could have been prevented with early intervention, that is costing more money at the back end. That is not what this should be about. This should be about catching diseases early. It will help spawn research, in my opinion.

The last ``P'' is probably the most significant, Mr. Speaker. I believe this is where perhaps some of my colleagues and I disagree. I will tell you that the last ``P'' is, How do we pay for this? How do we pay for this? We know, as Congressman Ryan said, there is a cost of doing nothing and then there is a cost of doing something. The cost of doing something should be enacting a public policy that takes money out of the system. We spend more than any industrialized country on health care, $2.5 trillion. It is almost 20 percent of our gross national product, more than any industrialized country. And yet we have nearly a trillion dollars of inefficient, wasted, bloated bureaucracy from bean counters, and even the government can be to blame as well.

We have to find every efficiency we can within that system, draw that money out, and find a way to pay for these reforms. That's where I think the rubber meets the road in this debate, finding money within the system, taking every last dime out of an inefficient system and making it work for the American people, making it work for those people who go without health care insurance and worry every day, who are one accident, one medical emergency, one diagnosis away from complete, utter bankruptcy. And that has to change.

We have a responsibility to set the goal posts, to set the out-of- bound marker, let the free market operate in between, and throw the flag when we see a flagrant violation. And it is flagrant when we deny people health care because of a preexisting condition. It is flagrant when we don't allow people to take their health care from job to job. It is flagrant when we allow bean counters and bureaucrats to provide a prescription of health care rather than letting the physician do it. It is a flagrant foul when we don't enact some sort of prevention, some sort of ability that all people are going to have access to some preventive care; when we spend 4 cents out of every dollar on prevention, and then end up spending 75 cents out of every dollar on chronic diseases that can be managed like diabetes, asthma and heart disease. Those things can save us money with the right public policy.

This should be the framework of our debate as we go forward.

You know, Congressman Ryan, this is not a Democrat or a Republican issue or challenge. This is not a conservative or liberal challenge; this is an American challenge. And energy and health care deserve American solutions. So we are waiting for our friends on the other side of the aisle to come to the table and offer us solutions on how we fix this American problem.

We can do this. America is much stronger than the challenges that confront us. We find our strength in challenges. We do these things not because they are easy but because they are hard, as John Kennedy said. That is where America has always found her strength.

The gentleman is correct: the two largest issues that confound our United States economy are health care and energy. This Chamber took bold action in trying to craft, in attempting to craft, a national energy policy that makes sense for our country. Energy efficiencies.

You know, I had a hospital in my district, Mercy Hospital, that put some variable-speed fans in and carbon dioxide detectors. When you walk into a room, the lights will turn on when someone starts breathing. These types of efficiencies are saving them a million dollars a year, a million dollars every year. That is the type of efficiencies that we need with a national energy policy because we know that the cheapest energy is the energy that we never use.

We passed an energy policy that moves away from our dependence on foreign oil and focuses on creating alternative forms of energy and in the long term creates jobs here in our country and increases our national security.

One day we roll into a fuel station and have a choice between traditional gasoline, biofuels, ethanol, plug in our electric hybrid, or maybe drive by the gas station altogether because we have a fuel cell that allows us to get 100 miles to the gallon that was researched right in our part of Ohio. That is the type of choice and diversity that we need to make our country stronger.

Or how about investing in alternative forms of energy, like what is happening in the 16th district, not only fuel cells and electric plug- in hybrids; and at the Ohio State Ag Research and Development Center in Wayne County, we are researching these anaerobic digesters and making compressed natural gas out of our own waste and selling it back to the grid. This is the type of innovation that will make America stronger in the long term and increase our national security.

Congressman Ryan and I have talked about this often, the fact that 80 percent of the world's oil reserves are in the hands of governments and their respective national companies. Sixteen of the world's largest 20 companies are state owned. State owned. And when we import 66.4 percent of our oil from overseas, and 40 percent from the Middle East. We know that makes our country vulnerable, very vulnerable. Knowing that if we just put 27 percent of the vehicles on the road today, if they were these gas electric hybrids like the Toyota Prius or the Ford Escape, we could end our dependency on oil from the Middle East.

That is the type of energy policy we need; but yet we have big special interests here in Washington and around the country that are trying to prevent this from being enacted, a national energy policy that is about national security and creating jobs in our country, moving away from our dependence on foreign oil.

We know that the amounts of alternative energy our Nation is able to produce are only limited by the amount of energy we are willing to invest here in Washington and across the 50 States of our great country.

Now this bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, gets a lot of attention, but not for that name, Congressman Ryan, but for the name of cap-and-trade. Cap-and-trade.

We heard from two court cases at the end of last year the fact that the EPA was going to regulate emissions, and we decided in the House we were going to allow a free-market approach to handle this rather than have the United States EPA regulate emissions in this country. That is going to make our American businesses stronger, by allowing the Midwest innovation to drive this instead of our dependence on foreign oil. The innovation of America is going to drive our future progress in this realm.

But let's revisit what some of our colleagues have said about the cap-and-trade system, as they like to call this new energy solution that we are going to find for our country. It is about cap-and-trade, as John McCain has said. There will be incentives for people to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is a free-market approach. Let me repeat that, Congressman Ryan: it is a free-market approach. The Europeans are doing it. We did it in the case of addressing acid rain. If we do that, we will stimulate green technologies. There will be profit-making in the business arena. It won't cost the American taxpayer.

Joe Lieberman and I introduced a cap-and-trade proposal several years ago which would reduce greenhouse gases with a gradual reduction. We did the same thing with acid rain. This works. This really works. The Republican Presidential candidate last year introduced a cap-and-trade bill three times in the United States Congress because he believes it's a free market approach and that it won't cost the American taxpayers.

Congressman, if you would 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 robust research that 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. 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. Teddy Roosevelt said that 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 which continues to empower petro dictators who hold America hostage by our importing 66.4 percent of oil from around the world. We're going to expand drilling in the United States here. We know that this will not be the answer to all of our energy woes here because we only have 3 percent of the world's oil reserves in the Northern Hemisphere, but we consume 24 percent of the world's oil, so we've got to find diversity. We've got to find a way to become diverse Americans in our energy consumption, which will be by investing in these alternative energies. Whether it's switchgrass 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, when we go before our citizens and our constituents, they are going to ask us: Did you act to make America stronger?

All of us know we have relatives and friends, and friends of mine, who are still serving over in the Middle East right now. We are there, fighting for countries that provide us a whole lot of oil. In fact, 40 percent of our oil comes from the Middle East. Like Rudolph Giuliani said last year, if 27 percent of the vehicles on the roads were gas- electric hybrids like the Toyota Prius or the Ford Escape, we could end our dependency on oil in the Middle East. That is a goal we should all strive towards.

Rudolph Giuliani said that we need to expand the use of hybrid vehicles and of clean coal--$324 million of research in clean coal in Ohio every year, Congressman Ryan, and in carbon sequestration. 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 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 I minored in economics in college, but let me tell you this: In 2003, our former President said this about a Department of Defense study: The risk of 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 CIA and by other intelligence experts to place increased pressure on weak nations that may be unable to provide the basic needs and to maintain order for their citizens.

We've got our CIA saying this. We have our Department of Defense saying this. We've got every candidate running for President last year saying this is a matter of national security. 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 a liberal challenge. It's about making America stronger. When we invest in ourselves, we will become stronger. This is about our future and about our children's future. It's 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 diversity 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.

Well, they weren't against it last year. 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 could 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. That's why leaders who ran for the office of the Presidency last year believe that a strong national energy policy is about making America stronger, relying on the innovation in the Midwest rather than relying on Middle East oil. That makes America stronger.

In 1950, over half of the jobs in this country were in manufacturing. We are at 10 percent now because we exported our ability to produce and build things here. We are becoming the movers of wealth instead of the producers of wealth.

Let's invest in something that we have to use every day, and that's energy. Let's invest in our own future, produce things here. Let's build windmills here. Let's let Timken in Canton, Ohio, make the roller bearings for these huge wind turbines. Let's let SARE Plastics in Alliance build the moldings and cast moldings for these wind turbines. Let's let fuel cells be developed at Rolls Royce so that we can put them in our cars and have them recharge batteries and use the solar panels that are developed in our part of Ohio recharge the batteries that are being developed in Medina County in my congressional district.

Let's use that compressed natural gas now that we are using and researching at the Ohio State Agricultural Research Center in Wooster, Ohio. Let's use that compressed natural gas to turn our generators to heat and to produce electricity for our homes.

That's the type of innovation and diversity of energy 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 my constituents, when I go back and answer to the people, I want to tell them I stood with them, and I stood with making America strong.

Mr. Speaker, this snuck up on me with respect to the timing. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle finished much earlier; they didn't have as much to say as we are tonight about clean energy.

I am joined by my colleague from New York, Congressman McMahon, who I will recognize here very shortly to talk about one of the pillar issues, one of the seminal issues that we're going to address in this Congress, in this body.

We've already taken action with respect to moving an energy policy forward that puts our country first. And truly, this is about making America stronger, making our country stronger by investing in America.

Now, I know some may think that that's a novel idea, but this is not about Democrats or Republicans. This is not about their ideas versus our ideas. This is about Americans and American innovation, and it's something that I feel so passionately about.

Today we're going to talk about this energy bill that passed through the Congress here, through the House of Representatives. We're going to talk about what has made this such an important issue in the coming weeks that we hope that the Senate will take action as soon as possible.

Before I get too deep into my long speech here, I would like to recognize the gentleman from New York to say a few opening remarks with respect to energy and what we have to offer here in the House of Representatives.

Mr. McMahon.

Well, I thank the gentleman from New York. And he is absolutely correct in his assessment of this. This is a matter of our national security.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act that was passed out of this Chamber is about our Nation's national security, moving away from our dependence on foreign oil and, more importantly, creating jobs right here in our country that can't be outsourced.

When we build a brand new nuclear reactor, it cannot be outsourced. When we lay the foundation for new solar panels on tops of buildings or on tops of our homes--or even some day perhaps on tops of our cars, recharging our batteries--those are jobs that can't be outsourced. The maintenance, the delivery, the processing that will go into these jobs are going to create jobs right here in America. And I am so proud that we are leading the edge.

My predecessor, Congressman Regula, started investment in these technologies in our district. And I am glad and proud to be following in his footsteps to make certain that these types of energy investments are and will be making our country stronger in the long run.

Let's revisit some of the things that we've talked about here, Congressman McMahon and, Mr. Speaker, the fact that this is about our national security.

First and foremost, this chart right here really is a tell-all with respect to our national energy crisis that we face. 66.4 percent of our oil comes from foreign countries. 66.4 percent of our oil comes from overseas. That means $475 billion has been sent overseas. We are distributing our wealth. We are sending our resources, our hard-earned dollars overseas to buy a commodity that we can produce here, we can refine here, that we can explore here.

In fact, the Senate version of the bill adds exploration and drilling right here in the Gulf of Mexico that will add 3.8 billion barrels of oil, but we know that that's not enough because we don't have enough oil here in America to fill the demand that we have. In fact, it's been reported that we have nearly 3 percent of the world's reserves here in America, in the Northern Hemisphere, but we consume about 24 percent of the world's oil. So you do the math. At 22 million barrels a day, 3 percent of the world's oil here in the Northern Hemisphere, we would exhaust that resource very, very quickly.

The number one user in the United States of oil, the number one consumer of oil in the United States, is the Department of Defense. In fact, we consume so much oil in the Department of Defense that we have grown very, very concerned here on Capitol Hill about our dependence on foreign oil because our Nation's military is so dependent on foreign sources of oil, oil that we import, and the fact that we have so many of our military operations going on overseas, so many of our troops, our men and women, are spread across the world that we have a national security crisis right here on our hands. And that's why, Mr. McMahon, that's why, Congressman, we have begun testing synthetic fuels. That's why we have been testing blended fuels in the Department of Defense.

At Wright Patterson Air Force Base, they just started testing these blended fuels, synthetic fuels in our aircraft, because we know that of the Department of Defense, the largest consumer of oil in the Department of Defense is our aviation assets. Seventy percent of it is used with respect to our oil needs, and we have got to find an alternative source. That is why this energy legislation is so important to investing in alternative energies and understanding that our Nation's military is so dependent on this fossil fuel.

Now, in 1944, when the United States bombed the Ploesti Romanian oil fields, we effectively cut off the supply of oil to the Germans, but they quickly transitioned to use synthetic fuel, which is a derivative of coal. Now, we know that we have quite a bit of coal here in the United States; it's abundant, it's a natural resource that is very cheap to us, and we are going to continue using it.

In fact, the EPA has said, with the passage of this bill, coal use in America and the United States is actually going to increase. And with it being so abundant, boy, I would love to see, with the investment that we have charged in this legislation to invest in carbon capture, to invest in coal and synthetic fuel and coal-to-gas liquefication, these new types of technology that can make our country less dependent on foreign oil, is going to make us stronger in the long run. And if we can put that synthetic fuel, that clean-burning fuel, that clean coal technology in our airplanes some day, we are going to be less dependent on our foreign sources of energy.

Now, one last point before I turn it over to my colleague for some remarks. 66.4 percent of the oil comes from overseas. Do you know how much comes from the Middle East, Congressman? Forty percent of our Nation's demand is filled by the Middle East, by OPEC-producing nations. That is way too much. We have two wars going on in the Middle East, we have countless numbers of our troops over there. And it is argued--and has been argued so many times on this floor--that our Nation's interaction overseas and in the Middle East is about our dependence on that natural resource. And it's time we put America first, we put American troops first, and invest in our country and our people. I would much rather rely on the innovation in the Midwest than the oil in the Middle East.

I yield to my friend.

Yes, I would, Congressman McMahon. And I thank you for those remarks.

This is about our national security. This is not something that Congressman Boccieri is saying, it's not something the speaker is saying--because he's been on this floor right with us before talking about our national security needs--it's not something that Congressman McMahon is saying. This is something that the Department of Defense is saying and the CIA is saying.

The U.S. Department of Defense, in 2003, concluded that the risk of abrupt climate change should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern. The economic disruptions associated with global climate change are projected by the CIA and other intelligence experts in the United States to place increased pressure on weak nations that may be unable to provide the basic needs and maintain order for their citizens.

So, you see, a component of this energy legislation is about moving away from our dependence on foreign oil, investing in clean energy and technology right here in our country, jobs that can't be outsourced, producing jobs that can put America back to work. And another component of that is addressing the issue of climate change.

Now, cap-and-trade has gotten all the attention in this energy debate, and it shouldn't get all the attention because it's one segment of this bill that we're working on. But even that, which I know that we focus more on the national security part of it, but even our security experts and our Nation's military are saying it's a matter of our national security. Let me give you some statistics here:

Today over 80 percent of the world's oil reserves are in the hands of governments and their respective national oil companies. Sixteen of the world's largest 20 oil companies are state owned, are owned by some state. And as you know, we import 66 percent of our oil. This is a matter of our national security, and we have got to take action now, and we must move away from our dependence on foreign oil. Cap-and-trade and the climate change legislation and the energy security that we can derive from a substantive and robust energy policy in this country is a matter of our national security.

Now, that's not something that Congressman McMahon is saying. That's not something that the Speaker is saying or Congressman Boccieri is saying. That's something John McCain is saying, a proud American who put his life on the line for our country, who ran for President. He said that in cap-and-trade there will be incentives for people to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's a free-market approach. Let me repeat that again, Congressman McMahon: it's a free-market approach. The Europeans are doing it. We did it in the case of addressing acid rain.

In fact, we have 20 years of cap-and-trade policy that's been enacted in the policy of the United States that we have found very big successes from. Look, if we do it, we'll stimulate green technologies. This will be a profit-making business. And it won't cost the American taxpayer. Let me repeat that again: it won't cost the American taxpayer. This is something that we have got to enact now, Mr. Speaker. This is about our national security.

In fact, every Presidential candidate that ran for office last year, Democrats and Republicans alike, said it's a matter of national security. Let me revisit a couple of what our friends have said.

Mr. Romney, an astute businessman, said that there are multiple reasons for us to say we want to be less dependent on foreign oil and develop our own sources. That's the key, of course, additional sources of energy here as well as being a more efficient use of energy that will allow the world to have less oil being drawn down from the various sources it comes from without dropping prices too high a level, and it will keep people, some of whom are unsavory characters, from having an influence on our foreign policy. That was Mr. Romney.

Mr. Huckabee, he has another quote in addition to this one on our chart here. He said, A nation that can't feed itself, a nation that can't fuel itself, a nation that can't produce the weapons to fight for itself is a nation forever enslaved. And with respect to a national energy policy, he said, It's so critical that for our own interest economically and from a point of national security that we commit to becoming energy independent and we commit to doing that within a decade. We have to take responsibility in our own house before we can expect others to do the same in theirs.

It goes back to my basic concept of leadership. Leaders don't ask others to do what they are unwilling to do themselves. Well, we are a leader here in the United States. We're a leader. We sent a man to the Moon in just 10 years, and I vow to you that we can become energy independent. We can have an energy policy that invests in our people, creates jobs here, and moves away from our dependence on foreign oil because we believe in the innovation of America and we don't believe that we need to be dependent on Mid East oil.

I yield to my gentleman friend.

I couldn't agree with the gentleman more that we have to get serious about our Nation's energy supply.

And this is not about Democrats or Republicans; this is about making America stronger. And Democrats and Republicans alike in the last Presidential election said we need to create jobs here in America. We need to create jobs here. You know, 8,000 manufactured parts go into making one of those wind turbines. Can you imagine some day that Timken Roller Bearing in my district would be making the roller bearings that go into these wind turbines or SARE Plastics could make the moldings for these respective wind turbines and to make the fiberglass components that go into this? These are jobs that can be made and profit right here in America, that can't be outsourced. And we will be killing two birds with one stone: creating jobs here in America and making us less dependent on energy from abroad.

We have to go back to just a few more of these gentlemen who ran for President last year. I just want to finish up with these two:

Rudy Giuliani, a good Italian, said, We need to expand the use of hybrid vehicles. We need to expand the use of hybrid vehicles, clean coal, carbon sequestration. We have more coal reserves in the United States than they have oil reserves in Saudi Arabia. This should be a major national project. This is a matter of our national security.

Rudy Giuliani got it right because you know what? If we put 27 percent of the vehicles on our roads in America, if just 27 percent of the vehicles on our roads in America were gas-electric hybrids, we could end our dependence on oil from the Middle East. We get 40 percent of our Nation's demand for oil from the Middle East, from OPEC- producing nations, and if just 27 percent of the vehicles on the roads of America were gas and electric hybrids, we could end our dependence on oil from the Middle East. That is a vision that we should all strive for.

Let me talk to you about one of our colleagues here, Mr. Paul. I spoke with him about 2 weeks ago. He's one of our colleagues here in the House. He said, True conservatives and libertarians have no right to pollute their neighbor's property. You have no right to pollute your neighbor's air, water, or anything. And this would all contribute to the protection of all air and water.

Mr. Paul is somewhat of a visionary because he believes that in America if we make the right investments, we cannot only protect our country, move away from our dependence on foreign oil, but invest in our people, our way of life, and, more importantly, create jobs here in our country.

I want to yield to my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Perriello). Congressman Perriello is joining us.

Welcome.

I find you very inspirational, Congressman Perriello. You're exactly right. And it's often been said that fear is not a tool of leadership; fear is a tool of the status quo. And that's exactly what we see from the other side right now; injecting fear, talking about taxes. Listen folks, there are no taxes in this bill. Don't believe me. Believe Senator McCain, who ran for President last year. Senator McCain said this is a free market approach and it won't cost the American taxpayers. We know here in this body that the jobs of tomorrow won't come on their own. We must incubate them and grow them domestically so they can not be outsourced. That's what this bill is about.

We're joined by two of our other colleagues, distinguished colleagues, bright minds here, young bright minds I should say here in the House of Representatives, Congressman Kratovil from Maryland, and our good friend from New York, Congressman Tonko. Why don't we start with Congressman Tonko. Welcome.

Well, Congressman Tonko, you're so right. And I know you and Congressman Kratovil believe like I do and like Teddy Roosevelt said, that the worst that you can do in a moment of decision is nothing. The energy policy that we have right now in the United States is failing us miserably because we have troops overseas right now that are putting their life on the line for a natural resource that we could become independent from if we just invest in our country and our people.

Congressman Kratovil, welcome.

Well, Congressman Kratovil, I know you believe in America, that you believe in American innovation and that you believe an energy policy that creates jobs here in America, that moves us away from our dependence on foreign oil and that makes us energy independent within a number of years is the right energy policy and the right economic policy for our country, which is about investing in our people, investing in our ingenuity and in our innovation.

You know, the most that we have at stake in this is the fact that Congressman Perriello, Congressman Kratovil, Congressman Tonko, and Congressman McMahon--we all have families, and you think about where our moms and dads have come from in terms of what they have seen and the changes they've seen. They've seen us put a man on the Moon. We can do the same in 10 years. Our families have seen a lot, and we can produce the type of innovation with the right policy in this country that will move our Nation forward.

I know, Congressman McMahon, you believe in our Nation's national security. I'll yield to you.

Well, you're so right, Congressman McMahon. We all believe in the hope and promise of America, that with the right investment and with the right guidance with respect to public policy in this country, we can become energy independent and can create jobs here in America.

You know, we hear the raw fear that the other side spews out to try to scare people away from supporting the public policy that, in its essence, was truly a Republican idea in the very beginning. We hear the facts about rates, and we talk about how this is going to, you know, charge up rates and about how these government inspectors are going to show up and check on your light bulbs in your hot tub. I mean, this is utterly ridiculous.

First and foremost, in the State of Ohio, we have a Public Utilities Commission. The electric industry and other industries in the State of Ohio are regulated industries. They can't just arbitrarily walk in and raise rates. There has to be a justification. Our Public Utilities Commission, PUCO, is a function of State government, and we have empowered State governments in this legislation to make sure that these big utility companies are not going to run away as they transition to alternative forms of energy. So rates will be held in line. Despite what our colleagues on the other side will say, there are no taxes in this bill.

John McCain said it's a free-market approach, and it won't cost the American taxpayers. I believe John McCain was right. He introduced a cap-and-trade bill three times with Senator Joe Lieberman. So this is about putting America first.

Congressman Perriello, I know you have a few words.

Well, I thank the Congressman for his passion.

Before we wrap this up this evening, we've got to hear from a young, bright mind from Ohio.

Congressman Ryan, thank you for joining us tonight. Give us some of your words.

Thank you, Congressman Ryan. You're exactly right that the pillars of this legislation are about creating jobs in America, moving away from our dependence on foreign oil, and making our Nation more secure. National security is a big issue.

Congressman Kratovil.

Mr. Tonko, why don't you take a minute and wrap it up.

I thank the gentlemen for joining us tonight. This has been a very intriguing dialogue, and I hope we garner a deeper appreciation for what it means to become energy independent. You all have the right vision. Now we have to find the courage in the Senate. We have to find 60 patriots in the Senate who will stand up and put America first and suggest that this is about producing and creating jobs here in our country, protecting our national security, and moving away from our dependence on foreign oil.

So with that, I will yield to my good friend from New York as we wrap it up.

Mr. Speaker, let's get this done for America.

We yield back.

Mr. Speaker, a fine Republican President, Teddy Roosevelt, said, ``The worst thing you can do in a moment of decision is nothing.'' And we are charged with measures of action or inaction. That is why the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was about investing in our people, in our country, in our roads, our bridges, our schools, and they are already starting to show the difference.

I see signs all over my district saying ``This job was created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.'' And I must say that we have sent billions of dollars overseas to build brand new Iraqi roads, Iraqi schools and Iraqi buildings, but it is time to invest in our people.

Will we put America back to work? Will we delay or make a difference? Will we lead or will we block? Will we invest in our country, in our people, our way of life, or we will send that money overseas? We have the decision. Will we act or will we not?

Well, I thank the gentleman from New York and his insight and accuracy with respect to this issue and the importance that it has for our Nation. Now, I must give you this prelude.

I approach this legislation from a very deep perspective that I've had throughout my life. For the last 15 years, I have served in the United States Air Force as a C-130 pilot, and I have to tell you that there is no matter before this Congress more important than the steps we are taking to create a situation by which our Nation can become energy independent.

I must tell you that I hail from the Midwest, and I know my friend hails from New York, but I have to tell you that this bill and this legislation coming before the Congress is about Midwest innovation and breaking our reliance on Mideast oil. The pillars of this legislation are creating jobs, thousands of jobs in our country and hundreds of thousands of jobs alone in my district in Ohio, the 16th Congressional District.

The pillar of this legislation is about national security, about moving away from our dependence on foreign oil. Those two noble causes right now are a track worth defending right now. I stand here with my colleagues today to tell you that we must do something. We will be judged by two measures, Mr. Speaker, two measures: by action or inaction.

I remember in the 1970s when I stood with my father in line to wait so that we could fill up for a tank of gas. Back then, back then we had a Democrat-controlled Congress. We had a Democrat President, but we didn't have the political will to make this happen. This Congress and this President are saying, No more. No more to outsourcing our dependence to foreign petro-dictators, if you will, that don't have the interests of the United States at stake.

My colleague talked about some of those, and let me just put this down to you right now. In 2003, a U.S. Department of Defense study concluded that the risk of abrupt climate change should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern. We talked about how much oil we've used from overseas. We imported over 66 percent just last year, accounting for nearly 16 percent of all import spending.

My friends, we must do something. Now, this is not just John Boccieri saying this on the floor of the House of Representatives. This is not my friend Mike McMahon from New York saying this or my friend Frank Kratovil from Maryland suggesting this. Every Presidential candidate running for the highest office in our country last year said that this is a matter of national security.

You heard the words of my friend from New York when he talked about Senator John McCain, who I have great respect for, a man who I flew out of Baghdad while he was visiting our troops, a man who put his life on the line for the country. I want the American people and our colleagues here tonight to listen to this. It's about cap-and-trade.

There will be incentives for people to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's a free-market approach. Let me repeat that. It is a free-market approach. The Europeans are doing it. We did it in the case of addressing acid rain. We're doing a cap-and-trade program right now in the United States here that's been in existence for 19 years. Look, if we do that, we will stimulate green technologies. This will be a profit-making business. It won't cost the American taxpayer. Let me repeat that again. John McCain said that it's a free-market approach and it won't cost the American taxpayer.

Joe Lieberman and I introduced a cap-and-trade proposal 7 years ago which would reduce greenhouse gases with a gradual reduction. We did the same thing with acid rain. This works. It works. My friends, this is about our national security. John McCain and every other Presidential candidate running for office last year said that it's a matter of national security.

The Department of Defense is saying it's a matter of national security. But all of a sudden, our friends here that we have this debate with are running away from national security. For what, I have no idea.

But I'll tell you this much. This is our opportunity to put America on a track where we can create jobs in the heartland and in the cities of great New York and in the suburbs of Maryland. We can create jobs and we can protect our national security.

After having fought--one last point, Mr. McMahon. After having served overseas flying wounded and fallen soldiers out of Baghdad, it is very clear that our presence in the Middle East is about that 66 percent that Congressman McMahon talked about, because 40 percent of that 66 percent that has come from overseas comes from the Middle East. And this is the time that we have to act.

I thank the gentlemen from New York and Maryland for their insight. And we talked about what our friends on the other side are suggesting about the cost. But let me ask you this profound question: What is the cost of doing nothing? What is the cost of doing nothing? 500 billion, $1 trillion overseas?

This is a matter of our national security. And I must tell you that if 27 percent of all America's cars were hybrid electric gasoline vehicles, much like Ford has produced with its Escape, and much like we have with some of the other models coming before the market, if just 20 percent of all American cars were hybrid gasoline electric models, the United States could stop importing oil from the Persian Gulf. Just 20 percent of the vehicles on our roads, we would end our dependence on oil from the Persian Gulf.

This is the pillar of our legislation, national security, creating jobs and moving away from our dependence on foreign oil. That's what an energy policy in the United States should encompass. That's what it should evolve into, and that's what this legislation is about.

If you will just indulge me, I want to read some quotes here from some of our colleagues who were running for President on the other side of the aisle. Rudolph Giuliani said we need to use and expand the use of hybrid vehicles. Remember, just 27 percent of all vehicles on the roads of the United States would end our dependence on oil from the Persian Gulf. Clean coal, carbon sequestration, which is very important to a State like Ohio, where we have a great abundance of coal and carbon capture. We can use that in Ohio. $180 billion in this bill for carbon capture and sequestration and studying that.

The United States Air Force is testing synthetic fuels right now, blended fuels at Wright Patterson Air Force Base because they know, back in the 1940s, when the United States bombed the Ploesti Romanian oil fields and cut off the Germans' supply of oil, the Germans quickly transitioned to synthetic fuel, a derivative of coal. We're reaching that in Ohio, and the United States military is doing the same.

We have more coal reserves in the United States than oil reserves in Saudi Arabia. This should be a major national project. This is a matter of our national security.

Let me reference our friend, Mitt Romney, a good American, suggested that there are multiple reasons for us to say we want to be less dependent on foreign energy and to develop our own sources. That's the real key, of course, additional sources of energy here, as well as more efficient use of energy. That will allow the world to have less oil being drawn down from the various sources it comes from, without dropping prices to too high of a level. It will keep people, some of whom are unsavory characters, from having an influence on our foreign policy.

Let me add Mr. Huckabee. Mr. Huckabee, a good American, plays the guitar very well by the way, I should add. Mr. Huckabee said, So it's critical that our own interests, economically and from a point of national security, we commit to becoming energy independent and that we commit to doing it within a decade. We sent Americans to the Moon in a decade. We can become energy independent in a decade. We have to take responsibility for our own house before we can expect others to do the same for theirs. It goes back to my basic concept of leadership. Leaders don't ask others to do what they are unwilling to do themselves.

Very, very profound statement right there. And we know it's often been said that fear is not a tool of leadership; it's a tool of the status quo.

One last one. Our good friend, Mr. Paul. We serve with him here; I just spoke with him the other day on the floor. Mr. Paul said, True conservatives and libertarians have no right to

pollute their neighbors' property. You have no right to pollute your neighbors' air, water or anything. And this would all contribute to the protection of all air and water.

One last point, Mr. McMahon. The Truman Project suggested that economic disruptions associated with global climate change are projected by the CIA and other intelligence experts to place increased pressure on weaker nations that may be unable to provide basic needs and maintain order for their own citizens. This is a matter of national security.

I yield back.

Thank you, Congressman McMahon.

So let me get this straight: The pillars of this legislation are about creating jobs right here in America that can't be outsourced. When you build a brand new nuclear reactor, when you build an electric hybrid car, when you build an electric grid, those are jobs and those are materials that cannot be outsourced. So it's about creating jobs. Another pillar of this legislation is about national security and about moving away from our dependence on foreign oil. Who wouldn't be for that? Let's go over this again.

In 2003, a Department of Defense study suggested that the risk of abrupt climate change should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern. The CIA and other intelligence experts said that the economic disruptions associated with climate change are projected to put pressure on weak nations that may be unable to provide the basic needs and maintain order for their civilians.

If we just invested in electric hybrid cars and 27 percent of our vehicles here in the United States were gasoline-electric hybrid models, the United States could stop importing oil from the Persian Gulf. 66.4 percent of our oil came from overseas last year, over 40 percent came from the Persian Gulf. We're fighting two wars there. Our Nation's military is there. It's time to bring our troops home safely, honorably and soon, end this addiction that we have to Middle Eastern oil.

Teddy Roosevelt, a great Republican, said this: In a moment of decision, the worst thing that you could do is nothing. What about drilling? In the Senate version, we're going to expand drilling here in the United States. Expand it in the Gulf of Mexico. We know that we can't sustain that, though, with 22 million barrels of oil consumed here in the United States every day and only 3 percent of the world's reserves here in the United States. After we consume 25 percent of the world's oil, we can't sustain it. Do the math.

What about jobs? Manufacturing, in 1950, accounted for over half of every job in America. We're at 10 percent now. Let's produce jobs here. Let's make solar panels so that they can recharge our batteries. Let's do things like fuel cell research like we're doing in the 16th Congressional District. Let's do electric hybrid vehicles, plug-in hybrids like we're doing in the 16th Congressional District. Let's research clean coal, and coal is an abundant and cheap source of energy. We're going to use it, we're going to make it cleaner, and we're going to make certain that it is a long and sustaining source of energy for us for years to come.

Let's talk about the 8,000 manufactured parts that go into a wind turbine. Can you imagine the Timken roller bearings being made in my district making the roller bearings for these big wind turbines? Can you imagine SARE Plastics in my hometown making the molding and the plastic molding that would go in to making the fiberglass infrastructure. These are jobs that cannot be outsourced because we're going to use them. We're going to consume right here, consume that energy right here in the United States.

This is one of the most important issues that we have to tackle. This is about the longevity of our country, quite frankly, my friends. This is about what my four children will have to look forward to, a Nation where we've become, like Mike Huckabee said, a Nation that can't feed itself, that can't fuel itself, or produce the weapons to fight for itself will be a Nation forever enslaved. Are we going to be economic slaves to a condition that we can correct? I think not. We have the courage. We can make that happen if we can find 60 patriots in the United States Senate to make sure the United States is ending our addiction to foreign oil.

You are forgiven this time.

Let me thank my colleagues for joining me tonight on this important dialogue about the course of this country. Now is not the time to let up off the accelerator. Now is the time to put the gas down, put the pedal to the metal to make sure we do this, because this is about our national security, my friends. The CIA is saying it. The Department of Defense is saying it. Both Democrats and Republicans alike running for President said it last year, and a whole host of Presidential candidates and Presidential minds before that said that this is a matter of our national security.

This is not an issue of partisan politics. It's about patriotism. This isn't an issue about Democrats or Republicans. It's about America and where will our course be in years to come.

Forty-four percent of our oil comes from the Middle East where my friends right now are putting their life on the line for our country and for our national security and because of our economic interests of oil in that region. Let's bring them home. Let's become independent. Let's create jobs here in this country. Let's protect our own national security and move away from our dependence on foreign oil.

Folks talk about the cost. What is the cost of doing nothing? What is the cost of doing nothing? We're going to outsource a trillion dollars of American taxpayer money, a trillion dollars, to enrich regions of the world that don't believe the same that we do when we can believe in Midwest innovation instead of relying on Middle East oil?

This is the time that we can make the decision. This is the time to move away from the politics of the past and look towards the future. We can't allow detractors to use fear as a tool of leadership when we know, as it's often been said, that it is a tool of the status quo.

We will be judged by action or inaction. I'm glad that we chose to act. Thank you for having me tonight.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's an honor to be in this Chamber, in this body, to talk about an issue that is so important to our country. I'm so happy to be joined by my colleague Steve Driehaus from Cincinnati, a fellow Ohioan, and my good friend and neighbor in the Longworth Building, Tom Perriello from Virginia.

Tonight we're going to have a very spirited dialogue about clean energy and about the American Clean Energy and Security Act that passed this Chamber and the necessity of enacting this legislation very soon as it pertains to our national security.

With that, let me begin by suggesting this, my friends. In this Congress, we were elected to represent the people of Ohio and Virginia collectively here with my colleagues, but to represent the interests of the United States in much broader terms. And after having spent 15 years in the United States Air Force as a C-130 pilot flying all over the world, to 60 different nations, visiting places I never dreamed I would see, seeing people, meeting people I never dreamed I would meet and doing things that I never dreamed that I would do, it only takes one trip outside the borders of the United States to understand how good we have it here. And when you think about all the blessings that this country has been given in terms of the abundance of natural resources, in terms of the opportunity to write our own destiny, we are truly a blessed nation. And I say this because we find ourselves at a crossroads in our history as it pertains to energy.

Now we have 3 percent of the world's population but we consume nearly 40 percent of the world's natural resources. The United States has a very big demand, whether it's electricity, whether it's our dependence on foreign oil, or whether it's our overreliance on other fossil fuels that make this country very dependent on international geopolitical forces.

I've got to tell you, what specifically concerns me with respect to our energy policy is the fact that 60 percent of our oil comes from overseas. Sixty percent. And 40 percent comes from the Middle East, where we find our military engaged in two wars on two different fronts in a region that has an abundance of oil but a lack of democracy and a lack of attention to humanitarian interests and a democracy that works for the people.

So while we become very dependent on overseas supply of oil, we find ourselves now at a crossroads. We were elected, and we're freshman Members here, it's our first term serving in this august body, but I will tell you this, that we will be judged by two measures. We will be judged by action or inaction, and now is the time to take action for our national security, to create jobs in this country that cannot be outsourced and to make sure that we move away from our dependence on foreign oil. It's in this spirit that I look for a robust conversation about how this protects our national security.

I will yield to my colleague from Ohio.

It is up to the gentleman from Cincinnati if he would yield.

Mr. Speaker, I want to yield to the gentleman and my colleague from Cincinnati to finish his remarks.

Thank you for those comments.

And there is very clearly misinformation out there. I have had a number of inquiries into my office, both here in Washington and back in the district in Ohio, that have clearly been misrepresented of what the bill actually stands for and what it actually means.

And with that, I will yield to my friend and colleague and neighbor in the Longworth Building, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Perriello).

I appreciate the gentleman from Virginia's comments, and he is exactly right on. A good idea doesn't have to be a Democrat or Republican idea. It's an American idea. And while we may disagree about some of the approaches, let's look at and revisit some of the comments of some of the leading leaders who ran for the Presidency last year and talked about how climate change and our dependence on foreign oil is a matter of national security.

Let's visit the Presidential candidate for the Republicans last year, John McCain, who I incidentally flew out of Baghdad, is a man of honor and integrity, and this is what he has to say: It's cap-and-trade. There will be incentives for people to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's a free-market approach. Let me repeat that: it's a free-market approach. The Europeans are doing it. We did it in the case of acid rain. Look, if we do that, we will stimulate green technologies. This will be a profit-making business, and it won't cost the American taxpayer. It won't cost the American taxpayer. Joe Lieberman and I introduced a cap-and-trade proposal several years ago which would reduce greenhouse gases with a gradual reduction. We did the same thing with acid rain. This works. It works.

I will.

Let me just expound on the gentleman's remarks there.

I believe that this truly is about our national security, and I'm going to go over some facts here in just a moment. But back to revisiting what some of our colleagues have said running for President. Mike Huckabee really summed it up best when he said, A nation that cannot feed itself, that cannot fuel itself or produce the weapons to fight for itself is a nation forever enslaved.

And he further added, So it's critical that for our own interests economically and from a point on national security we commit to becoming energy independent, and we commit to doing it within a decade. Within a decade. We went to the Moon in less. We can do this in less than a decade. We have to take responsibility in our own house before we can expect others to do the same in theirs. It goes back to my basic concept of leadership. Leaders don't ask others to do what they are unwilling to do themselves.

This gentleman was right on with his remarks. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

I cannot agree with my gentleman and neighbor as he so eloquently suggested that this is about the faith that we have in our own innovation, the faith that we have in our own country and our own people to come up with ideas that can make our country stronger in the long run. And let me revisit some of what our faith leaders have said.

Billy Graham said that the growing possibility of destroying ourselves in the world with our own neglect and excess is tragic and very real.

Pope Benedict said, The brutal consumption of creation begins where God is not. I think, therefore, that true and effective initiatives to prevent the waste and destruction of creation can start only where creation is considered as beginning with God. Particularly, attention must be paid to the fact that the poorest countries are likely to pay the heaviest price for ecological deterioration.

Pat Robertson said, I have not been one who believed in global warming, but I tell you, they are making a convert out of me. It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a buildup of carbon dioxide in the air. We really need to address the burning of fossil fuels because if we are contributing to the destruction of the planet, we need to do something about it.

Dr. Rick Warren, author of ``The Purpose Driven Life'' said, We cannot be all that God wants us to be without caring about the Earth.

Now, our faith leaders are telling us, our national security folks who are in charge and responsible for our national security are saying it, the Congress has spoken, that this is a matter of national security, creating jobs here at home, jobs that cannot be outsourced and moving away from our dependence on foreign oil.

Let me touch on just a few points before I yield back to my friends.

Eighty percent of the world's reserves of oil are in the hands of governments and their respective national oil companies. Sixteen of the world's 20 largest oil companies are state-owned. We import 60 percent of the world's oil. We know that we're going to, with the Senate version of this bill, we're expanding exploration and drilling right here in America in the Gulf of Mexico, knowing that that's not going to be enough to sustain our 20 million barrels that we consume every day. We

only have 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, but we can consume 25 percent of the world's oil. It is very clear that we have to move away from our dependence on oil.

One last point before I yield to my colleague from Ohio. The largest consumer of oil in this country, the largest consumer of oil in this country is not the American. It's the Department of Defense. The United States Department of Defense consumes more oil than some countries overseas. In fact, it consumes more oil than Greece in 1 year. So our Nation is dependent on 60 percent of that oil coming from overseas sources, from Venezuela, from Mexico, from Saudi Arabia in particular, which is one of our largest producers and suppliers of oil, and this makes our country and puts our country in a compromising position.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

I couldn't agree with the gentleman from Ohio more. I think that he speaks with passion and conviction about what this means and what stake we have in making certain that we move away from our dependence or foreign oil.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

I couldn't agree with you more, Congressman Perriello.

Before I yield to my good friend from northeast Ohio, Congressman Ryan, who's joined us tonight, let me just revisit two more of these quotes from our colleagues who ran for President and suggested that American innovation, American entrepreneurship, and American ideas are stronger than our dependence on oil overseas.

Mr. Giuliani, a fellow Italian, he said, We need to expand the use of hybrid vehicles, clean coal, carbon sequestration. We have more coal reserves in the United States than they have oil reserves in Saudi Arabia. This should be a major national project. This is a matter of our national security.

We went on: Mitt Romney said, There are multiple reasons for us to say we want to be less dependent on foreign energy and to develop our own sources. That's the real key. Of course, additional sources of energy here, as well as more efficient use of energy. This will allow the world to have less oil being drawn out from the various sources it comes without dropping the prices to a high level. It will keep people, some of whom are unsavory characters, from having an influence on our foreign policy.

Ron Paul, who we serve with here in this Chamber, said, True Conservatives and Libertarians have no right to pollute their neighbor's property. You have no right to pollute your neighbor's air, water, or anything, and this would all contribute to protection of all air and water.

Mr. Gingrich said, The concept of reducing the amount of carbon emissions over the next 50 years is a totally sound concept.

These are not Democrats saying this. These are Republicans who are standing with us tonight in spirit, I know, saying that this is about our national security, saying that this is about geopolitical balance, and this is about creating jobs here in our country.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

People are asking, What does this mean for the average consumer? What does this mean for the average Ohioan and Virginian? This is what it's going to mean: When you roll into a fuel station someday, you're going to have a choice between traditional gasoline, traditional oil. You're going to have a blended fuel that may be ethanol-based or cellulose-based. You may have an opportunity where you plug in your electric hybrid or where you drive by the gas station all together because you have a fuel cell that allows you to get 100 miles to the gallon.

Now, how is that for American innovation? How is that for opportunity? How is that for standing up for the innovation, entrepreneurship, and for the longevity of American ideas and thinking? That's what this bill does, and that's what this idea is. It's of moving away from our foreign dependence and reliance on overseas oil to make our economy drive.

Let me just say this: In my district, we are researching fuel cell technology. We are very close to having some sort of prototype ready to go. They're researching this with the Department of Defense at Stark State Technical College, Community College. We have the opportunity there to be leaders in Ohio. We also have the opportunity to do research at the Ohio State Agriculture Research and Development Center. That is in Wayne County, in my congressional district, that right now is using anaerobic digesters like you were talking about. Imagine this: I know Congressman Ryan--whose birthday it is today. Happy birthday.

You may be too young to remember.

It was when I was standing in line with my father, waiting for oil in the 1970s. I remember seeing that movie Back to the Future. The professor comes in. He has a DeLorean, and he opens up the trash can and starts jamming in waste--garbage--into his DeLorean to fuel his engine. Now think about this: What they're doing at this research center is taking sewage sludge. They're taking manure from dairy farms, and they're adding 20 percent biomass--a busted up watermelon from the supermarket, cooking grease from the local restaurant. Just by adding that 20 percent biomass, they're increasing the BTUs by 50 percent of that compressed natural gas. They're actually selling it back to the grid.

This German CEO who was doing this research, Schmack Industries, suggested this: He said, You Americans are doing in 2 years what it took Germany 20 years to do, and we have 3,800 of these anaerobic digesters that are actually producing energy--compressed natural gasses that light our cities.

The city of Canton is getting ready to--or is thinking about building an incinerator for its sewage sludge. Could you imagine if they turned that into renewable energy and if they actually created compressed natural gas and sold it to the utility or if they heated some homes or if they turned on some lights in the city? This is the type of innovation that has driven America to be one of the great producers of wealth that we are.

Sure.

Let's address something that's important to all of our States--to both of our States that we're discussing here presently. It's the use of coal. We've heard a lot of talk from those, at least from the detractors of this bill who have now somehow fallen off their plateau of suggesting that this is about national security, who are suggesting that coal-intensive States are going to be disproportionately hurt. That is completely false.

We have worked together to make sure that coal, which is the most abundant and cheapest source of energy that we have in this country, is going to be used for a long, long time. Right now in Ohio, we are investing in some very, very awesome opportunities for job creation. The company Babcock & Wilcox is researching right now using pure oxygen and pulverized coal and mixing it in these huge burners to make near zero emission burners. They capture this carbon, and then they inject it back into the wells, into the very wells from which we're drilling for oil, to push out those last remaining drops of oil.

I have a chart here--and I'm not going to get into the technical parts of it--but those scientists who may be watching and listening to us tonight can refer to this because it is very important that we understand that we will continue to use coal. This is carbon capture sequestration. The bill provides $180 billion for this type of innovative research that is going to be the next generation of coal use.

In the 1940s, when the United States of America bombed the Ploesti Romania oil fields, we essentially cut off the oil for Germany. What did they do? They quickly transitioned to a synthetic fuel, which is a derivative of coal. We're testing this right now at the Wright- Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. We're testing blended fuels on our military aircraft. We're testing the new fuels that are going to drive the innovation of tomorrow and that are going to make our country stronger.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

You are right. Mr. Speaker, I will remind the folks listening tonight that Teddy Roosevelt said that the welfare of each of us is dependent upon the welfare of all of us and that in a moment of decision, the worst thing that we can do is nothing. What is the cost of doing nothing? We're going to continue to be dependent on foreign oil. Maybe it rises from 60 percent to 80 percent. Maybe we don't create the jobs that we need to right here in our country that can't be outsourced, like a nuclear reactor. Congressman Ryan always talks about the 8,000 manufactured components that go into making a windmill. You know, these are the types of jobs and the types of innovation that makes our country stronger.

Let's revisit the three pillars of this legislation. Number one, create jobs in our country that cannot be outsourced; number two, that it's about national security, moving away from our dependence on foreign oil and other energy sources; making sure that we have those homegrown energy jobs right here in our country. Those are the three pillars of this legislation. When we think about the two largest countries that market natural gas, it is Iran and Russia, when if we invested in the technology that we recently just talked about, anaerobic digesters and the like, we talk about these different opportunities, we can actually create natural gas and harvest natural gas from our part of the country. This is important that we understand that moving away from dependence on imported sources of energy is going to make our country stronger.

So national security, creating jobs, moving away from our dependence on foreign oil, that's what this legislation is about. That's what this opportunity is about. And I believe in the innovation and entrepreneurship of Americans. I believe in our success as a country when we challenge each other to think outside of the box, to move ahead. And if we just allow ourselves to be bogged down by the fear of the past and bogged down by those detractors who are now saying, this is not the right time--well, when is the right time? When is the right time, when we have 80 percent of our oil coming from overseas? When is the right time, when energy costs are through the roof? Now is the time because our country can make these investments and create jobs here.

I agree with you, Congressman Ryan, and this is the time to do it. We have about 6 minutes remaining. I would like to yield each of the gentlemen at least a minute or two.

Happy birthday, Congressman Ryan.

So let me get this straight. This is about jobs that can't be outsourced, about our national security and moving away from our dependence on foreign oil. John McCain said it. He said it. He was introduced to a cap-and-trade bill three times. Three times, he said it is a free-market approach that will stimulate green technologies, a free-market approach. And he said that this is a matter of our national security. That is what this legislation is about.

It is so important that we enact this very soon so that we can move away from our dependence on these foreign sources of energy.

I will yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Well, let me just wrap by saying this: this is about jobs in our country that can't be outsourced. It is about our national security. And it is about moving away from our dependence on foreign oil.

We have set up a free-market approach, one that is supported by both, or was supported by both, Democrats and Republicans before we introduced it and passed it, but one that is a free-market approach with no taxes that invests in regional opportunities for States like Ohio and Virginia to make

certain that we have an energy policy that works for this country.

I flew wounded and fallen soldiers out of Baghdad. And it is very clear that we have two fronts over in the Middle East, in Afghanistan and Iraq and a much broader region because of the oil that that area produces. This is about making our Nation stronger. We have to do this now. The Department of Defense realizes this, and that is why they are testing alternative fuels. We can make that innovation. We believe in the American people. That is what this bill is about.

You're exactly right, Congressman Ryan. We are going to be judged by two measures in this Congress, two measures, by action or inaction. And I am so happy that we had this opportunity to speak tonight on clean energy and our national security.

Mr. Speaker, there are difference makers among us. I rise today to honor a man who committed his life to public service and put his life on the line working to save people in our community.

Just a few short weeks ago, James Martin ``Marty'' Hall, City of Canton, Ohio Fire Captain of 15 years, made the ultimate sacrifice and died in the line of duty after suffering a fatal heart attack just hours after serving a volunteer fire shift at the Greentown Fire Department.

Captain Hall was a member of the City of Canton's fire force for more than 20 years.

Captain Hall clearly moved our community. Joining the thousands of friends and neighbors and loved ones who lined the streets of Canton for his funeral procession deeply moved me. This man was a respected member of our city who touched and saved many lives, including a child he performed CPR on after rescuing him from a burning home in Canton.

Captain Hall's peers called and said to him as they bid him farewell, ``If you needed to be rescued, Captain Hall and his crew would be the crew you wanted coming for you.''

Captain Hall was a hero in our community and in his home. Being a father of four small children, it was exceptionally emotional to witness his three daughters stand up at his funeral and say, ``We're going to miss you, Daddy.''

Their words should remind each of us that our time on Earth is limited and we must live fully each day. Captain Hall's passing shocked our community, and he will forever remain one of our community heroes.

My prayers and deepest condolences go out to his family as they grieve this tragic loss. Captain Hall's family and our community reflect on his service both in the military and as a firefighter.

Today, I take this moment to honor his life and his service to our country. We thank you, Marty, for your service.

I thank the gentlelady from Maine not only for her extraordinary work on the House floor here but also on the Rules Committee. We appreciate your efforts to help move the country forward. There is no question, perhaps, the biggest issue that we will address in our freshmen tenure and perhaps for the time that we serve here in the United States Congress is health care. And there is perhaps arguably no more important issue that we could tackle as a Nation than to get our health care costs under control.

And I know the gentlelady from Maine is hearing what I am hearing back in my district, and that is that people, working families in our district, are one accident, one medical emergency, one diagnosis away from complete bankruptcy. And, in fact, in 2007, 60 percent of all bankruptcies were due to medical costs, some accident that a family had sustained or some unsustainable costs that had arisen because they had contracted a disease or some sort of cancer. And we need to do our part here in Congress to make sure that we are working on this issue and getting these costs under control.

They predict right now that 16 percent of our gross national product is for paying health care. And that in a few decades that cost could grow as high as half of our gross national product. That is absolutely unsustainable for our future.

And we have an obligation to make sure that our country can be competitive, that we can have a workforce that is not only well educated and trained but has access to the basic fundamentals of prevention and healthy lifestyles and access to seeing the doctor that they choose.

And when I speak to my constituents back in Ohio, in northeast Ohio, I talk about the five Ps of health care, the five Ps, the fact that we need to cover all people. Now, when we talk about covering all people, we need to understand that by not doing so it's actually costing all of us paying into the system more money. Those 46 million uninsured or underinsured people who can't seek access to their doctor because their health care effectively ended when they got their pink slip at the job, because they can't afford a COBRA payment, they are uninsured or underinsured.

And when they use the hospital emergency room as their primary care physician, they are costing all of us paying into the system four if not five times more by using the hospital room, the emergency room as their primary care physician. We need to cover all people.

And to those Americans who might be listening tonight, we need to understand that the American taxpayer right now is paying to make sure that every man, woman and child in Iraq has access to universal health care coverage. Now, it's inconsistent that we would pay for Iraqis to see the doctor they want to but yet not Americans.

The second P is that we have portability, that our workers, when they get that pink slip, God forbid, that they can take their health care from job to job to job. Portability, covering all people.

The third P that we have in our five Ps is making sure that we provide incentives for prevention, because prevention should be tied into all of this

with respect to healthy lifestyles ending the chronic diseases that plague so many.

And we have to end preexisting conditions--insurance companies using as a notion of disqualifying people from seeing their primary care physician the notion of preexisting conditions. And when that worker in a factory in Canton, Ohio, loses their job and they get hired by another factory with another set of health care principles and another set of health care opportunities, and they were a diabetic, God forbid, it becomes a preexisting condition now that they are seeking treatment from their physician for routine coverage that would have been covered previously.

We need to end preexisting condition. Portability, covering all people, adding prevention, and making sure that physicians and doctors are making and prescribing the types of health care that our patients should seek. Those are the five Ps that I hope we have in this great and robust dialog here on Capitol Hill.

So I thank the gentlelady from Maine for bringing this issue, and I hope that we have a very spirited discussion about how we can move this issue down the field.

The gentlelady from Maine is absolutely correct about how this dilemma that is facing our country has impacted many families not only across our districts but across the country. We have a responsibility and an obligation to fix this issue so that we can remain competitive as a country and help our citizens.

Now, I want to tell you about a personal story myself. As an Air Force pilot who was deployed all over the world, I had to get shots so that I wouldn't get sick when I went overseas. I received a couple of anthrax shots as part of our mobility deployment, and I was having these terrible reactions. My knees were swelling up. They were getting red. So the flight surgeon suggested that I should go see a rheumatoid specialist. I waited nearly 3 months to get in to see this rheumatoid specialist, and then I waited 2\1/2\ hours in the doctor's office when I finally got there.

When the nurse ushered me into the doctor's waiting room there, I sat on the table for about 20 minutes. The doctor came in. He did some movements with my knee and he said, Son, you're getting older. I said, Doctor, I could have made that diagnosis. But, I said, These are recurring as a coincidence to these shots that I have been getting.

So he went in the corner, wrote a prescription, and said, Call me in a month after taking these pills to see if this works. I said, Doctor, I'm 30-something years old. I'm in good shape. I want to figure out why this is happening. We went back and forth for a couple of minutes and he said, Son, I have got to get down the room to see 15 other patients so that I can keep the lights on in this building. And I thought to myself, Is that what we have reduced health care to? Is that what we have enabled our system to give and administer to our citizens? They deserve better.

And that's why our choices for the bills that we are introducing are going to add some significant improvements. One, we're going to make sure that Americans have more choices to see the doctor that they want, to develop and sign onto the plans that they want and to make sure, number two, the number two guidepost we have is that bureaucrats and bean counters are not deciding the type of health care that our citizens should get.

And, lastly, we want to make sure that families understand that there's enough money in the system. We hear from the other side about how are we going to pay for this. This is going to be more resources coming down here to Capitol Hill and being disbursed out.

We know this much, that one-third of the $2.5 trillion that we spend every year on health care, one-third of that never reaches the doctors, never reaches the patients. It's lost somewhere out in the administration of the system.

We know one-third of that money could be given and could be used to cover the 46 million uninsured and underinsured. So conceivably there is enough money in the system to pay for those people who are uninsured and underinsured. In fact, we hear that families have found that nearly 7 percent, in 1987, 7 percent of their median household income was being used and devoted for health care. And now it has grown to nearly 20 percent. In fact, Americans spend more than any industrialized country on health care, nearly $7,000 over the aggregate for a year, for a family, for a working family. And yet our health care and our life expectancy is on par with Cuba. It is on par with Cuba.

So we have got to make systematic and fundamental changes, as the gentlewoman said, to focus on prevention. Four cents of every dollar is only focused on prevention. Yet we have some of the worst chronic diseases that continue over this period.

So we want to stress that folks will have more choices, that bureaucrats and bean counters won't decide, but doctors and physicians will decide the type of health care that they get, and there is enough money in the system to pay for itself. Those are the three guideposts; those are the three beacons that we are using as we drafting the legislation here in the House.

I yield back.

Well, I applaud the gentlelady's perspective because there is no question that getting costs under control are the most important facet of any health care reform package. And we talk about the health care delivery system. Really, we have sickness delivery system where we are actually doing a fee for service where folks are paid with the number of patients that they see in their hospital or their doctor's office. Well, how about providing incentives to say that, well, we didn't see any patients today because they are all healthy? What a novel idea that would be to provide incentives for prevention.

This is the type of plan we are embracing here. Our plan talks about prevention. It talks about rewarding citizens who are living healthy life styles, doctors who are able to have this relationship, as the gentlelady from Illinois suggested that we have to have a relationship with our doctor not necessarily one where you come in, you bounce in for 5 minutes, and he writes you a prescription, and you are out the door. That is not health care. That is not health care. That is not even health care delivery. To me that is something so far disconnected.

So our plan is going to make sure that we have more choices, better time with our doctors, more choices in the types of who we get to see and who we are able to see and to make sure that doctors and physicians are describing and predicting giving and subscribing the type of health care that we should have.

We should not have a bean counter at an insurance company deciding whether we should have an MRI, or a bureaucrat in Washington deciding if we should get this procedure or prescription drug. It should be left to physicians and doctors and our health care professionals.

And our plan will address the amount of money that we spend on health care. By getting costs under control, covering all people and making sure all people have access to health care, we actually will reduce the cost of health care because that diabetic that lost their job in Canton, Ohio, now can't get the syringes that they need to give themselves insulin, and they can't buy their prescriptions, and all of a sudden they need to go to the emergency room because of an ulcer on their foot, and they are using the emergency room as their primary care physicians. And that is costing all of us in the system four if not five times more.

By getting those costs under control, we will save money in the long run, more choices, better accessibility to the doctors we want to see, and making sure that we have the opportunity to contain these costs, keep them under control and making sure that doctors

and health care professionals are prescribing health care and not bean counters.

This is what our plan addresses, and this is a matter of our competitiveness of the country and having citizens that are healthy. And the well-being of our Nation is at stake here.

Let me add something to the gentlelady's remarks. We talk about this notion of 46 million uninsured and underinsured folks. Let's explain for a minute what uninsured and underinsured means.

Uninsured means you have absolutely no health care coverage. If you were injured or had to seek routine medical care, you couldn't go to a physician unless you paid out of our pocket.

Underinsured are people who don't have quite enough insurance because they got caught in that preexisting net, that factory worker who lost their job and their health insurance with that pink slip, got rehired down the line but because they were a diabetic, that condition was preexisting, so they can't seek treatment. They are underinsured because they don't have enough insurance to cover all of their medical needs.

We found in a medical study that was published last year that health care insurance companies spend $84 billion every year to block, deny, and screen patients from seeing their physicians; $84 billion. In that same study it showed that only $77 billion would be required to cover all of those 46 million uninsured or underinsured. It actually would be cheaper to cover all of the folks who are actually costing us more by not seeing their primary care physician.

So we have an opportunity now with the bill that we have rolled out to end preexisting conditions, which have been one of the biggest albatrosses in health care in my opinion for such a long time; not being able to see the doctor because you have a condition that existed prior to your employment at some factory.

So this is something that affects middle class Americans all over the United States. I think if we address this, preexisting conditions, portability from job to job, covering all people so they are not using their primary care physician in the emergency room versus seeing the doctor that they want to see, and making sure that we provide incentives for prevention so that people are living healthy lifestyles and we are able to provide prevention and allowing physicians to make those medical diagnoses, that is what is going to be the cure for our health care dilemma here.

Will the gentlelady yield? I know that there might be some apprehension out there from our seniors about health care reform. And let me stress to you that our plan allows you to keep the doctor that you want to keep. If you like the doctor that you're seeing, you can continue seeing that doctor. If you don't like the doctor that you're seeing and you would like to get into a different plan, it will allow you to go into a different plan.

There will be more freedom under this bill. There will be more freedom under these proposals. And we're going to make sure that physicians are telling our seniors, health care professionals are telling our seniors the type of health care that they need, whether this MRI was authorized, whether this cancer treatment was necessary and prudent. We want health care professionals to do that. We do not want bean counters making decisions based upon what the bottom line and dollars are going to be.

Now, the gentlelady was talking about what she did in the State legislature. In Ohio, we had a very similar situation where insurance companies were delaying payments to doctors who ultimately run a business. When you see your primary care physician, they have staff. They have a payroll. They have to keep the lights on. They have to pay utility bills just like any small business. But when you do look-backs and you suggest whether this MRI was really necessary or authorized, whether this x-ray was necessary or authorized and you delay those payments over a time period, the physician can't keep the lights on in the building, and that should end. We passed a bill in the State legislature called Prompt Pay to make sure that insurance companies were making best efforts to pay those bills on time so doctors could keep the lights on.

Additionally, we were doing health care simplification so that we could involve a little bit of health care IT, medical IT, so that when you roll into a hospital, God forbid, after an accident that's in your region, when they pull up your name, when they pull up your identification, they're able to identify who you are and your health care records.

The military has been doing this for years. In fact, on our military identification card, we have the medical technology to pull up all my medical records. If I rolled into a hospital or to a VA facility or to a military hospital, on my card, they would scan it in and my complete medical history would come up. And on that, you would be able to tell whether you were diabetic, what type of treatments you've had. And that ultimately is going to cost hospitals less because they're not going to run these battery of tests to see if this person is a diabetic because they know that John Doe, when they came in, has a medical history and it's on their card.

Perhaps this is something we should do. We're doing it in the military. It's something that we ought to explore for Americans so that they can have quick access to their medical records.

I yield to the gentlelady.

I thank the gentlelady for assembling this dialogue on health care. This is very important. And we know those Americans who might be listening in, those folks who are still awake after perhaps punching the time clock and working long hours, we want you to know that we are working on this issue. But we have studied it long enough. We've talked about it long enough. Now it's time to take action. Leadership is defined by action, not position, but by action. And what I applaud this President for is his bold efforts to step forward and take action on an issue that remains a dilemma for America. This is about us, as a Nation, being competitive with our foreign competitors. This is about how much

we spend on delivery of health care and making sure that all Americans have access to the quality of care that we want, not just because you can afford it but because you're American. And let me just say these things:

Number one, if you like your doctor, you will keep your doctor. If you don't like the plan that you're in, you can move to another. There is going to be freedom of choice, and there will be broad choices in the plan that has been unveiled in this Chamber.

Number two, we want to make sure that health care professionals and physicians and doctors and nurses are prescribing health care and administering health care and not necessarily the bean counters or bureaucrats that we find too often who are making health care decisions for too many Americans.

And the third issue that we need to emphasize is that there is enough money in the system already to pay for health care. The 46 million uninsured and underinsured folks who are out there, we know that there is enough money in the delivery of health care--$2.5 trillion we spend every year, 16 percent of our gross national product. We spend more than any other industrialized nation in the world, but yet have a life expectancy on par with Cuba. There is enough money in the system that is out there that we can make sure that 46 million uninsured or underinsured people have access to health care.

How are we going to do that? With the five P's. Making sure that all people have access to health care. If they don't, it is going to end up costing all of us more because when they use the hospital room as their primary care physician, they will actually cost all of us more.

Making sure they have a portable plan that allows them to take it from job to job to job. End this notion of preexisting conditions, that if you're working at one place and you go to another job that somehow being pregnant or being a diabetic or having a chronic disease somehow eliminates you from seeking health care from this new provider. End preexisting conditions.

Making sure that we provide incentives for physicians to not only enter the field but also that physicians are making the health care decisions.

And, lastly, prevention, prevention, prevention. Four cents of every dollar that we spend on health care is for prevention.

We can do a better job. We have to do a better job. The President has called us to action. The Nation has suffered for too long under a system that has excluded a few and allowed others to seek access. And this delivery system that we have should be about health care and not a health sickness plan that we have that's a fee for service but that encompasses all the things that we talked about here tonight.

I thank the gentlewoman from Maine for allowing me to be a part of this.

Madam Speaker, this bill is about putting America first. We heard this all throughout the last campaign about how we need to invest in America and we need to protect American jobs. And Congresswoman Betty Sutton has stood up for American jobs, and she is putting new meaning to ``putting old Betty back in the garage and putting new cars on our streets.'' That's why it's imperative that the auto industry, especially in Ohio, be preserved under this bill. Twenty-five percent of Ohio's economy is based on how well or how poorly the automotive industry performs. There were 560,000 new vehicle registrations alone last year in Ohio. That averages to more than $24 million per dealership in Ohio.

This bill is about putting America first and putting Americans back in American-built cars. I will be proud to support this bill today on the House floor.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 472) congratulating and saluting the seventieth anniversary of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and their dedication to general aviation, safety and the important contribution general aviation provides to the United States.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on House Resolution 472.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in support of House Resolution 472, congratulating and saluting the 70th anniversary of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and their dedication to the general aviation, safety, and the important contribution that general aviation provides to the United States of America.

AOPA was incorporated on May 15, 1939, as a nonprofit organization dedicated to general aviation. AOPA represents more than 414,000 members, which is about 70 percent of all United States pilots. In 1950, AOPA created the Air Safety Foundation, which provides general aviation pilots with training, education, and research on information and safety that are important to all pilots.

AOPA was a leading advocate in the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 which led to the recovery of the U.S. general aviation and light aircraft manufacturing industry. In recent years, AOPA has been active on many general aviation issues such as global positioning navigation, flight service station modernization, FAA reauthorization, and the Next Generation Air Transportation System, known as NextGen.

House Resolution 472 congratulates and salutes the 70th anniversary of AOPA and its dedication to general aviation, safety, and the important contribution made by all aviators to the United States. In addition, the resolution commends AOPA for creating the Air Safety Foundation, leading the recovery of general aviation of light aircraft in the manufacturing industry and setting the stage for the development of NextGen.

For these reasons and others, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 472.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his efforts to promote general aviation. It's very clear, having, myself, several classifications as a multiengine commercial instrument single engineer, that general aviation needs to do all it can to promote and respond to the needs of its pilots--in particular, training of the pilots. It is very important that we recognize the significance of this organization and what it means to general aviation.

I concur with the remarks of the ranking member and also concur with the gentleman and his remarks with respect to the importance of this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the swift passage of this bill is very important.

I yield back my time as well.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1687) to designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at McKinley Avenue and Third Street, SW., Canton, Ohio, as the ``Ralph Regula Federal Building and United States Courthouse,'' as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1687.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill I introduced, H.R. 1687, as amended, and urge its quick passage.

This bill designates the building located at McKinley and Third Streets, S.W., Canton, Ohio, as the Ralph Regula Federal Building and United States Courthouse. The bill has strong, bipartisan support.

While I know Congressman Regula as my predecessor, many of you on both sides of the aisle were also fortunate enough to call him a colleague, a mentor, and a friend. He was a true steward of his district and earned every accolade from his constituents, who knew him only as Ralph. He combined a unique blend of procedural acumen, hard work, and collegial personality in rising to a position of leadership on the House Appropriations Committee. All the while, he never forgot where he came from, consistently setting the standard and making sure that his constituents received the assistance they needed with their problems.

As a former teacher and principal, Ralph was a leader in pushing to improve our students' reading skills, develop teacher training, and increase Pell Grant funding. He also increased by millions of dollars the amount of Federal money committed to research in fighting cancer, heart disease, and birth defects.

Ralph was a leader in alternative energy. And he was an early champion of fuel cell technology, helping my district earn a reputation as a national leader in fuel cell research and development.

Congressman Ralph Regula served with distinction and represented the 16th District of Ohio for over 30 years--in fact, it was 36 years. He is a native Ohioan, born in Beach City, Ohio, on December 3, 1924. After high school, Congressman Ralph Regula served in the United States Navy with distinction and honor in World War II. He later graduated from college and earned his law degree in Canton, Ohio, at William McKinley School of Law. He went on to become a lawyer and later a State legislator.

He was first elected to Congress in 1972 and served 18 consecutive terms, retiring last year to spend more time with his lovely, lovely wife, Mary, and college sweetheart, as well as their three children and four grandchildren.

As much as I wish to claim this as an original idea, I have to give thanks and credit to Senator Sherrod Brown, who first introduced this legislation last December before I was sworn in.

It is appropriate that we honor Congressman Ralph Regula with this bill because in many ways this building would not exist without his efforts, having laid the groundwork for it many, many years ago.

The Ralph Regula Federal Building and United States Courthouse will continue Ralph's legacy, serving Stark County for many years to come. It is most fitting and proper to honor Congressman Regula with this designation.

I support this bill, as amended, and urge its immediate passage.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

(Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I wish to thank the gentleman from Ohio. His remarks were not only appropriate, they were well-guided in terms of what Mr. Regula meant not only to our part of Ohio, but what he meant to America.

Campaigning through the district and having the occasion to work with Congressman Regula while I was in the State legislature, people knew him not as a conservative, not as a liberal, not as a Democrat or Republican, but just as Ralph. And that type of leadership, that type of portrayal of American politics is what we should all rise to emulate. He was a man of his word, a man of integrity, and a man who believed in the Constitution. And he told me, he said, When you go to Congress, John, make sure that you protect the Constitution and, in particular, the fact that we own the checkbook, we write the checks, we appropriate the money, we here in Congress are responsible for the taxpayers' dollars. He was responsible for millions and millions of dollars coming back to the State of Ohio, whether it was research in fuel-cell technology or whether it was the First Ladies' Library that his wife had such a brilliant idea to anchor in our part of Ohio and the Midwest, or just funding for all the medical research that we're doing in our State, he was a leader. And he believed in the innovation and creativity of the American people, and in particular of all Ohioans. He was a man of great integrity, and someone who obviously I, as Congressman LaTourette said, would not be able to replace, but certainly respect as his successor.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield to the gentlelady from California, our Speaker of the House of Representatives, Speaker Pelosi.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I concur with the Speaker's eloquent remarks, especially about Mary, who champions women in their role in politics. And for my two daughters who are sitting behind me and the ones I have at home, she has been a shepherd for all in the 16th District as well as our country.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, just a few more comments and I think we will be wrapping this up very soon.

To piggyback on what the gentleman was suggesting, as I said earlier, Ralph was not known as a Democrat or a Republican, a conservative or a liberal; he was just known as ``Ralph.'' I remember, in some closing remarks at a recent banquet that we were at, I was telling folks, and I feel at liberty to say this, I'm a freshman Member here, that this collegiality that we are sharing right now becomes few and far between at times and we need to return this Chamber, this body, our dialogue to that kind of respect for each other, where we may disagree on ideas, as Democrats and Republicans, we both believe in the end goal. And like a married couple, we may argue about how we get to the end destination, taking this exit ramp, that road, but at the end of the day, like a married couple, we always end up where we need to go. And we need to respect that. And I think that this bill respects the service of Ralph Regula and his contributions to northeast Ohio, and in particular what it will mean to the people of Stark County who go there to find relief and find help from their government. And every day they walk into that building, that building that's being built right now, they will see his designation, his name, and it will be a remembrance of what he meant.

Just one last comment, Mr. Speaker. This district that I am currently representing and serving in is, by all measures, arguably a swing district. It has Democrat and Republican registrations, even Independents inside the race. But yet he held this district for 36 years, and the Congressman before him held this district for 18 years, and the other Federal building in the city is named after him, Frank T. Bow. And so what this says is that the people of northeast Ohio, in particular the 16th District, they respect legislators, they respect Congressmen like Ralph Regula and his predecessor because they believe in our greatest asset, which is our people.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of this bill, HR 915. I specifically support provisions in the bill which will require FAA inspectors to monitor overseas stations that repair U.S. aircraft.

Over the years, U.S. airlines have steadily increased outsourcing of maintenance work performed at facilities here and abroad. According to the Department of Transportation IG, major air carriers outsourced an average of 64 percent of their maintenance expenses in 2007 compared to 37 percent in 1996.

In order to uphold the highest safety standards at all FAA-certified facilities, FAA inspectors must be permitted to physically inspect foreign repair stations every two years. The FAA must hold foreign repair stations and their workers to the same safety standards as those imposed on domestic repair stations. There is simply no substitute for direct FAA oversight of work performed on U.S. aircraft. Our government should not be outsourcing safety inspections to foreign governments.

Opponents of Section 303 also claim that requiring two FAA inspections per year will cause the EU to retaliate by conducting reciprocal twice-a-year inspections of EASA-certified U.S. stations. But this is a matter of public safety.

The U.S. has an obligation to ensure that FAA-certified repair stations meet U.S. standards, and we cannot abrogate this responsibility based on threats of retaliation from foreign governments looking to protect their own economic interests.

Mr. Chair, the resolution seeks a GAO study on all commercial airline pilot training and certification programs in the wake of new revelations surrounding the events that led up to the Continental Connection Flight 13407 tragedy.

FAA minimum pilot standards are long overdue for an overhaul.

It is my hope Congress will take a comprehensive look at these standards and make necessary changes. This study will help us determine what shortcomings currently exist.

The Colgan Air crash in Buffalo underscored the danger of not having fully trained pilots in the cockpit.

The flying public has a reasonable expectations that pilots will have all the critical training necessary to protect their lives in the air and make in-flight adjustments based on conditions; while investigations are ongoing--it is becoming clear Colgan did not meet those expectations in the Buffalo crash.

(1) Commercial pilot training and certification programs at United States air carriers, including regional and commuter air carriers;

(2) The number of training hours required for pilots operating new aircraft types before assuming pilot in command duties;

(3) How United States air carriers update and train pilots on new technologies in aircraft types in which they hold certifications;

(4) What remedial actions are taken in cases of repeated unsatisfactory check-rides by commercial airline pilots;

(5) What stall warning systems are included in-flight simulator training compared to classroom instruction;

(6) The information required to be provided by pilots on their job applications and the ability of United States air carriers to verify the information provided.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 2352, the Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act. I want to thank Chairwoman Velazquez and Congressman Shuler for their vision in this landmark piece of legislation that will help restore our economy to what it has always been.

My amendment does two things, Mr. Chair. It allows veterans centers to receive grants to develop specialized programs that assist unemployed veterans, reservists and surviving spouses by becoming entrepreneurs. And it requires a Veterans Development Summit to provide training for veterans centers to improve their outreach to veterans in areas of high unemployment.

I strongly support the underlying bill and its creation of the Veterans Business Center program. By expanding assistance and training to veteran entrepreneurs, we can increase the number of successful small businesses and, thereby, create jobs, taking these highly skilled, highly trained individuals and helping them. Providing them with the opportunity to create jobs and create businesses is the right way to go.

The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that we are targeting outreach to unemployed veterans, reservists and surviving spouses.

Let's go over a few facts, Mr. Chair. While the economy continues to be tough for all Americans, it seems that young veterans are among the hardest hit. One out of nine Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are now out of work, and the total number of unemployed veterans of the two wars roughly averages about 170,000. It is about the same number as U.S. troops deployed to those wars, according to the Department of Labor. The 11.2 percent jobless rate for veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan rose 4 percentage points in the past year. That's significantly higher than the corresponding 8.8 percent for nonveterans in the same age group. On the battlefield, we pledge to leave no soldier behind. As a Nation, it should be our pledge that when they return home, we leave no veteran behind, and that includes making sure that every veteran has a job when they return.

I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Driehaus) for as much time as he may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Congressman Ryan, thank you for allowing me to be a part of this discussion, and the zeal and the passion that you display on this House floor I remember watching a few years ago when I was serving in the legislature. Congressman Ryan and I both came up through the legislature in Ohio, and he cut his teeth earlier in the Congress.

And it's an honor to be here with you today. Because we do share the same vision about what it's going to take to move our State and, more importantly, our country forward. And Congressman Ryan and I have similar backgrounds. I hail from a working-class family. My grandparents were coal miners, carpenters and steel workers. My parents were one of the first in their families to go to college, respectively, and two successful brothers, one is a pharmacist and a chemist, and the other is working in the military and working in the defense industry.

I can tell you that my family is not unlike thousands, perhaps millions across this country, Congressman Ryan, who worked hard, played by the rules, punched the time clock, went to work every day, carried that lunch pail, because they believed in America, they believed in the spirit of America; that when you work hard, you play by the rules, you give back to your country and your community, that America is a place where your hopes and dreams and desires can be fulfilled.

More than ever, we find that that dream of that American spirit is being challenged--challenged by some of the decisions of previous administrations, challenged by the fact that we have got to put our own house in order and move our country forward and invest in things that really matter--invest in our greatest asset, which is our people. And, as Congressman Ryan has so eloquently said many, many times on this House floor, that we have an opportunity to change the direction of this country and move it in a direction and trajectory that is going to be about prosperity and sharing the ideals and values that brought my grandparents from a country so far away to settle here on the shores of America because they believed in this experiment in democracy, and that was where hopes and dreams could be realized.

Now I tell you this because in the spirit of our discussion tonight we're going to talk about some of our problems, but we're going to talk about solutions, more importantly.

We're going to talk about the fact that Ohio has been hemorrhaging with manufacturing job loss. In fact, in 2008 alone, the United States itself lost 149,000 manufacturing jobs, and many of those jobs, as Congressman Ryan had said, were from Ohio.

Ohio is a place where we built things. We helped build America. Some of the great thinkers of our country hailed from Ohio--innovators like Thomas Edison and a variety of astronauts like John Glenn. We had success stories across the board because we had such diversity.

He comes from an Irish and Slovak background. And I have great respect for the Irish because I married one. But I have to tell you that Ohio is not unlike many States in the heartland of America that have experienced such job loss, such movement of manufacturer's jobs out of this country--and because of some of the policies that we have enacted here in Congress.

Now you have spoken often and loudly about the fact that we need a manufacturing policy in this country that protects jobs, that protects innovators, and that protects people who want to build and start their own business. But what we have seen is a whole host of failed policies that have allowed our jobs to move overseas.

Now I tell the American people here tonight that America cannot sustain itself by being movers of wealth. We have to produce wealth in this country. We have to build things--like we have always done.

And I heard on some of our district work periods about, Why are we giving loans to the automotive industry? Well, let's be clear about this. Are we going to depend on Fiat to build our tanks and weapons that we need to defend this country if we were ever attacked? Are we going to depend on some other foreign-owned or foreign-born company to produce the things that we're going to need to defend our country?

It is important that we maintain the Big Three, not only as a matter of our economic security, but our national security. And the supply lines that go into the Big Three through Ohio and into Michigan and from Pennsylvania, the heartland of our country, we have got to be the producers of wealth, not just the movers of wealth. And that is why this Congress moved to protect and defend American jobs and American security, Congressman Ryan. And I was proud to support some of those initiatives because we cannot tolerate policy that is going to make our country weaker.

I hear oftentimes that if we could only just be like countries like China, or just be like countries like India. Now as an Air Force air crew and pilot, I have been over the world. It only takes one trip outside the borders of our country to understand how good we have it. We have a robust economy. We have a workforce that works hard. It is unmatched and unparalleled in the rest of the world, in my opinion. And we have a country that sustained itself throughout generations because we invested in our people--our greatest asset.

But when we allow jobs to pack up and move overseas, when we allow a little bit of who we are--the identity that has created America--to slip away by allowing those jobs, and those manufacturing jobs in particular to leave our country, we are making America weaker and not stronger.

Absolutely.

The gentleman from Ohio could not be more correct in his assertion that we have got to focus on producing things in this country. I don't know about you, Congressman Ryan, but I have heard you speak many times, eloquently at that, because we cannot have this race to the bottom.

I hear many people say, If we were just like China, like India, in terms of--our standard of living is much

higher than countries like China and India. Why would we ever want to have a race to the bottom? Let's embolden them and bring them up so we can have an equal transfer of goods and services and products that are going to make both of our countries stronger. That's what we need to enact in trade policies right here on this floor and make sure that our trade policies are in concert with making a manufacturing sector of our economy robust.

I don't know if you know this, but two-thirds of our outsourced jobs in the United States have come from our manufacturing sector. Two- thirds. Two-thirds.

We're in a dangerous position right now with respect to what we're doing with our military-industrial complex. We cannot continue to allow those manufacturing jobs to leave our country if we don't protect and defend the economic security and the national security of our country by producing things right here. I know that you have fought hard for a policy that emboldens.

You know, Ohio has been bleeding factory jobs. More than 257,000 factory positions have evaporated since the beginning of 2000; 257,000 families have been handed pink slips and notices that their jobs are going to be leaving the country. I think that we have got to do a better job, Congressman Ryan.

I want to work with you on this House floor to come up with real solutions; tangible solutions that are going to protect our workers and protect our national security.

I know that you and I have been championing many of the things that are going to make our country stronger--research and development tax credits, making sure that we do research here in America.

When I was in the State legislature with you, we talked about the fact that for every $1 that the State of Ohio spends, we can leverage $10 from the Federal Government to help spur innovation and entrepreneurialship and the intuitiveness that's going to help create and produce the minds that are going to produce the cures to cancer. They're going to produce the new energy sectors for our economy in years to come. It's this type of research, it's this type of investment that is going to make our country stronger.

Now I'm a freshman Congressman. You've been here for several terms. When I was going through my orientation this year at the John F. Kennedy School of Public Policy, they were telling us that only 16 percent of what we spend in this country is for investment back into the country, 16 percent.

Now our 16 percent is much larger than most countries because of our economic prowess. But at the end of the day, 16 percent is far too little to sustain us for years to come.

I know you've championed that at your local universities, and I'm going to talk about some of mine.

Congressman Ryan, you bring up several valid points. And the question is--and I'm sure the American people out there listening to us tonight, our 30-something group here, they're asking, So what do we do? What can we do to make certain that we are the producers of wealth and not just the movers of wealth?

Well, you and I have championed legislation that is going to invest directly, as I said earlier, into our greatest asset.

When we center our centers of excellence and pin them down with research and development, our universities and the great research that we're doing in Ohio is tremendous.

I mean, in my district alone, the Rolls-Royce company is actually researching fuel cell technology at Stark State Community College. We also have the EPO Group that's researching plug-in hybrids. And at the Ohio State Agriculture Research and Development Center in Wayne County, they're actually researching anaerobic digesters to use as energy, compressed natural gas. They are actually selling this gas back to the grid. This is the type of research that we need to champion and hone around our centers of excellence.

Not only are we going to use taxpayer dollars to create the next innovators and the great thinkers from Ohio, but we're going to help create a sustainable industry around these different types of investments.

If we invest in our greatest asset, our people, we can help spur the innovation that has helped put Ohio on the map.

I'm going to read a list here of some of the great innovators that have come from our State. Charles Kettering who was the inventor of the first electronic starter motor ignition system. Jim Spangler invented the portable electronic vacuum cleaner. And we all know about Thomas Alva Edison who was a prolific inventor and certainly helped with the incandescent lightbulb. Lester Pelton invented a type of free-jet water turbine and was from Vermilion.

These are the type of innovators that if we invest in our higher education, in our institutions of higher learning, Congressman Ryan, we're going to have the next viable industry. And hopefully that will be a green energy industry that will blanket northeast Ohio.

From Cleveland to Canton, from Canton to Youngstown, we have a triangle of success, and we have the opportunity to invest in things that are going to put our State forward.

Congressman Ryan, you can't be more correct. Can you imagine a novel idea, that this Congress is taking bold action to actually invest in America, to invest in our country, our people, our way of life? Can you imagine? How arrogant can some be who suggest that we should not do this for our people, that we should not take their money and invest back in our country? We are going to be judged by two measures. We are going to be judged by two measures in this great recession we find ourselves in, by action or inaction. And Congressman Ryan, when I was going through the orientation courses of the freshman Members, they told us that if we sat on our hands and watched thousands of jobs evaporate, more factories pack up and go overseas, that we would see unemployment in the first quarter of 2010 perhaps as high as 18 percent. Eighteen percent.

So we have to take action. We have to have movement. And to invest in the things that are going to make our country stronger is not only prudent, it is necessary. After years and years of rebuilding a country that I had so many visits to, we were building roads and bridges in Iraq, building brand new hospitals and schools in Iraq, making sure that every man, woman and child in Iraq had universal health care coverage, how dare us think about the American people for once here? How dare us think about the American people? And all we hear is stiff arms and noes and enough is enough, and this country has got to be put back at the tier that we need to put and we need to set in this Congress, and that is by investing in the things that were in this recovery package.

Now imagine this, the Democratic Congress of the United States House of Representatives that is controlled by the Democrats now obviously enacted the largest tax reduction in our Nation's history and the largest investment in capital in our Nation's history to make our country stronger, to make our country and our people stronger. I think that spells scores of success stories and future innovators that have helped Ohio become the great State that she is. But we can make a difference by investing and putting the parameters out there, putting the goalposts, putting the out-of-bounds markers for our market to act in a way that is responsible to its people, that is responsible to its people, and to help us forge a way on the path toward prosperity. That is what this Congress has done in just a few short months.

I have to tell you, Congressman Ryan, after being in the Air Force 15 years and flying our wounded soldiers in and out of Baghdad, and whether we agree with this war or not, we have to give every degree of respect to the men and women who serve in uniform because they fought in Iraq and Afghanistan only because our country asked them to. As far as I am concerned, when they come back, when their boots hit the ground here in America, they should not have one hospital bill, any expenses that are required to go to college, get a degree and advance themselves. We should be investing in them and rewarding them for the sacrifice that they have made for our country.

Let me tell you about a soldier who was in my State legislative district when I was serving in the State House. He was injured with an IED and will be disfigured for the rest of his life. A piece of shrapnel hit him in the jaw, and he had surgeries at Walter Reed to try to put his face back together. After he was discharged with a Purple Heart, a Bronze Star and let go back into the civilian world. Two weeks after discharge from the military, his jaw broke again. This 22-year- old soldier with a young child had $15,000 in medical expenses that he couldn't weed through the VA to get paid to make sure that he could put bread on the table for his family.

A soldier like that who almost gave everything for this country should not have to pay for his bills for injuries that he sustained while overseas. It took swift action by this Congress in the last 2 years to make certain that our soldiers were not forgotten.

And the Wounded Warriors Program that we have right now that acknowledges the sacrifice, the great sacrifice of those men and women, we cannot forget and we should never forget. As long as I am a Congressman and have the ability to speak publicly about this, we will champion those soldiers and tell them what we are doing to put their lives back in order and to invest in them.

Let's make no question that we want to show, and I am a 30-something here on the floor of the House of Representatives telling you and the American people that we will recover. We will recover. We will grow out of this recession, and we will be stronger for it at the end of the day.

And for those who suggest that we are spending a lot of money in this great recession that we find ourselves in, the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, in 1946 when the United States came out of the Great Depression and World War II, the government was spending more and borrowing more than the economy could produce, spending more and borrowing more than the economy could produce as a percentage of GDP and what the government debt was. Right now we are at about 50 percent of what the economy can produce.

And once we start growing this economy again, investing in the things that are going to make our country and our people stronger, we will see the difference. We will see the investments realized. We will see the tangible results coming back to us as we have a stronger workforce, a workforce that can critically think, multitask, problem solve, and be competitive with the Indias and Chinas of the world that have already begun investing in their workforce.

And I will tell you that the gentleman from Ohio is correct in his assumption that by making these strategic investments in our country, in our people, and in our way of life, we're going to be the producers of wealth once again, not just the movers of wealth. Investing in green energy, investing in the things that are going to transform our economy so that we have diversity. Can you imagine rolling into the gas station one day and having a choice between using traditional gasoline, biomass, ethanol, maybe even plug in our electric hybrid, or drive by the gas station altogether because we have a fuel cell that was researched right here in the 16th Congressional District of Ohio that allows you to get 100 miles to a gallon? Can you imagine how that would be transformational for our economy? These investments that we have in the American recovery package and the stimulus package are going to be what are going to make the difference and transcend our economy for years to come. And I say that in confidence as a 30-something.

And I want you to know that these challenges that confront all of us as leaders are not Democrat or Republican challenges but American challenges, and we will recover with prudent investment.

Madam Speaker, the American people have asked this Congress for solutions to act quickly in a bipartisan fashion and to get our economy moving again.

As a freshman Member, I'm happy to report that I have teamed up with a Republican colleague from Buffalo, New York, Chris Lee, to get our economy moving again. We know how many manufacturing jobs have been lost in the Midwest. So our bill would help empower the vision and innovation that has made this country so great by providing incentives for companies in America to do research and developments right here and give them a bonus if they are going to conduct those research and developments right here in America.

We have an opportunity to move this economy forward. We need to become not the movers of wealth but the producers of wealth. If we produce things here in America, we can make America continue on its path towards greatness.

I thank the gentleman from Ohio and greater Cincinnati area who has done extraordinary work in the Ohio legislature to try and remedy the situation where we find so many families struggling and so many families trying to live the American Dream of owning their own home and having a job to pay for their mortgage.

Mr. Speaker, what we have found over the last several years is that the housing crisis is at the epicenter of the economic downturn that we are experiencing in this country. Make no mistake, today's great recession is rooted right here in the housing crisis that we find so many families plagued with, and especially across Ohio.

But the irony here is that the success of our communities actually begins at home.

Now, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Driehaus) and I know, after studying this issue for a long time, we worked on the predatory lending bill that passed through the State legislature in Ohio, and he is assigned to the Financial Services Committee here in the Congress, to try to remedy this situation for average families back home in Ohio.

Now let's talk about those average families. We hail from the Buckeye State. Buckeyes. Bob and Betty Buckeye go to the local community bank. They take out a mortgage to live to that dream of American homeownership. They take out a mortgage. They go to work. They punch a time clock and play by the rules. Maybe they put their kid in college. That bank sells their mortgage three, four, five times down the road. I don't know, Mr. Speaker, maybe that violates the spirit of the Truth in Lending Act. What happens is after this mortgage is sold three, four, five times, they have no idea who owns it.

And they send their mortgage off every month because they get the bill in. And what happens? Bob and Betty Buckeye begin to feel the economic pinch. They begin to see that the job market is starting to erode. All of a sudden, Bob loses his job and can't make his home mortgage payment. So what does he do?

He goes down to the local bank where he took out the loan and says, ``Mr. Lender, give me a couple of extra days. I need a couple of extra days just to make this mortgage payment.''

He says, ``Well, Mr. Buckeye, we don't own your mortgage anymore.''

He says, ``Well, who owns it? I took the loan out from you.''

What happens is that many, many of our constituents are finding that their home mortgage from Ohio is now off in California or Texas or some other State, and we don't have the opportunity to work with our local community banks to renegotiate this or have that extra month or 2 months. Automatically these things go into foreclosure. You've seen this in Ohio.

So, Representative Driehaus, let me get this straight. Those constituents of ours, Bob and Betty Buckeye, that get those flyers in the mail saying they can get a free vacation if they refinanced their house,

they can send some money to their kids who are in college, those are predatory in nature, am I right, because there's no skin in the game? They're asking constituents to sign away for 30 years or 15 years on a mortgage.

Will the gentleman yield?

Thank you. Congressman, you bring up several good points. And let's make sure that we have full disclosure here and big- picture stuff.

You know, the government shouldn't be so immersed in the market. But we set the goalpost, we set the out-of-bounds markers, and within the parameters of that we should allow the free market to work. But what was happening in that free market for the last 10 years? We had hedge fund operators betting on the price of fuel going up; we had folks who were investing and betting on the price of food going up--supermarket, you go into a supermarket, you see prices rising--and we had hedge funds that were betting that people would not be able to pay their mortgage. Now, this was a recipe for disaster.

Congressman Grayson, you bring up valid points: Why was there no enforcement? Why were there no referees enforcing the out-of-bounds markers or the goalposts? Why were we not enforcing this? And why were we allowing families to lose their homes, lose the American Dream? And this notion that we don't have enough regulation, we don't have enforcement of the regulations is what is happening. And what we are finding is that families across this country are struggling because of that lack of enforcement.

Let me give you one example of a family in Ohio. Just last month, the RealtyTrac rated Stark County, the largest county in the 16th Congressional District, one of the counties in my district, among the worst in the Nation in foreclosure rates. The Canton-Massillon metropolitan area ranks near the top of that list: 6,400 foreclosures last year. One of those homeowners was Willie Campbell.

I met Ms. Campbell a couple weeks ago at a roundtable I put together back home to discuss these home foreclosure issues and find out how we could find some valuable solutions. Ms. Campbell was falling behind on her mortgage payments on her three-bedroom home in Stark County. She wanted to do the right thing. She wanted to remedy the problem. She is a good American. She called an 800 number listed on a TV commercial that promised to help her. Well, it didn't. In fact, it was a scam. They took money out of her bank account for 5 months.

Ms. Campbell turned to a community development organization for help. Through mediation, she received help to lower her monthly payments from more than $850 to a little more than $620. She was able to cut her interest rate from 9 to 5.6 percent. What's more is that community organizations like the one that she sought help from were able to negotiate a 3-month grace period so her mortgage payments would not be late and so that she could catch up on her bills.

Now, while Ms. Campbell was eventually able to find the help that she needed, more than 4,400 Stark County homeowners who filed for foreclosure last year were not so lucky. And what are those statistics, as Congressman Driehaus suggested and Congresswoman Kilroy from Ohio suggested? Ohio ranks at the top five States nationwide for the highest home foreclosure rates. We have found nationwide that home values have dropped 18 percent. Nearly one in five homeowners owes more than their home is worth. And each foreclosed property, as Congressman Driehaus suggested, reduces the property value of neighbors by 9 percent.

We can do better. We have got to enforce the regulations. And that is why this Congress acted to make sure that we have enforcement of the regulations that are out there so that these fly-by-night lenders and folks who are willing to sign on the other end of the table are brought into check and that we have some balance.

Thank you, Representative Driehaus.

Congressman Himes brings up a very, very valid point. When Bob and Betty Buckeye go to that local community bank, they sign for a 30-year mortgage, a 15-year mortgage, and they are expecting that their job is going to remain intact, that they're going to be able to make those mortgage payments. But what we found with the transactions across the market is that those mortgages were sold three, four, five times, and guess what. They wound up in some investment bank on Wall Street, and then we had hedge funds betting on people failing to pay their mortgage.

So this legislation and the action that the Congress is taking is making sure that Wall Street is put on notice to make sure that you're not going to bet on people failing, Americans failing. America is much better than that. We are more than that. We're not failures. We have a success story that is unmatched around this world.

And when you talk about 6,400 forecloses in my district alone, the largest county in my district ranking number one in a State that ranks number five in the country, 6 million people across this country have lost their homes, these aren't just real numbers. These are real people. These are real people.