John Boccieri

Mr. BOCCIERI

Mr. BOCCIERI. Thank you. I agree that this is not only about national security but creating jobs, too. We had a recent announcement last month that Rolls Royce was moving the center for their research into my district, for fuel cells. We are going to become a leader in fuel cell research provided that we have the courage to invest in it. You may have missed my earlier remarks because you just joined us, but I said that the only thing that is holding us back in terms of the amount of alternative energy our nation is able to produce is the amount of energy we are willing to invest in it. We have got to find the energy and the courage to make this happen. I know Congressman Murphy has been trying to champion this in Connecticut.

Mr. BOCCIERI. Well, I couldn't agree with you more. The gentleman from Connecticut is absolutely correct. This is about creating jobs. So many jobs have been created already in our congressional districts, and let me just highlight a few of those. In Ohio, he is right about the private venture funds and the public investment that is going to be required to get this started. Ohio is going to see a $5.6 billion investment in new public and private sources due to programs and incentives under the American Recovery and Reinvestment and American Clean Energy and Security Act. These investments will lead to nearly 70,000 clean-energy jobs in Ohio, even assuming some potential setbacks with respect to how we transition to those new technologies. Presently there are about 35,000 clean-energy jobs in Ohio, and that was as of 2007. So we can do this. We can create the jobs of tomorrow. We can stand with the innovators and the entrepreneurs, and we can disregard the gibberish and the talk that we hear, the talking points from the status quo folks, who believe and are taking their talking points, quite frankly, from the same people, the very people who gave us $4 a gallon gasoline, $150 a barrel oil prices. We can do better than that, and I think it is about our country. Let me revisit, before we recognize Representative Altmire, what Mitt Romney said. He said there are multiple reasons for us to say we want to be less energy dependent on foreign energy and develop our own sources. That is the real key, of course, additional sources of energy here, as well as more efficient uses of energy. That will allow us and the world to have less oil being drawn down from various sources where it comes without dropping the prices too high to a level. It will keep people, some of whom are unsavory characters, from having an influence on our foreign policy. Now, even Mitt Romney, who was running for the highest office in the country, had suggested the fact that we get and we fund both sides of this war on terror, because we buy so much oil from overseas. And I believe that every presidential candidate running last year said that this is a matter of national security, and it is time that we do this. One last thing. I visited an industry this week in my district that is leading the charge in trying to make our buildings more efficient. We spend $400 billion a year on inefficient buildings across this country, and I know Representative Perriello said this before, the cheapest energy in our country is the energy that we never use. To save energy, to reduce our consumption, is very important, especially when you have 3 percent of the world's population and we are consuming nearly 30 percent of the world's resources of energy. That has got to change, and we have got to find our way away from this, and that is what this means tonight. Representative Tonko had a few words on that.

Mr. BOCCIERI. The gentleman is correct that we spend an awful lot of time often looking back at what was instead of looking ahead at what could be. And I remember the words so clearly, reading and hearing about what President Kennedy said: We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. It is hard to break from the status quo. It is hard to let the folks who have been delivering us $4 a gallon gasoline, let them go and break our dependence on our consumption of oil that comes from overseas. The opponents of a robust energy policy in this country have been attempting to define this bill and define our movement towards efficiency, towards creating jobs, towards protecting our national security, about cap-and-trade. Cap-and-trade is one section of the bill, one section of the bill that looks at addressing the climate change issue that the CIA, that the Department of Defense and our intelligence experts are looking at. So, are we going to put our weight with the folks who have been giving us $4 a gasoline and those big energy industries that have been making a lot of money over the status quo years, or are we going to stand with our intelligence experts and suggest that this is real? Our intelligence experts are suggesting we need to do this. Now, when this body was faced with the decision, the section of the bill that deals with cap-and-trade, we had a decision to make. There was a court case at the end of last year that said the EPA was going to regulate emissions in this country. Well, do you want the EPA and bureaucrats in Washington doing it, or do you want the free market to do it? Because I believe, like so many of my colleagues, that the Federal Government has a responsibility to set the out-of-bounds markets, to set the goalposts, let the free market operate in between, and then throw the flag like a good referee does when someone goes out of bounds. That is what we should do. Let the free market drive innovation; let entrepreneurial spirit, let the innovators in this great country do that. Let's do that. But attempting to define this as a national energy policy, as cap-and-trade, is not only disingenuous, I think it threatens our national security. And those aren't just my words. Those are the words of a fellow who I have a great deal of respect for, John McCain, Senator McCain. I flew this gentleman, this honorable American, out of Baghdad when I was flying missions over in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said it is about cap-and-trade. There will be incentives for people to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is a free market approach. John McCain is saying it is a free market approach. The Europeans are doing it. We did it in the case of addressing acid rain. He said 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. It won't cost the American taxpayer, he said, because of the free market approach. Joe Lieberman and I, Senator McCain introduced the cap-and-trade proposal several years ago that would reduce greenhouse gases within a gradual reduction. He said we did this with acid rain. This works. It can work--if we have the courage to do it. We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. That is what leadership does. But if we are worried about the next election and not worried about where our future is going, the gentleman from Virginia is absolutely correct that we are going to continue to be enslaved, like the gentleman from Arkansas said. Like he said, if we can't produce the weapons to fight our own Nation's wars, if we can't find the energy here in our own country, if we can't feed ourselves, it is exactly right that we will be forever enslaved. That is why we have to make the decision now. That is what leaders do.

Mr. BOCCIERI. Well, I can agree with the gentleman more that this is about tomorrow. This is about where we are as a Nation 10 to 15 years down the road, 20 years down the road, where my children and their children's children will be. Let me just drive home this point on national security. There was a report that came out in 2009 by the Center for Naval Analysis, coauthored by 12 retired generals and admirals of the United States military, and they found that our dependence on fossil fuels undermines United States foreign policy. It involves us with the volatile and unfriendly powers, endangers our troops in combat, undercuts our economic stability, and drives climate change, which weakens and threatens to destabilize countries and add to an already heavy American military burden. Our military experts are saying this. Our intelligence experts are saying this. Now, we have to be leaders and say that enough is enough. We can invest in the tomorrow because we have the energy, we have the alternative energy at our fingertips, and we can make this happen. But we have got to find the courage to do this. I know Representative Tonko wants to speak one last word on some of our colleagues and what they have said. A gentleman that we serve with here in this body, who I have a great deal of respect for, Ron Paul, Congressman Ron Paul, he 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.'' Now, what he's saying in the broader context is that this issue of climate change is our responsibility, too. We're great partners and leaders in the world, and we have to lead by example, like Mitt Romney said, like Mike Huckabee said, like the President is saying, like Secretary of State Clinton is saying. We have to lead by example, and that's what America has always done. We've led by example. So this is about where we are reaching down within our own internal national character and finding the courage to lead in this economic challenge that we face as our country. Representative Tonko.

Mr. BOCCIERI. Thank you, Congressman Tonko. We're going to wrap up here with the last 4 minutes just underscoring what we're talking about here today, the fact that we're focusing on our Nation's energy needs and the fact that we have got to move away from our dependence on foreign oil, protect our national security, and create jobs right here in America with our investments in these technologies. And how disingenuous to some who would use the arguments by the status quo who suggest that we need to continue on the way that we have, where we'll be dependent on foreign sources of energy, on the Middle East, and on OPEC-producing nations when we want to put our faith and our trust and our energy in the innovators and the great thinkers here in America. And how disingenuous that we attempt to define a national energy policy on an issue of cap-and-trade that has been working in this country since the 1990s, on an issue that really is just one small segment of a national energy policy that will mean the difference of us breaking our dependence and creating jobs. This is a turning point, a tipping point for America. Are we going to lead or are we going to block? Are we going to believe or are we going to fear? And are we going to look forward or are we going to look back? Those are the questions that we have to ask with the national energy policy. That's what we can do. Representative Perriello, why don't you finish this up tonight.

Mr. BOCCIERI. Thank you, Mr. Perriello. National security, creating jobs right here in America, moving away from our dependence on foreign oil, that's what this bill is about. Making America again the producers of wealth instead of just the movers of wealth, that's what this bill is about. I'm proud to stand with my colleagues today to talk about our Nation's energy policy and how we move this country down the field. We do these things not because they're easy but because they're hard, as President Kennedy said.

Mr. BOCCIERI

Mr. BOCCIERI. Mr. Speaker, Chairman Oberstar, Chairman Costello, Ranking Members Mica and Petri, thank you for bringing this bill to the floor today. I remember my parents telling me: don't just tell me what you believe; show me what you have done and I will tell you what you believe. By us bringing this bill to the floor today, we can now discount the feelings and thoughts that we just believe that we should have safer skies. We are now doing what should be required to make airline travel as safe as possible. Taken on a whole, Mr. Speaker, airline travel is extremely safe in the United States. However, that is component and functional upon the pilots flying and the training that they receive. In fact, this air crew, by all standards, was a very experienced crew. Yet what we found through NTSB reports and the later testimony by the FAA is that that air crew and this airline did not train their pilots to adequately recover from a stall. Now, we can measure these types of instant recovery patterns and the upset stall recovery that needs to happen based on simulation. This bill will now force pilots and their trainers to make certain that they will not only recognize a stall, but be able to recover from a stall and be adequately trained on the equipment in their airplane. We will increase the number of hours for regional pilots. We will add crew resource management that will help pilots cut down on the chatter while they are flying. Important stall recovery procedures will be implemented through pilot training programs that will allow simulation. We will also end these share agreements, because when you and I buy a ticket, we want to know that we are flying with the air carrier that we sign up and we pay for, and that's going to change in this bill. Not only are we going to allow these regional airlines to cut corners, to shave times and shoot for the minimums, because when we asked this airline why they were not trained to adequately recover from this, they said the FAA did not require them to do this; that will end. We are going to do this now. Don't tell me what you believe. Show me what you have done and I will tell you what you believe.

Mr. BOCCIERI

Mr. BOCCIERI. Madam Speaker, this academic year represents a most momentous occasion for the 16th Congressional District of Ohio. We celebrate the 50th anniversary of the founding of Walsh University. On November 17, 1960, the six founding brothers of Walsh University brought their dream to life when Walsh College enrolled 67 male students united under the mission of creating leaders in public service and educating the working class. Walsh's 50-year history is full of many highlights, but some stand out from the rest. In 1967 Walsh opened its doors to women and officially became coed. In 1981, Walsh established its first graduate program, offering a master of arts in counseling. In 1993, Walsh College became Walsh University, paving the way for further growth and expansion. Under the leadership of President Richard Jusseaume, the university has experienced unprecedented growth not only in enrollment but also in physical growth with the addition of several academic buildings, residence halls and athletic facilities. Today, Walsh University offers more than 50 majors, six graduate programs, a doctorate program in physical therapy, and boasts four campuses throughout northeast Ohio, one just outside of Rome, Italy, and welcomes more than 3,000 students to our great district. We can only imagine what the next 50 years will bring, but I am certain a bright future lies ahead for Walsh University.

Mr. BOCCIERI

Mr. BOCCIERI. 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.

Mr. BOCCIERI. 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.

Mr. BOCCIERI. 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.

Mr. BOCCIERI. 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?

Mr. BOCCIERI. 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.

Mr. BOCCIERI. 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.

Mr. BOCCIERI. 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.

Mr. BOCCIERI. 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. BOCCIERI

Mr. BOCCIERI. 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.

Mr. BOCCIERI. 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.

Mr. BOCCIERI. 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.

Mr. BOCCIERI. 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.

Mr. BOCCIERI. 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.

Mr. BOCCIERI. 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.

Mr. BOCCIERI. Congressman Kratovil, welcome.

Mr. BOCCIERI. 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.

Mr. BOCCIERI. 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.