Steve King

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentlelady from Minnesota. Having seen the Technicolor, modern version of the National Health Care Act that has been delivered to us courtesy, so far, of a committee or two here in the House of Representatives, I went back through the archives and dusted off this scary concept here. Some will look at this and will recognize what this is: This is the 1993-1994 HillaryCare version. This is a copy of the poster that is the precursor to the full color one that Mrs. Bachmann put up. This poster was on my wall in my construction office back in those years, and it actually hung there for years. I hung it there for years as a reminder to me of what they could cook up if you put people in a room and closed the door. Remember, this was a secret process, too. It was driven about the same way. It's a process that they don't want the American people to weigh in on, so they met in secret week after week with all of this intensity and with all of these--Ira Magaziner, do you remember that name? Harold Ickes was another one. These people were meeting in there. They were smart people. They put smart people in a room. I can tell you what happens when you put a whole lot of smart people together and you give them an assignment, Mr. Speaker. Highly intelligent people will always overcomplicate things. The reason they do that is, otherwise, there wouldn't be any particular advantage to being highly intelligent. So you could just go down to the simple solution to the complex problems and let human nature take over, and all would go on just fine. But, no, we put highly intelligent people in place, and these are generally liberal elitists who are working to try to create this utopia here on Earth because they do think that is the ``be all and end all'' for them. It is not for us. So here is the HillaryCare version. I look down through this list, and there are some things that concern me a lot: the Regional Health Alliance, the ombudsman. Why do you need him? You need another ombudsman here. The Accountability Health Plan, that sounds really familiar. I think that might be different lingo there. The HMO provider plan, I don't know that that's in there. HMOs were de rigueur then, but now they have reached a little bit of criticism. Here is one, the global budget. Why do you need a global budget to provide national health care? So of all of these things on this schematic, this schematic, this scary flowchart, is, I think, the biggest thing that sunk HillaryCare back in the '90s because the American people looked at that, and it scared them that anyone could cook up such a schematic. This is the black-and-white version that could be printed back then, which was just shortly after the advent of the Internet. Mrs. Bachmann has the full Technicolor version, and I would appreciate it if the camera would turn there. If the camera would focus on the colored chart, on the bottom are two identical-sized purple circles. The one on the left is the qualified health benefits plan, and the one on the right is the Obama plan, the Obama health insurance plan. The white box to the left of the left purple circle is the existing health insurance, the traditional health insurance plans. None of them could qualify to sell insurance to any American until the health insurance czar qualifies them to go into the purple circle, the qualified health benefits plan circle. The health insurance czar would be the guy who would make sure that the new public health plan that was written could compete with the private plans. So if you're going to write the rules for your guy, are you going to make one size fits all? Are you going to put conditions on those private insurance plans so that the public plan can compete? Or are you going to take the public plan and try to get it to compete with the private sector? I think it's the former, not the latter. I think we will see a one size fits all.

Mr. KING of Iowa. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your indulgence, and I know I've convinced you deeply, and I would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina. In response to this point, I have stood here on this floor for hours and hours over several years listening to many, many Members of the Democrat Party, then the minority in Congress, plead that if they would just get the majority, give them the gavels, that the economy of this country would be brought back on track again. That happened in January of 2007. And it happened prior to any economic decline that anyone can describe on any flow chart that they can bring. So they claimed that they would fix the economy if they could just have the majorities. They won the majorities partly on that claim, and the economy went south, and it really tanked in the anticipation of the President we have today. And it is getting worse. So I don't think that point can be made empirically. I came here to rise in opposition to this rule. I rise in opposition to this rule for a number of reasons. I wanted to support the gentleman from Utah's statement about not having an opportunity, a legitimate opportunity, to make his case before the Rules Committee. And it is clear that that didn't happen. In a 1-hour window, he got an amendment in and filed. That was great staff work. But we have other things to do here other than sit outside the door of the hole in the wall on the third floor. This process has got to change. We need to bring it to the floor where the American people can see what is actually being talked about in almost legislative code here. I also want to point out that this legislation is not legislation that comes here because it is well thought out or needed by the American people. This is driven by HSUS, the Human Society of the United States. They have hundreds of millions of dollars, and they have an agenda. They are seeking to take meat off the plates of the American people and all around the globe. So we just dance to this tune in this Congress because they say so. Nobody came from my district and said, what are we going to do about too many horses? HSUS contributed to this problem by helping to block the harvesting of horses for human consumption. And now we have what will accumulate to be 1 million extra horses in the United States. And barely do they get that over with and they come back to us and say now we need 700 billion American-taxpayer-borrowed dollars to take over more public lands in order to put more horses. This will only continue. Those horses are eating 1 billion gallons of my ethanol every year.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding. I come to the floor to address a subject matter that seems a bit surrealistic. We have a love for horses in this country. Most of us in this Chamber would agree with that, and I am among those. I can think of a lot of happy times around horses, on horses and working with horses. We also have a responsibility to manage the resources of this country. There seems to be a conviction to try to pull this globe-- under the climate change legislation or the cap-and-tax legislation and many other pieces--back to what would have been pre-Garden of Eden before man supposedly desecrated the planet. And the default position, amazingly for me, is what was nature like before man began to compete as a species with the other species on the planet? And so that default position that comes from the environmentalists from consistently out of the political left would be this natural balance of our environment. I have just heard the gentleman state that these horses were native. But they were not native. They are not indigenous. No surviving species of horse was indigenous to this continent nor this hemisphere. They were brought here by the Spanish in the 1500s and beyond. The horses got loose and began to roam the range, and they competed with the existing species that were there. So if, really, our default position is back to whatever it was Mother Nature gave to us before we competed as a species, then we should look at this not as horses as a natural component of the habitat, but an unnatural, feral component of the habitat. When I hear about the discussion about the millions spent on these helicopter cowboys herding these horses around and putting horses into holding pens and buying up hay to feed them, I think of visiting the National Bison Reserve that is out there in, I have forgotten exactly where that was, whether it is in southern Montana or up in Wyoming. I remember going there to visit. And I was fascinated. I drove a long way to get there because I wanted to see what it was like when the buffalo roamed the plain. I have walked into the virgin timberland and stood there and imagined what it was like for the pioneers and the settlers to walk through that forest. I wanted to be out there to see what it was like for the native buffalo. What I saw were paddock-style pastures. In order to manage the bison, the Federal Government has built a great big old pasture and divided it into four quadrants, and there we manage the buffalo by herding them into one corner of the pasture and then another and then another, harvesting some for slaughter. We sell them for breeding stock and we eat them. We do that with buffalo, but we can't do that with horses, because somehow a horse has been raised to another level of species. This is an amazing thing to me. And as I read through this bill, I don't think I have ever been so taken aback by reading through language. There is much of it that has been produced in this Congress. I listened to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) talk about this contraception that is here.

Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman. I think it is important for us to actually read the language on this horse contraception. It says: ``Research, develop, and implement enhanced surgical or immunocontraception sterilization or other safe methods of fertility control.'' Now let that soak in for a little bit. This is enhanced contraception for horses. I don't know what that is. I think it could be about anything that human beings might use. But I suspect that it doesn't include horse abortion for one thing. And so I'm implying that there is a different set of standards for a horse species than there is for a human species, given the debate we have had in this Congress. It is a breathtaking step to think about what enhanced contraception is for horses. It is one of those things that I don't think will be described here on the floor of the House. It is kind of an imaginary thing. It is difficult to manage these horses. And I would say that abstinence will not be part of this; that is also part of the debate. So as I watch what is going on, there has been a real effort here to block the humane harvesting of horses. And the HSUS has been successful in doing that. There are no horses slaughtered in America that are going off for human beings to eat anywhere. Some are being hauled, I think against the law, maybe across the border to be slaughtered elsewhere; but to manage all of our livestock, all of the species in our country, we have to be smart about it. What has happened is they have, through legislation and litigation, blocked the responsible harvesting of horses. It has taken the market of them down from 5 to 600, down to essentially nothing; and the result is we have a lot more horses than we need. And now they have the audacity to come to this Congress and say, we are going to have to hit up the American people for 700 million more dollars in order to take care of these extra animals that we decided now we want to keep around as national pets. I did the math on this. And if you calculate how the increase in the horse population because of the restrictions in the harvesting, never mind the value of what has happened to the property of the horse owners, they will eat up enough hay from enough ground, there will be 1 billion gallons of ethanol we could produce off of that horse pasture.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I appreciate being recognized to address here on the floor of the House of the House of Representatives. This has often been described as the world's greatest deliberative body. And here, in these Chambers, we engage in this debate and this dialogue. But the dialogue that comes to these Chambers is a dialogue that's designed to be filtered through our committee system, through our subcommittees, through our full committee process, whether it be the appropriations subcommittees and committees and on to the floor, or whether it be through our standing committees. And what we've seen happen instead is that this process is under the process of a wrecking ball that's been taken to the traditions of this House. And each day that goes by, it seems that there's another one of those opportunities to expand this deliberative body and, instead, it's diminished by order of the Speaker, by order of the Rules Committee; shut down the process to the point today where we had the gentleman from Oregon brought a privileged resolution to try to be heard on an amendment that would have otherwise been in order under 220 years of tradition of this House, but, instead, it was shut down by the Rules Committee, the committee that serves up here in this little hole in the wall in a room so small that a few Members can come in. Once in a while there's room for their staff. I have never seen press in the room. There is no camera in the room, and there will be no tourists that are allowed to go in there and watch the real debate that takes place, if it takes place at all in this Congress, in the Rules Committee. It's been changed that way in order to avoid the light of day, the press, the C-SPAN cameras and, in fact, even some of the recordkeeping that is a little bit different there than it might be if it were up in front of everybody in front of the television cameras. And it is of great frustration to most Members of this Congress to see what's being done to this debate and deliberative process. So these debates that take place here on the floor, we used to have some good debates, some engaging debates, some times when people actually changed their minds when they heard the other side of the argument. That's what makes this the greatest deliberative body in the world. But now the debate's been reduced to something that takes place behind closed doors, I believe, by order of the Speaker, and amendments are shut down time after time after time. At least a dozen of mine were struck through just in the last couple of days. And I have sat up there waiting my turn to testify in the Rules Committee to the extent where I really want to bring up a laptop and some other kind of book work so I can make my time count. And if you get up and go to get a bite to eat or something to drink, then you might lose your turn altogether. So I have, Madam Speaker, introduced legislation that, if the business of this House is actually going to be conducted by the Rules Committee, then let's move the committee to the floor of the House of Representatives. If you're going to change and usurp the genuine authority of the franchise of all 435 Members of Congress who have a constitutional right and duty to express the will and the wishes of their constituents by amending the process, offering amendments, seeking to improve legislation, if the rules are going to be such that they usurp the authority or the franchise of each Member and put it up behind closed doors--and the doors are closed. And as I sat there waiting my turn, last week, well, it's still this week, I had two of my own staff people waiting out in the hallway. They couldn't even get in to hand me a piece of paperwork. I have to send them an e-mail on my BlackBerry and they'll pass the paperwork in because there wasn't room. The business of the Congress is being conducted either in the Rules Committee, or behind the scenes, behind the Rules Committee, but it's not being conducted on the floor of the House. So when Members are denied amendments that would be in order under the 220 years of the tradition of the House of Representatives, but the ones that are allowed will be a whole series of amendments offered by the gentleman from Arizona to strike a little funding here, to strike a little funding there, most of which I voted for, by the way, Madam Speaker, it gives the image to the public that there's a legitimate debate going on here, but it is not the legitimate debate. And, in fact, if you listen to the debate, there's no exchange of ideas. There's no clash of the contest of competing ideas. There's not an exchange of dialogue. It's rare to have a Democrat yield when asked to yield by a Republican who simply wants to clarify a fact or make a point that would better bring out something in the debate that would be good for the American public to know. This process has devolved down to where it can't be called any longer a deliberative process. And the American people do care about whether their voice is heard in this Congress. And it's not being heard in this Congress. As we've watched things be rushed through, the cap-and-trade bill, which I call the cap-and-tax bill, rammed through here to where a bill was hurried up and rushed, and then, to have an opportunity to amend the bill didn't exist for Members of Congress. It did exist for the manager, apparently, because there was a 316-page amendment that was brought down here and dropped into the record at 3:09 in the morning, to stack that on top of a 1,100-page bill that nobody read. And the most colossal mistake in the history of the House of Representatives was the passage of the cap-and-trade bill. And it was done so with no Member of Congress having read the bill, not one. And no Member of Congress read the amendment, not one. And if they'd read them separately, they couldn't understand the composition of the bill because the 316-page amendment that was dropped on us at 3:09 in the morning was not integrated into the overall bill. It was impossible to do that. You've got to page forward and back and go back into the code and verify the references and rewrite to get this 316-page amendment blended into and integrated into the overall bill. And when the question was asked of the Speaker during the debate, is there a copy of the enrolled bill here in the House, there was no copy, Madam Speaker. There was no bill. We were debating something that didn't exist yet. And we passed something that didn't exist yet. And Members were required to vote on a bill that was 1,400-plus pages in its aggregate form, not having ever had it integrated, but that anybody understood the complete context, within the context, the complete content of the overall bill and the amendment. But Members voted anyway. And even though the Speaker said that she was going to provide for sometimes 72, otherwise 48 hours to be able to fully evaluate the consequences or the merits of the legislation that would come before the floor, that didn't happen. It seldom happens. This place is being run with an iron fist, not with the open kind of a process that was promised when people put their trust in the current majority to run this Congress in a legitimate fashion. It's not legitimate. We can't even put up the front that it's legitimate if we are debating a bill that no one, and I mean no one on the planet, has completely read, and an amendment that no one understands completely how it integrates with the overall bill, and to be able---- We stopped the process here for over a half-hour while we tried to get a copy of the language that was being voted upon. And we never got it done. To the credit of the Clerk, she was actively trying to integrate the amendment into the overall bill, but it could not be done within the time that was available. And even if it had been, it was only symbolic because still, no one would have had a chance to read it. And I'll even take this to this wild outrageous step of we ought to understand the things that we are voting upon. We should be able to get our hands on it. We should have time to read it, deliberate it, consider it, and pass it out to our constituents, and they should have access to it over the Internet, and they should be able to give us input on how it affects their lives. We can't bring the wisdom of Solomon with us, everyone in here, and instantaneously make a decision and a snap judgment on something there's no opportunity to read. And it was an embarrassment, I know, for the majority to be debating a huge bill, a colossal bill, a cap-and-trade bill, and not even having one single, not even a symbolic version for somebody to point to and say, This stack of paper is what is going to save the planet--I think, is the position that the Speaker took. And so the question was asked by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), Madam Speaker, can we message this bill over to--if this passes, this bill that was before us, if it passes the House, if we don't have a bill, can we still message it over to the Senate? Or do we just tell them we sent you over a bill that we passed but it's not ready for anybody to review. It's not been reviewed yet. That's the fact of what we were dealing with when the cap-and-tax bill was passed. And now it's messaged to the Senate. Presumably, somebody's put it all in its proper form. But I'm confident that not one Member of this House of Representatives has yet read that bill because now it doesn't pay. They can't shut themselves up and invest the time in reading the cap-and-tax bill because it's already passed the House, nobody having read it and no version of it in its complete form being available to any Member; messaged over to the Senate. I don't know if it was the stack of the bill and then plus the 316 pages in an amendment separately, or if it got messaged over there integrated in a fashion that they could say that they received a complete bill in the Senate. We don't know. And it doesn't really matter to the House Members because we now have another bill that's coming at us so fast and so hard that hardly anyone has a chance to read it, although I do know a couple of Members that have burned a lot of midnight oil and tried to get through it. They have to break it apart and assign it to their staff and read the parts they can as fast as they can, and others will read it and write their little memos on it. That's this health care bill. Oh, my. You should see what we have here now that's been cooked up by the staff. This work was done urgently and, I think, effectively off of the components of the bill that were available, and I think this might actually be representative of what we have today. This is the flowchart, Madam Speaker. This is the schematic of what is created by this idea of a public plan for health insurance and to provide health care for the people in America. I have to point out that these white boxes on this schematic flowchart--in places like Australia, they would not call it a ``flowchart.'' They would call it a ``scheme.'' I'll stop a little short of that one; but the white ones are the existing agencies and programs that are there, and the colored ones are the new ones. So you'll see a number here that's, maybe, oh, about an equal number of new agencies matching up with the equal number of existing agencies. As you read down through this, there are all kinds of components to this that ought to scare any freedom-loving person, but the one I'd direct your attention to, Madam Speaker, is down here at the bottom, these two circles that are in purple in the blue background. Now, the left-hand circle is this: It takes the traditional health insurance plans--the white that's existing--and now they'll have to qualify, and they'll have to qualify so that they'll meet the Obama standard for new health insurance companies. So, if you're an American citizen with a health insurance plan that you like and if you want to keep what you have for a little while, you can keep what you have, but the insurance company will have to comply with the new standards that will be written by the existing or future health insurance czar. Surely, we have one or will have one. We have 32 czars. We couldn't have nationalized health care without a health insurance czar. So that czar will be writing the rules--it's not in the bill--on what it takes for the traditional health insurance plans to qualify to become the qualified health benefits plans. That's the private side. That's your health insurance if you're an American citizen--a person who has a plan that's not either Medicaid or Medicare. They have to qualify. It changes every one of them, potentially meeting a new standard that would be set by the health insurance czar. The health insurance companies, the ones that survive, will be fewer than the 1,300 we have today, the 1,300 competing against each other, the insurance companies that are providing different models to try to get the investment dollar in there, the premium dollar, from the people of whom 70 percent are happy with the health insurance plans that they have. We won't have 1,300 when they're done complying with the White House health insurance czar standards. We'll have less. I don't know how many less, and nobody knows, because we don't know what the standards will be; but these private companies then will have to compete with the newly created, if this bill passes, public health plan. The public health plan will be the Federal health insurance plan that is there to compete against the private plans. Now, why would they want to do that? Why would they create a whole plan for the government to run with taxpayers on the hook if they've got 1,300 health insurance companies today that are more than happy to get out there and to continue to compete in the marketplace? What would be the merits? Well, the only ones that I can determine are--if you really wanted to establish a national health care plan that didn't have competition, if you wanted everybody on a single-payer plan, if you wanted to have nationalized health care, if you wanted socialized medicine, you can't do that without first creating some kind of a public health model, and that is what this new public health insurance model would be. Over time, it would, I believe, compete and would push out of the marketplace every one of these health insurance programs that we know today because the government would subsidize. I'll give you an example of how this works. Since we don't have insight into this in the United States on Federal competition against the private sector with regard to health insurance, here is a model: Flood insurance, the flood insurance that we used to have that was property and casualty insurance for people who were living in flood plains or for people who were afraid that they'd be flooded. They would buy their insurance in years back and would pay the premiums. If they got flooded, the flood insurance companies would come to their places and they'd take a look at the damage. They'd write them checks and they'd settle it out. That's how it works in the insurance industry in a lot of different ways. In the property and casualty at least it does. The Federal Government decided that there wasn't enough competition in the flood insurance business, so they set up Federal flood insurance years back to compete against the private-sector flood insurance plans that were there. Actually, yesterday I checked into this, and I was not able to discover a single company in America that is selling flood insurance in competition against the Federal Government. The Federal Government has established a monopoly now in flood insurance. Now, two things can happen if you have a monopoly. You can price it way out of the marketplace, and if you have a captive market, you can do that, or if you have a marketplace that you're trying to market to in your government, then you can undersell your costs by lowering the premiums below the actual costs, which is what the Federal Government has done. So, today, the Federal flood insurance program, the only existing flood insurance program in the United States of America, is the flood insurance program that's $18 billion in the red. That's $18 billion in the red because it's government. We should not be surprised at this. The government came into the marketplace subsidized by tax dollars, and it lowered the premiums for flood insurance, but by lowering the premiums, they took the private sector competition out of the marketplace. They went off to do other property and casualty. They cleaned the field out and became the monopoly holder of all of the flood insurance of America. Yet they still couldn't set the premiums at the risk. They set the premiums at, apparently, what their bureaucrats thought they should be at, and they're $18 billion in the red. Now, imagine what that would be like if it were the post office and if everybody had to go and buy a stamp. We are critical of the post office when they can't hold their balance sheet in the black, and they are marginally in the red today. That's the government program flood insurance, running in the red at $18 billion, and that, Madam Speaker, I predict, is what will happen with our health insurance in America. So, when President Obama says, If you like your health insurance, don't worry; you can keep it. You can't keep it if it doesn't exist. How could anybody have kept their flood insurance if there are no companies selling flood insurance except the Federal Government's flood plan? What if the health insurance czar writes the specifications for these companies to qualify at such a standard that they can't compete with the public plan? Why would the health insurance czar not write those regulations so that they would be at an advantage to the newly emerging public health plan? After all, they have to find a way to compete in a marketplace that is competitive. So the model is there. If people think that I just pulled off the shelf a model that happens to make my case, I would make the point of: show me a model where government has gone in and has taken over where they didn't squeeze out the private sector. Should we talk about crop insurance, for example? That would be another model. How about student loans for another model? Students loans used to be private. Then the government got into the business, and now they've taken the student loan program down to where only about 25 percent of the student loans are private and the rest of them are government-brokered student loans. We have now the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee and many others who simply want to eliminate any student loans except what are government student loans. When government steps into the private sector, a number of things happen: The quality of the service goes down. The cost of the service goes up because you get inefficiencies that come in with government that would be automatically erased by the competition from the private sector. Then you either get rationing or you get rates that go up or you get taxes that are increased. In the case of flood insurance, it is that taxes have increased to pick up the $18 billion shortfall that is there. So we know the pattern. We know the drill. We should know what this is. We've been through this before, Madam Speaker. To make the point that we've been through this before, here is my ``deja vu all over again'' chart. The ``deja vu all over again'' chart is the schematic, the flowchart--as the Aussies would say, it's the scheme--from back in 1993. This is HillaryCare. I remember this coming out during that period of time. I have a chart that must exist in my archives, a chart that hung on the wall in my construction office during those years. I would stand and look at that and study it when I would be on the phone while I would be pacing back and forth. I would walk by and look at this chart of HillaryCare. I would look at all of these created agencies and at the interconnectivity of them. It was something that chilled me and that galvanized me. It was one of the significant stepping stones along the way for me to go from the private sector of 28 years in the construction business into the legislative arena because I was so appalled by what I saw them doing to create more government that would be oppressive to the freedoms that I so love and enjoy. This is about freedom. This is about whether we are going to keep and maintain our freedom and expand our freedom or whether we're going to trade that off for a dependency and accept the dependency that comes from a government plan that has a bunch of, I want to say, elitist, liberal-thinking people who think that the American people can't make their own decisions, so they have to make the decisions for us. It's the same kind of thinking that would take the deliberation of the House of Representatives up in the hole in the wall in the House Rules Committee and let the Rules Committee take the orders from the Speaker's office and not allow it to come down here to be heard in the light of day. They think they know. They think they're smarter than you. They think they can draft a proposal that is a utopian model of health care for the United States of America, and they will tell you they can save money. They don't actually tell you that you're going to get better service, because this is the best health care system in the world. We don't wait in line. We don't have to take a number. We don't get hurt and lay around waiting for somebody to come along and take care of us. We don't stand in line. Americans should not stand in line. I can think of the times I've had to do that, and it grates on me. I don't like standing in line at TSA to get on a plane. I remember who brought that about. That's the terrorists. We ought to always blame them. I don't like to stand in line with my credit card in order to pay a bill, and the retailers know that. They don't allow lines out there, because you won't make the purchase. You don't want to stand in line either. We will stand in a line sometimes for a concert or for a ball game when we're trying to cram 50,000 or 100,000 people through those gates in a short period of time for a definitive time when something starts. That's about the only time that Americans stand in line. Canadians, the British, the Europeans, they stand in line for health care. It's appalling the standing in line that they do. Russians stand in line as a matter of course. It's part of their culture. It's the living that they make, apparently. I think they wander around Moscow looking for another line to stand in. They've been so conditioned to stand in lines. They hunch their shoulders, look down, wander around, look up once in a while, find a line, go get in it, and then find out what the reason is. Americans don't do that. We have freedom. We are a freedom-loving people, and it's our free markets and our free enterprise and the entrepreneurial nature of this and the innovativeness of it. It's also the property rights and the patents and the trademarks that we have that make this country go, and we are the economic growth engine for the world. Here is an example of the Canadian model--and they're our neighbors, and we love them, and we get along great with them, but the Canadian model would be this, and this came out from Senator Mitch McConnell from the Senate side: The average wait time for someone who needs a knee replacement in Canada--a knee replacement--is 340 days. Can you imagine? Finally, your knee wears out, and you're using a cane or you're on a crutch or you're in a wheelchair or you're sitting around the living room or you're not going back to work. You go to the doctor, and he takes a look at your knee and schedules you for a knee replacement. He looks on the calendar and turns the pages--1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 months, 11 months. He turns the page 11 times on the calendar to find the date that he can write your name in. You have to go 340 days to get your knee replacement in Canada. Yet we would just leap into the abyss of socialized medicine because the President's idea is that the government can do it better than the private sector can? We just have to learn how to do it better than the Canadians, the British or the Europeans? How about the average time for a hip replacement in Canada? According to Mitch McConnell, the average time is 196 days for a hip replacement. So your hip socket wears out. Now, that's a little tough to do that always with the cane, although it happens. You're on a crutch or two crutches or you're on a cane or you're in a wheelchair gimping around for 196 days. You know, I don't know if you call that ``elective surgery.'' I don't think it is. I think, at some point, for the quality of your life and for your productivity, the necessity is to get the surgery done. That's rationed health care. I don't know the numbers of how many people died of something else while they were waiting to get their knee joints replaced or their hips or how many of their lives were altered because of it or how much was diminished of the quality of their lives, of the people who had to wait in those lines. That's just joint replacement. I had a meeting last night with a doctor who does orthopedic surgery in Canada and in the United States. He goes back and forth across the border and does that work. He told of the case of a patient who had come in who had torn up his knee. He said a torn meniscus, and I believe he said an ACL, an anterior cruciate ligament, those two things. It was a knee wreck--swollen and badly painful. He was up there, and he did the examination, and he said, Fine. We'll get you into surgery right away, and we can fix you. We'll patch up that ligament, and we'll patch up the torn meniscus, and we'll fix you. In America, that surgery would happen, oh, the next day. They might elect to allow the swelling to go down--that could happen--but it could happen also that the surgery could be the same day or the next day if the surgeon decided that was the best thing for the patient. And that would be the criterion, by the way. But in Canada, he did everything he could to schedule him with the proper surgeon, and this man had to wait 6 months to be further examined before they could evaluate whether they would schedule him to repair his knee. So they put him in a brace, sent him out of there on crutches, and 6 months later he showed up at the specialist who examined him and scheduled him for surgery 6 months later. A torn knee, a year wait, almost a year to the day from the date of the injury to the date of the surgery. And then, of course, he has the rehab time on that before he's back and limbered up before he can go back to work. This individual wasn't productive for more than a year, lost more than a year's wages. Why? Why would we waste this human collateral that we are? The most precious resource that we have in this country is our people. And we need to become the most productive people on the planet. One of the jobs that we do here in the House of Representatives--we should be doing here--it would be enhancing the overall average productivity of all of our people in this country. And if we do that, we'll also increase the quality of life for everyone in this country. When we diminish it by disrespect for life, whether it's the unborn, whether it's someone who was injured that would be allowed to lay off over on the sofa or sit in the living room chair and not be going to work when they could be fixed in a short period of time and back into it again, that's what happens in countries that have socialized medicine, national health care, a Federal public payer plan which has been devised in those countries that I mentioned, but not in the United States, in part because the American people from 15 or 16 years ago saw this schematic and they were as appalled and animated by it as I was. And they got on the phone. They called their Congressman; they called their Senator. And they came to Washington, and they jammed the offices full of people. And they went to the offices of the Members around the country. They wrote letters to the editor and letters to their Members of Congress. And they got on the radio programs that existed at the time-- and some of them did--and the American people had a dialogue about how they wanted their health care to look and what they wanted to maintain. And they completely rejected this model, this old model from the early 1990s, this alarming model of creating all of this growth in government that nobody can completely understand, maybe Hillary understood what she wanted to do. And look at this: the government agencies and programs interact. Some of these I recognize, Department of Labor. I don't know what PWBA is or NGFSHP, NQMP. I think I knew at the time. But all of these government agencies created or interacted--look at this. The global budget. This is part of the HillaryCare plan. And I will submit this scary HillaryCare plan is not as scary as the 3-D technicolor modern plan, the ObamaCare plan, that has emerged in this Congress that has the idea that it's going to squeeze out the private health insurance in America. How about the Bureau of Health Information? They will aggregate your health information. The Health Choices Administration, HCA. Health Choices Administration Commissioner. We know what's happened. America has run out of patience with czars so we're not going to see very many more czars, I don't believe. I mean, 32 may be like our threshold, the political threshold of the number of czars that we can have in America. So we start naming them ``commissioners'' instead. Commissioners aren't as alarming as czars. Commissioners weren't the precursors to Marxism in the Soviet Union. So we're not as alarmed when we call them ``commissioners.'' So we have the Health Choices Administration Commissioner. Health choices. What does that mean? That means if the doctor doesn't make the choice that's consistent with the directive of the Health Choices Commissioner, they are going to find the doctor. And we don't know what that amount is yet, but it will be hefty. And if the doctor then doesn't comply a second time--not defies necessarily--but just doesn't comply with the Health Choices Administration Commissioner, the second time the bill provides that he face jail time. Now, are we going to lock up doctors because they keep their Hippocratic Oath and they do no harm and they order the kind of services that protect people? Are we going to ration health care? Are we going to let the government set this entire standard for the entire United States of America? And why would we do that when we realize that in Canada there are whole companies that have sprouted up in Canada. Just think of them as travel agencies that merged with health care services. And they realized that the Canadians--there is a law in Canada that prohibits a person from jumping to the head of the line when it comes to health care services. So if you have a bad knee, you're going to wait 340 days. It's against the law to move ahead in the line, jump ahead in the line. Nobody wants to be in a line that's getting longer while you are standing in the back of it. If you hurt your hip, a 196-day wait. But there are people in Canada that can't wait. They can't wait for a hip. They can't wait for a knee and certainly not for heart surgery, and many do. So some of the companies, Canada, have a policy that's set up as part of their employment policy. And when they recruit some of their employees, the package will be, Here is your salary package, here's your retirement plan. And by the way, we have this plan for you. If you need heart surgery, we'll package this thing up and we'll fly you down to Houston for heart surgery or Ann Arbor or maybe Rochester, Minnesota, at the Mayo Clinic. This happens on a regular basis. The travel agencies that merged with the health care-providing agencies provide the turnkey operation. Let's say you need heart surgery in Houston. Companies will set this up for the individual that can't wait in line, can't live for the line to get short enough that he can get the treatment, so they package this up and it will be, Here's your round trip plane ticket from Toronto to Houston. Here's a hotel you will go to, here's your transportation on the shuttle bus from the airport to the hotel. And the clinic is next door. You'll go over for the examination at X time on this morning. If all of these things hold up and they are comparable, then you'll go forward with the surgery at such and such a time at this location. Here's what it will cost for all of the items: the surgeon, the anesthetic, the operating room, the list of all of the incidentals that go into this. They package it all up, you write one check, and American health care saves your life. So does the entrepreneurial nature that sets up those businesses in Canada to access American health care. But what a cruel thing to do to the Canadians to adopt their plan or a plan similar to them. ObamaCare health care, where then do the Canadians go when they need health care that's urgent, that's life saving, or turns them back into productive citizens again? They've got their relief valve of the United States today. This scary, multi-color, technicolor--we'll turn this into 3-D I hope one day--model says to the Canadians it could be the end of their options. They could say to the American people that it's a whole series of different things that we've never had to think of before Why would we give up our freedom? Why would we give up our freedom when 70 percent of us like the health care systems that we have and the health insurance plans that we have? And the argument that comes from the Democrats consistently is there are 44 or 47, or they will often say almost 50, million people that are uninsured in America. Well, I guess if there is a plan for Canadians and they don't have to sign up for it, just show up at the emergency room, if they're not signed up, they're uninsured, too. If you've got a program that takes everybody, whether they're signed up or whether they're not--I wonder how many people are actually signed up in Canada--but if the number is let's just say 44, maybe on the outside 47 million, I can take you this way, Madam Speaker, and that is that out of those 44 or so million people, you've got to subtract from that the illegals that are here in America. I don't think anybody seriously wants to provide a health insurance program for people that jump the border illegally and sneak into the United States and that are working here illegally and violating our laws. I don't think we want to fund that. I don't think we want to give them the Cadillac of what would be left of our health care program. So I would subtract those out of that list. We can debate what the size of that number is. Some say 11 million. I've been here now--this is halfway through my seventh year. We've been saying 11 or 12 million illegals in America since I arrived here in this Congress. I have gone on down on the border and watched them pour across the border at night, participated in catching a few of them, including a significant supply of illegal drugs that come with them. The number of border crossings that we have had on average since we've been here, the illegal border crossings where we catch them average more than a million a year since I have been in this Congress. So we've caught over 6 million, probably closer to 7 million who were trying to cross the border and get into the United States. The Border Patrol, when you ask them what percentage do you catch, some will say 25 percent. That's actually the official line in the testimony before hearings, from the Border Patrol themselves, but when I ask them that question, they will laugh at me. They will say, Oh, no. Not that many. Perhaps 10 percent. Well, I'll take the 25 percent number and multiply that times the 7 million illegal crossings that we've caught and just say that's three times that number that have actually gotten into the United States successfully if we're intercepting only one out of four. You've got four, three get across, one we caught. He goes back. That's how that works. And I guess it's three times the number. Three times 7 million is 21 million. That's 21 million that came in. Some died. Some went back. But that's one way to measure how many illegals have come into the country as soon as I have been in Congress. And if you add that number to the roughly 12 million number, now we're up in the 30-some million category. And it's easy, Madam Speaker, to understand why I think the numbers of illegals in this country are probably greater than 20 million. And we know that the numbers of those working in this country is a number that's over 7 million working in this country at least, and that is a Federal data point number. But if we cut the illegals out of that list of 44 million of the uninsured, and then if we subtract from that number those that are just in transition between one health insurance plan to another, then we get down to a number that's a little more understandable. And it's a number that comes from two Penn State professors who did a study some years ago. And if I remember correctly, their number was that there was about 10.1 million Americans that are part of the chronically uninsured. Now, we should be addressing not the illegals, not those in transition between their health care plans because they're going to find another one and they're going to likely stay on that one. There is always that happening while people are looking for the best plan. But if we really have something to fix, we should be fixing the chronically uninsured, that 10.1 million. And I think I took that and divided it by the population and rounded it up to the nearest percentage point. Take 10.1 million, divide it by 300 million and you end up with a number that's a little over 3\1/2\ percent. So let's give the benefit of the doubt to the liberal utopian people who draw up these schematics that we're trying to fix something like 4 percent of the problem. Four percent of the population is chronically uninsured, and we would tear apart the entire system to try to fix this 4 percent. And what percentage of the 4 percent will be fixed? Well, according to one of the estimates on how the result of those that would be recruited by this plan would work out, this plan pushes tens of millions off of their own private insurance plan. Puts them on the government plan. And in the end, the result would be such that they ended up--by one measure, 97 percent of America would be insured. But I don't think that includes that--I don't know how they address the illegals. Well, we have now 96 percent. By the time you take out the chronically uninsured and the illegals, 96 percent of America is now insured. Now, I don't want to argue that of the chronically uninsured, this plan would only get 25 percent of them enrolled. It may not be. But if you want to look for a measure on what's likely to happen, one need go no further than the Medicaid rolls in America. There it is, if you qualify. Sign up for Medicaid. It's a free program. You don't have any responsibilities except to sign up, and you will be covered if you meet the standards of the lower income that's necessary. But of those that are eligible for Medicaid in America, just slightly over 50 percent of them are actually enrolled. So why would we think that we could enroll the part of that 4 percent of the chronically uninsured; why would we think we could get a higher percentage of them to enroll in a government plan, or furthermore, if they're no more responsible than that, why would we want to? What is the upside? Aren't there other solutions and better solutions? And the answer to that question of course is yes and yes. There are many better solutions than what's being proposed in this particular outrageous and scary schematic. We should do many things. We should expand our health savings accounts. One of the best things we did with health care in this Congress in this last decade is to pass health savings accounts, and if a young couple in that year, say at 20 years of age, had invested the maximum amount in their health savings account that year and done so each year--first year was $5,150 and it's indexed for inflation, moving on up. I don't know the number today any longer; I've lost track. But I did do the math on this and build a spreadsheet to do the calculation. If that couple at age 20 invested the max in their health savings account and did so each year until they reached Medicare eligibility and spent $2,000 of real dollars out of that account in legitimate health care costs for each year, and you accrued that at about a 4 percent rate, which was legitimate at the time I did the math--and it will be legitimate--again, that couple arrived at retirement age with more than $950,000 in their health savings account. Now, why wouldn't we as a Nation take a look at that, utilize that, and give them a reward for their responsibility and see if we can find a way to make a deal with them that will get them off of the entitlement roll and because they have the assets to take care of themselves? And I would argue this, Madam Speaker. I would say to that couple, take your $950,000 and buy a paid up Medicare replacement policy and keep the change tax free. Right now, the intent of this Congress is to tax those health savings accounts when either they are spent or when the people that own them die. They want to tax that. I say, if they will take themselves off of the Medicare entitlement rolls, I want them to have the balance of that tax free. We can work out some formulas where we can actually help them buy that out, but today, let's just say if a couple, similar couple, arrived at age 65 today and they wanted to do an altruistic thing and not be part of the Medicare entitlement, they could buy a Medicare replacement policy for right at $72,000 per patient. So, say, a husband and a wife, for $144,000, could buy a replacement policy. That would be the cost, I should say. I don't know if you can actually buy the policy these days because government has monopolized health insurance for people past the age of 65, but that's the risk, that's the average risk for the health care costs. From 65 until natural death, it would be $72,000 per individual. So it's reasonable to think that we could set up a Medicare replacement policy that people could buy and let them cash the difference tax free. That would be a great incentive for a lifetime. It's one of the things we can do. Another thing that we need to do is increase the amount that can be deposited into the health savings account; in addition, medical malpractice. You can look through all of these schematics, this Technicolor schematic of the modern day ObamaCare version or one can look through this black and white older version of the HillaryCare health care schematic, and you can't find anything in here about the reform of the unnecessary, punitive malpractice litigation that's taking place all across this country. We all know about the lady that spilled a cup of coffee from McDonald's in her lap, and she was awarded in the initial decision--I forget the number now--$3 or $7 million or whatever outrageous number that was, and I know it went back under appeal, and it lowered the number down, but it surely intimidates people. A case here in town, it wasn't medical, but it was a judge that sued a cleaners and took one or two of their stores out of business because they lost his pants. And we see businesses out because of litigation that's brought about in that fashion. How many tests are done in America because the doctor is paying a very high malpractice premium? In order to protect himself from a suit, he has to run a bunch of extra tests because that's what you do in the industry to protect yourself from the lawyers. First, take the oath to do no harm, go out to serve people in a profession that has great honor, and have it be framed by fear of litigation instead of doing the right thing. That's the medical version of a good Samaritan watching someone get run over on the street and not going to help them--well, a formerly likely good Samaritan that's afraid they will get sued because they will reach outside of their profession in an effort to help somebody and they get sued. And doctors run tests every day by the thousands to protect themselves from litigation. And yet, nothing in the old schematic and nothing in the new Technicolor schematic addresses the medical malpractice insurance. Now, we addressed it in the Judiciary Committee a few years ago, and we put a cap on noneconomic damages of $250,000. That is what they have in California. Not a lot of good things happen legislatively in California, but that's one that did. Proposition 209 was another, just to toss an aside into this dialogue. But we capped it at $250,000 noneconomic damages and let people be made whole. If they were injured by malpractice, they would get the cost of their medical care. They would get real economic loss of income. They would even get a little pain and suffering, but the punitive damages, the things we consider to be punitive damages that were defined in the bill as noneconomic damages, would not be awarded beyond $250,000. Why would you pay a lady millions of dollars for spilling a hot cup of coffee in her own lap in order to send a message that McDonald's shouldn't serve hot coffee? How many things in this life do we no longer have access to because a trial lawyer's figured out a way to make a living and then the other lawyer's figured out a way to write the rule so that we could avoid that kind of litigation? How many of us have climbed into a vehicle and gone down the road and decided, I want to program my navigator, and found that your navigator doesn't work while you're moving because some lawyer decided you might get in a wreck for programming your navigator, and then sued the manufacturer for being distracted from your driving? Why is it their fault if you don't have responsibility? But instead, they put the failsafe in so you have to pull off on the side of the road, and a lot of it, they defeat the intent of having that kind of a device. That's what goes on with health insurance as well. That's what goes on with health care providers. A very high cost in health care in America is because of unnecessary tests that are being run in order to avoid litigation. So maybe if we had all doctors that were paid by the government, then they would have the sovereign immunity that would come from being Federal employees so they wouldn't be sued. Now, that might be a way where Obama might save some money on health care. I don't want to go there, but it might be the only thing that actually might be legitimate as far as saving money, and then they will argue that they will reduce some of these costs down by providing efficiencies through technology. I will support that. Let's have better records. Let's have those records be easily and quickly available to qualified people so if you live in Kansas City and you end up in the hospital in San Francisco, they can do a quick bar code off of your driver's license, for example, and access your health care records so they know what you're on for prescription drugs; they know what kind of treatments that you had. You may not be conscious and there may be no one with you. Even if they are, they may not know what you're taking for medication. Let's do that technology. Do we have to do this in order to utilize more modern technology? We are moving in that direction with the technology anyway. I suppose the health care czar will tell us just what technology we can use and set some mandatory parameters on how we get there. I am nervous about that. So there are some efficiencies. There are wellness plans that can be incorporated into health insurance programs that are incentives, and if we have those incentives there, people will do the right thing. If you lower my health insurance premium, I'll lose a few pounds and I'll exercise a little more and I'll go in for a checkup a little more, and they will diagnose the problems earlier, and we'll live longer and healthier as a people. That's the free market. That's not a one-size- fits-all socialized medicine plan. These are the things that we should be looking at to improve our health care systems here in the United States, but going down this path, going down this path of creating the huge bureaucracy, the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, imagine what that is; the Public Health Investment Fund, oh, how they manage your dollars while it's in there. What else do we have? We have the mandate by insurance that goes down to the consumers, the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund, the Clinical Preventative Services Task Force. So that's going to be preventative services. Another thing that happens when you have socialized medicine--I will tell this in a narrative the way I heard it. When this plan went in in Canada, at that time I had a good number of business relationships with friends in Canada, and they gave me the unfolding narrative. One of them--his name was Peter actually--said to me, here's what's going on. They passed a national health care plan in Canada, the socialized medicine plan, and they said you need to be responsible and go to the clinic for your checkups and don't overload the emergency rooms and treat your health care in a responsible fashion and only go when you're sick, don't go when you don't need to except for your regular checkups, be a responsible consumer. That's how it was sold. And by the way, they did the actuarial projections on the cost by expecting Canadians to be responsible consumers. And he said, so, the first year of the national health care plan in Canada worked like this. People were respectful. They did go to the clinic. They didn't crowd the emergency rooms, and it went along pretty good for the first year. And by the second year, the third year and the fourth year, people weren't willing to take time off from work to go to the clinic when it was convenient for the doctor. So, on the weekends and at nights when they did have time in their schedule, they just went to the emergency room and abused the privilege. And so Peter explained it to me this way. He said, it was just like a company that for the first time was having a Christmas party and they invited all the employees in to have a dinner and a few drinks and to celebrate Christmas together. And everybody comes and they have one or two drinks and they tell good stories about the boss and pat him on the back, and everybody was just nice and full of love and responsibility and grateful that they'd had a Christmas party that they could celebrate together as a working family, or a family of workers to be more correct. But he said by the second or third and the fourth year of the socialized medicine plan in Canada, it was like the second, third or fourth year of the company Christmas party. They abused the privilege. They drank too much. They told nasty stories about their boss. And they expected their Christmas party and the bonuses to be an entitlement rather than a bonus. And so that was the attitude that he described of the Canadians: jamming the emergency rooms when they went at the times that was convenient for them, not going to the clinics, not being responsible, and that they had abused the privilege. And the costs went up and the service went down and the lines got long and people died in line. That's the tragedy. That's the tragedy of socialized medicine. I met a man a few months ago in a home improvement center, and he was an immigrant from Germany. And he told me about his hip surgery. It wasn't a sad story. It was matter of fact the way he delivered it. He had to wait about 6 months to get a hip replaced as a German, but he wanted it done badly because it was painful and it limited his options on how he could move around and what he could do. And so he had to travel from Germany down to Italy where the line was shorter, and he was operated on in fewer days than if he had been waiting in line in Germany. And I listened to that story, and I thought, what would it be like to have to go to another country to get your health care because the lines are shorter? What would it be like to get your health care because there's a line? We're Americans. We don't stand in line. We have freedom. We have fought for that freedom. We have worked for that freedom. We've paid for that freedom. We don't stand in line. We don't make ourselves dependent upon bureaucrats to make decisions on what's better for all of our lives. We go out and make our lives better. That's what we are. That's who we are. And this color-coded schematic threatens our freedom. It threatens your freedom. It diminishes the spirit and the character of the American people and turns us into dependents. It takes the safety net that we have today and it cranks it up a few notches and turns it into a hammock. And we take less responsibility, and the psychology of who we are as a people are diminished. What about that American spirit, that can-do spirit? That idea that we can do anything? The idea that we can go to the Moon, if we decide we can go to the Moon. What about what happened when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor? We took on a national mission and a two-front global war and put 16 million men and women into uniform and came out of the other side a global power and the only surviving industrial power in the world. We set the pace with our economy, with our politics, with our culture, with our faith and our values, and an inspiration for the world. The rest of the world looks up to us. They do see what's been accomplished here. And we have taken the talent of every culture in the world and rolled it together in this great melting pot and come out of it with something that is a unique vitality, a unique vitality that doesn't exist in any other people in the world, in part, because we've skimmed the cream of the crop off of every Nation in the world. The people that came here, came here because they wanted to have a chance at the American Dream. They wanted to have an opportunity to become an American and an opportunity to be independent economically and carve out and pull themselves up by their bootstraps and provide for their own family and sit down at the supper table at night and be proud of what they have accomplished for their day, for their week, for their month, for their life. And we should be proud of what's been accomplished in this country by the lives of all of those that have gone before us. This is not worthy of their effort and sacrifice. This isn't worthy of a proud and independent people that should be reaching for more freedom instead of giving it up in exchange for dependency. This is dependency. It goes the wrong way. It takes us to the left. It takes us to a dependency. It takes us to a myopic image of a utopian version where they have always thought--and let's just say in that part of Western Europe your utopian thinkers have emerged. They have always drawn these kind of schematics to come up with a better way to be able to find this utopia on Earth. They completely and diametrically are opposed to the philosophies of Adam Smith and the philosophies that emerge in the Old and in the New Testament. The independence that we have to have, the personal responsibility that we have to have, the moral standards of the core of who we are as a people, diminished by this color-coded schematic. And I pray, Madam Speaker, that the independence of the American people, the spirit that's within us, the inspirational responsibility that we have for the world, will cause us to rise up and reject this model, this model that's not for Americans. It's not an American thought process to always be taking responsibility away from people and diminishing their freedoms in the process. We need to be about expanding freedom, not diminishing freedom. And when we do that, our spirit rises up to the top. Our energy and our work ethic rises to the top. And we are stronger economically. We're stronger as family. We're stronger as faith. We're stronger as a culture and as a people, and we need to do that to set the inspiration for the rest of the world. Somebody's got to lead. This is our time, and I challenge the people in this Congress and this country to do the right thing by this policy. With that, Madam Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I come to the floor and I rise in opposition to this bill. I do so for a number of reasons, but the reason I take this opportunity to express that is, the longstanding policy that blocked the compulsion that was delivered to American taxpayers to fund abortions through the District of Columbia has been dropped from this bill, and it was refused to be allowed as an amendment here to the floor. So the constituents of America will not know how their Member would vote and where their Member stands on compelling public funds to be used for abortions in the District of Columbia. We've gone through this debate here before. This debate has gone on back and forth, but it was established back in the early nineties. The process of funding public abortions in D.C. were established in the early nineties, and that was rolled back, and still the District of Columbia violated Federal law for 2 years and continued to fund abortions. Now, here's the image that I have in my mind. Two of them. One of them is to compel anyone who has a moral objection to funding abortions is wrong. The second thing is the memory of the vote on the Mexico City Policy. When we lost that as a pro-life coalition here in Congress, I saw people over on that side of the aisle jumping up and down, hugging, clapping, and cheering. And why? Because we were going to compel taxpayers to fund abortions in foreign lands. How could anyone be that delighted about such a policy? But I think it was because those who were cheering and clapping and hugging believe they had landed a blow against the convictions of the people who they could just consider be wearing a different jersey on the other side of the aisle. It is bigger than this, it's deeper than this. This is life. This is unborn, innocent human life that doesn't have a voice here on this floor. If we could hear their scream for mercy, we would at least hear the Tiahrt amendment and have a real debate here on the floor, as we would have had in any of the two previous centuries this United States Congress has operated under open rules. I oppose the bill and I advocate for open rules.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman, the doctor from Louisiana, for organizing this Special Order this evening, and I thank my colleagues who have come to the floor to stand up for life and to make this argument, Mr. Speaker, before the American people tonight here on the floor of the House of Representatives. I think, first and foremost, Dr. Fleming made the point of this profound question, of this question about: When does life begin? It's a question that I will not hear answered from over here on this side of the aisle where we find so many people who are promoting the idea of compelling all Americans, including pro-life Americans, to fund abortions in this country under all circumstances and also in foreign lands. Many of those votes have gone up on this floor. I'll lay out how I deal with this from time to time when I've gone into a school auditorium to visit with students and when I've had the principal hand me the cordless microphone and say, They're yours for 50 minutes or for whatever time there might be. In that conversation, I'll ask them to ask themselves two questions. I'll say, You're young people, and you're establishing your principles and your values for life, and these are profound questions that you'll be asked. So the first question I'll ask is: Is all human life sacred in all of its forms? Do you believe in the sanctity of human life? They'll look at each other a little bit. Some will understand it instantly, and some of them won't understand it at all, and for others, it will soak in a little bit. Then I explain it: Is your life sacred? Is the life of the person next to you sacred? Are the lives of your families, of your brothers, of your sisters, of your parents, of your aunts and your uncles, of the people in your classes, and of your closest friends sacred? Do you believe in the sanctity of human life? They come to a unanimous position. They look around and say yes. They realize that their families, their friends, their neighbors--that every human life on this planet is a sacred, unique creation from God. When they come to that conclusion--and it's always unanimous in the gymnasium or in the auditorium or wherever it might be--then I ask them: Now that you've answered the first question of whether you believe in the sanctity of human life and now that you've all said ``yes'' and ``amen,'' the next question then is: At what instant does life begin? Dr. Fleming has said, and I agree, that life begins at the instant of conception and that you have to choose an instant because, otherwise, it's a moving target, and otherwise, it's guesswork with sacred human life. So it's throughout that 9 months of gestation, and it came to me this way: When my first son was born, my first child, I held him in my arms, and I just looked upon a miracle, and I thought, How could anyone take this child's life at this moment, at this moment shortly after his birth? But then I asked myself the question, What is unique about this? What would be different about his life the moment before he was born? He's still a child. He's still a unique creature from God. So I just quickly rationalized back through that period of time of those 9 months that he'd been forming, and there is no instant there that you could pick as the time and say, well, he was a human being, a sacred human being at this point, but not a moment earlier. So you have to choose an instant that life begins, and the only instant that exists in the whole process is at fertilization, conception. So I asked those students then another question, which was: What if someone walked by the door to this gymnasium, which was full of these students, and stuck a gun through the door and looked the other way away from them and pulled the trigger and ran down the hallway and the security people chased him down and captured him outside and cuffed him? Now you'd all be safe except for what might have happened. Did he kill somebody or didn't he? They looked at each other, and they said, Well, we don't know. I said, That's my point, but if there is a dead body in the gymnasium, he killed somebody. Whether he knows or whether you know, it's still a fact, and he's still guilty of murder, of premeditated murder. So it isn't a matter of saying, Well, I don't know for sure, so I'm just going to go ahead and err and have an abortion. It's a matter of that precise line and of thinking of that precise moral question. I'm not casting aspersions or blame or guilt on anyone. I'm just asking young people to think about this. I'm asking adults to think about this. I have never found anyone who I've debated this issue with--and there have been many--who can respond to those questions. If they're asked the first question--is human life sacred in all of its forms?-- and if they say ``yes,'' as we all do, then there is no escaping the fact that that human life begins at the instant of conception. That is at the core of this debate. Here we have a Congress that seems to have political power and support and campaign contributions that flow into the coffers of, at this point, a majority of the Members in the House of Representatives. I've watched Members gravitate towards their power base and put up the votes that flatter the people who show up at their fund-raising events. I will never forget the night we had the vote here in early 2007 on the Mexico City language. The gentleman from New Jersey, whom we'll hear from in a moment, offered that amendment. I was over about that far back, and as Chris Smith said, We won the debate and we lost the vote. Over on this side, there were 30 or so who were jumping up and down, clapping, cheering and hugging each other. If I'd been closer, I could have told you whether they'd had tears of joy, but they were elated that they had defeated our effort to block Federal funding for abortions in foreign lands. I looked at that, and I thought, How could anyone have it in his heart to exhibit such joy at funding abortions and at the end of life of innocent babies in foreign lands? First, I don't think that was their joy. Tonight, I did. As I think it over, no, it was more that they believed that they had landed a blow against the political opinions of the people here of most of us on this side of the aisle and of about a good 30 pro-lifers on the other side of the aisle. Political opinions? These are profound, deeply held moral convictions that are tied and rooted in our religions as well. That's what this discussion and this debate are about. When I see language that comes out that sets up, essentially, a mandatory national health care plan that has no exemption in for abortion or for the funding of abortion, if it's not an explicit exclusion, as the gentleman said, then we know by deep and long experience that there will be federally funded abortions. By the way, I don't believe there's a conscience clause in all of these hundreds of pages in the bill either, and President Obama would not allow a conscience clause. He has opposed that along the way. He has appointed as his Office of Legal Counsel a young lady who has been a strong advocate for abortion and who has argued a number of cases for the National Abortion Rights Action League. It looks like the Senate is poised to confirm a justice to the Supreme Court who has a fairly significant record in advocating for or in coming down with decisions that enable more and more abortions. We need to draw a bright moral line. Laws that we pass in this Congress are laws that are rooted in the moral foundation of our people, and if we see that 51 percent of the people in America characterize themselves as pro-life--and that's the number that we're looking at here tonight--and if you slice and dice that and if you go on up the line and if you define ``pro-life'' as, maybe, someone who makes an exception for the life of the mother and then as someone who makes exceptions for rape and for incest and maybe as someone who makes an exception and says we should not do partial birth abortion, you get almost up to 100 percent. Hardly anybody believes that you should take a baby who is almost born and draw their brains out while they're struggling for life. We put an end to that in this Congress, and it was a struggle to do so, and it was twice before the United States Supreme Court. I've seen numbers that take us all on up into the 70th and higher percentile of self-professed pro-life people, depending on how you define it. Yet when we have 69 percent of the people in this country that argue you should not use taxpayers' dollars to fund abortions--and certainly I'm among those, and I think we're unanimous in that--that is big debate. It's a profound debate. It goes to the heart of the moral core of the people of the United States of America. I am grateful that the gentleman from Louisiana, who has demonstrated a lifetime as a practitioner in the health care industry and who understands this clearly, has brought this issue to the floor, and I stand united with you. I yield back.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KING of Iowa. The gentleman made an allegation, and I would be very happy to respond to that. I appreciate it if the gentleman would yield.

Mr. KING of Iowa. That's what I hear, and that challenges the integrity of some of the Members. I asked the gentleman to kindly yield. It's a courtesy that's commonly offered.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, is it inappropriate under the rules of the House to challenge the mendacity of any of the Members in this House?

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I made a proper parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. KING of Iowa. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I can't hear you.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. KING of Iowa. The gentlemen from Ohio alleged intentional misinformation on the part of members of my conference, and that, I believe, challenges the mendacity of Members of this Congress.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Is it the ruling of the Chair that the gentleman from Ohio can challenge the mendacity of a Member provided he doesn't name them specifically?

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I think everybody gets the message here.

Mr. KING of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the privilege to be recognized here on the floor of the House. I would remark that the common courtesy here is to yield. And I'm happy to yield to the gentlemen who are here if we could carry on this dialogue with or without that particular yielding. I know it is only four to one, so it would be an interesting engagement that could take place. I have to correct a few things on the Record. One of them is, as the gentleman from Ohio challenged the mendacity of the Republicans, who had said that there is a $4,000 increase on a payroll, that is exactly the number you get if the payroll is $50,000 and you tax it at 8 percent. That is in the bill, Mr. Speaker, and that is a precise number, and that is what I sought to offer that could have been injected in for an open dialogue. But we do deal with the facts. It is hard to get those facts when you have a bill that is drafted and a bill that has to be drafted to match a CBO number. The Congressional Budget Office came out with an estimate of a $1 trillion health care plan, and we found out that the Congressional Budget Office came out with that number without having read the bill, Mr. Speaker. So we are poised to go down a path by tying a blindfold around our eyes and charging off into the abyss of socialized medicine with a $1 trillion price tag, a little less than that, that is slapped upon a bill that nobody has yet, well, I suppose some now have completely read, but the Congressional Budget Office did an estimate on the cost of this socialized medicine policy over the telephone with the staff of the committee of the Democrats, not even a bipartisan staff. And that is how we make policy in the United States of America? And it is adequate to stand here on the floor and utter platitudes about what your political philosophy might be? I think it is interesting that I get to hear the quotes from Republicans, John McCain, on cap-and-trade. Well, I can think of the time pretty recently that would have been after this particular quote that we saw a few moments ago, the time I most emphatically agreed with John McCain, and that is when he said that President Obama has more czars than the Romanovs. That was something that I think illustrated part of the big picture that we should be talking about. This is a government that is out of control. It is overreaching. It is creating the nationalization of industry after industry in this country. It is breathtaking, the scope of the reach of this White House that is supported by the Democrats in the House and in the Senate. And who would have thought--let's just say if we just roll back in our memory and our mind's eye back to election day in November of 2008, what if somebody would have said, now you're ready to go to the polls, think about what you're going to do. Because if you elect President Obama, he is going to go in and nationalize three huge investment banks, the large insurance company, AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, General Motors and Chrysler. All of these huge eight entities all wrapped up together will all be controlled, if not controlling interest, in the hands of and in control of the White House. Then he is going to manage those by appointing 32 czars, and this will be hundreds of billions of dollars. And the idea will be that the economic stimulus plan is going to be FDR's New Deal on steroids. And now, never mind that if one goes back and reads the data from the 1930s from that Great Depression--there was nothing great about what people had to go through during that decade of the 1930s. But if one goes back and reads the data and tries to index it back to the actions of the New Deal and this Keynesian economics of borrowing money and trying to actually replace private sector jobs with government jobs is what was going on in the New Deal--the CCC camps, the WPA, and the list of these acronyms went on. But what it did was it created a lot of debt, and it delayed the recovery that would have come from the private sector of the economy. It competed directly with the private sector. One of those examples would be the Tennessee Valley Association where there was private-sector investment that was prepared to go in and develop just what the TVA turned out to be. And FDR went in and stomped on the private sector and grew a government instead. This is what was the model for President Obama. So he set forth--and he told us on a day on or about February 10, 2009, he said that FDR didn't go far enough, that he lost his nerve. He got worried about spending too much money. If he hadn't gotten worried about spending too much money, the economy would have recovered. But he didn't spend enough money and, therefore, along came World War II first and became the largest stimulus plan ever. I don't take issue with the last part of that statement. I just take issue with the prediction that the New Deal would have worked if FDR would have spent a lot more money. This President hasn't lost his nerve. He is spending a lot more money. And if there is any doubt in anybody's mind about whether Keynesian economics and spending borrowed money to dump it in and grow government at a time of economic crisis actually heals up the economy-- there isn't any doubt in my mind because I've read the data. In fact, I went through every newspaper from the crash of the stock market in 1929 until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, reading for the economic news so I could understand what people were living through during those days of the stock market crash and the deep, long trough of the Great Depression and then the shock of the attack on Pearl Harbor that launched us into a world war. I wanted to understand what that was like for the people that lived during that period of time. But I couldn't find evidence that the New Deal was a good deal on any kind of a broad scale, small little place as it was. It bought some friends, sure, but I couldn't find evidence that the New Deal worked. And economists that have gone back and studied that era can't show you the data that indicates the New Deal worked. But if anybody wonders, they can study this era 25 years from now when it will be clear--there won't be any question about, no more arguments can be brought up. No future President will be able to say of President Obama, Well, his stimulus plan would have worked but he just lost his nerve and didn't spend enough money. This President has not lost his nerve. He has spent way too much money, and he has nationalized eight huge entities. He's landed blow after blow against the private sector, the free-market economy that is the engine that drives this economy, and it sets the economy for the world, blow after blow. And they'll look back at this and they will say, $700 billion in TARP, $787 billion in the stimulus plan, untold hundreds of billions of dollars shoveled out the door of the U.S. Treasury to prop up businesses that don't necessarily go through the appropriations process here in Congress, the blank check of Tim Geithner is being spent. And all of that going on, and this President has the audacity--remember, he wrote a book with ``audacity'' in the title. This is a President with a lot of audacity. And the audacity now to float the trial balloon to call for another economic stimulus plan when this one is only partly spent and less than half of it--and we don't really know what those numbers are. It's being trickled out and it doesn't impact on our economy, and sometimes strung out over a number of years. But yet it was an act of desperation to get it before this Congress and pass it quickly because they had to have it to save us from a financial meltdown. But they didn't really use the bill in the fashion they said. Neither did they use the TARP bill in the fashion that they said. And so this urgency to prevent a meltdown was more what I see in the pattern of legislation brought through this Congress. It's the urgency of bringing this thing through this Congress before the American people figure out what's going on, pass it quickly and get it out of the way so it comes out of the public eye. And while that's going on, load up another one, put another round in the chamber and fire another one down through the floor of the House of Representatives and on over to the Senate, another destructive missile that brings down the economy in this country, the culture in this country, the spirit of the people in this country. This has been an all-out assault on Americanism that I have seen in the months that we have had here. The statements made on this floor that need to be corrected, other than the erroneous statement that a Republican had made a--just implied at least a willful misstatement. This President's plan and the health care, health insurance plan that's being debated in this Congress today and tomorrow, has in it an 8 percent tax on payroll, on the employer, on the employer's payroll, if he doesn't provide health insurance for his employees. So, an 8 percent tax. When you just think about how that works, let's just say there is an employee that's making $50,000 a year and there is not a health insurance policy. You can talk about the question of whether that's right or wrong. But in any case, there is not a health insurance policy. Under the Obama plan, there would be an 8 percent tax on that payroll, 8 percent of $50,000 is $4,000, precisely the number that the gentleman from Ohio objected to applies perfectly to a $50,000 payroll, which is not that unusual in the United States, and it's becoming far and far more common. So to take issue with a statement that's clearly factual I believe is misinformation itself. And the argument that we are sending--the other gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Ryan, said that $700 billion is going to those other countries. And the real number--and he's referring to the importing of petroleum products from foreign countries. And there were statements made last year that we were sending $700 billion to foreign countries to buy their petroleum. Well, those statements that were going out over the media caused me to be curious enough that I actually ran the numbers to find out, and the real number is this: that over that period of time, over--this was the middle of last summer in about July, and in fact July 11 would be the date that this statement was initially made. The actual moneys expended to purchase imported petroleum, that's natural gas and oil and other products that come from oil wells, in their entirety, the actual money that we sent overseas during that period of time from July 11 of 2009 to a year prior to that, that 12-month period of time, was $332 billion, Mr. Speaker. Not $700 billion. $332 billion. But we know July 11 was also the peak day for the highest price for oil and gas. That's when our gas hit the highest price at the pumps, and that's about the same time that crude oil by the barrel hit the highest price. So one could then, last July 11, a year ago July 11, extrapolate what we would import if we imported the same number of gallons: $700 billion. If you work it out and take the gallons and multiply it times the highest prices we had, which was on July 11 of 2008, and carry that forward, you come with a number projected of $726 billion. But we never imported $726 billion because the oil prices plummeted some weeks after that and we saw our gas prices go from $4 and change a gallon and they dropped to nearly $2 a gallon in a short period of time. That was moving up to the election in November. So at this point, if you look at the most recent data, the number hasn't quite reached $400 billion in the amount of imported petroleum that we have paid for. It's still too much, Mr. Speaker, and we can be independent with our energy. And we should work in that direction and build the infrastructure that allows us to be independent. But we should also do it on real data and real facts. And as the other gentleman spoke about two wars going on--this is pretty interesting to me--the lament is still there that we're engaged in two wars. These are conflicts that were--let me say this: Afghanistan was certainly thrust upon us. And the Iraq situation is this: President Obama was elected--at least in part--because he aggressively criticized President Bush for going into Iraq and for not having an exit strategy. Well, Mr. Speaker, this House needs to know and the American people need to know that Bush had an exit strategy. It was a strategy that said we're going to provide victory and we're going to establish a stable government in Iraq that reflects the will of the Iraqi people. That's what's been achieved there. It really can't be argued today, Mr. Speaker, as to whether who won the war in Iraq. Al Qaeda is defeated in Iraq. They can't mount a military operation that's there. American deaths in Iraq, as sad as they are, and every one of them is an individual tragedy and every one of them is an honorable patriot, and we need to keep them all in our prayers, as well as their families. It's been a high sacrifice, but it's also been a noble endeavor, and those that we have lost in Iraq in the last year through accidents have been almost exactly equal in number to those that we have lost to combat, which says that a soldier, sailor, airman, marine that's serving in Iraq today has roughly an equal risk of being injured or killed in the rollover of a Humvee on one of the Iraqi roads as they do at the hands of the enemy. And those numbers are getting--it's looking better and better each week that goes by, more stability in Iraq. And the exit strategy that President Bush devised in Iraq was what I said: win the war; establish a stable, moderate government in Iraq that reflects the will of the people. And so when we listened to the criticism that came from the other side of the aisle here and when Speaker Pelosi first was sworn in and received the gavel as Speaker of the House of Representatives, that was the 110th Congress. We're in the 111th now. That took place in January of 2007. From that moment on, there commenced a series of votes here on the floor of the House that were designed to unfund, underfund or undermine our troops in Iraq. They, had they passed, and some of them singularly, but many of them in their aggregate portion would have brought about a defeat in Iraq as opposed to the victory that's been achieved. That's what's taken place in this Congress, efforts that undermine our troops. Still, our troops prevailed and still President Bush had the will to order the surge, and still after the surge was executed to the fashion that it brought about the result we see today. President Bush negotiated this so that we could not be giving up a victory that has been so costly and so nobly earned. And I did look him in the eye on this subject matter, and I know that he was preparing this country to sustain the victory that was being achieved at the time. And President Bush negotiated the SOFA agreement, the status of forces agreement, and it was signed last fall. The Bush status of forces agreement was signed last fall, and we find ourselves in the ironic situation today, Mr. Speaker, of having a President of the United States who was elected, at least in part, for criticizing his predecessor for not having an exit strategy in Iraq. But President Bush had an exit strategy, and it's on paper and the irony is President Obama is executing President Bush's exit strategy to the letter of the SOFA agreement. It's on paper. It's there. It's a matter of fact and a matter of action, and it can't be argued. It's just simply ignored because these are the people over here that wouldn't acknowledge that President Bush could do good unless they could put a quote up there that they might think would support their cause. So the quotes from John McCain come up in the same way. They criticized John McCain all last fall. Now they put his quote up here on the floor and they argue, why don't Republicans listen to John McCain. Well, Democrats wouldn't listen to John McCain. If they had, they would have voted for him and we'd have a different situation in the world today. Let's see, the Tehran situation and the nuclear endeavor of the Iranians is another thing that just befuddles me. As I listened to the debate in the previous hour, how it is that they're arguing that we have, let me see, we're on the cusp, as the gentleman from Virginia said, we're on the cusp of a great economic revolution. This economic revolution, the green revolution, I guess, all of these green jobs that are going to be created because they passed cap-and-tax on the American people out of the House of Representatives. And we think they're going to get their jobs back after the next election. The American people know better than this. They understand that when you call it cap-and-trade that it is truly cap-and-tax. What they do is cap the amount of energy that you're able to access in the United States and identify which forms you can and can't have, and they tax the living daylights out of what you do get. All energy in America will be more costly because of cap-and-tax that passed out of this House, and how anybody can think that we're on the cusp of a great economic revolution because we're taxing energy is way beyond me. The basic principles of business are things that I had to learn when I started a business, Mr. Speaker. And so just think of this as a legal pad, and you sit down with a little calculator and you draw a line through the middle of the paper, top to bottom. On one side, you list all of your expenses. On the other side, you list your income. You add up your expenses and you add up your income. You take the total income and you subtract the total expenses, and that's your profit. Probably never heard that described here on the floor of the House before, that simple accounting principle of total income minus total expenses is profit. On some of your expenses, of course, are taxes and the overhead and the things that people don't think about that people in business have to do. So if any business that you have, if you're running a flower shop, a barbershop, an ethanol plant, if you're manufacturing wind generators, if you're running a gas station, if you have an operation with a dozen carpenters working out of there with hammers and wheelbarrows, all of these things going on, this energy tax is going to make your business-- it's going to cost you more. So over on that column on the pad that you write down on your business expenses, when you see that they have passed cap-and-tax on you and you look at the cost of your electricity and your heating gas-- and let's see, the natural gas you might use in your manufacturing and your diesel fuel you put into your trucks and your heavy equipment and the fuel oil that you might heat with and the cost of the coal that might be generating the electricity, all of those things add up, and they're all part of the expenses of a business. And so if energy gets more expensive, so does the cost of running your business get more expensive; and the more energy intensive it is, the higher the increase as a percentage of your overall expenses and the harder it is to find some profit on the other side. And we are on the cusp of a great economic revolution because this Congress can increase the cost of our energy? It takes energy to do anything that we want to do. It takes energy to heat a cup of coffee. I go over to my office and push the button and make a pot of coffee, they're burning natural gas to generate some electricity to create enough heat that I can have a cup of coffee. It was coal, but Speaker Pelosi switched that around in our power plant here, and because there was a real concern that the coal that was burning was putting carbon dioxide up into the atmosphere and contributing to global warming and she became Speaker, she concluded that we would get away from that and we were going to be a carbon neutral Capitol complex. So Speaker Pelosi ordered that the power plant be converted over from coal to natural gas, and so that was done. And some reports show that it doubled the cost of our energy, and I haven't actually analyzed the numbers. I have to take that at face value. It's a summary report. It may or may not have been doubled. It could have been more or less. But the cost of our energy went up, we do know that; and still the calculation was that we were putting too many tons of CO2 in the air annually. So the Speaker, being true to her commitment to saving the planet, true to her commitment, she then went on the board of trade to purchase some carbon credits. These would be like, well, selling intentions I guess, or indulgences is a better word for it. So you could go on the board and buy carbon credits and they're indulgences for the carbon CO2 you put into the atmosphere, and it's supposed to be offset by somebody else's behavior because you've reached your limit of being able to limit the CO2 emissions you have here. So I tracked that; $89,000 spent on the board of trade to pay indulgences for the CO2 emissions that take care of this Capitol Building, and somebody had to go sequester some carbon that they weren't sequestering before, change their behavior to help the planet. This is the equation. Some of the money went to no-till farmers in North Dakota, farmers union farmers. In fact, I think that was the exchange that was used. Now, we don't have any evidence that these farmers just started a no-till because they got a check that was a contribution to encourage them to do that. It's more likely they were with no-till farmers and they were just simply rewarded for something they were doing anyway. So we can't determine that there was any carbon that was sequestered out of that behavior. And then the balance of the money went to a coal-fired generating plant in Chillicothe, Iowa. Now that's a curious thing, Mr. Speaker. Think about how this works, that the Speaker of the House concludes that there is too much CO2 emitting in the atmosphere because of the coal-fired power plant that feeds this Capitol complex, and so she switches it over to natural gas because there's less emissions from natural gas. At the time, she said that because natural gas is not a hydrocarbon. Well, that didn't last but a day or so, and she finally discovered it was. So I'm not quibbling with her lack of technical understanding of how this works. Her conviction is clear; her understanding is not. The power plant was converted from coal to gas, and then still the emissions of CO2 continued, and we had to get to this zero emissions because we were going to be a model for the country. So that money went to Chicago, $89,000, and they brokered it through the exchange and paid some no-till farmers in North Dakota and the balance of the money went to Chillicothe, where we're really interested to find out what happens at a coal-fired generating plant that you can pay them to sequester some carbon, or let's say diminish the effect of carbon in the atmosphere. So I went to visit that plant. It's a well-run plant run by good people. It's an outstanding company. I've met with their CEO and had engaging conversations. When I visited that day, I stood in the shed that had big bails of switchgrass in it. And there was expensive equipment that was in there that was designed to pick up and put these big round bales--these are 1,500-pound bales--so that high in diameter, 7 feet or so in diameter. And there was designed--I didn't see this actually happen: Put them on a conveyer belt, run them through a hammer mill, blow them out through a tube, and blend this ground-up switchgrass in with the coal that they were using to generate electricity. That was the plan. And what I saw was--well, switchgrass hay that had sat there for 2 years--and nobody had burned any switchgrass in 2 years. They had tried it, experimented with it. They didn't have any data on what they'd learned from burning the switchgrass. But, in any case, they stopped doing it so it must not have been a particularly lucrative endeavor. But they got a check cut by the taxpayers and signed by Speaker Pelosi--this is figuratively, we understand--because they had diminished the CO2 in the atmosphere sometime a couple years earlier. That's what cap-and-trade is. That's brokering these imaginary credits that don't create anything exception imaginary sequestration of carbon, which in somebody's imagination turns a thermostat down on planet Earth. And of the people that advocate this, the aggressive, vocal proponents of cap-and-tax that think the Earth is going to be destroyed if we don't go through with their legislation, not one of them can explain the science. Not one of them can debate the science on the floor of the House. I'd be happy to do that. I have offered that many times. If somebody is convicted on the science and they want to come down, I'd be happy to yield. Schedule some Special Orders from now until the cows come home so we can talk about this science. But it is an embarrassment, the science that's underneath this. I don't take so much issue with the science as I do with the economics. They're wrong on the science. They're completely wrong on the economics. And people that can get it that wrong, it should be no surprise they could get it so wrong when it comes to a health care plan. But here's a couple of things I want to run through as I observe the gentleman from Texas has arrived to lend a hand with this endeavor. What do I have that's entertaining here? Let me just pull this one out. There's so much material in this Congress, it's amazing that one can get this done in a few short hours of Special Orders. This mouse has been kind of hard to hold down. He stands on his head once in a while. This is, Mr. Speaker, the saltwater marsh harvest mouse. He has been decreed to be a species that needs special help from the taxpayers of America. We need to have a stimulus plan that's going to jump us out of the deep hole we're in. So, of all the places that we could put money to grow this economy, where could it do the most good? I allege, and others alleged back during this process of the stimulus plan, that Speaker Pelosi had set up an earmark in there of $32 million. Well, the allegations came back, No, that's not true. That can't be. There isn't any earmark there. The Speaker wouldn't do that. There's a statement that was put out by the Speaker's Office that said no. So what we really end up with now is, we find out yes, it is in there; it's just not $32 million. It's $16.1 million. The saltwater marsh harvest mouse. This little pet project right here, this cute little guy, has finally arrived to get his particularly special earmark. And if we look at what Speaker Pelosi said, she said, I don't want to have legislation that is used as an engine for people to put on things that are not going to do what we are setting out to do, which is to turn this economy around. I don't think I want to read the rest of that. You're going to turn the economy around by dumping $16.1 million into the salt water marsh harvest mouse, this pet project that everybody promised that I made this up. It wasn't in the bill. Now it's there and no one can refute it, this cute little earmark. So think of this little guy here. The least they could do is just notch his ear a little and put an earmark in that little pet project, that salt water marsh harvest mouse. It's going to get $16.1 million taxpayer dollars. That's not as wise an investment as the $89 million that was wasted buying the carbon credits to be the little microcosm model of what they're doing with the cap-and-tax bill on us. We've got a great big model on what they're going to do to us, all Americans, on this socialized medicine plan that looks to me like it took HillaryCare and wrote in large, in Technicolor, and in 3D. So, as I take a deep breath, I'd be very happy to yield to my good friend, the judge from Texas, Judge Gohmert, so much time as he may consume. I know he will use it wisely.

Mr. KING of Iowa. If the gentleman will briefly yield.