Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a former member of this body,

Representative Charles T. Canady on the occasion of his appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Florida, marking a distinguished career in judicial and public service.

Justice Canady's steadfast commitment toward upholding the laws and principles on which our nation was founded will serve the people of the State of Florida well through his appointment as Chief Justice to the Florida Supreme Court.

During his tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives, Justice Canady served this nation and the people of the 12th Congressional District, which I now represent, with honor and distinction. He began his public service career as a member of Florida House of Representatives from 1984 to 1990. In 1992, Justice Canady was elected to the 103rd Congress and served four terms in the United States House of Representatives from January 1993 to January 2001.

Throughout his tenure in Congress, Justice Canady was an active member of the House Judiciary Committee. For three terms from January 1995 to January 2001, former Rep. Canady was the Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution. In this capacity, his efforts toward protecting and defending the laws of our nation made a lasting mark not only on this body, but on the American people for whom we are called to serve.

Justice Canady kept his term limits pledge, and did not seek reelection to a fifth term in 2000. After leaving Congress, Justice Canady returned to the practice of law, acting as Legal Counsel to Florida Governor Jeb Bush. In 2002, Governor Bush appointed him to Florida's Second District Court of Appeals. On August 27, 2008, Governor Charlie Crist nominated Justice Canady to the Florida Supreme Court. His nomination was confirmed and Justice Canady took his seat as the 82nd Associate Justice to the Florida Supreme Court on September 8, 2008, and was sworn in through a formal investiture on December 3, 2008.

He began his distinguished career in judicial and public service upon earning a bachelor's degree from Haverford College and a juris doctorate degree from Yale Law School. Former Congressman Charles T. Canady is a resident of Lakeland, Florida, and is married to wife Jennifer and has two daughters, Julia and Anna. Charles T. Canady is the son of Charles and Delores Canady.

On behalf of the 12th Congressional District, it is honor to pay tribute to Justice Canady, as a former member of this body and one who has served his State and nation with honor and distinction, upon this appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Florida.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of this term, I will have served in Congress for 10 years. I have had the privilege of participating in countless debates--from war resolutions and trade policies to the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks--and working with Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle on some of America's greatest challenges.

We now stand on the floor of the House of Representatives to address one of today's greatest challenges in America--healthcare reform. While this may be one of the more complicated issues we are faced with, the goals--in my mind--are simple. We need to lower the cost of healthcare, while expanding healthcare coverage to more individuals. To accomplish this, I have advocated for policies like allowing small businesses to pool together and form association health plans, providing incentives for wellness programs and healthy life decisions, making reforms to our medical malpractice laws, and allowing individuals to purchase insurance across state lines. These policies are far-reaching, free- market based, and--most of all--don't require new government bureaucracies. Unfortunately, they all lost out to a partisan process of backroom deals that have tainted this proposal and further undermined the already low esteem in which the people we serve hold in this institution.

Ever since the first 2,000 page healthcare bill was dropped on my desk just prior to the vote in November, I have listened to Floridians--from parents and patients to doctors and seniors--who understand that healthcare is just too dynamic to be taken over by a stale, cold federal government. They understand that we don't need to model our healthcare system on those systems across the globe who envy our quality of care, technology, and research investment. We don't need some agency to make decisions about our family's healthcare that has the efficiency of FEMA and the compassion of the drivers license office. While we do have some aspects of our system that need to be improved, Floridians understand we should address them in a manner that actually solves the problem--not having government destroy the innovation that comes from competition. Madam Speaker, they understand this, but Congress clearly doesn't.

The misguided policies we are voting on today are sadly coupled with the broken process they followed to get here. The measure we will vote on hasn't seen a single legislative committee, bi-partisan negotiation, or open process. Like anything with such an impact to the American people, this legislation deserves the scrutiny of the legislative process and the challenges that may come with amendments and committee debate. In short, this measure deserves a public vetting to arrive at the best possible outcome.

Had our founders seen the process this healthcare debate has taken, they simply would not have recognized it as the House of Representatives they envisioned. Would they have supported a process that didn't even include the committees responsible for healthcare? Would they have appreciated gimmicks that only budget analysts would understand in order to ensure a certain overall cost? Could they explain why a student loan bill was mysteriously attached to a massive healthcare reform proposal or why Congress decided to give one state a better deal than the rest of the country? Could they have ever imagined a Congress that is only willing to dedicate two hours of debate to a measure that spends $1 trillion?

Our schoolchildren are taught the way an idea becomes law and that as an elected Representative, I have the ability to amend this legislation on their behalf and spend days debating every provision that may have been included. They know they deserve a process that allows their representative to have a seat at the drafting table, not one where the bill is dropped on his desk just prior to a vote. Even the most casual observer of this process and this bill's journey would find it unrecognizable from our most basic understanding of civics and representative democracy.

When the outcome of this vote became more important than the product itself, taxpayers lost. When the legislative process became an afterthought to salvaging a presidency, taxpayers lost. When debate was sacrificed for special deals, taxpayers lost.

Madam Speaker, this process is a disservice and has birthed a flawed product that restrains patient freedom and choice, burdens future generations with debt, undermines a competitive business model for medicine and, most tragically, will reduce the most innovative diagnostics and treatment on Earth to the lowest common bureaucratic denominator.

Time and again, the government proves inefficient and obsolete in changing times with rapidly emerging technologies. In medicine, that is a recipe for obsolescence, archaic approaches, and delayed treatments that costs lives and weakens the human condition.

While I do not hold up the current health care model as perfect--I do observe the quality of the treatment options, the daily miracles made possible by world-class technology guided by well-trained health care professionals, and the range of options in large and small towns alike as evidence that the American model is far superior to the cumbersome, one-size-fits-all models that are found in nations like Canada and the UK whose citizens frequently flee to our nation to find the quality care they believe is not available in their own countries.

Tonight's vote against this bill is cast on behalf of patients and doctors, taxpayers and citizens who value innovation, competition, and the spirit of the individual that has created the American experience and built this great nation into the envy of the world.

While we can and must do more to improve access and affordability, we shouldn't sacrifice all we are as a nation for the security of mediocre medicine, bureaucratically administered.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, March 16, 2010, I was not present for 4 recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted the following way: roll No. 116--yea, roll No. 117--yea, roll No. 118-- yea, roll No. 119--yea.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, March 15, 2010, I was not present for 4 recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted the following way: roll No. 112--yea; roll No. 113--yea; roll No. 114-- yea; roll No. 115--yea.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, March 2, 2010, I was not present for 3 recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted the following way: roll No. 75--yea, roll No. 76--nay, and roll No. 77--yea.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, January 26, 2010, I was not present for 3 recorded votes. I would have voted the following way: roll No. 17--``yea''; roll No. 18--``yea''; roll No. 19--``yea''.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize Ralph L. Fletcher, the mayor of Lakeland, a city in my 12th Congressional District of Florida. Ralph has worked tirelessly to represent the best interests of the citizens of Lakeland. Moreover, as a small business owner, he has successfully run his Fletcher Printing Company and helped form the successful real estate company, Arch Inc.

``Buddy'' Fletcher enjoyed building one-on-one relationships with the citizens of Lakeland. As his deputy city manager, Tony Delgado told the Lakeland Ledger, Monday mornings became Buddy Time--where the mayor would share with him all of the complaints and suggestions he had gathered from residents of Lakeland over the weekend. No task was too small or big for Mr. Fletcher, and he was dedicated to making sure that the issue was addressed properly.

Mr. Fletcher truly is Lakeland's own. He first attended Lakeland High School and then later pursued his education even further at Florida Southern College. Mr. Fletcher first served as one of Lakeland's City Commissioners from 1989 to 1992. He was then elected as mayor of Lakeland in 1993 as has served in that office ever since.

When he first decided to run for office, his wife suggested that running a campaign only on economic development would not be sufficient. However, during his tenure as mayor he helped bring in Watkins Motor Lines and the headquarters of the grocery chain Publix downtown to add jobs in the city. Always with an eye for the long term benefits to Lakeland, Fletcher is remembered by his admirers for improved economic development, city beautification and the restoration of parks.

Fletcher has been well renowned for his accessibility to residents. He instructed his staff to give out his cell phone number to any resident who wanted to reach him personally. People he has golfed with had several anecdotes about taking weekend calls out on the course. A reporter once asked him how many hours a week he dedicated to job. Fletcher was baffled by this question because he considered himself always on duty from when he woke up at 4:30 a.m. until he went to sleep.

In 1998, he was recognized for his volunteer service earning the Sun 'n Fun Chairman of the Board Award. The Sun 'n Fun organization is a volunteer group focused on aviation education and running the Florida Air Museum.

In 2001, he earned the Jere Annis Leadership Award. These awards are granted to those who have graduated from the Lakeland Leadership Program--which has provided consistent leadership in enhancing quality of life and cohesion in the Lakeland community.

Mr. Fletcher truly is a great leader in the community and his extensive volunteer efforts reflect that. In February of 2004 he earned the Distinguished Citizen of the Gulf Ridge Council of the Boy Scouts of America for outstanding leadership. In May of 2009, he earned the University of South Florida Polytechnic Distinguished Service Award for his contributions to USF Polytechnic and service to the community.

Mr. Fletcher looks forward to spending his retirement with his devoted wife of 57 years, Weetsie.

Lakeland City Commissioner Dean Boring had this to say of Fletcher, ``He's been Lakeland's No. 1 cheerleader, and he'll never stop doing that. If you cut Buddy Fletcher, Lakeland would pour out. He lives, sleeps, eats and drinks Lakeland.''

I thank my friend for yielding.

Tonight my Democratic colleagues have brought forth for taxpayers' consideration legislation that will not only cost America more jobs but will make recovery more illusive, particularly for small businesses.

The bill creates a permanent bailout fund totaling $200 billion for Washington to prop up failing institutions, assuming, that is, that the $150 billion tax proves insufficient. That tax will contract lending and cause the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. The legislation would create a new burden on end users of derivatives in every sector of our economy: commercial real estate, energy production, manufacturing, agriculture, utilities, even health care. These types of businesses depend on hedging to protect themselves from price volatility.

What's more, businesses that had nothing to do with the financial collapse will now be saddled by a complex new regime of regulations. This will force businesses all across America to use their working capital against a risk they never posed instead of creating new jobs, replacing equipment, or expanding their business.

The legislation also welcomes a new bureaucrat, the credit czar, to our Nation's Capital in the form of a Washington-knows-best agency. The credit czar's mission is to dictate which financial products can and cannot be made available to consumers. The credit czar is required to assess fees on entities so the new government bureaucracy can meet its expenses. Such attacks mean less money for small businesses to create jobs, more fees passed on to consumers, and less access to credit for small business. What this assessment does guarantee is a bigger Washington bureaucracy.

If you're serious about lowering the deficit and creating jobs, oppose this big government expansion and support the Republican substitute.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 914 had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''-

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a nationally recognized leader in protecting the environment and a sixth generation Florida rancher, Cary Lightsey of Lake Wales, Florida, who was awarded the 2009 Southeastern Farmer of the Year.

The Sunbelt Agricultural Exhibition Southeastern Farmer of the Year Award honors excellence in agricultural production and management, leadership in community and farm organizations, and recognizes family contributions in producing safe, abundant supplies of food, fiber and shelter for U.S. consumers. Cary Lightsey, as the sixth award recipient to come from the state of Florida, represents some of the best of American agriculture.

It is a great privilege to recognize Cary Lightsey and his family for their many achievements and contributions to the fanning industry and to their community.

Brahma Island, a large secluded region in Lake Kissimmee, is home to 28 endangered species, 14 nests of bald eagles and 300-year-old oaks, ancient Indian settlements, wild game, and commercial beef cattle. This island, owned by Cary Lightsey, and the Lightsey Cattle Co., is preserved in its natural state and will remain so through a perpetual conservation easement. On the island and his other ranches, Lightsey raises over 7,000 head of commercial cattle.

Lightsey and his family have been innovative leaders in methods to market cattle, development of replacement stock, as well as expansion and vertical integration into the cattle market throughout the United States. In addition to raising livestock on the island, Lightsey offers ecological tours and guided hunts for wild hogs and exotic deer.

Cary Lightsey was the first Florida rancher to use conservation easements. By keeping 40 percent of his ranches in native land use, Lightsey has been able to make extensive use of conservation easements that cover about 70 percent of his ranching properties. With the easements, Lightsey retains ownership of the land and receives benefits from environmental and governmental organizations in return for giving up his rights to develop the land.

In addition to these conservation and livestock endeavors, Lightsey has been involved in several other innovative ventures including harvesting palmetto berries used for a prostate cancer medicine, relocating threatened gopher turtles onto his ranches, and his latest effort, raising Wagyu cattle for the Japanese beef market. He has also established new grass varieties used for forages and treatments for water flow nutrients, sharing these technologies with other Florida ranchers.

Cary Lightsey has made valuable contributions to his community through numerous civic activities as well. Each year he donates cattle to the Florida State Fair Futurity Steer Show, is active in the Polk County Youth Fair, and has served on numerous conservation and water management district land boards.

I stand today to commend Cary Lightsey and his family, including his wife, three children and grandchildren for this honor, which was said to be have been bestowed due to his entrepreneurial spirit, good business judgment, sound farming practices, high ethical standards and leadership in his family, community, state and nation. The 2009 Sunbelt Expo Southeastern Farmer of the Year title was also awarded to Lightsey for his sensitivity to the environment, his response to community and social concerns, and his ``abiding devotion to his family, his faith and his nation.''

Madam Speaker, I am honored to represent this great American.

Mr. Speaker, America is at a crossroads and we, as Members of Congress have the duty and responsibility to ensure our great country remains vibrant and competitive in the 21st Century. For that reason, I cannot figure out why the Democratic leadership and the administration want to rush to pass this monstrosity of a bill, with its $1 trillion price tag and $730 billion in taxes. I can confidently say that passing this health care reform bill will unwind private health care in America and at the same time do very little to bring down its cost.

I rise today to speak in strong opposition to the legislation before us, H.R. 3962. This measure is indeed historic--an historic expansion of the role of government in the lives of every American. Your choice of physician . . . your choice of medical facility . . . your choice of the kind of care and treatment you receive . . . these are some of the most personal decisions you can ever make. The prospect of placing those decisions into the hands of a new federal bureaucracy that would combine the efficiencies of FEMA with the compassion of the Department of Motor Vehicles ought to alarm every American.

So we are gathered here, to vote on legislation that is nearly twice the length of the original bill, H.R. 3200, that was introduced this summer. Mr. Speaker, I doubt that there are many people in this great hall who can honestly tell you they are fully conversant with every provision in this bill. But after doing our best to read, study and understand the nearly two-thousand pages of H.R. 3962 we know certain things this bill will do. For example, we know it will cost taxpayers more than a trillion dollars. We know it will impose $730 billion in new taxes on small businesses and individuals. We know it will cost five-and-a-half million Americans their jobs. We know it will create over 100 new bureaus, commissions, and programs. And we know it will burden our states with tens of billions of dollars in new unfunded federal mandates. In Florida alone, the additional costs associated with the Medicaid mandates will be in the billions of dollars.

Mr. Speaker, we are told by the President and by the majority party in Congress that we need all this in order to make health care more affordable for the American people. How are we making health care more affordable if we are driving the American people into bankruptcy by taking historic steps toward a federal takeover of the entire health care system?

The Democrat Majority seeks to pay for their health care reform bill in part through 8 percent payroll penalty taxes on employers who cannot afford to provide insurance coverage, and through a 5.4 percent surtax on individuals making $500,000 a year or more. These provisions are estimated to bring in more than $595 billion.

You don't have to be an economist to know that these new taxes will have a direct and adverse affect on small businesses across America. An overwhelming majority of small businesses--approximately 75 percent of them--pay their business taxes through the owner at the individual level. Essentially, one in every three small businesses would be subject to the new surtax and just in the State of Florida as many as 57,000 small businesses would be affected. These provisions are effectively a tax on jobs that will stifle job creation and depress wages. In light of the latest unemployment numbers of 10.2 percent for the U.S. and 11 percent for Florida, this is hardly the time to raise costs on small businesses and employers.

If the taxes on America's small businesses were not enough, this bill also imposes a 2.5 percent tax on medical devices. At a time when our country spends about 17 percent of its GDP on health care, and we are tasked with developing policies to bring down the overall cost of care, it is irrational that we should tax an industry that is such an integral part of health care. This tax, on everything from syringes to artificial hips, will undoubtedly be passed along to the consumer.

Mr. Speaker, America has the best health care system in the world. Why should we destroy the economic backbone of America to create a government-run health care plan that the majority of Americans oppose? It does not have to be this way.

We can take significant steps to address health care--steps guided by principles based on the freedom of choice, transparency and openness, and a competitive free market.

We can lower health care premiums for American families and small businesses, addressing Americans' number-one priority for health care reform.

We can establish a universal access program to guarantee access to affordable health care for people with pre-existing conditions. The Republican alternative plan creates Universal Access Programs that expand and reform high-risk pools and reinsurance programs to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses, have access to affordable care.

We can curb the cost of defensive medicine in this country by putting an end to ``junk lawsuits.'' The fear of lawsuits drives doctors to order expensive tests and procedures for patients, and not necessarily because they think they are in the best interest of the patients. Some doctors have even had to close their doors because they cannot afford the malpractice insurance premiums. It is evident that meaningful medical malpractice reform should be a component of any health care reform proposal. The Republican plan would help save $54 billion in the health care sector by including measures that have been successfully demonstrated in California and Texas.

Just as we all want to reduce the cost of care, we should seek innovative ways to provide coverage without breaking the bank. We can do this by empowering small businesses with the opportunity to pool together and negotiate lower health care premiums--just as corporations and labor unions do--through association health plans. Another common sense reform would allow Americans to shop for coverage from coast to coast across state lines.

We can promote prevention and wellness by giving employers greater flexibility to financially reward employees who adopt healthier lifestyles. Incidentally, about 75 percent of medical spending goes toward the treatment of chronic diseases. Research shows that the number of individuals suffering from chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease could be reduced through proper wellness, prevention, and disease management programs. The Republican alternative would allow for employers to offer flexible coverage options to reward and encourage healthy behaviors in an effort to reduce overall spending on costly chronic diseases.

We can do all of these things and more, Mr. Speaker. And we can do these things with legislation that the Congressional Budget Office says will lower premiums by up to 10 percent and reduce the deficit by $68 billion over the next ten years, without imposing tax increases on families and small businesses.

This alternative will give Americans access to health care, it will free up our medical system to become more innovative and efficient, and it is what Americans expect from their country.

Mr. Speaker, this alternative is what this Congress should be sending to the President's desk--not the mammoth, unwise, and extraordinary expansion of government embodied in H.R. 3962.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Well, the verdict is in. The Speaker's health care bill accounts for nearly 2,000 pages and $1.055 trillion. It raises $730 billion in new taxes. Businesses who cannot afford to cover their employees and individuals who cannot afford insurance would face $167 billion in new taxes, and $500 billion in new taxes would be on the backs of mostly small businesses. The bill would slash Medicare and Medicaid services to home health care providers, to nursing homes, to hospitals, to doctors, and it would impose a $5 billion unfunded mandate on our States in the form of a new Medicaid burden at a time when our States can ill-afford it. The State of Florida alone would have a price tag of $5 billion.

This bill is bad for the consumer. It's bad for patients. It's bad for our health care professionals. It is an expensive, unfunded burden on our States, and it is a stripping of freedom that is uncalled for in this era.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, October 26, 2009, I was not present for 2 recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted the following way:

Roll No. 814--``yea'';

Roll No. 815--``yea.''

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, October 13, 2009, I was not present for 3 recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted the following way: roll No. 772--``yea''; roll No. 773--``yea''; roll No. 774--``yea.''

I thank my friend from Illinois for his leadership on this issue and his original cosponsorship of that Safe FEAST Act, which has had a number of its key principles incorporated into the bill that we're debating today.

I rise in support of the bill that we are debating today. It is a bipartisan bill built on a bipartisan effort and a model that could and should be followed for the other big issues facing this Congress. It's unfortunate that the process that was taken did not adequately include our Agriculture Committee, and I would hope that as we move this issue forward that it will continue to improve upon that because it is important that our Agriculture Committee and our Representatives from rural America have input into this, and the bill will benefit from their input.

The scares that have undermined consumer confidence in our food supply over the last several years have as oftentimes been a result of international food products, imported food goods, as they have been domestic. This bill takes an important step forward in setting the same standards on imported food that we place upon domestically produced food as well. That is a major step in the right direction.

One only need look at the controversy over baby formula, at the economic devastation that came from the misleading public statements by the FDA about tomatoes that were grown in America, which turned out to have been food-borne illness resulting from jalapenos imported from Mexico, to learn the lesson that this legislation must apply the same standards to imported foods as it does to domestic.

This legislation implements risk-based assessments, something that is very important as we look at the breadth and depth of the food industry as it has become globalized. As the world has grown smaller, as America's tastes and preferences have changed and they desire produce from Latin America and spices from Asia, these challenges will continue to grow, and this, by placing risk-based science into the bill, will allow us to build up and maintain public confidence in our food supply.

And that is really the crux of the matter between our producers and our consumers, that on this issue of food safety, there is no distinction between the interests of the farmer and the shopper in the grocery store, because the farmer loses out if FDA and USDA cannot rapidly and accurately trace back the source of food-borne illness.

If they paint the industry with a broad brush, economic losses are severe, so the interests of the farmer are that we have a modern, effective regulatory system. The interests of the consumer are that we have a modern, effective regulatory system, so that they have a high level of confidence in the items that they purchase to put on their family's kitchen table. There must be the highest possible standard and the best possible science behind that law.

As this issue moves forward, improvements can be made as it relates to the quarantine, as it relates to traceability, and, most importantly, as it relates to the implementation of this bill for State and local governments, the State Departments of Agriculture and Health, who, by definition, are delegated much of the responsibility by FDA to implement this legislation. They must have the resources and the authority and the full cooperation of FDA. There have been breakdowns in the past where FDA did not share as much as they should. This bill does much to address that, and can do a bit more.

And in an era where organic farming continues to grow in popularity, we must be sensitive to these ever-changing forms and trends in American agriculture.

With that, I am proud to support the legislation, and I appreciate the leadership of my friend from Illinois and my friend from Michigan.

I thank the chairman emeritus and the dean of the House.