Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Easton/ Newnam Field Airport on its 75th anniversary. Easton Airport on Maryland's Eastern Shore is a fixture in the Talbot County community and celebrates a rich and patriotic history.

Originally constructed by the military during World War II, the Easton Airport was used as one of the hundreds of bases for military planes patrolling the East Coast for Nazi submarines. After the war, the Federal Government sold the Easton Airport, and others like it, to the local jurisdictions in which they were located for just $1.

Since the end of World War II, the Easton Airport has grown to be one of the busiest general aviation facilities in Maryland, serving local businesses, the military, corporate pilots, and aviation enthusiasts.

Congratulations to the Easton Airport on this tremendous anniversary, and cheers to another 75 years of serving Talbot County, the State of Maryland, and the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5788.

Mr. Speaker, there are many facets of opioid abuse and overdoses. We are going to need many pieces of legislation to deal with all of them. This is a particularly important piece of legislation. It deals with the use of the U.S. mail service to import synthetic opioids.

As an anesthesiologist, I have used synthetic opioids for over 30 years, especially the synthetic opioid fentanyl. After it was discovered, it was widely used in a very important drug, especially to treat our sickest patients; but now it is a killer drug, frequently used illegally, mixed with heroin.

Because of its very specific pharmacologic action, it is highly lethal when misused. To add to that, Mr. Speaker, now there is a derivative called carfentanil that is 100 times more potent.

Why is it so important that we secure our mail system?

A grain of rice is 29 milligrams. That is the weight of a grain of rice. Fentanyl the size of a grain of rice will kill 29 people. That is how lethal it is. If it is carfentanil, it is 100 hundred times more potent. That grain of rice-sized piece of carfentanil will kill 2,900 people.

Obviously, the mail system can be used to transport these drugs. Because these are so highly lethal, in Maryland, half our overdose deaths now involve fentanyl or a derivative.

Because these are so small, so concealable, so highly lethal, we have to secure all mechanisms by which these drugs can be transmitted to be used illegally. The mail system right now, because of loopholes that exist that we have heard about today, can be used to transport those drugs to kill our youth. They are imported from foreign countries, where, without any remorse, these drugs are shipped to the United States and result in overdose deaths here.

Mr. Speaker, we have to pass H.R. 5788. We have to secure our mail system and take the scourge of these fentanyl, carfentanil, and other synthetic opioids off our streets where they are killing young Americans.

Mr Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize April as national lawn care month. The landscape industry employs nearly 1 million workers and contributes annual revenue of $78 billion to our nation's economy. From the National Mall to an opening day outfield and even in our own front and back yards, images of beautiful lawns are iconic depictions of American culture and the American dream.

As we recognize these images, we must also recognize the work that goes into the upkeep of such lawns. Landscape and lawn care professionals play a vital role in ensuring that lawns are not only maintained but also healthy. Healthy grass and turf deliver essential benefits to families, communities, and the environment.

Healthy lawns offer protection against disease carrying insects. They provide oxygen, protect our waterways, and clean the air. They are the backdrop for important life memories such as first steps, athletic accomplishments, and gatherings for friends and families. Healthy lawns are important parts of our communities.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, next Tuesday, March 20, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for the case NIFLA v. Becerra. At issue is a California law that requires medically licensed pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise for and to promote the abortion industry by posting notices alerting clients that the State of California provides free or low-cost abortions.

This law blatantly violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The government may never compel anyone, including pregnancy centers, to make statements with which they disagree. This is clearly and blatantly unconstitutional, and courts across the Nation agree.

When abortionists sought to compel the speech of pregnancy centers in other jurisdictions, their laws were not allowed to stand. In fact, in 2009, in my home State of Maryland, a Baltimore city ordinance required pregnancy centers to post signs in their waiting rooms stating that they do not refer for abortions. This January, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that this law is unconstitutional. Judge Wilkinson said that the ordinance compels ``a politically and religiously motivated group to convey a message fundamentally at odds with its core belief and its mission.''

Similar laws have been tried in Austin, Texas; Montgomery County, Maryland; and New York City. These laws, too, have been partially or fully invalidated. Even the California law in question has already been found to violate freedom of speech.

While the Federal case was advancing to the Supreme Court, a parallel track was being pursued at the State level. In October of last year, Judge Gloria Trask found that the law violated article I, section 2 of the California Constitution. In fact, she granted an injunction that prevents California from enforcing the law. She said the ``speech required by the FACT Act is unquestionably compelled and content based.'' It forces the clinic to point the way to the abortion clinic and can leave patients with the belief that they were referred to an abortion clinic provider by that pro-life pregnancy center.

Now, instead of seeking to silence pro-life pregnancy centers, people in every community should celebrate and support their work. They provide vital free or low-cost care to vulnerable women and children. So today we are here to talk about how pro-life pregnancy centers help mothers in our communities, giving them real choice.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), who organized this Special Order with me, for comments he might make.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, we need to remind people that these pro-life pregnancy centers are private entities. They run on private donations. They provide services at no charge to these mothers. In some pregnancy centers--a lot of them, for instance--they will have a room that is just full of supplies, supplies to help a mother, to help a mother in a crisis pregnancy get through the pregnancy, take care of that child, and to give that child the very precious gift of life.

Mr. Speaker, I would next yield to the gentleman from Michigan for comments he might make on the importance of pregnancy centers. While he is getting to the microphone, let me just tell you a story that one of the pregnancy crisis centers told me. Again, these are centers that frequently now provide ultrasound exams.

And they tell me the story of a woman who called the helpline seeking an abortion, actually. She called the pregnancy center helpline. She knew very little about the emotional, physical, or spiritual repercussions of the choice she was considering. She felt alone, told by her boyfriend to ``get rid of it'' or he was gone.

But the pregnancy center gave her a choice. They scheduled an appointment. She came for the appointment. And after seeing her 9-week- old baby's heartbeat and it move about playfully in her womb, she decided to give this child the gift of life.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his comments. He brings up a good point. These pregnancy centers don't only help mothers and give them choices; they actually help the fathers as well. A lot of times these fathers just don't know what fatherhood will be like, and they mentor these fathers and, again, begin to give that couple the ability to create a loving household for that child.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) to also speak on this topic.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for those words in support of these pro-life pregnancy centers. Tonight we are going to hear, during this hour, from some of the real leaders of the pro-life movement; but, in this case, we should really call this the pro-choice movement because that is what these pregnancy centers actually do: they give women a real choice.

A lot of women who come to these pregnancy centers, of course, are pressured or expect that they can't bring these pregnancies to fulfillment, to the birth of a new life. And these pregnancy centers give them the choice to do that. They provide the resources, the support, the mentoring, the prayers that these difficult pregnancies need.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a pro- life leader, to speak about these crisis pregnancy centers.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for those touching comments. Again, this is about giving mothers choices.

You know, one has to ask the question: Why in the world don't abortion clinics show ultrasounds? What are they afraid of? Are they afraid of giving a woman a real choice, of actually seeing that baby, of denying the fact that it is not a blob of tissue, it is actually a baby with a heartbeat?

It is a baby that moves. It is your child. But they don't get that choice in an abortion clinic. They get it at a crisis pregnancy center.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington) for his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for those comments. He is absolutely right. No matter where you stand on the issue of abortion, you should stand with the First Amendment on the right of an individual not to have their speech compelled by the government; and that is what at stake in this court case.

I want to just thank God that we have a President who understands the importance of these constitutional bases, and one who, I believe, will nominate Justices to the Supreme Court who will continue to uphold the First Amendment and the other amendments to the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), a pro-life leader in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler) for her comments.

Just to remind people, you know, there are things you find in a crisis pregnancy center you just don't find in your local Planned Parenthood. Almost all of them will have a room where donated clothing--clothing that, you know, most of it used. Yeah, that is the way it is. People who have had children, their children are grown. They will donate their clothing to a pregnancy center to help those mothers who need help, mothers who perhaps feel they can't financially afford to have a child because they have to buy clothing for a child, they have to buy diapers. These pregnancy centers give them a real choice.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), another pro-life leader in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for comments.

Again, just reminding, as the gentlewoman said, these are centers that provide true resources to women at a time when they are very, very vulnerable. I can't imagine why a city council or a State legislature, or any jurisdiction, or any legislature would want to--what amounts to--close these centers down, because these are people who believe abortion is wrong.

They are not going to refer people for abortions. That is the bottom line. They will close their doors before they will send someone to something that they think is morally reprehensible, and the last thing the State should do is compel them to ever do that. Why we would want to close these centers down that are so vital to our communities is a puzzle to me.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington for those comments. He points out that each of our districts have numerous pregnancy centers, usually. In fact, crisis pregnancy centers outnumber abortion clinics three to one. These are valuable resources in anyone's district, in any town, any county.

What is at issue here is, if you had a nonprofit running a recreation center in your neighborhood and it provided resources to troubled teenagers after school, this would be like the State telling that recreation center, ``Do you know what? You have got to promote a certain religion in your recreation center,'' or, ``Do you know what? You have got to put out certain political pamphlets of one political party on your desk when people come in the door.'' We would be incensed with that. This is exactly what California is attempting to do with this law to these pro-life crisis pregnancy centers.

With that, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams) for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas and, again, remind everyone that these are such valuable resources in their towns and their neighborhoods.

I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).

One thing about Congress is we have people with all different areas of expertise, but on this particular issue, the gentleman from Louisiana brings particular expertise because of his background as a lawyer and one who has defended religious liberty in courtrooms here in the United States, protecting that very important right given to us in the First Amendment that is at issue, at issue in this California case.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana not only for those excellent remarks, but for bringing this kind of expertise to the House of Representatives.

Now I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Smith is a leader in protecting human rights around the world, from the U.S. House of Representatives, a leader in protecting life and, in this case, giving his remarks about how important pro-life pregnancy centers are to our Nation and our communities and how damaging this law would be.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey very much for his comments.

It is a shame that here in the United States, with the freedoms that we have guaranteed in our Constitution, that this even has to come before a court. It is so clear that it is unconstitutional to compel speech against someone's beliefs--political, religious beliefs. These are what our Nation is founded on, and to compel these clinics to do this is something that shouldn't even enter the thoughts of anyone.

Again, we would never compel any other nonprofit existing on donations and the neighborhood providing things to people in those neighborhoods and communities. We wouldn't think of compelling, again, political speech. We wouldn't think of compelling religious activity.

Yet, here, California attempts to compel these volunteers, these clinics, who work on providing such a valuable choice to the women in their community, to essentially refer for an abortion that is against all the deeply held beliefs of these individuals.

Mr. Speaker, I want to read the stories of some of the women who go to these clinics, because this really is about choice. This is about institutions in a community that offer true choice. Now, these are stories from the pregnancy centers in my community.

So let me first tell you about Miranda. Mr. Speaker, 19-year-old Miranda came to this pregnancy center with her boyfriend and learned she was 9 weeks pregnant. Miranda worked 9 hours a day as a cashier at a Home Depot. She, honestly, was not happy with the positive results of her test. She didn't think she could raise a baby, and nobody had any faith in her.

You see, a year earlier, Miranda had had an abortion. She still cries at the recollection and feels the pain of what she had done. She didn't want to make that choice again, but her circumstances hadn't changed, and she felt that that is what she had to do.

Now, the volunteer counselor praised Miranda for working full time and getting her GED. The volunteer counselor explained how Miranda could obtain healthcare, and how that clinic's Earn While You Learn Program would educate her on prenatal care and parenting, as well as provide her with much-needed baby supplies once the baby was born.

Then Miranda saw the fetal models depicting a 9-week-old fetus. She couldn't believe what she was seeing. She asked so many questions, like: When does the heart start beating? Would it be possible for her to hear the beating heart? When does the baby start kicking?

You see, Miranda explained that the abortion clinic she had been to a year before never told her about the development of the baby. She had been 15 weeks pregnant at the time she aborted.

It was so surprising for her to see the truth in those baby models. Nobody ever told her that her baby had been so fully developed. Miranda said that the best part about coming to the pregnancy center was that they ``told her she could do it.'' You see, she had never heard that before. Nobody had ever told her that. She had a real choice now.

Here is a story about Laura. When Laura came to the center 2 years ago, she was feeling nauseated and miserable. The timing of her pregnancy couldn't be worse. She had recently discovered that her mother had been diagnosed with late stage liver disease.

Laura, too, was post-abortive. Her previous abortion was a terrible experience that left her emotionally scarred, of course, as it leaves many women.

She didn't want to have another abortion, but felt she had no choice. She wanted to be there for her mom during her mother's time of need.

Now, the volunteer advocate in the clinic spent lots of time just listening to Laura. It became clear that Laura

really wanted to keep her baby but was lost in trying to figure out how.

Mr. Speaker, this is a recurring story in these pregnancy centers. There is a reason why they used to be called crisis pregnancy centers. These are women frequently in crisis who want to have that choice but don't see the way out of their circumstances.

Well, this counselor helped Laura navigate through the muddy waters of her life and envision a future with her child.

Soon, Laura's fear began to subside. A sonogram revealed a 7-week-old baby. In a tearful voice, Laura said: ``That is my baby.''

Since then, Laura has returned to the center weekly, participating in their prenatal education classes. She actually moved in with her mother so she could help her through her illness. Laura's hope is that her mom will be strong enough to hold the baby and spend her last days on Earth with her grandchild.

Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of hope that pregnancy centers give women and their families. And, often, two lives are saved in these pregnancy centers: the child's and the mother's.

An unplanned pregnancy can provide an opportunity and inspiration for a woman to get her life back on track; in these two cases, to actually start the family. A pregnancy can give a woman a reason to live, to take care of that child; a reason to go back to school to finish her education, as we heard about Miranda; a reason to reconcile with her family.

As a father of five, and everyone who has been a parent knows this: we know how parenthood truly fundamentally transforms a person well before the child is born.

From the time you know that you are going to have a new baby in the family, as well as every moment afterward, life is precious, life is priceless. Pregnancy centers support women during every step of that journey of providing a new life, a gift from God.

Mr. Speaker, next week, the Court will hear a case that perhaps threatens the very existence of crisis pregnancy centers and pro-life pregnancy centers in the United States. I hope that those nine Justices have the wisdom to see that, in America, that a jurisdiction--whether it is California or Baltimore, Montgomery County, or Austin, Texas, or any jurisdiction--that has tried to compel speech in these pregnancy centers is violating our constitutional rights and, worse than that, is really affecting valuable resources in our community, the most valuable resource a woman with a crisis pregnancy can have.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for giving me the opportunity to serve as the co-chair of the Pro-Life Caucus and to speak briefly today on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision.

Mr. Speaker, for the last hour, those of you who listened, and there are a lot of people watching who listened, was a discussion about the humanity of individuals, the humanity of people here in America, and how we need to deal with it, how we need to respect it, how we need to take that humanity into consideration. And we will. That had to do with the DREAMers. It was about DACA.

But for this hour, we are going to talk about 1 million human beings a year who lose their life through abortion in the United States--one million human beings per year.

Now, why do I emphasize human beings? Because the science on this is very clear. These are human beings. From the moment of conception, their genetic makeup is unique from every other human being in the world and uniquely human.

So how can we not consider those 1 million human beings a year who lose their life to abortion not the greatest human rights challenge that faces us here in the United States?

When we have the March for Life in 2 days, we are going to see many people from the millennial generation, many young people, who I think realize, because they have grown up and they learn in their science class, that these, in fact, are 1 million human beings every year who lose their life in the United States. They realize the science is clear. They are human beings. They deserve the protection of this Congress.

We are going to deal with the issues that they talked about last hour, and then the Congress should turn its attention to ending that human rights abuse for those 1 million human beings every year who lose their life to elective abortion right here in the United States.

I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his leadership over the decades on this issue. The struggle is not over. This human rights issue is not over, but hopefully, thank God, one day it will be.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act as well. This commonsense legislation protects the constitutional right to bear arms by allowing qualified individuals to carry a concealed firearm across State lines.

Our First Amendment rights to free speech don't change when we cross State lines, and neither should our Second Amendment constitutional right to protect ourselves.

Unfortunately for Marylanders, our right to bear arms is still heavily restricted by gun-control liberals in our State legislature.

Restricting the right to own firearms only hurts a law-abiding citizen's right to defend herself. Cities like Baltimore and Chicago, with their out-of-control murder rates despite their highly restrictive gun laws, are proof of that.

Concealed carry reciprocity will make our country safer. Self-defense is the top reason cited for owning a firearm, and concealed carry permit holders are certainly not to blame for our Nation's violent crime problem.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 38 and protect our Second Amendment rights.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the out-of-control, President Obama-appointed bureaucrats over at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The CFPB has always been notorious for its questionably illegal agenda, but the agency and its leadership crossed the line last week when its Director, Richard Cordray, resigned.

Before he left, he attempted to circumvent the President's authority by illegally appointing another bureaucrat to replace him. But instead, President Trump, under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, appointed Mr. Mick Mulvaney to temporarily head the CFPB.

Instead of allowing Mr. Mulvaney to fill the vacancy and get the CFPB working again, that bureaucrat, Leandra English, with the support of Mr. Cordray, tried to stage a coup against the President and Mr. Mulvaney by taking the President to court.

Mr. Speaker, partisan career bureaucrats will do anything they can to discredit the President and block his policy agenda. This behavior is exactly why President Trump ran for office in the first place. We need to drain the swamp, and let's start with the CFPB.

I applaud our judicial system for upholding the rule of law and confirming Mr. Mulvaney's right to lead the CFPB. We cannot allow petty partisan politics over at CFPB to obstruct our government's ability to govern.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to engage the gentleman from Texas in a colloquy.

We should not be satisfied with the historically low economic growth rates of the past decade. This tax reform bill that creates jobs, increases paychecks, grows our economy, and increases American competitiveness can help Maryland families and businesses.

The bill we are considering today has many positive elements that will benefit our country in many ways. However, I am concerned about its impact on some of my constituents in Maryland who pay high State and local income taxes. I ask you, as the Ways and Means chairman, to continue to work with me to ensure that families and job creators in my district will all be helped by this legislation.

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for agreeing to work with me on this as we move forward. I will be voting for this bill today, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill to increase American competitiveness.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise President Trump and my Republican colleagues in the House and Senate for coming together to develop the first major tax reform plan that our Nation has seen since 1986.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act we are considering is going to deliver real tax relief to middle class families and small businesses.

However, there is more work to be done. Here in the U.S., we don't settle for good enough. Congress can make the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act even better for the American people by including a repeal of ObamaCare's individual mandate.

No American should ever be forced to purchase something that they don't want. That is not freedom. That is not the American way. For 3 years now, Federal Government bureaucrats have forced Americans to purchase insurance they can't afford and don't want.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to repeal ObamaCare's individual forced mandate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend President Trump for his attention to the opioid epidemic sweeping over our great Nation and his declaration of a public health emergency.

As we work to address this epidemic, I was happy to welcome Richard Baum, the acting director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, to Cecil County in Maryland's First Congressional District 10 days ago for their Prescription Drug Take Back Day. My home State of Maryland has been hit particularly hard by the opioid crisis. Last year, 89 percent of all intoxication deaths in Maryland were linked to opioid abuse, and the frequency of opioid-related deaths quadrupled over the last 7 years.

But despite these frightening statistics, State and Federal lawmakers

across the country are still pushing to legalize recreational marijuana. Marijuana use increases the risk of cancer, hinders brain development in adolescents and young adults, and encourages experimentation with even more dangerous drugs, including opioids.

Mr. Speaker, with the opioid crisis our Nation is currently fighting, why on Earth should we increase access to an addictive gateway drug?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my gratitude for the bravery of Maryland and Delaware's law enforcement officers and the officers of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

On October 18, a deranged gunman opened fire at Emmorton Business Park in Edgewood, Maryland and a used car dealership in Wilmington, Delaware. Three victims were killed and three more were wounded that day.

I pray for the families of the fallen victims and for the recovery of the injured. Thankfully, our state and local law enforcement and our ATF officers responded quickly to the crisis, and apprehended the shooter after he fled the scene.

I am perpetually grateful for the brave men and women who place themselves in the line of fire to protect others. Thank you all for your service and sacrifice, and may God bless America.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the committee for promptly reporting H.R. 2989 to the floor for consideration.

I rise today in support of a bill I have cosponsored with Delegate Norton, the Frederick Douglass Bicentennial Commission Act. As we approach the 200th anniversary of Frederick Douglass' birth, I urge my colleagues in the House to support this legislation.

The purpose of this bill is more than just honoring the birth of one great civil rights leader. Its purpose is to recognize his lasting impact on American Government, culture, and values. Frederick Douglass' work stretched far beyond the fight for legal freedom into the equally important fight for social and cultural equality.

Born on Maryland's beautiful Eastern Shore, Douglass escaped slavery to become an author, abolitionist, and true American hero. Frederick Douglass is a model for the values that make our Nation great: equality, liberty, and a commitment to working hard and helping others.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to honor Frederick Douglass and the resounding impact his work has had on modern American culture by passing this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the Nation stands in mourning over the tragedy in Las Vegas. No one ever wants to be in that situation. But it, once again, reminds us that, when there is danger, our law enforcement officers run to it, not away from it.

We are going to hear many stories from that tragedy in Las Vegas, but many of them will concern those brave law enforcement officers who, at the risk of their own life, protected and saved the lives of many, many others.

So, as we mourn the tragedy in Las Vegas, let us always remember and be thankful for those law enforcement officers who protect us each and every day.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas is absolutely right. An important thing happened this week. We announced that the American public is going to get a tax cut.

As I go around my district, as I am sure Members when they go around their districts, one thing they rarely hear is: You know, Washington spends their money very efficiently. They do everything just right. So why don't you tax me a little bit more?

We don't hear that.

What we hear is that hardworking Americans want to keep more of their paycheck. They look at what the Federal Government takes out of their paycheck. They don't think they are getting their money's worth. Honestly, Mr. Speaker, once you are around here a while, you realize they are probably not getting their money's worth.

So what we are going to do is we are going to follow the President's lead. The President has said that what he wants is a tax reform bill that cuts taxes in America so that businesses come back to America, that our job creators get tax relief, and that hardworking middle class American families can keep more of their paychecks. And that is exactly what the tax reform outline has laid out for the American public this week.

Now, from the naysayers, you will hear the same old lines: tax cuts for the rich, blah, blah, blah.

The bottom line is that we are going to relieve the tax burden on American businesses that will bring jobs back to this country.

Mr. Speaker, if you look over the past 35 years of what has happened, from 1980 to 2015, the corporate tax rates, back in 1980, the top line of this graph is the U.S. tax rate, marginal corporate tax rate, which was around 50 percent at the time. It was just about the same as what the worldwide average was.

In the 1980s, the last time we had major tax reform under the leadership of President Reagan, we dropped the corporate tax rate to under 40 percent, and at that time, it was right in the middle of where the corporate taxes were worldwide. So the companies had no advantage to take their businesses and move it overseas in order to save taxes.

But something very interested happened. If you look at the top line here, since then, our corporate tax rate has stayed at right about 40 percent. It is now 39.6 when you add in both the Federal taxes and the State corporate taxes, but the worldwide averages have fallen.

Mr. Speaker, other countries around the world have figured out that businesses will go to countries and they will create jobs in those areas where the taxes are lower.

So what has happened?

So if you look at what the corporate taxes look like now and what the corporate tax rates are around the world, these are the 35 leading nations, our competitors in the world. The United States now has the highest corporate tax rate at 38.9 percent combined. Again, the Federal plus the State tax rate. France and Belgium, 34 percent. Germany, 30 percent.

But if you look at where we are losing our business to, it turns out that very small countries like Ireland, way down at the bottom, years ago lowered their corporate tax rate to 12\1/2\ percent.

And what happened?

We moved businesses to Ireland.

When I worked in the operating room--and still do a few days a year-- I would pick up what is called an endotracheal tube. It is a tube we use when

we breathe for a patient. It goes into their windpipe and they breathe through it. I would pick it up--and this happened 15 years ago--look at it and say: ``Wait a minute. This is made in Ireland. How in the world are medical items like this made in Ireland?'' And I would look at other items in the operating room, and they were made in Ireland.

I didn't know at the time that the reason was that Ireland lowered its corporate tax rate, and literally many things that used to be made in the United States, like those endotracheal tubes, like other medical devices, were now made in Ireland; not by Americans, but by people in Ireland. We lost those jobs over there, and it was as a result of our corporate tax rate.

So our other competitors, you know, we look at car manufacturers, Korea, 24 percent corporate tax rate. Again, ours is at 38.9 percent. We look at other places around the world. The United Kingdom, Britain, one of our largest trading partners and one that certainly competes with us for businesses, whether it is the pharmaceutical industry or whether it is other businesses, they are at 19 percent. We are at 38.9 percent.

So what does this tax plan do?

This tax plan says that for those corporations that are moving businesses around the world based on a tax rate, we can't have the highest tax rate in the world, because what we have seen is the emptying of American manufacturing to places around the world where the tax rate is lower.

Mr. Speaker, I would offer that if you or I invented something today and we looked to manufacture it somewhere, where would we go? Would we stay in the United States with a 38.9 percent combined corporate tax rate? Or would we go to Ireland, where it is 12\1/2\ percent, where, for every item we make, our company can make more money, invest that back in the company and take profits from it?

Of course we would go to Ireland.

So what do we have to do?

We have to address that. The President has said this is one of his top priorities, because this will bring back the jobs that have bled from the United States.

When we looked at what is called a corporate inversion, where a company looks to buy an American company, move its headquarters overseas, it is doing it for tax purposes.

Why should that happen? Why shouldn't we be attracting these companies to the United States? How do we do it?

We do it by lowering the corporate tax rate. The plan, the outline that we have put forward to the American people this week lowers the corporate tax rate to 20 percent. Again, from 35 percent, which is the Federal rate, to 20 percent. It lowers it to the lowest among our competitive countries. Now, not as low as I would like to see it go, not as low as the President would like to see it go. The President thinks we need to be way down at the bottom of that chart. That is how we need to attract businesses back.

Mr. Speaker, to be honest, if we lower the tax rate just to be competitive, we are not competitive anymore. Companies will bring their business back to the United States for the reasons that a lot of businesses originally were in the United States: we have a highly trained workforce, we have the rule of law, we have a lot of benefits for businesses to do business here.

Now, if Congress agrees, if we can come up with this reform plan, we are going to be seeing businesses fighting each other to come back into the United States because they realize this is the place they can do business best.

Mr. Speaker, only a minority of jobs are actually produced by those large corporations, what we call C corporations, the ones that paid the ``corporate income tax.''

So the President said he also wanted to emphasize that what we need to do is lower the tax rate on our small businesses because, as you know, almost two-thirds of the jobs created in this country are created by small businesses.

So the Unified Tax Reform Framework, our tax plan, limits the maximum tax rate for small and family-owned businesses to 25 percent. Mr. Speaker, today that tax rate is 39.6 percent. Again, this will allow these small businesses and our family-owned businesses to take the money, invest it; and then when their businesses make money, when they hire workers and they make money, they are allowed to keep more to put back in those businesses, to hire more workers. This is how we get our economy going again.

If you talk to, again, these small businesses and these family-owned businesses, or the larger businesses, there are two things that these businesses say they need in order to succeed. One is they need a regulatory environment that is reasonable.

Mr. Speaker, the last administration was strangling American businesses through overregulation. So the first thing the President did when he came into office, to his credit, is say: We have to have only reasonable regulations. We can't overregulate our businesses. We are stifling them.

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that over the past 100 years, the average growth in what we call the GDP--the gross domestic product--in the United States, the average growth in GDP is 3.3 percent over 100 years.

Now, over the last administration, of course, you know it has the dubious honor of being the first administration where there was never a year of 3 percent growth. In fact, the average growth was under 2 percent. The mood was so bad in American business and the American business climate that the economists who would predict how the economy was going to operate have actually lowered their expectations of GDP growth to under 2 percent per year for the near future. That is not the America we know.

The America we know leads the world. When we see 6, 7, and 8 percent growth in China, why would we be satisfied with under 2 percent growth?

There is no need to be satisfied with that.

So we have to go to, again, our small businesses and our other businesses and ask them: What do you need to grow and produce jobs, to bring jobs back to this country, to put Americans back to work?

And the answer is: One, relieve us of the regulatory burden.

And from day one, that is what the President has done.

But there is another thing they say. We need relief from our tax rate. Again, the tax rate was the highest in the industrialized world. Our tax rate, the highest in the industrialized world. Our tax rate on small businesses was even higher. 39.6 percent was the highest marginal rate. That is not an environment where businesses thrive.

The President is taking care, to a large extent, of relieving the regulatory burden, the over-regulatory burden, that exists for American businesses.

Now Congress needs to turn its attention to the second leg on that stool, which is the tax problems. So the reform framework does that, and it does it exactly the right way. It says we agree with the President.

Americans are waiting for these jobs to come back. They don't want to see the back end of the moving van leaving American companies and bringing them overseas anymore. They don't like that. I can't blame them. There is no reason why more things can't be made here, more businesses can't thrive here.

So we need to take those steps, but that is only one part of this plan. The President said the other thing we need to do is return more dollars into the pockets of hardworking middle class taxpayers. That is exactly what this plan does. It does it by simplifying the Tax Code, by doubling the standard deduction and lowering all the rates.

The naysayers will say: Well, you know, if you lower the rates, you are going to increase our debt and our deficit. In fact, if you turn on the TV right now, that is what all the talking heads are complaining about. How could those Republicans suggest a plan that will increase our deficit?

Well, Mr. Speaker, if you ask some people over at the Congressional Budget Office what happens to revenues if you increase the tax rate to 200 percent of income, they will say: Oh, it goes up 200 percent.

Well, that is ridiculous. At some point, overtaxation suppresses economic activity, and revenues go down.

Conversely, both with the tax cuts under President Kennedy in the 1960s

and the tax cuts with President Reagan in the 1980s, what we saw when we lowered rates was, in fact, the rejuvenation of the American economy, a stimulation of our GDP, a stimulation of our economy, leading to, in fact, increased revenue in both of those instances.

But in both of those instances, the naysayers said: You can't do this. If you are going to cut your taxes, your deficits will go up. That just plain doesn't happen.

So, yes, if you assume, all else being equal, that if we lower tax rates that revenue will go down, that would be true. But we know what happens when the American people feel the economy is going well, when they are fully employed, when we bring good-paying jobs back to this country and we lower the tax burden directly on hardworking middle class Americans. We know what happens. The economy grows.

With more money in their pockets, people make the decision to buy a car, to buy a house, to buy the new washing machine, to spend money on things that they have been afraid to spend money on because of the stagnant economy over the past 8 years.

We will unleash growth like we haven't seen since the 1980s, when, in response to the Reagan tax cuts, we had GDP growth not of 3 percent, not of 4 percent, but of 5 and 6 percent after that tax cut. So, in fact, tax cuts stimulate the economy, which lifts all boats, and it increases revenues.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have to tackle this challenge.

Now, we know there are a lot of special interests there because, when you simplify the Tax Code, what happens? All the lobbyists come knocking on our doors, and they want to maintain their little piece of this Tax Code.

And the Tax Code runs to thousands and thousands of pages. Very knowledgeable people can't even fill out their tax returns anymore, they are so complicated. Or they are worried they filled it out wrong.

Or, Mr. Speaker, the best thing--or the worst thing--the funniest thing that I hear is that, if you have a tax question and you can't figure out exactly how to do it and you call the IRS, if you call two or three times, you are likely to get two or three different answers about how to fill out that form and how much tax you have to pay.

Well, when you get to that situation, you have gone way too far, and, Mr. Speaker, that is where we are. We are at that situation that a reasonable American can't even fill out their own taxes it has become so complicated.

So, as part of this framework, if we can simplify it the way this framework says, 90 percent of Americans will literally be able to fill out their taxes on something the size of a postcard. That is what we need to get back to, that kind of simplification.

But again, the road won't be easy because we will have all the special interests here in this town, and we know there are a lot of them. We will have all of those special interests knocking on our doors, saying: Please preserve our little carve-out.

But every little carve-out makes the Tax Code more complicated. Every complication means that hardworking Americans don't get to keep as much in their pockets, and that is what we have to solve. We have to solve this problem. It has been getting worse now.

Again, the last time we dealt with the Tax Code in a comprehensive way was 30 years ago. To its credit, at the time, we reduced rates, we stimulated the economy, but we really didn't simplify the Tax Code as much as we would like to at this point.

So it is going to be hard, it is going to take months, and it is going to take a lot of people looking past the naysayers, past the people who say this can't be done, past the people who say the sky is falling, because we have heard this all before.

I am old enough to have heard it in the 1980s. That is when I started working. That is when I started bringing home a paycheck. That is the time when I started realizing what Federal taxation was.

I always tell the story of my oldest daughter, who trained to become a nurse, and she went and got hired. The first time she brought her paycheck--a real paycheck, a full-time job paycheck from the hospital-- home, she said: Dad, what is going on here? I thought I was making this amount of money, and this is the amount I bring home.

We all know what happened. You saw all those lines: The Federal tax taken out; the State tax taken out; the local tax taken out; the Social Security tax taken out; the Medicare. You saw all the taxes that were taken out.

So what we have to do is we have to simplify the Code, bring those tax rates down, put more of that money in the pockets of hardworking middle class Americans. We owe them that. Part of that is simplifying that Tax Code. Now, once we do this and we stimulate the economy, we get the economy going again, our deficits will come down.

Look, we have to control spending. There is no question about it. Spending in this town is out of control. There is no question about it. Our deficit will exceed $700 billion a year.

To put that in perspective, that is 20 times the size of my State's entire budget, and that is the amount that we are going to borrow this year.

When people say that we need money for this and we need money for that, every time we ask that question, you know, can we afford it, we have to ask: Can we afford passing this debt on to future generations?

I have five children, now, six grandchildren. My children will never pay off this debt. Those listening at home, if they don't believe me, go and look at the Federal Budget website and look at the projection of Federal debt. It never goes to zero. It never, ever goes to zero-- ever--not in my children's lives, not in my grandchildren's lives, not in my great-grandchildren's lives. That is just not the way we ought to run a government.

So once we tackle this tax reform, once we get our economy booming again with businesses vying to come into this country--not to go to some other country, but to come into America to do business--then we have to turn our attention to securing the future for future generations, to making certain that our Social Security system, which our seniors depend on, will not only be here for the seniors now, but for when my children and grandchildren reach their old age; that the Medicare system, which is scheduled now to be bankrupt in 10 years, that the Medicare system that our seniors depend on will not be there just for my generation, not just for my children's generation, but for my grandchildren.

We have to make sure that this country remains the strongest, most powerful country on Earth, a force for good and freedom throughout the world. We have to restore our defense budget. This President, to his credit, has called for that.

But as we restore our defense budget, we do have to redefine our spending priorities, because we don't--or, I guess, maybe we do, print money here, but it is not the right thing to do. We shouldn't be borrowing from future generations to take care of these priorities.

We have to get our economy going, make sure our revenues increase, and then turn our attention to making sure those revenues are spent wisely and that we define the future for our children and grandchildren, a future that they can be proud of in a country that remains, as Majority Whip Scalise said on this floor today, standing at this podium, a country that the world can look toward for leadership, the country that, for now over a century, the world has looked toward for leadership to be the beacon of freedom, to be what President Reagan called the ``shining city on the hill.'' Mr. Speaker, we do that by restoring the health of our economy.

We took a big step toward that this week with our tax reform framework. We are setting the country up for an economic rejuvenation, for a restoration, for those companies that have gone overseas to come back home. Let our great American workers make their products. Come back home to the greatest country this world has ever known.

Mr. Speaker, that was a big step, but it is only the first step. We have weeks and months of work to get that done, a big job, an important job, but the first step was taken this week.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, to commemorate Healthcare Simulation Week, which makes its debut September 11-15, 2017, I would like to share with you my views as a physician on the importance of simulation in healthcare.

Simulation is a technique creating a situation or environment that allows people to experience a representation of a real event to practice, learn, be tested or to understand systems and human actions.

Using simulation, similar to that for pilots and flight crews in aviation, learners address hands-on and thinking skills, including procedures, real-time decision-making and communication. Critical teamwork actions such as managing a high workload, adapting to unexpected changes, and coordinating under stress are practiced. Simulation-based training encompasses a broad range of experiences, including the use of task trainers, live actors, mannequins, 3D and computer modeling, and even virtual reality.

Healthcare Simulation Week, sponsored by the Society for Simulation in Healthcare, celebrates professionals who use simulation to impact the safety, effectiveness, and efficiency of healthcare delivery.

As a physician and Navy man, I am well aware of the benefits that simulation brings to patient safety and to the financial interests of healthcare institutions. According to a study cited in Modern Healthcare magazine, anesthesiologists who took part in simulation- based training on how to properly wean patients from cardiopulmonary bypass performed better in real-life procedures than those who received traditional interactive seminars. And, Dr. Christine Park, President of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare, says that numerous studies demonstrate that simulation more effectively prepares all types of providers, including physicians, nurses, first responders and others across the full spectrum of experience. Simulation provides the opportunity to learn, analyze error, and maintain life-saving skills before working on actual patients.

In a Gallup poll on the subject, 92 percent of the American public believed that simulation-based education for board-certified physicians was important.

Healthcare Simulation Week is an excellent opportunity for my physician and nursing colleagues and every member of Congress to recognize that the quality of health care for all patients, including ourselves, can be greatly improved through new advances in simulation, and that simulation should be included in all aspects of healthcare education. We believe that a system-wide embedding of simulation in hospitals and systems should be the norm and should appear in an assessment of hospital rankings.