Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, it's been 64 days since the Deepwater Horizon exploded, sank, killed 11 rig workers, and began spilling oil into the Gulf of Mexico. So I think we all agree that, first and foremost, we must stop the leak, clean up the spill, protect our coast, and hold BP accountable for damages.

Next, though, we've got to get to the bottom of what happened. And like my colleague just said, if we're going to go ultra-deep, make sure that it's ultra-safe. Now, for that to happen, we have to know the facts--a detailed account informed by understanding of what did take place, and then put in these ultra-safe safety and enforcement measures to make the United States the safest place to drill to get the resources to power our economy.

Now this was supposed to be the purpose of the National Oil Spill Commission. Instead, the members of this do not appear to be up to the challenge. Instead of appointing independent experts with knowledge and expertise of deepwater drilling, the President has packed the commission with people who lack expertise in the issues we're confronting.

First, let me say, Madam Speaker, I am for this commission having subpoena power. I am for them learning as much as they can learn. My concern is they do not have the members capable of understanding what they need to understand. There are no petroleum engineers in this commission, nor anyone else with experience in deepwater drilling.

Now, if you're going to have a commission to figure out what went wrong in a petroleum engineering circumstance in deepwater drilling, you need members who have expertise in those issues. And if we don't learn from this, if we don't figure out how not to repeat these mistakes, then we're dooming ourselves to either repeat these accidents or to have an energy future which is far less secure.

Now, Candidate Obama pledged to put science before politics, but it appears the President is rejecting science and professional expertise in responding to this. He recently imposed a moratorium that his handpicked experts said should not be put in place. These experts stated this moratorium ``will have a lasting impact on the Nation's economy which may be greater than that of the oil spill.'' They specifically said that the moratorium should not be blanket, but rather targeted to those rigs at risk.

Madam Speaker, I speak as someone from Louisiana. We have over 150,000 jobs at stake here. These are jobs in the energy production field, fisheries, wetlands, and our ecosytem. At stake is not only these jobs, though, but the

ability of our country to provide the energy we need to power our vehicles and our businesses, to provide jobs, in a sense, to make our economy go.

Now, this spill is a disaster for the gulf coast and especially for my State. The citizens have had their lives and livelihoods upended by this spill, but the commission we're debating here today is a disappointment. To get to the bottom of what happened, we need people who are up to the task. We need to put science before politics for the sake of the gulf, our Nation, and for those whose jobs are at risk.

Madam Speaker, on April 20, Louisiana lost eleven fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons at the Deepwater Horizon accident in the Gulf. Sorrow for their deaths is borne across our State.

As we focus our energies on stopping the spill, it is important that we focus our prayers on the families who are grieving the loss of loved ones. We cannot lose sight of the fact that this incident began--and is--a painful human tragedy, and I am thankful for all of those in Louisiana who are consoling these families and providing comfort in their time of need.

In mourning their loss, we should also recognize their contributions to Louisiana and the Nation.

As this event makes painfully clear, energy security, even at home, is not won easily. The men and women who work on rigs and pipelines endure long hours, tough conditions, and considerable risk to provide us with the energy our Nation needs to prosper.

To all of those who make this sacrifice on the Nation's behalf, thank you. And to the families who lost loved ones, our prayers are with you and we are here for you.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 302 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 291 and 292. My plane was delayed. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 291 and 292. My plane was delayed. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, it's always fun to listen to the debate because clearly both sides are saying the same thing but disagreeing to it. I am actually referencing some of the things we're speaking of.

We are told that the health care bill is going to create jobs in addition to its primary goal of increasing access to quality care at an affordable price. Now, a component of this is Medicaid, insuring 21 million people across the Nation, a combined Federal-State program where the State pays part, the Feds pay part. The problem is that Medicaid is not providing access to quality care at an affordable price.

There were two articles from the New York Times recently. One speaks of how people with Medicaid cannot get in to see a physician. They have to go to the emergency room because physicians don't see Medicaid patients because it pays so little and it has so much hassle. The other is about how a woman with cancer in Michigan cannot find a physician-- she also has Medicaid--because the problem is it pays so little, has so much hassle, all the other things we expect in a bureaucracy. And lastly, regarding cost, despite paying less so it doesn't give access to quality care, according to articles in Politico, it's going to increase the deficit by $1 billion for States like California.

Thank you, Dr. Gingrey. You know, I like the focus of this conversation. And if you will, I want to point out that oftentimes when we speak about losing a job, unless you've lost your job, you assume it's someone else that is losing their job. But I think it's important for the American people to understand that this has the potential to affect people at all strata.

Let's start off with the tax on Medicare, the increased Medicare tax. This is going to be on the people who earn over $200,000 a year. Many of these folks don't consider themselves wealthy. If they're small business people, he or she is trying to make a payroll and expand a business, and this is going to hit them. And inevitably, when you tax, you are going to lose money that would otherwise be available to create jobs.

One of our famous Chief Justices said that the power to tax is the power to destroy. When you increase taxes on these folks that are job creators, you destroy their ability to create jobs. Now, folks say, well, that doesn't relate to me because those are the folks who are small business people, and I'm not a small business person. Well, as it turns out, let's go to the other end of the spectrum. As it turns out, this plan levies a $2,000 penalty upon an employer whose employees will get a tax credit from the Federal Government. Now, the Congressional Budget Office--not the Republicans, not the Democrats, but the objective arm of Congress, the Congressional Budget Office--says that because of this there will be less hiring of lower-income people. When you are a small business person hiring entry-level wage earners and you are levied a tax of $2,000 per person, you're not going to hire. You're going to find a way to increase productivity where you don't have to hire those folks.

I caught a fellow who owns a string of Taco Bells, and he has 20 employees per place. He said, if I have to put a $2,000 tax on each of my employees--he has about 500 total--in a very price-sensitive market where someone makes a decision to buy or not to buy fast food depending on price, I'm going to have to lay people off. So now we have the small business person who is going to pay the increased tax. Therefore, it destroys the ability to create as many jobs, and now we have the tax, if you will, the employment tax on the person who is at the entry-level job.

Let's go to a different person, someone who works for a large corporation. Well, again, in the effort to grab enough revenue to look like this is cost neutral, there is now a tax levied upon medical device makers. There was a great article in realclearmarkets.com where they kind of go through what you're posing here, that the health care bill that we just passed is going to be terrible for the job market. So in this bill there is levied a 2.9, I think, percent tax on medical devices. Well, it turns out you can ship those things to Ireland, according to this article, and you're still taxed. It isn't just those that are being marketed in the United States, but, rather, it's those that you would be selling overseas, incredibly competitive market where people in Ireland, China, the United States are all manufacturing these devices.

Well, if you manufacture it here, there is a tax apparently even if you export. But if you manufacture it in another country, you are only taxed on those that you bring to the United States. So let's say your shop is in India and you're producing artificial hips and you send 100 to the United States. Well, there is a little bit of tax in that hundred; but if you send 1,000 elsewhere in the world, there is no tax whatsoever. If you build those same artificial hips in the United States, you are taxed wherever they go. So if you're working in the manufacturing unit of that medical equipment maker, you lose your job. If you are the person designing it, they're going to offshore it to another country. If you're the owner, you may say, why am I doing my manufacturing here and taking a 3 percent hit on whatever I do? Why don't I set up my shop in another country and only pay the tax if I import it to the United States?

Again, in a desperate desire for revenue to make this look neutral, we've taxed jobs. And going back to what Supreme Court Justice John Marshall said, the power to tax is the power to destroy. When you raise $500 billion of taxes in the economy, you are going to destroy jobs.

I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to my colleagues' comments. I have actually found some things to agree with.

Ms. Slaughter mentioned that the American people have been lied to. I agree. They have been told that a policy which raises taxes for 10 years to pay for 6 years of government programs is fiscally sound.

I was struck, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. McGovern spoke of the small business owner in Massachusetts who couldn't afford his premiums. What he neglected to say is that Massachusetts has the same plan that we are about to implement. In fact, the Democratic treasurer of Massachusetts says that, ``If we implement this plan, we go bankrupt in 4 years.''

I was struck, Mr. Speaker, by Mr. Hastings, who spoke how the people outside have lost hope. They have lost hope that Congress is listening. They are tired of being told, ``You are not smart enough to understand our wisdom. We, the Democratic leaders, will tell you how to live. And, after we pass this vote, you will love us all the more.''

I am struck that Mr. Cardoza endorsed this, even though his State is going bankrupt from Medicaid and this program expands Medicaid.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to listen to the wisdom of the American people. Vote for their constituents, not for their leaders.

My colleague from New Jersey made a point earlier that he wasn't sure that many people on this side have read the bill. I have read the bill, and some things are quite apparent to me. One, there is a loss of freedom. Thou shalt buy insurance or else thou shalt pay a penalty. You shall provide insurance to your employees or thou shalt pay a penalty. But I think the point that Mr. Tiahrt made is the, if you will, the ultimate sacrifice of freedom.

As one said, The power to tax is the power to destroy. Well, clearly as we expand Medicaid, we are going to ultimately shift taxes both to the Federal taxpayer and to the State taxpayer. Now this plan will increase Medicaid to 133 percent of the Federal poverty level. That has tremendous implications. One implication, for example, is that the physicians will be paid extremely poorly, so poorly that they won't be able to see the patients. I looked up in New Jersey, for example, Medicaid only pays 37 percent of Medicare rates to physicians to see the patient. They only pay 37 percent. Now as it turns out, that's below a physician's cost. Physicians would like to see the patients. It's too low of a reimbursement.

There was just an article in the New York Times, and the New York Times held up an example of a woman from Michigan on Medicaid who could not get treatment for her cancer because the Medicaid reimbursement was so low that she was unable to find a physician who could afford to treat her. I've read the bill. If we think this bill is a way to provide insurance for the uninsured, I would like to invite you to come to the public hospital where I've worked for 20 years, where many of the patients that I see are on Medicaid, and they come to the public hospital because, despite Medicaid, they still cannot go to a private facility.

In fact, I'm struck. For 20 years, I have been seeing politicians in Washington saying that we've now fixed health care. Consistently they have overpromised and underfunded. Now I think what's coming down is, this bill is a question of whether this time, this time indeed is different. Whether or not we were not overpromising, even though we're promising greatly, and we're adequately funding. The reality, I am afraid, is going to be the same as it has been in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I think my perspective might be a little bit different. In fact, when my colleague was speaking about physicians, I was sitting here thinking I am a physician. And not only am I a physician, but I have actually been working to treat the uninsured for the last 20 years. My practice has been for the uninsured, so it is a little bit different. And one reason that I ran for office is I was frustrated with the way that politicians always dealt with health care.

It is a truism: Politicians overpromise and underfund. We can see

that with Medicare going bankrupt in 7 years. We can see that with Medicaid bankrupting States. And I saw that in my practice, because everybody would be promised these benefits, and in my practice I could not get them for them. Inevitably, quality and access suffered.

But we are told now it's different. We are told, No, believe us this time we are going to adequately fund. We are going to adequately fund by taking $500 billion from Medicare to create a new entitlement.

Wow, we are really doing a lot for Medicare there, aren't we?

We are going to expand Medicaid; Medicaid, which is bankrupting States. So now, instead of somebody having no insurance and being unable to see a physician, we are now going to give them Medicaid. But we are going to have to decrease payments so much that we are going to raise taxes, costing jobs, and they still won't be able to see a patient.

I say that because The New York Times had a heartrending article about a woman on Medicaid in Michigan, and payments are so low she can't get cancer treatment. When I hear we are taking care of the 31 million people without insurance, I think of that woman on Medicaid in Michigan with a government-funded--no, I am sorry--with a government- underfunded policy with which she cannot gain access.

If that is morality, we must have a different definition of morality. It is morality for show. It is not morality for reality.

Now, there are alternatives. And another frustrating thing about this debate is that actually we know what works. We can look at Massachusetts, where they attempted to expand access.

In Massachusetts, they attempted to expand access and control costs. That is this plan. And what we just heard in Massachusetts is the Democratic treasurer saying this plan will bankrupt our Nation in 4 years.

Alternatively, what we can also say is that we know what works. The Kaiser Family Foundation did a study in which they found that health savings accounts lowered costs by 30 percent and that 27 percent of people with health savings accounts--27 percent of people with health savings accounts were previously uninsured. By lowering costs, we expanded access.

We know what works. The plan they proposed has already failed. The plan we proposed, there is data to show it works.

Now, we can talk about the Congressional Budget Office report that supposedly saves money, 10 years of tax revenue for 6 years of big government programs. That is a savings. Or, in 2018 it saves money by pushing the cost of Medicaid out onto the States. That saves money.

In my State, the first 3 years we are responsible for these additional costs is going to cost my State $600 million. Well, that is a savings to the taxpayer. Now it is just the State taxes that are going up instead of the Federal taxes.

Now, there are bipartisan solutions. I challenge my colleagues, let's take a break. Let's go home Sunday and Monday and Tuesday and come back Wednesday. Let's have a town hall meeting, each of us in our districts, hear from our people back home what solutions they want to see and come back and vote on Thursday. Somehow, I think that these people who are on the bubble will learn that they should be representatives and not dictators.

Will the gentleman yield time?

I understand, and I appreciate it.

When you say that we are going to give a raise for primary care physicians, that is actually not included in this in terms of the Medicaid costs, so State Medicaid costs are now going to go up.

Will the gentleman yield?

We will get back to the facts later.

Believe me, if you yield again, it will be.

Mr. Speaker, isn't it ironic that Women's History Month is at the same time, in the same week that this article in The New York Times comes out about how this poor woman in Michigan on Medicaid, there is such inadequate Medicaid reimbursement that she cannot get treated for her cancer.

Now, I have actually listened to these arguments. I have gone to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and asked them--and I frankly feel a little bit disadvantaged--my colleague from New York, he has been in Congress as a staffer or as a Member, I guess, for 20 or 30 years. I have just been a practicing physician. I still teach in a teaching hospital, a safety net hospital where I actually work with the uninsured. So I don't have the legislative experience, but I do actually have the experience of teaching and treating patients who otherwise would not have care.

I just wish that my colleagues could join me. I actually wish they could come with me and see the reality of what is happening. So when my friend says, Oh, my gosh, I think government programs are better than private insurance--ah, I wish he would join me on my telephone town hall where the guy with the Crohn's disease is calling in to say that he has got Medicare and Medicaid and would my office please help him navigate the system.

They should be with me when I am with my Medicaid patient who only gets--oh, can I get a referral to a specialist because they won't take Medicaid because it pays so far below their cost. And cost is actually the simple issue. I know it sounds hard-hearted, but the fact is, if you don't control cost, you can't provide access to quality care.

Now, there are so many examples of this. For example, Medi-Cal, the Medicaid program in California, did a huge expansion because of Medicaid's budget--one, California's gone bankrupt, and two, Medi-Cal is now decreasing eligibility. They tried to make everybody eligible. They did not control cost, and now they are decreasing eligibility. Massachusetts--expanded care, did not control cost, and now they are disenrolling people who formerly were enrolled.

If you don't control cost, you cannot provide access to quality care. I say that not as someone who has been here for 30 years. You know more about that than I do. I say it as someone who has been in the trenches, treating the uninsured for 20 years.

Now, by the way, Medicare, having such a wonderful low overhead, come join my world. Twenty percent of Medicare in south Florida is fraud. Only 1 percent of that goes to administration. Maybe a little bit more should, because 20 percent is going to fraud. Do we want another program based upon Medicare which expands fraud?

Now, we also said earlier in the debate that we're going to expand payment for primary care physicians, but it's not going to cost the States anything. Come to my world. Leave these Chambers. Walk with me in a hospital for the uninsured where you realize that the extra payments from the Federal Government are only for those newly eligible. And if we mandate here that the States raise those fees, that increases the burden for those who are already eligible.

If you don't control cost, you can't give access. Now Republicans have been proposing things. I was so pleased the President said we're the party of no and then he embraces our idea of HSAs, high- risk pools, and other things. So that's good. The party of no is suddenly the fountain of ideas for things which will be immediately beneficial.

I come back to one more thing that we have in common. We are all Representatives. We can agree on this: I actually don't think the American people would mind if we delay just two more days, fly home to our districts. We are Representatives. We are not dictators. We are here not for what we think is best, but to represent the people we represent. Join me in that bipartisan initiative.

Madam Speaker, I am a physician who has treated the uninsured in a teaching hospital for the last 20 years and, indeed, not just the uninsured, but oftentimes the people who have Medicaid. So I applaud the President and my Democratic colleagues because they want to lower costs and expand access to quality care.

On the other hand, where we greatly differ is, as my colleague just said, he is quite content with giving Medicaid to more and more people.

Now, it ignores the fact that it is bankrupting the States. It ignores the fact that right now I treat patients who have Medicaid in a public hospital because they can't be seen in a private place. And, it ignores an article in The New York Times which points out that, as Medicaid payments shrink, patients and doctors lose. In this case, a woman with cancer has lost because payments are so low for Medicaid that no longer can she find a provider who can afford to treat her.

So we do differ. I do not want to give Medicaid to everybody. I want to strengthen the private insurance market and allow those with preexisting conditions to have the same health care we have, not lose their health care because of a government program.

I thank the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Mr. Cao's resolution, honoring the Super Bowl champion, the New Orleans Saints. You know, I remember as a child watching the Saints play in the old Tulane football stadium. And between the time I was a child and now, there have been some rough times. But this year was different. They started off with 13 wins. They had three hard-fought postseason victories.

I am especially pleased to say that the victory in the NFC championship and Super Bowl was due in great part to decisive interceptions by Tracy Porter, who played football at Port Allen High School in West Baton Rouge Parish. I represent that area. And Mr. Burton is right, he went to Indiana. But to atone the sin of doing so, he came back and had a Pick Six against the Colts. Mr. Porter, by the way, has also participated, in the week going up to the Super Bowl, in a relief effort for the victims of the Haiti earthquake. So not only is he a great football player but is also a fine person.

That said, good things do come to those who wait. No one knows that better than the Who Dat Nation. Congratulations to the players, coaches and of course the Saints fans back home in Louisiana and across the country.

Mr. Speaker, as a proud graduate of Louisiana State University and LSU Medical School, I am honored to stand before the House today to thank my colleagues for commemorating LSU's 150th anniversary.

Since its first session in 1860, LSU has become the flagship university for our State, with over 650 endowed chairs and professorships held by distinguished faculty in disciplines that support the culture, government, and economy of Louisiana.

With more than 300 student organizations on campus, LSU plays a major

role in our community. The Ag Center, for example, has conducted research which has resulted in greater yields and incomes for farmers across the world.

It operates the Safety Net Hospital System for the State of Louisiana, caring for the uninsured and under-insured in our State and sometimes surrounding States.

After Hurricane Katrina, LSU operated the Nation's largest field hospital and enrolled student evacuees from other universities who couldn't return to devastated areas in our State.

In addition to its excellent academic programs, LSU is renowned for its athletic achievements.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I would like the Record to reflect the proper spelling of our motto, which reflects not only our affection for LSU, but our French culture. When I say Geaux Tigers, it is G-E-A-U-X Tigers.

With that Mr. Speaker, Geaux Tigers, and I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, Americans are asking, where are the jobs?

Now, to create jobs there must be affordable energy. As it turns out, creating energy creates jobs.

First, let me compliment the President. Last week, he announced a commitment to developing new power plants in the United States. It's a great step in the right direction because domestic energy production means more jobs, with good benefits, lower energy prices, and greater energy security.

Now, although moving forward with nuclear energy, the administration has effectively banned, through delays, new natural gas and oil production. The National Association of Utility Commissioners recently reported that the administration's current delay on natural gas and oil production eliminates 13 million jobs, $2.35 trillion in lower energy costs, and $2.36 trillion in economic growth. By the way, it also eliminates royalty payments and billions of dollars to cash-strapped States.

Now I applaud the President for advancing nuclear energy. Let's do the same with domestic oil and gas. We know where the jobs could be. They're in oil and gas. Mr. President, allow their creation.