Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, for many years the Commonwealth of Virginia has seriously been considering the potential positive impact that Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) development off Virginia's coast would have on the Commonwealth. In 2008, it seemed that the Commonwealth would be able to make OCS development a reality when we in Congress, and then President George Bush, removed hurdles that had previously blocked access to energy resources located on the OCS. However, since that point, Virginia has been confronted with a series of regulatory road blocks. Although a lease sale has been proposed in Virginia's OCS, the first scheduled lease sale for energy development in the Atlantic, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has continued to postpone this Virginia lease sale. This delay is happening despite the strong support for the lease sale by the Virginia Congressional Delegation, the Governor of Virginia, the Virginia General Assembly, and the citizens of Virginia. Madam Speaker, the voices of Virginians must be heard.

To allow the Virginia lease sale to proceed we must remove the regulatory road blocks that are impeding development of Virginia's OCS, so I rise today with a bipartisan group of members of the Virginia Congressional Delegation to introduce the ``Virginia Access (VA) to Energy Act.'' This legislation would require that the Department of the Interior, at the request of Virginia's governor, proceed with the Virginia lease sale no later than one year after passage of this legislation. This will remove the regulatory hurdles that have impeded development and create a path for Virginia to become ``the Energy Capital of the East Coast.''

Passage of this legislation and development of VA's OCS will significantly boost the economy of the Commonwealth of Virginia. In fact, some estimates have shown that development of Virginia's OCS will create 2,578 full-time equivalent positions on an annual basis, induce capital investment of $7.84 billion, yield $644 million in direct and indirect payroll, and result in $271 million in State and local taxes. While exploration activities alone will infuse the Virginia economy with a significant amount of new capital, this legislation will also authorize any qualified revenues generated by the lease sales to be shared between the federal government and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Virginians understand that a major component in lessening energy costs is to produce more energy. I believe that Virginia should have every tool available to access its energy supplies, while at the same time creating thousands of jobs for Virginians and infusing the Commonwealth with new capital growth. I urge

Congress to pass this legislation to allow Virginia to move towards a path of energy independence.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health care bill.

Mr. Speaker, nearly two months ago President Obama stood here before the Members of the House of Representatives, the Senate, the Supreme Court Justices, his own Cabinet Members and millions of Americans who were watching on television to deliver his first State of the Union address. In that speech he declared that as economic uncertainty continues to plague our Nation the government must focus on policies that promote economic growth and job creation. My how things have changed in just two short months.

Congress should be working to reduce the tax and regulatory burdens that hinder small businesses and ultimately overall economic growth and job creation. Instead, over the loud objections of a majority of Americans, the Majority continues to advance their health care reform proposal which sets the tone for a Washington takeover of the health care system. This legislation which contains a multitude of new federal regulations, mandates, new big government programs, and a significant increase in federal spending and debt, will be extremely detrimental to American businesses and particularly our small businesses, which will make job losses even worse.

The legislation includes over $569 billion in tax increases and over $523 billion in Medicare cuts. This includes $52 billion in new taxes on employers, including small businesses, that cannot afford to provide health coverage or that don't offer coverage. The effect of this type of tax, similar to a payroll tax increase, would ultimately fall squarely on workers in the form of lower wages or reduced employment. Additionally, the legislation includes $17 billion in new taxes on Americans who do not comply with the individual insurance mandate which is sure to further stifle economic growth.

In fact, 130 economists from all across the country sent President Obama a letter explaining how this legislation is a job-killer. In their letter, the economists stated that the insurance mandate and the tax increases, among other things, will ``constrict economic growth and reduce employment'' while ``increasing spending on health care and increasing the cost of health coverage''.

That is why I strongly support an alternative proposal which allows for the purchase of health insurance across state lines, allows individuals and small businesses to join large pools to get more competitive rates, provides tort reform to cut down the high cost of defensive medicine, allows full tax deductibility of health insurance premiums, portability of health insurance and protection against pre- existing condition exclusions. In addition, I support health insurance tax credits for individuals and families who don't have access to employer-based health insurance, increasing the number of community health centers, and encouraging the use of health information technology to achieve greater efficiencies.

Congress should not be pushing this government takeover of health care that will inflict even more harm on our Nation's economy, making job losses even worse. Instead Congress must focus on strategies that help Americans obtain the best quality health care at the least cost, and ensure that the government fosters increased access to quality care based on individual choice, not by taking away choices from people on the grounds that government knows best.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado and the gentlewoman from Guam for bringing forward this bipartisan resolution honoring Cold War veterans.

I too also commend the importance of understanding the history of the Cold War and of what President Kennedy did with the airlift into Berlin to protect the people of that city; what happened during the 1980s when President Reagan called the Soviet Union exactly what it was, the Evil Empire, and later went to the Berlin Wall and called upon Mr. Gorbachev to ``tear down that wall.'' It was the brave men and women who served in our Armed Forces who made that possible in our history to see the ability of our President to stand up to the Soviet Union, and, indeed, to see that wall torn down not that many years ago.

I will tell you also, however, Madam Speaker, that we have before us in this Congress today and tomorrow health care legislation, a massive bill. When you take all of the pages of all the bills that are being considered here, the House bill, the Senate bill, the reconciliation bill, you are talking about thousands and thousands of pages. And tomorrow--tomorrow, we will have a couple of hours for 435 Members to talk about what is in those bills.

So I have no doubt that the millions of American veterans who served their country, and many of whom are baby boomers and will be facing $520 billion in cuts in the Medicare program to pay for a new government program at a time when our Nation is broke, that they are going to be as concerned as all of us are here today about this health care legislation, this monstrosity that is going to include $569 billion in tax increases that will cost millions of American jobs.

They will be concerned to hear from the 130 economists from across the country who sent President Obama a letter explaining how this legislation is a job-killer. They will be concerned about their children and grandchildren who will inherit the enormous debt that is a product of this legislation. Because, unlike the specious claim that this will indeed result in deficit reductions, they know that when you have a side deal of over $200 billion to take care of physicians under the Medicare bill, when you have a bill that provides 6 years of coverage with 10 years of tax increases and Medicare cuts, that does not balance out.

In fact, this legislation is hundreds and hundreds of billions, some say more than $1 trillion, greater in costs than will be taken in in revenue and Medicare cuts. The result of this is going to be devastating for our country, and I urge my colleagues to reject this monstrosity.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to not only the Democrats' health care proposal but to the outrageous process by which the majority intends to ram this bill through the House while denying Members of Congress an up-or-down vote on the bill. This morning's Cincinnati Enquirer declared what Americans all over this country are saying: ``This disgusting process, which Democrats brazenly wish to bring to conclusion this week, is being done with little regard for the opinions of a clear majority of Americans who, while they may believe health care reform is necessary, think this particular approach will take our Nation down the wrong economic path.''

American families want health care reform that will expand access and choices and decrease costs. The Democrats' health care bill includes tax increases, Medicare cuts, job-killing mandates, and higher premiums. This bill is nothing more than the same government-run insurance mandates and taxes the American people have overwhelmingly rejected. This bill must be killed. We must start over.

I want to thank our ranking member, the gentleman from Texas, for yielding me time and for his active engagement in support of moving this process forward.

Mr. Speaker, Article III of the Constitution provides that Federal judges are appointed for life and that they ``shall hold their offices during good behavior.'' Indeed, the Framers new that an independent judiciary free of political motivations was necessary to the fair resolution of disputes and the fair administration of our laws. However, the Framers were also pragmatists and had the foresight to include checks against the abuse of the independence and power that comes with a judicial appointment.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution grants the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment. This is a very serious power that should not be undertaken lightly. Indeed, it is a rare and solemn occasion when the House of Representative must vote on Articles of Impeachment against a Federal judge. Today's vote will mark only the second time in over 20 years that this has occurred. However, when the evidence emerges that an individual is abusing his judicial office for his own advantage, the integrity of the judicial system becomes compromised, and the House of Representatives has the duty to investigate the matter and take the appropriate actions to end the abuse and restore confidence in the judicial system.

On June 17, 2008, the Judicial Conference of the United States certified to the House of Representatives that ``consideration of impeachment of U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous may be warranted.'' This certification was the culmination of an investigation and formal complaint by the Department of Justice, an investigation and final report by a special investigatory committee appointed by the Fifth Judicial Circuit, and consideration and vote by the Judicial Council of the Judicial Conference of the United States.

In September 2008, the House passed a resolution instructing the Judiciary Committee to further investigate whether Judge Porteous should be impeached. The Task Force on Judicial Impeachment was then created by the House Judiciary Committee to further investigate the matter. The task force conducted an exhaustive investigation, working with law enforcement and judicial officials, conducting numerous interviews, taking depositions from key witnesses, gathering evidence and transcripts from previous investigations, and conducting congressional hearings. Those efforts have uncovered a large amount of information, including much new evidence that was not uncovered in previous investigations.

The evidence shows that, among other instances of misconduct, while on the Federal bench, Judge Porteous refused to recuse himself from a Federal case when he had previously engaged in a corrupt kickback scheme with the attorneys representing the defense; that he later took thousands of dollars in cash from those same attorneys while the case was still pending; that he took gifts from a bail bondsman in exchange for granting favorable bond rates for him and then improperly expunged the records of two of the bail bondsman's employees, one after Porteous was confirmed by the Senate to be a Federal judge; that he used his influence as a Federal judge to help the Marcottes establish beneficial relationships with State court judges; that he lied to a bankruptcy court when he filed for bankruptcy and then violated a bankruptcy court order mandating that he not incur further debt; and that he made materially false statements to the U.S. Senate and the FBI during his confirmation process.

Based on the evidence gathered on January 21, 2010, I joined with Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Smith, and Task Force Chairman Schiff to introduce House Resolution 1031, which contains four separate Articles of Impeachment against Judge Porteous. The details of these Articles have been discussed already today. It is important to note that every member of the Task Force on Judicial Impeachment joined as an original cosponsor of these articles. Furthermore, these Articles of Impeachment were reported from the Judiciary Committee with a unanimous vote of 24-0, a very rare occurrence. It is my strong recommendation that the Members of the House now support these Articles of Impeachment against Judge Porteous.

It is also important to note that during the task force investigation Judge Porteous was invited to come testify, but declined this invitation. His attorney was also invited to attend the hearings, was given the privilege of asking questions of the witnesses at the hearings, and was offered the opportunity to bring forth witnesses on behalf of Judge Porteous.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Adam Schiff, the chairman of the Task Force on Judicial Impeachment, for his leadership in this effort, along with all of the Members of the Task Force on both sides of the aisle. As ranking member of the Impeachment Task Force, I appreciate the fact that this effort was undertaken in a nonpartisan fashion.

I would like to thank the task force staff on both sides of the aisle and Branden Ritchie, legislative counsel in my office, for their dedicated and invaluable work on this matter.

I would like to also thank Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith for their comprehensive, yet expeditious, consideration of these Articles of Impeachment in the full Judiciary Committee. I'd also like to extend additional thanks to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who's the only Member who participated in the last series of impeachment of Federal judges back in the 1980s. His experience and knowledge has been invaluable as well.

I urge my colleagues in the House, not in a bipartisan manner, but in a nonpartisan manner, to join in supporting all four of these Articles of Impeachment and send this measure to the United States Senate for trial.

I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I believe in enforcing our Nation's antitrust laws. And this bill has been improved since Judiciary Committee consideration. However, this legislation is still flawed, and in my opinion is meant to distract attention away from the fact that the majority is not working on the real issues

the American people want us to address. Americans want policies that will reduce premiums and increase the quality of health care services in the U.S. Unfortunately, it is questionable whether this bill will accomplish these goals.

I am also very disappointed in the rule for this bill, which was closed from the beginning, and blocks well-intentioned amendments offered by Republicans to make the bill better. Specifically, an amendment was offered by Representative Dan Lungren, a fellow member of the Judiciary Committee, to allow small health insurance companies to continue to be able to share historic loss data so that they can compete with big insurance companies. Under the text of the current bill, this type of sharing would be illegal, which would hinder new and smaller companies from entering the market, competing with the big guys, and offering lower premiums.

The shocking thing is that this amendment was actually adopted in the Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan basis. The provision was then stripped by the majority in this new bill. So stifling this amendment today represents the second time the majority has blocked Representative Lungren's amendment, which had bipartisan support, and which would have likely reduced health care premiums for citizens.

Instead of bringing flawed legislation to the floor, we should be working together to pass real reforms, like legislation to allow citizens to take their health insurance across State lines if they move, legislation to help those with preexisting conditions find affordable coverage, and legislation to curb frivolous lawsuits against doctors, which drive up health insurance premiums and provide increased costs due to defensive medicine.

The American medical liability system is broken. According to one study, 40 percent of claims are meritless: either no injury or no error occurred. Attorneys' fees and administrative costs amount to 54 percent of the compensation paid to plaintiffs. The study found that completely meritless claims, which are nonetheless successful approximately one in four times, account for nearly a quarter of total administrative costs.

Defensive medicine is widely practiced and costly. Skyrocketing medical liability insurance rates have distorted the practice of medicine. Costly but unnecessary tests have become routine, as doctors try to protect themselves from lawsuits. According to a 2008 survey conducted by the Massachusetts Medical Society, 83 percent of physicians reported that they practiced defensive medicine. Another study in Pennsylvania put the figure at 93 percent. While estimates vary, the Pacific Research Institute has put the cost of defensive medicine at $124 billion. Others have arrived at even higher figures.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.

We should be working to eliminate these hundreds of billions of dollars of waste from our medical system in order to drive down premiums to make health care more affordable. We should be working to help those with preexisting conditions get affordable coverage. Unfortunately, we are doing neither today. We can do better.

Mr. Speaker, while I may vote for this bill it could have been made better by an open rule and the allowance of the Lungren amendment. But this bill is hardly a cure all and there is so much more we could do if the majority would open up the health insurance process to good proposals that the American people support.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 4061.

Recent attacks on Government networks have served to increase awareness that cybersecurity is not just about protecting computers, but also has implications for U.S. national security and economic well- being. Without confidence in our Nation's internet infrastructure and data security, I am concerned that our country will not be able to climb out of the current economic climate. As such, I was pleased when President Obama declared in a speech in May 2009 that U.S. critical information infrastructures are a ``Strategic National Asset''.

Unfortunately, since that speech, the Administration's actions have not been indicative of those necessary to protect such a ``Strategic National Asset.'' While I appreciate that the President recently appointed Howard Schmidt as Cyber Coordinator, this appointment was long overdue.

Madam Chair, A recent GAO report stated that, ``Pervasive and sustained cyber attacks continue to pose a potentially devastating threat to the systems and operations of the Federal Government.'' The report went on to further state that, ``The ever-increasing dependence of Federal agencies on computerized systems to carry out essential, everyday operations can make them vulnerable to an array of cyber-based risks. Thus it is increasingly important for the Federal Government to have effective information security controls in place to safeguard its systems and the information they contain.''

In response to this GAO report and extensive hearings by the House Science and Technology Committee, I am pleased to support the Committee's bi-partisan legislation and applaud its authors. Specifically, H.R. 4061 authorizes activities in three areas in support of increased Federal focus on cybersecurity. This legislation:

Continues support of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF);

Expands NSF scholarships to increase the size and skills of the cybersecurity workforce; and

Increases R&D, standards development and coordination, and public outreach at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) related to cybersecurity.

I also appreciate that this bill is not too overly burdensome and shies away from an overly regulatory approach. H.R. 4061 is a good first step as the 111th Congress addresses cybersecurity and I look forward to continuing this dialogue. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 4061.

Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson once wrote, To preserve the independence of the people we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude.

Unfortunately, it increasingly appears this Congress has chosen the latter path of profuse spending and the servitude to Big Government that results therefrom. For the next 60 minutes, I and my colleagues are going to talk about the problem our country faces from a very different perspective than you have heard during the last 60 minutes.

I want to start by pointing out the nature of this problem in terms of government spending. This chart shows the deficit each year, starting in 2000. In 2000 and 2001 under a Republican Congress and first a Democratic President and a Republican President we had a balanced budget and therefore we generated surpluses and, in fact, the two previous years before that we generated a total of $500 billion in surpluses that were paid down against the national debt.

Then came the recession and September 11, 2001, and spending increases. Many have, I think fairly, criticized the previous President and Congress for spending too much money during this period of time when deficits rose as high as $400 billion. In fact, this deficit in 2004 was the highest deficit in American history until we got to the very end of the Republican majority, when it went to $450 billion. Staggering sums of money; too much money spent.

But look what happened when the Democrats took the majority in the Congress in 2007. It skyrocketed to deficits that last year and this year are over $1 trillion: last year, $1.4 trillion; this year projected to be close to $1.5 trillion. To give you an idea how much money we're talking about, this year's budget is projected to spend about $3.6 trillion with revenues coming in of $2.2 trillion. So we're going to spend 50 percent more than we take in in revenues. And what are we going to do? We're going to borrow every penny of that money against our children and grandchildren's future.

Now, if this were going to resolve the problem, and some have argued on the other side of the aisle that the so-called stimulus, which contributed almost all of this deficit in this Congress, if they were going to argue that that was going to solve the problem and we would get back to balanced budgets and we wouldn't be borrowing against our children and grandchildren's future for as far as the eye could see, I would listen to their argument. I still wouldn't agree with them.

But their own budget belies what they claim about what they're doing with this so-called economic stimulus package because this is the projected budget for each year until 2019. For the next 9 years, it never goes below $700 billion and is around $800 billion, ending at close to 900, over $900 billion in 2019. Never does it go down, never does it even approach these numbers, which I and my colleagues who will speak with you tonight, all agree were excessive.

But they're nothing compared to what is being done right now, since the Democratic Party became the majority party in this Congress, and Speaker Pelosi has pushed these budget deficits that are absolutely staggering. What does it mean? It means that in 1990, the total national debt, the accumulation of those deficits was $2.86 trillion. And in 2007, when the Democratic majority took over, it was $8.45 trillion. In just two more years, it's now $12.18 trillion, rising by the end of the term of our current President, 6 years into the Democrats' control of the Congress, to $16.36 trillion, nearly doubling, and

then continuing at that upward arc even more dramatically after that.

This is the public debt outlook. This is the projection that says what the outlook was first in January of 2009 and then, after the stimulus had taken effect, after they had begun spending nearly $1 trillion that was allegedly going to stimulate the economy and create jobs for the American people, they came back and revisited it in August.

And while they were projecting this gradual but still very serious increase, it skyrocketed instead. Why? Because they have done nothing to control spending. They have done exactly the opposite. So now the President is going to come to the Congress tomorrow night and, as the President of the United States, we are all anxious to hear what he has to say about what we should be doing to address the problems of our country. And we are told by those who are in the know that the President will call for a spending freeze for 3 years. But what is he doing with the spending freeze but locking in those higher spending increases that have been passed through all the appropriations bills this year, some with 12, 14, 16 percent increases over the previous year, locking in those higher levels of spending when we all know that what really has to take place is to cut government spending.

What has been the effect of the President's efforts? Well, this is a chart showing job losses since the stimulus took effect in March of last year: 2.74 million more jobs have been lost in this country over the ensuing 10 months, notwithstanding the claim that this would create jobs and would halt the unemployment rate at 8 percent. Instead, it is now over 10 percent, and we've lost 2.74 million more jobs.

Well, what is the solution to this? A big part of it is something that 49 out of our 50 State governments have got to do, and the Congress should be required to do as well, and that is to balance the budget each year except in times of war or national emergency. In the last 40 years, those 4 years, in the late 1990s and into the early 2000s were the only 4 years in which the Federal Government balanced its budget. The other 36 years they ran a deficit. And you can see how that deficit is adding and mounting each year now, adding to that national debt. It should be the reverse.

In the last 40 years there have been economic crises like the one that we are in now, and there have been times of war when we might not balance that budget. But instead of four times out of 40 balancing it, it should be four times out of 40 not balancing the budget.

And that is why we need a balanced budget amendment in the United States Constitution; 49 out of 50 States have it. This Congress came very close to passing it as a part of the Contract with America in 1995. It passed the House of Representatives with a strong bipartisan majority, and was sent over to the United States Senate, and it failed in the Senate by one vote to get the two-thirds majority. It requires a two-thirds majority in the House, a two-thirds majority in the Senate, and then three-quarters of our State legislatures to ratify it.

Well, we got all but one vote that we needed in the Senate. Had that vote been provided to give us two-thirds, it would have been sent to the States. The President does not have any say in an amendment to the Constitution. So it would have been sent directly to the States. And I believe by now three-quarters of those States long ago would have ratified that balanced budget amendment, and we would be in a much different situation in this country today if we had done that.

Well, the American people have never abandoned this idea, even though the Democratic Congress long ago abandoned this idea, and that's unfortunate. But the American people, poll after poll shows that 75, 80 percent or more of the American people believe that the Federal Government should be required to balance its budget each and every year, except in times of war or economic emergency. And this would require a supermajority vote of the Congress to declare that they would not balance the budget in any particular year.

How popular is this? Well, here's what our current majority leader had to say about a balanced budget when we had that debate in 1995: the issue of balancing the budget is not a conservative or a liberal one, nor is it an easy one, but it is an essential one for us in this House, for the American people, and, most assuredly, for future generations.

Representative Steny Hoyer, a member of the minority in 1995, voted for a balanced budget amendment; but we have not heard about a balanced budget amendment from this majority in this Congress at all. And we're here tonight to urge the Congress to bring up the balanced budget amendment that I introduced on the first day of this Congress, House Joint Resolution 1, a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. And we will keep pushing for this until we have leadership in this Congress that will bring this bill to the floor for a vote so we can send it to the Senate again and challenge them again to provide those two-thirds votes needed and then send it to the States for ratification.

It is never too late for the Congress to do the responsible thing. But we have dug a much, much deeper hole as a result of the irresponsible budgets that have been passed by this Democratic majority in each of the last three Congresses and projected, as I pointed out, projected for the next decade, huge deficits as far as the eye can see, far greater than anything we have seen previously in the history of our country.

I'm joined by several of our colleagues, and I want to recognize the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman), who has been a real leader on this issue and has been working to organize support in the Congress for the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I'm pleased to yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman. I hope he remains. There may be other things we may want to discuss about this.

But before we get back to him, I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) who is a very outspoken Member of Congress on this issue of fiscally responsible budgets and that we balance the budget of our country. And I will yield to the gentleman from Texas, and shortly we will get to the gentleman from Florida who I know wants to say a few words and then needs to leave, but I hope the gentleman from Texas can also remain and we will continue this dialogue.

If the gentleman will yield, that is very similar to the fact over the weekend three different representatives of the administration got on television and claimed that the stimulus--which we've seen has not resulted in job creation but, rather, 2\3/4\ million jobs lost--claimed, well, there would have been more jobs lost had we not had the stimulus, but they can come nowhere near agreeing with each other on what those jobs saved are.

I think the only really accurate figure is what is reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which points out that we've lost 2.7 million jobs.

I thank the gentleman for his comments about House Joint Resolution Number 1. It is, by the way, the same balanced budget amendment that passed the House as a part of the Contract with America, missed by one vote in the Senate. Same language entirely. And it has over 170 cosponsors in the House right now, including many Democrats. It's bipartisan, and it needs to be bipartisan to get that two-thirds majority of the House to vote for it and pass it and be able to send it on to the Senate.

I would now like to recognize the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Buchanan) who has also been a leader on this issue and has, in fact, introduced a balanced budget amendment on his own. And we are proud to work together in promoting fiscal responsibility here in the Congress.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I'd like to talk a little bit about what those economic consequences are, not just for our children and grandchildren, which should be our greatest concern, but not too far down. And in a moment I will turn to the gentlemen from Texas and Colorado and ask them, to get the benefit of their thoughts about what the consequences are of these deficits running as far as the eye can see if we don't pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and start living within our means like every family, every business, large and small, every local government, and yes, even every State government, some of which are not managed very well. But they have to come to terms with the consequences of their actions a lot more quickly than the Federal Government ever has because of the fact they don't have this requirement to balance the budget, and every year they kick the can down the road. They say, We can have it all, and we'll just borrow more money to pay for it.

Well, I've asked high school students when they have come to see me or when I've had an opportunity to speak to them in their classes, I said, Who do you think is going to bear the burden of this debt that we're piling up? And they know the answer to that. They know that it's falling on their shoulders, but they don't have an appreciation of how serious it is, how large a debt it is and how dramatically it can affect the future of our country in the long term and also in the not- too-distant future as well.

So I said, let me give you a starting point to think about that. I said, how much is $1 trillion? The economic stimulus package, $1 trillion, cha ching. The budget deficit, the $3.6 trillion spending at the beginning of the year--they projected $2.4 trillion in revenue, $1.2 trillion deficit. We now know that we are several months into that year, and lo and behold, it's even greater than $1.2 trillion. Over $1 trillion, the health care bill, the monstrosity that brought people out to the polls in Massachusetts last week, $1.1 trillion, according to the Speaker's budget projections; in the Senate, $800 billion.

But we all know that when you have a bill that has 10 years worth of taxes to pay for it and only 6 years worth of benefits that you are using smoke and mirrors and it costs way more than $800 billion over a full 10 years of benefits. Most economists say it will be over $2 trillion over 10 years to pay for either the House or the Senate health care reform bill.

So how much is $1 trillion? I said, let me give you a starting point. If you had a stack of $1,000 bills, nice, freshly printed, tightly packed $1,000 bills, just 4 inches high, you would have $1 million. These students were pretty impressed with that. Most of them had never seen a $1,000 bill, and to think that just 4 inches would be $1 million. I said, how high would that stack of $1,000 bills, not $1 bills, $1,000 bills, have to be to reach $1 trillion?

Well, one young lady said, would it be about 12 inches? And a fellow in the back of the room raised his hand. He laughed. He said, oh, no. It would be a lot more than that. It would be about 20 feet. I said, well, think about it this way. One billion is 1,000 times 1 million. And 1 trillion is 1,000 times 1 billion, or 1 million times 1 million. And so that stack of $1,000 bills that is 4 inches high, to be $1 million, would have to be 4 million inches high to be $1 trillion. Four million inches is 63 miles high. It reaches up into outer space. And that's just $1 trillion.

That's just for the stimulus, or just for the deficit for the coming year, or double that for the new health care bill that they want to add in terms of overall spending that will cost either the taxpayers of this country or borrowed against the future of our country.

When you're talking about trillions of dollars, you're talking about a staggering amount of money. Back in the 1960s, there was a very famous Senator

who was widely quoted as having said, $1 billion here, $1 billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money. But do you know what? That is not what he said. Everett Dirksen, the Senator who said that, actually said, $1 million here, $1 million there, pretty soon you're talking about real money. And that was just 45 years ago that he said that. And we've moved from millions to billions to trillions because this Congress doesn't have the fiscal responsibility that would be required by a balanced budget.

There are consequences, serious consequences for every American family and every job holder in this country. And that's why I want to turn to the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Colorado to get their perspective on just what happens if we don't get this problem under control.

I thank the gentleman. And I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

I agree with the gentleman entirely. We are at great risk.

And let's start with the stimulus. The group speaking just before us were touting the great benefits of this economic stimulus package. We've already seen that during the time that we have been in the process of spending this nearly $1 trillion, all of which, by the way, is borrowed against our children and grandchildren's future, every penny of it is added to the national debt, but before we mention that we've lost 2.74 million jobs since the stimulus program began, the stimulus is founded on an economic theory, and that is called Keynesian economic theory. This says that if there is an economic downturn, the government will borrow money and use that money to spend on various projects and programs to employ people, and they will then generate economic activity. They will spend the money they earn with other people. That will cause people to manufacture goods in response to that demand, and the economy will start growing.

And this is the last part. This is the part that is always left out when they talk about the economic stimulus package in Keynesian economic theory. The last part of Keynes' theory was that when that economic activity took place, and the result was a growing economy, and there would be increased revenues coming into the Federal Government, that they would use those revenues to pay back the money they borrowed to get the process going.

And every time there is one of these so-called economic stimulus programs, do they pay the money back at the end? No. And it's very clear that there's no such intention here when you have $800 billion- plus deficits as far as the eye can see, to say nothing of the unfunded liability, the promises that the gentleman from Texas referred to, that is even far, far greater than what we are seeing here on this chart.

And so, that is what really puts the lie to the idea that this stimulus is going to have any long-term good effect.

The first concern I have is that at some point in time the amount of money we've borrowed, when the economy does start to grow, not just in this country but elsewhere in the world, and in some economies, they are already growing, and, in fact, they are

growing at a pretty healthy pace in countries like China and Brazil. They're going to have increased demand to borrow money. And our government is going to have increased demand to borrow money. And that means that at some point, not right now because people are saving money at a higher rate than they ever had, and interest rates are very low, and banks are afraid to lend that money to a lot of people, therefore there is a lot of money in the bank that is not being lent. And therefore interest rates are low. But in the not too distant future, whether it's 1 or 2 years, we are going to see demand for that money rise. And then the point made by the gentleman from Florida, that you will have $14 trillion, $18 trillion $20 trillion accumulated debt and interest rates go up to 5, 6, 7, 8 percent.

I can remember back during the Carter administration in the late 1970s when the prime interest rate got over 20 percent. If we face those kind of interest rates with this amount of debt, the burden on our government is going to be staggering, and therefore the burden on our economy and our people. And it's going to result in very near-term staggering problems in terms of high interest rates, perhaps hyperinflation related to the very weak dollar compared to other currencies around the world. And then we are going to have what it seems like we are already getting into right now, and that is some evidence of some growth in our economy, but continuing to lose jobs. And then, behind that, you have inflation set in. You're going to have the stagflation that people remember from the 1970s and early 1980s.

This is not a prescription for the future of our children and grandchildren. This is a prescription for an economy that will go downhill and have a very, very different future for this country and the people of this country. And it's not too distant when that kind of impact could take place.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

If the gentleman would yield, I am curious what the gentleman thinks about the speculation the President tomorrow night will call for a spending freeze on discretionary spending.

Obviously, we are pleased that he would want to stop the dramatic trajectory upward in spending that we have seen from this Congress in each of the last 3 years since they have been in the majority. But is that enough? Is that going to solve this problem if we lock in at these higher spending rates that we are experiencing right now?

And I would add to that that it would be wonderful if this President of the United States, or any leader of our country, would step forward and say what we really need is the kind of discipline that requiring each and every year that we balance the budget would impose upon this Congress. Because we make tough decisions; but, most of the time, when the going gets really tough, they spend money on both.

We talked about PAYGO. The gentleman from Florida mentioned that as well and pointed out that it is really meaningless. If you look at it, they imposed these new rules after the adoption of this new health care bill and the enormous cost of that and claimed that it is being paid for, but do so with smoke and mirrors by taxing for 10 years but only providing benefits for 6 years, and claiming they are going to cut $500 billion out of Medicare at a time when the number of people eligible for Medicare is going to skyrocket.

Starting this year, 2010, those who turn 65 were born after World War II; and for the next 15 years, the number of people who are eligible for the Medicare program is going to increase dramatically.

During that time, I think we are going to see a need to have significant reform of the Medicare program. But the money saved is going to have to be made available to have more people covered under the program, not to divert it to set up a whole new government spending scheme.

We have been joined by the gentleman from Iowa, and I would like to yield to Mr. King for his comments about the balanced budget amendment.

I thank the gentleman. And the gentleman raised a very interesting point about how we grow this economy and what this does to it, because he correctly points out that we are going to grow this economy in the private sector, people who will go out and take the risk of creating a new business or expanding the business they have and creating new jobs as a result of that by offering a product or a service that people want and are willing to pay for and can afford to pay for it.

But if the government is out there borrowing $1.3 trillion, $1.5 trillion, $900 billion, and then $800 billion-plus every year thereafter as far as the eye can see, what is that going to do to the amount of capital that is available in the private sector? Especially if interest rates go up, and the government is absorbing so much of the credit that may be available around the country and other countries, and their growing economies are also competing for those same limited resources, we are going to find it very, very hard for free enterprise to survive if our government keeps spending more than it takes in and keeps growing in the enormous size.

It is projected that if you continue this rate of spending, we are going to have government spending 28 percent of our gross domestic product. The Federal Government, not even counting State and local governments, historically, it has ranged between 18 and 20, 21 percent, which is pretty high, in my mind, and many others as well. But it is nothing compared to having that shoot up to 28 percent. That is a huge additional amount of spending, more than $1 trillion each and every year.

And as you can see from this chart, almost all of it borrowed, borrowed against the future not only of our children and grandchildren but of the jobs that people hold today and the jobs that 15 million Americans who are out there looking for work hope to get if some employers will take the chance and can get the credit to allow them to start or expand their business.

We have been joined by another Member. I want to point out the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) are members of the House Judiciary Committee, as am I. This is the committee that has jurisdiction over all constitutional amendments, and it is the place where we are pushing the hardest to try to get the Democratic chairman of the committee to examine this legislation, just as it was not that many years ago and passed the House of Representatives on more than one occasion, and on one occasion came within one vote of passing the United States Senate. Think of what a different country we would have today if we had been living under balanced budgets for the last decade instead of what we have seen.

I would now like to yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Well, I thank the gentleman for his comments. You

know, Washington, D.C., has a spending addiction, and it has proven to be an addiction that the Congress cannot control without a balanced budget amendment requiring that it make the difficult decisions to balance it each and every year. We have gone in a few short years from a deficit of billions of dollars to a deficit of trillions of dollars and we're printing money at an unprecedented pace, which presents risks of inflation, the likes of which we have never seen. Our debt is mounting rapidly and so is the waste associated with paying the interest on that debt, yet Congress has so far refused to address these unsettling problems.

This is not a partisan addiction. It reaches across the aisle and afflicts both parties, which is why neither party has been able to master it. We need outside help. We need pressure from outside Congress to force us to rein in this out-of-control behavior. We need a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. Families across our country understand what it means to make tough decisions each day about what they can and cannot afford. According to a recent Zogby Interactive survey, approximately 70 percent of Americans said they have reduced spending on entertainment in the past year; 40 percent have limited or canceled vacation plans due to the economic environment; 40 percent have decreased spending on food or groceries; almost 10 percent have either changed their education plans or have chosen not to pursue education plans at all. Most troubling, 16 percent have foregone medical treatment or prescription drugs.

These numbers show how sobering our economic recession is, but they also show something more. They demonstrate a basic principle that honest, hardworking American citizens understand: When your income drops, your spending must drop, one way or the other. Yet, far too frequently this fundamental principle has been lost on a Congress that is too busy spending to pay attention to the bottom line. If Americans must exercise restraint with their own funds, then government officials must be required to exercise an even higher standard when spending other people's hard-earned income.

I urge my colleagues to support the balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution, House Joint Resolution 1, and I yield back my time.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted today to recognize two organizations in Virginia's Sixth District and a major international organization for a cooperative effort that is protecting our most innocent citizens--our children. Founded in Bedford County, Virginia Operation Blue Ridge Thunder has been led from its inception by Sheriff Mike Brown. It is recognized around the United States and internationally as an Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. In 1998, Sheriff Brown started the Safe Surfin' Foundation to focus on Internet safety training for boys and girls through schools, law enforcement agencies, and civic groups. From day one, I have watched and supported their efforts closely. Today, I wish to extend thanks to Moose International for stepping forward through the Moose Lodge in Bedford to offer assistance in the ongoing battle to protect young people as they use the Internet. Moose International

went to its 1.3 million members and explained the need to support the special work of Sheriff Brown and his dedicated assistants. As a result, Moose International has generously donated $150,000 to enable the Safe Surfin' Foundation to continue its outreach. In addition, Moose International has joined in a Safe Surfin' ``train the trainers'' program. This assistance is permitting even more children and their parents to learn the benefits of Internet safety. I highly commend Moose International for recognizing the benefits of the Safe Surfin' Foundation. Their generosity will permit the battle to continue nationwide against those who would prey on our children through the use of technology.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by offering the congratulations of myself and many others to Senator-elect Scott Brown of Massachusetts who had a very exciting victory yesterday. And I know that he will be a good Senator for the people of that State, but his victory means so much more to so many more people, not only the people of Massachusetts who are very excited today, but also people all across the country because they viewed the election of Senator Brown as an opportunity to send a message to this government, to this Congress, and to say to the Speaker of the House and the majority leader in the Senate and others that we need to take a different approach to health care reform and to the general direction of our Federal Government with regard to the out-of-control spending that we are experiencing here in Washington: last year's Federal deficit of $1.4 trillion and another $1.2 trillion projected for this year; in fact, for each year as far as the eye can see, deficits exceeding $600 billion a year as far out as we project them, 10 years from now.

At no time does this Congress offer a budget to the American people that would give them hope that we are going to get this problem under control. Instead, they have offered health care legislation that costs another, oh, some would say $800 billion. But the reality is that over 10 years the real cost of this legislation is more like $2 trillion- plus when you add in the fact that the taxes begin on this legislation sooner than the benefits begin.

And cuts in Medicare are unreal at a time when we are going to see a dramatic increase in the number of people

in this country who are eligible for Medicare, as the baby boomers start retiring this year, 2010, those born after World War II start retiring this year, and the number of people who are on Medicare and eligible for Medicare is going to skyrocket.

With all of this going on, the message to this Congress, to the Democratic leadership in this Congress is you need to change course, change direction, and make sure that you are reflecting the will of the American people. But instead, the leadership doesn't get that message. Even today, as Senator-elect Brown prepares to come down here to be sworn into the United States Senate sometime in the next few days, the White House and Democratic Congressional leaders have once again retreated behind closed doors to make deals and finalize a single version of their government takeover of health care. That is not what the American people want.

Speaker Pelosi said today, in response to the election results, ``Clearly the election results last night spell out that we have not been as clear about our deficit reduction measures. And that will change.'' But the American people want to know what deficit reduction measures is she talking about when she continues, along with the other Democratic leaders here in the House and in the Senate and at the White House, to plot the expenditure of $2 trillion or more in additional expenditures over the next 10 years for a health care bill that robs Medicare recipients, that increases taxes, and will cost American jobs, that will do a whole host of things to regulate Americans' lives and how they will receive their health insurance, including mandating that they have to purchase health insurance whether or not they feel they want to, and telling them pretty much what that insurance is that they are going to have to purchase because of the fact that this health insurance will be regulated by a Federal Government health insurance commissioner, one of the more than 140 new Federal Government agencies and programs included under consideration in the bill that they are planning to try to move forward.

That is simply not what the American people are looking for. They want responsible leadership. They want a bipartisan effort to deal with this challenge of rising costs of health insurance and health care. And they want bipartisan, responsible leadership in looking to ways to make health insurance and health care available to more people.

The legislation they are considering doesn't do that. Instead, it busts the budget of our country. Yesterday's election results in Massachusetts calls for a new direction in health care and in that debate. Many believe the election of Senator Scott Brown lessens the likelihood of passage of the current proposal that has been crafted by Democratic leadership. If this is indeed the case, Democrats and Republicans must work together toward health care reform that reduces costs and expands insurance coverage without reducing costs or adding to the national debt, rationing care, or putting the Federal Government between the patient and their doctor.

One such bill to consider is H.R. 3970, the Medical Rights and Reform Act, of which I am a cosponsor. The Medical Rights and Reform Act includes fiscally responsible health care reforms like medical liability reform, small business insurance pooling, and letting families and businesses buy insurance across state lines. These are ideas at that have strong bipartisan support, but have been absent from the bicameral health care negotiations. Most important, the Medical Rights and Reform Act is fiscally responsible. This alternative does not raise taxes, cut Medicare, or add to the deficit. And it lowers health care costs.

This Congress already gave us a $1.8 trillion debt. America cannot afford to spend another trillion dollars or $2 trillion as proposed by the majority, and our families cannot afford to put life and death decisions in the hands of bureaucrats.

Mr. Speaker, resetting the health care debate and working together in an open and transparent way would help Washington regain the public's trust.

Mr. Speaker, in the news since Christmas Day has been great concern about the security of our country related to individuals entering this country and attempting to perpetrate harm on our citizens. It harkens back to September 11, 2001, and all the measures that we have taken since then to try to make our Nation a safer place.

One of the areas where we could make it much safer and much fairer for all of our citizens and for those who seek to come to the United States would be to eliminate the visa lottery program. This is a program that awards legal permanent residence status, or ``green cards,'' to foreign nationals based on pure luck.

Literally, the State Department conducts a random lottery. Millions of people submit their names on very short forms, about a half-page long, and then they randomly select out of those millions of people 50,000 winners each year who get to enter the United States through the visa lottery program. They don't have to have any family ties to the United States. They don't have to have any job skills that are in need in the United States. They simply, through pure luck, get to enter this country.

Usually, immigrant visas are issued to foreign nationals that have existing connections with family members lawfully residing in the United States or with U.S. employers. However, under the visa lottery program, visas are awarded to immigrants at random without meeting such criteria.

A perfect example of the system gone awry is the case of Hesham Mohamed Ali Hedayet, the Egyptian national who killed two and wounded three during a shooting spree at Los Angeles International Airport in July 2002. He was allowed to apply for a legal permanent residence status in 1997 because of his wife's status as a visa lottery winner.

In fact, since this program was established in the early 1990s, nearly 1 million people have come into the United States regardless of the need for them to enter this country, regardless of the unemployment rate, which today stands above 10 percent. And with 15 million Americans looking for work, we give 50,000 visas to people to enter the country not based upon any family ties, not based upon any job skills, simply based upon pure luck.

The State Department's Inspector General testified before Congress recently that it continues to believe that the program ``contains significant risks to national security from hostile intelligence officers, criminals, and terrorists attempting to use the program for entry into the United States as permanent residents.'' With the tool of ``legal permanent resident'' status in hand, terrorists and spies would have free rein to travel and meet and plan terrorist activities within the borders of the United States.

Even if technical improvements were made to the visa lottery program, nothing would prevent terrorist organizations or foreign intelligence agencies from having members apply for the program who do not have criminal backgrounds, maybe have recently left one of the madrassas in the Middle East and have no record of having been affiliated with a terrorist organization, but that organization could assist them in submitting their names. And if they get a visa if their name is drawn, they don't just get a temporary visa like the 9/11 hijackers or the fellow who just attempted to blow up a Northwest airliner; rather, they get permanent residence status or a green card to live permanently in the United States.

Thirteen of the 14 countries over which the TSA is exercising greater scrutiny in the wake of the attempted Christmas Day bombing plot are eligible to participate in the visa lottery, including Yemen, which has become the focus of much activity on the part of terrorist organizations.

The visa lottery program is wrought with fraud. It is common for foreign nationals to apply for the lottery program multiple times using many different aliases. The State Department's Office of Inspector General declared in its September 2003 report that the visa lottery program is ``subject to widespread abuse'' and that ``identity fraud is endemic, and fraudulent documents are commonplace.''

A 2007 Government Accountability Office report found that the visa lottery program is vulnerable to fraudulent activity committed by and against applicants. The same 2007 report found that consular officers at six posts out of 11 reviewed reported that widespread use of fake documents, such as birth certificates, marriage certificates, and passports, presented challenges when verifying the identities of applicants and dependents.

The visa lottery program is unfair to immigrants who comply with United States immigration laws. Most family-sponsored immigrants currently face a wait of years to obtains visas, yet the lottery program pushes 50,000 random immigrants with no particular family ties, job skills, or education ahead of these family- and employer-sponsored immigrants each year with no wait.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation should be overturned. I have introduced legislation to do just that. This Congress should bring it up for a vote.

There is a bipartisan effort to eliminate the visa lottery program. Forty-five bipartisan Members of Congress have already cosponsored this legislation, and it has twice passed the House: once under a Democrat majority in the 110th Congress as an amendment to the FY 2008 State/ Foreign Operations Appropriations bill on the House floor and once in the 109th Congress as an amendment to H.R. 4437.

Democrat leadership this Congress blocked the same amendment from coming to the floor for a vote during the consideration of the FY 2010 State/Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. The Democrat-controlled House has not held a single hearing on the dangers posed by the visa lottery program during the 110th or 111th Congresses.

Madam Speaker, private ownership of property is vital to our freedom and our prosperity, and is one of the most fundamental principles embedded in our Constitution. The Founders realized the importance of property rights when they codified the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which requires that private property shall not be taken ``for public use, without just compensation.'' This clause created two conditions to the government taking private property: That the subsequent use of the property is for the public and that the government gives the property owners just compensation.

However, the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London is a step in the opposite direction. This controversial ruling expands the ability of State and local governments to exercise eminent domain powers to seize property under the guise of ``economic development'' when the ``public use'' is as incidental as generating tax revenues or creating jobs, even in situations where the government takes property from one private individual and gives it to another private entity.

By defining ``public use'' so expansively, the Court essentially erased any protection for private property as understood by the Founders of our Nation. In the wake of this decision, State and local governments can use eminent domain powers to take the property of any individual for nearly any reason. Cities may now bulldoze private citizens' homes, farms, and small businesses to make way for shopping malls or other developments.

I completely agree with Justice O'Connor who, in her dissent in the Kelo case, wrote: ``Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings ``for public use'' is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property--and thereby effectively to delete the words ``for public use'' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.''

For these reasons, I have introduced legislation with Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin to ban all Federal economic development money for a period of two years for any State or local government that uses eminent domain for private economic development purposes.

The STOPP act also prohibits funding to a State or local government that fails to provide relocation assistance to a person displaced from property by any use of eminent domain for an economic development purpose. Relocation assistance must meet the level and be of the same manner as that required under the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. The STOPP act also provides landowners with a right to enforce the prohibition of funds under this act.

No one should have to live in fear of the government snatching up their home, farm, or business, and the Private Property Rights Protection Act will help to create the incentives to ensure that these abuses do not occur in the future.

I rise to claim time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Chair, I recognize myself for 2 minutes.

First, I will say that the gentleman from Georgia may assert that this will benefit creditors, but I know a few creditors who extend home mortgage loans who favor this legislation.

Our country has fallen into a serious economic recession, a recession that has been worsened by the foreclosure crisis. Until we address the rising number of foreclosures, it will be difficult for the economy to recover. Unfortunately, this bankruptcy amendment, which I don't think belongs in this legislation to begin with, not only fails to

solve the foreclosure crisis, but it also will make the crisis deeper, longer, and wider.

Allowing bankruptcy courts to modify home mortgages will have adverse consequences for all while providing little real relief to distressed borrowers. Bankruptcy cramdowns will invariably lead to higher interest rates and to less generous borrowing terms for future borrowers. The gentleman may claim that it won't affect future borrowers, but the fact of the matter is, if this can be done now for this purpose, the advocates of this legislation will likely, in the future, see this made a permanent provision in our bankruptcy laws. It will have the effect of causing interest rates to go up and of causing credit to be less available.

Unemployment has been a driving factor behind most foreclosures, but because individuals without regular incomes may not file for bankruptcy under chapter 13, cramdown will do nothing for those most in need of relief--the unemployed. Additionally, many borrowers walk away from their homes, not because they can't afford their monthly payments, but because their homes are mortgaged for more than they are worth. These borrowers should live with the responsibility of their decisions and not receive bailouts from bankruptcy courts.

Furthermore, we must not forget that cramdown will not only impact lenders but investors as well. These investors often include pension funds, which represent the retirement savings of millions. We should not pass the cost of irresponsible borrowing and lending off on current and future retirees.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, there is no reason to allow mortgage cramdown, with its attendant high cost, considering it will produce only modest results at best.

If we pass this amendment, what message does it send to the 90 percent of homeowners who are making their payments on time? How can we ask them to foot the bill for their neighbors' mortgages? What do homeowners think when they pay back the full amount of the principal they owe while others receive a government reduction in principal?

We do need to do everything we can to help solve the foreclosure crisis, but we must avoid measures like cramdown, which punishes the successful, taxes the responsible, and holds no one accountable.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), a member of the committee.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3961.

Under current law, Medicare physician reimbursement rates are expected to be cut by 21 percent next year and by roughly 5 percent for each of the next several years thereafter, according to the 2009 Medicare Trustees Report.

While we can all agree that our current physician reimbursement rate is flawed, Republicans and Democrats have many different ideas about how to fix it.

Since 2003, Congress has offset the cost of averting physician payment cuts. Unfortunately, today's legislation's further exacerbates the Democratic majority's infatuation with deficit spending.

According to CBO, the full cost of H.R. 3961 is $260 billion, $210 billion of which is deficit spending by the federal government. Furthermore $50 billion will be paid for by Medicare beneficiaries in the form of higher Part B premiums.

The Democrats' health care takeover already costs over $1 trillion. In order to hide the additional costs of that bill, the Democrats separated this physician reimbursement rate legislation from the larger health care bill.

It is clear that this procedural move is simply a budget gimmick by Democrats to avoid including the full cost of this Medicare physician fix in their health care reform bill. This trickery is insulting to Americans who are tired of politics as usual and who are demanding straight answers about our nation's deteriorating fiscal situation.

This legislation also breaks President Obama's promise that health care reform would not cost more than $900 billion. Taking CBO's 10-year score of the health care overhaul, $1.055 trillion, and adding the cost of this physician reimbursement fix, the total cost of the Democrats' health care reform would be at least $1.3 trillion.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the deficit spending in this legislation. As I stated previously, according to the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, this bill would increase the Federal deficit by more than $210 billion with this one bill alone.

The American people know that we can't borrow and spend our way back to prosperity. The path to our economic recovery starts with fiscal responsibility in Washington. The Federal Government must follow the example set by our Nation's families.

Unfortunately, Democrats continue to ignore this reality. We have accumulated a 2009 deficit of $1.42 trillion and a national debt of over $12 trillion and Democrats seem determined to dig us deeper into this debt hole.

While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may have concocted a scheme to enable this bill to pass today, I hope they realize that the Senate has already rejected a bill substantially similar to this one, almost identical in cost, because of its crippling deficit impact. In fact, 13 Democrat Senators opposed it.

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee is a very powerful committee--one that determines under what rules every bill will be brought to the House floor. In yet another strong-armed tactic, the majority has used yet another rule to limit discussion and amendments offered by Republicans. Instead of having an honest debate, the Democratic majority has decided they didn't like the discussion, so they have effectively decided to stifle alternative ideas and debate. This doesn't seem very democratic to me.

House Republicans have a better alternative. Our proposal, which was not given the light of day, much less a vote, would provide: $54 billion in savings from medical liability reform that would enact caps on noneconomic damages and lawyers' fees, encouraging speedy resolutions of claims, and limit punitive damages. This will reduce defensive medicine, protect doctors from frivolous lawsuits, and bring down the cost of health care; $5.7 billion in savings from the creation of a pathway for approval at the Food and Drug Administration for bio- similar products, with appropriate protections that continue to promote innovation while providing access to affordable drugs; and $19 billion in savings through enacting health insurance administrative simplification policies such as the creation of standardized forms and transactions.

Mr. Speaker, there is a fiscally responsible way to solve this physician reimbursement problem. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3961.