Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, the report by the chief actuary of Medicare is in and, as we thought, it shows real problems with the idea of expanding Medicare coverage to lower age groups. This summer, I had an opportunity to do a bunch of town hall meetings, and in those meetings we discussed the fact that what we're talking about really, in the public option, is adding more people to something like the SS Medicare which is already sinking in the harbor. But now over in the other body, there is specifically a proposal to literally add more people to the sinking SS Medicare in the harbor.

And so in the last several days, the chief actuary has provided a report that really should stop us in our tracks and cause us to realize that that's no solution, to add people to a program that is already unsustainable.

What that chief actuary of Medicare reports--and there are several items in his report, obviously, but one of them is the report cautions that savings needed to extend the trust fund cannot simultaneously be used to extend other health insurance coverage. In other words, if you're going to save money, you can't simultaneously expand coverage under the program. It seems fairly obvious to the folks I was talking to in town hall meetings. Unfortunately here in Washington, it seems not to be comprehended. We seem to think that here in Washington we can continue to add people to a program even though the people that are currently on the program have it on a trajectory that can't be sustained.

The actuary also points out that actually the Senate bill would increase the cost of health care; would not decrease the cost of health care. In fact, total spending on health care would increase by $234 billion between 2010 and 2019. Also, total Federal expenditures on health care would increase $365.8 billion during that period. The bill would extend coverage to 33 million Americans by 2019 but would still leave 24 million people uninsured, 5 million of which may be illegal immigrants. And the number of people with employer-sponsored health care would drop by 5 million by 2019.

What the chief actuary is telling us is that the solution that's being proposed is not a solution. In order to solve the challenge of Medicare, you have to figure out some way to change the underlying behavior. You have to figure out a way to get the patient invested in their care and caring how much it costs. That's what we've got to do for Medicare, Medicaid and for private insurance.

There are some very creative things going on in the private sector that are toward this end, to have this objective of changing the underlying behavior. What we're discussing here in the Congress under the majority here in the House and the apparent majority over in the Senate is not something that will change behavior. What it will do is simply add more people to a program that is already unsustainable. So rather than saving money, as the President suggests it will, actually what will happen, as the chief actuary says, is the costs rise; not everybody gets covered. It's clearly not a solution.

So what we have to do is scrap the current plans and go back to something that might actually work: by getting a change in behavior, by figuring out how to get people covered, by figuring out how to do medical malpractice reform and by getting 50-State competition among private insurance companies. Those, Madam Speaker, are the solutions we want to see in this country. We must stop this false solution that's being offered now.

Madam Speaker, a number of physicians would tell you that longevity is based only on genetic make-up. But you might ask them, Doctor, if I were to diet and exercise safely, might I extend my life? Well, most physicians would say, If you can do it safely, go ahead.

That is really what I think we should be talking about when it comes to climate change. If we can do it safely as to the economy, we should act. If we can't do it safely, then we should hold up.

In the case of cap-and-trade, which has passed this floor, unfortunately, and is pending now in the other body, it can't be done that way. In other words, it will harm the economy. We are talking about a tax increase in the midst of a recession. We are talking about a Wall Street trading scheme that would make some traders blush, and it punishes American manufacturing. So for all those reasons, I wish cap- and-trade were off the table. Hopefully, it falls apart over in the other body.

Then the question is, Could we act in some way that is sort of like the longevity question? It might not extend our lives, but on the other hand, would it hurt us? And in this case, what we are looking for is something that would work that wouldn't hurt us, that wouldn't hurt our economy.

And what I have proposed is a 15-page alternative to the 1,200-page cap-and-trade, and that 15 pages describes a tax cut on payroll and a shift on to emissions, the result being that we would change the economics of the incumbent fossil fuels and begin replacing them with better fuels that can create jobs and improve the national security of the United States.

Along the way, though, I think the big debate about whether the climate change models are right, and it's very important that we get it right as to those models, but that process is going to take a long time. It's going to take a longer time with this setback here recently with the revelation that various climate data has been manipulated.

What we have here is a teachable moment for all scientists everywhere that when this kind of misconduct occurs, the result is all of science is questioned. It's not a good result because the reality is we need this science to advance, and we need it to advance in a transparent way where the evidence can be pushed on and replicated if it's accurate. If it's not accurate and can't be replicated, it's rejected. But in the rejection, we learn, and science advances.

So I join with Ranking Member Hall in asking for a full investigation of these revelations about the manipulation of data because we need to get to the bottom of it. Especially in the Science Committee, we need to use this as a teachable moment to figure out how to advance science, true science, without manipulation of data in calling to account those who have manipulated data. In the process, we will all learn a lot about the climate models, we will advance science, and we will make better public policy.

Mr. Speaker, I identify with the sentiments of the gentleman who just spoke. The only problem is if you look at Martin Feldstein's article yesterday in The Washington Post, what you see is that we are going to have another problem with the cost of this, that as folks have a problem with the cost shift continuing, we are actually going to make insurance more expensive, and actually people are going to lose coverage because they are going to decide to go bare until they get sick, then access the guaranteed issue, then cause premiums to rise, which will actually cause more people to be uninsured.

So the mandate here doesn't work because the penalties aren't high enough in the mandate to keep people from deciding to go bare until they are diagnosed with a problem.

The result will be that we actually end up with more people uninsured and higher premiums. The bill needs to be rethought. That is the kind of thing that we could develop in a collaborative process. That's not the process here. That's why we have this problem.

Madam Speaker, there are many things wrong with the Pelosi health care bill. Some of them rise to moral issues, and certainly the moral issue that I am focused on right now is the abortion issue.

There are a lot of people who want to say, Well, there won't be public funds used for abortion, but really, please, when we debate this bill, let's not insult the intelligence of other Members of Congress or of the American people. There is a clear commingling of resources. If you set up a public option and then there is money flowing into that from taxpayers, that money will ultimately find its way to abortion services.

So what we need in order to avoid that problem that many of us have of funding abortions with taxpayer money is an expressed prohibition on abortion services. There needs to be a bright line in this bill saying there will be no support for abortion services anywhere in the bill, similar to the Hyde amendment in HHS appropriations.

So, Madam Speaker, this is something that needs to be done in order to make it clear and to avoid this moral challenge.

Mr. Speaker, lacking a collaborative process, we unfortunately must simply oppose the Pelosi health

care bill. This bill has within it a public option to which Members of Congress aren't subject. It has a comingling of taxpayer funds for abortion services, tax increases, benefit cuts, especially for Medicare Advantage. And, in leaving the $245 billion doctor fix out of the bill and put in a separate bill, it really makes a mockery of what the President said here when he said not one dime will be added to the deficit.

The bill also has no appreciable attempt at medical malpractice reform and actually tries to avoid State limits imposed by State legislatures.

Mr. Speaker, this bill simply must be voted down, we start over and try to find a collaborative process, and come up with something that will work for America.

Madam Speaker, we are looking at some scary numbers. Just in time for Halloween, we have the budget deficit numbers in; $1.42 trillion for this year and an accumulated debt of $13 trillion.

Now, this has happened before. We have been in a spot before with historical debt levels shown here on this chart. You can see after World War II we actually reached nearly 110 percent of GDP. Our debt was nearly 110 percent of GDP. But, as you can see, it has gone down, and now it is trending way high.

There is a big difference between this historical debt and the debt that we are experiencing now, because the question is: Who did we owe it to? After World War II, we owed 95 percent of the debt to ourselves. The U.S. public held 95 percent of the United States debt in 1945. Today, in 2009, only 54 percent is held by the U.S. public. China is holding 11 percent, and other foreign countries are holding 35 percent. So nearly 50 percent of our debt is owed to other countries. It is quite different than the scenario after World War II.

It is a shame, Madam Speaker, that we didn't adopt the more significant budget cuts of the Republican Study Committee budgets. Had we done that over the last 5 years, we would now be looking at $613 billion less in spending. We would have saved $613 billion by enacting those most conservative budgets offered on this House floor.

If this keeps up, what we have got now is government spending now as a percentage of GDP, as you can see here under the Obama approach, fiscal year 2010 budget, with the out years being reflected in the long-term fiscal scenario of CBO, you can see that government spending as a percentage of GDP actually rises to nearly 50 percent, 50 percent of GDP being government spending. Under the Republican alternatives, you can see that we trend down after this most recent uptick, and we get down to the level of somewhere around 18 percent of GDP as a percentage of government spending.

Madam Speaker, I am here to say to my colleagues that we must do something. These are scary numbers, and we have got to act.

The key is to get to fiscal restraint and economic growth. Those things have to happen simultaneously. You do that by keeping taxes low, keeping regulation light, and getting litigation down. You do that by making wise energy policy that makes it so that energy can be the new tech boom that leads us out of the current recession.

I happen to believe that the road to recovery and the road to energy independence are one and the same. If we get on that road, we can lead our way out of this recession.

I happen to believe, too, that the upstate of South Carolina has a lot to offer in paving that road, making it so we can get to balanced budgets by economic growth and fiscal restraint, and improve the national security of the United States by breaking this addiction to oil, by finding these new sources of energy and making it so we can create jobs.

Madam Speaker, that is what we should be about here. I hope we can get to it.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding an earmark I received as part of the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 3183, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.

Requesting Member: Congressman Bob Inglis

Bill Number: Conference Report to accompany H.R. 3183, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010

Account: Corps of Engineers--Investigations

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Greenville

Address of Requesting Entity: 206 South Main Street Greenville, South Carolina 29602

Description of Request: The purpose of the request is to conduct a feasibility study examining potential environmental restoration and flood control projects for the Reedy River in the vicinity of Greenville, SC. This study will be conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers, as the next phase in the Corps' ongoing work to restore and stabilize the Reedy. The amount is $90,000 and it would go to the City of Greenville.

Madam Speaker, tonight I want to talk about where we are with the budget deficit.

Just in time for Halloween, we are looking at scary numbers: an annual deficit of $1.42 trillion, accumulated debt of $13 trillion. It's a real fright. So, what does it compare to in our history?

Well, here we have a chart that shows the historical debt levels of the United States. This is debt owed to the public, not intergovernmental debt. But what it shows is that after World War II there was a substantial amount of debt owed to the public; in fact, it was over 100 percent of our gross domestic product. Since then, it has gone down nicely, and that's a good thing. But here, lately, you can see the trajectory over there of where we're headed to, another dangerously high level of debt; again, an accumulated debt right now of $13 trillion, and this year will throw on 1.42 trillion from this year's annual deficit.

But the historical debt level gives us a little bit of comfort because it shows that after World War II we had a higher percentage of debt than we do now. But there is a big difference between the debt after World War II and the debt today. As you can see here, the comparison of our creditors on this debt is what's really telling and what, again, just in time for Halloween, is rather frightening.

In 1945, 95 percent of the debt was owed to the U.S. public; only 5 percent of it we were looking at back then was foreign investment. Now, then, in 2009, that $13 trillion debt that I was just talking about, the U.S. public owns only 54 percent of that debt. China owns 11 percent, other foreign countries, 35 percent.

So the very scary thing is that, unlike World War II where we had a higher percentage of debt compared to GDP but we owed it to ourselves, now with this $13 trillion debt, we owe it to foreign countries, not to ourselves.

The very sad thing for me as a member of the Republican Study Committee is that if we had enacted the conservative budgets that we proposed since 2005, we would be, right now, $613 billion to the better, because over those years, we proposed here on this House floor the most conservative budget alternatives offered. Had they been enacted, we would have been looking at $613 billion less than what we are looking at now by way of debt.

Now, from here, it gets even scarier, because this chart shows the effect of President Obama's proposed budget in 2010. As you can see, government spending as a percentage of GDP--that's what this chart is showing is government spending as a percentage of GDP--you can see it taking off at a trajectory that truly is frightening. The Republican alternative budgets, as you can see there, show a trend line down so that we would be moving away from government spending as a percentage of GDP. It would actually be declining over the years to come.

So, the question for us as Americans is: How are we going to cope with the fact that we've got a $13 trillion accumulated debt? First thing we could do is cancel the unspent part of the stimulus package; that's $787 billion. Only 13 percent of it has been spent. Surely we can cut that out. The next thing we can do is make sure we do no harm in health care, and that means avoiding yet another government program like Medicare and Medicaid that involve cost shift. That means that private sector employers and people covered by their own insurance will have to make up for the shortfall created by the cost shift that comes from these underpaying government programs. But even in their underpayment, they create an enormous government deficit problem.

So, Madam Speaker, the message I think to all of us, Republicans and Democrats, the President and the Congress, is to come together to figure out a way to get this trajectory down, to not be looking at this kind of government spending that takes off, but rather to bring that down.

Recently on this House floor, Mr. Boehner was successful in getting the Defund ACORN Act attached to the student aid bill. By a vote of 345-75, this House voted to cut off funding to ACORN.

My constituents are very relieved by that because throughout August I heard from them very clearly that they don't want an organization that's been up to the things that ACORN has been up to receiving Federal funds.

In fact, since 1994, according to Leader Boehner's office, they may have received directly as much as $53 million; more than that indirectly through block grants that may have come from State sources.

Madam Speaker, that's got to stop. It's a good step that we took in the Defund ACORN Act, but we're not through yet, because something tells me that throughout the appropriations process there's money tucked away.

And so we must remain vigilant and see this organization associated with voter fraud and other irregularities must be cut off at the Federal trough.

Mr. Speaker, in my district, many people are telling me about their concern about the excessive use by the administration of special staff or czars. Over 30 czars are now serving in the Obama administration.

The problem we have with that is they haven't been confirmed by the Senate, and that is a real problem. If you exercise authority over American citizens, we need the constitutional protection of making sure that they've been vetted by the Senate and given approval by the Senate to serve in those capacities when they are exercising authority over the American people.

That's why, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the excellent bill by our distinguished colleague from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), the Czar Accountability Reform Act of 2009. It would cut off funding for these special assistants unless they have the consent of the Senate to serve, the approval of the Senate, the confirmation of the Senate to serve. That's what the Constitution requires, Mr. Speaker. That's what we need to require.

Madam Speaker, October 8, 2009 marks the 100th anniversary of Minnie Louise Thompson Gardner. She departed this life on Sunday, January 7, 2007. Her life was committed to God, service to family. Friends and community.

Early in her youth, she accepted Christ and united with Springfield Baptist Church, where

she became active in the Choir, Usher Board, Baptist Student Union and the Missionary Society. Minnie worked faithfully until the birth of her children and care of ailing parents curtailed her involvement. However, her dedication and faithfulness to the legacy and growth of the church during her more than 80 years of membership remained constant. Life led Minnie toward employment within the field of hospitality. She retired from public service as the head cook of the Holiday Inn Chain of Greenville, South Carolina.

Minnie attended Greenville County public schools and was among the first graduating class of the Sterling Normal and Industrial Institute in 1927. During this time, she was a founding member and soloist of the Marian Anderson Music Club. Minnie was also a founding member of the Hattie Duckett Cultural Club. She was recognized in 1998 by the Phillis Wheatley Center and American Federal Bank for sharing her story as an outstanding member of the Phillis Wheatley basketball team. Following high school, Minnie continued her education at Benedict College, where she was awarded a Teacher's Certificate.

Minnie's lifelong commitment to family was evident in the foundation that she laid to promote personal and professional success of her children and children in the community. SHARE recognized Minnie as a community leadership icon and legendary human advancement advocate for her service to the antipoverty/Community Action movement in upstate South Carolina. In response to her long-standing dedication to the community, the Thompson-Gardner Park in the newly developed Viola Street Community was dedicated in her honor by the City of Greenville on July 11, 2005.

The Minnie Gardner College Fund for the CDC Agency for Toxic Substance Disease Registry Chapter of Blacks in government and the Minnie L. Gardner Scholarship have been established since her death.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman just before me was speaking about the public option. And I, like him, am happy that the Senate Finance Committee has turned down the public option. But I don't think the snake is dead yet here on the House floor because it seems that the Speaker is working over the CBO numbers in trying to persuade some folks there is some $85 billion worth of savings if we just set the reimbursement rate at 5 percent above Medicare.

Well, let's think that through. Here is what we've got. We've already got two public programs that under-reimburse providers. In fact, for hospitalizations, Medicaid, which is a Federal and State program, reimburses typically at 87 percent of actual cost for hospitalizations. Medicare reimburses at 92 percent of actual cost. So if you go 5 percent higher than Medicare, if I'm doing the math right, it means that maybe the new public option would reimburse maybe 93, 94 percent of actual cost, which means that you have got a 13 percent cost shift in Medicaid, a 7 percent cost shift in Medicare; and now if a public option comes to be, a 6 percent or so cost shift there. The result is that private payers have to pay 129 percent of actual cost, on average, when they go into the hospital. Now that's a problem because if it's 129 percent of actual cost, it means that premiums go up.

So the public option, far from solving the problem of cost shift, actually is going to add to the problem of cost shift by giving us a third Federal program that adds to the problem. So it's clear that this is not a solution, and the $85 billion worth of savings is not a real savings. It's a savings only if you can go pull money out of the pocket of anybody that walks into the hospital with an insurance card in their pocket, because again, they pay 129 percent of actual costs.

So somehow what we have to do here in this health care reform business is figure out how to stop that cost shift, how to be accountable here at the Federal Government so that we're not paying just 87 percent of actual cost for Medicaid patients, not just paying 92 percent of actual costs for Medicare patients, and certainly not creating a third program that will under-reimburse hospitals.

So our challenge, the challenge before us, is to figure out how to stop the cost shift and how to be accountable from here in Washington, from our State capitals, and surely not to create a public option that just adds to the problem.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding an earmark I received as part of HR 3326, Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010.

Requesting Member: Congressman Bob Inglis

Bill Number: HR 3326, Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010

Account: 17 DARPA 0602715E Materials and Biological Technology

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Milliken and Company

Address of Requesting Entity: 920 Milliken Road, Spartanburg, South Carolina 29304

Description of Request: This project continues work that began in July 2007 under Army Research Laboratory (ARL) Cooperative Agreement #W911NF-07-2-0074. An annual program plan was mutually developed for three years with the Cooperative Agreement Manager at the onset of the award. The scope of the effort will be to leverage the past work to fabricate a full-scale molded part that is suitable for use on an existing tactical vehicle platform. Milliken will work with ARL and a designated U.S. DOD prime vehicle contractor to select, fabricate and test the specific component, such as a hood, quarter panel or underbody hull component. The amount is $2,800,000 and it would go to Milliken and Company.

Mr. Speaker, there is much to agree on in health care reform. There is also something that we very much disagree on. The disagreement has to do with the public option, and it has to do with the question about whether private insurance companies need the discipline of the competition from a public sector plan or a publicly provided plan. If you've ever been in business and you've watched the government come into competition with you, you know that it is an unfair competitor because the government has the ability to subsidize its operations. The result is that when government enters an area that the private sector is working in, the government ends up becoming the provider there.

That's what we fear would happen in the midst of a public option: the private insurance companies would be forced out; the public option would become really the only game in town. And the result would become pretty quickly a government system of providing insurance and health care. But there's much else that we can agree on.

So the question is, Can the folks who control this House leave aside just one thing and then we cooperate?

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding an earmark I received as part of H.R. 3288, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.

Requesting Member: Congressman Bob Inglis

Bill Number: H.R. 3288, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010

Account: FAA--Airport Improvement Program

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: South Carolina Technology and Aviation Center (SC-TAC)

Address of Requesting Entity: 2 Exchange Street, Greenville, SC 29605

Description of Request: SC-TAC is the largest general aviation airport in the state of South Carolina, serving the aviation industry as a major aircraft maintenance and modification base. This high priority, taxiway B (North) improvement project would greatly enhance the operational capacity and safety parameters of the airfield, increasing access to current and future airport infrastructure. SC- TAC's 2600 acre aviation park is home to 80 high tech companies and organizations employing over 3,000 local residents. This upgrade project would facilitate SC-TAC's ability to attract additional aviation-related businesses (jobs) to the complex, adding to the $222 Million economic impact of their operation. The amount is $750,000 and it would go to SC-TAC.

Requesting Member: Congressman Bob Inglis

Bill Number: H.R. 3288, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010

Account: FHWA--Transportation & Community & System Preservation

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Spartanburg

Address of Requesting Entity: 366 N. Church St., Suite 700, Spartanburg, SC 29303

Description of Request: The Fairforest Rd. at N. Blackstock Rd. intersection is directly adjacent to a major Norfolk Southern rail line that is also used by Amtrak for passenger service. Because of the present alignment of the rail line and adjacent roadways, two signals control traffic on either side of the at-grade rail crossing, increasing the possibility of a vehicle becoming trapped on the rail line between the two signals. The present situation presents a severe safety hazard to normal vehicular traffic and school buses which use the at-grade crossing frequently during school hours. The amount is $500,000 and it would go to the City of Spartanburg.