Floor Statements

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I come to the floor today to express my support for H.R. 4402, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act. This bill will expedite responsible mineral production in the United States by reducing Federal red tape and by speeding up the Federal permitting process to create new mining jobs.

My northern Michigan district is blessed with abundant mineral resources. From copper mines in Keweenaw and Houghton to the iron mines in Marquette and the western parts of the Upper Peninsula, mining has been the foundation of northern Michigan's economy. Currently, mining contributes over $4 billion to Michigan's economy annually and employs over 30,000 people. Today, new mining operations in northern Michigan are being explored. These mines have the potential to create thousands of new jobs. In fact, just last week, I visited one of these new mine sites and was able to see firsthand the work that they are doing to responsibly utilize Michigan's vast copper resources.

Regrettably, the Federal Government and Washington bureaucrats have been standing in the way of new mines across this country. Due to lawsuits and government inefficiency, the current process of acquiring permits for a new mining project can take more than a decade. That's right, a decade. While our economy is struggling, we can not afford to wait 10 years while the Federal Government sits on its hands. We need to encourage the responsible use of our mineral resources to create jobs and keep America competitive with the rest of the world.

Madam Chair, I encourage all Members to support this commonsense legislation to speed up this process and create jobs. If we can get the Federal Government out of the way, I am confident areas like northern Michigan can flourish once again.

Madam Speaker, in upholding the President's health care law, the Supreme Court identified the law as a $675 billion tax increase on America's working families and reminds us that we cannot depend on courts to fix the mistakes that Congress has made.

I know something about health care. I've been a doctor for 30 years taking care of patients in northern Michigan. I know the President's plan is not solving our health care problems. In fact, it's making them worse.

The law hurts seniors by cutting more than $500 billion from Medicare. The law creates a board of 15 Washington bureaucrats to decide how to reduce Medicare costs. The law contains more than 13,000 pages of new regulations that will suffocate our small businesses.

The President's law never addressed rising health care costs. America has a great health care system, but the problem is it costs too much. I recommend we enact a step-by-step approach that lowers cost through free market competition and strengthens the doctor-patient relationship.

The American people have been clear--they don't like this terrible law. I urge all Members to support the Repeal of Obamacare Act, so we can scrap this law and work together on real health care reforms that actually lower costs and make health care more affordable.

Mr. Speaker, let it be known it is an honor to commemorate the occasion of the 125th anniversary of the opening of the Grand Hotel in Mackinac Island, Michigan.

The idea for a hotel on scenic Mackinac Island in Lake Huron became a reality when the Mackinac Island Hotel Company was formed by two railroads and a steamship company to promote tourism in the region. On July 10, 1887, the Grand Hotel opened its doors to the world. Using a force of 600 carpenters and 1.5 million Michigan White Pine boards, the original hotel was completed in just 93 days.

In the 1930s, W. Stewart Woodfill, who joined the hotel as a clerk in 1919, purchased the hotel and became its new owner. In 1960, Dan Musser, an employee since 1951, became the president of the hotel. The Mussers purchased the hotel in 1979 and have owned it since that time.

Throughout its history, the hotel welcomed many luminaries and statesmen including Mark Twain and Thomas Edison in addition to Presidents Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, Michigan's own Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

The Grand Hotel is set on picturesque Mackinac Island. In addition to relaxing or participating in sports such as golf or tennis, patrons of the hotel can explore the Mackinac Island State Park, visit nearby Fort Mackinac, the oldest building in the state of Michigan, or enjoy bicycling or horseback riding. The island has banned motorized transportation since 1898. Although over a century has passed, some things never change, as the hotel still holds afternoon tea and patrons must wear proper evening dress at dinner.

The hotel still holds the record for possessing the longest porch in the world, at 660 feet long. It has been on Michigan's State Historical Register since 1957, was added to the National Historical Register in 1972, and became a National Historical Landmark in 1989. Aside from its historical status, the Grand Hotel has worked to make the facility as green as the forests which surrounds it.

In its 125 years of operation, the Grand Hotel has represented an important link to the Great Lake State's past and its future. I wish the Grand Hotel and its staff a very happy anniversary. May it enjoy another 125 years of continued success in preserving an important and thriving summer destination.

As a final note, I would like to invite all Members of this body and all Americans to come to Northern Michigan and experience the natural beauty and friendly hospitality that make my home state one of the best places in the country to visit.

Mr. Speaker, this evening the House will take up Senate bill S. 404, a bill authored by my colleague in the Senate, Senator Carl Levin. As you heard, I authored a companion bill in the House last November.

This bill will end a bureaucratic roadblock that has prevented the Great Lakes Shipwreck Museum from making improvements to its facility located in Chippewa County, Michigan, along the southern shore of Lake Superior. Only an act of Congress is able to correct an error in the land patent that was enacted in 1992.

From the bell of the Edmund Fitzgerald to the U.S. Coast Guard's Whitefish Point Lighthouse, the shipwreck museum's exhibits tell the story of brave men and women who have navigated the Great Lakes for hundreds of years.

This facility displays important parts of Northern Michigan's history. Each year, some 60,000 individuals visit the museum and explore firsthand the rich maritime traditions of Michigan's First District. Preserving Michigan's maritime history is a resource that both Senator Levin and I agree warrants enthusiastic bipartisan support for the benefit of future generations of visitors.

I want to thank Chairman Hastings for bringing this bill to the floor today, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support this measure and bring it one step closer to the President's desk.

Mr. Speaker, let it be known that it's an honor and pleasure to pay tribute to Clarence ``Sonny'' Szejbach for his extraordinary heroism in connection with military operations involving conflict with an armed hostile force in the Republic of Vietnam, for which he was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross.

Clarence Szejbach served as a United States Army Specialist 4 in Company B, 3rd Battalion, 22nd Infantry, 25th Infantry Division. On June 6, 1969, while serving as a radio-telephone operator at Fire Support Base Crook in Thai Nin Province, when the base came under intense rocket and mortar attack, Specialist Szejbach secured his radio and followed the company commander to the defense perimeter to observe and report enemy movements. Exposing himself to the rain of enemy fire, he assisted in resupplying ammunition to troops in the bunkers. When the enemy blew gaps in the wire defenses and attempted to breach the perimeter, he helped lead and organize a reaction force which beat back the hostile surge. After the battle subsided, he moved with the command group through the combat area to inspect enemy casualties and equipment. As the group searched the area, a wounded enemy soldier threw an anti-tank grenade at the company's commander. Specialist Szejbach unhesitatingly moved in front of the officer, deflected the armed weapon, and then picked it up and threw it. The grenade exploded as it left his hand, inflicting severe wounds on him.

Specialist Four Szejbach's extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty were in keeping with the highest traditions of the Armed Forces and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.

Clarence ``Sonny'' Szejbach was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross on December 7, 1969, the second-highest military decoration that can be awarded to a member of the United States Army. Mr. Szejbach, however, was unaware that he received this honor until nearly 42 years later, when an Antrim County Veterans Service Officer discovered the citation in his personnel file.

Clarence Szejbach returned to his childhood home of northern Michigan after his injuries to take over the family business, Ed and Son Food Market, in Elk Rapids, Michigan. He and his wife of 42 years, Christine, raised three children.

On behalf of the citizens of Michigan's First District, it's my privilege to recognize Clarence Szejbach, an American hero, for his service, sacrifice, and continued patriotism.

Mr. Speaker, as a doctor, who has taken care of patients in northern Michigan for 30 years, I strongly support the Protect Medical Innovation Act. This initiative will repeal the President's $29 billion job-killing tax hike on our medical device manufacturers.

There are medical device businesses in my district that employ hundreds of people. These job providers should not be punished to pay for President Obama's health care law.

I'm a doctor, not a tax expert, but I know tax hikes on our job providers will hurt northern Michigan's economy. To me, it makes no sense to tax medical innovation. If this tax increase is enacted, there is little doubt these costs will be passed down to consumers and increase health care costs.

Mr. Speaker, I spent my entire career serving my community as a doctor. I want to see real health care solutions that put patients in control of their care, not the Federal Government.

I believe we need to listen to the American people about the need for real health care reform. I recommend we enact free-market reforms like letting people purchase health insurance across State lines, encouraging medical innovation, and allowing patients more flexibility in deciding how to spend their health care dollars.

Mr. Speaker, let it be known, that it is a pleasure and honor to pay tribute to Wilfred Earl Archer, who was born in Port Huron, Michigan on Jan. 30, 1926, to Glen and Genevieve Archer. ``Bill'' was raised in Flint, Michigan, and attended North Muskegon High School. His family then moved to Detroit, where he attended Denby High School.

Following in the footsteps of his father, who served in the U.S. Army and fought in World War I, Bill felt an intense need to serve his country during World War II. He left school and enlisted in the U.S. Coast Guard, on April 1, 1943. He was stationed in San Diego, CA, where he received Amphibious Forces Training in operating Troop Carriers (LCVPs). He was then transferred to San Francisco and stationed on the USS Middleton, which was modified/ transformed into an Assault Personnel Attack vessel. The Middleton was sent to Maui, Hawaii, and then to New Guinea to assist the 98th Infantry in the invasion of the Philippines. Bill was awarded five Battle Stars for service in the battles within the Pacific Theater; Saipan, Tinian, Okinawa, Leyte, and Luzon. As an LCVP engineer and gunner, Petty Officer 3rd Class Archer also served as a Diesel Electrical Engineer. He was honorably discharged in January of 1946. As a civilian, Bill worked at a foundry in Muskegon.

In 1948, Bill enlisted as a Staff Sergeant in the U.S. Army Air Corps, which shortly thereafter became the U.S. Air Force. He received training in aircraft engine repair in Biloxi, Mississippi. His military career took another direction when Bill was sent to Japan to activate the 1273rd Transport Squadron. While in Japan, Bill achieved flying status as a Flight Engineer, and accumulated 18,000 flying hours while involved with embassy flights to the Philippines and India, and combat flights in the Korean Conflict. In 1949, Bill was a crew member of a C 54, which was the first U.S. aircraft destroyed in the Korean Conflict. It was unoccupied when it was bombed at an air base in Kempo, South Korea. After serving

four years there, he was transferred back to the United States, and served in Great Falls, Montana, with Operation Blue Jay, to build an Air Force Base in Tule, Greenland. He received flight training in SA 16 Tri-Phib in West Palm Beach, Florida. He was promoted to Tech Sergeant, and flew AC 47s inspecting instrument landing equipment, at Hamilton Field in San Francisco. Bill later became part of the Strategic Air Command in Omaha, Nebraska. He attended flight engineer school at Chanute Air Force Base in Rantoul, Illinois and was assigned to Homestead Air Force Base in Florida as a Flight Engineer on KC 97s.

Bill retired from the Air Force, but retirement didn't last long. While working with the Civil Service, his knowledge as an F 4 aircraft Inspector led Bill to transfer from retired status to the U.S. Air Force Reserves, servicing and flying C 124s. He was sent to transport combat troops and materiel to Cam Rahn Bay, Republic of Vietnam. Bill was discharged from the U.S. Air Force Reserves in 1974. That was the end of an exemplary thirty-one-year military career, involving combat service in three major conflicts. Technical Sergeant Wilfred Earl Archer served with great distinction in World War II, the Korean Conflict, and the Vietnam War.

When his exemplary military career ended, and his civilian career began, Bill received a Teachers Certificate in Automotive Technology from Texas State Technical Institute, and later taught at the TSTI Connally campus. He is a Life member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and served his fellow veterans as a VFW Commander of Post 2053 in White Cloud, Michigan.

Madam Chairman, I come before the House today as a cosponsor and a strong supporter of the Sportsmen's Heritage Act.

I thank my good friend, Chairman Miller, for introducing it, and I'm particularly pleased that title I of the bill contains the Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage Opportunities Act, a bill I introduced last September.

Madam Chairman, my northern Michigan district is blessed with abundant natural resources, including three Federal forests. Like many in the First District, I have enjoyed hunting and fishing since I was a child. These are memories I have cherished for a lifetime, and I want to ensure that northern Michigan's children and grandchildren will be able to enjoy the same.

Today's bipartisan bill is not some sweeping or radical piece of legislation. It simply confirms that sportsmen will be able to access Federal lands to enjoy fishing, hunting, and recreational shooting. These pursuits are part of the tradition of American public land use, but regrettably they are threatened by animal rights and environmental groups that seek to end that tradition.

Like many in this House, I believe these traditions are something to be celebrated and protected. Whether it's trout fishing in May, deer hunting in November, or just shooting clays with some friends, every person in this country has a right to enjoy these lands.

Madam Chairman, let us make clear today that hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting on Federal lands must be protected. Let us make sure that when our grandchildren pick up their fishing rod or firearm for their first time and head out into America's great outdoors, they have the same rights and privileges that we have always known.

I invite all my colleagues to visit northern Michigan this summer for some of the best trout fishing in America or visit this October or November for some grouse and deer hunting.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, as my good friend, the chairman, knows, before I came to this House, I served as a general surgeon for three decades. So 2 years ago this week, while President Obama was pitching his 2,000-page health care overhaul, I was back home in Michigan, taking care of patients and wondering how this law was going to change the relationship between a physician and his patients.

Now the President's broken promises have shown us: Instead of providing real solutions to strengthen the doctor-patient relationship or improving the way we deliver health care to patients, the President gave us the Independent Payment Advisory Board. IPAB is a 15-member commission of unelected bureaucrats charged with cutting Medicare spending, specifically reimbursement for physicians. It's a very Washington-type solution to take something as personal as a doctor seeing a patient in his office and creating a panel of Washington bureaucrats to determine how that's going to be paid for.

As a physician, I can tell you that when you set up an unelected board and give them unprecedented power and little government oversight, the results will be clear. This will lead to arbitrary cuts to the Medicare program, less access to care, and rationing. Today we are voting to stop that from happening.

Mr. Chairman, we've already heard the other side of the aisle accusing the majority of pushing Grandma off a cliff. But instead of scare tactics and hyperbole, I ask Members on both sides of the aisle to support this effort to repeal the IPAB. Support this effort to eliminate what seniors are really concerned about: a group of unelected bureaucrats making health care decisions for them.

As a physician, I am proud to support the repeal of this ill- conceived rationing board on behalf of all my patients and constituents in northern Michigan.

Madam Speaker, from the 1099 provision, to IPAB, to the hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare, it's clear that President Obama's health care law is bad medicine for America. But the recent ruling by the Department of Health and Human Services is the most egregious example of Federal intrusion to date.

Soon after the ruling was announced, I began hearing from citizens across Michigan's First District. Letters and emails came in by the hundreds, with the vast majority in opposition to the administration's position. It is evident from this correspondence that many northern Michiganders are deservedly upset about the administration's blatant attack on our religious freedom enshrined in the First Amendment.

The opposition to this law is not about access to contraception, as my friends on the other side of the aisle would have you believe. Women and men can already access contraception at very low cost. The debate is over the fact that the administration's new rule strikes at the fundamental beliefs of our democracy.

The concept that the Federal Government can force people to pay for actions that violate the teachings of their faith goes against two centuries of American religious freedom. This action represents the very government overreach that the Framers of our Nation fought against and the reason the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution.

Madam Speaker, like most northern Michigan citizens, I see the right to practice one's religion as a fundamental liberty, and I intend to fight this action forever.

Thank you, Dr. Fleming. I appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight to express my feelings about our cause to save Medicare.

I've been taking care of patients in northern Michigan, in a rural setting, for the last 30 years. It certainly means a lot to my patients to have Medicare there to help them get through their medical problems in their elder years. I am kind of surprised that I've been castigated for voting to end Medicare when, really, I voted to try to save Medicare because of the crisis that's coming forward due to the demographics of our country and the pending bankruptcy of the Medicare trust fund. As I see it, there are really four reasons that Medicare is in trouble.

Number one, there is an increasing number of patients on Medicare every year. There are 10,000 patients a day who are added to Medicare. There are approximately 50 million people today who receive Medicare. In 20 years, I think that number will be 80 million people. That's one reason.

The second reason is that there are a little over three persons paying into Medicare for every person receiving that benefit today; but in 20 years, there will be a little over two people paying. Not only are there going to be 30 percent more people, but there are going to be a third fewer people paying in.

The third problem, of course, is just the general rising costs of medicine. This is an issue where, in our plan to save Medicare, which is a premium support plan in which there are options in your insurance, I think it will help keep those costs down.

Of course, the fourth problem is the Affordable Care Act. The Medicare that people are familiar with today, that the seniors of today have, will not be the same Medicare going forward because the Affordable Care Act has taken $575 billion away from Medicare. That's over $100 billion from hospitals; I think it's like $40 billion from home health care, $30 billion from hospice care, and over $100 billion from Medicare Advantage.

Well, I know in my rural district, we have many small community hospitals that depend on their Medicare payments; and $100 billion taken from each of those small hospitals--you know, those hospitals operate on a razor-thin profit margin. If we take that money away from the small hospital in my district, they may not be there tomorrow. So how would my senior population come see me? They wouldn't be able to come to their local hospital. They may have to go to Green Bay or Marquette or, you know, drive hundreds of miles to get evaluated in an emergency room, for example.

The way things are now is just not sustainable, especially with the Affordable Care Act's impact on Medicare. And to think that if we do nothing, everything will be okay is just wrong.

We've put forward this plan about premium support where you have a choice. It is similar to Medicare Advantage, where in Michigan there are 20 or 30 different plans you can choose from, the one that suits you the best. I think that's a reasonable option. There may be another plan out there somewhere that's equally as good. I haven't seen that. But I'm certainly willing to listen to a plan of how to fix it.

Doing nothing is unacceptable, and I just think that it's just wrong to castigate those of us who are trying to find an answer that will fit most people and be affordable and, like many of the advantages that people have talked to previously this evening, you know, different people's situations. But to do nothing, though, to put your head in the sand like an ostrich and pretend there's no problem is not an option.

So like the speakers before me, I encourage people to speak to their physicians about what the situation is. I'm going around my district in the next several months and am putting together a little Medicare meet- and-greet at the senior citizens' centers at various locales in my district to try to explain this to patients because they don't really seem to have an idea--I said patients; I guess I mean constituents. I was speaking in doctor terms--but they don't have an idea how serious the problem is. And I think part of our problem is getting that message out to other people that this is not something we can ignore, that this is not something that's just going to go away by not dealing with it. And it's certainly not going to go away by castigating people that are trying to find an answer.

So I encourage those people, as Nan mentioned, to speak to their physician. Feel free to call my office to get further information, but realize that we're trying to fix a problem, not ignore a problem.

With that, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Tonight, my colleagues and I have come to the floor, both as Members of Congress and physicians, to discuss the urgent need to repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Like many of my fellow Members here this evening, I've spent the last decades of my life as a physician, a surgeon. Unlike our President, I was on the front lines of medicine. I went to medical school in Detroit, Michigan. I did a family practice internship in Flint. I returned to Detroit to do a surgical residency, and then moved to the upper peninsula of Michigan, where for the last 28 years until I took this job, I was taking care of patients in a rural general surgical practice.

I know what it's like to be in a small town where people depend on their local physician, and it's 2 hours in an ambulance to get to the nearest hospital. And the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is affecting rural hospitals to such a degree that many of these hospitals are going to close. And I just want to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the seriousness of this problem.

It's been a pleasure being a surgeon. It's a pleasure being here in Congress. As a matter of fact, sometimes patients of mine still call the congressional office inquiring about scheduling a case. One of the very reasons I ran for Congress was because I felt those with real health care experience needed to contribute to the national discussion on health care reform. Tonight, along with other members of the Doctors Caucus, I'd like to dispel some of the myths associated with the President's health care bill.

It's time to set the record straight. It isn't enough to just say this bill must be repealed, we must tell you why it has to be repealed, explain to you the really bad aspects of this bill. I'm proud to say that one of my first votes as a Member of Congress was to repeal it. Tonight, we're going to go through some of the provisions of the bill which make it so onerous.

While I disagree with the President's health care bill for a number of reasons, I'm particularly appalled at the recent regulation issued by the United States Department of Health and Human Services as a result of the bill, requiring all employers, even if they have a religious or moral objection, to offer health insurance that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception.

I offer for the Record an excerpt from a letter from Bishop Sample of the Catholic Diocese of Marquette, one of my constituents. Here is a quote from Bishop Sample's letter:

In so ruling, the Obama administration has cast aside the

First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,

denying to Catholics our Nation's first and most fundamental

freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless

the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to

either violate our conscience or drop health care coverage

for our employees and suffer the penalties for doing so.

The Obama administration's sole concession was to give our

institutions 1 year to comply. We cannot, we will not comply

with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second-

class citizens.

Mr. Speaker, as a fellow Catholic and a physician, I agree with Bishop Sample. It's my belief that the government has no right to mandate that employers purchase health insurance for their employees in the first place. But this law is made even worse by demanding that those who support life, regardless of their particular religion, provide coverage for abortion-inducing drugs.

Mr. Speaker, Federal conscience laws have existed since 1973 and have protected many health care providers from discrimination due to religious and moral values. Unfortunately, President Obama's health care bill contains no language protecting the conscience of health care providers.

I recently cosponsored H.R. 1179, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, which was introduced by my colleague, Mr. Fortenberry of Nebraska. If signed into law, this bill would amend the Affordable Care Act to permit a health plan to decline coverage of specific items and services that are contrary to the religious beliefs of the sponsor of the plan without suffering consequences. While I and other Members of Congress continue our efforts to repeal the President's health care plan in its entirety, bills such as H.R. 1179 are necessary while the Affordable Care Act is still law to ensure that the Federal Government does not mandate any American citizen to defy their own religious principles.

I certainly have many other issues with the President's health care bill, but I'd like to give some time to my other colleagues here tonight a chance to speak as well.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Right.

That's correct.

That's correct, as I understand it.

Thank you, Dr. Harris, for being here tonight. We certainly appreciate your comments.

Let me add, at a town hall in New Hampshire in August of 2009, President Obama stated: If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. The President made this statement several times as he attempted to gain support for his health care overhaul.

After the last Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration began its job-killing regulatory spree. Instead of allowing Americans to keep their health care plans if they're happy, this new law could cause as many as 87 million Americans, nearly a third of the population, to lose their coverage.

As a physician, I understand the importance of consumer choice when it comes to health care. Personally, I don't think government should be in the business of mandating the purchase of health care insurance at all. Why in the world would you pass a bill that mandates the purchase of health care insurance and then potentially kicks 28 percent of the population off their plans?

I can tell you from experience, this has nothing do with affordable care. Again, this is just not another reason to replace President Obama's Affordable Care Act with real health care reform.

I look forward to replacing this plan with a bill that expands health care choice, like H.R. 3000, a measure introduced by my colleague, Dr. Price, that I cosponsored. This bill expands health care access and availability, making provisions for selling insurance across State lines and addressing medical liability reform. This is a real step forward in health care reform, unlike the previous Congress's attempt.

With that, I'd like to introduce Dr. Gingrey of Georgia for his comments.

Thank you very much. I really appreciate my colleague from Georgia's comments, Dr. Gingrey. Excellent.

The minority leader, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, once promised that the President's Affordable Care Act would create as many as 4 million jobs. Despite these promises, over 13 million Americans have been unemployed for the last 31 months. Instead of creating jobs, the President's health care plan is working against America's economic heartbeat--small business. According to a study by the National Federation of Independent Business, new taxes created by the employer mandate provision in President Obama's health care bill may eliminate as many as 1.6 million additional jobs by 2014.

During his State of the Union address last week, President Obama stated:

Companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one

of the highest tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and

everybody knows it. So let's change it.

I couldn't agree more with the President on that statement.

One easy place to start would be the passage of H.R. 1370, a measure introduced by my colleague, Dr. Boustany. This measure repeals the annual fee, meaning a tax, that the President's health care plan places on health care insurance providers. Instead of raising taxes by $500 billion on the American taxpayers to pay for the Affordable Care Act, President Obama should follow his own advice and encourage the Senate to repeal his health care plan.

With that, I would like to introduce my colleague from Louisiana, the former Louisiana doctor of the year, Dr. Fleming.

I appreciate that, Dr. Fleming. Thank you for your comments.

I just thought I'd make a few comments of my own about your discussion of the IPAB board and make sure that the American people know what this is. The Independent Payment Advisory Board is a board of bureaucrats appointed by the President, without appeal, that will determine whether or not procedures, if they are overpriced, will be available to the American people.

I've talked to patients in many difficult situations, where I have had a very sick patient and have taken care of the patient myself and the patient's family, where difficult decisions are being made affecting the life or death of the patient. These decisions are not easy to make. You have to discuss the alternatives with the patient and with the patient's family; and usually, through the coordination of what the patient wants, with what the physician recommends and in discussion with the family, we come to a decision.

The Independent Payment Advisory Board may decide completely differently from what we decide. Certainly, some patients deserve different types of care: palliative care rather than aggressive care, comfort care measures versus complete major surgery. These are decisions that have to be made personally--on an individual basis-- based on sound medicine, what the family needs, what the patient wants, and not with an unappealable bureaucratic decision made in Washington by someone who may or may not know the patient and who certainly may not be educated in medicine or compassion. From my eyes, it's really a scary thought for the American people, and I just wanted to put my perspective on your comments there.

Now we have my colleague here with us this evening, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Buerkle), as a member of the Doctors Caucus. Ms. Buerkle is actually a nurse, yet we have health professionals of all varieties here tonight, so I yield to the gentlewoman.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the gentlewoman's remarks, and thank you for taking the time to come up this evening.

We're nearing the end of our hour here, and I'd like to give the other Members that are here an opportunity to speak.

I yield to my friend from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), who is a member of the dental profession. I'm looking forward to your comments.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

I thank my colleague from Maryland, and I appreciate your bringing up those great points.

The President's health care act was to allow people to get more access to medicine. And as we've seen from multiple discussions here this evening, with the closure of many small hospitals throughout America due to the decreased payments under the President's health care bill, many small hospitals are facing closure.

I know, like the gentlelady from New York mentioned, I have many small hospitals that are on the razor's edge of being in the black or in the red. Recently, a small hospital in my district was just on the verge of bankruptcy. How is closing five hospitals in the 200-mile area increasing access to care? It isn't. It's making access to care more difficult, more impersonal.

Physicians, like ourselves, we're concerned about what's going to happen here because I'm concerned about my patients. And I'm concerned about my colleagues who complain to me about their patients. I think it's folly to be able to regulate health care from above.

Health care needs reform. We have the best health care in the world. The problem is it costs a lot of money. It costs a lot of money because there's not enough market forces, as my friend from Louisiana mentioned. You know, once somebody pays their copay, they don't care what anything costs. I paid my copay, I don't care what it costs. It's all good. We need to have health insurance be more like car insurance. You can buy car insurance from multiple different companies, thousands of different companies. In Michigan, you can buy your car insurance from a company in Florida or Tennessee because there's a lot of open competition. And your car insurance doesn't pay for an oil change. It doesn't pay for new tires. It doesn't pay for the routine expenses. If your car insurance paid for your oil change and your new tires, it would be really expensive, just like our health insurance is today.

We need to have people understand that health care isn't free once they pay their deductible. I think the health savings account concept where people have to save money tax free in their health savings account, use that money for their routine medical care and have health insurance be what it should be, not complete coverage of everything medicine but insurance for catastrophic disease, for items that you choose to insure for, not to insure for things that the government makes you insure for, like, you know, abortions which you may not want, or pregnancy, which you may not--you know, if you've had a hysterectomy, why should you be paying insurance for a pregnancy? There should be choice in health insurance, to allow people to have a Cadillac plan if they want, if they can afford it, or a Chevrolet plan. Or a young person may have simply a catastrophic plan if they feel they will not have significant health issues.

That type of marketplace and that type of philosophy is what we need in the health insurance business in my view.

I want to ask my colleague from Louisiana if that view of medicine, a market-based insurance and then competition between physicians as well, is your view?

Thank you. Let me ask my colleague from Georgia if he has any other comments he'd like to make?

I thank the gentleman from Georgia and the gentlemen from Louisiana and Arizona, the gentlewoman from New York, and my colleague from Maryland as well for appearing with me tonight. We've been trying to explain to the Speaker and the American people some of the issues that we have with the President's health care bill that do not solve our problem with health care and why we want to repeal it.

I encourage you all to look further into this issue and become educated so that you can inform yourself and your friends how serious this problem is.

With that, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Thank you. Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to be here this evening to join my colleagues to talk about Medicare.

As you may know, before coming to Congress, I served as a general surgeon in my district for the last 30 years, and many of my patients were on Medicare. And as a practicing physician, I often expressed to my patients--and my understanding wife--about our broken health care system here in America. In fact, that's one of the reasons I decided to get more involved in the political process and actually run for Congress.

Most Americans don't understand that Medicare will be bankrupt within the decade if we don't do something to fix it. I didn't make this up. The actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services actually provided this number. You know, I think if you ask most 65-year-olds just beginning to use Medicare, most would be very worried to learn that their primary health care provider was projected to be bankrupt within the decade.

In fact, according to a recent Social Security Trustees report, Medicare seniors should expect to see a 22 percent benefit cut or workers should expect to see a 22 percent hike in their payroll taxes unless some action is taken. The bottom line is, if action isn't taken today, seniors in the program today, not to mention those looking to retire in the near future, begin to lose their benefits.

Despite these facts, the other side of the aisle has spent the last 6 months attacking us, often saying that House Republicans' attempt to protect and preserve Medicare was, in fact, destroying it.

Are you kidding me? Accusing myself and my fellow physicians in the House of wanting to end Medicare? We spent our careers caring for Medicare patients and are proud now to call them constituents.

The real truth of the matter is that President Obama was elected in 2008 with the promise of hope and change. He did accomplish change in America's health care system, but I don't think it's the kind of change that Americans bargained for.

Mr. Obama's health care law cut $575 billion from an already ailing Medicare system. The name of Mr. Obama's health care bill is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Mr. Speaker, I ask you: What type of patient protection cuts $14.6 billion from nursing homes, $112 billion from hospitals, and $135 billion from Medicare Advantage?

While I'm on the record extensively for balancing the budget, I do not believe that our health care system should be made affordable on the backs of America's seniors.

If the $500 billion in cuts made by ObamaCare were not bad enough, this bill did nothing to address the nearly 28 percent cuts to physician payments scheduled for January 1 of 2012. I believe in providing access for America's seniors, not taking it away.

I am happy to announce here tonight that I'm working with members of the Doctors Caucus, House leadership, and Members across the aisle to develop legislation that will solve this issue once and for all. Mr. Speaker, tonight I call on all my colleagues to work together to ensure America's seniors that America will continue to be there for them in their time of need.

I have made a pledge to seniors in my district that I will not support any changes to Medicare benefits for those 55 years of age or older. It is my belief that for those age 54 years of age or younger, some reforms will be necessary to guarantee that Medicare remains solvent in the long term for our children and our grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight to show that, as physicians, we want to preserve Medicare for the future.

I thank Dr. Fleming for organizing this Special Order hour.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I have spent 28 years as a physician practicing rural medicine, even serving on the board of my local hospital. I am well aware of the great financial difficulties most rural hospitals and clinics experience each year.

Today I was pleased that the State of Michigan celebrated Rural Health Day. On behalf of the thousands of Michiganders that call small towns and farming communities home, my State's Governor chose to recognize the hospitals and community-based centers that provide for the diverse and unique health care needs of these areas. Tonight I would like to join the State of Michigan in raising awareness about the importance these providers bring to the communities that I represent.

While we recognize the importance of rural health today, I would be remiss if I did not mention one of the great rural health facilities in my district. Many of my colleagues may have visited the Straits of Mackinac during a summer vacation, or perhaps they've seen the Mackinac Island featured on a ``Pure Michigan'' ad. The Rural Health Clinic in St. Ignace is the single largest employer in the community, supporting not only the local township but, in addition, the 900,000-plus seasonal visitors that depend upon the hospital for services each year.

I recently received a distressing letter from Mr. Rodney Nelson, the CEO of Mackinac Straits Health System. Mr. Nelson is very worried about the impact Medicare cuts may have on his patients, employees, and ultimately the ability to keep the doors to the hospital open. Mr. Speaker, the Mackinac Straits Health System is one of 25 hospitals in my district that is considered either critical access or sole community hospital. Of these, 56 percent are already operating in the red.

Unlike urban areas, my constituents often do not have another option when seeking health care. In the case of the St. Ignace Hospital, the next closest clinic is 50 miles away. What you may not know, Mr. Speaker, is that caring for patients in rural facilities is far more economic than providing urban care. In fact, rural patients cost less to treat in eight of the nine CMS regions.

As my colleagues and I discuss possible ways to trim the budget, I feel it's important to remember that without rural hospitals, many of my constituents would not have access to medical care. A 2 percent reduction in Medicare

spending is estimated to cost 389 jobs in my district as a direct result of the cuts to rural hospitals. If this number were raised to 10 percent, the figures would only get worse. At that point, 76 percent of the hospitals would be operating in the red; and the total impact is expected to be nearly $68 million, with 1,900 jobs affected. Mr. Speaker, I don't need to tell anyone that northern Michigan can't afford to lose another 1,900 jobs.

Mr. Speaker, if we force these cuts, not only will we lose these jobs, but we will lose access to many people's sole source of health care. We are forcing rural patients to travel longer distances to seek more expensive care. This just costs everyone more money.

I urge my colleagues to exercise caution when considering reductions to Medicare programs, especially those specific to physicians, critical access, and sole community hospitals.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I appreciate my fellow freshman and colleague from Michigan for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment that addresses a growing problem with our friends at the EPA--their love of bureaucratic red tape. I represent a district with more Great Lakes coastline than any other. Shipping and ferries are a part of the Great Lakes heritage. The USS Badger continues this tradition, transporting travelers, cars, trucks, and equipment across Lake Michigan.

Don't be confused. This amendment does not make the Badger exempt from EPA regulations. The EPA will continue to regulate discharge limits and other requirements. It simply keeps in place the current regulations that recognize the Badger as a unique and historic vessel. Keeping the Badger operational means saving 1 million gallons in fuel a year from vehicles driving around the lake. Passing this amendment is simple and common sense. It allows a national historic place to continue to function on the Great Lakes.

I urge passage.