Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, out on the plaza a few minutes ago, the new Tea Party Caucus met with a bunch of Tea Party members from across the country.

I have heard a lot of my colleagues and people across the country and in the media criticize the Tea Party as being racist and a whole host of other things. But when we were out there and met with these people, we found African Americans. We found Hispanics. We found people from all ethnic groups out there saying very clearly they want less government spending, less government regulation, lower taxes, and the things that everybody believes in this country, and better and closer constitutional government. That's what the Tea Party is all about, and we are here in the Tea Party Caucus not to tell them anything but to listen to them, because they are speaking from the heart for the American people.

It's time that people realize on both sides of the aisle that the Tea Party movement is not something that's just not really speaking for the American people. These are people from all across the country that want Congress and the American Government to know that they want less government and more responsibility.

Madam Speaker, I get a little concerned sometimes when there's a real inconsistency in our policy toward illegal aliens in this country. The administration and the Justice Department have said they're going to take the State of Arizona to court because the State of Arizona has passed a law which deals with stopping illegal immigration, and it parallels, it mirrors almost exactly the Federal statute.

So the Federal Government is not doing what it should in enforcing the law dealing with our southern border. And so Arizona, who's dealing with drug traffickers, criminals, illegal aliens and possibly terrorists coming across the border, they have decided to do what the Federal Government won't. The Federal Government is supposed to do what Arizona is doing, and because Arizona is doing it, the Federal Government is suing them.

Now, at the same time we have what's called sanctuary cities, cities where illegals are encouraged to go, and they are in effect being protected. That is against the law. And so here you have the Federal Government, the Justice Department and the President saying we're not going to go after the sanctuary cities who are protecting illegal aliens that are in this country, and at the same time they're not going to enforce the law which says that we've got to protect the border against illegals coming in in the first place. It really is a real inconsistency, and it bothers almost everybody who thinks about it to say we're not enforcing one law and we're opposing another law.

The government of the United States, the Justice Department, is opposing the very law that they're suing Arizona for in trying to protect that southern border. And at the same time, there is a law that deals with illegal aliens in sanctuary cities, and the Federal Government will not go after them. And the appearance is the Federal Government under the President, President Obama, and the Justice Department wants to protect those who are here illegally in sanctuary cities, but they do not want to police the border as prescribed by law. That is just dead wrong. It's an inconsistency. And the Justice Department and the administration should be taken to task for this.

If I were talking to the American people, I would tell them to contact their Congressman if they are concerned about illegal immigration. We've got 12 to 15 million illegals in this country, and they are being protected in sanctuary cities against the law, and the Justice Department will do nothing about it, and the administration will do nothing about it. And at the same time, because Arizona is experiencing a real tragic situation down there, and they passed a law that is consistent with Federal statutes, the Federal Government is going after them.

It makes absolutely no sense. And it begs the issue and the question about whether or not this administration and this Justice Department does want to protect our borders from illegal aliens. It doesn't appear that they really want to do that.

Madam Speaker, I have come down to this Floor many times over the past year and a half to share with my colleagues my profound concerns over the direction the Majority was taking with regard to health care reform. Regrettably, the enactment into law of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--accomplished via an unprecedented and extraordinary misuse of budget reconciliation rules-- did nothing to alleviate my concerns. In fact, now that health care reform is law and the American people can finally see, in the full light of day, the law that the Democrat Majority wrote and jammed down their throats, a strong preponderance of Americans want this turkey of a law repealed.

I am firmly convinced that the credibility gap between what the Majority claimed its health care reform bill would do, and what all of the experts say it will actually do now that it is law, is a large part of why, according to the latest Gallup opinion poll, only 20% of Americans, a mere 2 in 10, have a favorable opinion of this Congress.

This Majority and this Administration has shown more disregard for the opinions and desires of the American people then any Congress and any presidential Administration, certainly of the modern age, if not history. It is time we listen to the American people; listen to the ordinary moms and dads and the small business owners who must live with the consequences--intended and unintended--of the laws that we pass.

To that end, I would like to share with my colleagues a letter I received from Pharmakon Long Term Care Pharmacy, Inc. and Pharmakon Pharmaceuticals; two Indiana corporations that provide pharmacy services to Indiana nursing and institutional facilities. Founded in 2003, these two companies have grown to over one hundred and fifty, 150, full-time employees serving more than six thousand, 6,000, people throughout Indiana and part of Illinois. I ask unanimous consent to include a copy of the letter in the Congressional Record after my statement.

I ask my colleagues to pay particular attention to the questions and concerns expressed in the letter about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act but I think it is also important to understand their observations about problems with Medicare and insurance billing as well as their concerns about DEA rules when it comes to dispensing medications; because these are the kinds of real world problems in our health care system that we should have been working to resolve if only we had been listening.

Letter to Congressman Burton on Healthcare

May 27, 2010

Congressman Dan Burton,

Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Pharmakon Long Term Care Pharmacy, Inc. and Pharmakon

Pharmaceuticals (d/b/a Pharmakon Compounding, Inc.) Inc. are

two Indiana Corporations founded by Paul J. Elmer R.Ph.

Pharmakon Long Term Care

Pharmacy, Inc. was founded in 2003 with the purpose of

providing pharmacy services to Indiana Nursing Facilities and

Institutional Facilities. Since its founding Pharmakon has

grown from 5 employees to a company with over 150 full time

employees; serving more than 6,000 individuals throughout

Indiana and part of Illinois. Carol and Paul Elmer, R.Ph.

founded Pharmakon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in 2006 with the

purpose of providing medications to hospitals run by the

Department of Defense, throughout the United States.

Pharmakon Pharmaceuticals has a current staff of 25 employees

with an expected growth of over 100 within the next two

years. In the past 7 years, both Pharmakon LTC Pharmacy and

Pharmakon Pharmaceuticals have been able to provide jobs in

this rough economy and continue to grow and provide services

to our most vulnerable population, the elderly.

Currently, the Pharmakon Long Term Care Pharmacy, Inc.

experiences multiple barriers as a long-term care pharmacy. A

long-term care pharmacy differs from your local retail

pharmacy in that it is a highly specialized organization,

with the primary purpose of providing pharmacy services

(medications, medical supplies, consultant services, and the

such) to the elderly and institutional residents in nursing

facilities and various institutional facilities, such as

mental hospitals. Because it is a highly specialized

pharmacy, it faces multiple barriers daily, which make it

extremely difficult at times to provide the required services

to the most fragile population in the American Society. These

barriers are not challenges but are rather outright problems

that must be solved in order for these individuals to receive

the service and care they deserve. The following are examples

of some of our current barriers, none of which are addressed

in the current Healthcare Reform.

First, most pharmacy bills come due the 15th of the month

or the 30th of the month. The problem with this is that the

pharmacy is not paid on insurance claims for usually 30 days;

however, it is more common for the insurance company to take

up to 60 or even 90 days to pay the pharmacy. In addition any

claims submitted to Medicare Part B or D generally are not

paid to the pharmacy for 30 to 90 days. So while the pharmacy

must pay its bills when they come due, the insurance and

government plans generally do not pay within a timely

matter--this thus leaves the pharmacy with an ongoing debt.

Furthermore, another payment problem with Part D is whom

does the pharmacy contact when there are problems with Part

D? It would be beneficial for the pharmacy to know who holds

the position of managing the administration of the government

program. For example, when the pharmacy is not getting paid

on claims by Part D Anthem who can they contact to get this

resolved? The pharmacy, cannot continue to operate without

getting paid; we set out to create jobs in the community

while servicing some of the most vulnerable populations;

however, when the pharmacy is not being paid, we cannot pay

our bills or employees and thus those who need our services

cannot receive the services and goods they require in some

cases to continue living.

With that being said, another barrier the Pharmacy

continues to run into is Prior Authorizations. We, as a

pharmacy, have had to hire a nurse to work on prior

authorizations due to the fact that the nursing staff at the

facilities has no time to handle these and the doctors

generally refuse to do them. We must contact the insurance

company for prior approval for a medication. Generally, on a

good day, it is a 30-minute phone conversation with the

insurance company; however in some instances it may take up

to 72 hours for the insurance company to reply and say yes.

While we wait for the insurance company's reply, the

individual is suffering in pain waiting for their

medications. Because we must contact the insurance company

for a prior authorization this slows our ability to get the

medication to the individual, leaving them suffering in pain.

Additionally, many hours are spent handling, monitoring and

appealing insurance audits; rather than providing pharmacy

services. Insurance audits have become burdensome; we

understand the need for them; however, insurance companies do

not understand the Long Term Care Industry and the majority

of the time as it relates to these audits is spent on

educating the insurance company about this industry. Once

educated we usually win the audit; however, the time it takes

to reach this result, takes away from our primary purpose,

which is providing pharmacy services. Additionally, the time

frames set forth by the insurance company are not realistic;

they are too short for a pharmacy to return with proper

information and many times, we end up paying for something

that was originally covered and properly processed to begin

with.

Similarly, insurance formularies are not conductive to

residents in a Long Term Care Facility; for example, many do

not cover IV therapy, in which case we must get an override

in order to provide the necessary medication to the

individual and even with that we are audited for those

claims. It appears from our point of view that the insurance

companies do not grasp that these residents are cared for 24/

7 by healthcare professionals of many different

disciplines and when they are denied various medications

due to the formularies, they lay in pain suffering until

we can finally get the needed medications covered. These

individuals pay for plans to cover their medications, in

most cases these are expensive medications which the

individual themselves more than likely could not pay for

out of pocket. Additionally, we are not in the business of

providing free, expensive medications; as much as we would

like to, we cannot pay our employees while handing out

free medications. Since we cannot just give the

medications away, and since the patient cannot pay for it

and nor will the insurance; we are left in a difficult

position while the individual suffers.

Finally, one of our biggest barriers is the DEA not

treating nurses in long-term care facilities as agents of the

prescribing doctor when it comes to controlled substances.

There are times when a resident needs an emergency dosage of

a Controlled Substance, generally a Schedule II, and the

nurse must call a doctor who is generally not near a fax

machine. The nurse may not call in the prescription due to

the fact that the nurse is not considered an agent of the

doctor by the DEA and thus the pharmacy must attempt to reach

the doctor via phone before sending out the medication; which

can take hours; all the while the resident is agonizing in

pain. If the nurse would be permitted to be an agent of the

doctor this would reduce the time between when the order is

called in and when it is delivered to the individual.

How will the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act effect Pharmakon Long Term Care Pharmacy and Pharmakon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.?

First, there are several sections that state the employer

must provide affordable coverage, but who is determining what

is affordable? In some instances, our hourly individuals may

want to opt out and purchase from the exchange because to

them they may find one a plan on the exchange more to their

liking and more what they deem affordable opposed to the plan

we offer. Why should we be punished for the decision that the

individual makes. We, as a corporation, cannot force our

employees to spend their hard earned wages toward something

they may personally decide either (a) they have no interest

in procuring from us (b) find that they just do not think

they can afford it or (c) they have no interest in purchasing

period from us or the exchange. The affordability is truly a

personal decision and should be left to the individual to

decide and the employer should not be punished for the

individual's decision. Furthermore, there is also the issue

that in some cases, our employees may choose just not to

purchase insurance from us or from an exchange and again we

cannot force them to buy it. We have many employees who just

choose not to buy the insurance we currently offer.

Additionally, the Bill states that the Employer is

responsible to cover 60% of all health care; for our

particular business this is a large sum that we just possibly

could not do and continue to pay our employees at their

current rates. If we are forced to cover 60%, there is a good

chance that we would have to lay off many employees in order

to be able to provide the required healthcare coverage.

Under this Bill, HSA cannot be used for over the counter

drugs, this seems to be counterproductive. The purpose of an

HSA is for the individual with a high premium to use those

monies for office visits, medication, and the such. In some

instances, why should an individual visit the doctor to

receive a prescription for Claritin-D just so that they can

use their HSA, now the individual will have to pay for the

office visit, which in the scheme of things may be more

costly than just buying the medication out of pocket. In all

reality this is the individual's hard earned money, the

government should not tell them how they may spend it;

especially when it comes to accounts set up just for health

care concerns. Yes, people may be irresponsible; but at some

point, the government needs to just trust that its citizens

will do the right thing and use their non-taxed dollars on

their health care. We at Pharmakon have HSA accounts due to

our high premiums; we believe that it should be the

individual's decision as to how to spend their monies and if

they choose to purchase Over the Counter medications, which

they need then they should be permitted to use their HSA

accounts.

The Class Act states that an employee can enroll and

disenroll but how will this affect the employer? If an

employee chooses not to enroll, will we the employer be

penalized? Again, we cannot force our employees to do

something they do not want; nor can we force them to spend

their hard-earned money on something they have no desire to.

Additionally what protections are there that we will not be

forced to enroll all employees in this when it becomes

apparent that it cannot support itself?

The Bill sets up Health Information Technology; however, it

is vital to ensure that Long Term Care especially the Long

Term Care Facilities and Pharmacies are brought to the table

in this process. We must realize that in a few years, the

baby-boomer generation will be the new class of residents in

these Long Term Care Facilities and with this increase of

resident population; we must look to the LTC community for

suggestions as it relates to Health Information Technology.

Many do not realize that while the pharmacies may be state of

the art, many of the facilities are not equipped with some of

the most basic technology; additionally most of the staff

would be in complete shock if they were just slammed with

this new technology; thus input from the LTC area is

extremely vital. Furthermore, the way things are done in a

doctor's office and hospital do

not always transfer as easily to LTC settings. HIT while

vital and extremely beneficial will be useless in the LTC

setting if LTC providers are not consulting in the

development of it. In additional the Pharmacy cannot be left

holding the price tag for updating LTC facilities when it

comes to this technology; there must be a way in which we can

encourage these facilities to update their own technology and

not depend on the Pharmacy to do it for them. Some of these

HIT grants should not only be given to LTC Pharmacies but

also the Facilities we service.

With the new Bundling system, the unanswered question here

is under the pilot program if one hospital receives a bid

will they determine which nursing facilities the individual

may use? One of the concerns with Bundling is what if the

hospital chooses to use nursing facilities which they own or

which are related in some manner to the hospital, will

patients have a choice as to which facility they want? If not

then the question becomes what will protect those facilities,

which are currently in business? Those facilities which are

related to the hospital may have the technology which non-

related facilities lack and then the question becomes who

is to provide the technology, across the board, most Long

Term Care Facilities are accustom to Pharmacies providing

all of their equipment needs, fax machines, med carts and

so forth. If and when this new technology is implemented

there will be a vast problem of who is to provide it and

furthermore uniformity. Pharmacies cannot bear the burden

of providing this to Facilities, and additionally neither

should hospitals.

The establishment of CMI within CMS aims to move the fee

payment from fee for service based reimbursement toward a

salary-based payment; however, providers are not defined, so

do Pharmacies fall into this? Additionally under CMS, there

is the Medicare Shared Saving Program, which sets up

Accountable Care Organizations--with the development of this

new organization the question becomes will pharmacies be a

group later determined by the Secretary to be part of this

process? If so or if not the question then becomes how will

these organizations effect our ability to procure business or

which homes may be able to willingly choose us for their

pharmacy services? All of these issues are left open and yet

to be determined, these are rather important issues; and

there are so many unanswered questions and with the

possibility of this new fee payment reimbursement, which may

affect LTC pharmacies.

Under the Medicare Shared Savings Program, subsection (b)

Eligible Accountable Care Organization. The payment would be

via shared saving; this section does not list pharmacies but

allows the Secretary to determine groups of providers and

supplies as appropriate. The big question is would this new

program affect how we as a pharmacy obtain new business and

in some cases keep current customers? Would this limit which

nursing facilities, institutions and so forth can utilize our

services?

Due to the fact that the bill does not address these above

stated questions, we are left wondering how these new

programs will affect the Long Term Care industry,

specifically the Pharmacies. While there is some concern

about how we will be paid, we are more concerned as to what

will happen to us and how these programs affect us. There is

a concern that because LTC pharmacies aren't mentioned by

name, we may not necessarily fall into one of these programs,

and under the guise of cost control our reimbursement fees

may be cut; which in turn will create a larger problem for us

as how to pay our employees and how to continue to provide

the services that we are do and that the facilities are

accustom to.

Our concern with Individuals at Home Demonstration Program,

specifically the payment methods governed by (subsection

(c)). The issue is the spending targets, which will be

determined on a per capita basis, what does that mean for

items covered under Part A and Part B and those cuts? While,

we agree that there is wasteful spending and that budget

controls are needed, we ask that those cuts to remedy the

increase in cost do not affect the Pharmacy. As a pharmacy,

there is only so much we can provide while not running at a

loss and if the spending targets reduce payments to the

pharmacy, there is a chance that the pharmacy will not be

able to provide to those who are most vulnerable and need all

the care we can give them.

While we at Pharmakon agree that Health Care needs to be

reformed, we believe that this current Reform Bill will

create more barriers in our ability to provide services to

the most vulnerable in our society and in addition as a

medium size business with mainly hourly employees, we feel

that many of these changes will affect our ability to

continue to employ many of our employees and will affect them

in their personal choices.

Sincerely,

Pharmakon Long Term Care Pharmacy, Inc.

Pharmakon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Mr. Speaker, if I were tonight addressing the people of this country, I would say: beware of special sessions. We're not going to accomplish much between now and when we get out of here for the election in November. And the reason we're not is because of my Democrat colleagues, many of whom realize that they're probably not going to be reelected.

And so the President and the majority in this body and the other body are going to wait until the election is over and they're going to call a special session. And when they call that special session, they're going to try to ram through things such as cap-and-trade, which is going to cost every family in this country about $4,000 more for utility bills. They're going to try to ram through a bunch of tax increases and a whole lot of other things that are bad for the United States of America and all the people in this country.

And so if I were talking to the America people tonight, I'd say: Call your Congressman, call your Senator, and call the President and say, We don't want anything being rammed through by people who are out of office between November and January of next year.

Mr. Speaker, if I were talking to the President right now, I would remind him that Lord Chamberlain flew to Munich in the late thirties and signed an agreement with Herr Hitler that led to 60 million people being killed in World War II. Sixty million. We were not in the nuclear age at that time, but we still lost 60 million people in this world. We are now in the nuclear age, and that's why this legislation is so important.

There are waivers in this bill, and that really troubles me. I didn't want there to be any waivers in this conference report, but they are there. The President can waive these sanctions. And I would just like to say, if I were talking to the President, Look at history, Mr. President. Look at what happened because of a weak-kneed approach back in the late thirties that led to 60 million people dying in World War II, and don't let that happen now. We need to let Ahmadinejad and the leaders in Iran know that we mean business. And that means don't waive any of the sanctions we are passing here today. You have the authority, but don't do it. They are building a nuclear weapon. Everybody in the world knows it. And if a nuclear weapon is set off, millions will die, and it could lead to a conflagration that would be worldwide in scope.

So I would just like to say there are problems with this bill. I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for the hard work they put into it. I wish those waivers weren't there, but they are. And so we are talking now, if I were talking to the President, that's what I would say to him. And I would also like to say, Don't let the Russians get away with continuing to give nuclear technology and other technology to the Iranians.

I won't take 2 minutes, Madam Speaker.

I would just like to say that my colleague who just spoke, Mr. Engel, and I became aware of this some time ago when one of the people we know, who is in this business, brought to our attention the way some of these companies have been so unscrupulous in bilking the public out of the minutes that they pay for.

I am very happy that Congressman Engel has introduced this bill. Though, I only wish I'd known about it because I certainly would have wanted to have been a cosponsor on it. You may rest assured that I will support it, and I hope that all of my colleagues will because it is unconscionable that the American people would buy something like this, especially military personnel, knowing that they are going to be able to call their loved ones, then to find out that they've been shortchanged. It's almost a criminal act. I think we ought to look down the road. If this is being done intentionally by these calling card companies, there possibly ought to be some prosecutions that take place.

I thank my good friend from Florida for yielding.

I would just like to say that South Korea has been one of our greatest allies ever since the Korean War. We

worked together during the war, along with the United Nations, to stop the expansion of communism throughout that area. And ultimately, there was a resolution of the problem, although it's still kind of tenuous, when they divided Korea along the 38th parallel.

I have been over there and I have seen what's happened in Korea since the Korean War, and I have to tell you that there has never been a clearer case of freedom and democracy as opposed to a totalitarian Communist government than in Korea. In Korea, North Korea is foundering. It's under a dictator. The Communist system has created famine and a huge loss of life. The tyranny there is unbelievable. And yet you just go south of the 38th parallel and you see a blossoming country, one that has done extremely well over the past 60 years because of freedom and democracy.

I think that South Korea is one of the best allies that the United States has. And the one thing I would like to add to this little discussion today is the need for us to expand our trade relations with South Korea with a free trade agreement. That's been languishing for a long time. And I would just like to say to my colleagues that's one of the things that can enhance our relationship with South Korea, and we need to get that thing passed as quickly as possible.

With that, I would just like to say one more time, South Korea is one of our best allies in that entire region and a perfect example of where freedom and democracy really works well.

Mr. Speaker, the majority leader today gave a speech, and he indicated that we have to raise taxes. He said the deficit was so big--due in large part to the spending on the Democrat side of the aisle--that the deficit was so big, we have to raise taxes. There's no other way.

When Ronald Reagan took office back in 1980, he heard the same thing. Everybody said that the spending was out of control, that we had to do more with less, and we had to raise taxes. Ronald Reagan talked to a guy named Art Laffer, who is an economist. He said, The way to get the economy moving was to cut taxes, to give people more disposable income, to give businesses more money to invest, and the economy would right itself. And it did, and we had 20 years of prosperity.

Now the Democrats, under the leadership of Mr. Hoyer, want to raise

taxes, take money out of people's pockets, take money out of businesses, and say that's going to solve the problem. It will compound the problem and make the recession much, much worse. What we need to do right now is what Ronald Reagan did--cut taxes, give people more disposable income, and give businesses the ability to grow. That's how you create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States believes that government can do the job better than the private sector. He has proven he has believed that because he in effect is taking over the health industry and using the Federal Government to do it.

He reached into the automobile industry and took control of a large part of that, and eventually he will probably try to take control of all of it. He has reached into the financial industry across this country and has scared the financial industry to death, some with fairly good results, but the fact of the matter is it's more government control.

And now he wants to take over the energy industry. The long socialist arm of the President is reaching out and trying to take over every area of the private sector. He believes in total government control over the economy. And if you don't believe it, all you have to do is look at the record over the last year and a half.

The thing that bothers me is the detrimental effect it's having on the American people. Unemployment is still close to 10 percent. We're now seeing a tragedy in the gulf, as the gentleman from Texas talked about. And instead of really solving that problem, what he's doing now is compounding it by saying no drilling down there for 6 months. And all these people, as Mr. Poe said, are going to lose their jobs if the ruling of the court today is reversed when it goes to a higher court.

The thing that really is funny about this is we just sent $2 billion to Brazil so they could do offshore drilling. I guess we don't care much about the environment down there. And we're certainly going to have to buy oil from them because we're going to lose the oil that's going to be produced down in the gulf. We're going to be more dependent on Saudi Arabia, on Africa, on Venezuela, Mexico, and probably Brazil, because we want to clean up the environment by using windmills and solar panels and geothermal energy sources.

We've got the energy here in the United States to solve these problems. We don't need to be sending Mr. Soros money in Brazil so he can make more money by doing offshore drilling with our taxpayers' money. We don't need to be sending those jobs down there. As Mr. Poe said, those jobs are going to go down there. They're going to go someplace else because they can't keep those rigs moving in the gulf if they're not producing. So those people who are entrepreneurs are going to take those rigs and they're going to move them someplace else. Along with them will go the jobs, and possibly the impact could be as many as 150,000 Americans will be out of work.

This administration is on the wrong track. They have been on the wrong track since the Obama administration took office. The President believes in socialism. He really believes in it. And so he's trying to put the government in control of everything, and himself at the head of the government is going to be the person pulling the strings.

The American people, I hope, are going to realize that, and I hope in the November elections they're going to say that we've got to change that and give us a House and a Senate that can stop his runaway socialistic agenda.

The way to solve our economic problems is, as I said earlier tonight in a 1-minute, the way Ronald Reagan did it, listening to Mr. Laffer, and that is to cut taxes, to get the burden of government off the backs of the businessman and the individual citizen. And if you do that, you can unleash the power of the free enterprise system and make this economy grow, cut taxes, give people more disposable income, cut business taxes, give business more money to invest, and create an environment where people can buy more because they have more money to spend.

Instead, at the end of this year the Democrats want to let all the tax cuts we put in place expire. That in effect is a tax increase. And then they're talking about additional taxes. Mr. Hoyer today gave a speech saying we have to increase taxes because the deficit is so large. They've made it so large--into the trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars. And now they're saying we have to raise taxes, take more blood out of the American taxpayer, to pay for their mistakes. That's only going to compound the problem, because if you take money out of their pocket, they won't have it to spend; and if they don't have it to spend they won't buy and there will be more unemployed. Whereas, if you do the opposite and give them more of their tax money to spend and reduce the taxes, they'll be able to buy more and the economy will flourish. Reagan knew it, Art Laffer knew it, and we had 20 years of economic expansion because of it. But these guys and the President want control of everything.

The American people have to wake up, Mr. Speaker. They have to realize what's at stake. Not only the future that we face but the future our kids face and our posterity. They're going to have a worse form of life, a worse quality of life, if we don't reverse what we're doing right now.

Madam Speaker, last night I watched the President on television, and I was really disappointed because, instead of really addressing the problem of the gulf spill, he was once again talking about a government move to take over part of our country.

We have seen the government move to take over or control the auto industry, the financial industry. We have seen the government or the administration force through the health care bill which the vast majority of Americans don't want. And last night, instead of really focusing on dealing with the problem in the gulf that's going to cost maybe 150,000 jobs and make us more dependent on foreign oil, what the President did, he started talking about the cap-and-trade bill, which will raise taxes on energy production, and every family in America will suffer to the tune of about $3,000 or $4,000 a year.

This is a time, Mr. President, if I were talking to him, I would say to deal with the problem in the gulf instead of talking about taking over more of the private sector and raising our taxes.

Madam Speaker, my good friend Congressman Poe of Texas just a few minutes ago talked about the oil spill down in the Gulf and referred to the action or inaction of the administration in dealing with it. He quoted something from the L.A. Times that I thought was kind of interesting and a little humorous that my colleagues might like to hear again, and it quotes the LA Times as saying: ``Obama's speech: There's a pipe spewing a gazillion gobs of oil into the Gulf, so let's build more windmills.''

Now, I know that sounds a little humorous, Madam Speaker, but that

sounded like what the President's speech was all about last night. There was no real solutions in dealing with the problem. Everybody's concerned about it. Everybody feels empathy and sympathy for the people in the Gulf, the thousands of people who have lost their jobs and who are out of work, the environmental problem that's been created. But what people want is they want a solution to the problem.

It has now been 57 days, 57 days since this tragedy occurred. And what did the President do? He has suspended oil drilling in the Gulf for 6 months. Now, that's going to result in as many as 150,000 people losing their jobs, and for the oil people that work on those derricks out there in the Gulf, that's 150,000 jobs that it not only affects them, it affects almost six times that number of people who have ancillary jobs that work in the restaurants, that work on the beaches down there, all the things that are going on down in the Gulf. So you're looking at the potential of half a million to a million jobs being affected adversely because we haven't dealt with the problem.

There have been other countries right after the spill took place that offered to send skimmers, ships over here to help skim up the oil on the surface of the ocean. We have had other countries that offered other help, and it's all been turned down. The Jones Act should have been suspended, but it was not suspended, and as a result, the oil crisis, the spill goes on and on and on.

It is extremely important that we address the problem as quickly as possible. I'm not an engineer. I don't know what the answer is. But today we had a meeting with people who had talked to the BP oil company and had talked to other oil engineers, and there are things that are going on right now that they believe will address the problem, hopefully in the next 2 or 3 or 4 weeks or at least another month or month-and-a-half, but at least they're moving on the problem now with auxiliary wells being drilled down into the bottom of the Gulf to choke off the spill.

All I'd like to say tonight, in addition to what's already been said, is that we have a tragedy down there that should not be compounded by what the problem has advocated, and that was he advocated last night that we come up with an energy bill, i.e., the cap-and-trade bill. And the cap-and-trade tax bill will tax all energy producers that emit CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. And if translated, that means that companies around this country will have to pay hundreds of thousands and maybe millions of dollars more for their utility bills which will be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, and the average family is going to be affected to the tune of about $3,000 to $4,000 a year if cap-and-tax is passed.

This is a time to deal with the crisis in the Gulf, not a time to start talking about the cap-and-tax bill which is going to cost jobs at a time when we need to create jobs. The unemployment rate in this country is at 10 percent or very close to it, and if you include the people who are unemployed and looking for work who are no longer counted, we're looking at 13, 14, 15 percent that are unemployed.

So we need to address the economic problems, and we need to be dealing with that in a positive way and not going on with more taxes and more spending as the administration has talked about.

What I'd love to see if I had my druthers right now, Madam Speaker, is somebody like Ronald Reagan who could come in and cut taxes and cut spending and stimulate economic growth like he did, and as a result, we had 20 years of economic growth.

Right now what we're looking at is more unemployment, and now they're talking about, because of the way the Gulf is being handled, the possibility of more double-digit unemployment.

This is something that we can't tolerate right now. We need to be positive, we need to move ahead, and the President is not moving in that direction. And a perfect commentary is what was in the Los Angeles Times, not a conservative newspaper. And you heard liberal commentators all across the country last night saying the President is not addressing the problem, and he is way late in the first place, and in the second place, and in the third place.

So I would like to end by saying once again, I think the Los Angeles Times was right on the money when they said of Obama's speech, There's a pipe spewing a gazillion gallons of oil in the gulf, and what's he talking about? More taxes, more spending, and more windmills.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the 2010 recipients of the coveted Ellis Island Medal of Honor. Presented annually by the National Ethnic Coalition, NECO, the Ellis Island Medal of Honor pays tribute to our Nation's immigrant heritage, as well as individual achievement. The medals are awarded to U.S. citizens from various ethnic backgrounds who exemplify outstanding qualities in both their personal and professional lives, while continuing to preserve the richness of their particular heritage. Since NECO's founding in 1986, more then 2,000 American citizens have received Ellis Island Medals of Honor, including six American Presidents, several United States Senators, Congressmen, Nobel Laureates, outstanding athletes, artists, clergy, and military leaders.

As we all know, citizens of the United States can trace their ancestry to many nations. The richness and diversity of American life makes us unique among the Nations of the world and is in many ways the key to why America is the most innovative country in the world. The Ellis Island Medals of Honor not only celebrate select individuals but also the pluralism and democracy that enabled our ancestors to celebrate their cultural identities while still embracing the American way of life. This medal is not about money, but about people who really seized the opportunities this great country has to offer and who used those opportunities to not only better their own lives but make a difference in the lives of those around them. By honoring these outstanding individuals, we honor all who share their origins and we acknowledge the contributions they and other groups have made to America. I commend NECO and its Board of Directors headed by my good friend, Nasser J. Kazeminy, for honoring these truly outstanding individuals for their tireless efforts to foster dialogue and build bridges between different ethnic groups, as well as promotes unity and a sense of common purpose in our Nation.

Madam Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing the good works of NECO, and congratulating all of the 2010 recipients of the Ellis Island Medals of Honor. I also ask unanimous consent that the names of this year's recipients be placed into the Congressional Record following my statement.

Ichak K. Adizes, PhD; Adrienne G. Alexanian; Richard F. Ambinder, MD; Cyrus Amir-Mokri; Anousheh Ansari; Rao S. Anumolu; Robert S. Atallah; Mohamed A. Atassi, MD, FACC; Kevork D. Atinizian; Nancy H. Bailey; Hon. Rosemary Barkett; Samira Kanaan Beckwith; Sarkis Bedevian; Jerold E. Beeve, MD; Dorothy Beeve, RN; Suraj P. Bhatia; Carole Black; George F. Brown; Richard R. Burey, Jr.; Michael Capasso; Dominic Chianese; Mr. Hank Hyunho Choi; Yen S. Chou; Lin-Chi Chu; Carl J. Clause; Eugene P. Conese, Sr.; John F. Conley; Thomas J. Cook; Edward Cruz; Paul R. Davies; Chief Raymond Diaz; Dr. Edward B. Diethrich; Andre C. Dimitriadis, PhD; Borko B. Djordjevic, MD; Thomas J. Donohue; David Du; David B. Falk; Lina Fang; Eric Friedberg; Col. Arnald D. Gabriel (Ret.); Rod G. Gilbert; Col. David G. Goulet; E. Bulkeley Griswold; Col. Gina M. Grosso; S. K. Gupta; Wolf Hengst; Gregory M. Hodge, PhD; Maj. Gen. Karl R. Horst; Hon. Jerry M. Hultin; Chief James Jephthah; Ted Johnson; James Keach; Alan Krutchkoff; Tak W. Kwan, MD; William K. Lee, MD; Robert J. Loggia; Wing K. Ma; Vahid Majidi; Fouad Malouf; James Malpeso, MD; MSgt. Chester L. Marcus, Jr.; Chief Denis McGowan; Shekhar Mitra, PhD; Moshen Moazami; Curtis E. Moll; Yasmin Motamedi; Jeremiah A. Mullins; Agneta E. Nilsson; RADM Joseph L. Nimmich; Sr. Irene M. O'Neill; Bedros S. Oruncakciel; Hemant Patel, MD; Francis J. Pearn; Richard R. Pergolis; Timothy A. Phillips; Michael J. Piazza; Hon. Rose Pierre-Louis; Kappana Ramanandan; Maj. Gen. Michael S. Repass; Hon. Edward Rollins; Stanley M. Rumbough, Jr.; William J. Ryan; Kenan E. Sahin, PhD; Joseph M. Saponaro; John F. Scarpa; Jane Seymour; Faryar Shirzad; John Shu, Esq.; Dr. Ruth J. Simmons; Prasad Srinivasan, MD; Bert R. Sugar; Hon. Eugene R. Sullivan (Ret.); Jordan P. Thomas; Annie S. Totah; Suzanne von Liebig, PhD; William D. Walsh; RADM Philip A. Whitacre (Ret.); Morrill Worcester; Mohammad Yahyavi; Vartkes Yeghiayan, Esq.; Matt H. Yildizlar; Chang Bin Yim.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

One of the big disappointments that I have about this rule is that the identity of service personnel who are accused of mistreating or torturing an al Qaeda terrorist if they capture them is not going to be agreed to. We think that their identity ought to be kept secret until they're proven guilty if they're charged with something like that.

We had three Navy SEALs that were accused of mistreating an al Qaeda terrorist because of what he said, because of what he got out of the al Qaeda training manual, and they were all found innocent, but their names were made public--all through the media they were made public-- and as a result, they're at risk, their families are at risk, and their future careers are at risk because they've been accused of something but not convicted of it.

So I think the legislation that we proposed in this amendment should have been approved by the Rules Committee because it protects our service men and women from being exposed for something that they did not do.

And I am very disappointed the Rules Committee did not choose to protect the identity of our service personnel who are accused wrongfully by al Qaeda terrorists of mistreatment.

I thank Mr. McKeon and Chairman Skelton for allowing our amendment to be a part of this en bloc amendment. Congresswoman Napolitano and I introduced this amendment, and we have, I think, 57 or 58 cosponsors. And I'd like to tell the Members why this is such an important amendment.

Last summer, a 25-year-old Hoosier Army specialist on his second tour of duty in Iraq named Chancellor Keesling died by suicide in Baghdad. His mother and father went to Dover Air Force base, and they received their son. He got a full military honor burial and a 21-gun salute. The family received all kinds of letters of condolence from the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs and a three-star general, but they did not receive any kind of a comment or letter of condolence from the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief. And I think it's very important that this policy be changed.

It's been the policy for a long time that if a person dies by suicide in the military, the Commander in Chief does not send a letter of condolence to the family. But the family's the one that's really suffering. And right now with members of the military serving one, two, and maybe even three tours of duty in Afghanistan or Iraq or around the world, there's tremendous pressure on them. Tremendous pressure. And a lot of them succumb to the pressures and commit suicide.

Now this is not an isolated case. In 2008, there were 260 suicides, 140 in the Army; 41 in the Navy, 38 in the Air Force and 41 in the Marines. In 2009, it was 160 in the Army, 47 in the Navy, 34 in the Air Force and 42 in the Marines. And so far this year, 71 young men and women have committed suicide in the military.

And I think it's only fitting and proper that the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, who sends these young people into combat for extraordinarily long periods of time, ought to understand that the

grieving families, like the Keeslings, deserve a letter from the Commander in Chief saying we understand the pressure that your son or daughter was under. We understand that they served their country well, and we want to express condolence to you for your loss and for the service they gave their country. After all, they voluntarily joined the service. They voluntarily served in combat and in combat areas. And because they couldn't handle the pressure, over months and months and sometimes years, they succumbed to that pressure. They should still receive condolence from the Commander in Chief.

And I want to thank once again the ranking member and the chairman of the committee for supporting this, and I hope that the President, after this resolution is passed en bloc with the other amendments, will see fit to send letters of condolence to every young man and woman's family who died in the service of their country, whether they died in combat or by their own hand.

Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest threats to peace in the Middle East and possibly the whole world is for the United States and our friends and allies around the world to stop Iran's nuclear development program. We have been working for months and months to come up with a very strong Iran sanctions bill. The bill has finally passed the House and Senate, and because of the differences, we are in a conference committee. We have a very strong bill, one that will put extreme pressure on Iran and possibly avert a war in the Middle East. But now we are hearing that the bill is going to be watered down. It is going to be made weaker. If it is made weaker, that means the pressure will not be put on Iran that should be, and they will continue with their nuclear development program and we could be in a war in the Middle East that will far exceed what we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I want to read to you from a report that was issued just last week. ``Iran has set up new equipment that will allow it to boost its efficiency at enriching uranium at higher levels. Iran's clandestine enrichment activities were discovered 8 years ago and have expanded since to encompass thousands of centrifuges churning out material enriched to 3.5 percent. But despite three sets of Security Council sanctions meant to enforce demands of a freeze, Tehran moved to a new level in February, when it set up a small program to produce material enriched to near 20 percent.'' And 20 percent can be used for a nuclear weapon.

The story continued, ``But the move has increased concerns because it brings the Islamic Republic closer to the ability to produce warhead material. Uranium at 3.5 percent can be used to fuel reactors, which is Iran's avowed purpose for enrichment. If enriched to around 95 percent, however, it can be used in building a nuclear bomb. And at 20 percent, uranium can be turned into weapons-grade material much more quickly than from lower levels.

``The 20-percent uranium is being produced by `a cascade'--164 centrifuges hooked up in series. The diplomats said that Iranian technicians had in recent weeks assembled another 164-centrifuge cascade, and the throw of a switch appeared ready to activate it to support the machines already turning out small amounts of near 20- percent uranium.''

We don't know how long it is going to be before Iran has nuclear weapons, but we know it is not going to be too long. And every day we wait to put pressure on Iran is a day they are closer to developing nuclear technology that could start a war over there, obliterate our friends in Israel, and cause a major war that we will have to be involved with.

We get about 40 percent of our energy from the Middle East. And if a war

breaks out over there and in the Gulf States, the Persian Gulf could be blocked, and we would lose so much energy we wouldn't even be able to run the lights in this place.

It is extremely important that we have a very strong Iran sanctions bill. I am on the conference committee, and I would say to my colleagues who are conferees, let's make it tough, as tough as possible, because the one thing we want to do is avert a major war with Iran in the Middle East. And I can tell you, I know Bibi Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, is not going to stand by and watch a weapon that could obliterate, destroy Israel, be produced right next door there in Iran. So it is important that the United States take the lead by coming up with a very strong bill that will put sanctions on Iran that they will realize will stop them economically if they don't stop their nuclear development program.

This is probably going to be one of the last chances we will have to stop a nuclear program in Iran that will develop a nuclear weapon and possibly cause a major war and proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout the Middle East. This is a very important time not only for them, in the Middle East, Israel and our allies, but it is a big, important time for the United States and all of our allies in Europe. We can't let a terrorist state like Iran get a nuclear weapon, and that is why we need to pass a very strong Iran sanctions bill, and we need to do it right away.