Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor 21 young Hoosiers who are currently serving our country overseas as members of the Peace Corps.

The Peace Corps was an initiative started by President John F. Kennedy. It was established by Executive Order 1924 on March 1, 1961, and later authorized by Congress on September 22, 1961, through passage of the Peace Corps Act (Public Law 87-293). The Peace Corps Act declares the purpose of the Peace Corps to be:

To promote world peace and friendship through a Peace

Corps, which shall make available to interested countries and

areas men and women of the United States qualified for

service abroad and willing to serve, under conditions of

hardship if necessary, to help the peoples of such countries

and areas in meeting their needs for trained manpower.

The Peace Corps has pursued its legislative mandate of promoting world peace and friendship by sending volunteers to serve at the grassroots level in villages and towns in across the globe. Living and working with ordinary people, Peace Corps volunteers have offered their expertise in a variety of areas--such as teachers, environmental specialists, health promoters, and small business advisers--to help improve the lives of those they work with and in turn help them better understand the American people and American culture. To date, nearly 200,000 Peace Corps volunteers have served in 139 countries; and about 7,671 volunteers are currently serving in 76 nations.

Beginning this spring, for the first time, Peace Corps volunteers will serve in Indonesia working as English teachers in high schools and at teacher training institutions. Later in the year, the Peace Corps will return to Sierra Leone after a 16-year absence and focus on secondary education and work with their host communities on grassroots initiatives and community developments.

The first week in March has traditionally been set aside to honor the history and accomplishments of the Peace Corps. This year's festivities took place March 1, 2010 through March 7, 2010 and commemorated the 49th anniversary of the Peace Corps.

Madami Speaker, the Peace Corps is perhaps our country's most important public diplomacy programs. The sight of ordinary Americans volunteering to serve the world's most disadvantaged populations has never failed to elevate good will toward our country. I ask unanimous consent to include in the Congressional Record the names of the 21 Hoosiers from my District who are currently serving their tours with the Peace Corps in countries ranging from Ukraine and Moldova in Europe, to Botswana, Tanzania, and Zambia in Africa, to Guatemala and Costa Rica in Central America. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in honoring these outstanding young men and women and in wishing them well in their endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 2122, a bill introduced by our colleague Delegate Pierluisi to ensure that the cover-over tax levied on the rum exports from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are used for their original intended purpose; namely to promote the general welfare of the territories' citizens in addition to promoting overall economic development. Currently, the funds are being used, in my opinion, to unfairly support blatant corporate welfare for a foreign-owned company. We do not need to be sending our tax dollars to foreign corporations when we have record unemployment in this country.

Rum that is produced in either Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands, and that is sold in the continental United States, is subject to the same Federal tax as rum produced in the States--roughly $13.50 for each proof-gallon. However, in the case of the territories, the majority of the revenue is returned by the Federal government to the respective territory, and then the remainder is retained by the Federal government. This so-called ``cover-over'' tax provision--which has enjoyed strong bi-partisan support for many years--allows the territories to pay for important local programs.

Unfortunately, this provision is now being abused to award a sweetheart deal to the British alcohol distiller and importer Diageo. Under the terms of this sweetheart deal, London-based Diageo will receive 46 percent of the U.S. Virgin Islands' cover-over to pay for a new distillery. Madam Speaker, Diageo is worth roughly $35 billion according to the latest figures. To give Diageo 46 percent of the funds intended for the general welfare of the people of the Virgin Islands, in my opinion, violates the spirit if not the letter of the law. If this type of manipulation is allowed, many experts believe, a race to the bottom will result, with the territories attempting to poach businesses from each other with larger and larger sweet-heart deals paid for by the cover-over funds.

For example, Puerto Rico currently receives about $400 million in carry-over funds per year. From that pool of money, Puerto Rico pays about six percent to the company, Rums of Puerto Rico, and Puerto Rican law states that no more than 10 percent of the funds it receives from the rum cover-over program can be used to subsidize rum producers on the island. This is a reasonable approach. It ensures that Puerto Rico can attract businesses to the island while still having the resources to carry out public works projects.

H.R. 2122 carries forward this common-sense approach. Under the terms of the bill, either Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands may use its cover-over funds to provide unfair subsidies to rum producers. Further, if it is determined by the Secretary of the Treasury that a territory has unfairly subsidized a rum producer, the Secretary can transfer some of the cover-over funds intended for that territory that provided the unfair subsidy to the territory that has been disadvantaged. The legislation defines ``unfair'' or ``per se unreasonable'' if the subsidy exceeds ten percent of the covered-over amount returned to the territory's treasury.

Madam Speaker, let us remember the original intent of the cover-over funds, which was to help the territories fund important civil programs for the benefit of the people of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. The purpose was most certainly not to provide corporate welfare to large foreign-owned conglomerates. H.R. 2122 will ensure that the original purpose of the cover-over tax--to advance the general welfare of the citizens--is being carried out. I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

My wife's a doctor, and she and a lot of her colleagues have been talking, and they have seen these statistics that show that almost half of the doctors say they will leave their practices if this bill becomes law. Now let's just say that only 10 percent of that is accurate. That would be 5 percent of the doctors.

And with 32 million people that you are adding to the rolls, how in the world can you say that you are going to save a trillion dollars over the next couple of decades? I mean, come on, nobody in America is going to believe that. You are adding 32 million people, you are going to have fewer doctors, and we are already short on doctors, and the cost is going to go down, and you are going to save money, and you are going to save a trillion dollars. Nobody in America believes it.

And Medicaid, in the State of Indiana, we are going to pick up 500,000 new people on Medicaid, and you are going to shift the burden to Indiana for 500,000 people? It's going to cost an arm and a leg. We are going to have to raise taxes there. You are going to have to end up raising a lot of taxes here. There is no question about it. You can't do what you say you are going to do, and the American people know it.

First of all, let me say to my colleague who just spoke, we all abhor racial epithets and we all abhor prejudice, but one of the things that concerns me is that we have an awful lot of people who are upset about what is going on here in Washington, the Tea Party people and others, who really feel like they're not being listened to by the Congress of the United States. I don't want to see them tarred by the same brush as a few people who got out of line.

Obviously, we hate racial prejudice or anybody that says things like we've heard have been said, but all the people who are fighting against what's been taking place here and legislation like this national health care bill, they should not be condemned for coming to Washington and fighting for what they believe in because a few people got out of order. Obviously, we're concerned about people that say those things, and they shouldn't be saying those. They should be condemned.

But we should listen to the people who are here who are fighting for their rights and the things they believe in as far as health care is concerned. They don't want the government coming between them and their doctor. They don't want socialized medicine. And that's why they were out here. If a few got out of order, they should be condemned. But we should not tar all the people in this country--over 60 percent who didn't want that bill passed--with the same brush, and sometimes I think that's what's happening.

But that's not why I came down here tonight. I was just responding to my colleague who just spoke, who's a very good friend of mine. What I came down here to talk about was the shabby treatment that Benjamin Netanyahu from Israel has gotten when he has been here twice now to visit with the President. We met with Bibi Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, this week, the Foreign Affairs Committee on which I serve, and we talked to him about the threat of Iran, which is a threat not only to Israel and the Middle East, but it's a threat to the entire world. We get about 30 or 40 percent of our energy from the Middle East, and if that goes up in smoke because of the war, we're going to suffer economically because we are not energy independent.

One of my colleagues was down here talking about not being able to drill offshore or in the ANWR to move toward energy independence, and we're not. We're still dependent on the Middle East and South America and Mr. Chavez and Venezuela, people that don't like us at all; yet, we still depend on them and we're not moving toward energy independence.

So what happens if Israel is forced into doing something about Iran and a war breaks out in that whole area? The whole world will suffer and we will suffer economically because we won't have the energy with which to run our country and our economy. So this is very important.

Now, when the President meets with Bibi Netanyahu, it's obvious by his body language and the way he treats the Prime Minister of Israel that he doesn't agree with him on Israel's goals to preserve and protect their country. And that's not the way it should be, because right now Iran is not only trying to develop a nuclear weapon--and we think they're very close--but they're also trying to develop a delivery system that will not only hit targets in the Middle East like Israel, but targets in parts of Europe. And they're trying to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile that could hit parts of the United States. And if Iran gets nuclear weapons, all those countries around them are going to want to have nuclear weapons and this world is going to be put on the precipice of a nuclear holocaust that nobody wants.

This isn't baloney folks. This is what's really going to happen, Mr. Speaker.

So we need to do everything we can to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. They are a terrorist state that has waged war along with al Qaeda and the Taliban against us and our freedoms and against Israel as well. We need to do everything we can to make sure that they do not succeed. Those people are terrorists, and we're at war against terrorism. And so we have to be absolutely committed to stopping them from developing that nuclear capability, and that means we have to work with Israel, our only really strong ally in the Middle East, who wants to do something about this.

Bibi Netanyahu knows what's at stake. The millions of lives of Israelis that are there will be the first target, and they will be blown up and attacked if Iran gets nuclear weapons. And Israel's going to have to take action. If they take action by themselves, it could be a catastrophic situation. They need our help, and the President of the United States should know that the majority of this Congress supports Israel's right to exist and supports them in their effort to stop Iran from developing nuclear capabilities.

So, if the President were listening tonight, I would say this to him, Mr. Speaker: Mr. President, listen. The majority of both the House and the Senate supports giving Israel the ability to defend itself and to defend our interests in the Middle East, to work with us to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons that will threaten not only the Middle East, but the entire world. I think, Mr. President, you ought to go out on the lawn of the White House and declare your support for Israel, their right to exist, their right to survive, and that we're with them to stop Iran from developing nuclear capability.

Madam Speaker, I'm not going to talk for 5 minutes, but I would like to talk to my Democratic colleagues tonight because once again it seems that we're spending money that we don't have. And I know this may sound funny, but the American people can't figure out why they have to balance their budgets and we keep spending money we don't have, we don't have, we don't have.

Now, the bill we passed today provided $6 million in funds that we did appropriate money for, for use for summer jobs, and we had $5.1 billion for disaster relief. Well, now, disaster relief is something that I think is very laudable. But we have had the President say a number of times he is for what's called PAYGO, and if you come up with a program and don't have the money, you have to come up with the money by cutting another program to take care of the one that you're funding. So we had another $5.1 billion added to the deficit today.

The deficit projected by the White House over the next 10 years is $900 billion a year. And they've been short on their projections all over the place. For instance, they said that the health care bill we just passed--which most Americans don't want--was only going to cost about $800-and-some billion. But, when you realize that we're paying for

6 years of benefits but we're taxing for 10 years, you realize that it's going to cost way more than the $800-and-some billion they're talking about. It's going to cost like $1.6 trillion or $1.7 trillion for 10 years of coverage or 10 years of taxes.

So I would just like to say to my colleagues tonight and my colleagues back in the office--and if I were talking to the American people, if they were listening, if I could talk to them--I know I can't, Madam Speaker----I would say what we need to be doing in Washington is we need to be telling the President and the Democrat leadership to go down and buy several thousand reams of additional paper and several million gallons of ink so that they can go down to the printing press at the Treasury Department and print money that we don't have. That is what they ought to be doing.

And then the people who have money in the bank, let's say you got a thousand dollars in the bank, Madam Speaker, and we double the money supplied by printing money that we don't have, we double the money supply, you have a thousand in the bank. You still have a thousand dollars but it will only buy $500 worth of product. That is where we're heading. Inflation is a hidden tax that people don't even realize they're getting. And that's what's going to happen if we don't get control of spending.

The budget this year was $3.85 trillion that we don't have. The health care bill is going to cost more like $3 trillion in the next 10 years that we don't have. That doesn't include the doc fix, which is going to cost $250-some billion dollars that we don't have.

So I would just like to say, Madam Speaker, to my colleagues back in their offices and to the American people if I could talk to them, and I know I can't, you ought to talk to your representative and tell them, quit spending money we don't have. You're ruining our children's future. You're creating a society that is going to be costing them a lot more, taxing them a lot more and giving them a quality of life that does not equal what we have today. And that is a terrible legacy to leave to the future generations.

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

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to congratulate Kazakhstan for its new role as chair of the Organization for the Security and Co-operation of Europe, OSCE, and to let this serve as a reminder to the world that emerging democracies do in fact have an important and pivotal role to play on the global stage.

As we approach the 35th anniversary of the signing of the Helsinki accords, a historic declaration by OSCE member states seeking to improve relations and foster dialogue between the West and the communist countries of the time, it seems duly appropriate to recognize the importance of Kazakhstan's new chairmanship since it is the first former Soviet state, the first CIS member, and the first central Asian country to assume such a role in the 56-member organization.

This past September, I commended Kazakhstan's President Nazarbayev for almost 20 years of vision and leadership in transforming the former Soviet republic into an emerging and thriving democratic society. The unanimous endorsement by all OSCE member states for the chairmanship by Kazakhstan only reinforces these enormous and positive steps forward by this young democracy from its former Soviet roots.

As a result, Kazakhstan and its neighbors have seen progress in regional security as Astana has emerged as both a regional and global leader on the non-proliferation and disarmament front, and its citizens have seen vast improvements to their daily lives as their country emerges as a regional economic leader. Furthermore, Kazakhstan has established itself as a strong ally and strategic partner to the United States fighting the global war on terror and especially playing an active role to ensure stability and security in Afghanistan.

As one of its first acts as a society free from Soviet rule, President Nazarbayev positioned Kazakhstan to be a leader in nonproliferation by shutting down the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site, dismantling its nuclear and missile arsenal, which was the world's fourth largest at the time, and safely getting rid of, according to the president himself, 104 intercontinental missiles from the Soviet Union that were each tipped with 10 nuclear warheads.

This was not an easy decision considering the potential influence that such an arsenal could yield both in the region and the globe,

but the President has focused his country's efforts on building a ``new economic and political model'' that would strengthen its commercial and security relationships with the West. As a result, Kazakhstan has emerged as a regional economic leader, increasing its GDP to $135 billion--six times greater than its $22 billion GDP 10 years ago--in addition to increasing its foreign trade to more than $80 billion. These economic strides and the increase in economic opportunities stand in stark contrast to life under communist rule and are enough to mirror similar opportunities in many western countries, which is no small feat in so little time.

Kazakhstan has also been a reliable ally to the United States, and President Nazarbayev has indicated that he looks forward to strengthening this relationship in addition to reinvigorating the OSCE. Proving his effectiveness and determination to tackle even the toughest of challenges, President Nazarbayev welcomes his country's new undertaking with the same gusto and leadership that helped him transform his country into the promising democracy and economic leader that it is today. Alluding to the many global challenges we face today, he issued a call to action to the member states, urging them to convene in a summit this year, for the first time in 10 years, in order to strengthen the role of the OSCE as we face ``one of the most complicated periods in modern history.''

One of the main issues he hopes to address and strengthen within the OSCE by holding this summit would be security matters and fighting terrorism. Accordingly, eliminating the terrorist presence and threat in Afghanistan is a matter of high priority that will not only benefit the region but will also have long-term positive implications for our own national security and international security.

The Kazakh president asserted that ``it is a time when leaders of OSCE member states should demonstrate their political will and outline solutions to the difficult challenges facing our nations. The summit will not only give a powerful impetus to adapting the OSCE to modern challenges and threats, but also increase the confidence and respect among our peoples to the organization itself.''

Madam Speaker and fellow colleagues, I once again commend President Nazarbayev for his steadfast vision and leadership and urge you today to support him as he sets out to reestablish dialogue among all OSCE member states by convening a summit this year. Such an assembly can only foster cooperation that will ultimately lead to increased security and stability for all.

Mr. Speaker, I get a big kick out of my Democrat colleagues as they join hands and run towards the edge of the political cliff to commit political suicide. It is very interesting.

You know, they just don't get it. But the American people do. This sign, I want to make sure they understood. Americans get it. Listen to the people. But they aren't getting it.

Today on television, just to make my point, the treasurer of the State of

Massachusetts, a Democrat, said that their State-run health care plan is bankrupting their State. And my colleagues over here, who are on the precipice of committing political suicide, want to do it nationally and spend trillions of dollars that we don't have.

So I would just like to say to those who haven't made up their mind, take a good look at Massachusetts. They are going bankrupt because of what you want to do.

Well, here we are, folks, Friday night. People are going to the movies, having dinner with their kids and grandkids, and we're here in the Capitol of the United States trying to screw up everybody's life.

Let me just give you a little information we found today. Mr. Speaker, 46 percent of the primary care doctors in this country said if this bill passes, they'll leave medicine. Now think about that. Let's just say that that's off by 75 percent. Let's say only a fourth of that happens, and we only have, say, 10 or 15 percent of the doctors leave primary care because of this bill. What do you think that's going to do to the patients? We're going to have more patients, according to this bill, because they're going to bring in more people, maybe some illegal aliens and people that aren't completely covered right now. So we're going to have fewer doctors and more patients.

What is that going to result in? It's going to result in what we've all been talking about for a long time, and that is rationing of health care because you won't be able to take care of all these people. You have to pick and choose. It's going to cost more, and there's going to be long waiting lines like they have in other countries that have socialized medicine. I just can't hardly believe that we're doing this.

You know, in Massachusetts, today I watched on television the Democrat treasurer of Massachusetts said on television just a couple of hours ago that their State is going to go bankrupt because of their public health program, which parallels what they want to do here in Washington. I mean, think about that. Massachusetts has a system like this. Their State treasurer--not a Republican, a Democrat--says that they're going bankrupt because of it. And yet we're doing the same thing only more in spades right here in the Congress of the United States, and we're not hearing as much about it as we should.

Now, I want to real quickly read to you just to let you know what the doctors think. We have some doctors who are going to be talking here tonight, some very eminent doctors. The State medical associations that are opposed to this: the States of Alabama, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, the American Academy of Dermatology, American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, American Academy of Ophthalmology. It just goes on and on and on. There's probably 100 of them here. And they're not listening to these people. They're telling us in Congress that people are going to leave the practice of medicine.

Now, the other thing that they're not talking about is we don't have tort reform. You know, doctors have to spend an awful lot of money protecting themselves against lawsuits. So we've said in our bill that we really need tort reform. Well, they don't have that. It's not going to be in their bill. So doctors are going to be still unprotected as far as liability suits are concerned. That's another reason why 46 percent of the doctors say they're going to leave primary care. Why wouldn't you? You've got some money in the bank that you've worked your whole life to gain and achieve and you know that one lawsuit will wipe you out, and there's no protection at all in these health care plans they're going to ram through, why would you risk it? Why would you risk lose you are your home and your business and everything that you've worked your life to save? You wouldn't. And so it might be better to go out and do something else. Take the money that you've saved and go into maybe some kind of a private practice that doesn't require this kind of a risk.

So I would just like to say to my colleagues back in their offices who probably aren't listening to too much tonight--they're fighting to try to get that last vote or two to make sure they can get this thing passed--think about what you're doing to America. Think about what you're doing to the future generations that are going to be paying for this. We won't be paying for all of it. Trillions and trillions of dollars that we don't have are going to be spent. They're going to have to print that money. Our kids are going to be the ones who are going to have to pay it back through inflation and higher taxes. It's just a terrible, terrible legacy to leave to them.

So to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who may be in their offices, Mr. Speaker, listening to what we're talking about tonight, I hope they'll give this a lot of thought, especially if they haven't made up their minds. Don't leave this kind of legacy to the future generations, and listen to what's going on in Massachusetts that has a similar program. They're going bankrupt up there because of it. And we're going to put a program into place that's going to run doctors out of the business and possibly bankrupt America and run inflation through the roof because we're going to be spending money we don't have so they'll have to print it and raising taxes? It just doesn't make any sense.

The last thing I'll say is that the vast majority of the American people in addition to the doctors, Mr. Speaker, don't want this. So listen to your constituents before you go running off a cliff and killing yourselves politically.

You know, I just love to listen to my colleagues on the Democrat side. I love them so much. And they just don't mention some of the other things that are going on, like the budget this year is $3.8 trillion that we don't have. But the taxpayers are going to have to pay for it. They'll have to pay to for it with inflation or higher taxes.

And they don't mention that there's going to be $569.2 billion in new taxes. What the heck, we can afford that. And Medicare and Medicare Advantage is going to be cut by $520 billion. But what the heck, the seniors, they don't have to worry about that. They can, you know, ask their grandkids for some of that money.

And of course the total cost is not $980 billion. It's going to be about $1.3 or $1.4 trillion, and I really believe it's going to be more like $2.5 to $3 trillion. We don't have that money, and it's a new entitlement, but what the heck, America. You can handle that. This is just money, and we can always print more. Of course it causes inflation and higher taxes, but who cares. You can get it done.

It is so nice, Mr. Speaker, to see these fine looking young ladies out here today talking about health care. I really appreciate it. It's time that we saw all of you out here tonight. It's really nice to see you and I appreciate you taking the time to be here.

There are just a few things, ladies, that you really haven't talked about. You keep talking about this as if this is the only approach to solving the health care problem. You don't mention that for trillions of dollars less, trillions of dollars less, money that we don't have, the Republicans have proposed a bill that would allow people to buy insurance across State lines so they could get the very best rates.

We provided a bill that would deal with people to help them get medical savings accounts so they could put their money into a savings account tax-free, as well as their employers, and then they would use that money and they would decide when they needed to go to the doctor and when not. And if they didn't use it, it would build up in the bank account. And if they used it, there would be a major medical policy, also tax-free, that would take them up to an undetermined amount of money, maybe $100,000.

You didn't mention that our bill says that you can take your insurance with you from one company to another when you move. And that is what I think most people want. They want to make sure that there is portability.

You didn't mention that we want companies, small companies to be able to band together in our bill so that they can buy insurance at the rates that the major corporations do. That is a pretty good alternative.

You didn't mention that we want tort reform, which will definitely lower the cost of insurance because there won't be all these frivolous lawsuits by trial attorneys. Incidentally, you don't have any of that in your bill because the trial attorneys you like, because they support you and they support the President. And the trial attorneys have got this bill in their pocket.

You don't mention that our bill does cover preexisting conditions, and it doesn't cost as much money. You don't mention that our bill provides a safety net for the people who are uninsured which will deal with a lot of the problems you have been talking about tonight. You don't mention that we're going to have a safety net for indigent people, people who can't afford insurance.

And let me just say this: doctors across this country don't want this bill. Hospitals across this country don't want this bill. The people across this country overwhelmingly don't want this bill. Do you know why? Because it's going to cost trillions of dollars that we don't have. And you know who's going to pay for all of this? The budget this year, as I said earlier, is $3.78 trillion that we don't have. This is a new entitlement, and it's going to cost trillions of dollars that we don't have. And we're not going to be able to borrow that money from China and Japan and all of these other countries from around the world for very long.

So what are we going to do? We're going to print the money. And if America was watching tonight I'd say, Hey, don't worry about it. They're just going to print the money. So if you got a thousand dollars in the bank and we double the amount of the money in circulation, you still have the thousand dollars, but it's only worth $500 because it will only buy half as much. But who cares?

And then, of course, the legislation that's going to cost trillions of dollars in addition to the trillions of dollars that you're spending on everything else is going to cause higher taxes. But, then, what the heck? In fact, in your bill, the taxes are going to go up by $569.2 billion. Oh, that's chump change. Don't worry about that. The American people can afford it.

Heck, right now at 10 percent unemployment, I'm sure the American people are saying, Raise my taxes. The small businessman wants you to raise his taxes because if you raise his taxes, he won't be able to hire people, and he may even say, Well, I'm going to take a boat and take my business overseas because we can't handle this anymore because the taxes are too high. But what the heck. Who cares. It's just money.

The bottom line is we all want the same thing, and that is to solve our health care problems. But we don't want to give a hole that our kids and our grandkids will never get out of. They'll be paying higher taxes, and they'll be dealing with inflation. And they will look back on our generation and say, Why did you do that to us? Why did you do that to us?

And so when you tell the American people all of the things you're telling them tonight about these people are going to be covered and everything else, just tell them this: we have got a plan that will do it, too, and it will do it for a heck of a lot less money. It won't put the government in control of health care and have bureaucrats between people and their doctors, and it

won't cause socialized medicine. So tell them that, too, if you would.

And just remember this as I leave, I love you, ladies.

I really get a kick out of the Speaker. She thinks the American people don't get what's going on, but they do. The overwhelming majority of Americans don't want this, and they know that she's playing around with the rules here in the House.

And so I just want to make one little statement to the Speaker if she is paying attention. Abraham Lincoln, who was a Member of this body a long time ago, said, You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

And if those people on that side of the aisle vote for this turkey, they're going to pay in November.

Madam Speaker, one of our best friends in the Middle East, if not the best friend, is Israel. Israel has been criticized by our State Department last week because they were going to build some additional housing in Jerusalem. They have accepted the premise that they shouldn't right now be building housing outside Jerusalem. They have a moratorium on that. I think that was worked out with our government.

But as far as building in Jerusalem is concerned, they have always built in Jerusalem, and they have allowed Christians and Muslims and other groups to build in Jerusalem. So I can't understand why the Secretary of State criticized Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister, for allowing the construction of new housing in Jerusalem, because it's always been done and there's never been a prohibition against it.

At a time when we should be worrying about what is going on in Iran, a nuclear development program that threatens the entire Middle East and energy supplies that we need in this country to keep our economy going, we certainly should not be criticizing our best friend, Israel. Israel is a best friend. They stuck with us through thick and thin, and we should support them in every way possible.

You know, tonight, Madam Speaker, I was going to talk about health care. I think that subject's been covered fairly well by my predecessors, but I will be talking about it later this week, like all my colleagues on the Republican side will.

But what I'd like to talk about is what my colleague from North Carolina just talked about a few minutes ago, and that's the rules of engagement in the conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq.

One of the things that really surprised me was that we have three Navy SEALs that are being court-martialed right now for capturing an al Qaeda terrorist in Fallujah, Iraq. And this terrorist took four American contractors, one who was a retired Navy SEAL, he tortured them, he killed them, dragged their bodies through the streets, and then burned their bodies and hung them from a bridge. I think most people in America, Madam Speaker, probably saw that and were horrified that someone could be that inhumane.

But this man is an al Qaeda terrorist, one of the leaders over there, and we've been after him for some time. So we sent these three Navy SEALs to get him, and they did their job. These Navy SEALs, and many of the super-trained military personnel that we have, do an outstanding job in going after these people and risk their lives. In fact, in Afghanistan, we lost 19 Navy SEALs doing their job not too long ago when they went after an al Qaeda terrorist.

In any event, they captured this terrorist, and they brought him back so that he could be questioned and dealt with. They turned him over to the Iraqi military for a couple of days, and then he was turned back over to them. And then he said that he had been hit in the stomach by one of the Navy SEALs, and he had a split lip.

Now, bear in mind that this guy had murdered and tortured four American contractors and hung their bodies from a bridge. And he was complaining because he was hit in the stomach and had a bloody lip. Well, the Navy SEALs said that they didn't do that, and there's several witnesses that said they didn't do that. But one person off in the distance said that he saw some kind of an altercation. And because of that, they're being court-martialed.

Now, get this, Madam Speaker. They're being court-martialed for risking their lives and capturing a terrorist who killed and tortured four American contractors and who, we believe, was involved in beheading some other Americans.

I can't believe it. I don't understand what the administration and what our Defense Department's doing. We should be going after these people, and we can't go after them with kid gloves. We can't keep--we can't coddling them. These people are terrorists.

And my colleague from North Carolina that talked about the rules of engagement--now in Afghanistan we have military personnel over there that are told when and how they can shoot at the enemy who may be firing at them. And I've been told that many of the Taliban and al Qaeda terrorists over there, if they see they're going to be hit or attacked, they'll drop their guns after firing at the American personnel and our NATO allies. It's just crazy. You can't run a war like that.

And so I'd like to say to the Defense Department and to the President of the United States, if he were listening--I know I can't talk to him directly because I can only talk to the House and my colleagues. I can't talk to the people of America, even if they might be paying attention. But we can't run a war like this. We have to go after the terrorists, no holds barred. If we catch them and they're terrorists we should bring them to justice or kill them. It's just that simple.

And we shouldn't be holding our military personnel like these three Navy SEALs up to a standard that's impossible for them to be able to attain. They have to do their job. They risk their lives. Many of them get killed and come back maimed. I've been out to Walter Reed and to Bethesda, and I've seen the horrible things that happen in war and how they lose their arms and legs and are maimed for life. But they do that to help us maintain our freedom and our democracy, our Republic.

And so I hope that somebody in the Defense Department may be listening and paying attention, Madam Speaker, and in the administration. We need to take the gloves off of our men and women in combat and let them know we're behind them 100 percent. And these Navy SEALs should not be court-martialed, as is the case right now.

We have sent 140,000 petitions to the Defense Department asking for this case to be dropped. I hope it will be dropped. But we are not going to let this thing go away. We're going to fight for these Navy SEALs until we get them exonerated. If anything, they should get medals for what they did.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Kaytlynn Noggle Federal Life Insurance Equity Act,'' named in honor of the daughter of constituents of mine, Elizabeth and Larry Noggle; and to encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill.

I would like to read the e-mail sent to me by Mr. Noggle as I think it sums up the need for this legislation far better than I could.

``Representative Burton, recently my wife, Elizabeth, and I had a stillborn daughter, Kaytlynn Grace on December 19, 2009.

We are both Federal employees with the Defense Department and when we looked to see if the Federal Group Life Insurance covered stillborn children, we were told it did not.

As you are probably aware, Indiana law requires any child 20 weeks gestation or more to be buried or cremated as if they were a regular person who lived and died, the cost of which ran our family over $2,000 in funeral expenses.

As the insurance didn't cover it, this was a large unexpected expense. Since Indiana law requires burial, we had hoped our insurance would cover at least the funeral expenses as we carried the family coverage on our policy. We discovered that for military service members, their life insurance covers stillborn children up to $10,000.

While neither Elizabeth nor I expect to benefit from any changes, we request that the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance program be modified to include stillborns for all Federal employees, at least equivalent to the Servicemembers group Life Insurance Program.

We aren't looking to profit from Kaytlynn's death. We are hoping to bring about a change to help other families in this situation. Thank you Larry Noggle.''

Madam Speaker, Public Law 110-389, the ``Veterans'' Benefits Improvement Act of 2008'' in addition to enhancing other veterans and military benefits, amended the definition of dependent under the Family Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance program to include stillborn children. And coverage for stillborn children has been part of the program since November 18, 2009.

The ``Veterans Benefits Improvement Act'' did not, however, amend the definition of dependent under the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance program. The Kaytlynn Noggle Federal Life Insurance Equity Act simply corrects this imbalance and brings the two programs into parity.

Although I do not have an official CBO score on the bill, the costs to the Federal Government should be negligible for several reasons.

First, the cost of Basic insurance under the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance program is shared between the employee and the Government; with the employee paying \2/3\ of the total cost while the Government pays \1/3\. The cost of the Optional Coverage under the program--in other words coverage for spouses and children (including coverage for stillborn children)--is paid 100 percent by the employee.

Second, stillbirths are fortunately rare. According to the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control, each year in the United States approximately 25,000 babies are stillborn--roughly 1 percent of all births. Consequently, the probability is that the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance program would pay out relatively few claims under the stillborn provision.

To paraphrase Mr. Noggle, no one is going to make a profit from this provision. But it will hopefully give Federal families some peace of mind that they won't be made destitute by the tragic event of a stillborn baby.

I would encourage all of my colleagues to co-sponsor this critically important legislation.