Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for taking this time tonight for our colleague, Mr. McHugh.

John is not only a nice guy, he really is a hard worker. I think he has earned

his place in the administration with the Secretary of the Army position.

When I was chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, he was a subcommittee chairman that dealt with the postal service. He did an outstanding job. It was a very thorny issue, solving a lot of the problems that we had with the private sector and the postal service, and it was John who got the job done. It took several years, but I've never seen anybody work harder than he did.

I would just like to say as I depart tonight that we miss you, John. You were a heck of a Congressman, and I know you're going to do a great job as Secretary of the Army.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

You know, I get a big kick, Madam Speaker, out of my colleague from Virginia when he comes down and starts talking about that we're not for clean energy and we're not for solving the problems of the environment when the Democrat Party will not do anything to allow us to drill in the ANWR, offshore on the Continental Shelf, and use natural gas, which is a clean-burning fuel. They won't allow nuclear energy in this country. They think that the nuclear energy problem is bigger than the environmental problem, when 75 percent of the energy created in France is nuclear energy in a very safe way.

So I get a big kick out of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle complaining about how we're not for clean energy and helping clean up the environment when they won't do a darn thing to move in that direction by using natural gas, drilling for it when we have a 400- to 500-year supply, and actually going ahead with nuclear development in this country. Nuclear energy is the answer. Clean- burning natural gas is the answer, but they won't go along with it, and yet they come down here and complain day after day after day.

Madam Speaker, sometimes I get so angry when I hear some of the things that are coming out of the Congress, I can hardly believe it, especially when we are talking about misinformation.

I would never impugn the integrity of my colleagues, but I have to tell you, it really bothers me when people like the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the United States Senate give inaccurate information out and cite it as fact when in fact it isn't true. It's not true at all.

For instance, the Speaker of the House said, I'm very pleased that Democrat leaders will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years. She went on to say that she welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers and their obscene profits.

I am not here to defend everything that the insurance industry does. Obviously there are a lot of things that we need to do to help solve the problems of health care. But misleading the American people by giving false information isn't the answer. Last year, the health insurance industry made a profit of about 2 percent, way down the list as far as corporate America is concerned. Over the past several years, the profit margin made by the health insurance industry runs around 5 to 6 percent, way down to the bottom of where corporate America ranks as far as making profits are concerned.

Yet the Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the House said that they're making obscene profits, and they're doing that to try to demonize the industry so they can ram through a public option that the American people really don't want. They don't want government coming between them and their doctor; and the way to start getting people to jump on the bandwagon is to give them misinformation.

Obviously the cost of health care has gone up. Obviously health care premiums have gone up. And yet they say, well, the reason for that is because the health industry is making these huge profits, obscene profits. Two percent? Two percent? It is not true. It is just not true that they are making obscene profits.

Now, we need to do something to solve the problem of health care. We need to lower the cost of health insurance. We need to come up with alternatives, such as medical savings accounts like my colleague just talked about here. We need to be able to buy insurance across State lines. There is a whole host of things we need to do. But misleading the public is not the answer.

That is not the only thing that really bothers me. The administration and the leadership in the House and Senate continues to try to do everything they can to dissuade people from believing the truth and believing what is really not true, to shut off debate, to shut off the First Amendment rights of people in this country.

For instance, right now, they tried to push through a gag order on Medicare Advantage companies. Humana was sending out to their policyholders information about what was going to happen if the public option passed. And what happened? There was a gag order requested by the Finance chairman of the Senate, requested by the Finance chairman of the Senate, so they couldn't get that information out. Well, the gag order was removed, but the fact of the matter is they tried to stop the people from getting the facts, and that is just wrong. It is wrong. It is not up to the quality that we should expect of our legislators. Nevertheless, they tried to do that.

Now the administration is trying to put the hammer on the Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is the backbone of the free enterprise system in this country, in part, at least. The business and industry people of this country look to the Chamber of Commerce to give guidance to the government wherever necessary so they can work together with the government to come up with ways to make sure that the free enterprise system continues to work.

Because the Chamber of Commerce does not agree with the public option, does not agree with cap-and-trade and some other things, the administration is saying, oh, my gosh, they are bad. They are the demons. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Can you believe that? I can't. How far is the administration willing to go? How far is the Speaker of the House willing to go? How far is the majority leader of the Senate willing to go in misleading the American people by giving false information out? I think it is just dead wrong.

Then they are talking about doing something about the Fairness Doctrine, to shut down conservative talk radio.

An attempted boycott of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck;

Congressional action to take away the anti-trust exemption from insurance companies;

A Gag Order on Medicare Advantage companies;

Reports in Politico about how the White House is seeking to limit the voice of the United States Chamber of Commerce;

Efforts by the Federal Election Commission to resurrect the so-called fairness doctrine to shut down conservative talk radio; and

The President himself saying he was going to keep a list of bondholders who didn't agree to the government takeover of GM or Chrysler.

My time may have expired, but I will be back, because we need to tell the American people the truth, the truth.

Madam Speaker, I include the following for the Record.

[From The American Spectator, Feb. 18, 2009]

Obama's Enemies List

(By Mark Hyman)

After the Democratic convention, Obama campaign lawyer

Robert Bauer warned TV stations against airing a TV ad that

was embarrassing to Barack Obama. The commercial focused on

the longtime relationship between Obama and Weather

Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Bauer sent letters to the

Justice Department imploring the agency to pursue criminal

action against those behind the ads. It was not lost on

anyone at that time that Bauer was considered a candidate to

be the next U.S. Attorney-General.

A team of Obama campaign operatives, joined by major news

outlets, descended on Wasilla, Alaska immediately after

Governor Sarah Palin was introduced as Senator John McCain's

running mate. This was immediately followed by patently false

reports claiming Palin imposed book bans, joined a fringe

political party, charged rape victims for emergency room

treatment and cut funding for special needs children.

In late August, the Obama campaign emailed an ``Obama

Action Wire'' to thousands of supporters and liberal

activists exhorting them to harass the offices of Chicago's

WGN radio by flooding the station with angry phone calls and

emails. Activists screamed insults to call-in screeners. The

radio station's offense was that a long-time, respected radio

host had the temerity to interview Ethics and Public Policy

Center watchdog Stanley Kurtz. Kurtz had uncovered university

records that documented a much closer relationship between

Obama and Ayers than the presidential candidate had

previously disclosed.

A few weeks later, state prosecutors and top sheriffs in

Missouri who were prominent Obama supporters responded to a

chilling Obama campaign request. They styled themselves as a

``truth squad'' and threatened to prosecute anyone including

media outlets that printed or broadcasted material they

deemed to be inaccurate about the Illinois Senator.

Obama contributors in the Justice Department's Civil Rights

section (headed by $2,000 Obama donor and former ACLU

attorney Mark Kappelhof) urged preemptive prosecution of

individuals the Obama campaign believed might disrupt the

November election. A cited example of anticipated disruption

was to send mailings of a non-violent nature addressing

voting issues unfavorable to Obama.

In October, a question from a middle-class voter resulted

in an answer from Obama indicating the Democratic nominee was

in favor of ``spread[ing] the wealth around.'' This voter

became the symbol of middle-class America and Obama's

response the touchstone of his neo-Marxist policies.

Immediately thereafter, Democratic Ohio state officials

scoured government data bases and confidential records in an

effort to find embarrassing information on ``Joe the

Plumber'' (e.g., he is divorced) that quickly found its way

into the press.

In the final days of the campaign, three newspapers that

had endorsed McCain were booted from the Obama campaign bus.

The New York Post, Dallas Morning News, and Washington Times

were unceremoniously shown the door only days after their

papers' endorsements appeared. Obama campaign officials

claimed the move was to make room for more important media

outlets: Jet and Ebony entertainment magazines. Both

publications were publishing fawning coverage of Obama.

Those heartened by the hope that a President Obama would be

more tolerant of critics and criticism than a candidate Obama

had their expectations dashed. In only his third full day as

the 44th president Obama personally went on the offensive

against a media personality. On January 23rd, Obama warned

Congressional Republicans against listening to Rush Limbaugh.

The man who offered to sit down with Holocaust denier and

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without any

preconditions whatsoever views an American radio talk show

host as a dangerous threat.

In precedent-setting action, Obama moved his director of

political affairs, a highly partisan post, from the Old

Executive Office Building into the West Wing. Political

operative Patrick Gaspard was given White House access not

experienced by his predecessors. Obama official Shauna Daly,

a non-lawyer and career opposition researcher described as a

``partisan dirt-digger,'' was assigned to the White House

counsel office. The move signals not only a new low in

partisan activities, but suggests the office assignment may

be intended to hide Daly's political activities under the

guise of the counsel's attorney-client privileges.

What America witnessed before the election and mere hours

after Obama was sworn into office is just a sampling of what

Americans can likely expect throughout an Obama presidency.

One cannot help but reach the conclusion an Obama Enemies

List is already being compiled and free speech restrictions

are being considered. Fortunately for Obama he has no

shortage of Congressional foot soldiers to help in his cause

to muzzle critics and silence news outlets that refuse to

adhere to Democratic talking points that are faxed directly

into the network newscast teleprompters.

On Election Day, Senator Chuck Schumer likened conservative

talk radio to pornography and argued it should be regulated.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi endorsed speech restrictions more

than once during the election season. Senators Harry Reid,

Dick Durbin and John Kerry have also advocated various limits

to political speech. Senator Debbie Stabenow assured a

liberal radio talk show host that regulating conservative

speech is imminent. House Commerce Committee Chairman Henry

Waxman is reportedly working on speech restrictions with

acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps.

Imagine the gross violations against political speech that

may very well occur when there are no checks and balances

from a sycophantic Congress and there is complicity from the

national news gatekeepers. The public may be very surprised

at the lengths the Obama Administration may pursue to silence

critics. Moreover, the self-anointed Praetorian Guard of the

First Amendment will conveniently develop a case of amnesia

regarding on which side of the debate they fall when it comes

to press freedoms. Do not expect to see the New York Times

editorialize against Obama and the Congress when it comes to

protecting free speech rights aside from its own and that of

like-minded, liberally-biased press outlets.

The Clinton White House had its own enemies list and

engaged in dirty practices that clearly broke the law.

Clinton enemies audited by the IRS included Paula Jones,

Juanita Broaddrick, Gennifer Flowers, White House Travel

Officer Director Billy Dale and the independent watchdog

group, Judicial Watch, just to name a few.

Early in Clinton's first term, staffers improperly

squirreled away more than 400 FBI files on prominent

Republicans. This give the Clintons access to confidential

information on key Republicans they viewed as political

threats.

Just weeks after the Monica Lewinsky broke in early 1998,

then-Deputy Attorney General (and current Attorney General)

Eric Holder engineered a federal grand jury investigation of

The American Spectator. The magazine had long been a very

successful critic of both Clintons, having broken several

stories embarrassing for the President and First Lady.

Fourteen months later, the federal prosecutor dropped the

probe without filing any criminal charges. The probe may have

achieved its purpose as it nearly bankrupted the magazine.

Much has been made by the political left of Richard Nixon's

infamous enemies list. The reality is while there was a

Nixon's enemies list most of the names were those who did not

receive presidential Christmas cards or White House reception

invitations. This was a hardship that even the most

vulnerable in American society could easily withstand.

The heavy-handed actions against Obama critics and

opponents that occurred before he had government institutions

firmly under his control should have had public interest

watchdog groups up in arms. Because so many of such groups

are ideologically aligned with Obama may explain why there

was not even a peep. Conservative and balanced news outlets

have the disturbing habit of holding accountable liberal

public interest organizations that engage in dishonest or

deceptive practices that the major news organizations just so

happen to overlook.

How soon and how far the Obama Administration will extend

its attacks against its critics and the political opposition

may become evident in the days ahead. Spared any serious

scrutiny by most news outlets during his very brief career in

public office, Barack Obama has displayed an exceptionally

thin skin when he has come under a microscope or when he has

suffered political and public relations setbacks.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest when our whip and the majority leader were talking a while ago about how they would like to work with us so we can reach some kind of agreement on the public option plan, the government plan. It brought to mind when President Obama came to our caucus, our conference, early on in his administration. He indicated he wanted to work with us and he wanted to have our input. He came with great fanfare, and the media was there saying here is this man, he wants openness, and he wants to work with the Republicans. This is the kind of President we need.

He smiled, he shook our hands, he left the room and then wouldn't talk to us anymore. We have had absolutely no input whatsoever into this health care plan, and yet the facade has been created that we have. And they blame us because things haven't happened. It's because their own caucus can't get together on a plan.

The American people know that there is chicanery going on behind closed doors. And they promised us we would be able to participate in the planning for health care reform. Yeah. That was a lot of baloney then, and it's a lot of baloney now.

Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration, led by its Council of Economic Advisors, indicated that if we spent $1 trillion with

the stimulus bill, that we would create 3.5 million new jobs. Well, here it is, what, 8, 9 months later, we've spent a great deal of the stimulus money, and instead of creating 3.5 million new jobs we've lost 3 million jobs. That's a 6.5 million job swing.

Yesterday, Dr. Christina Romer, the Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, said that the economic stimulus package, $1 trillion--and remember, we're $1.4 trillion in the hole this year-- that the economic stimulus package at $1 trillion wasn't going to work anymore for the next several months and we should expect the economy to continue to drift downward, with unemployment reaching 10 percent. The reason I bring this up is because 49 out of the 50 States have lost jobs while we spent $1 trillion to create the jobs.

Now, just stop and think about that. We're throwing money at this situation as rapidly as possible, the government is getting its nose into every aspect of our economy, moving toward a European socialist- type economy, and the economy continues to drift downward. And why is that? Because we're taking more and more money and spending it that we don't have, number one. And number two, they're going to tax us to death at a time when we're suffering economic calamity in this country.

What should we be doing? Well, Ronald Reagan came into office back in 1980 when Jimmy Carter had 12 percent unemployment--worse than now--and 14 percent inflation--worse than now--with a misery index of 26 percent. And they said you had to raise taxes because we had such problems, we had to have more money. Ronald Reagan said, well, I think we ought to cut taxes. And so they cut taxes across the board, and he was criticized severely for it.

They said, well, there is going to be a shortfall in money coming into the Treasury. We were bringing in $500 billion a year in taxes at the time, and 4 years later we were bringing in $1.3 trillion. Do you know why? Because when you cut taxes, you give people more disposable income, business has more money to invest. And so business invests, people buy more products because they have more money, because of that they produce more products, more jobs are created, and the economy expands. It makes common sense; if you have more money, you're going to be able to spend more money.

And so what happened was we had the longest period of economic expansion in the history of this country because we had a President that could see what really needed to be done--let the free enterprise system work and let people have more of their money to spend. Cut government spending and cut government taxes. Well, Reagan did the job.

So what are we doing today? We've got a government that thinks they should control everything, and they're moving toward a socialist economy very similar to what you see in France and England and other parts of the world that are really suffering and continue to suffer through economic chaos.

All I can say, if I were talking to the President, is, Mr. President, get real. Wake up. Forget this socialist nonsense. Take a look at the history book and look at what Ronald Reagan did. And if you would do that, and instead of raising taxes cut taxes, you would stimulate economic growth, put people back to work, and get this economy heading in the right direction.

I don't know if the President pays attention to what we're saying around here, Mr. Speaker, but if he does pay attention, I hope he'll listen and look at the history books and check out what Ronald Reagan did.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Hopefully, in the not so distant future, we will see fair elections in your former native land of Cuba.

With that, let me just say I have heard in my years here in the Congress a lot of very thorough and eloquent expressions of concern about what's going on in foreign policy and foreign lands, but the young gentleman from Illinois just covered about everything about as thoroughly as you possibly can.

The one thing that I think I might add is that there are those who say the elections should be postponed and that there are reasons for that. But, according to what I have been able to learn from our research is that the Supreme Court of Honduras rendered a decision after careful study, and they said that what was done was constitutional, it was within the law, and they upheld that decision, and they have said that the elections should go forth, and they are now in control of the election process, and I believe that it should go forth.

For the United States of America and our State Department and our very young and new President, whom I feel probably does not have the expertise that he requires to make these kinds of decisions, although I am sure that he would like to see his position supported, I think that we should support the Honduran people, support a free and fair election, and let our State Department know that the Members of the Congress here in Congress feel very strongly that they have made a miscalculation and a misdiagnosis of what the situation is or should be down in Honduras.

They should change their mind and come back and support the constitutional elective process in Honduras and let the elections go forth with our support. The United States of America should support the free election process in Honduras and our State Department should share that view, and that's why tonight you have a number of Congressmen here on the floor of the House who are saying to the administration and to the State Department, You have made a mistake.

As the young gentleman from Illinois said, this has been researched very thoroughly by our legal authorities and experts here in the Congress of the United States, and they have concluded that the only thing that was done that was not correct was forcing the former President out of the country. But it did not say anything that we would contradict the decision that was made by the administration that showed that there was some unconstitutional things done and supported by the previous President. The Supreme Court has rendered that decision and they said the election should go forth, and we should support that decision.

If I were talking to our Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, or the President, I would say that the administration and the State Department should support that position.

I really appreciate you and your brother and the rest of the people that are here on the floor tonight, I really appreciate you staying so late. It's a quarter till 12. The people of this country, who I hope might be paying attention, will realize we feel this is extremely important for stability in our hemisphere, in our front yard, and we feel very strongly that the administration and the State Department should review this and come out in very strong support of the elective process which should be taking place very shortly.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to salute the Vision of Children Foundation. The Vision of Children Foundation is an independent, not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to the funding of innovative clinical and translational research into vision disorders and creating effective therapies. The Foundation supports scientists at top universities and academic medical centers worldwide who are involved in the most advanced and promising research.

According to the World Health Organization, globally more than 161 million people are visually impaired, including 1.4 million blind children below age 15. In the United States alone, over 1 million children suffer from vision impairment, a loss of vision that makes it hard or impossible to perform daily tasks without specialized adaptation, and which cannot be corrected to a ``normal'' level. These children face technological and socially-imposed obstacles that make it difficult to succeed in life.

The challenges of living with visual impairment are all too real for Sam and Vivian Hardage, founders of the Vision of Children Foundation. Their son, Chase, now 20 years old, was diagnosed with ocular albinism (OA) as an infant. OA is an inherited disorder in which the eyes suffer from deficient amount of melanin and pigment, resulting in reduced visual acuity, or Nystagmus, and sensitivity to sunlight. The Hardages were told that there was no cure, and that their son would never be able to play sports or live a normal life. Although Chase's original diagnosis was dire, the reality is that all children with visual impairments have different visual acuities and developmental potential. Many of these individuals, such as Chase, have learned to compensate for their disability and have functional and productive lives.

The Hardages were also stunned to find that no one was doing research into understanding OA, much less treating it. Hereditary vision disorders such as OA, retinitis

pigmentosa, and Ushers syndrome belonged to a group of diseases that were underrepresented and under-funded. It was clear that if there was any hope for finding a cure, funding was needed. In 1990, the Hardages established the Vision of Children Foundation (VOC), with a mission to cure hereditary childhood blindness and vision disorders, and to improve the quality of life of visually impaired individuals and their families. It is the only international, non-profit foundation that funds genetic vision research into ocular albinism and connects affected families all over the world.

Until there is a cure, the VOC works hard to provide educational support and services. Families of the visually impaired often feel isolated and confused, and need support to face day-to-day life. The VOC believes communication between families, educators, healthcare professionals, and researchers who care for these children is critical, and the VOC does all that it can to facilitate the process. The Foundation maintains a worldwide Family Network that provides information and support via constant communication, a biannual newsletter, and an informative Web site. Joining the Family Network enables parents to contact other families who face similar challenges in their geographic region to offer support, and share experiences and local resources and programs. Hundreds of families around the world belong to the VOC Family Network.

The VOC strives to enable thousands of children to have a clear image of the world around them. The foundation continues to gather and share information and tools available to ease the daily challenges that the visually impaired face. For example, VOC developed a computer monitor system designed to accommodate students and adults with low vision. This system works to alleviate the stress and strain that individuals with low vision face when using computer technology. The Foundation donates monitor systems to schools and individuals nationwide.

VOC also partners with book publishers to provide educational books to eye clinics, schools, libraries, doctors' offices, and families, such as the illustrated storybook, ``All Children Have Different Eyes.'' These books help to raise awareness, reduce emotional stress, develop social competencies, improve academic performance, and increase confidence in low vision children.

These efforts to provide support, education and needed assistive resources to children diagnosed with OA have enabled Chase and many others like him to have a more normal and functional life. Chase played varsity football on a championship team and was his high school's first CIF wrestling champion in 28 years. Today, he is a sophomore studying business at Southern Methodist University.

To foster scientific communication and collaboration, VOC hosts a biennial World Symposium on Ocular Albinism and genetic vision disorders. In this forum, the Foundation brings together top vision and genetic eye researchers from around the globe to present and discuss the latest discoveries and research efforts involving OA and related genetic conditions.

This year's World Symposium theme: ``Understanding the Pathway-- Discovering a Cure'' was reflected in each of the presentations. The symposium was highly successful, with researchers agreeing to openly discuss their latest discoveries and research efforts. Updated results from the successful recent human gene therapy trials provide continued hope for a cure. One of the most important outcomes of the symposium resulted in the formation of an informal, web-based forum for attendees to continue the collaborative relationships that were formed. The Vision of Children Foundation is a leader in fostering these kinds of relationships and helping move science forward.

For eighteen years, the Vision of Children Foundation has been a driving force in the worldwide quest for a cure for genetically caused childhood blindness. Progress and problems are discussed on a regular basis as VOC researchers gather for an invitation only Symposium sponsored by the Vision of Children Foundation. In October 2006, Dr. James Bainbridge of Moorfields Eye Hospital in London attended VOC's European Symposium and described his lab's plan for a human gene therapy trial to cure Leber's Congenital Amaurosis. In March 2008, his team achieved the world's first successful gene therapy trial on a human. Their success was quickly followed by the University of Florida and Children's Hospital in Philadelphia, successfully restoring the vision of nine young adults who were nearly blind. These young people can now see and some can even read lines on an eye chart. All nine patients had the treatment in one eye and all have volunteered to have their other eye treated. I am told that the medical community is equating this discovery to the first heart transplant.

The Vision of Children Foundation is one of the largest sources of non-governmental funding in the world for genetically caused childhood blindness research. The urgent mission of the Vision of Children Foundation is to drive the research that will provide preventions, treatments and cures for children affected by ocular albinism and the entire spectrum of hereditary childhood blindness and vision disorders. The Foundation has invested millions of dollars to support scientific research of diseases of the retina, which cause blindness. I commend the steadfast support of and determination of the Vision of Children Foundation to eradicating genetically caused vision disorders and blindness in children.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honor and privilege of co-chairing the Congressional Indonesia Caucus with my good friend, Congressman Wexler. Accordingly, I want to take this moment to express my heartfelt condolences to the citizens of Indonesia, the President, and the Indonesian government in the aftermath of the devastating earthquakes that struck the West Sumatra region this past month.

On September 30, 2009, a 7.6 magnitude earthquake that originated northwest of the city of Padang (population: 900,000) led to the loss of 800 lives. Countless more remain missing and are presumed dead while thousands have been displaced from their homes that were either destroyed or remain unsafe as ongoing tremors continue to bring uncertainty to the area.

The quakes have devastated the region, destroying over 83,700 houses, 200 public buildings, 285 schools, and have also caused extensive damage to an additional 100,000 buildings including hotels, mosques, shops, and hospitals, and approximately twenty miles of roads. Lying near the intersection of shifting tectonic plates, Indonesia is prone to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Such devastation is yet another tragedy to strike the region, which is still recovering from the 2004 earthquake born from this very same fault line that resulted in the Indian Ocean tsunami and the loss of over 230,000 lives.

As a result, I am very pleased to join my colleagues today in passing House Resolution 810 expressing our condolences to the Indonesian people for the devastating earthquake and loss of life in their Sumatra region.

I would also like to commend the courage and perseverance of the Indonesian government and people as they work tirelessly with humanitarian organizations in distributing aid and mobilizing relief efforts. All the while, strong aftershocks continue to rock the region and create hazardous conditions for both residents and rescue workers.

There is still much to be done, yet the Indonesian government and countless other humanitarian and private groups continue to provide emergency assistance to those in need.

The U.S. also shows our support as we reaffirm our commitment by releasing millions in aid and contributing to the widespread international response. We continue to regard Indonesia as an important ally, recognizing its recent democratic transition and transformation into the world's third largest democracy. In addition, hosting the world's largest Muslim majority, the people of Indonesia demonstrate that Islam and democracy are not mutually exclusive and can successfully work in tandem. Thus, we look forward to fostering future cooperation between the United States and Indonesia in the areas of trade, national security, and cultural awareness and appreciation.

The Indonesian people have seen tremendous change in the last decade, and they once again continue to persevere through tragedy. It is my hope that our nations will only continue to grow in our commitment to one another and to freedom, justice, and democracy.

I would like to thank Congressman Berman and Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for helping to move this important resolution to the floor.

And, again I extend my heartfelt condolences to the Indonesian people and the family and friends of those who are suffering greatly as a result of this disaster.

I appreciated what my colleague just said about the banks, and one of the things that I think we ought to focus on in addition to that is that we are not energy independent and we're not allowed the drill off the Continental Shelf or in the ANWR in Alaska or do other exploration for a number of reasons, not the least of which is, quote-unquote, environmental.

But at the same time we won't allow offshore drilling here, we just gave Brazil $2 billion so they can drill off their shores. It just doesn't make any sense to me. We ought to be spending that money here at home exploring for oil so we can move towards energy independence. We have a 400- or 500-year supply of natural gas and we have plenty of oil if we just could go get it, and we can do it in an environmentally safe way.

Now the reason I bring that up is because one of the big problems we face is we get 35 to 40 percent of our oil from the Middle East, and one of the big problems facing the United States and the world right now is Iran. Iran has been developing a nuclear program, a nuclear weapons program for some time, and our position in the United States now, under the new administration, is to try to work with them, to talk with them to stop them with their nuclear development program. And if they don't, we're going to try to get a sanctions bill passed.

Now, we have a bill sponsored by the chairman of the International Relations Committee, Mr. Berman, that has over 300 cosponsors--I happen to be one of them--and we believe we ought to bring that bill to the floor as quickly as possible to try to put pressure on Iran to stop the development of the nuclear weapons program.

But the administration, I think, has suggested we should wait. They were trying to bring China and Russia on board, and China and Russia are not going to be on board. So we should do it by ourselves and we should do it expeditiously.

Let me tell you why I think it's so important. If Iran continues down this path, Israel--whom Iran has said they want to destroy--will have no choice but to defend itself. They cannot let Iran develop a nuclear bomb and a delivery system. If they do that, they will be able to destroy Israel and millions of Jews in Israel in a very short period of time. It will be another Holocaust.

So what will happen? If they get too far down the path, if we don't put pressure on them to stop--and they don't stop--I believe Israel will have no choice but to attack Iran. And if they attack Iran, that could end up in being a major conflagration in the entire Persian Gulf area.

Now, why is that important to us? We get 35 to 40 percent of our energy from the Persian Gulf area. If that goes up in smoke, we will lose 35 to 40 percent of the energy that we have in this country because we're not energy independent.

The lights that we have, the gasoline in our cars, the fuel we use to heat our houses, everything that needs energy will suffer, and we will have severe economic problems if this problem isn't

dealt with before a tragedy occurs over there.

This really bothers me. We tried to work with North Korea some time ago during the Clinton administration. We even had an agreement with them that they would stop their nuclear development program if we gave them some things, and we did. And what did they do? They lied and they went ahead with their program, and they are a nuclear power. They're using missiles that would be intercontinental in scope, testing them over the sea of Japan right now. And they've done that a number of times.

So we have to worry about them. We have to worry about North Korea and what they're going to do next. Can you imagine what it will be like once Iran develops a nuclear weapons program? They are committed to destroying Israel. They are committed to forcing their view of religion and religious beliefs on much of the rest of the world, and it could be a real problem for us. They don't like America very much either. And so we have a myriad of problems facing us if we don't get on with putting as much pressure as possible on Iran and doing it right now.

As we speak, they're developing their nuclear weapons program. They said they're going to let U.N. nuclear experts come in and police the area and see what they're doing. I don't believe that. I believe they will let us see one or two spots, but they're going to go on with their nuclear development program.

We must put pressure on them now. We must put pressure on them immediately, because if we don't, we're toying with a major problem, a major economic problem for America as well as a possible holocaust in that part of the world in the very near future.

Madam Speaker, I was reading the Roll Call newspaper today, and on the front page it says, ``New Economic Plan Weighed, But `Stimulus' Label Shunned.'' It says, ``Democrats are scrambling to define a new plan to boost the economy as unemployment hurtles toward double digits, after months of insisting that talk of another stimulus package was premature.''

Just don't call the as-yet-unwritten new proposal ``stimulus.''

Shakespeare said a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. They're talking about another stimulus bill. And everybody in this country knows that the $787 billion stimulus, and with interest it's over $1 trillion, did not work.

The President said that unemployment would not go over 8 percent. It's over 9.5 percent right now. And the Democrats are scared to death it's going to go to 10 percent, so they are coming up with another plan, stimulus, to get the economy moving so there won't be any more unemployment. It won't work. It won't work just taking government money and throwing it at the problem. It creates more deficits, it's going to cause more inflation down the road, and it's going to cost higher taxes, but it's not going to create jobs.

The thing that creates jobs is giving Americans more disposable income in their paychecks. The thing that creates jobs is for businessmen and industry people to have more money so they can buy more equipment and more plants so they can produce more products that people can buy. And then the employees, because they have more money because their taxes have been lowered, can buy it. That's what Ronald Reagan knew.

Ronald Reagan cut taxes when he came in. We were in a very bad economic time back in the early eighties. A lot of people don't remember that, but they were very bad coming out of the Carter administration. So he came in and they said, You've got to raise taxes. You've got to throw money at it. And he said he thought we ought to do just the opposite. We ought to give people some of their money back by lowering taxes. We ought to give business and industry some of their money back so they can invest more, and that would create a rising tide that would raise all boats. And you know what? It did. And it created the longest period of economic expansion in the history of this country.

Now, today the President wants to solve the problem by taking taxpayers' money, raising taxes, coming out with new programs that are spending billions of dollars and then throwing money at it. It will not work. If they come up with another stimulus package and they throw all of this money at it that we don't have, we will have to print more and we will have inflation because of it, and that will raise taxes. Then the unemployment rate will continue to rise because people won't have disposable income to spend. And many of them will be losing their jobs because businesspeople will be cutting back and laying people off or going offshore.

The fact of the matter is raising taxes right now, throwing more taxpayers' money that we don't have at the problem, will not solve it. The thing that will solve it, if I were talking to the President--and I hope maybe someday he will be listening--is, Mr. President, cut taxes on the individual, cut taxes on business and industry. Give us more disposable income and people will buy products. And when they buy products, we will create products. And when we create products, we will create jobs. That is the answer. Ronald Reagan knew it, but President Obama doesn't, but maybe he will get the message before long.

Where we are heading right now is toward a socialist economy, a government-run socialist economy like the Europeans are doing. It hasn't worked there; it won't work here.

Mr. Obama, Mr. President--if I were talking to him, I hope he will listen--cut taxes. Do what Ronald Reagan did and you will solve the problem.

Mr. Speaker, we all support our troops. I don't think anybody doubts that. So why are we adding a hate crimes amendment to this bill? Why are we doing social engineering on the backs of our troops on a defense bill? I think it is being done for political purposes. I think that there are people on the other side that want to put Republicans in a political trick bag in the next election, and I think that is very unfortunate.

We should be worrying about the defense of this Nation and the men and women fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq today. We should not be doing social engineering on this bill. It is just wrong. I think it is being done for political purposes. I just say to my colleagues on the other side who are doing it, shame on you.

Madam Speaker, I ran into one of my constituents last week, a fellow named Jim Byers, and he said, You know, if you guys could balance the budget, I'll bet you could reach an agreement on health care. And he said, Why don't you talk to your Democrat colleagues about giving a guarantee that they'll balance the budget in a reasonable length of time? And if they'll do that then you'll probably be able to work out the health care differences that you have.

And so I got today the figures on the Baucus bill coming out of the Senate, $487 billion in new taxes, and probably a couple of trillion dollars over the next 10 years. So I'd just like to say to my colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle, let's get together and figure out a way to balance the budget. And if we can do that, then we could solve the problem of health care.

All of us who are privileged to serve in this Chamber are deeply involved in the nationwide debate on health care.

Currently, the Democrat Majority in Congress is trying to craft a single health insurance reform bill from the bits and pieces of four competing alternatives not to mention President Obama's ``plan'' which has never been put on paper.

At the moment we do not know what, if anything, the House of Representatives will vote on. I have made my views clear. I have said over and over on this Floor and in my town hall meetings that I will not support, and I will strongly work to defeat the House Democrats' government take-over.

Here are some straightforward reasons why I oppose the bill:

Health care costs will go up for the government and everyone else.

As many as 2 out of 3 Americans will lose their current health coverage and be forced into the government-run plan.

Raising taxes on small businesses is the wrong solution for an economy in a recession.

The new government run plan will lead to fewer choices and rationing.

I support health care reform that would expand opportunities for small businesses to band together to purchase high-quality health care for their employees at more affordable prices, and medical liability reform legislation to eliminate expensive defensive medicine.

Unfortunately these proposals have been blocked. If either of these two proposals were law today, we would be starting at a very different place with health reform.

What the House Democrats are proposing goes far beyond fixing the problems we all know need to be addressed. The House bill is a complete upheaval of our current system. That is why the bill lacks bipartisan support.

As the Democrats in Congress choose to focus the debate about health care reform on creating a government run health plan, they are ignoring another important issue that directly relates to health care reform.

That is the issue of balancing the budget, which has not been given much attention in this debate by the Democrat Majority. This has not gone unnoticed in my Congressional District.

Earlier this week, one of my constituents named Jim Byers stopped me to talk about what we are doing here in Congress to balance the budget.

Sadly, I did not have an answer for him. For now, it looks as if this Congress has decided to take the issue of balancing the budget off the table.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday said that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 totaled about $1.4 trillion, a $950 billion increase over the shortfall posted in fiscal year 2008.

The deficit now represents 9.9 percent of the gross domestic product.

While revenues were down nearly $420 billion (17%) below receipts in fiscal year 2008, outlays increased by over $530 billion (18%), in fiscal year 2009. About $245 billion of the spending increase resulted from outlays for TARP.

Since the fall of 2008, Congress has spent:

TARP--Original Cost: $700 Billion.

Madam Speaker, the reason I rise tonight is to follow up on my good friend Mr. Poe of Texas. He was talking about 45 czars being appointed by the President to run this government in large part. The thing that bothers me about that and what Mr. Poe said is that these people do not have to go through the normal process of confirmation in the Senate.

The reason we have that process of advice and consent of the Senate is to make sure that the people that are being appointed are not only capable of doing the job, but they don't have anything in their closets that is going to cause disrepute, disrespect, or anything on the administration. But the administration continues to appoint these people as czars in large part, I believe, because he doesn't want the American people to know their backgrounds.

We've had people that have been appointed who are admitted Communists, people who have been appointed who have been involved in supporting nefarious activities and deviant kinds of activities, and it just seems to me that the American people need to know those things. But unfortunately, the administration continues to appoint these czars because they know they do not have to go through the confirmation process. I think that's just wrong.

So, if I were talking to the President, I think if the American people were talking to the President tonight, as would Mr. Poe, my good friend from Texas, would like to say, Hey, let's have these people unveiled. Let's find out what they're all about before they take on positions of responsibility, positions that spend taxpayers' money and make decisions on how this government is run. We need to know what kind of people they are. We need to know their backgrounds.

So I would just like to say, if I were talking to the President on behalf of the American people, Let's go through the regular process, Mr. President, just like you do with Cabinet appointees. Make sure that there is a background check done on them by the FBI so we know what they're about. Let's make sure they go through the confirmation process, through the Senate, through the committee system and are voted upon by the United States Senate so that they are confirmed. And if we do that, we'll know that they're competent people, honorable people who will do the job for the American people and not people that we're going to be embarrassed by later on.

Mr. Speaker, we have had an epidemic of autism for a long time in this country. It used to be 1 in 10,000 was autistic; then it went to 1 in 150; and in the Journal of Pediatrics this week, they said now more than 1 in 100 children are autistic. Something has to be done about that.

I believe one of the root causes is the mercury that's in the vaccinations that we're giving, the preservative called Thimerosal.

But even if you don't agree with me on that, we really need to get to the bottom of why so many children are suffering from this epidemic of autism. So we have a bill, H.R. 3703, which calls on the President to have a White House conference on autism to try to get to the bottom of this as quickly as possible.

These children are going to grow up; they are going to live long lives; they're going to be a real problem for themselves, their families, and the country. We've got to come to the realization that we have to find a cure for autism and to stop it. We need to do this now. We need this White House conference, and I urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this bill, H.R. 3703.

[Oct. 5, 2009]

Study: More Cases of Autism in U.S. Kids Than Previously Realized: 1 in

100

(CNN).--A study published Monday in the journal Pediatrics

indicates about 1 percent of children ages 3 to 17 have

autism or a related disorder, an increase over previous

estimates.

``This is a significant issue that needs immediate

attention,'' Dr. Ileana Arias, deputy director of the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention said Friday. ``A concerted

effort and substantial national response is warranted.''

The study used data from the federal government's 2007

national survey of children's health. The survey of parents

was conducted by the Health Resources and Services

Administration, and by the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention.

The results are based on a national telephone survey of

more than 78,000 parents of children ages 3 to 17.

iReport.com: How has autism affected your family?

In the study, parents were asked whether a health care

provider had ever told them their child had an autism

spectrum disorder. ASD is a group of brain disorders

comprising autism and two less severe disorders: Asperger's

disorder and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise

specified.

Children with the disorder show impairment in social

interaction and in their ability to communicate. They often

display repetitive behavior.

The investigators also asked a follow-up question: Were the

children considered to have ASD now? Nearly 40 percent of the

parents and guardians said no.

That finding led the authors to question whether some of

the children originally diagnosed as having ASD may have been

improperly diagnosed, since the disorders are not considered

curable.

But Kogan said the two surveys cannot be compared because

the earlier investigators did not ask the follow-up question

about whether the children were still considered to have the

disorder.

Still, based on the findings, lead author Dr. Michael D.

Kogan of HRSA's maternal and child health bureau estimated

the prevalence of ASD among U.S. children ages 3 to 17 at 110

per 10,000--slightly more than 1 percent.

Boys were four times as likely as girls to have ASD, and

non-Hispanic black and multiracial children were less likely

than non-Hispanic white children.

He estimated that 673,000 children have ASD in the United

States.

Monday's findings of nearly 1 in 100 appear to indicate an

increase from the average of 1 in 150 that was reported in

2003, the researchers said.

The researchers urged caution in interpreting the change,

noting that an increase in diagnoses does not necessarily

mean that more children have the disorder. It could simply

reflect a heightened awareness of the disorder.

``We don't know whether the change in the number over time

is a result of the change in the actual condition, in the

actual number of conditions or in part due to the fact that

the condition is being recognized differently,'' Arias said.

She said that preliminary results from a separate, CDC-

funded study she is working on also indicate that about 1

percent of children in the United States are affected by ASD.

That study is to be published later this year, she said.

``This is a behavioral diagnosis, and it's difficult to

make, and it's difficult to make at young ages,'' said Dr.

Peter van Dyck, HRSA's associate administrator for maternal

and child health.

Half of the cases were considered mild by their parents,

the study reported.

The results underscore the importance of creating policies

that will result in early identification and intervention,

the officials said.

The reports raise ``a lot of questions about how we are

preparing in terms of housing, employment, social support--

all the issues that many of these people are going to need,''

said Dr. Tom Insel, director of the National Institute of

Mental Health.

``It also raises questions about how well we're prepared in

the educational system to provide for the special needs of

many of these kids.''

Insel said the federal government is beefing up the

resources it is mobilizing to

address autism and related disorders, with $85 million being

appropriated by the National Institutes of Health and $48

million for next year by the HRSA.

Mr. Speaker, when seniors across the country found out that the Medicare plan that was proposed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle was going to cut Medicare and Medicare Advantage by $500 billion over 10 years, they became very concerned, and they became very, very concerned about the organization called AARP supporting that plan that was going to make great cuts to seniors' medical coverage.

And so about 60,000 of those people said they were going to quit AARP because of AARP's endorsement of the very costly and benefit-cutting plan proposed by the Democrats. So AARP came out with this statement: ``None of the health care proposals being considered by Congress would cut Medicare benefits or increase your out-of-pocket costs for Medicare services.''

That's what AARP has been telling their seniors. But let me just read to you the facts from people who are working on the bills here in Washington, D.C., in the Congress.

The first one is the $113 billion is a reduction in the extra benefits, the added, additional benefits that Medicare Advantage enrollees have available to them. That statement was made by a staff member of Senator Baucus's committee, the Finance Committee in the Senate. That contradicts what AARP said.

The Medicare Advantage cuts contained in the Democrats' health bills pending in Congress ``could lead many plans to limit the benefits they offer, raise their premiums, or withdraw from the program.'' That statement was made by our Congressional Budget Office. Again, they refute what AARP said.

The next statement, ``While these programs need to be made more efficient, if the proposed funding cut levels become law, millions of seniors and disabled individuals could lose many of the important benefits and services that Medicare Advantage health plans make so valuable.'' That statement was by Humana.

Humana is an organization that sells these plans, the Medicare Advantage plans, and they have been stopped because they told their enrollees what was going on with the Medicare Advantage cuts in the Democrats' proposals. As a matter of fact, late last month the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid

Services, CMS, directed Medicare Advantage plans to discontinue any communication with their enrollees about this thing that is taking place cutting their benefits.

This is absolutely terrible. There's no doubt that Medicare Advantage is going to be cut. The Republicans in the House have pointed out time and again that the Democrats' plan in this body will cut Medicare Advantage and other benefits of Medicare by over $500 billion. In the Senate it runs anywhere from $200 billion on up. We don't know how much because we've never even seen their final bill. It hadn't come out of committee, so we really don't know. But I can tell seniors this: They are going to lose benefits. They're going to lose Medicare Advantage. And so why is AARP saying that there's no change going to take place if we pass these plans?

It's because they have a benefit that they're going to get if Medicare Advantage is cut. And what is that benefit? They sell what's called Medigap, and Medigap coverage is more expensive than the Medicare plans we're talking about. And so they would get a tremendous kickback. Let me just tell you what it says here. There was an article written in Bloomberg, and the article said very clearly that the AARP is getting $652 million a year in royalties and fees. That's an increase of 31 percent over last year when they got about $500 billion.

And according to Bloomberg, the analysis published in December 2008, those royalties comprise 60.3 percent of what AARP gets. And if we do away, this body and the other body, does away with Medicare Advantage and seniors want more coverage, they're going to have to go to Medigap. That's sold by AARP, and AARP will be the beneficiary, and that's why 60,000 seniors have left AARP, because they don't want this to happen.

Let me just read to you what a couple of seniors said after they found out about this. One said, AARP has great buying power, and people should be able to get the best deal. What they're doing is unconscionable, what AARP has allowed to happen. Another disillusioned senior wrote to the organization's leadership and asked whether AARP had a special relationship with insurance carriers by which it receives commissions and kickbacks. And it does. Seniors need to know that Medicare and Medigap is going to take the place of Medicare Advantage. There's going to be big cuts.