Floor Statements

I can't believe what I just saw. I can't believe it.

First of all, it's totally wrong; and secondly, it's making fun of a very important issue for the American people. We do have health care problems in this country, and we need to solve those problems, but coming down here and making light of the issue by coming up with a lot of silly talk is just ridiculous.

The Republicans have a bill, H.R. 3400, which deals with the problem in a way that does not get the government in between the patient and their doctor. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to come up with a government plan where the government starts making all the rules and taking a major place in between the patient and their doctor.

And, you know, I would like to say to my friends across the country, if they happen to be watching, and my colleagues--and I know I can't do that. I can't address anybody except my colleagues. But if I were talking to people across this country, I would like to ask them, What government agency has done such a great job that you would want to rely on them for your health care? Just start naming a couple. What government agency has done such a good job that they're not spending much more money than you anticipate they're going to spend, and then think about health care.

The projections are that the Democrats' plan is going to cost between $1 and $3 trillion over the next 10 years, money we do not have. Money that your kids and your grandkids are going to have to pay for with higher taxes and inflation.

And they say that we don't have a plan. We do have a plan. We want to allow businesses to band together so they can get the best rates like major corporations. We want businesses to be able to go across State lines to buy insurance at the best rate possible. We want to set up medical savings accounts so people will have the money of their own, tax deductible money put into the account by them and their employer, and they can use it as they see fit for medical coverage, and then if there is a major expense above the $2,000 or $3,000 of their money that's in the bank, you can have a major medical policy. It would save an awful lot of money.

There is no question that we have maybe 10 million people in the country who are indigent, who don't have health care, that we need to deal with. Not the illegal aliens, not the people who elected not to have insurance, but the 10 million people who really don't have it and need it. And in our plan, H.R. 3400, we address that. And we could solve this problem for a few billion dollars, not trillions of dollars like the Democrats talk about.

In their original bill--they talk about we're waiting for people to die. In their bill, they had a phrase in there that said, or a paragraph that said you should have regular meetings with paraprofessionals to talk about end-of-life planning. End-of-life planning. That's something that should be between an individual, their pastor, and their family, and their doctor.

Let me just say as an extension of what we were discussing a few minutes ago, the other body, the Senate today twice voted down in the Senate Finance Committee the government option because they know the American people, by a large majority, does not want the government interfering in health care and sticking their nose in between a doctor and a patient. That was done in the U.S. Senate today.

And I would just like to say one more thing--this won't take a whole minute--and that is seniors of this country, and I've talked to a lot of them, they know that they're going to be taking between $500 and $600 billion out of Medicare and Medicare Advantage over the next decade, which is going to cause the Medicare program to be in worse shape than it is already. And the program they're talking about is going to result in rationing. It is going to result in problems for seniors, and the seniors know it.

I would just like to end by saying this to my Democrat colleagues: They all vote.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office headed by Mr. Elmendorf, who is the director, told Senator Baucus that his plan to cut $123 billion from Medicare Advantage, the program that gives one-fourth of seniors private health insurance options, will result in lower benefits and some 2.7 million people losing their coverage.

Last week, Mr. Baucus ordered the Medicare regulators to investigate and likely punish Humana, Incorporated for trying to educate enrollees in its Advantage plans about precisely this fact.

Jonathan Blum, who is the acting director of a regulator office in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, who used to work for Senator Baucus, said that a mailer Humana sent to its customers was ``misleading and confusing to beneficiaries who may believe it represents official communication about the Medicare Advantage program.''

Mr. Blum has also banned all Advantage contractors from telling their customers what Mr. Elmendorf has told Congress. Mr. Blum, as I said, happens to be a former senior aide to Mr. Baucus and a health adviser to the President Obama transition team. So for the record, CBO's Director Elmendorf says that cuts to Medicare Advantage ``could lead many plans to limit the benefits they offer, raise their premiums, or withdraw from the program.''

But they want to put a gag on the deliverers of this coverage because they are writing to their patients, to the people they are covering, and telling them that they are going to lose coverage if this bill passes, that Medicare Advantage is going to be gutted. Senator Baucus is now saying we want to put a gag in the mouths of people who are providing this coverage so they can't tell the senior citizens of this country that they are going to lose Medicare Advantage coverage.

That is a violation of the First Amendment. And, secondly, I don't know of any rule that would allow Senator Baucus to do this. This is absolutely a terrible thing. And Mr. Blum doesn't have the authority to do this. Mr. Baucus, Senator Baucus, does not have the authority to do this, and yet they are gagging the health care providers, the people who are insuring these people and providing coverage, by saying you can't tell them that they are going to lose Medicare Advantage.

The plan of Mr. Baucus and other plans here in the House and the Senate are going to cut $500 billion out of Medicare, and most of it is coming out of Medicare Advantage and they are trying to keep the seniors in this country from knowing it until they get the job done. That is criminal.

First they violate the First Amendment rights of these companies. And, second, they gag them and threaten them with criminal prosecution or some kind of penalties if they don't adhere to what Senator Baucus or Mr. Blum says. And then they don't let the American people, the seniors who vote more than anybody else, know that they are going to lose Medicare Advantage and they are going to take $500 billion out of Medicare coverage.

Seniors need to know this, and yet they are gagging the people who are trying to get the facts out. This is just dead wrong. It should not happen. This is government control in its worst form, and it is something that we should not tolerate.

In addition, I want to read into the Record a letter that I got from Dr. Ned Masbaum, who is a forensic psychiatrist in Indianapolis, and he wrote this about the American Medical Association:

``Dear Congressman Burton,

``Thank you for your very well-thought out letter. When I heard about the new AMA position supporting socialized medicine, I felt a sickening feeling in the pit of my stomach. I have been a member of the AMA for over 40 years. Unfortunately, it has gradually become a leftist political cheerleader with the usual pro-abortion and anti-Second Amendment drivel. However, this illiterate position for socialized medicine betrays its own members and the American citizenry. It is so blindsided that it also eliminates the need for the very existence of the American Medical Association. If we all becomes serfs for the government, we no longer need a formerly scientific professional organization.

``With the AMA headquarters in Chicago, the AMA president and his ilk must have been polluted with Chicago-style politics and their brains have turned to mush.

``This morning, I had a lengthy teleconference concerning the issue with the executive vice president of the Indiana State Medical Association, James G. McIntire, J.D. Apparently ISMA has not yet taken any position. I have also written a letter to the president of the AMA, a copy of which is enclosed, advising my opposition and the intent to resign as a member.

``Please keep up the good fight.''

This is the kind of information that needs to get out to Americans. Seniors need to know they are going to lose coverage and $500 billion is going to be cut out of Medicare.

Carmel, IN,

July 22, 2009.

Re your letter of 20 July concerning the AMA.

Hon. Dan Burton,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Burton: Thank you for your very well

thought out letter. When I heard about the new AMA position

supporting socialized medicine, I felt a sickening feeling in

the pit of my stomach. I have been a member of the AMA for

over 40 years. Unfortunately, it has gradually become a

leftist political cheerleader with the usual pro-abortion &

anti-second amendment dribble. However, this illiterate

position for socialized medicine betrays its own members and

the American Citizenry. It is so blindsided that it also

eliminates the need for the very existence of the AMA. If we

all become serfs for the government we no longer need a

formerly scientific professional organization.

With the AMA headquarters in Chicago, the AMA President and

his ilk must have

been polluted with Chicago style politics and their brains

have turned to mush.

This morning, I had a lengthy teleconference concerning

this issue with the Executive Vice President of the Indiana

State Medical Association, James G. McIntire, J.D. Apparently

ISMA has not taken any position yet. I have also written a

letter to the President of the AMA, a copy is enclosed,

advising my opposition and intent to resign as a member.

Please keep up the good fight. Best personal regards to

you.

Sincerely,

Ned P. Masbaum, M.D.

Mr. Speaker, I am a co-sponsor of H.R. 22, the ``United States Postal Service Financial Relief Act,'' and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. H.R. 22 which will allow the Postal Service to pay, for a temporary period of time, the health premiums for current postal retirees from the $32 billion heald in reserve in Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund, rather then from general operating revenue.

The Postal Service is in the midst of a revenue crisis of huge and historic proportions, despite its extensive efforts to reduce costs. This situation is due in part to the high fuel prices of last summer, but most due to the precipitous decline in mail volume brought about by the deepening recession. In comparison to mail volume and revenue totals in May 2008, the Postal Service reports that volume in May 2009 declined by 19.9 percent, while revenues for the same period were 14.5 percent below last year's figures. The Postal Service is currently on track to lose over $6.5 billion for Fiscal Year 2009 and the future looks similarly bleak.

It is only an inflexible law that requires the Postal Service--alone amongst Federal agencies--to shell out billions of dollars to prefund retiree benefits, regardless of economic or financial conditions. The first step on the road to stability and recovery is to change that inflexible law, at least temporarily, by passing of H.R. 22.

I doubt that H.R. 22 will solve all the Postal Service's problems-- postal management and postal employees will still have to do their part to find additional savings. But I am certain that without this bill the continued viability of the Postal Service is in serious jeopardy.

I wish to emphasis that this bill does not eliminate the Postal Service's obligation to prefund retiree health benefits; the Postal Service will continue the annual prefunding payment of roughly $5.4. to $5.8 billion; H.R. 22 simply gives the Postal Service the temporary flexibility to make those payments from the surplus funds now held by the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund. In addition, since the Postal Service's contribution to the fund is projected to always be greater than the premiums flowing out, this action will in no way jeopardize the ability of the Trust Fund to grow to meet future needs.

I am aware that initial estimates from the Congressional Budget Office suggest that this bill willl have a budgetary impact because CBO expects the Postal Service will reduce its agressive costcutting efforts if it receives relief from its retiree health obligations. I disagree with this conclusion. The Postal Service has agressively cut costs in recent years. In fact, because of the hard work of postal employees across the country the Postal Service is on pace to reduce costs by a record $5.9 billion in Fiscal Year 2009. There is no evidence to suggest this trend will not continue. As for the immediate funding for this relief, it will come from an existing pool of money, not appropriated funds--making this an intergovernmental transfer--with zero cost to the Federal Government.

H.R. 22 has the support of over 315 Members of Congress. It is critical to the future survival of the United States Postal Service, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring to my colleagues' attention a September 8, 2009, Washington Times op-ed written by Nursultan Nazarbayev, President of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Since 1991, Nursultan Nazarbayev has served as the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Oftentimes, emerging democracies like Kazakhstan are not the focus of media attention, but in the Washington Times op-ed entitled, ``The Promise of Emerging Democracies,'' President Nazarbayev reminds the world that emerging democracies do have an important and pivotal role to play on the global stage.

[From the Washington Times, Sept. 8, 2009]

The Promise of Emerging Democracies

(By Nursultan Nazarbayev)

The world is remaking itself. Amid pressing economic

challenges and multinational security concerns, new alliances

are forming. Global commerce along with governments are

bringing down borders, opening relationships and creating

opportunity. Kazakhstan, like most emerging democracies, is

cautiously optimistic, with a pragmatism steeped in the hard

lessons of history. Policies have consequences; alliances can

liberate as well as captivate. With the stroke of a pen,

superpower leaders like Presidents Obama and Dmitry Medvedev

of Russia can reverse a decade of tepid relations to put

forces and agendas into motion that affect all of us.

Nowhere in the world is the influence more keenly felt than

in Kazakhstan and Central Asia, positioned as we are between

Russia, China, Iran and Afghanistan. Here, a breeze in global

diplomacy among nations like Russia, the United States and

China can have the impact of a blinding windstorm, leaving us

to wonder about our role and influence within these

relationships.

Bellicose nations rattle sabers to garner attention and

receive a concession here and there; certainly, their tactics

make the nightly news. Others push America and Western

democracies to the brink before backing off and waiting for

another strategic push in their quest for a place among

nuclear nations. Emerging democracies like Kazakhstan, on the

other hand, while not the focus of media attention, have a

responsibility and role to play on the global stage that is

far more consequential to the welfare of freedom-loving

nations.

The objective of Mr. Obama and Mr. Medvedev to cut their

nuclear arsenals by a third is indicative of that role. The

current size of those arsenals was influenced greatly by a

decision our nascent democracy made 18 years ago to

permanently shut down the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site,

which set the stage for a decision to safely dispose of 104

SS-18 intercontinental ballistic missiles we had inherited

from the Soviet Union, each tipped with 10 nuclear warheads.

To put this in perspective, North Korea, which the world

cautiously watches, is believed to have enough plutonium

for only a half-dozen atomic bombs.

Keeping the weapons could have made Kazakhstan a larger

player in our potentially volatile region, and surely the

world would be more aware of us today. There were some who

encouraged us to keep the arsenal. But larger considerations,

including the role and responsibility of emerging democracies

like ours, weighed heavily in the decision. Our focus was on

building a new economic and political model in Kazakhstan,

and we had a firm belief that our future and welfare rested

on commercial and security relationships in the West.

Our desire was to engage in what I like to call cooperative

leadership, pragmatic and constructive engagement with the

myriad and often complex forces in our region. This was the

philosophy that prompted us to dismantle our arsenal and

pursue relations not only with the United States, but with

Russia, China, Iran and, in fact, all nations that see

opportunity in Kazakhstan.

On Aug. 29, we celebrated the anniversary of our decision,

and the philosophy of cooperative leadership that inspired it

continues to benefit Kazakhstan and our relationships

throughout the world. A dedication to democratic values, the

rule of law, transparency, tolerance and open trade has led

to stability and a strong, well-educated middle class. This

increasingly firm foundation at home enables us to play an

important role among nations abroad, providing strategic

engagement and opportunities for cooperation among countries

that often may be overlooked, as well as among those who may

not be inclined to work together otherwise.

Sharing common values of freedom and peaceful development,

democracies firmly support each other. That is why since the

Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that shocked the entirety of

mankind, Kazakhstan has stood shoulder to shoulder with the

United States in the fight against international terrorism

and today provides much-needed assistance for the

stabilization of Afghanistan.

As an emerging democracy practicing cooperative leadership,

Kazakhstan is able to encourage dialogue even among

adversaries. Our recently concluded third annual Congress of

Leaders of World and Traditional Religions is only one

example, with spiritual leaders attending from almost every

faith and nation to promote tolerance and understanding.

Likewise, our quest to establish an international nuclear

fuel bank to be governed by the International Atomic Energy

Agency, which would allow nations like Iran and others to

openly and honestly pursue their energy agendas, finds

support among leaders in the United States, Russia and China.

Recently, Israeli President Shimon Peres proposed Kazakhstan

as the site for a historic meeting with key leaders from his

country, Saudi Arabia and the Islamic world.

This is how emerging democracies can make a difference. In

the absence of the entrenched and sometimes dogmatic

divisions of the past, young entrants on the global stage of

freedom can offer an environment for pragmatic solutions. Mr.

Obama understands this. Two weeks after his election, he

called to discuss regional cooperation, nonproliferation

measures and energy cooperation. At that time, and many times

since in public statements, he has favored pragmatism as the

basis for civilized statecraft.

Some have suggested this is an inadequate approach for

charting the new direction in foreign policy that Mr. Obama

has promised. However, I believe those criticisms are

misconceived. Pragmatism is necessary in nation-building and

more likely to evoke a positive response from allies than an

ideological crusade. Emerging democracies understand this

challenge, undertaking in decades an experiment that has

engaged America for much more than 200 years. Cooperative

leadership is the important role we can play and the example

we can set for others.

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to urge the Obama Administration to categorically and completely reject the Goldstone report recently issued by the despot-controlled United Nations Human Rights Council that accused Israel of ``war crimes, as well as possibly crimes against humanity'' during Israel's defensive operations in Gaza this past winter.

The United Nations has a long and well documented history of anti- U.S., anti-Israel, and anti-freedom activism, and the Goldstone report rubber-stamps the U.N. Human Rights Councils predetermined conclusion that Israel committed war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity. From the beginning, the Council instructed the Goldstone Commission

to focus only on Israel's ``aggression'' against the Palestinian people--a presumption of Israeli guilt before any so-called investigation had even taken place.

During the years when Hamas launched thousands of rockets at innocent Israeli civilians, the United Nations human rights bodies didn't call for any investigation or issue any kind of condemnation. Instead, the Human Rights Council has passed 26 anti-Israel resolutions out of 33 motions to censure countries. Of the 11 emergency sessions that the Council has convened to deal with pressing human rights concerns, six have dealt with Israel. In fact, Israel is the only country listed on the Council's permanent agenda; and only examines Israeli ``violations'' of Palestinian human rights. There is nothing on the Council's agenda examining the threats or actions of terrorist groups or the nations that support them.

Article 51 of the United Nation's Charter guarantees all U.N. Members the right to defend themselves against terrorism and other external threats. The Goldstone report completely ignores this fundamental right. It also ignores the steps taken by the Israeli Defense Forces to minimize civilian casualties, steps that often put Israeli soldiers at increased risk. And the Goldstone Report completely ignores Hamas' callous practice of intertwining its terrorist infrastructure within civilian population centers--hospitals, schools, mosques, and even U.N. facilities.

Madam Speaker, the United States must demand fairness and not allow the United Nations General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council, the so-called Human Rights Councils or any other U.N. body to take any punitive actions against Israel for exercising Israel's United Nation's guaranteed right of self-defense.

It is also high time that we take action to leverage our contributions to the U.N. to demand the United Nations finally implement concrete, sweeping reforms to root out ongoing fraud, corruption, and abuse throughout the U.N. system; and end once and for all the naked, systemic anti-U.S., anti-Israel, anti-Semitic bias within the UN.

If a government program is so great, why is it that the colleges and universities around the country--70 to 80 percent of them--are going with the Federal Family Education Loan Program? It's because it's better, it works better. They don't want to mess with the government bureaucracy.

You know, in 1993, and I think it's been stated already, and I don't want to be redundant, but the Clinton administration resurrected the idea of the Direct Lending Program and they pushed it through Congress. It didn't take long for the program's reputation to become synonymous with slow, inefficient, government bureaucracy service. And the Minority Views section of this bill, H.R. 3221, reminds us that in 1997 the program completely collapsed, as it probably will again, and was unable to make consolidation loans to borrowers. And in 1998, the Congress passed the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, which specifically blocked the Clinton administration from phasing out the FFEL Program because it did not make for sound public policy then, and it doesn't now.

And I think it's extremely important. We have unemployment right now that's at 9.7 percent. I'm sure it's going to go over 10 percent. More than 30,000 private sector jobs are directly affected by what you're going to do today. In the State of Indiana, it's 2,356 jobs. And right in the Fifth District, it's 1,500 jobs. And our unemployment rate in that State is 10.4 percent. I don't understand, at a time of economic difficulty, you want to do something that's going to put more people out of work, especially when you're talking about a program that didn't work before, it was junked, and now you're going to resurrect it.

I know you'll come up with a million ideas of why we ought to do this, but it's more government control, more government bureaucracy, something that hasn't worked, and the American people simply don't want it. We just passed the stimulus bill, and the stimulus bill obviously hasn't done a great deal to solve the problem.

Let me just say to my colleagues that we don't need more government right now; we need less government. We need competition in the private sector. We don't need to take over education like we did the automobile industry, the finance industry, and you're trying to do with the health industry. It doesn't work. Socialism doesn't work. Government control doesn't work.

So I urge my colleagues to reconsider and think. It didn't work before. It won't work now.

Announcement by the Chair

Mr. Speaker, I am only going to speak for about a minute because I am going to be a little bit redundant.

The last couple of nights we have been talking about the ACORN organization. The ACORN organization over the past couple of decades got, you know, 30, 40, 50 million dollars for their services, quote/ unquote. Now in the last authorization and appropriation bills, they have gotten $8.5 billion, and this is an organization in just the last couple of weeks we found has been corrupt. They have been extolling the virtues of setting up a prostitution ring with young women coming into the country or being brought into the country illegally. And it is caught on television. It is caught on tapes.

It is really tragic that an organization like that should have any amount of legitimacy, let alone get taxpayers' dollars.

Tonight, I come here for a minute to say we need a thorough investigation of ACORN and why they have been authorized to get up to $8.5 billion in taxpayers' money for the services that they perform. There is something funny going on here, and a lot of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been reluctant to move towards an investigation. And the White House hasn't said much about this. I think probably because the President was the beneficiary of a lot of support from the ACORN organization when he was running for President.

Nevertheless, this should be investigated very thoroughly. We should not have a corrupt organization, known to be corrupt, proven to be corrupt. You see it every night on television. We should make sure that they don't get one dime of taxpayer dollars, and since they have been getting this money and we have authorized $8.5 billion more for them to be able to utilize, there needs to be an investigation.

Now, the leader, the Republican leader of the House, has authored a letter which has been signed by many Members of the minority. I would urge Members on the majority side of the aisle to join with us in signing that letter requesting an investigation. This is something that should be done. It should not be postponed. We should get to the bottom of why ACORN got this money and why they have been doing what they have been doing.

Mr. Speaker, this weekend on national television, Mr. Axelrod, who works for the President at the White House, said that the big meeting on the Mall really didn't amount to much, and it really didn't represent what the American people think.

I don't know what that guy is smoking down at the White House, but I think it might be illegal.

The people in this country at the TEA parties and on the Mall this weekend are telling every Member of Congress and in the Senate they want to cut spending. They don't want more government intrusion into their lives, and they want just to be left alone.

But this body here, and my colleagues on the Democrat side, continue to come up with new proposals, new spending, and we are spending trillions and trillions of dollars that we simply don't have. And our kids are going to bear the responsibility for that because we are not doing our job.

And, secondly, I just wanted to say one more thing. This ACORN group needs to be investigated. They are getting access to almost $10 billion, and we know there are an awful lot of

crooked things going on. It needs to be investigated by this body. My colleagues on the Democrat side, who are the chairmen of the committees, need to listen.

We need to investigate ACORN.

You know, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that concerns me is that the more liberal media seems to ignore some of the things that are extremely important to the people of this country and to the freedoms we enjoy and the money that's being spent by the Congress.

This weekend and today I watched a number of these shows that I watch on a regular basis because those of us in this body, we follow the news very, very closely. Mr. Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Mr. O'Reilly, who are all on FOX, focused attention over the past few weeks on this ACORN organization. It's really interesting to find out that ACORN, which helped the President get elected, was such a strong force for him and whom he congratulated on the support they gave him, and he told them he wanted to work with them and he wanted to have their advice on issues of major concern. So he's very close to ACORN.

ACORN, which received $53 million from 1993 until now--that's 16 years. They received $53 million over 16 years. This year, they now have access to $8.5 billion. Now, I mean, that's a heck of a reward, it seems like to me, for being supportive of the administration. Then Mr. Frank, on the Banking Committee, puts legislation through, which has passed the House, that would give them access to an additional $1.5 billion. That's $10 billion ACORN has access to.

If you were watching any of these television shows in the last week, you'll see that some people went in and they posed as a prostitute and a man who was soliciting for a prostitute. I think they call him a pimp. They asked the advice of ACORN, and ACORN gave them advice on how to circumvent the law, how to hide what they were doing from the law, how they could make money and not report it to the Government of the United States.

Then these people asked, Well, we want to bring some young people in from South America. They're underage, and we want them to work for us in this prostitution ring. The people at ACORN said--and there were two or three of them--they said, Well, here's how you do it. And they explained to them how they could claim them as children or dependents and expand their ring of prostitution. This is all documented. It's on television, and it's in the papers--some papers, very few. Yet ACORN is going to get almost $10 billion.

They have been involved in other nefarious activities, and they were supposed to work on the Census. Can you imagine? The way the States get money from the Federal Government is based, in large part, on the Census that's taken--how many people live in a congressional district, how many people live in a State--and the money that comes from the Federal Government is divvied up, in large part, on the basis of the Census.

So ACORN was going to have a major role in working to count the number of people throughout the country and, in effect, decide where this money is going to be going. This is an organization that has a tremendous amount of corruption. They're finding more and more corruption every single day, and the taxpayers of this country are allowing them, through the Congress, to have access to almost $10 billion of our taxpayers' dollars. That is insane.

We've asked the Congress and leaders of the Democrat Party, the chairmen of these various committees, to hold hearings on this, to have an investigation, and we have yet to have any investigation whatsoever, not one. So today I wrote a letter to Chairman Towns of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, who is a very good friend of mine and a very fair man. I have asked Chairman Towns to have an investigation into ACORN.

When you're talking about $10 billion of the taxpayers' money going to an organization that we know has been involved in various nefarious activities and that we know has been involved in corruption, we certainly should at least look into what they're doing and stop them from using taxpayers' dollars to do these things.

This is something that we shouldn't allow anybody to shovel under the rug. The administration should take responsibility for conducting an investigation and pushing for it, and the Members of Congress on the majority side that has the chairmanships in both the House and the Senate need to push very hard for an investigation, and we need to do it now. We need not to give them one dime until that investigation is completed.

Mr. Speaker, last night the President made a very eloquent speech here in the House Chamber. I am always impressed with his eloquence. But one of the things he said that stuck with me was he said if the Republicans, he didn't say ``Republicans,'' but he said if anyone in the Chamber, and I think he was referring to Republicans, if anyone in the Chamber doesn't state the facts correctly or misleads the American people, he is going to call them out. That is a pretty tough term, ``call them out.''

So I just would like to say if I were talking to the President right now, Mr. President, that is a double-edged sword. You said you are going to call us out if we don't tell the truth. Well, in the next series today, I am going to take a 5-minute Special Order and I am going to go through everything, or as many as I can get to in 5 minutes, I am going to go through everything the

President said last night which was not quite true, because I think the American people really need to know the facts, and so we are going to call the President out.

Mr. Speaker, the President said last night, and I mentioned it a few minutes ago, that if anybody in this body told an untruth about his proposals on health care he was going to call them out. Well, as I said before, that's a double-edged sword because I think the President made a number of misstatements last night that need to be corrected. And the American people need to know what they were. As a matter of fact, one of the things he needs to do is he needs to take on the Associated Press because they have a news article out today that says Obama uses iffy math on deficit pledge, and they point out that his arithmetic isn't quite accurate.

But let me go into some of the specifics. He said last night, ``Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.'' Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have. The majority leader just a few minutes ago said we really need to keep the public option in, and that's what they would like to bring to the floor.

Well, let's say they do that. If you're an employer, and it costs more than 8 percent to take care of your employees and health insurance, you can dump them on the government plan for 8 percent. So if you're spending 10 percent to pay for your employees' health insurance and you want to cut your costs, all you have to do is put them on the government plan and pay 8 percent.

And so there is an inducement for people to go on the government plan, especially if the employer's transferring them. And as a matter of fact, independent experts all agree that the legislation proposed would result in millions of Americans losing the coverage they have. The Congressional Budget Office, this body right here, this budget office, believes several million will lose their coverage. The Urban Institute says it will be up to 47 million, and the Lewin Group says it will be up to 114 million.

So I would say, Mr. President, that's not quite accurate. He also said, ``Under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance just as most States require you to carry auto insurance.'' That is going to be what they call a government mandate. And one of his senior Obama administration officials recently wrote that a mandate is, in many respects, analogous to a tax and, furthermore, has the potential to be a very regressive tax, penalizing uninsured people who genuinely cannot afford to buy coverage.

Thus, this policy stance breaks the signal promise of the Obama campaign when he said, I can make a firm pledge, under my plan no family making less than 250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase, not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains tax, not any of your taxes.

Not accurate. The President said, ``There are those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal aliens or immigrants. This too is false. The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.'' Look at H.R. 3200, their bill. It says, nothing in any of the Democrat bills would require individuals to verify their citizenship or identity prior to receiving taxpayer subsidized benefits, making the President's promise one that the legislation itself does not keep. So that wasn't accurate, Mr. President.

And here's another quote and one more misunderstanding I want to clear up: ``Under our plan, no Federal dollars will be used to fund abortions and Federal conscience laws remain in place.'' Fact: the National Right to Life Committee, among another independent pro-life groups, have confirmed that the legislation will result in Federal funds being used to pay for abortions, both through the government-run health plan and through Federal subsidies provided through the exchange, despite various accounting gimmicks created in an Energy and Commerce Committee ``compromise plan.'' Much of the rest would be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers.

The President said reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan. Much of the rest would be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers. Fact: the Congressional Budget Office, our body, has previously found that the cuts to Medicare Advantage plans included in the Democrat legislation would result in millions of seniors, millions of seniors, losing their current plan, a direct contradiction of the President's assertion that nothing in this plan requires you to change what you have.

So that's not quite true. It's not true at all.

The President last night:

This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money, an idea which has the support of Democrat and Republican experts, and according to these same experts, this modest change could help hold down the cost of health care for all of us in the long run.

Fact: While some Republicans support addressing the current employee exclusion for health insurance in the context of overall tax reform, the President's proposal would raise fees in order to finance new Federal spending--a tax increase of hundreds of billions of dollars and one that most of us on the Republican side would never support.

Fact: You can keep your current insurance. However if it costs your employer more than 8 percent for your health coverage he would consider paying 8 percent and put you on a government plan.

Quote: ``Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.''

Fact: Independent experts all agree that the legislation proposed would result in millions of Americans losing the coverage they have-- the Congressional Budget Office believes several million, the Urban Institute up to 47 million, and the Lewin Group as many as 114 million.

Quote: ``Under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance--just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.''

Fact: Senior Obama Administration official Sherry Glied has previously written that a mandate ``is in many respects analogous to a tax''--and furthermore has the potential to be a ``very regressive tax, penalizing uninsured people who genuinely cannot afford to buy coverage.'' Thus this policy stance breaks the signal promise of the Obama campaign: ``I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less then $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.''

Quote: ``There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false--the reforms I'm proposing

would not apply to those who are here illegally.''

Fact: Nothing in any of the Democrat bills would require individuals to verify their citizenship or identity prior to receiving taxpayer- subsidized benefits--making the President's promise one that the legislation itself does not keep.

Quote: ``And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up--under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.''

Fact: The National Right to Life Committee, among other independent pro-life groups, have confirmed that the legislation will result in federal funds being used to pay for abortions--both through the government-run health plan, and through federal subsidies provided through the Exchange, despite various accounting gimmicks created in an Energy and Commerce Committee ``compromise.''

Quote: ``I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits-- either now or in the future. Period.''

Fact: The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has found that H.R. 3200 would increase deficits by $239 billion over 10 years--and also found that the legislation ``would probably generate substantial increases in federal budget defictis'' thereafter. The Peter G. Peterson Foundation released a study today which found that in its second decade, H.R. 3200 would increase federal deficits by more than $1 trillion.

Quote: ``Not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan.''

Fact: Among more than $500 billion in proposed savings from Medicare, the Democrat bills also propose redirecting $23 billion from the Medicare Improvement Fund to fund new health care entitlements. According to current law, the Medicare Improvement Fund is designated specifically ``to make improvements under the original Medicare fee- for-service program.''

Quote: ``Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan. Much of the rest would be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers.''

Fact: The Congressional Budget Office has previously found that the cuts to Medicare Advantage plans included in the Democrat legislation would result in millions of seniors losing their current plan--a direct contradiction of the President's assertion that ``nothing in this plan requires you to change what you have.''

Quote: ``This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage tham to provide greater value for the money--an idea which has the support of Democratic and Republican experts. And according to these same experts, this modest change could help hold down the cost of health care for all of us in the long-run.''

Fact: While some Republicans support addressing the current employee exclusion for health insurance in the context of overall tax reform, the President's proposal would raise ``fees'' in order to finance new federal spending--a tax increase of hundreds of billions of dollars, and one that many Republicans may not support.

Quote: ``Add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years.''

Fact: The Congressional Budget Office, in its score of H.R. 3200 as introduced, found that the legislation would spend approximately $1.6 trillion over ten years--nearly double the President's estimate.

Quote: ``I will continued to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.''

Fact: On May 13, House Republican leaders all wrote the President a letter reading in part: ``We write to you today to express our sincere desire to work with you and find common ground on the issue of health care reform. . . . We respectfully request a meeting with you to discuss areas for potential common ground on health care reform.'' Nearly 4 months later, that meeting has yet to take place.

I thank the gentlelady from Florida for yielding me this time.

I would just like to say to my colleague, Mr. Ackerman, I really appreciate your remarks; I think they were right on the money.

I've heard a lot of my colleagues talking about how we should remember those who died and sacrificed their lives on September 11, and I think that's fitting and proper; but one of the things that I don't want to ever happen again is a repeat of 9/11. And for the past 8 years, we have not had another attack due in very large part to the Homeland Security people and to the CIA and to the FBI. We have intercepted information from terrorists and we've been able to prevent additional attacks because of the work they've done. And I think it is improper for us today, while we're remembering those who sacrificed their lives on that day, the firemen and the people on those planes, I think we would be remiss if we didn't think about the future and be concerned about that never happening again.

Right now, the Justice Department of the United States is investigating the CIA. And those people have been involved in stopping terrorist activity by going after the terrorists and making them give us information that would stop an additional terrorist attack. Today they are under scrutiny, and some of them may be prosecuted for doing their job. I think that's improper.

Everybody in America owes our intelligence agencies a debt of gratitude and Homeland Security a debt of gratitude for protecting this country for the last 8 years. And if we don't want to see another 9/ 11--and none of us do, and there have been some prevented like the one in California that was going to take place--if we don't ever want to see that again, we must support the intelligence agencies who are stopping the terrorists. And right now, the attack that's taking place by the Justice Department on the CIA only discourages those who do their job to protect this country from doing their job.

If you're a CIA agent today and you know the Justice Department is watching every single thing you do in trying to stop a terrorist attack, are you going to want to take the risk of being prosecuted because you're going after a terrorist to make him give you information that will stop another terrorist attack?

We're demoralizing our intelligence agencies by doing this right now. It may be unintentional, I don't know, but we certainly should not be doing it. They were doing their job. If you don't agree with waterboarding, or whatever it was, okay, but that's something that's in the past. We shouldn't discourage our intelligence agencies from doing their jobs now. We want to protect every single American from another terrorist attack, and the way to do it is certainly not by attacking our intelligence people.

Madam Speaker, one of the important functions of a President is to make sure that the people he puts into important positions have no real background problems that will cause the administration to founder. This administration, this President, has appointed a whole bunch of czars and special assistants to the President, and they really haven't been vetted. They haven't been checked out thoroughly.

One of those is a gentleman who was appointed a special environmental adviser to the President. And, Mr. Jones, who we have all heard about in the last few days, has been found to be an admitted radical communist and leader. Now, that does not reflect well on the administration, and it does not reflect well on the entire Government of the United States because we are not supportive of the communist philosophy.

Now, Mr. Jones said that he was slandered when he resigned, and that was the reason he resigned. So tonight I would like to put some things in the Record that show exactly why he should not have been appointed in the first place. And I think it's important that my colleagues understand that these czars and these people that are being appointed really need to be properly vetted. And we certainly don't want people that have a radical agenda being put in positions of leadership.

Jones was a founder and leader of the communist revolutionary organization called Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM. That organization had its roots in a grouping of black people organizing to protest the first Gulf War. STORM was formally founded in 1994, becoming one of the most influential and active radical groups in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The leftist blog Machete 48 identifies STORM's influences as ``third- world Marxism (an often vulgar Maoism).''

Speaking to the East Bay Express, Jones said he first became radicalized in the wake of the 1992 Rodney King riots, during which time he was arrested. He said, ``I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28, and then the verdicts came down on April 29. By August, I was a communist.

``I met all of these young radical people of color--I mean really radical:

communists and anarchists. And it was, like, `This is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next 10 years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.''

Trevor Loudon, a communist researcher and administrator of the New Zeal Blog, identified several Bay Area communists who worked with STORM, including Elizabeth Martinez, who helped advise Jones' Ella Baker Human Rights Center, which Jones founded to advocate civil justice. Jones and Martinez also attended a ``Challenging White Supremacy'' workshop together challenging white supremacy.

Martinez was a long-time Maoist who went on to join the Communist Party USA breakaway organization Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, the CCDS, in the early 1990s. According to Loudon, Martinez still serves on the CCDS council and is also a board member of the Movement for a Democratic Society, where she sits alongside former Weathermen radicals Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn.

One of STORM's newsletters featured a tribute to Amilcar Cabral, the late Marxist revolutionary leader of Guinea-Bissau and the Cape Verde Islands. The tribute is noteworthy because Jones reportedly named his son after Cabral and repeatedly concludes every e-mail with a quote from the communist leader.

Jones then, of course, moved on to environmentalism, and that's the position that he took with the administration. But there is no question he is a radical and a member of the Communist Party and has been for a long time and supported their goals and approaches to government.

So I just would like to say, if I were talking to the President tonight, Mr. President, please be careful who you are appointing to these positions of leadership. It's important for the country; it's important for your administration and the image of the United States throughout the world as a beacon of freedom, justice and democracy.

Madam Speaker, forty-two years ago, during the Six Day War of 1967, Israeli troops reunified the city of Jerusalem. Since then, people of all religious faiths have been guaranteed full access to holy sites within the city, and the rights of all faiths have been respected and protected.

In 1995, the U.S. Congress declared that it is the official position of the United States that Jerusalem is, and rightly ought to remain, the undivided capital of Israel. Since that time, the Congress has repeatedly and overwhelmingly adopted multiple resolutions reaffirming this commitment to Jerusalem's continued status as a unified, undivided city. President Obama has also pledged his personal support for Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. On June 4, 2008, while still serving as a United States Senator, President Obama said that: ``Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.''

Despite this apparent unanimity, however, the United States has inexplicably never acted to move the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. United States officials do conduct diplomatic meetings and other business in the city of Jerusalem in de facto recognition of its status as the capital of Israel, but the Embassy remains firmly grounded in Tel Aviv.

Every sovereign country has the right to designate its own capital and the United States maintains its Embassy in the functioning capital of every country. The one exception is Israel, a great friend and ally to the United States. The President of Israel, the Knesset--Israel's Parliament--and the Israeli Supreme Court are all located in Jerusalem; and that is where the Embassy of the United States rightfully should be as well.

I rise today to introduce the ``Jerusalem Embassy and Recognition Act of 2009'' which mandates the relocation of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, and reaffirms U.S. policy that Jerusalem must remain the undivided capital of Israel; for two reasons. First, passing this bill and immediately relocating the United States Embassy to Jerusalem will, in my opinion, send a strong message to the Iranian regime that the United States stands in strong solidarity with the people of Israel--we will not tolerate the mullahs' constant threats against Israel, and we will not accommodate their pursuit of a nuclear bomb. Second, passing this bill will send a bipartisan message to the Administration that the United States Congress remains strongly committed to Jerusalem's continued status as a unified, undivided city; a position that President Obama--despite his comments from June 4, 2008--appears to be backing away from.

For example, Presidential Determination 2009-19, which was transmitted by the Administration to Congress just a couple of months ago, renewed a legally required waiver which allows the Administration to continue to delay the May 31, 1999 deadline for moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. While the renewal of the waiver was not unexpected or unusual, the actual text of the waiver message did contain a surprise. The Obama Administration neglected to include a key sentence that the previous Administration had included in previous determinations; specifically: ``My Administration remains committed to beginning the process of moving our embassy to Jerusalem.''

Madam Speaker, I sincerely hope that the crucial omission in Presidential Determination 2009-19 was an inadvertent oversight. Even if it was, I believe it is well past time to revisit the Jerusalem Embassy Act and close, once and for all, the ludicrous waiver loophole that has continued to allow the diplomatic embarrassment of not having our Embassy located in the capital city of Israel to continue for ten years. I strongly urge my colleagues to demonstrate their support for the people of Israel by co-sponsoring this important bill.