Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of friends on the Democrat side of the aisle, and we, as Republicans, really care about your future, so I'd like for you to know that one of the largest voting blocs in the country is that of the senior citizens. When they read this and find out about it--and we are going to make sure they do-- they're going to really hold you accountable.

So, when you go home, listen to your seniors because they're going to know what's in this bill, and I don't want you guys to lose. I really don't.

Mr. Speaker, this is the Democrat health plan, and this over 1,000 pages of legalese is the Democrat health plan.

This thing is really bad for America, but it's even worse for seniors. It's going to result in cuts in Medicare benefits. It's going to destroy Medicare Advantage. It's going to end up rationing health care. And if you don't believe that, listen to what the President said:

``The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out there. There is going to have to be some very difficult democratic conversation to take place on this.''

He's talking about rationing health care and talking about how we're going to deal with these people who are getting a little bit older who need care. But you know what they're going to do to make sure that the seniors are going to be happy? They are going to give them end-of-life counseling. Take away benefits but tell you how you're going to die.

About 85 percent of the people in this country do have health care coverage, Mr. Speaker. And we really need to do something about the indigent, the people that are poor, the 15 percent that don't have coverage. But creating a socialized medical system simply won't work, as my colleague that just preceded me said. Socialism causes a rationing of health care, and in addition to that, it causes a tremendous amount of additional expense on people that they don't really think they're going to have to bear.

We're going to see a tax increase for everybody in this country if we pass the program that's been put forth by the Democrats and the President of the United States. And the rationing of health care for seniors. I can't believe the AARP has come out in favor of this bill, because seniors who have more health problems as they progressively get older are going to be hit the worst. And as my colleague just said, there will be rationing of health care, and many people won't be able to get hip replacements or heart surgery that's absolutely necessary to keep them going and keep their quality of life where it should be.

I hope the people of this country, Mr. Speaker, really pay attention, and I hope we don't get this bill passed until we get back in August, because once the American people find out what's in it, they aren't going to want it.

Mr. Speaker, in 1965, this Congress passed the Federal Family Education Loan Program Act, and it was designed to provide private funds for college students' loans. And since 1965, this program has provided over 194 million loans to college students, with private funds, and they've delivered about $695 billion in loans.

The problem that we have is unemployment right now. It's 9.5 percent nationwide. And in Indiana, my State, it's 10.7 percent. And we have 35,000 jobs nationwide that work for this education program funded by private funds, and 2,400 people in Indiana. Now, Mr. Carter and I, Congressman Carter and I had an amendment that would guarantee the survivability of this program because it has helped so many college students get loans.

And what the Democrats are trying to do is they're trying to have a direct loan program take the place of the privately funded program that we now have, and that the government and the taxpayers will be paying for that loan. It's one more attempt for them to put everything that we do, day and night, under the control of the Federal Government.

Now, why in the world, when we have a program that's providing millions of loans to college students, without taxpayer dollars funding it, why would we want to change to a direct loan program and have the taxpayers underwrite it, especially at a time when the economy is going down the tubes and we're spending trillions of dollars on many programs we don't even need; the automobile industry, the banking financial industry, the health care industry, energy, all of those things?

And now they're going after education by trying to come up with a direct loan program that the taxpayers will have to pay for, and the private funding that's now being used will not be utilized. It will cost somewhere between 30,000 and 35,000 jobs across the country. Now, they want us to have more jobs. Here's a chance to preserve 30,000 to 35,000 jobs by not having the government step in and take over the financing of college loans for students.

And yet you want to have the government take over, the Department of Education, take over the direct funding program, take it away from the private sector and independent funding so we would have more government control and cost another 35,000 jobs we're going to put into the unemployment lines. It makes no sense to me.

My colleagues, I'm very disappointed you did not allow this under the rule. We should have fully debated this on the floor. I think you just didn't want to debate it because you don't want the American people to see, once again, we're putting everything under the control of government, every aspect of their lives and now including education.

I rise in strong opposition to this rule.

Congressman Carter and I submitted an amendment to Rules Committee that was rejected. It was a legitimate and appropriate amendment for this bill. Unfortunately, under the House Leadership's modus operandi of ``it's our way or the highway,'' I shouldn't be too surprised that it was not accepted.

Here's what the amendment would have done. The amendment stated that no funds may be used to promulgate, amend, or repeal any regulation pursuant to the Federal Family Education Loan program.

Although the Carter-Burton Amendment will not be debated today, I wanted to make sure that my colleagues know what the damage may be.

First, I want to thank my colleague from Texas, Representative John Carter, for working with me on this amendment. I very much appreciate his efforts on the Appropriations Committee to preserve the FEDERAL

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Well, first of all, I want to thank the Rules Committee for making this amendment in order, and I don't think it's controversial. I hope my colleague agrees with that.

Back in the summer of 2007, Amtrak was trying to get more passengers on their luxury line, and so they decided that they would give people a $100 coupon to get free alcohol on the trip. It was a way to try to encourage ridership. Well, unfortunately, that didn't work, and 1 year later the GrandLuxe line on Amtrak shut down, and they no longer have used the $100 incentive by giving people $100 worth of alcohol to ride the train.

And so what my amendment does is--very simply says that that will not be included in any future Amtrak legislation, that we will no longer be giving free alcohol as an incentive for people to ride the train. And I might add, with all of the rail accidents we've had recently, it's probably a darn good idea.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, thank you very much.

You know, I learned one thing a long time ago, Mr. Chairman. When you've got everything going the right way, you shut up. So with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I can't believe it. The Democrats have 70-some more Members in this Chamber than we do, and yet they're afraid to let the American people know what's in their health plan. This thing, I call it a thing, has 31 new Federal agencies, commissions and mandates in it, and that's between the doctor and their patient. And the American people have a right to know these things, and they're saying we can't put it on our Web site. We can't mail it to our constituents. We can't tell them about it. That is censorship.

They shouldn't have to worry. With 70-some more votes than we have, they ought to be able to do anything they want to in this House. But even Democrats don't like this plan. That's why they can't get it out of the House and can't even get it out of committee right now.

The American people have a right to know. Censorship should never happen in the House of Representatives, the people's House, and I'd say to the Speaker, let's get with it. The American people should see what they're going to get if they pass your plan.

Mr. Speaker, I've been in this House for a long time and I've served with a number of Presidents. I've served with a number of Democrat and Republican Speakers. I've served with colleagues that are very good friends of mine that are Democrats and Republicans, and I've never had a problem getting along with them. And even though we have strong differences with my Democrat colleagues, at least I felt they were fair most of the time. In fact, they always tried to be fair. And I've talked to the majority leader about problems. We've talked to a lot of the Members that are chairmen of committees about problems, and they've been very fair in most cases. But I have never, ever seen anything like this.

This is a chart that shows the Democrats' health care plan. We've been talking about it tonight. Kevin Brady worked this up, and it's very, very accurate. It shows all of the committees or agencies that are going to be created that the American people are going to have to go through to get health care. There are 31 new Federal agencies, commissions and mandates that will come between the patient and their doctor.

Now, we have had problems dealing with the post office. The post office has had their stamps going up because they're not making the profit that they should. We have problems with HHS. We have problems with the automobile industry now that's now called Obama Motors. We have all kinds of problems right now because government cannot handle the things that the private sector can.

Now, we do need to improve health care. We need to make some changes that will be positive, and the Republicans have a plan to do that, but to say that that is something that we should not show the American people is really tragic. It is censorship. The American people have a right to know. We're their elected representatives.

I represent almost 700,000 people in Indiana, and a lot of them are calling, asking what this new health care plan's going to do to them, and we wanted to send this out to those people so that they could see with their own eyes what they're going to have to go through to get health care, how much it's going to cost and how long it will take. But they're saying, the Democrats are saying we cannot send this out to our constituents. That is just wrong. It's censorship. And in all years I've been in this body, I've never seen anything like this.

There have been a lot of differences with the Speakers of the Democrats in the past, but there's never, ever been anything like this. And I'd say to the Speaker if she were here tonight, ``Change this, Madam Speaker. This is

something that even you should never tolerate, the censorship of a Member of Congress from telling his constituents what's really going on around here, especially when their health care is concerned.''

Offered By: Mr. Burton of Indiana

Amendment No. 11: At the end of the bill (before the short

title) insert the following:

Sec. 524. None of the funds made available in this Act may

be used in contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act

(Public law 104-199).

There's been an awful lot of misinformation about the Democrat health care proposal, Mr. Speaker, and so I would like to take just a couple of minutes tonight to talk to my colleagues about what's really happening and what will happen if this bill becomes law.

According to the Lewin Group, there will be 114 million Americans who could lose their current coverage under the bill according to this organization. 4.7 million is the number of the jobs that could be lost as a result of taxes on businesses that cannot afford to provide health care insurance coverage according to a model developed by the Council of Economic Advisors; $818 billion in total new taxes on individuals who cannot afford health care coverage and employers who cannot afford to provide coverage that meet the Federal bureaucrat standards; $1.28 trillion in new Federal spending in the next 10 years, but some believe it will be as much as $3 trillion. And then there are 33 entitlement programs the bill creates, expands, or extends in an increase from where we are right now.

This is the organizational chart of the health care plan the Democrats are proposing. The white spots are new agencies that will be created or will be added to the plan, and it's going to be a real maze for Americans to go through in order to get health care. It will result, in my opinion, in most people's opinions who study this, in rationing of health care and additional cost to the taxpayers of this country to the tune of between $1 trillion and $3 trillion over a decade.

Now, I just want to quote some of the things that have been said by our leaders over the past few days about this plan.

Yesterday, President Obama, when he was talking about this, said that this bill will not add to the deficit. He said: I will not sign a bill that adds to the deficit. Period. That is a direct quote from the President yesterday.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the House bill, this bill, will add $239 billion to the deficit. So either the Congressional Budget Office or the President is wrong because it is going to add to the deficit, according to CBO.

Representative Charlie Rangel, one of my good friends here in the Congress, was commenting on President Obama and Speaker Pelosi by saying he thought they were moving too fast. He was overheard to say yesterday or day before yesterday: No one wants to tell the Speaker that she's moving too fast and they darn sure don't want to tell the President. He was on his way to a closed door meeting about this because there is an awful lot of concern about this bill, even among Democrats.

Speaker Pelosi, in a front page interview in USA Today, said: Many Members think that there's more to be squeezed from the hospitals, the pharmaceutical companies and the docs. Squeeze them. And I hope all of those institutions are listening.

Joe Biden, the Vice President, said: We're going to go bankrupt as a Nation, he warned at an event in Virginia last week. He continued: People, when I say that, look at me and say, What are you talking about, Joe? You're telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt? And he says, yes, we do have to spend more money to keep from going bankrupt.

Now that's something that is new to me. I have never heard that you can spend your way out of bankruptcy. And the White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, told the New York Times that Obama intends to use tonight's press conference, that is going to happen this evening, as a ``6-month report card,'' and he is going to talk to the American people about ``how we've rescued the economy from the worst recession'' and that we're moving forward with our legislative agenda.

Now if they've rescued us from the worst recession, I'd like to know how we're going to explain to the American people that we are very rapidly approaching 10 percent unemployment when just a month or so ago they said it wouldn't go above 8 percent, and how when they said they weren't going to spend us into the red anymore, and we're looking at trillions of dollars of additional spending. So tonight I hope everybody watches the President and listens to him. But I hope they ask themselves, are things better today than they were 6 months ago, when you took office, or are they worse? Because he's going to tell you everything is coming up roses.

Madam Speaker, Monday July 20, 2009 marked the 35th anniversary of the day in 1974 that Turkey intervened to stop an ethnic cleansing campaign against Turkish Cypriots by militant Greek Cypriots. And as usual, a number of my colleagues have come to the floor of this Chamber over the last few days and weeks to lament the so-called ``invasion'' of Cyprus by Turkey. For many years I have taken to the Floor to no avail to respectfully ask my colleagues to lay aside the inflammatory rhetoric and stop throwing barbs at the Turkish Cypriots and Turkey in an attempt to lay all the blame for this complicated issue at their doorstep. This year my call takes on an even more urgent ring. All of us in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, want to see peace and prosperity come to all the people of Cyprus. We may be closer to peace on Cyprus today then at any time since 2004 when the U.N. plan for a settlement (the Annan Plan) won the support of Turkish Cypriots--by a clear majority of 65%--but failed to win the support of Greek Cypriots--who led by their leadership rejected it by even a larger majority of 76%. By continuing to distort the facts though we are potentially undermining our good faith efforts to see this conflict resolved.

Since the rejection of the Annan Plan, the Greek Cypriot side has been trying to argue that the plan ``did not meet the interests of the country'' and that ``it did not provide for guarantees to ensure the complete implementation of commitments under the plan''. However, the fact is that impartial European Union diplomats, closely associated with the reconciliation effort, have said publicly and very undiplomatically, that the Greek Cypriot people had been ``lied to'' by the Greek Cypriot government as to the details of the Annan plan.

As public servants I think the members of this House understand that no compromise worth its salt ever fully meets all of the demands of either side, nor could it do so or it wouldn't be much of a compromise. The fact is that the Annan Plan was a carefully balanced compromise that certainly from the Turkish Cypriot perspective represented immense sacrifices on the part of the Turkish

Cypriots, on such key issues as land, resettlement, property and security. The Greek government and several former Greek government leaders fully supported the plan and the Turkish government was also pivotal in encouraging the Turkish Cypriots to approve the plan. In the end, the only people who were not willing to make the sacrifices necessary to bring peace to this troubled island were the Greek Cypriots. This is a critically important point to reiterate Madam Speaker; when offered the chance to vote for peace which side rejected peace, Turkish or Greek? The answer is Greek.

To their credit, Turkish Cypriots continue to seek a settlement to the issue. This is testament to their hope for the future; and the latest round of direct negotiations between Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots began in September 2008. These talks following a joint statement issued on May 23, 2008 where the two leaders reaffirmed their commitment to a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation with political equality, as defined by relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The statement adds ``This partnership will have a Federal Government with a single international personality, as well as a Turkish Cypriot Constituent State and a Greek Cypriot Constituent State, which will be of equal status.'' As recently as June 2009 Turkish Cypriot President Talat declared his support to ``find a comprehensive solution to the Cyprus problem as soon as possible and make Cyprus a full-fledged member of the European Union as a unified Cyprus. That is our main target and the ongoing negotiations I hope will lead to an ultimate solution.''

Are negotiations proceeding as rapidly and as smoothly as everyone would like; no, but progress is being made. And it is important to remember that the Cyprus conflict is more complex and convoluted then portrayed by many of my colleagues. This conflict did not start in 1974 as many people want to believe. Instead, the origins of the conflict can be traced back to the Greek Cypriot drive for Union with Greece (Enosis), a movement with roots in the waning days of the Ottoman Empire. Even the more modern history of the conflict, stems from the 1950s and 1960s rather then 1974.

The fact is that when the Island of Cyprus gained its independence from Great Britain in 1960, the Republic's constitution specifically defined a power-sharing arrangement which required a Greek Cypriot president and a Turkish Cypriot vice-president, each elected by their constituency.

The fact is that in 1963 Greek Cypriot President Makarios proposed sweeping constitutional modifications which heavily favored the Greek Cypriot community. The changes removed most of the checks and balances which had been built into the constitution to ensure the safety and equal status of the Turkish Cypriots. The inevitable result was a serious deterioration of relations between the two parties which came to a head in December 1963 when armed Greek Cypriots attacked and killed many Turkish Cypriots who were unable to escape. The armed conflict quickly spread with the Turkish Cypriots eventually being forced to withdraw into enclaves to defend themselves. For the next ten years, the campaign of the Greek Cypriots cost the Turkish Cypriots many lives and untold suffering, as well as their equal partnership status in the Cyprus government.

Former United States Undersecretary of State, George Ball, who, among others, was actively dealing with the crisis at the time, remarked in his memoirs entitled The Past Has Another Pattern, that Makarios has turned: ``This beautiful little island into his private abattoir'' (P. 341). Ball went on to say that: ``Makarios'' central interest was to block off Turkish intervention so that he and his Greek Cypriots could go on happily massacring the Turkish Cypriots'' (p. 345).

The fact is that in 1974, Archbishop of Cyprus Makarios--the Greek Cypriot leader at the time--escalated the crisis by embracing Enosis, or Union with Greece, as his election platform. Although Makarios won reelection he also created a power struggle between the military junta in control of mainland Greece and himself for the control over the Island. That power struggle culminated in a coup which forced Makarios to flee Cyprus and renewed ethnic cleansing of Turkish Cypriots.

In his address to the UN Security Council on July 19, 1974, Makarios himself described the coup as ``a clear attack from the outside and a flagrant violation of the independence and sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus''.

The fact is that in the face of a bloody coup that not only threatened the independence of Cyprus but also resulted in renewed massacres of Turkish Cypriots, Turkey, which was treaty-bound to act as a Guarantor State, was compelled to undertake action on July 20, 1974. And the fact is that as a result of this legitimate and timely action, Turkish Cypriots were saved from imminent destruction, bloodshed among the Greek Cypriots was ended and the independence of Cyprus was protected.

The fact is that the Turkish intervention was legitimate and was internationally confirmed by, among others, the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe (CACE). CACE resolution 573, dated July 29, 1974, clearly states, ``Turkey exercised its right of intervention in accordance with Article IV of the Guarantee Treaty of 1960.''

The fact is that Greek Cypriots, having already forestalled UN efforts to resolve the Cyprus issue--and been inexplicably rewarded for it through EU membership--may not truly feel under pressure to seek a just solution as the status quo benefits Greek Cypriots significantly more than Turkish Cypriots.

Madam Speaker, facts are stubborn things; and as the facts in this case clearly show, the crisis on Cyprus is significantly more complex than the ``blame Turkey'' special interest groups would like people to believe. The facts also show it seems to me that if either side has an incentive to drag its feet at the negotiations; and I'm not suggesting necessarily that either side does, but if one side did, it would be the Greek Cypriots.

It's time for the ``blame Turkey'' groups here in the United States to end the `blame game' and redirect their misspent energies towards the real work of reshaping Cyprus into a Cyprus that respects human rights and the fundamental freedoms for all Cypriots. And it's time for the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots to demonstrate political will and negotiate in good faith for the future of all Cypriots.

Mr. Speaker, this chart is not a spaghetti dinner. It may look like it, but it's the Democrats' health care plan. If you were a person out in the hinterlands, looking at this, you would think, How in the world am I going to get health care coverage for me and for my family if I have to go through all of that? It's going to cost trillions of dollars--trillions.

In addition to that, there are going to be jobs created, 4.7 million jobs in China and in India, and their energy bill, cap-and-trade, is going to create 2.5 million new jobs in India and in China because it's going to drive jobs offshore because the small businesspeople will not be able to afford to pay all of these bills and taxes that the government is creating right now.

The Democrats need to do something. They need to cut taxes and help the small businessman make a profit and create new jobs. If they do that, we will have jobs, but right now, we don't know where the jobs are. Unemployment was supposed to cap at 8 percent. In Indiana, it's close to 10 percent. It's going to go to 12, 14, 15 percent if they don't change and change now.

Mr. Speaker, the President over the past few days has been telling the American people, Trust me. This health care plan we're talking about is going to be a great thing for America. It's not going to cost Americans a lot of money. It's going to provide better quality of care, and nobody will be left out.

So I decided to go through what the President has promised on other occasions just to see if he deviates from his plans when it's more convenient for him. For instance, let's just go through some of the things he has promised.

He said Americans and the Members of Congress would get 5 days to read bills that were going to affect the American people. We've had bills that we didn't get until 3 a.m. in the morning that were 1,100- pages long, and we had to vote on them that very same day. There's no way to read 1,100 pages of legalese and have them understood in just a few hours.

He said no lobbyists would be in his administration. There are lobbyists, a number of them, in his administration. He said no taxes on those making under $250,000. That's not true. We've already levied taxes on people making under $250,000.

He said no earmarks and no pork-barrel projects. In the omnibus spending bill which he signed recently, there were 8,000 pork-barrel projects in that bill. He said there was going to be openness in the health care debate. There has been not a great deal of openness, and a lot of it has been conducted behind closed doors. He said the people were going to see almost every aspect of it because he was going to have roundtable discussions throughout the entire debate.

He said he was going to cull spending and there would be no new taxes on people under $250,000. This is the highest amount of spending since World War II. There's been $1.4 trillion in new taxes. He said he was going to cut each budget of each cabinet by a hundred million dollars. That has not yet been accomplished. He said he was going to try to block and oversee the problems with the TARP plan, that $700 billion. He said there would be no Big Government, but there's been a takeover of the auto industry, the financial industry, the energy industry, the health care industry, and it's the largest budget in history that he proposes.

He said that he would allow people to withdraw from their 401(k) accounts without any penalty if they were unemployed and having a difficult time. That was not in the stimulus bill. He said there would be a $3,000 tax credit for every person hired by business. That was not in the stimulus bill.

And then, of course, we come to the health care plan. He said this plan is going to be very good for America, and I want all of my colleagues to take a good look at this plan of the Democrats' health care proposal which the President supports. All of the white spots are new agencies that are going to be making determinations about people's health care. It looks more like a roadmap that's been messed up. You can't figure it out. You have to go from here over to there to get health care, and it's going to cost a great deal of money.

In fact, the plan is supposed to cost, we believe, between 1 and 3 trillion dollars, that's 1 and 3 trillion dollars that we don't have that's going to have to be raised through tax increases and fees, and this is going to be part of it. They're going to end up taxing everybody for this health care plan.

And finally, this is going to result in about 4.7 million jobs lost, because when small business in America has to pay for this conglomeration of health care, they're going to have to cut back on employment of their employees, and a lot of those jobs will probably go overseas.

This is a terrible thing for America right now. And the reason I bring all of the things up that the President has promised, he's promising the American people a very good health plan. Trust him, everything is going to be fine. There is nothing to worry about. And yet it's going to cost so much money, it's going to cost rationing of health care, and it's going to cost everybody in this country and the future generations a great deal of money that we don't have. And I think that is a heck of a legacy to leave to our young children and our posterity.

I want to end by reading what was in the Wall Street Journal on the front page: Congress' chief budget scorekeeper casts a new cloud over Democrats' efforts to overhaul the Nation's health care system, telling lawmakers

Thursday that the main proposals being considered would fail to contain costs.

They say it will, but this article and this man says it will not. It will not contain costs, one of the primary goals, and could actually worsen the problem of radically escalating medical spending.

I hope everybody in the House is paying attention to this.

Mr. Speaker, there have been some real tragedies because of the way the economy, in general, has been handled and how the automobile industry, in particular, has been handled.

I received a letter from a lady named Jane Denney from Wabash, Indiana, in my district. She talks about how her family has owned an automobile dealership for the last 75 years. Her husband was the head of all the mechanical work there. He was a service manager. And General Motors was sending all kinds of equipment there and all kinds of supplies, urging and almost mandating that they buy that. They also mandated that they consider buying a Pontiac dealership there, which they did buy.

Then, after they bought the Pontiac dealership and bought all this equipment, General Motors contacted them and said they were going to do away with their dealership, and they did not indicate in any way that they would make restitution for the expenses that these people had to bear. They owe money for the dealership. They owe money for the supplies. They owe money for all of this, and the rug has just been jerked out from under them.

That is an American tragedy, something that should not happen. And the way this government and this administration has handled this and the way the auto companies have handled this is a real tragedy.

Dear Mr. Burton: Thank you for speaking out for the auto

dealerships today. My husband's family recently were told

they would be closing after 75 years. My husband is the

service manager and GM keeps sending him essential tools

which he must pay for and cannot send back for new cars they

will not send him. They have parts they had to stock but GM

won't buy back. In recent years they bought the local Pontiac

dealership because GM wanted they to. Now they owe for it and

won't be paid by GM for the franchise. I am a teacher and

also feel the ISTA was treated unfairly. I cannot believe

this is happening in the USA. I am glad I voted for you and

appreciate your speaking out for us. I feel so powerless

again all that is happening. God bless you.

I want my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to listen to what happens when you have socialized medicine. This is a Canadian story I'm going to tell you about. In fact, there is more than one.

This is from Shona Holmes. She is a Canadian. She says that after suffering from crushing headaches and vision problems, she was diagnosed with a brain tumor 4 years ago. She was told if it wasn't removed, she could go blind or even die.

American doctors at the Mayo Clinic said to me, you have a brain tumor pressing on your optic chasm, and it needs to come out immediately. Holmes was told by her doctor in Canada that she had to wait 4 months before she could see an endocrinologist and 6 months for a neurologist.

She is a Canadian, and she says that the doctors at the Mayo Clinic where she turned to got to her right away because they couldn't get to her fast enough in Canada. She ended up having to pay about $100,000 because they couldn't take care of the problem in Canada, as that health care system was supposed to do. She and her husband were forced to put a second mortgage on their home and borrow money from family and friends.

Here is another story: a prime example is the Kingston General Hospital in Ontario where they have staggering delays. Senator McConnell in the other body claims that on average there is a 340-day wait for knee replacements and a 196-day wait for hip replacements. The chief of staff of that hospital says, In our Canada health care system, we are looking at what we have to do to prioritize patients. They are on somebody's waiting list if they have a problem. They have to wait.

Another Canadian, Rick Hession, has a heart condition that could cause a stroke. But he has a 3-month or more wait for an operation to correct it.

Socialized medicine, government-controlled health care, does not work. It costs a lot of money, you have to wait, and they ration care. This is the program that the Democrats are promising. And all of these white areas are new agencies of government that you're going to have to go through to get your health care.

It is going to cost between $1 trillion and $3 trillion over the next decade. That is money we don't have, money we are going to have to print or borrow. It is going to cause inflation.

So we not only have a health care problem we are going to create that will be much worse than anything we face today, something that is going to be equivalent to what they are doing in Canada and England, which does not provide care for those people, but it rations care and it costs through the nose.

The American people need to know these facts. And my colleagues on the Democrat side are trying to rush this through before the August recess so the American people won't know what all this means. I think it is a tragedy. We need more time so the American people can realize what they are going to have to experience if we get a socialized, Canadian-style health care program.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the amendment.

We really need to move toward using natural gas. It is a clean- burning fuel, and we have a huge supply of it in this country. In fact, down in Louisiana just recently, they discovered probably one of the biggest finds of natural gas in the whole world.

As I said, it is a clean-burning fuel, and we need to transition from our dependency on foreign oil. If we continue at the pace we're heading right now, over the next 10 years, we will see a transfer of $10 trillion of our money to countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, and many of those are not friends of ours. So this is a great step in the right direction.

I want to congratulate Mr. Boren on the amendment. You're doing good work.