Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, what happened to August? August seems to have been lost in the Democratic Caucus; August seems to have been lost with the Democratic leadership; August seems to have been wiped out at the White House.

If you listen to the discussions that are taking place now about the health care bill that may be presented to us, there's something left out: it's the voice of the people that we heard in August. They told us loudly and clearly they did not want a public option. They told us loudly and clearly they didn't want a Democratic plan; they didn't want a Republican plan. No, Madam Speaker, they want an American plan--one that we can all rally around, one that takes into consideration what they told us in August, what they told us in September, and what they're telling us in October.

This is the U.S. House of Representatives. Let us represent the people of America.

Mr. Speaker, the laws of the United States should stand for all. No one is above the law, whether it is the criminal laws or the extradition laws. That's why I ponder why some of the elites in Hollywood are now telling us that Roman Polanski should not be subject to the laws of the United States, the State of California or the international law that recognizes extradition.

What is it that suggests that fame excuses criminal conduct? What is it that allows some people in our society to say that a rape is not really a rape, or to suggest that because someone is a great film director that therefore they ought not to be brought to the bar of justice?

Thirty some years ago in the State of California, a crime was committed. Thirty years ago, someone admitted to that crime, and 30 some years ago, that person did not show up when his sentence was to be given to him. And now it is time for the laws of the State of California and the United States and international law to be followed.

Mr. Polanski should come home, and he should meet his justice.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am pleased to support this resolution, Mr. Speaker, to accept the statue of Helen Keller presented by the people of the great State of Alabama. I come here today not to honor a mere statue of marble or stone, but to honor a woman of extraordinary courage, compassion and determination.

Helen Keller was born June 27, 1880, in Tuscumbia, Alabama. During only the 19th month of her young life, Helen lost not only her sight but also her hearing during an apparent bout of meningitis.

As many of us have seen in the award-winning play and the movie ``The Miracle Worker,'' at age 7, with the help of her gifted teacher, Anne Sullivan, Helen ascertained the ability to communicate. During her young life, she worked strenuously and tirelessly to overcome her sensory impediments and help others do the same.

She attended the Perkins School for the Blind for 4 years; the Cambridge School for Young Ladies for 1; and Radcliffe College, a sister school to Harvard University, for 4 years. There she earned a bachelor of arts degree and graduated cum laude as our Nation's first deaf and blind college graduate.

Helen Keller worked tirelessly on behalf of her fellow men and women in this country and around the world: the blind, the deaf, the disabled, those seeking the right to vote, workers, and many others. A prolific author, one of her autobiographies, ``The Story of My Life,'' has been translated into over 50 languages.

She provided vital support to organizations such as the American Foundation for the Blind, and was justly given honorary degrees from Temple University, the University of Glasgow, the University of Delhi, the University of Berlin, and the University of Johannesburg. In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson awarded her the highest possible civilian award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. She was also honored with Brazil's Order of the Southern Cross, the Philippines' Golden Heart, and Japan's Sacred Treasure. In 1991, she was named by LIFE magazine as one of the 100 most important Americans of the 20th century.

Helen Keller will be the first person with disabilities enshrined here in our Nation's Capitol. This honor is long overdue. She was and is an inspiration to all of us regardless of our age, status, ethnicity, or background. To marvel at the dignity and beauty inherent in all human beings, to use the gifts and attributes that each of us possess to their full potential, to help our fellow citizens and human beings meet and overcome whatever fears, challenges and adversity they may face, these are the legacies of Helen Keller that will be so richly preserved by this statue in her honor.

During this time of important challenges in our country and at all times in which human beings embark and journey on the road of life, Helen Keller reminds us that ``Although the world is full of suffering, it is full also of the overcoming of it'' and ``No pessimist ever discovered the secret of the stars or sailed an uncharted land, or opened a new doorway for the human spirit.''

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama, Congressman Bachus, such time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers who are here, so let me just say that I rise in support of this resolution.

Helen Keller is not only a tremendous symbol of the State of Alabama and the United States, but it's not just her history that we reflect on today, it is her inspiration for those of us who are alive today.

There are some in our society--I remember Professor Peter Singer--who have suggested that some infants are not worthy of our support as human beings because they are less than the rest of us. I've often wondered if it is our failure to be able to unlock that vault in which some children find themselves where they're unable to communicate to us. And if we reflect back on Helen Keller's life, Helen Keller had that greatness within her at all times. It was the inability of the outside world to be able to communicate with her as much as it was her inability to communicate with the outside world. That should be a lesson for all of us that no child is unworthy in our society and that sometimes when we do not understand their worth, it may be our loss rather than theirs.

Think what would have happened if that great teacher of Helen Keller hadn't taken the time to be able to unlock that vault and be able to begin to communicate with that young girl. Not only how differently would Helen Keller's life had turned out, but how differently the plight of the disabled in this country and around the world would have been.

So let us not just think of Helen Keller as a historic figure for which we give her homage today and for which we will honor her with this statue, but let's think of her as a living memorial of the challenge to all of us to reach beyond that which is easy to find out the greatness that lies within every individual.

So I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank Chairman Brady and the delegation of Alabama for taking up this resolution. I urge my colleagues to join me in support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today we live in a interconnected world where United States law enforcement agencies routinely help foreign law enforcement as they pursue criminal conduct outside their borders within the United States. I might add that U.S. law enforcement has an identical need for cooperation from their foreign counterparts. This cooperation is essential as we work together to build cases against international organized crime organizations, drug cartels, purveyors of child pornography on the Internet, and other criminal threats from outside our borders.

On a regular basis the United States receives requests for assistance in gathering evidence within our borders. For example, when French authorities collect relevant domestic evidence they may discover the likelihood of critical evidence within the United States. In such a case they would submit a request to us for financial records, Internet records, and various other kinds of evidence which they have determined to be relevant to making their case. U.S. Attorneys review the requests and then seek warrants for the evidence as appropriate. When the evidence is collected, the United States transmits it to French authorities, leading to prosecution in French courts.

Unfortunately, what should be a simple process is compounded by bureaucratic rules with unintended consequences. This is because under the existing rules, any foreign evidence request must be split up and sent to each district where the evidence exists. So take the French example I just gave, and imagine that the financial records sought are in banks in six different federal judicial districts, that the Internet records are in another five federal judicial districts, and that other documentary evidence is spread over another five districts. Under existing law, sixteen different U.S. Attorneys' Offices would have to work on the evidence request.

The Foreign Evidence Request Efficiency Act would address this problem by allowing such foreign evidence requests to be handled centrally, by a single or more limited number of U.S. Attorneys' offices as appropriate. Rather than sixteen U.S. Attorneys' offices being involved the entire operation would be coordinated by one United States Attorney's office.

S. 1289 would not alter the type of evidence which may be sought and would therefore have no adverse impact on civil liberties. This legislation would merely eliminate an entirely unnecessary paperwork burden currently imposed on United States Attorneys.

Finally, I would suggest that our ability to better assist foreign law enforcement agencies will serve the interests of reciprosity when we ask for their assistance. We need to establish standards of evidence collection here in the United States as an example of what we ourselves expect in our own requests for cooperation of foreign agencies in our criminal investigations which involve foreign jurisdictions.

I ask for your support of this important bi-partisan legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill and yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Carmichael, California, in honor of its 100th anniversary on September 26, 2009.

In 1909, Daniel Webster Carmichael bought 6\1/2\ square miles of land in a part of unpopulated Sacramento County--land that would grow to over 10 square miles and be known as Carmichael. It is said that he initially bought this remote mass of territory for $30 per acre, with the intent to populate the area by selling 10-acre lots to American families moving west. Drawn by the lure of building citrus orchard fortunes, these divisions quickly sold. Three hundred families lived in Carmichael by 1927, and the population hit 2,000 by the time of the Great Depression.

In the ensuing decades, wheat, barley, alfalfa, peaches, and almonds were being grown interspersed with horse and poultry farms. Farmers have found success in good times and have battled through the tough ones, and have increasingly been sharing the community with an expanding suburban area. Once a collection of open properties, Carmichael now quarters businesses and families in addition to the traditional farm and occasional horse property.

Carmichael continues to be attractive to people from all walks of life because of its peaceful, family oriented community lifestyle-- setting Carmichael in stark contrast to the more populous areas of Sacramento County. Although very close to a major metropolitan area, Carmichael boasts roaming wildlife such as deer, coyote, and wild turkey. The American River flowing through Carmichael accentuates the serenity and beauty of the region. Although many of the original 10- acre lots have been subdivided over the years, some still remain as a reminder of its rural and agricultural past.

Over the past 100 years, Carmichael has also been home to other advancements. Governor Ronald Reagan built a State mansion on California Avenue. Mark Spitz and Debbie Meyer based their successful Olympic training in the local country club. Also, Carmichael is proud to have the world's largest geranium club, and the ``Fourth of July Elks Parade'' is the longest enduring Independence Day procession in Northern California.

Let me also say that one of the most admirable traits I find in Carmichael is the humble yet rich tradition and history it embraces.

Now, as Carmichael has grown to a population of 72,000, Carmichael continues its legacy as a home to traditional American life.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in celebration of Safety Center Incorporated's 75th anniversary occurring on October 19, 2009, and in praise of their many contributions to the State of California. Safety Center Incorporated, originally established as the Sacramento Safety Council in 1934, was initially recognized by civic leaders ``to combat (the) unprecedented wave of motor vehicle fatalities and injuries'' in the Sacramento region. This was in reaction to the front page headline of the sacramento Bee on October 8, 1934, which read, ``Local auto deaths soar to 6.''

Over the past 75 years, Safety Center Incorporated has expanded well beyond traffic safety programs and is now among the most respected providers of safety leadership and training throughout California and Nevada.

In just the past 5 years alone, SCI has trained 88,925 people amongst a diverse collection of programs. Children and developmentally disabled adults have been given tours of `Safetyville'--which is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year. Teens have been taught defensive driving and have been given an education in alcohol and drugs. Enthusiasts of all ages have completed basic and experienced rider motorcycle courses. Professionals have been certified for first aid, CPR, forklift operations, work zone safety, commercial construction, and other courses designed to provide ``training solutions that fit'' for a diverse array of occupations.

Throughout their history, SCI has been a dependable partner to the public by providing the assistance needed with the changing times. When the Federal Government passed the ``Occupational Safety & Health Act of 1970'' creating OSHA and authorizing the creation of the first mandatory safety standards for the nation--SCI was there to help lead the community in accountability and preparedness. When the State of California first mandated that drunken drivers attend remedial classes--SCI offered the first classes in the State to educate Californians.

Today, Safety Center Incorporated has locations throughout California. Along with the main campus in Sacramento, there are now campuses in Modesto, Citrus Heights, and Claremont.

I thank Safety Center Incorporated on behalf of my fellow Californians for the untold impact that they have had on the well-being of our home.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of attention to the fact that Members of Congress held town hall meetings during the month of August, and there was much discussion about the passion that was expressed there.

Well, it's now September, and we're still holding town hall meetings. I had one last Saturday in my district. And let me tell you the passion is still there.

The average citizen in my district looks to Congress to do the right thing. And they are not satisfied. They are not pleased. They are not happy in any way, shape, or form with respect to the Obama health care plan and its various versions here in the House of Representatives and the United States Senate.

They have asked me to convey to my colleagues the fact that they are concerned about the size of government, the cost of government, the size of taxation, and the amount of debt we're imposing on our children and our grandchildren. They want us to get serious about those things. They don't want us to give up on them.

By the way, they're not mobs. They're not un-American. They are the very essence of America. They come to my meetings in ones, twos and threes. They are everyday Americans wanting a responsive House of Representatives that recognizes simple truths.

Mr. Speaker, as I have been in my own district and spoken with many individuals who have attended my townhall meetings, they have exercised their right to bring their grievances before this Member of Congress.

And one of the issues they have talked about is the question of the constitutional importance of these so-called czars. We now have over 30 czars in this administration, those that have not been subject to the scrutiny of consideration by the United States Senate, those who apparently have decisionmaking responsibility in areas, who have traditionally been in Cabinet level officers, and others who have in fact been vetted by the Senate. It seems the longer I am here the more it appears that political life in Washington seems to follow art.

Now, you might say we have come to a situation in Washington, D.C. in which we now have a new show. It's called ``Dancing with the Czars.'' It could last more than a full TV season because we have more than 30 of them. It can continue on into the summer. It's not a joke, it's serious, and the American people deserve answers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As a member of the House Administration Committee, I am pleased to support the appointment of Dr. France Cordova to be a citizen regent of the Smithsonian Institution. Dr. Cordova recently joined committee members to discuss her extensive educational background and ongoing work which will be of inestimable benefit to the ongoing mission of the Smithsonian. Because she is so distinguished and is involved in many activities, I did ask her whether she could give the time to this appointment that it deserves, and she assured us that she could. She recognized the importance of the Smithsonian Institution and felt that this was a more than worthy obligation on her part and felt that it was a contribution she would make to the American people.

In addition to the many national boards of which she is a member, Dr. Cordova serves as the 11th president of Purdue University in Indiana. She was the first woman chancellor of a University of California campus, but perhaps also indicative of her leadership, in the area of discovery, she was, I'm informed, the youngest chief scientist at NASA.

As a scientist, administrator, and ongoing researcher, the richness of her background in academic exploration would be difficult to overstate. As the Smithsonian Institution continues toward new achievements, I am confident that Dr. Cordova will be a critical piece in ensuring that James Smithson's original intent, that the institution would be ``an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge,'' is preserved with excellence.

I would urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Dr. Cordova's appointment to the Smithsonian's Board of Regents.

Since I have no other speakers, I would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I might yield my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart) to control.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I rise today to submit the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the Department of Defense FY10 Appropriations Bill.

The following earmarks were requested by my office and are listed for funding in this bill:

Federal Technology Center--Feature Size Yield Enhancement DMEA's Advanced Reconfigurable Manufacturing for Semiconductors (ARMS) Foundry

Requesting Member: Daniel E. Lungren

Bill Number: H.R. 3326--FY10 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill

Account: R-1PE# 0603720S; Microelectronics Technology Development and Support

Requesting Agency: Defense Microelectronics Activity

Requesting Agency Address: 4234 54th Street, McClellan, CA 95662

Amount: $3,000,000

This project will allow Defense Microelectronics Activity (DMEA) to proceed with its plan to acquire the more complex processes required to support newer weapon system microelectronics, install these processes in its ARMS Foundry and increase the first pass yield of these new processes. It will also work to reduce the time required to switch from one process to another and to maximize the yield of the reinstalled process. This project represents an appropriate use of taxpayer funds due to the need for domestic capability for technologies conversion to maintain and improve upon our national defense system.

Federal Technology Center--Heterogeneous Gallium Nitride/Silicon Microcircuit Technology

Requesting Member: Daniel E. Lungren

Bill Number: H.R. 3326--FY10 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill

Account: R-1PE# 0603720S; Microelectronics Technology Development and Support

Requesting Agency: Defense Microelectronics Activity

Requesting Agency Address: 4234 54th Street, McClellan, CA 95662

Amount: $2,000,000

This project will develop a replacement for gallium arsenide technology currently used in input amplification and frequency conversion circuits of military radar and communications systems. DMEA will use Gallium Nitride/Silicon to replace old gallium arsenide components. This project represents an appropriate use of taxpayer funds due to the crucial need to upgrade and further develop military radar and communications systems, which are of seminal importance to the safety and success of our military personnel and missions

Aerojet--Minuteman III Advanced Third Stage Domestic Fiber Motor Case Development

Requesting Member: Daniel E. Lungren

Bill Number: H.R. 3326--FY10 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill

Account: RDT&E Line 46 ICBM Propulsion Applications, PE 0603851F/1021

Requesting Agency: Air Force ICBM Propellant Applications Program

Requesting Agency Address: Hill Air Force Base, UT

Amount: $3,000,000

This project will develop a domestic supply of the composite fibers used to construct the motor case. Japanese fibers traditionally used to construct the motor case are no longer available as the Japanese Ministry of Economics, Trade, & Industry requires pre-approval for all military applications. This project represents an appropriate use of taxpayer funds due to the need for a domestic, reliable source of composite fibers to ensure the success and maintained capabilities of this segment of our national defense system.

American Burn Association--Military Burn Trauma Research Program

Requesting Member: Daniel E. Lungren

Bill Number: H.R. 3326--FY10 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill

Account: R&D--Army--Defense Health-United States Medical and Material Command/Army Institute of Surgical Research--Peer Reviewed Burn, Orthopedic and Trauma Research--PE 0603115HP--BA: 2

Requesting Agency: American Burn Association

Requesting Agency Address: 625 N. Michigan Ave., Ste 2550, Chicago,

Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of the American people. I had five townhall meetings this summer. I did a teletownhall in which I had 19,000 people on the line.

With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I saw no mobs. I saw nothing that was un-American. I saw no evil mongers out there. I saw average, everyday Americans coming to my townhall meetings in ones and twos and threes, not being bussed in by anybody. They were educated about the issue of health care. They understood what was on the floor. These people are concerned about what we might do here. They are also concerned about taxes, spending, debt, and the size of the Federal Government. No, they were not American mobs. These were real Americans, expressing what they're allowed to do under the Constitution in the best way they can, directly speaking with their Members of Congress. We'd better listen.

Mr. Speaker, this year, we lost a comedian of some note named George Carlin. One of the marks of his career was when he challenged the FCC with the seven dirty words. We're now engaged in a debate on health care, and we've been told that there are a number of phrases that we can't use because we're attempting to speak truth to power, power being the Democratic leadership here in the House.

What are these dirty words or phrases we can't use to describe the leading Democratic health care proposal?

We can't call it ``government-run'' even though that's what it's going to be inevitably. We can't call it ``single-payer'' even though that's where they're going. We can't call it ``socialized medicine.'' I don't know why not, but we can't. We can't call it ``ObamaCare.'' We can't call it ``rationed care'' even though rationing is an absolutely essential element to their plan. We can't call it the ``government mandate care'' even though it's full of mandates. The word ``shall'' appears, I believe, 100 times in the bill. ``Shall'' means ``must,'' which means a mandate. You can't call it ``keep your change care'' because, frankly, there won't be any change for you to keep.

The seven dirty words we can't use.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to recognize a constituent of mine, Gail Belmont from Valley Springs, CA. Gail is an Operation Officer in the Quilts of Valor Foundation. She will be in Washington, DC next month.

A ``Quilt of Valor'' is a wartime quilt made to honor our War Wounded. It is given to all wounded service men and women to show these brave young men and women how much their sacrifice and service is appreciated. These quilts are meant to provide comfort, love and healing to those who have given so much. It is a tangible way to say, ``Thank you for your sacrifice and service for our country.'' It is not a charity quilt nor a service quilt. It is a beautifully pieced and quilted wartime quilt. It is a wartime quilt made by wartime quilters. Over 22,000 quilts have been given to the wounded. Gail has quilted over 350 of those herself.

Gail is a native Californian, born in Dos Palos. After graduation from High School she entered the Women's Army Corp Band playing trumpet. She served 7 years active and reserve. She then spent 25 years in civil service; law enforcement; warehousing and production control at Sharp Depot.

Shortly after leaving Sharp Depot, Gail's parents had purchased a longarm quilting machine and curiosity had Gail trying her hand at running it. It was an instant success and led to establishing a full- time business, at first in the family garage. Quickly outgrowing the garage necessitated a move to the present location on Stabulis Road in Valley Springs.

Gail has won numerous awards at Machine Quilters Showcase and all the local Fairs and Quilt Shows. Her work is well known in this community in all charity affairs. Quilts have come to her from all over the nation for her special expertise which is free hand quilting and then have been sent all over the world.

When Gail left Valley Springs for camp Lejeune NC, she and others had 200 Quilts of Valor with them. They stopped at different towns across the country picking up quilts and delivered them to Camp Lejeune, North Carolina where they awarded 1,354 quilts to the 3rd Battalion, 8th Marines who just returned from Afghanistan. While in DC, Gail will join Catherine Roberts who founded this organization as they award the Women's Veterans Memorial at Arlington a quilt and will be honored at the Commandant's evening Parade at the Marine Corps Barracks.

On a previous trip to Washington, Gail awarded the Pentagon a quilt she had quilted which is called the ``Pentagon Pride Eagle of Valor Quilt of Valor''. This quilt is on display at the Pentagon in the 9/11 display case.

I don't know.

I appreciate the gentleman's using my chart up here because we have tried to work this out with the majority. In the past on the Franking Commission, we have attempted to allow Members to be involved in vigorous and full debate but not put out what would be considered campaign material. And all of a sudden, the goalposts have been moved on us.

Now, this may not be of interest to the average citizen except for this fact: What we have presented is what we believe to be a reasonable interpretation of the bill as we know it now.

Now, I do know that there was mentioned just a moment ago by the gentleman from Michigan, before he left, that we're talking about ``the bill,'' and that can be a bit of a moving target. In fact, I just left my office and there was a group of reporters hanging around outside my office, not for me, but for a meeting, they said, of the Progressive Democrats. They used to be called liberals. They are now Progressives, who are concerned about what the Blue Dogs are asking for on the Democratic side, and so maybe there will be some changes from what we've seen.

But this is an accurate portrayal from our standpoint of the bureaucratic morass that will result from the grand outlines of the bill as articulated by the President and as presented by the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives.

And so they objected to this diagram and basically censored it, as we said, because, first of all, they said we called it the House Democrat plan. First of all, they said it wasn't true, and now we have shown that it is a reasonable interpretation of the facts. Secondly, they said there wasn't enough attribution there, and we suggested that it very clearly states that this is developed by the Republicans. Then they said, well, wait a second. You say it's the Democratic health plan but not all Democrats support the health plan. So if they would give us the list of those Democrats they have not yet been able to corral to support it, we'd be happy to talk to those individuals.

Yes.

Yes. We've done things in the past by limiting the number of references you can make to yourself. There are only so many times you can mention your name or say ``I,'' and that's so----

Of course, I have only been here 15 years, but in my 15 years, spread over 30, I have not seen this happen before.

Well, it's censored. And when you compare it with those things that we have approved on the Democratic side, we had the controversy over President Bush's recommendations to try to, as he saw it, save Social Security and make some recommendations for it. They very strongly criticized the President's package in terms that I would disagree with, but we on the Republican side on the Franking Commission did not say you cannot say that because we don't like the way you said it. When they talked about the prescription pharmacy section of Medicare, the new section that came in, we approved of news letters that went out on the Democratic side that criticized the President's plan and said it didn't do what was needed to do for seniors. They called it the Republican majority plan. And yet they object to our calling this the Democratic plan.

You know, I have said when I first came to Congress, there was something raging at that time called the cold war, and it just reminded me of something in the cold war. There is a word we don't see in the lexicon anymore. So I went and looked it up and tried to make sure people understand what it is. It's called ``samizdat,'' s-a-m-i-z-d-a- t. And samizdat is defined as a system in the USSR and countries within its orbit by which government-suppressed literature was clandestinely printed and distributed.

Now, what does that mean? That means those who were known as refuseniks at that time, those who were in disfavor, to say the least, with the government were not allowed to publish anything that could be handed out, whether it was charged for or not. So the freedom underground, if you will, went and had their own printing and they would clandestinely put these things out so that they could get their message of free speech.

So my suggestion is that maybe we re-title our particular--and call it American Samisdat. We're the freedom fighters here, trying to express what we believe to be a reasonably intelligent analysis of a bill that's presented to us, which is going to affect 18 percent of the economy of the United States, which is going to, if it is enacted, forever, at least for our lifetimes, cement the relationship you will have with your doctor and the relationship that government will have in that. And our argument has been that that chart precisely shows the interference of the government which will exist between you and your doctor with some 50-plus organizations, agencies, task forces, czars, bodies of different types.

But he has no charts.

Would the gentleman yield for just one moment? I just wanted to make one reference. I talked about the Cold War a minute ago. It also reminds me what Ronald Reagan said when he was negotiating with the Soviet Union and they asked for trust. And his response was trust, but verify. And what we're here to do is to be the verifiers for the American people. We're being asked to trust the bureaucracy to deliver medical care without interference. We're here to verify whether that is or is not true. And to deny us the opportunity to provide, in a very easily understood way, the information that undergirds this tremendous bureaucratic morass is unworthy of this place.

We ought to be able to debate it vigorously, and the American people ought to expect that we are looking out for them, rather than for some formless bureaucracy that's going to take on dimensions that we can only imagine today.

Yes.

I would like to just follow up on what Mr. Pence said, which is, if you are concerned that there is the possibility that a public option will lead to a government takeover, you need look no further than at what happened with the student loan program.

The student loan program has a government option, but what is happening now with this Congress and with this President? We are eliminating the private option, and we're going totally to the public option, which now becomes a public monopoly.

The way we are phasing them out, you will not be able to get those. They will be, basically, the Federal student loan programs.

Well, we do have a Member on the other side of the aisle, a distinguished Member on the other side of the aisle, who in a townhall meeting admitted that this is going to lead inevitably to a public takeover of health care, and he said, yes, that is a good thing.

You can't use that word.

You can't say it in print.

We're not allowed to say that.

We're not allowed to say it on our particular chart of the Democratic health plan. We've been told that that is not allowed if we're going to print it and send it out to our constituents.

The last thing I would just say is this: Look, I happen to be the son of a doctor. My dad was my hero growing up. I used to go on house calls with him. I'd make rounds with him. I thought I was going to be a doctor until, as I like to say, God sent me a strong message during my sophomore year at Notre Dame called ``organic chemistry.''

But I never lost the sense of service that my dad had as a doctor. From my observation of the way he practiced medicine, he taught me that the doctor-patient relationship was paramount. I heard him many times on the phone, arguing on behalf of a patient with somebody who was employed by the insurance company. I heard him arguing with hospitals. I heard him arguing with nurses if he didn't think they were doing a great job. I heard him praise the nurses when they did a great job for his patients. I heard him praise the hospital.

His whole focus was on his patients. He was not only his patients' greatest diagnostician, and not only the greatest doctor they could have, but he was their greatest advocate. That's what I don't want to lose in this or in any other plan.

I don't want the government to be my advocate. I want my doctor to be my advocate. I want my family to be my advocate. Listen to what the President said in that interview on television when asked about the 100-year-old woman.

The 100-year-old woman, who was an extraordinary person with great verve in her life, who also had tremendous health, needed a pacemaker. Her doctor thought she should have it because he knew her. He called a specialist who would actually do the implantation of the pacemaker, but he was skeptical. He said he wasn't going to do it on a 100-year-old lady.

He said, Just meet her. Examine her.

He examined her, and his position was changed. She received it at 100. She is now a very active 105-year-old.

It was presented to the President, and it was said, Mr. President, will my 100-year-old mother still be able to have a pacemaker?

The President gave a long, long convoluted answer. At the end, he said this: It may mean that, instead of some sort of surgical procedure, we will give your mother painkillers, pain pills.

Here is the deal. If you're concerned about cost, you can do it in one of two ways to limit cost: competition or rationing.

Now, competition has some premises involved in it. One of them is that we need greater transparency. There's no doubt about it. We need to know what it costs with certain doctors or charges. We need to know, when we go in the hospital, what the infection rates are. It's those sorts of things. Competition from doctors and competition from medical health care providers and from insurance companies will give us tremendous options so that we can make the decision, and that tends to keep costs down.

In a government system, when you have a monopoly, there is only one way you keep costs down. It is called rationing. If you don't believe it, look at England; look at Canada; look at France; look at all of those other systems.

Will the gentleman yield for just a moment.

This points out vividly the difference between a system where competition exists and where a monopoly by government exists. Where a monopoly by government exists, inevitably to attempt to try and control costs, you have to impose rationing. That's why you have these variations of survival rates among cancer patients, because they are not getting the care in those other countries that we get here, and they're not getting the care in a timely fashion.

Well, I happen to be someone who had a hip replacement about a year and a half ago. Under the rules that prevail in at least one of those countries, I would not have been able

to have it because I'm not 65 years of age. Had I needed it when I was 80, I would have been too old to get it. They have defined by age the category of people who can receive that operation. It's not just a limitation on time, on how long it's going to be.

The point is, if you look at our younger generation today and look at how active they are in certain sports, with repetitive actions affecting their joints, we are going to have younger people being in need of the replacement of joints--of knees and hips. That runs precisely contrary to what you see as being available in these other countries. That's why this debate is so important.

If, in fact, as we believe, the plan presented by the majority would inevitably lead to government-run health care, these are the consequences. That's why we ought to be able to debate that. They can argue with us and say, No, it's not government-run. We can argue how we believe it is, but at least we ought to be allowed to have that debate so that people can see what the consequences of our actions here in the House are on them and on their personal lives.

Only a Texas Aggie would ask that question, and I will take that as a rhetorical question that needs no response.

This makes about as much sense as the Vice President's recent statement that in order to avoid bankruptcy, we have to spend more Federal money.

And the President is basically telling us, by entering the Federal Government in the largest way in the history of the United States into medical care, it is going to cost less and provide more accessibility.

And I think that is--well, what I'm finding from my town hall meetings, my teletown halls, my discussion with people back home, they're not buying it because they know it just doesn't seem to make sense. Just as the gentleman has pointed out on this amendment, if in fact they're not going to put anything between you and your doctor, why would they reject an amendment that says just that?