Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, on December 30, 2009, we were reminded of the dangers and challenges our intelligence community faces every day, working in anonymity to keep our country safe. We were reminded that they often operate under harsh conditions, leaving loved ones behind, and that their service will likely never be publicly recognized. Seven Americans died in service to their country and several others were severely wounded. If we can collectively take anything from this tragedy, I hope it is to re-commit ourselves to be mindful of the toll the our military, intelligence, and civilian personnel persevere under every day to keep this country safe and to do everything in our power to support their mission. I extend my personal condolences to the families, loved ones, friends, and colleagues of our fallen and wounded personnel.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow--January 22, 2010--marks the 37th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, a decision overturning the laws of the various States and setting the stage for the termination of tens of millions of unborn children.

Mr. Speaker, I came to Washington to defend all human life. And in my nearly 20 years serving the House, the Congress and Executive branches have made tremendous progress in protecting the life of the unborn.

We have made certain that federal funds could not be used to pay for elective abortions both domestically and abroad. We passed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. We gave our schools the choice to offer abstinence education and we limited federal funding for embryo destructive stem cell research.

But within the first 100 days of his administration, President Obama overturned the Mexico City Policy permitting federal funds to international family planning organizations that also perform elective abortions. President Obama also insisted that federal taxpayer funds be directed to UNFPA--the family planning agency at the U.N. that has supported China's one child policy. The President also overhauled the country's embryonic stem cell policy, creating more incentives to destroy human embryos in the name of research.

The current Congress has also taken steps to unravel long-standing pro-life policies. Last December, Democrats eliminated long-standing policy--first established in 1989--that has prohibited the District of Columbia from using its Medicaid funds to provide elective abortions. According to the Guttmacher Institute, the abortion rate of women who are enrolled in Medicaid more than doubles if they live in a state where Medicaid is able to pay for elective abortions.

Over the last year, Democrats have attempted to overhaul the current health care system. Their proposals have included policies that would permit public funding of abortion--through federal subsidies and plans that would be managed by the federal government. More than 65 percent of the American people oppose public funding of abortion.

Mr. Speaker, we need to pause and reconsider the direction the majority and President Obama are headed with regard to protecting human life. All human life has value and it is the role of the branches of the federal government to protect it. I call on my colleagues to put an end to passing destructive legislation and instead fight to defend life.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 9 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, first I would like to thank Speaker Pelosi and the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, for their graciousness over the last couple of days. I also want to say thanks to all of the Members on both sides of the aisle who have offered their condolences to me, personally, and to my staff. A special ``thank you'' to President Obama and former President Bush for their calls of condolence.

I think all of us know that this institution couldn't operate without staff; it just couldn't function. And this last week, we lost one of the best. I was fortunate enough to have a great leader of my team; and we rise today and remember Paula Nowakowski.

Now, let me say that she was no picnic. She was as tough as nails, and any of you who have worked with her--George, you remember--she was as tough as nails--a brilliant strategist who had a wicked sense of humor. Haley Barbour, whom she once worked for, said that she was as smart as a whip, and you have to visualize that coming from Haley; but there was a softer side of Paula as well. She made a positive difference in thousands of lives around the Hill and around this town.

She loved all things Detroit, especially her beloved Detroit Red Wings, and so you will see that I and a lot of my staff will have a Detroit Red Wings pin on for the balance of this year. She loved her country. She was a warrior for freedom, and two of her biggest heroes were Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul, II, who worked together to bring Soviet communism to its knees. She loved this institution, and she loved all of the Members and the staff, and had friends on both sides of the aisle; but most of all, she loved her family. Her mother, Teo, and her brother Gary are with us today.

And, Mrs. Nowakowski, please accept our condolences, and thank you for the shining light that was your daughter. Of her 46 years, that light shined brightly and touched countless lives, and she will never be replaced in this institution, nor will she be forgotten.

With that, I would be happy to yield to my friend, the Speaker of the House.

I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Let me thank my fellow leaders for their kind words.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the House observe a moment of silence.

My colleagues, there's been a lot of lecturing on the House floor today from my Democrat colleagues about fiscal responsibility. And I heard a lot of about fiscal responsibility in 2005 and 2006 when the then-minority wanted to take the majority.

I think it's time for everyone in this room to take their fair share of blame for the spending that's gone on in this town for far too long. For 36 of the last 40 years, we've spent more than what we've taken in. There's not a household in America that could get by with this. There's not a company in America that could get by with it. And certainly, this government can't get by with it.

For the last 3 years, the Democrat majority, though, after having run on this mantra of fiscal responsibility, has done nothing more than spend, spend, spend and spend. Now, we did our best in 2007 and 2008 to put the brakes on all that spending, and succeeded somewhat. But after this year, for you to criticize us about fiscal responsibility and to lecture us about fiscal responsibility after spending $1 trillion on a stimulus bill that was supposed to be about creating jobs, and what have we done? We've created more unemployment. We've not put anyone back to work. And we're asking our kids and grandkids to pay $1 trillion in principal and interest for a bill that's not doing anything other than increasing spending.

But what makes this bill that's on the floor here today to increase the debt limit by $290 billion a real joke is that as soon as this vote is over, we're going to take up Stimulus II or, as we like to call it, Son of Stimulus. We're going to take up Son of Stimulus, which is going to spend $150 billion on the same kind of failed spending programs that we passed earlier this year.

And what are we going to do? We're going to use that TARP money that those banks and those financial institutions have paid back. Well, where'd that money come from? We had to go borrow it. Everybody knows, everybody that voted for or against TARP in this Chamber, knows that money was intended to go to pay down the deficit. And to take that $150 billion and spend it on more wasteful Washington spending is putting it right on the backs of our kids and grandkids. That's going to happen right after this vote.

Who are we kidding? We're not kidding anybody. I just think it's time to put the brakes on all of it. Let's get really serious about cutting spending. And the way we start is by saying no to increasing the debt limit.

Madam Chair, my colleagues, it has been quite a year. This House has been on a spending spree and a regulatory spree and a bailout spree that I could never have imagined in any of my prior 18 years here in Congress.

You know, it was a trillion-dollar spending plan, stimulus plan, that was supposed to be about creating jobs, and it turned into nothing more than a lot of big government spending; a budget that had trillion- dollar deficits on average for as far as the eye can see; and a trillion-dollar national energy tax that was going to create this giant bureaucracy and tax Americans over their gasoline, their electricity, and everything else that moves in America. Then we have the nearly trillion-dollar government takeover of our health care system. And people wonder why employers are frozen, why they are not hiring more employees when all of this is coming down the pike.

And if all of that wasn't bad enough, we have no idea what is going to happen to tax rates. There have been suggestions to increase taxes in many of the bills that have passed this House this year. And now we come to the granddaddy of all of them: the financial regulatory bill that is in front of us today.

All of us recognize there are shortcomings in our financial regulatory system; but I do believe that the overreach by my Democrat colleagues on this bill is really beyond imagination. It is going to have more bailouts for banks in this bill; nothing that will reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the real culprits at the beginning of this whole financial meltdown, but there is no reform in this bill when it comes to those two entities.

And if all of that isn't bad enough, to put more money in here to bail out bad actors is exactly what the American people don't want.

And so I rise in support of a commonsense regulatory approach offered by my Republican colleagues. I am going to congratulate Spencer Bachus and all of the members of his committee for the work they have done to put this commonsense alternative together that will fix the regulatory gaps that we have without bailouts, without tens of thousands of new Federal employees that we see in the underlying bill. I would hope that my colleagues would support it.

But if my colleagues don't support the alternative that is on the floor at this moment, when that vote comes, Republicans will offer a motion to recommit, a motion to recommit that will scrap the entire underlying bill. It will also say TARP ends on December 31 this year, and all of the funds that come back from TARP should be used to repay the Federal deficit. And, thirdly, we will bring down the debt limit commensurate with those repayments.

TARP was there for an emergency. Everyone involved in TARP over a year ago understood that when that money came back, it was to go back to the Treasury to reduce the Federal budget deficit. It wasn't to become a political slush fund that we have heard bandied about here over the last couple of weeks, all kinds of ideas about how to take TARP and use it for more bailouts and more spending from here in Washington.

And so I am going to ask my colleagues, if you've had enough of the bailouts, enough of TARP, let's do the right thing for the American people. They are already saying enough is enough. Let's end TARP, let's pay down the deficit, and if this substitute doesn't pass, you will have a chance to put an end to this entire process.

We're broke. We're broke. America is broke. All year long our friends across the aisle have been on this massive spending spree that our Nation can't afford.

We had a trillion dollar stimulus bill that was supposed to create jobs immediately, and yet unemployment is now 10 percent in America. Three million people have lost their jobs since the bill was signed into law.

We passed a budget that's going to double the national debt in 5 years, triple it in 10 years. We have got a $12 trillion national debt.

We brought a national energy tax bill to the floor that's going to cost a trillion dollars, passed it. We had a health care bill here several weeks ago, another trillion dollars, passed it.

When are we going to say enough is enough? Here we are today. We are wrapping six appropriation bills together. We are going to spend a half a trillion dollars, and it has got over 5,000 earmarks in the bill, you know, things like $292,000 for the elimination of slum and blight in Scranton, Pennsylvania; $300,000 for music and education programs at New York City's Carnegie Hall, where they pay the employee who runs this program $530,000 a year in salary and benefits. There is plenty in here for Washington as well: $150,000 for the National Building Museum; $250,000 for the Wolf Trap Foundation for the Performing Arts, a concert venue.

Listen, I don't know how worthy any of these projects are, but I do have to ask the question, are they more important than our kids and our grandkids who have to pay the debt, because we don't have the money to spend on this. It's our kids and grandkids who are going to pay for it. Yet we can't find ways to cut spending.

Before the President took office, he said that he must go through the budget and these bills line by line and page by page. Well, after Congress passed the $410 billion omnibus spending bill earlier this year, with 9,000 earmarks, the President signed it and he said, well, that was last year's business. Now the President says reducing the deficit is next year's business and that we need to spend our way out of this economic recession that we are in.

Well, I think the President ought to go through this bill line by line and page by page, all 2,500 pages of it, then maybe he will figure out that we don't need to be spending this money that we don't have and piling more and more debt on the backs of our kids and grandkids. Instead, our bond rating, our AAA bond rating is in jeopardy and our Democrat friends want to raise the debt limit next week by $1.8 trillion.

Let's stop the madness and vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 928 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to offer my best wishes to the dear mom and dad of Congressman Patrick J. Tiberi who will be celebrating their golden wedding anniversary on December 8th.

Giuseppe and Caterina Tiberi were married in 1959 in Introdacqua, Italy and have now spent 50 years of marriage together.

``Joe'' and ``Rina'' have been outstanding parents, rearing Pat and his two sisters Ida and Tania. They are also proud grandparents of six wonderful children: Anthony, Alex, Angelina, Cristina, Daniela and Gabriela.

As loving parents and grandparents, they continue to set an amazing example for others to follow. I join with all of the Tiberi family and their many friends in wishing Joe and Rina all the best on this joyous occasion.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

I tell my colleagues that during this debate over health care that's gone on for most of this year, Republicans have been listening to the American people; and what the American people want is they want to lower the cost of health care so that it's more affordable for more Americans.

When it comes to this issue of fixing the doctors' payment reimbursement system in Medicare, there's no dispute on either side of the aisle about the need to address it. Republicans addressed it when we were in the majority; and when we did, we made sure that there were offsets in spending elsewhere or some other types of revenue to make sure that it was paid for and not added to the budget deficit.

The issue here is twofold. One is that the proposal will not fix the problems that docs have in terms of their reimbursements down the road. It's a flawed formula that is not eliminated in this proposal. Secondly, it's going to add some $250 billion worth of debt put onto the backs of our kids and grandkids.

Now, I have listened to Democrats. The President, the President's Chief of Staff, Democrat leaders over the last couple of weeks talk about the fact that we need to do something about the budget deficit. Well, give me a break. Why don't we start right now. Right now and say that we're not going to do this, that we're not going to pass this bill that has no chance of becoming law. The Senate has already rejected it.

Why don't we just work together to come up with something that we can afford to cover the next 2, 3, 4 years so the doctors will have some idea of what their payments will be from us and get serious about working together for a long-term fix that doesn't put this responsibility on the backs of our kids and our grandkids.

That's the real issue here, the fact that there is no pay-for here. There is no offsetting other types of spending. There are no increases in revenue somewhere to cover this. It's just going to be dumped onto the backs of our kids and grandkids.

The American people want us to relearn fiscal responsibility. My colleagues on my side of the aisle over the course of this year have stood up, I believe, for fiscal responsibility. And if we're going to get our economy going again, we'd better get our fiscal house in order as well.

Let me thank my colleague for yielding.

It will be no surprise to any of you that I rise in opposition to this bill.

One of the issues in this bill that is of concern to Members on both sides of the aisle has to do with the sanctity of life. The Rules Committee made in order an amendment by our colleague from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) that would continue existing law that no Federal funds will be used for abortion.

While I am grateful that we're going to have this vote in the House, I want to ask the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Waxman, if the House does vote, in fact, for Mr. Stupak's amendment, if the gentleman will guarantee me that when this bill

comes back from conference, that that language will remain in the bill.

I would be happy to yield.

Reclaiming my time, the reason that I rise at this point in the debate is that, while we are grateful to have this amendment and this chance to vote to make sure that taxpayer funding is not used for abortion--which has been the policy of the land for the last 30 years-- as the gentleman pointed out, there is no guarantee that at the end of the day this language will be in the bill.

Now, I've been a chairman of a committee. I understand that there are no guarantees, but that's the whole point here. The only reason this amendment is allowed to be offered is in order to secure enough votes to try to move this bill through the floor today. I have my doubts about whether this language, if it passes, has any chance of ever being in the final version of this bill.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues in the underlying bill allows for the taxpayer funding of abortion, and the leadership of the majority party did see fit to allow Mr. Stupak of Michigan and others to offer an amendment that would restore what has been a 30-year effort, that no taxpayer funds should be used for abortion.

If that amendment were to pass, Mr. Rangel, and when this bill comes back from committee and if the House does, in fact, pass the Stupak language of outlawing taxpayer funding for abortion, will you guarantee me, when it comes back, it will be in the bill?

I would be happy to yield.

In reclaiming my time, Mr. Rangel, if the House does, in fact, vote for the Stupak language, in

conference, do I have your guarantee that your vote will be in favor of the Stupak language?

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker.

This is exactly the point I've been trying to make.

While the House is expected to take up the Stupak language later on this evening, language which would outlaw the taxpayer funding of abortion, it's pretty clear that this could be a shell game that's underway, that it gets to pass here in the House, helping to ensure that this bill passes; but we have no guarantees that when it comes back from conference that that language stopping the taxpayer funding of abortion will be in the bill.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

For many of us on both sides of the aisle who believe in the sanctity of human life, the underlying bill allows for taxpayer funding of abortion. The Speaker has allowed Mr. Stupak and others to offer an amendment tonight.

And, Mr. Miller, if that amendment were to pass and this bill were to get to conference and there were a vote in the conference on this, would you guarantee me that you would support the House-passed version?

I'm happy to yield.

Reclaiming my time, the question was this: If the House is to pass the Stupak amendment and this bill is to pass tonight and there is a vote in the conference on this issue, would you guarantee me that you will support the House-passed version?

Reclaiming my time, this is the third chairman tonight who will provide no guarantees that if the House were to pass the Stupak amendment that they would vote in committee to support the House-passed version.

This is the point of why I've been down here making this an issue: just because we pass an amendment to help facilitate the passage of what I think is a bad bill does not mean that the language that this House votes on is committed to by the Democrat leaders in this House.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the rule.

Mr. Speaker, all of us know that our health care delivery system needs help. There could be broad bipartisan agreement on the kinds of steps that we need to take in order to lower the cost of health care in America and expand access. The bill before us, in my view, is a big government takeover of our health care system that will replace the current health care that Americans get.

Republicans have offered better solutions all year on the major bills that have come to this floor. I think we had a much better solution on the stimulus bill that would have created twice the jobs at half the cost. I think our better solution on the budget clearly had less spending, less debt and lower deficits.

I think our all-of-the-above American energy plan was a much better solution to the national energy tax, the so-called cap-and-trade bill, that was on this floor in June. I believe that what we have before us, as a Republican substitute, is a commonsense plan that takes steps towards reducing the cost of health insurance in America and expand access. Simple things, like allowing people to buy insurance across State lines, allowing groups of

individuals or small businesses to group together for the purposes of buying health insurance like big businesses and unions can today. How about getting rid of junk lawsuits that drive up the cost of health care in America and the defensive medicine that doctors have to practice as a result.

I think what we have before us and the bill that we are offering is a commonsense approach that does take major steps in the right direction to bring down the cost of health care and to expand access.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Let me thank my colleague for yielding, and thank him and our ranking members for the job they have done putting our substitute together.

Ladies and gentlemen, before I came here, I ran a small business. While I was running my small business, it became pretty clear to me that government was growing in my view out of control. More regulations, more taxes, more compliance costs, both for my suppliers, for my customers, and for my own little small business. It seemed to me that government was choking the goose that was laying the golden egg.

You know, we were all lucky enough to be raised in America, most of us born in America, the greatest country in the world. And it is a great country because Americans have had the freedom, the freedom to succeed, the freedom of opportunity. But I think all of us can understand that the bigger government gets, the more that it takes from the American people, the more money that individuals have to spend to comply with all of these regulations, is less money that is left in American families' pockets, small business's pockets, and as a result the opportunities, the opportunities available for our citizens get diminished.

We live in a great country. But it can only be great if we are willing to allow the freedom that Americans have had to succeed to remain. That freedom has been dimming. The bright lights of freedom have been dimming for decades because government continues to grow. One only has to look at what has happened this year to wonder why we are here tonight doing this. We all know we have had a difficult economic shock in our country over the last year.

So we see a stimulus bill that came to this floor with a promise that we were going to create jobs, jobs, jobs. And unemployment wasn't going to exceed 8 percent. Now we have unemployment rates at 10.2 percent and over 3 million Americans have lost their jobs. So all of a sudden we have a budget on the floor, a trillion-and-a-half-dollar deficit this year, and trillion-dollar deficits on average for as far as the eye can see. And I don't think there is a Member on either side of the aisle who doesn't realize that this is unsustainable, that this will wreak havoc on our country and wreak havoc on the future for our kids and our grandkids.

If there is one obligation that we have, it is to ensure that the American dream that is available to all of us is available for our kids and our grandkids. And trillion-dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see are not sustainable and will ruin their future.

But no, it wasn't enough. All of a sudden we have to have this national energy tax on the floor in June. It is called cap-and-trade because no one in America really knows what that means, but it is a giant energy tax. And it would tax anybody who drives a car, anybody who works at a place that uses electricity. Anyone who would have the audacity to flip on a light switch is going to pay a higher tax.

Not only are we going to pay higher taxes and have less energy and higher energy costs in America, it will ship millions of American jobs overseas at a time when Americans are asking, Where are the jobs? And the policies that have been coming down the pike all year have done nothing more than diminish the possibility that we will be creating the jobs that Americans so desperately want. That still wasn't enough. Now we are going to bring this 2,000-page bill to the floor of the House. It's going to cost over $1.3 trillion and will kill millions more American jobs.

The American people want us to focus on getting our economy moving again because they are looking for work. They want to make sure that those who have their job can keep it. What has happened here all year is we're moving policies that are going to destroy the ability of the private sector to create those jobs. But I don't think there is anything that will diminish the job prospect in America more, of all the things that have happened this year, than this health care bill.

Now, you just think about this bill that we have in front of us. It is going to raise taxes. It is going to raise insurance premiums for those who have insurance. It's full of mandates. And as if that's not enough, we are going to cut Medicare.

Now, the President said that if you like the health insurance you have, you can keep it. And I know the President was sincere in that, but that is not what this bill represents and there's not a Member in this Chamber that doesn't understand that. Because if you're a Medicare Advantage enrollee, like 27,000 of my constituents, the Congressional Budget Office says that 80 percent of them are going to lose their Medicare Advantage.

If you look at this bill and you look at the employer mandate in this bill, you will find out that if employers don't provide health insurance, there is a tax. And for many employers, the tax will be cheaper than the actual cost of health insurance. A lot of employers in America are going to look up and say, Listen, I'd rather pay the tax, and my employees are going to have to go fend for themselves and end up in the government plan.

But it doesn't stop there. This bill also requires that every employer plan that is offered today has to be approved once again by the Department of Labor and the health choices czar; big compliance cost there. Some employers are going to say, Listen, this isn't worth it. Because it's not just getting the plan reapproved again. It has to go through the health choices czar so that the health choices czar can determine whether your plan is adequate according to some Federal bureaucrat. And so a lot of employers, they're just going to get out of it. They're not going to do it. And what is going to happen to those employees who like the coverage they have today? They are going to end up in the government plan.

But no, no, it doesn't stop there. We have an individual mandate in this bill in front of us that says every American is going to buy health insurance whether you want it or not. And if you don't want it, you're going to pay a tax. And if you don't pay the tax--listen to this. If you don't pay the tax, you're going to be subject to a fine of up to $250,000 and imprisonment up to 5 years. Now, this is the most unconstitutional thing I've ever seen in my life. The idea that we can tell Americans, force Americans by some law that they have to buy health insurance or we're going to fine you and send you to jail.

But there has been all this focus on the employer mandate and on the individual mandate, on the government option, but let me tell you where there hasn't been much attention, and that is the giant bureaucracy that is being built here in Washington in the Federal Government to take control of Americans' health care system and force you out of the insurance you have and into some government-run plan.

I know most of my colleagues, they might think this is hyperbole or it might sound political. Let me tell you, it isn't. Well, just listen to this. Most of my colleagues on the left have been down here today. They are for this because it does in fact set up this big infrastructure for the government to eventually take control of all of our health care and just go to a single-payer system.

Now, it starts with the exchange that's in this bill. Once it takes effect, the health exchange, you can't buy private insurance on your own. You can't go out and buy insurance. You have to go to the exchange, and the exchange will decide for you which plans are offered to you. So, if you change your job or you don't like what you have, guess what? You get to go to the government's health exchange to get your insurance.

But it's just not the government option that I'm talking about. When you look at this infrastructure that's there, it is going to require tens of thousands

of new Federal employees. The American people want two things from health care reform: They want lower cost and they want more choices. I think the underlying bill here tonight does exactly the opposite. It raises the cost of health insurance and creates this new megabureaucracy to make health care decisions that should be left to doctors and their patients.

So let's talk about this bureaucracy for a moment. If you go to page 131, section 241 provides for an unelected ``Health Choices Commissioner'' who would run a ``Health Choices Administration,'' an independent agency of the executive branch.

Now, here are some of the examples of the powers of this new health choice commissioner--let's just call him the health czar. On page 167 through 172, in section 303, the health czar will decide which treatment patients could receive and at what cost. Or you can go to page 132, section 242, the health choices czar would decide which private plans would be allowed to participate in the exchange.

Then you go to page 127, section 234. This new health czar will regulate all insurance plans both in and out of the exchange.

Then you go to page 162 to 165, section 302, the health choices czar will determine which employers are going to be allowed to participate in the exchange.

Then you go to page 174 to 178, section 304(b), the health choices czar will decide which physicians and hospitals get to participate in the government-run plan.

Then you go to page 197 to 202, section 308, the health choices czar will determine which States are allowed to operate their own exchange and to terminate any previously approved State exchange at any time.

Then you go to page 170 and 171, section 303(d), the health choices czar can override State laws regarding covered health benefits. It's in the bill. Go read it.

Page 133, section 242(a)(2). This person will determine how trillions of taxpayer and employer dollars would be spent within the exchange.

And page 133, section 242, ``conduct random compliant audits.'' The person still has more powers here.

Page 183, section 305, automatically enroll Americans into the exchange if they don't have coverage, including potentially forcing these individuals into the government-run plan. Now, this is referred to as ``random assignment.''

This commissioner is charged with establishing ``waiting lists'' and defining such terms as ``dependent,'' ``service area,'' ``premium rating area,'' ``employee,'' ``part-time employee,'' and ``full-time employee.'' Let's all be honest, this is the czar to end all czars.

But it doesn't stop there. When you look at this expanding bureaucracy created in the Federal Government, on page 1322, section 2401, it creates a new Center for Quality Improvement to prioritize areas for identification, development, evaluation, and implementation of best practices for quality improvement of best practices for the delivery of health care services. We've already got Centers for Quality Improvement. We've got doctors, nurses, surgeons, hospitals, laboratories, rehab facilities. But no, no, we're going to have more bureaucracy than that. We're not even close to the end of this bureaucracy.

Page 1183, section 1904 provides for $750 million in Federal funding for a new entitlement program to offer ``knowledge of realistic expectations of age-appropriate child behaviors'' and ``skills to interact with their child.'' So not only is the Federal Government going to legislate what's good for medical practices, now we're going to put $750 million into a program to help legislate how parents should parent.

Page 1198, section 1907, we establish a Center for Medicare and Medicaid innovation within the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to legislate innovation as part of a bill that cuts, I think, the most innovative Medicare program we have, that's Medicare Advantage. But we still have more.

Page 25, section 101 authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to reduce benefits, increase premiums, and establish waiting lists to make up for funding in the shortfalls of high-risk pools. That's right there in the bill, ``establish waiting lists.''

Pages 734, 738, and 1162, sections 1401 and 1802 create the Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research and the Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission and the Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund. These are bureaucracies that will decide which treatments are most effective. But the bill does not provide any protection to doctors and patients that they all get to decide what's in their own best interest.

Then we get into a lot more duplicative Federal programs. Page 1432, section 2531 provides for incentive payments to States that enact new medical liability laws, but only if such laws do ``not limit attorneys' fees or impose caps on damages.'' So we're telling States to solve the problems, but also telling them not to use the tools that work most effectively in the States that are using them.

Page 1624, section 2589 creates a new Personal Care Attendant Workforce Advisory Panel. Let me say that again, a Personal Care Attendant Workforce Advisory Panel made up in part by personal care workers, including their union representatives, to study working conditions and salaries of these workers. What does this have to do with lowering health care costs?

Page 1968, section 3103 establishes a ``Committee for the Establishment of the Native American Health and Wellness Foundation.'' So we're going to set up a committee whose job it is is to set up a foundation, and we're going to take half a million dollars of Americans' money to do this.

Page 1330, section 2402 creates a new Assistant Secretary for Health Information. I guess this is another job saved or created.

Page 1391, section 2524 creates a ``No Child Left Unimmunized Against Influenza'' demonstration grant program to test the feasibility of using the Nation's elementary schools and secondary schools as influenza vaccination centers. Aren't we doing this already?

Page 1253, section 2231 creates a new Public Health Workforce Corps for the purpose of ``ensuring an adequate supply of health professionals.'' The bill also creates a ``Public Health Workforce Scholarship Program'' and a ``Public Health Workforce Loan Forgiveness Program.'' All of this duplicates the existing National Health Services Corps.

Page 1478, section 2552, the bill creates an Emergency Care Coordination Center in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response charged with working in coordination with the Federal Interagency Committee on Emergency Medical Services. And the Emergency Care Coordinator Center seeks out the advice of a Council of Emergency Care.

We're not finished yet. How about this one? Page 1515, section 2572(b) imposes a labeling requirement on all vending machines nationwide. In addition to that, we require all restaurants with more than 20 locations to post the calorie count exactly next to--and we spell this out in the law--right next to the menu, whether it's the drive-in menu, the menu on the board, the one they hand out to you. Oh, yeah. We're going to require every restaurant with more than 20 locations to do this. Oh, but that's not enough.

Page 872, section 1433 requires the director of food services at nursing facilities that participate in Medicare or Medicaid to hold ``military, academic, or other qualifications'' as determined by Federal bureaucrats. So now we are going to legislate the work requirements in the background of all this off.

But I think this is the best part of the bureaucracy: on page 122, section 233(a)(3) of this 2,032-page bill, it requires the commissioner to ``issue guidance on best practices of plain language writing.'' Oh, yes, it's right here in the bill. Go look at it.

Ladies and gentlemen, we know what's going on here. There are problems in our current health care system that we all want to address. I heard all the criticisms of our bill and the fact that it doesn't do everything that everybody wants it to do.

But do you know what it does do?

It lowers the cost of health insurance, and it solves the problem of those with preexisting conditions, and it begins to insure more Americans. That's what the American people want, a step-by-step approach to making the best health care system in the world better.

We can do that. What we don't need to do is to create this giant bureaucracy, spend all of this tax money, and imprison our children's future by passing this 2,000-page bill.

So, I think we do have a better solution, a commonsense solution that Americans will support.

So, tonight, here we are. We have a choice. We can pass the 2,000- page bill. We can raise taxes. We can cut Medicare. We can impose all of these mandates on employers that are going to drive employment down and unemployment up, or we can take some commonsense approach.

As I said during my remarks, our job is to do our best to make sure that our kids and grandkids have a better chance of the American Dream than we did. I understand that we've got some tough choices to make, but that's what the American people sent us here to do is to make those tough choices. I'm not going to put my kids further in debt. I'm not going to dim the lights of freedom for my kids and theirs nor for anyone's in this country if I can avoid it.

So we have a choice. We can do what's right for the future, or we can continue down this path toward bigger and bigger government. I came here to fight for freedom. I came here to renew the American Dream for our kids and our grandkids.

So I would ask my colleagues to think about that choice. Vote for the Republican alternative, and whatever you do, please vote ``no'' for the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 836, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. DREIER, Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 836, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Res. 398, Recognizing the 60th Anniversary of Berlin Airlift's Success.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, the American people have said that the number one thing they're concerned about with regard to health care is the cost of health care. The Speaker's 1,990-page government takeover of health care raises the cost of insurance for American families and it will add to our already exploding debt.

The cost of the Speaker's bill is now at $1.3 trillion and counting. It's a debt that will be paid for by our kids and our grandkids. And, to make matters worse, it will increase taxes, impose job-killing mandates, and cut seniors' Medicare benefits.

There's a better way. Republicans have outlined a plan to lower cost and expand access at a price our Nation can afford. This includes letting families buy health insurance across State lines; allowing small businesses to pool and offer health insurance to their employees at much lower cost, just like big businesses and unions can today; giving States the tools to create innovative reforms that lower costs; and ending junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs.

Given all that's at stake, the American people deserve to see the Republicans' smart, fiscally responsible plans debated here on the House floor side-by-side with the Speaker's 1,990-page bill.

I hope we will see that debate and vote as soon as possible.

Congratulations.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, as we stand here, the health care bill is being written in secret in Speaker Pelosi's office and over in the Senate by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, even though the President of the United States during his campaign made clear that these negotiations ought to be out in the public and we ought to have C-SPAN cameras in there to allow the American people to see who is fighting for what side. Yet, it is not happening. It is being written in secret.

And no wonder it is being written in secret because the Democrat majorities are doing exactly what the American people don't want: a big government-run plan. I wonder if the 53 new agencies, boards, commissions and mandates that were in the original House bill will continue to be in this bill that is being written in secret.

But this bill is in secret for one big reason. It is going to cost over $1 trillion. It is going to raise taxes. It is going to have mandates on individuals. It is going to destroy jobs, and it is going to cut Medicare for our seniors.

What cuts to seniors are going to be in this bill? No one knows. All I know is that there were $162 billion worth of cuts to Medicare Advantage in the original House bill, $162 billion, and I have 27,000 Medicare Advantage enrollees in my district. And according to the Congressional Budget Office, some 80 percent of them are likely to lose their health coverage under this proposal.

Republicans have better solutions. Just go to healthcare.gop.gov and see the Republican solutions that will help make our current system work better and not have this big government takeover of our health care delivery system.