Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs? Our Nation's unemployment rate continues to hover around 10 percent and 36,000 more Americans lost their jobs last month; yet, once again, the current administration is failing to listen.

Despite public opinion 2-1 supporting opening new areas of the Outer Continental Shelf to drilling, the administration announced last week that it would discard the 2010-2015 lease plan for new development on the Outer Continental Shelf and wait until 2012 to put a new plan in place. This decision flies in the face of the bipartisan action in 2008 lifting the decades-long ban on energy development on 500 million acres on the Outer Continental Shelf, and it certainly goes against the idea of energy independence and lower energy costs.

As the number one producer of oil and number two producer of natural gas in this country, we in Louisiana know that energy development means good-paying jobs. It has been estimated that the 500 million acres, when producing, would provide 1.2 million new jobs and contribute $273 billion annually to our gross domestic product.

Where are the jobs, Mr. Speaker?

I want to thank the gentlelady, Mrs. Schmidt, for giving me the opportunity to speak on this subject.

Of course, for those who are in the audience, in the gallery, the question is probably, What does this guy know about National Women's History Month? Certainly, what does he know about women in general?

Well, what I can tell you is that a very important woman in my life gave me life, itself--my mother. She passed away many years ago, but, obviously, she is someone I can never forget. I have a wife of almost 32 years, and I also have two daughters, one of whom has gifted to me two grandsons. So I think I know something about the appreciation of women when it comes to

National Women's History Month. Let me just mention about abortion and about my pro-life stance.

Mr. Speaker, I really oppose abortion for four reasons. Number one, I am a Christian. I believe that only God can give or can take away innocent life. That is within his prerogative and within his power and his only.

Number two, as a physician, practicing for over 30 years, I believe in the protection of life. I don't see any way that abortion could be considered health care. Health care and abortion are totally different things.

Number three, as a scientist, I understand that, at the moment of conception, the unique DNA combination that results remains unique into history. That unique person can never be replicated by anyone else.

Number four, as a person, I believe that the only way that one can accept abortion is through something we call dehumanization. What do I mean by that? We human beings have the distinct ability to think of other human beings in a less than human way. What are some examples of this? Well, oftentimes, those who were pro-slavery gave certain explanations which would suggest that slaves were somehow less than human beings. Certainly, during the pre-World War II period and during World War II, we know that the Nazis used a similar characterization in order to justify what they did to the Jewish people and to many others.

I think that we have to deal with that today, that to accept taking innocent life, even if it is preborn, requires dehumanization, and I think we need to come to that recognition.

If we accept that the unborn child is indeed a human, then I don't see any way we can justify taking that innocent life.

I also stand today, Mr. Speaker, to just briefly mention that I think abortion is exploitive of women. There are a lot of reasons for this, and I will just speak to the area of health care.

Today, there are more than 3,000 American mothers who are victimized by a procedure, abortion, that ends the lives of small children, the small children they carry. The harm to women is real and the physical ramifications are significant.

As a physician, I can tell you that women who have abortions are more likely to experience more infertility, ectopic pregnancies, stillbirths, miscarriages, and premature births than other women who have not had abortions.

Studies have shown that women having had abortions are 3.5 times more likely to die in the following year; six times more likely to die of suicide; 7 to 15-fold more likely to have placenta previa in a subsequent pregnancy, which is a life-threatening condition for the mother and the baby, and which increases, of course, the chance of death or stillbirth; and twice as likely to have preterm or postterm deliveries--and pre-term delivery increases the risk of neonatal death and certainly handicaps.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the gentlelady giving me an opportunity to speak on this subject. I think that anytime we think about women, we have to think about moms, and anytime we think about moms, we have to think about children, and those children, of course, are children, in my opinion, from the moment of conception. That is when life begins. And anything that disrupts that deliberately that is not of the nature of God is indeed the taking of innocent life and is not health care.

So I thank the gentlelady, and appreciate the time you have given me today.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate a solemn occasion.

One year ago, President Obama issued an Executive order allowing for taxpayer dollars to incentivize the destruction of human life through the use of embryonic stem cells. As a physician, a father, and a grandfather, I know that all human life is precious and begins at the moment of conception, and it is paramount that we continue to seek better medical treatments and cures for diseases. Yet I also believe that our research and decisions must be life affirming.

Lives can be saved through techniques creating embryonic-like cells from adult cells, making it unnecessary to destroy embryos. Over 73 different diseases so far have been treated with adult or cord blood stem cells, including type 1 diabetes and heart disease.

I call upon the President to reverse this order and acknowledge that research that is both morally controversial and out of date does not need to be subsidized by the American taxpayer.

I want to thank the gentleman again, faithful virtually every week to have this leadership hour and talk about such weighty issues as health care.

But to follow up on your very point, and that is today, the big question is why all these increases in private insurance rates. Well, there are several reasons, but the main reason is that private insurance premiums help subsidize Medicare and Medicaid. Why? Medicare and Medicaid underpays the providers, the gap is getting larger, and so providers have to make it up in order to survive in business on the private insurance which has to escalate in relation to that.

So that is something you will not hear from Speaker Pelosi or the President. He wants to demonize the insurance companies. As a physician, I am no big friend of the insurance companies. But fair is fair. If we are going to fix this problem, we have got to start, in my opinion, by looking at cost savings. We are going to have to be real about and realistic about where the real costs are coming from.

Again, you are right. Half of medicine today is under government control, and that is the part that is bankrupting the system.

Well, first of all, let me say something that I think is not as obvious, but if you think about it, it should be very clear. Coverage under health care does not mean access to health care. Look at Cuba. In Cuba, you have universal health care, you have universal access, and it's all free. The problem is there is no health care in Cuba. They have one colonoscope for the whole country. Antibiotics, medications. Nonexistent. So what good is 100 percent universal coverage?

Now how does that apply to us? Well, what we're really doing in effect with this bill is taking two big entitlements, which is Medicare-Medicaid. The States can't afford Medicaid. The Federal Government cannot afford Medicare. Medicare will run out of money in 8 years. On top of that, we're taking out half a trillion dollars for Medicare, not knowing how we're going to make up for it, and then we're going to take the money and tax people and create a whole new entitlement, stacking one entitlement after another.

Bottom line here is, there's two ways to save costs, to bend the cost curve down in health care. One is to have a giant system like that, and create bureaucrats who are going to control things and micromanage, and ultimately save money through long lines, a waiting list, and rationing. The other, the one I prefer, is a free market where we attack the doctor patient-relationship and we empower the patient, make him into a consumer, where he has clarity and transparency, where he has health savings accounts, for instance, and he can go and decide and have patient choice as to what the cost, what the providers are going to be, and where he can get his best value for the money.

We're in the closing moments. I just want to touch on the process. We've heard about the Corn Husker kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, the Gatorade Carve-out for the Medicare Advantage in Florida.

All special deals. And today we find out that yesterday or the day before our Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, made this comment, she said, We're going to have to pass this bill in order to find out what's in it. Now, we're talking about one-sixth of the entire economy here, and our Speaker has the audacity to say that we need to pass this crazy 3,000-page bill just to find out what's in it? And with that she's referring to reconciliation.

Well, we learned with the stimulus bill that you didn't have to read it to pass it, so I guess maybe it just correlated with that.

Mr. Speaker, last year, I introduced House Resolution 615, a resolution that simply says, if you vote for a government-run health care system, you should be willing to be subject to it. As of today, over 3 million Americans have gone to fleming.house.gov in support of this resolution.

This message continues to resonate across America for one simple reason: The people of this country are sick and tired of being the victims of bad laws while their elected representatives exempt themselves from the very same laws. If Congress feels increased taxes, higher premiums, and government-run health care are good enough for American families, then it should be good enough for them as well.

I urge the President and Democrat leadership to listen to this overwhelming uproar from the American public. Scrap the current legislation and go back to the drawing board to craft a true bipartisan bill that increases access and quality of health care while driving down costs for American families.

I thank my friend, Mr. Cao, for proposing this resolution, and for having this debate today, and certainly other members from our delegation.

Let me just say parenthetically, in response to our good friend from Indiana (Mr. Burton) that there is another irony that goes along with this as well, and that is that Peyton Manning, the quarterback for the Colts, is the son of none other but Archie Manning, who was present for the Saints from the very beginning of its franchise. So we have ironies boiling over here.

What I would like to do is congratulate the World Champion New Orleans Saints on winning the franchise's first Super Bowl. The New Orleans Saints beat the Indianapolis Colts by a score of 31-17 on February 7, 2010. The Saints are an inspiration to all of us on and off the field.

After not playing a single game in their home stadium in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina, the Saints came back in 2006 to a revitalized Superdome and carried that momentum to rebuilding a city and its people. The team donated money to charities and their time into renewing their city. The adversity they overcame is enormous, but the hope they gave was even greater. I certainly congratulate the Saints on winning Super Bowl XLIV, and I also welcome everyone in America to the Who Dat Nation.

Mr. Speaker, the same team that brought America the job- killing, tax-hiking cap-and-tax legislation appears to be at it again. Just last week Representatives Waxman and Markey began committee action aimed towards giving the EPA unprecedented power to enact oppressive regulations on hydraulic fracturing--the technology that allows producers to reach natural gas, which has been proven safe for over 60 years.

This action would have a far-reaching negative impact on energy producers and consumers alike, particularly in formations such as the Haynesville Shale in my district which depends on hydraulic fracturing. In 2008, the Haynesville Shale pumped $4.5 billion into Louisiana's economy and created over 32,000 jobs.

Adding additional layers of regulations to hydraulic fracturing would not only result in sharp increases in costs to small and independent producers, it would dramatically decrease output and job creation. Production could grind to a halt and billions of dollars in Federal and State revenue would be at risk.

We need to get away, again, from this crazy scheme.

Mr. Speaker, in the midst of the worst recession in over a generation, this administration continues to advance its job-killing climate agendas. For instance, the recent EPA endangerment finding is particularly disturbing.

This reckless regulation lays the groundwork for a type of unlegislated, administrative cap-and-trade, which, without an effective tailoring rule limiting its application, could destroy nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs and could result in lost economic activity of $7 trillion.

During the State of the, Union we heard President Obama proclaim that job creation should be this country's main focus. Then why does he insist on attacking and destroying energy, finance and the health care sectors, killing jobs in the process?

I urge the President to stay true to his word and to work with Republicans in order to advance commonsense ideas which will rein in government spending, which will cut our deficits and will restore the three top things this country wants the most--jobs, jobs, jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to first of all thank Mr. Skelton, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and also Mr. McKeon, the ranking member, and other Members who have supported this resolution.

I rise today in recognition of the men and women of the Armed Forces who have played such an important role in easing the suffering in Haiti after the January 12 earthquake that left thousands dead, thousands injured, and the country in ruins. Our military's swift, dedicated, and selfless action provided much-needed rescue, recovery, logistics and security capability in the immediate aftermath, and our service men and women who have done so much to put Haiti back on the road to recovery

We Americans can understand the impacts of disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Andrew, the Northridge earthquake to name just a few. So our hearts go out to those in Haiti whose lives have been shattered by this earthquake.

Even so, the extent of the devastation was shocking. In over 200 years, Haiti has not felt as powerful an earthquake as was experienced that day in January. Over 3 million Haitians, a third of the country's entire population, were affected by the disaster. To put the scale of this earthquake's impact into perspective, imagine an event affecting more than 100 million Americans in an instant.

For a country whose infrastructure and services were already insufficient, the effects of the 7.0 earthquake were exacerbated. Buildings throughout Port-au-Prince and the surrounding countryside collapsed like card houses--trapping, injuring, and killing many. The United Nation's peacekeeping force in Haiti to aid in stabilizing that struggling nation was unable to fully respond as it had lost its headquarters and a number of peacekeepers during the quake.

The presidential palace, city hospital, and the World Bank building were all severely damaged. Roads, highways, power lines and basic services were all impacted, making immediate life-saving efforts all the more important and difficult. The images coming from Haiti revealed an apocalyptic scene.

Our military's response was immediate, focusing on life saving and assessment, humanitarian assistance, and disaster relief and evacuation operations. U.S. Southern Command was charged with coordinating and executing all military support and by chance found the Deputy Commander, Lieutenant General P.K. (Ken) Keen, already on the ground as he happened to be in Haiti on an official visit when the earthquake hit.

In these initial moments of confusion, our Armed Forces displayed the focus, determination, and steadiness that we all expect from such a well-trained force.

Under the direction of the U.S. Southern Command, the members of Operation Unified Response worked closely with the U.S. Embassy personnel, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the United Nations, and the many nations and the U.S. States who had sent rescue teams and aid personnel to quickly and effectively assess the damage, begin immediate rescue operations, and open logistical lines so that aid and recovery efforts could begin. All those involved in Operation Unified Response deserve our utmost thanks and praise for their efforts to save lives and restore hope in Haiti.

An estimated 230,000 lives were lost--76 American citizens are among the confirmed dead--and almost 200,000 injured in the earthquake. These already shocking numbers could have been all the worse had our response been any less. Instead, lives have been saved, the injured are receiving treatment, food and water are flowing, and recovery has started.

Mr. Speaker, Operation Unified Response is a reminder that America stands ready to aid a neighbor and friend in need. Once again, our military men and women have been a shining example of the American spirit. Today, we recognize and honor their efforts in Haiti and wish them, and all those helping Haiti recover, Godspeed in their work. And for Haiti and its people, we remind them that we, America, are with them in this time of need.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia, Paul Broun, a fellow family physician, a fellow conservative who has been a great inspiration for me, a great Member, and under whose leadership many of these issues have been very valuable to me.

Mr. Speaker, what I'm going to do is just touch very lightly, just highlights, on where we started with this and where we are today and certainly yield back for others to weigh in on this.

It's been slightly less than a year ago that we began to see a strong movement towards the passage of health care reform in Congress. Quite frankly, I ran on health care reform as a physician, and I'm sure Dr. Broun sees many of the things that can be fixed in our system that are problems. Having said that, we have the best health care system in the world. How do I know this? Well, just one of many empiric facts is a gentleman--I believe his name is Mr. Williams--who is Premier of Newfoundland, who needed heart surgery, and the type of heart surgery he needed was simply not available in Canada. So he came to the U.S. of A., the good old U.S. of A., to have that heart surgery because that's where the cutting edge is for health care. If you really need health care, the best of health care, and you have the resources, the U.S. of A. is the place to get it, but we need to be sure that good health care is available to all.

Less than a year ago, there was launched, by both the House and the Senate, efforts to pass health care reform, which really turned out to be, in my view, nothing more than a government takeover of health care.

Both bills are very similar. Both passed, of course, each House. The one or two major differences would include the House bill has a government option. The taxation is heavy in both.

The financing is heavy in both, but very similar.

But, to cut to the chase, it cuts out a half-trillion dollars from Medicare. It taxes people $800 billion, and it does not bend the cost curve down. Even the CBO says that.

Now, we have a situation, despite the fact that all of us here who are speaking tonight have been working very hard for many months, day after day, night after night, attempting to drive a wooden stake in the heart of this vampire, the government takeover of health care. And it seems, even when it's dead, it seems to be rising again.

Now, you know, it started out with a slight approval rating in the early days. I mean, who wouldn't be for health care reform? It sounds like a wonderful idea. But as people began to learn about it, and certainly when we got to the August recess where there were town hall meetings, we saw situations where people became so angry they were almost, I would say, out of control at times, very angry at many of their representatives across the country who would dare want the government to take over the most intimate part of our society, and that is health care.

And so, little by little, and maybe not so little by little, but perhaps even rapidly, we saw the approval rating of the government takeover of health care drop. And today, 2 to 1 Americans are against this. And those of us who were against it, it doesn't matter what party you're in--it doesn't matter. I mean, the only thing bipartisan about these bills we can actually say is that there are people on both sides of the aisle who are against it. But the bottom line here is that Americans do not want this.

I perceive us today, at this point in time, to be two touchdowns ahead, and 2 minutes left in the fourth quarter. The debate is over among the American people.

Yet and still, we have the President and Members of the House and the Senate, Democrat Party, who still want to find a way to cram it through. And one of the things they've come out with is just the release, less than 24 hours ago perhaps, maybe a little more than 24 hours ago, of a compiled version of the two bills. And here is what we have. The bill is most like the Senate bill, that is, the Obama 2.0 that Dr. Broun refers to is most like the Senate bill, but it increases spending by $100 billion. It increases premiums that are already going to increase by $2,100 per family per year. And it does something unbelievable, unprecedented. It actually begins to tax, by a factor of 2.9 percent, unearned income. That's the capital gains tax, interest income. These are all things that come to people who, in many cases, have fixed incomes. And of course, yes, it is the people who make over $200,000 a year.

But you know what? Where are we today with the AMT tax? It was never indexed for inflation, and now we have middle class people paying it. This is not indexed either, so sooner or later, middle class taxpayers will be paying those taxes.

Yeah, sure.

Yes. I appreciate the gentleman, Dr. Broun. Absolutely, that's the working capital for small businesses. You add to that that there will be as much as an 8 percent payroll tax for businesses that heretofore could not afford health care insurance, and they'll have to pay the insurance without getting that. And then their employees, who will not be able to afford to buy insurance, will be--instead of paying $750 per person under the Senate version, it'll be $2,000. So we have many things that are going to be job-killers out of this bill.

And last but not least, just when we thought all of those bad deals that really got this thing in trouble to begin with were going away, we find the Louisiana Purchase, the $300 million for Medicaid to Louisiana, which--Louisiana needs money to offset a FMAP problem, no doubt about it. But the problem is, if this bill goes to signature, that $300 million will be swallowed by a billion dollars of additional cost down the road that Medicaid is going to cost. So no real benefit to the State of Louisiana.

The Yukon deal--Senator Dodd added $100 million for a hospital that he liked for his State.

Gatorade--Ben Nelson secured extra benefits for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. The handout, the Montana, the North Dakota Senators deal, Hawaii got a special exemption for higher Medicaid DSH, or ``Dish'' payments. On and on and on, there are all sorts of deals still in this bill that have not been cut out.

And so I agree with the gentleman. As we go into this summit, health care summit on Thursday, there's no doubt about it. The American people need to understand that this is not about a true negotiation. The Republicans have been locked out of negotiations. We've been locked out of amendments.

Despite what I hear my Democrat colleagues say, we do not agree with 80 percent of this bill, not by any stretch of the imagination.

And so why now would we have this summit in front of the cameras? The reason is, as I said, is because this bill is nearly dead. It's trying to be revived, and now this is time for the Hail Mary. The President's going to jump in there and try to revive this somehow at the last minute.

And so I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it's time to kill this once and for all. Let's go on to true health care reform, stand-alone bills, starting with the low-hanging fruit, one at a time, attacking the things that we know we can all agree on: Preexisting illnesses, aggregating employees into large buying pools, purchase of insurance across State lines, tort reform--these things are straightforward. We could improve health care and lower the cost overnight by doing these things. And then get back to the people's work, and that is creating jobs for this country. I thank you and I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues and I were pleased to meet with the President last week about the many problems facing our Nation, the most important being that folks across the country are without jobs. We can no longer pretend that exploding deficits, bigger government, more taxes, and generational debt will lead us out of this dire recession.

During his State of the Union speech, the President said that Republicans have presented no solutions. Later that week when we handed him a copy of the Republicans' ``Better Solutions,'' without reading it he said that many of our ideas have already been incorporated into his bills. Which is true? I urge the President to immediately abandon the government takeover of health care and other industries. Instead, he should actually consider some of these commonsense ideas so that we can solve this country's problems in a bipartisan way by immediately cutting deficits and restoring the thing this country wants most--jobs, jobs, jobs.

Mr. Speaker, according to a poll released this week by CNN, nearly three out of four Americans think that much of the money spent in the so-called stimulus plan has been wasted. I agree. Should we be surprised that a bill chock-full of earmarks and pet projects did nothing to inspire confidence among Americans? And with a record drop in real estate sales, a languishing stock market, and an unemployment rate remaining above 10 percent, should we blame them? The CBO just offered that after only 1 year in total control, Democrats more than tripled the annual deficit, from $408 billion to $1.4 trillion. These

are not the changes Americans voted for.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the idea of a spending freeze, this country needs more than just window dressing. It needs to return to balanced budgets and a real focus on job creation.

Madam Speaker, the American people are hurting, and Washington is not listening. Over the past year, the policies of more taxes, runaway spending and record debt have had a chilling effect on job creation across this country. The stock market is languishing, home sales have declined, and unemployment is in double-digits, reaching its highest level in decades.

Last year, President Obama and congressional Democrats promised that the trillion-dollar stimulus plan would create jobs immediately, and unemployment would not rise above 8 percent. Sadly, the only thing the wasteful stimulus bill created was bigger government, with nearly 2.7 million American jobs lost since that promise was made.

The Republican plan provides targeted tax relief for working families and small businesses and will create real jobs, not an illusion of jobs saved, as the administration suggests. It's past time that the President and the Democratic majority get serious about putting Americans back to work.

Mr. Speaker, while there is controversy about the pending health care legislation, one point where there should be bipartisan agreement is that the Federal Government should not penalize people simply for being married.

After review, it appears that both the House and the Senate bills contain significant marriage penalties. In the House bill, an unmarried couple with an income of $25,000 each would have their combined premiums capped at $3,076 per year. If the couple gets married, their annual premium cap drops to $5,160 for the same insurance. In short, there is a $2,084 penalty for simply being married.

While under the Senate bill it would be less, the marriage penalty would still exceed $1,500 a year. Simply put, a marriage penalty on the middle class is just one more reason to dump this government takeover of our health care system.

Mr. Speaker, as the health care negotiations have droned on for months behind closed doors led by Reid and Pelosi without the participation of the American people, Republicans and even many Democrats, what do we have to show for it?

We have the Louisiana Purchase, the Corn Husker Kickback, backroom deals with special interests, protection of the trial lawyers, and, finally, an embarrassing deal with the unions that allows them to be exempt from a 40 percent excise tax on ``Cadillac'' health care plans that the rest of the Nation will be subject to.

To my colleagues: Have you no shame?

What happened to the President's promises of open debate on C-SPAN and inviting Members of Congress to come to the White House to go over the health care bill ``line by line''?

I submit today that we scrap the flawed documents under consideration and immediately begin a bipartisan discussion on how to truly reform health care in this country in a way that does not involve higher taxes, higher costs to policyholders, and even more governmental interference in our daily lives.