Floor Statements

I thank my friend, Mr. Bishop from Utah, for letting me speak. I enjoy serving on Natural Resources and certainly this is an important topic; but I do want to bring up what happened on this very floor last night with regards to health care.

The Congressional Research Service, which, as you know, are experts when it comes to whatever happens in terms of academics in Congress, came out with a report this morning on the controversial topic of does ObamaCare, or H.R. 3200, or whichever Democrat version of the bill we're talking about, does it cover illegal immigrants. And let me give you a quote from the CRS. It says: ``Under H.R. 3200, an insurance exchange would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option. H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens, whether legally or illegally present or in the United States.''

So it's very clear that despite the fact that our President claims that this does not cover illegal immigrants, it absolutely does. In fact, in the SCHIP bill earlier this year, we tried, on our side of the aisle, to get language that was specific to require some sort of proof before someone could sign up for coverage under SCHIP that would show that they were not illegal immigrants. And, of course, that tougher language was removed.

Also, with regard to $900-or-so billion that our President mentioned last night, cost of the health plan, which really most believe is more like $1.6 trillion, he talked about savings that would come as a result of removal of fraud, waste, and abuse. Now, these programs, Medicare and Medicaid, which are government-run programs, have been in existence for around 45 years. What have we learned recently that we haven't known for all of these years that we can now remove fraud, waste, and abuse that we couldn't for 45 years?

In a 48-minute speech last night, the President did not bring up one new idea, any new strategy or techniques that would allow us to remove fraud, waste and abuse any better than we have been able to for all these years. The truth of the matter is that in order to reduce what we already have as waste in the system, we would have to create even another level or two of extremely expensive bureaucracy that would cost even more than what we would recover.

The fact of the matter is that a government system, whether it's running Cash for Clunkers, or the post office, is inept at controlling fraud, waste and abuse. It creates many new bureaucracies, in this case 53 new bureaucracies in the health care system; and, consequently, without moving to a private industrial form this wouldn't be possible.

Yes, to kind of summarize, I think that there were, I was personally offended last night when our President insinuated, if not coming out right and condescendingly saying that somehow we've been lying about what we've been saying about these health care bills. But the fact is, if you look at the details, if you look at the truth, you find that what we've been saying we can back up with facts, whether it is taxpayer-funded abortions, which is definitely covered in all versions of the bill on the Democrat side, coverage of illegal immigrants, definitely covered, and then of course the cost of this monstrosity, which is going to start at $1.6 trillion, and after about 10 years it's going to go up from there, never bending the cost curve down.

So, again, I would like to suggest that rather than being called out for

so-called myths, I think we should really get to the bottom and the real truth of this matter.

I thank my friend from Georgia, Dr. Congressman Gingrey for having this debate this afternoon. I think this is an appropriate time, after, I guess, the climax of all speeches by our President on this topic, health care. I believe last night's speech was his 28th major speech with health care reform as its topic. Before we get into the meat of this, which will deal with some of the statements that were made last night, I want to comment on the speech that our President made, things that struck me during the speech and then afterwards.

And first of all, let me say that, as a physician practicing for over 30 years, business owner, still owning businesses and employing hundreds of people in my businesses, providing health care insurance for them, I came to Congress hoping to work in a reform environment. I want health care reform. Wanted it before I was elected, but seeking to achieve that through private means, through capitalism, through the things that have made America great, not through socialistic government take-over means. So I came to this discussion last night, sat very close to where I am at this moment, hoping that the President would, after a very difficult August recess for many of our friends on the other side of the aisle, running into disgruntled Americans who are unhappy with the idea of government take over of health care, would come in a nonpartisan way, wanting finally to reach across the aisle to share some of our ideas, to allow us to participate in the debate as well.

But I noticed four things that I want to point out real quickly. Number one was his partisan tone. I really felt that his tone was hyperpartisan, was really unexpected to me. Again, he's my President. He's President of everyone in this Chamber today. And I think it's his responsibility to rise above partisanship. And I had expected that, to be honest, but I was disappointed.

I noticed a condescending tone, his lecturing us on how to achieve capitalistic ideals, free-market ideals using socialistic principles. Again, I've been a physician for many years in private practice. I've owned businesses for a number of years, and know of no economic model in which creating socialistic or governmental entities will make capitalism or the free market better.

Thirdly, an accusatory tone, suggesting and, in fact, coming outright and saying, in effect, we Republicans are lying about many parts of H.R. 3200, the Democratic bill. I really take personal umbrage over that because everything that I've spoken about and everything I hear from my colleagues is backed up through facts, and while we may disagree at times even over those facts, I don't think that it's appropriate for us to accuse each other of lying.

Then, finally, the unsupported claims themselves, which we're going to get into in a moment, making statements that cannot be in any way supported.

So, on the one hand, every statement that I know of that I and my colleagues have made can be supported very clearly, not necessarily with what's directly in the bill but with facts that surround the bill. Then there is our President coming to us, making statement after statement and repeating them, which can't be supported in any way, shape or form either in the bill or outside of the bill.

Yes, please.

Yes.

Yes, I remember him saying this and shaking his finger while he was doing it, and we have been totally unable to find anyone who can agree with this statement.

The cost of the bill will be anywhere from $1.6 trillion to over $2 trillion. The President says that the savings will either come from-- well, really from a combination of raising taxes and then savings. If I could digress for a moment, he is talking about savings. You alluded to this a little bit, Congressman Gingrey, about his gutting Medicare and Medicaid $500 billion--$190 billion by killing off Medicare Advantage-- and then the rest would come out directly.

You know, I was born at night, but I wasn't born last night, and I happen to know that I and many of my physician colleagues, who have been dealing with Medicare reimbursement for many years, all know that we are currently being reimbursed under Medicaid and Medicare well below our costs. We make it up on the private insurance, which is what is driving the private insurance cost up. It is the existing government-run programs that are running those costs up. To say that you can take $500 billion out and it's not going to affect services just is not true. It is plainly false to say that. Even with the best estimates, we come out with at least, as you say on your poster, $239 billion of deficit over 10 years. So there is nothing at all that supports that statement, sir.

Yes, sir.

Well, you know, if you look in the four corners of the bill, itself, there is no statement that says that it will change the coverage or the doctor you have. However, remember that it's the impact of the law that really dictates the outcome.

First of all, you just mentioned that 25 percent of Medicare recipients are on Medicare Advantage, which is the privatization part of Medicare in general where they're able to get more services through private insurance than they can on regular Medicare. Well, the financing for that program will be killed off, so that's 25 percent of Medicare recipients. We'll lose Medicare Advantage, so whatever doctors and whatever services they're getting will definitely be changed.

Absolutely.

Secondly, as I described before, Medicare and Medicaid, the current government-run programs, only survive today because of the tremendous subsidy that's going on from private insurance, and even that will run out of money in 8 years, so we haven't even solved that problem. But if you look at the fact that the current government-run programs are, themselves, being subsidized by private insurance, once you create this government option, which will cost employers 8 percent of their payroll, it will begin to pull people out of private insurance and onto the rolls of the single-payer, government-run system.

Little by little--well, in fact, quite rapidly--the cost of insurance premiums of private insurance will begin

to dramatically rise. The disparity of the differential between the 8 percent of payroll that they will be required under the government option and the 15 or 20 percent of whatever it is going to end up being with private insurance will be so large that employers will have to be put in a position--will be forced--to dump their employees into the government option, the government-run system. As you point out there, the Lewin study shows that as many as 114 million Americans will be the ones dumped into the system.

Yes.

Will the gentleman yield just for a moment?

According to our President and to our colleagues on the Democratic side, they suggest this government option will be sort of an anecdote to the problem we have in insurance today, which is that there's not enough competition. Again, I don't know of any economic textbook or of any economic model that suggests that the way to create more competition in the workplace or in the business world is to create artificial pricing, which is what this does.

So what artificial pricing does, particularly when it's backed up with taxpayer dollars, is it, in effect, creates a situation where insurance companies will be put out of business, and that will, of course, cave the entire insurance industry.

Well, that's a bait and switch.

What the polls actually show is a majority of Americans favor health insurance reform. However, when you ask them specifically about the public option, as you point out in your poster, only 42 percent of Americans approve and 52 percent disapprove.

So we have a 10 percent gap. Most Americans do not approve of a public insurance option or what we call government takeover. And you really see this in the town halls. I don't know about you, Congressman Gingrey, but in my town halls, I did a number of town halls in my district during August. And overwhelmingly, I would say by a factor of about 95 to 98 percent, were against any sort of government-run insurance and only a handful suggested they were for it in any way. And, really, other polling that we have done suggest similar statistics.

And the other thing that you don't see here is intensity. The intensity level against government-run health care is far stronger than those who are in favor of it.

I thank the gentleman. To follow up on H.R. 3400, which I am also an original cosponsor of, you know, the President last night talked about a lot of laudable goals such as doing away with the whole idea of preexisting illness that would deny care, denying care to someone who developed a disease while on insurance. The ability, if you lose your job, to keep your insurance.

Well, you know what, this bill provides for all of that. These are all structural problems that are easily fixable. Our insurance system that we have today for health care was developed in the 1940s when insurance was only a catastrophic umbrella coverage. It is not what it is today.

And, so, really, through some very simple things, tearing down the walls between States, so that any American can buy any insurance policy within the borders of the United States, that would create the kind of healthy, robust competition we need to lift service and to reduce cost, to simply pass a law, a very simple law that says you can't deny coverage as a result. You can't even ask what preexisting illnesses you have had in the past.

It's like a friend of mine who had a routine colonoscopy as a preventive tool, and he was found to have a couple of benign polyps. I can tell you, Dr. Gingrey, that man may die in bed at 100, he may get run over by a bus, but he will never die of cancer of the colon. However, that's the reason why he lost his insurance, because polyps were found on an examination that he well should have had.

These atrocities should not occur, and H.R. 3400 will resolve those issues. And it also has tort reform, which you talked about, which H.R. 3200, the Democrat bill does not have.

So, really, all of the problems we have, virtually all of them, all of the solutions are found within H.R. 3400. And yet and still, you mention about participating in the process, the President said last night, and I will quote him, ``I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.'' Well, on May 13 the House Republicans wrote him a letter asking for that. We are yet to hear a response.

He's never commented. As far as I know, he's never read H.R. 3400. So, again, I think it's disingenuous.

I think we have something better to offer and certainly something that could offer tremendous amendments to the bill already before us.

Mr. Speaker, before the August recess, I introduced a resolution to hold Members accountable for their health care reform decisions. House Resolution 615 simply states that if Members of Congress vote for the government takeover of health care, they agree to give up their private insurance paid for by the taxpayers and enroll in the government-run plan. So far, 78 Republican Members have joined as cosponsors but not one Democrat.

Over 750,000 Americans from every State have contacted my office in support of this resolution. They are demanding that if government-run health care is good enough for Americans young and old, then it should certainly be good enough for the Members of Congress and their families.

How dare Congress force government-run health care down the throats of our fellow Americans and not be willing to choose it for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, you have heard people speak out on this. Isn't it time for every Member of this body to stand up and be accountable to the people they represent by taking a dose of their same medicine they prescribe to their constituents?

To my fellow Congressmen, won't you now join me in cosponsoring House Resolution 615 and prove that personal accountability finally does exist in Washington?

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3326, the ``Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010.'' I have requested

funding for the following projects in Fiscal Year 2010:

Nuclear Enterprise Surety Tracking, Account: RDTE, AF. Recipient: United States Air Force, Global Strike Command (Barksdale AFB, Louisiana). In support of AFGSC at Barksdale AFB, funds would support the Air Force's efforts to reinvigorate the Nuclear Surety Mission by combining a suite of technologies and applications on a bio-metrically secure handheld computing device to enable the real-time tracking of nuclear warheads and nuclear bombs across all USAF installations.

Reconstitution of B-52 Nuclear Capability Study, Account: RDTE, AF. Recipient: United States Air Force, Global Strike Command (Barksdale AFB, Louisiana). In support of the 2nd Bomb Wing and Headquarters, Eighth Air Force at Barksdale AFB, FY10 funds would provide for a comprehensive study of nuclear vulnerabilities to assure the B-52 bomber can meet its nuclear mission. Project will support the USAF/ Global Strike Command mission to reinvigorate the Air Force nuclear enterprise. The goal is to produce a prioritized list of recommendations that will enhance the B-52 fleet's capability to execute its nuclear role in support of USSTRATCOM commitments.

Consistent with the Republican Leadership's policy on earmarks, I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge, this request: 1) is not directed to an entity or program that will be named after a sitting Member of Congress, 2) is not intended to be used by an entity to secure funds for other entities unless the use of funding is consistent with the specified purpose of the earmark, and 3) meets or exceeds all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable. I also hereby certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Mr. Speaker, as a doctor, one of the main reasons I came to Congress was to push for health care reform, that is, commonsense reform, not nonsense reform as proposed by our Democrat colleagues. That's why I'm proud to be an original cosponsor of the Empowering Patients First Act, a Republican bill for reform.

This bill contains all of the essential elements of good health care reform, including expanding private insurance to all Americans who want it, removing preexisting illnesses, improving portability, subsidies to the working poor, access to excellent primary and specialty care and, of course, instituting lawsuit reform. All of this is accomplished without a government takeover, without gutting Medicare, without long lines or bureaucrats interfering in the sacred doctor-patient relationship; and it is budget neutral.

It is obvious that private insurance, no matter who pays for it, is the gold standard. As we return to our districts and debate this important issue, I believe we will find that Americans truly want private insurance options, not the government takeover of health care with the Soviet-style central planning of our economy.

Well, I thank my friend and fellow colleague, both a physician and fellow Member of Congress, Bill Cassidy, and also fellow Louisianan. And of course tonight we're going to be talking about a lot of different things relative to what is really the hottest topic maybe in a decade, health care reform, which both sides of the House are very interested in.

You know, you hear often from this side of the aisle that well, for heavens

sakes, we want health care reform. But you guys, on the other hand, Republicans, you want the status quo. Well, I can tell you personally, that I ran for Congress with the overarching intent of getting up here and participating in reform. What I want to bring forth first, before we get into some more details is, I think there's a litmus test as to how good a government-run system is, that proposed by the President and the Democrats. And so, the question is, a rhetorical question is, if it's so good, then shouldn't Congress be the first ones to sign up for it individually, for them and their families?

And, in fact, to see to that, I set forth House Resolution 615, which is supported by 66 Republicans, including our leadership on down, and all it says is that if a Member of Congress votes for a government-run health plan, a public option, if you will, then he or she is willing to forego the waiver, the carve out, the exception, if you will, that's built into their version, and join it immediately for themselves.

I'm sad to say to my friend, and I thank you for yielding back, that so far we have no Democrats, goose egg, zero Democrats.

Well, I think that is the $100,000, or shall I say, $1.6 trillion question, because apparently they're not so enthralled with it that they would like to be in it themselves. And in fact, I put it to the test by actually putting it on my Web site and asking people if they would like their congressman to support it, that they would actually reach out. We have 150,000 Americans who signed the petitions, and the number is growing drastically every day.

And so I would say that, as we go through this debate, that we simply ask our constituents out there to hold us in Congress accountable by contacting your Congressperson or Senator or even the President and say, Mr. President, Mr. or Ms. Congressperson, Mr. or Ms. Senator, will you go to fleming.house.gov and sign up, cosponsor or whatever, House Resolution 615, that simply says that if you're willing to vote for it you're willing to join it.

Well, my answer to the gentleman is that I would look to the experience of other health care systems in other countries. If you look at Medicare and Medicaid, we've not been able to do that. Medicare is running out of money. We don't have a solution to that. The States all across the country are having tremendous difficulty figuring out how they're going to pay for Medicaid budgets, their part of it. And then if you look at the U.K., you look at Canada, countries around the world who have these systems, none of them have been able to claim that they can control costs. They're inflation rates are 10 percent or more.

Absolutely.

In my opinion, no, because, again, if you can't do it for a smaller system, how can you enlarge the system and somehow make it mysteriously work, particularly when there are no models? Massachusetts, Tennessee, TennCare, and so on and so forth, no one has an example of a government-run system that works.

Will the gentleman yield?

May I add that the bill, itself, is scored at over $400 billion to be taken out of the current Medicare program. That's over $400 billion to be taken out of the current Medicare program. So that's actually in their bill itself. So I don't see how they can claim that the elderly will get more care. They're only going to get less care.

Yes.

Absolutely. I will tell you, approximately 5 years ago, and this is when health savings accounts really----

Yes. A health savings account is really very simple, where either the subscriber--the employee--or the employer, as in our case, puts part of the subscription costs into a savings account.

Not only does he control, but it is nontaxed, and he can use it to buy prescription drugs, to pay the deductible or whatever.

And we were up against a situation where, like many small businesses, our premiums were going up 9, 10 percent, sometimes 15 percent per year, and we were pulling our hair out trying to figure out what else we could do. And this idea of health savings accounts came out, and we said, Well, let's try this. I had some reluctance from my employees, but we increased the deductible, and the extra amount that we would have paid for the increase in subscription costs, we put it into a health savings account for each and every one of them.

The results were dramatic. The costs flatlined. They did not go up. And since then, they've never gone up more than 3 percent a year. It's empowered the employee, the patient, the family, to buy medications at will.

And it was very interesting. I had one employee who was complaining as we implemented. She said, Well, gee, I spend $200 a month for inhalers, and how is this going to help me out because I'm going to be spending a lot of time. I said, Well, let me suggest that you stop smoking, and with the money that you save by not having to use inhalers, you will have plenty of money left over. She took me up on it, and now she doesn't need them.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

Why is it that they can't do that now?

You often hear rhetoric from the Democrat side of the aisle that we are the party of the status quo, the party of no, we don't want reform. That is the main thing I ran on to come to Congress. I want health care reform. But I want commonsense reform, not nonsense reform, and that's what the Democrats are offering us.

The first completed bill--there are different versions of bills on the Republican side, but the first completed bill that's actually been dropped because we've been working behind the scenes for weeks and months to get it perfect, is the Empowering Patients First Act, which I am a proud original cosponsor, and here are some basic parts of it.

No. 1, access to coverage for all Americans. It covers preexisting conditions, and that is the big problem that everybody is talking about here tonight, risk pools.

Yes.

You are correct.

It also protects employer-sponsored insurance. But on the other hand, it actually gives ownership of the plans to the individual, and also the individual can buy it outside of their employer.

This does not exist. This matrix that you see there with Dr. Boozman, that does not exist in this plan.

That is correct.

Yes.

That is correct. And also, the government will have to actually certify all health plans. It will be a one-size-fits-all.

Yes.

Let me finish up because there are only a couple more points left. It also reins in out-of-control costs. This goes back to malpractice reform. This has malpractice reform. The government-run plan has not a word about malpractice reform. And finally, this is budget-neutral. That plan over on this side of the aisle is $1 trillion to $1.6 trillion, depending on which year span you are talking about, of course, with the CBO telling us that the costs curve up, not curve down, over time, despite what our President has told us. This one starts out with no cost, no net cost. There are savings built into it.

And really, just to get down to the basics, if the patients, if the public, the consumer doesn't have skin in the game, there's no money to be saved in this. If it's all on the providers and all on the government, you will never see costs controlled.

Let me add one other thing before I yield. We were talking a moment ago about the fact that illegal immigrants will be covered under this plan, 10 million or more.

I'm sorry. The Democratic plan provides coverage for illegal immigrants. The Republican plan does not. The Republican plan presumes that we will deal with immigration problems through an immigration reform process. But getting to my final point here is, the other thing that the government-run plan, the Democrat plan, provides for is taxpayer-funded abortions. Not only taxpayer-funded abortions, but an actual mandate, the requirement for convenience. There will have to be convenience centers throughout the country so that young women will not only have access but will have easy access, all at the taxpayers' expense. None of that, of course, is provided for in the Republican plan.

Mr. Speaker, recently the President said in a speech: ``Folks are skeptical and that is entirely legitimate because they haven't seen a lot of laws coming out of Washington that help.'' That is an understatement. Americans have found themselves at the mercy of the mass social agenda of this administration and the liberal leadership in Congress.

First it was the $750 billion stimulus bill that neither created nor saved any jobs; then came cap-and-tax. Both of these bills were passed only minutes after being fully released, but not read, and were the first two installments of this liberal/socialist agenda.

But this health care bill, H.R. 3200, is the mother of all bad bills and seeks to recast America as a new socialist state. If it passes in its current form, we can expect tax increases for all American families, waiting lines with DMV-style medicine, an explosion of taxpayer-funded abortions and a lack of good health care for the elderly.

Americans are urging Democrats to finally reach across the aisle and work with Republicans for a change.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I launched House Resolution 615 that simply says that if you vote for a government-run system, you should be willing to sign up for it. So far I've had a number of Republicans sign up, but not one Democrat. Since launching H. Res. 615 that calls for Members of Congress to sign up for government health care if they vote for it, it has received tremendous grassroots response. We now have over 100,000 Americans who have signed up in support, and the signatures represent all 50 States with supporters of the bill adamant about its demand for accountability of congressional lawmakers to the people.

This message has resonated across America for one simple reason, and the people of this country are sick and tired of being the victims of bad laws while their elected Representatives are exempt from the same laws. It is obvious that nobody in Washington wants for themselves a bureaucrat standing between them and their doctor, nor an expensive, inefficient health care delivery system, and certainly not to be abandoned when thought to be too sick, too old or too expensive to care for.

So why should Americans? I ask that Americans continue to hold us accountable by signing up to support House Resolution 615 by going to my Web site at fleming.house.gov.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3288, the ``Department of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.'' I have requested funding for the following projects in Fiscal Year 2010:

I-49 North (I-220 in Shreveport to AR Line), Account: Federal Highway Administration/

Interstate Maintenance Discretionary, Recipient: Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development.

FY10 funds are for right-of-way, utilities, and construction for I-49 N, from I-220 in Shreveport to the Arkansas line. The I-49 North project forms the southern segment of Congressionally designated High Priority Corridor I running from Shreveport, LA to Kansas City, MO. As defined by ISTEA and TEA-21 ``this corridor is intended to complement the existing Interstate system, integrate regions of the country, improve safety and efficiency of travel and commerce, and promote economic development.'' I-49 North represents Louisiana's part in completing this critical corridor connecting Canada and Mid-America to the deep water ports in New Orleans.

I-69 (Texas state line to Arkansas via Shreveport, LA), Account: Federal Highway Administration/Interstate Maintenance Discretionary, Recipient: Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development.

FY10 funds are for design and environmental work for sections SIU14B, SIU15, and SIU16A from the Arkansas state line to the Texas state line via Shreveport, LA. The I-69 corridor accounts for over 63 percent of the nation's truck borne trade with Canada and Mexico and has the nation's busiest border crossings on both the Canadian and Mexican borders. Seventeen of the nation's top 25 seaports, 13 inland waterway ports and 15 of the nation's top 25 air cargo airports are directly served by I-69. The corridor traverses over 150 counties and hundreds of municipalities, directly serving over 25 million people. Completion will increase transportation efficiency by reducing fuel consumption, travel time and costs, while facilitating trade, providing intermodal connectivity, relieving congestion and promoting economic development.

Consistent with the Republican Leadership's policy on earmarks, I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge, this request: (1) is not directed to an entity or program that will be named after a sitting Member of Congress, (2) is not intended to be used by an entity to secure funds for other entities unless the use of funding is consistent with the specified purpose of the earmark, and (3) meets or exceeds all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable. I also hereby certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Madam Speaker, earlier this week four Members of the President's Cabinet, including Secretary Sebelius, came to my home State of Louisiana to build grassroots support for ObamaCare in the rural areas, but they found themselves defending the administration's broader effort to take over the Nation's health care system. To say they were greeted by skepticism would be an understatement.

The anger over the direction this country is moving was best expressed by a gentleman who told the group, Please carry a message to Mr. Obama, that it will be a cold day in hell before he socializes my country.

The administration and a small group of very liberal Democrats are intent on pushing through a government takeover of health care, even though more than half this country does not want it.

Democrats in this House are moving forward with a health care plan that will hurt the sacred relationship between Americans and their doctor, deny access to needed treatments, and place power in the hands of Washington bureaucrats. Why are you in such a rush? Are you afraid Americans will learn the truth this time and stop it?

I thank my friend, Mr. Akin.

And as you know, I have been a family physician for 33 years, and I've also been in the private business segment apart from my medical practice for over 30 years. And I've come to learn both inside and outside of health care, looking from the outside in and the inside out, that government does just what you suggest; it tends to bloat things. It has difficulty dealing with the inefficiencies in the system.

And I will just give you one quick example that I deal with every day in my medical practice, and I do still practice, and that is take Medicare, for instance. In a government system like that, if there is fraud or abuse or waste going on, the government has to throw out a wide net, a very expensive net. It has to put a lot of resources in to catch a few people doing very egregious things and maybe doing a little bit to them, maybe a few months or a couple of years in jail.

Correct. The reason why it's so tremendous is because only a scratch of it is ever detected.

If you take a private organization, let's say a health maintenance organization, Mayo Clinic, which has been in the headlines lately, or Kaiser, they track their providers very closely. And if they're going off the scale, it doesn't matter whether they are doing something illegal or not. If they're just simply overusing--or in some cases underusing or inappropriately using--or doing things that are not within what we consider a good standard of care, then they're going to be reeducated or they're going to be terminated. You don't have to go through all of the expense to get very few people and really get very poor results.

I don't have a number on that, but I think it's a handful.

A very small number compared to the literally billions of dollars each year where Medicaid and Medicare fraud occurs.

Absolutely. And incidentally, where they found the savings was to deeply gut Medicare, which is already underfunded.

Yes.

That is correct.

If the gentleman will yield for a moment.

It's very interesting that the Democrats claim that we need a government-run system to compete with the private system to drive costs down, but if you dig into that, what you find out is just the opposite is happening today. Medicaid, and in the case of TennCare, was putting tremendous pressure on the private insurers and making their costs go up.

So the first thing we could ever do, if this were possible, to slow the rise in costs in private insurance, and that would be to remove the burden of Medicare and Medicaid on them.

Absolutely. And if I could give you an example in my own practice, the typical Medicare or Medicaid patient reimbursement is under my cost. So I have to see a certain number, hopefully twice as many private insurance, just to break even. And typically in a medical practice, particularly in a rural area--and this is why you see doctors closing up--as their patient mix of Medicare and Medicaid grows--and again, that's single-payer, government, you know, so-called public plan that exists today. As that percentage grows, their chance of going out of business grows as well.

Yes.

Yes, that's correct.

Well, of course, physicians.

You heard tonight the Democrats talk about how the AMA has come out in support of this. Well, that's true and it's not true. What really happened was last month, the rank-and-file physicians across the country met with the AMA, and they voted not to support it and then after----

Exactly. And then, again, one of those behind-the- scenes, in-the-backroom deals, a deal was cut over the sustained growth rate, the SGR, that would be cast aside if the AMA would sign on to it. And so without consulting physicians, the board of trustees of the AMA cut the deal with the President in the wee hours of night, and then sent them a letter in support. Thus far, 18 State chapters of the AMA and a growing number have come out saying that they do not support this. And I would really I think say with confidence a majority of the physicians across this country do not support government taking over.

Absolutely.

If the gentleman would yield.

I would say for two reasons they will not like this. First of all, you heard me just say that part of this plan is to gut Medicare to a great extent, which the elderly depend on. Medicare's already going bankrupt in

less than 10 years and is heavily subsidized by private insurance. And so what we're looking at is taking away the subsidy.

Yes. And if I could also add, one other problem is this Comparative Effectiveness Committee that's being created----

Well, it's tasked with the job of deciding who deserves what or what is really too expensive for whom and what sort of diseases. And if you look at the other countries that do this already, the United Kingdom, Canada and others, the elderly are the first ones that are counted out under this program.

About 10 million.

Yes, approximately 10 million illegal immigrants are in the United States today, and they, of course, are here working, many of them, most of them, but there's nothing that the government derives to pay for the social services, education, health care for them. And of course

that's 10 million people that either should be here legally and then paying into the system and paying their way or they should go back home because they're here illegally to begin with, and that would not be a cost or a burden.

Exactly.

That's correct.

I just wanted to mention that I know you gentlemen and lady know that the President spoke on this very subject tonight while we were actually talking ourselves, and I just

got some input, some interesting things he said here.

Number one, he acknowledges that the people of America are becoming skeptical because there haven't been any laws lately that have positively affected them. I think that's an understatement from our President. Also, he makes the claim that there is no bureaucracy. There will be no gap between the patient and the doctor, the sacred doctor- patient relationship.

Well, we've seen slide after slide of these--if the camera can show here with what Mr. Akin has that there are so many steps between the doctor and the patient. There are many now. But now it really goes crazy when we get into this system.

And then finally he was asked--you may recall that we submitted House Resolution 615 that says if you vote for government takeover of health care that you are willing to sign up for it and forego a waiver which is built into these bills that doesn't put you into this automatically, that you can stay with your private health plans, and the President was asked this question tonight. And he basically gave no answer to the question. He dodged the question altogether, which we know he's so skillful to do.

So it's pretty obvious that if this gets passed, that we're looking at a situation where the average American out there, the average working American, will be subject to all of the bureaucracy of a government-run system just like in England and in Canada. And the only ones who will be exempt, as Mr. Hoekstra mentioned a moment ago, will be the ruling elite: Congress, Senate and the President, and perhaps some wealthy, the Rockefellers and the Bill Gates and families such as that.

I just thought these were some interesting comments that were going on while we were holding this session tonight.

Mr. Speaker, the more details Americans learn about the government takeover of health care proposed by the President and the liberal leadership of Congress, the less support there is for this insane idea.

A Washington Post-ABC poll shows more than half of this country is opposed to this plan. Yes, support for this crazy deep dive into socialism is fading fast.

The nonpartisan CBO says this plan won't reduce the cost as the President suggested; it will accelerate it. And we know that will kill jobs.

This liberal Congress rammed the stimulus and cap-and-trade, which nobody could read before voting, down the throats of the American people.

But they are now fed up and on to their strategy.

We don't want DMV, Department of Motor Vehicles, style medicine with long waiting lines, delayed care and skyrocketing cancer death rates as in Canada and the UK. We don't want a system that will bankrupt this country and ignore the elderly, and we sure don't want our tax money paying for abortions.

Simply put, we want commonsense health care reform, not nonsense health care reform as now proposed.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3183, the ``Fiscal Year 2010 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.'' I have requested funding for the following projects in Fiscal Year 2010:

JBJ Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, LA (CG). Recipient: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Vicksburg Civil Works District. Refinements to the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway channel alignment are necessary to improve the safety and reliability of the navigation channel as well as to reduce maintenance dredging costs, and include reinforcing or capping out existing revetments as well as adding additional contraction structures (dikes) to improve navigation conditions.

JBJ Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, LA. (O&M). Recipient: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Vicksburg Civil Works District. FY10 request would provide for basic operations and maintenance and maintenance dredging along the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway in northwest Louisiana. Any remaining funds will be used to address backlog maintenance projects along the waterway.

Red River Below Denison Dam, AR, LA & TX, (CG). Recipient: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Vicksburg Civil Works District. The levees in Louisiana associated with the Red River Waterway project have been incorporated into the Federal System; however, they are old and do not meet current construction standards. FY10 funding would be used to continue design and construction of the Red River Below Denison Dam project (LA, AR & TX), which includes the rehabilitation of levees and revetment reinforcements that threaten the integrity of the levee system. The overall project provides flood protection to about 1.7 million acres, half of which are located behind levees.

Red River Emergency Bank Protection, AR, LA, OK & TX, (CG). Recipient: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Vicksburg Civil Works District. This U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project is located in northwest Louisiana, southwest Arkansas, southeast Oklahoma, and northeast Texas. FY10 funds would provide for revetment, dikes, or cutoffs for protection of critical infrastructure and land along the Red and Old Rivers between the mouth of Old River at its juncture with the Mississippi River and Denison Dam, Texas.

Bossier Parish Flood Protection Study. Recipient: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Vicksburg Civil Works District. Federal funds would be used to conduct a reconnaissance study investigating alternatives to address water resource problems and needs in Bossier Parish, LA. Funds would be used to complete the reconnaissance phase and prepare and negotiate the Project Management Plan and Feasibility Cost-Sharing Agreement. Project requires 50 percent local match. Local sponsors include; Bossier Levee District, Bossier Parish and Bossier City.

Cross Lake, LA, Water Supply Improvements. Recipient: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Vicksburg Civil Works District. Federal funds will be used to conduct a feasibility study that will evaluate options including additional pumping capacity on Cross Lake at lower elevations as well as new pumping stations and water treatment facilities on the Red River. The holding capacity of the already shallow lake (8.5 ft) is decreasing due to siltation, contributing to increasing difficulty in managing it as a water supply source. This study has been expanded into a regional water resource study to include all of Bossier and Caddo Parishes.

Red River Navigation, Southwest Arkansas, AR (GI). Recipient: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Vicksburg Civil Works District. Federal funds would be used to conduct a reconnaissance study along the Red River in northwest Louisiana, southwest Arkansas, northeast Texas and southeast Oklahoma to investigate the federal interest and possible alternatives for a project to extend navigation from Shreveport, LA, to Index, AR.

Consistent with the Republican Leadership's policy on earmarks, I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge, this request: 1) is not directed to an entity or program that will be named after a sitting Member of Congress, 2) is not intended to be used by an entity to secure funds for other entities unless the use of funding is consistent with the specified purpose of the earmark, and 3) meets or exceeds all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable. I also hereby certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Mr. Speaker, we're going to be spending the next hour, I and my colleagues are going to be talking about issues that are really on the forefront right now of debate.

We've been talking for weeks and will continue to talk about health care reform; but as these bills are rolling out of committee, we're learning new facts that are, I think, disconcerting to many of us, particularly those of us who are of the pro-life persuasion. So we're going to be talking this evening about the subject of life. We're going to be talking about abortions, preventing abortions, the up and down and the frequency of abortions. We may even get into end-of-life issues because all of these are relevant, of course, to what's going on with the health care debate today in Washington.

I want to start out with the first slide and notice it says from 1973 until the Hyde amendment was passed in 1976, Federal taxpayers were paying for 300,000 abortions per year, even though abortion was never mentioned in the original Medicaid statute. Think about that. There was no provision for abortions to be paid for under the Medicaid statutes, and yet 300,000 abortions per year were being provided, all at taxpayers' expense. How can this happen? How can this happen in America where something is being paid for, something that is unconscionable for, at least today, over 50 percent of Americans, and yet it's paid for by taxpayers?

You know, it's interesting in the abortion debate, some of us are definitely against abortions. We call ourselves pro-lifers. There are those who are in favor of abortions. They, of course, call themselves pro-choice. But the interesting thing about this matter, many of those who call themselves pro-choice actually say that they would like to see fewer abortions, perhaps even no abortions if it could be done, even though they would prefer that there not be a law against that. In fact, a recent study showed that 69 percent of Americans are against taxpayer-funded abortions.

So you have many different issues here. You have whether or not there should be abortions in the first place. You have the issue of those who even want to leave it to the mother would rather not see abortions, and then many Americans who really see no problem with the taking of life, don't want to have to pay for it, at least not through their taxes, of course.

But you know, it's very interesting that, again, from 1973 until the Hyde amendment was passed, there were 300,000 abortions per year. In 1976, something very interesting happened. The Hyde amendment was attached to an appropriations bill, and it prevented any further taxpayer funding of abortions except in the unusual case such as rape, incest, the health of the mother, of course; and we've seen a tremendous dip in the number of abortions. And, again, this slide illustrates the fact I mentioned a moment ago, 69 percent of Americans oppose taxpayer funding for abortions. That's a vast, vast majority of Americans.

We go to slide three. Abortion advocates are using health care reform to advance a hidden agenda. And here's a quote from Wendy Chavkin, who's former board chair of Physicians for Reproductive Health and Choice, obviously a pro-abortion advocate. She says, Public option--and that's referring to the current bills that are before us today, that is, the option of choosing a public plan, a government-run health care system--public option is key to the health reform, and using medical standard of care in language, instead of listing reproductive services that will siphon off votes, is key to this.

And what is she referring to? Well, if we talk about reproductive care, that of course implies reproductive services, including abortions.

Well, if we just leave it to the medical standard of care and let someone else define that standard of care, then what we really end up with is a standard of care out there that can be dictated to all that means, of course, abortion services.

So, really, what are we getting to in this entire debate and discussion? We're going to be getting into the weeds here in just a moment with my colleagues. But the bottom line is that if, according to the courts and according to the rules that can be provided by the administration, if abortion is not explicitly excluded under taxpayer funding, under Medicaid, any kind of single-payer, government-run health plan, if it is not specifically excluded, then it is included. Let me repeat that. If it is not explicitly excluded, it is included.

What does that mean? It means that it is a de facto mandate. The courts over and over have judged that if Congress does not say it's not to be paid for, it is considered a standard of care and therefore will be covered.

Again, I want to give you another quote here from the National Abortion Federation, which, ``supports health care reform as a way to increase access to comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion care for all women.''

So, you see, the pro-abortion people are using this to advance their own goals, and that is to get the number of abortions back up again. I don't understand how that is in any way a desirable goal, but it's obvious they're doing that.

So what we're seeing here is a history that the more accessible abortions are--that is the easier they can be provided, and certainly for free without any costs--the fewer barriers there are, the more abortions there are going to be.

Now I have a quote from Barack Obama, our President. He says, Well, look, in my mind, reproductive care is essential care, basic care. So it is at the center, the heart of the plan that I propose. Insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care that's going to be absolutely vital.

It's very clear where our President is going with this. Again, between the judicial branch and the executive

branch--the judicial branch, of course, in courts--again and again saying if Congress does not exclude it, it is included, and then a President who feels very strongly that it should be included, then it's going to be there unless we do our job and we amend this bill and exclude it. It has been attempted on the Senate side and failed. And certainly we're going to try.

This bill, of course, equals the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded abortion in history. In fact, I would say that it stands to increase the number of abortions greater than any time in history since Roe v. Wade. So we're really on the edge of another giant leap in terms of abortions.

I'm going to end my originating comments here with this, and that is many of you may recall when our President was asked, When does life begin? And what was his response to that? He said, as a candidate for the President of the United States, he said, Well, that's above my pay grade.

Well, I ask rhetorically, What is a higher pay grade than being the President of the United States? If he can't decide when life begins, then who do we go to? And that's going to be perhaps a matter of debate tonight.

I'm a physician. I can say very clearly and without hesitation that life begins at conception. It's a biological truth. It's biological fact. There's no way to argue around that. Many have tried. Some say that, Well, it's at the point of viability. But that, of course, is a moving target. Babies are surviving younger and younger in gestation.

So, as we go forward in the debate tonight, we certainly want to include all these issues relative to abortion.

My colleague Joe Pitts, Congressman Pitts, who has been at the forefront of the abortion debate for many years, really brings a lot of experience to us tonight. I want to recognize the gentleman and certainly give him the opportunity to use as much time as he may desire.

If the gentleman would allow, I'd like to ask a question. Congressman Pitts, are you saying then that perhaps the other side of the aisle, the pro-choice or the pro-abortion folks, are really piggybacking onto a bill that has nothing to do with abortion in order to reach their goals, their aims that they perhaps have been trying to attempt for many years?

Well, I thank the gentleman for his comments and certainly will be happy to discuss this further as we go along this evening.

Again, I want to underscore and emphasize the comments here that, as the

gentleman says, abortion is not health care. In fact, I would say the taking of innocent life is not health care. In fact, as a physician I have a sworn honor not to take life, of course unnecessarily, and certainly innocent life; only to do so if it of course protects other life, such as in the case of perhaps an ectopic pregnancy, if you will, or a mother who's bleeding to death. When there's no viability of the fetus or the embryo to begin with, that's a lifesaving measure.

But elective abortion--that is what this is. That is not health care. That is taking innocent life. And there is no way--in as many ways as we have tried to debate this, no one has ever been able to come up with a solid response to that argument that killing the unborn baby at any stage in life beyond conception is and always will be the taking of innocent life.

Well, this is an extremely interesting debate. I want to turn to my friend from the Corn State of Iowa, Steve King, Congressman King. I know he is itching to add some very important comments, so I yield to my friend.

Mr. Pitts.

Reclaiming my time, before I go to the gentlelady, I wanted to follow up on that, on the perspective of having unique fingerprints, for instance.

You know, at the moment of conception, that baby has a DNA pattern that is unique unto history. No one has ever had the same DNA pattern. No one ever will have the same DNA pattern, and that does make that a unique human being, but here is something else to ponder, I think:

Why is it that we think so differently about the born child versus the unborn child when there may only be a few-days' difference? I've thought about this and have pondered this. It is a unique capability that human beings have, which is to dehumanize. We have the ability to dehumanize other human beings. I can give you some great examples.

Look at Nazi Germany. Millions of Jews and Poles and others were exterminated because they were not thought to be truly human, but a human cannot do this to his own species unless he thinks one is a subhuman or a nonhuman. Look, of course, at the days of slavery. How could we have the Founding Fathers of our country think in terms of freedom for all and yet enslave our fellow man? The only way to do it is to think of those people as not being human.

That is the reason that people today can abort children, even to the point of partial late-term abortion, which is to think of them as nonhumans, and I think that's something that we really have to reassess in our lives--certainly our religious values. My values as a Christian suggest that a life is a life. Think of all the George Washingtons and the Abraham Lincolns and the Einsteins who are being aborted every day, people who could add so much to our future.

Anyway, we have a lot to cover, and I want to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina, Virginia Foxx. She is about the most hardworking Con- gressperson I know up here, and I always like to turn to her for valuable advice on things, so I yield to the gentlelady.

I thank the gentlelady for those comments. Of course very adroit, to the point, essential and important; and it also speaks to the process that we're going through in which these really weighty debates, weighty issues are being ignored and much more trivial issues are focused on here in this body. Again, we're talking this evening about the pro-life issues and the potential, if this bill passes, the ObamaCare, the single-payer health care reform plan that's coming out of the House and the Senate as well and the fact that just simply by not addressing the issue of taxpayer-funded abortions is actually allowing for them and providing for them through what is really a de facto mandate process.

With that, I want to recognize my friend Chris Smith from New Jersey. Congressman Smith has taken a point on pro-life issues so often. We have so much, of course, to thank him for in this respect. And with that, I yield to the gentleman.

If I might reclaim just for a moment, if the gentleman will yield. In the late-term abortions--I've never seen one, but my understanding is that a trocar is inserted into the womb, into the skull of the baby, and the brains are sucked out, among many other things. Here we are concerned about waterboarding, and yet these kinds of techniques are done on our innocent children.

Well, thank you to the gentleman, Mr. Smith, from New Jersey, for your truly passionate, eloquent statements. It is obvious, Congressman, that you have a deep passion that sits on your heart very heavily. And it is one of the things that is deeply distressing for you and for many of us here in this body.

Just to reframe, again, what our discussion is and what we are really talking about, we are not really debating abortion. That has been debated endlessly, and everyone knows where we are. What we are debating is a tremendous Federal expansion of abortions that will occur with this bill. Why? Not because there is a single word, no language at all that says there must be, but simply from an absence of language. And what that means is, and it is because of the courts and the administration, it is just the way the law works around here, but just suffice it to say if it doesn't exclude it, it includes it. And that means that you, the taxpayer, and those paying premiums, will be paying for the abortions of others, whether you like it or not.

We are also represented tonight by another New Jersey Congressperson, Congresslady Schmidt, who has probably run more marathons than the rest of the body put together. And obviously her physique reflects that fact. So she has a lot to bring to us when it comes to the discussion of health, and we are really anxious to hear about that. So with that, I would like to yield to the gentlelady.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding back, and I apologize, from Ohio instead of New Jersey. I'm getting my Schmidts and my Smiths mixed up this evening. Briefly in the final moments, I want to pitch back to Mr. Smith from New Jersey.

I appreciate that. We're going to be running out of time and I'm going to give you a brief response to that. When I was in the Navy, I had a friend who was an OB-GYN who specifically refused to do abortions. He said it was against his conscience. He retired and went into the local town nearby to go into practice and his practice began a little slow and soon within months he became the most prolific abortionist in town.

So in answer to your question, the reason why so many people, or those who have done it in the past have done it, it's obvious. It's money. It's a very lucrative trade. But on the other hand in the medical communities, in the communities at large, there's been tremendous social pressure against that. As a result, I think many have decided it isn't worth the money.

This has been a wonderful hour. I do thank my colleagues for visiting and adding so many wonderful comments. We could spend another couple of hours on this.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.