Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

My amendment is fairly simple. The DOD is permitted to appoint military chaplains--individuals who minister to the spiritual needs of any and all members of the armed services--in accordance with the current DOD policy. Chaplains must possess appropriate educational credentials, 2 years of religious leadership experience, and, more

importantly, must receive an endorsement from a qualified religious organization attesting to the tenets of the endorser's faith.

In June, the Members of this body--Democrats and Republicans alike-- twice affirmed that the military is not permitted to appoint atheist chaplains. Despite these recent votes and by completely bypassing Congress--the voice of the people--and current DOD standards, it has been confirmed that the military is considering the possibility of appointing an atheist chaplain. Since the formation of the chaplaincy in 1775, chaplains have been affiliated with faith and spirituality. By definition, chaplains minister to the spiritual needs of our men and women in the armed services--a vital function that an individual without any inclination towards spirituality would not be able to perform.

I would like to thank my colleagues--Representatives Forbes, Bridenstine, Jordan, Pitts, and Lankford--for their support of this amendment.

I would urge all of my colleagues to support the chaplaincy of the U.S. military, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend from Oklahoma, Jim Bridenstine.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend from Georgia, Doug Collins, who is, by the way, a chaplain himself.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, first of all, with all due respect to my good friend from Colorado, there is no way that an atheist chaplain or atheist whatever can minister to the spiritual needs of a Christian or a Muslim, or a Jew, for that matter.

As a result, that is the whole problem here. When you're talking about a chaplain, what are you talking about? How do we define chaplain? A chaplain is a person who ministers to spiritual needs, but who is assigned to a secular organization. The military is 99.9 percent secular. The only thing that we add to it that is nonsecular is the chaplaincy.

Also, I would say to you is that there is a limited number of chaplains. And if we begin to displace chaplains who are actually from religious organizations with those who are atheists, who do not believe in spirituality or a deity, then that's going to limit even the number that's going to be available to the others.

It's nonsensical. It's an oxymoron. But as I've said before, and I'll say this again, remember that an atheist is a person who does not believe in a deity, does not believe in a spiritual world. It's impossible for that person through his or her beliefs or training to minister to the spiritual needs of somebody who does.

In the final analysis, I believe that an atheist chaplain would be the last person in the world that we would want for a dying soldier who needs that last moment of counseling in their life.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to thank my friend, Louie Gohmert--Judge Gohmert--for having this hour together speaking on this important subject. My friend also is my neighbor. Our districts neighbor one another.

We have constituents who see this issue, I think, very consistently, that is, that when we poll them, when we talk to our constituents, they are very clear on the issue of immigration. They say first and foremost, Congressman Fleming, whatever you do, do what Congress and the Presidents have not been willing to do, and that is secure the border and put internal security in that will prevent the visa overstays that are 40 percent of those.

We have two lingering questions on the whole issue of immigration:

One is, is immigration good for America? I would suggest to you that immigration has been good for America. All of our Forefathers, they were immigrants. They came here with the idea that they would receive religious liberty, they would receive opportunity when it comes to the economy, and they were quite willing and happy to contribute to that.

But do you know what, there was no safety net. You had to dig it out of the land yourself. Over the years, particularly by the mid-60s, this Nation began to develop a very, very steep safety net program, now 80 different welfare programs.

This has been looked at very closely by the Heritage Foundation. What they tell us is that by having open borders, such as what we have now and will have in the future if we were to pass something like the Senate amnesty bill, that the cost to Americans would go up. One study I recently read said that for every household that receives amnesty, it is going to cost the hardworking taxpayers of America $12,433.

So I would suggest to you that immigration can be a good thing for the economy--not open-border immigration, not illegal immigration, but legal immigration. What do I mean by that? That means that we allow a guest-worker program where people can come in and work our farms, work our trees. I have a lot of that in my district. But also the high end, the STEM workers--the scientists, technology people, engineering, math--where they can contribute so much to our country. Physicians coming from Asia, so many of those can do many good things.

The other thing is trust. We have a trust deficit in this country right now. I've spoken about it before. We have the Dodd-Frank Act, which is barely implemented even after 3 years. Much of it probably will never be implemented. We have ObamaCare, which is about 3 years old. Much of it can't be implemented. We have a President who couldn't get Cap and Trade passed, so he's trying to pass regulations to do that. We have a President who couldn't get the DREAM Act passed, so he rolled out a regulation to make it occur as an end run around Congress. We have a President who has tried to convert the NLRB from a very balanced board to really manage labor unions and their relationship with management to a very pro-union political tool for government.

So when we have a situation like that, what we really have is a President that picks and chooses the laws that he wants to enforce and he wants to obey and he wants to acknowledge and ignore the rest. By passing all of these massive comprehensive bills that Senators and Members of Congress don't even read before they are passed, all we are doing is offering a smorgasbord to the President that he can pluck just the parts that he wants, and he could add some more if he chooses to do that.

Well, that makes him no longer a President. That makes him a ruler, and that is not the kind of government we have. We have a balance between three branches of government. That's the way our Founding Fathers determined it to be, and that's the way it should be today.

I join my colleagues, I think, in this understanding, and that is that such legislation that passes from this House, or from the Senate for that matter, if in fact it creates an open border, a porous border, or in any way creates amnesty or a pathway to citizenship and we have not dealt with and certified, made verifiable borders that are under secure control by our government, a sovereign government, and that we handle the visa overstay problems that we monitor and protect from that, if we have not done that, then we have not done our constitutional duties as Members of the House of Representatives.

I thank my friend so much. And my other friends--we are filled with Members here who are ready to talk on this issue passionately--I think you are going to hear a lot more from this group that's here tonight as we talk more about this issue.

I would just say, lastly, that we need to decide what is important for America first. We should determine what is good for the American citizens and the taxpayers. We certainly want to handle anybody who is here illegally in a humane way; but on the other hand, our first and most important responsibility is to the American citizens who are hardworking taxpayers.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that would stop a loan program created by the infamous 2009 stimulus bill.

As I and many others have pointed out when the bill was passed, the stimulus, which was billed as funding shovel-ready programs, actually became a vehicle to bake in higher levels of spending and new government programs. As with other government loan programs, we've all too often seen abuses in mismanagement, and this program is no exception.

The elimination of the Western Area Power Administration's green transmission borrowing authority was recommended in the report to this year's House budget; and so if you voted for the budget, I would urge you to support this amendment as well.

I also want to thank my colleagues, Mr. McClintock and Chairman Hastings, for their work in the offering and marking up of a bill last year to repeal this program.

As the budget report notes:

The $3.25 billion borrowing authority in the Western Area

Power Administration's Transmission Infrastructure Program

provides loans to develop new transmission systems aimed

solely at integrating renewable energy.

This authority was inserted into the stimulus bill without opportunity for debate. Of most concern, the authority includes a bailout provision that would require American taxpayers to pay outstanding balances on projects that private developers failed to pay.

This bailout provision is particularly problematic because, in November 2011, the Department of Energy inspector general issued a lengthy management alert on this stimulus borrowing authority. To quote from that report:

Because of a variety of problems, the project is estimated

to be 2 years behind schedule and $70 million over budget,

essentially out of funds, and currently at a standstill, with

no progress being made. Western had not completed a formal

root-cause analysis and corrective action plan designed to

ensure more effective program safeguards are in place going

forward. Because Western has committed $25 million in

developmental funding to a potential $3 billion project that

would ultimately require an investment of $1.5 billion in

Recovery Act borrowing authority, we are issuing this report

as a management alert.

Madam Chairman, this IG report speaks for itself, and I urge my colleagues to support the repeal of this failed stimulus program.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

That is correct.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

These companies, they certainly are welcome to borrow money and invest it themselves. This puts the taxpayer on the hook, and they're not delivering on these loans. They're well behind. And eventually, the taxpayers, as in so many cases from the stimulus bill, are going to be picking up the tab.

If it's so valuable and it returns investment over time, then fine; let them use their own capital.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

And again, I would just have to say, there's a dynamic to money. And yes, some of it may be paid back. But at the end of the day, if the money is not fully paid back, or paid back at the appropriate rate and the taxpayers have to make up the difference, then I would say that certainly in the private sector that wouldn't work out.

And I think that we should hold government, nongovernment, all those who handle money, and particularly taxpayer money, we need to hold them to the same standard. And they're not delivering on that return of investment.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Fleming

Amendment No. 41: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

I want to thank my friends tonight that we're all sharing this hour with, and Mrs. Bachmann in particular for leading us.

You know, Milton Friedman, the famous economist, said that you can have open borders if you don't have a welfare state. But if you have a welfare state, you're going to have to close your borders, and you're going to have to seal them. You see, we didn't have a problem with illegal immigration until we developed a robust welfare system in this country.

Now, make no mistake about it, people who come here legally and illegally come here for opportunity. I get that. Our forefathers came here for opportunity. The problem is that so many of them who come here illegally come so ill-prepared for success. They come with lack of education; they come with lack of skill; they come with lack of ability or unwillingness to assimilate into the culture. So what happens is they can't find success. So instead of returning back home where maybe they can work within their culture, they settle for our welfare state, and as such it has grown quite a bit.

So what does that mean when it comes to the amnesty that we're talking about tonight that's contained within the Senate bill? Well, the problem with that--and Heritage Foundation has done a great study on this. Robert Rector, as we know, is the guru, is the master when it comes to understanding the whole issue of our welfare state and the reform thereof and the need for that reform. What he tells us is, that as soon as we grant amnesty to folks, there will be chain migration. There will be votes for more and more entitlement programs and more and more safety net programs.

And so you will have millions of people who will be putting something into the system that are taking much more out, especially after the 10- year budget window, which is why it looks so good when it is actually put on paper. But we all know that what will happen is that this Nation, even though we are already $17 trillion in debt, will be much more in debt as a result of those people then getting onto Social Security and Medicare and all these other programs.

So what does that mean? We do have a problem. It all began with our inability to patrol our borders; and yet you have a giant Senate bill which is to immigration what ObamaCare is to health care--a giant, unwieldy, complicated bill that law, if it's ever passed into law, will be unenforceable.

So I've heard so many times--I've been here almost 5 years, my good friend from Minnesota--and do you know what, I've heard so many times that we've got to do something, we've got a problem so we've got to do something. So what do we do? We slam through a terrible bill, we get a terrible law, and we are worse off than we ever were.

So I say tonight, and I join with my friends to say, no, if we're going to pass something, let's pass something good. And what is that going to be? It's going to be border security, both external and internal border security. It begins there. We do nothing else until we have complete border security.

It is already in law, as the gentlelady has already expressed. We just simply ask the President to enforce the laws we already have. If we are not a Nation of laws, then we are a Nation of chaos and lawbreakers.

With that, I would just say in summation that we need to join together in this body and let's stop this terrible Senate amnesty bill. I don't know, it's about 1,200 pages, I believe. It is for immigration what ObamaCare is for health care. Let's stop these crazy, giant bills that nobody reads until they are passed. Let's begin to do it right. Let's start right now doing it right by fixing immigration by making our borders secure once again.

Thank you, my good friend from Minnesota.

That's precisely what I'm hearing in Louisiana, north Louisiana. Again, they go, why is it so complicated, fix the border, secure the border.

It's not just about the external border. Remember, 40 percent of those here illegally are because of their visa overstays. So we've also got to have internal security too.

This doesn't count all the other issues: the crime, the criminal elements, the terrorists and others that come across the border.

Yes, my constituents are 100 percent behind us on that.

Well, I thank my good friend from Iowa for yielding and for his words. And I'd like to build a little bit upon what you were saying, and that is that everyone speaking in this room this evening opposes amnesty--we've already said that each and every one of us opposes amnesty--but we all celebrate immigration. We

come from immigrants. We're a Nation of immigrants.

Going all the way back to the 1700s, my forefathers were immigrants from Scotland. They farmed the land. They were farmers all the way up until my dad left the farm to go to World War II. I'm very proud of that fact, and I'm very proud that other people want to come to this country. I celebrate that. And I want to encourage them to come, as long as they come lawfully.

We have a place for migrant workers, for guest workers to come. We need them. They will do jobs that many Americans won't do, and it benefits them and advantages their families back home, and they send that money back. It's a great working relationship, but it must be done legally.

And then we have the high-end STEM workers who come either with high degrees or earn high degrees here. They bring them with them oftentimes their capital. They start businesses. They start companies. And we want to attract those and keep those. We don't want them taking back our innovations to other countries and then competing with us. We just simply ask that they come here legally. We, of course, as Members of Congress have a responsibility to make sure that we do what's in the best interest of the citizens who are here, whether they were born here or naturalized here.

But I want to shift just slightly to this, and we've touched upon this. One of the biggest fears we have about the Senate amnesty bill-- and there's no question about it, it's amnesty by any measure, by any metric--is that we can't trust the President. We can't trust him. Whatever we pass into law, we know he's going to cherry-pick.

How do we know that? Well, look at the Defense of Marriage Act. He refused to defend that to the courts. Appointees to the NLRB, he did that when, of course, the Senate was actually not in session. It's against the Constitution to do that. ObamaCare, he's picking and choosing the parts of the law that he wants to implement.

So I think we can create a long list here tonight of the fact that this President is doing something I have never seen a President do before. In a tri-partite government with its checks and balances, we have lost the balances. We have a President that picks and chooses the laws that he wants to obey and enforce. We have a head of the Department of Justice who does exactly the same, even to the point that Congress has held him in contempt.

And so for lack of any better term, that makes him a ruler. He's not a President; he's a ruler. Because if he can just pass whatever laws that are going to be passed and then pick and choose the laws that he's going to enforce and he's going to obey, then we no longer have the checks and balances that go along with the Presidency.

Mr. Speaker, an enemy of religious freedom who has a hotline to the Pentagon is at it again. Mikey Weinstein is still fighting to prevent our military personnel from expressing their religious beliefs.

Last week, in a rant, Weinstein referred to Christians as bigoted slimeballs, homophobes, Islamophobes, and carpetbaggers for Christ who spout twisted Christian-jihad poison and who committed spiritual rape and are faith-based racists.

The First Amendment protects Weinstein's right to such words of hatred against Christians. Unfortunately, he has high-level influence with the Pentagon, bragging that he made a threatening phone call and, within an hour, the Air Force rushed to remove a piece of artwork from a dining hall that referred to a Bible verse that said simply, ``Blessed are the Peacekeepers.''

I now officially and publicly call upon DOD to stop following Weinstein's anti-First Amendment orders and return him to the status of an ordinary citizen, where he belongs.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for all of the great work she has done on this.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to support the rule and the underlying bill, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, that is so vital.

My background: I'm a physician who has delivered hundreds of babies during my career. In addition to that, I'm a husband of 35 years, a father of four--two boys, two girls--a grandfather of two boys, and soon, in 6 weeks, grandfather of a little girl, a little granddaughter, and I'm so proud.

Let me tell you for a moment about what I witnessed.

At about the time of the 20 weeks, midterm, the 4-D ultrasound now gives such an amazing view into the window of that womb. What did I see? I could see that that little girl looks just like her big brother. Number two, in another frame, she is sucking her thumb. Then in another frame, she is holding up two fingers as though to say, Be patient. I'll be out soon.

We have such wonderful technology, such technology that, today, we can actually do surgery on a fetus at 20 weeks in order to fix a heart ailment or some other condition that may kill the baby in the womb or soon thereafter. What have we learned from this technology? We have learned that they feel pain. We have to provide anesthesia.

Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side of the aisle, when it comes to animals, are all about the Humane Society and about the humane treatment of animals, and I have a high regard for that. When it comes to the issue of torture or even of discomfort for prisoners of war, they are all about supporting that.

But what happens in a midterm or later pregnancy when there is an abortion? What happens is just absolute

torture. You realize that, in Washington, D.C., today, a woman can go for an abortion while she is in labor at term. And how would you do the abortion? How is it done? How did Dr. Gosnell do it? You stick a trocar into the skull, suck the brain out, literally dismember the baby limb from limb. What torture and what pain.

Is that really the kind of people we are, Mr. Speaker? I think not.

We understand that at least at 20 weeks, maybe sooner, the baby feels pain. So I would just submit to you today, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is not just about abortion--this is about pain; it's about torture to that young life. We can't say that this is like an amputation of a limb. That baby inside the womb has a distinct DNA that you will never see again either in history or in the future. It is a different human being. It's living there inside of its mother. So I am in support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, what do you get when you add the Senate's amnesty immigration bill to ObamaCare?

More people losing their jobs.

ObamaCare mandates that employers with 50 or more full-time employees provide government-approved health insurance or pay a penalty. Many businesses with around 50 employees already say they'll cut some full- timers to part-time positions to avoid this penalty.

But that's not all.

The Senate immigration bill would give legal status to about 11 million people who have come here illegally, and employers could hire any of those 11 million without counting them toward the ObamaCare mandate. So employers who are trying to make ends meet and balance a budget are being told by their government that they can save money by unloading full-time, hardworking American citizens and by replacing them with immigrants who are here on a provisional status.

I know my colleagues on the other side will say we should just add all 11 million, but I think that's the wrong thing to do. Let's repeal ObamaCare.

I thank the chairman for the opportunity to speak on this important issue.

Mr. Chairman, let's examine what a chaplain really is. A chaplain is a person who is a minister of the faith, someone who ministers on the basis of a belief in a deity, a higher power, who is associated with or attached to a secular organization.

An example, right here in this House, each morning begins, each legislative day, begins with a prayer from our chaplain.

Back home, the hospital that I'm associated with, Mennen Medical Center, my good friend, a Baptist pastor, is chaplain of our hospital. And so this goes to the core of the discussion.

A chaplain is a person who is a man or woman of the faith, of conscience, of spirituality, who ministers to those with respect to a secular organization.

I just heard the gentleman say that, well, we need atheist chaplains--which, to me, is an oxymoron--we need atheist chaplains to minister to the spiritual needs of soldiers.

Well, by definition, as an atheist, he doesn't or she doesn't believe in a spiritual world. Makes no sense whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, the courts have affirmed that chaplains are mandated by the Constitution to enable military personnel to exercise faith according to their conscience. Nontheistic chaplains, by definition, cannot assist others in worship.

For any concerns my colleague from Colorado may have as to the nonspiritual needs of servicemen and -women who do not hold any sort of faith, I would submit that the military has resources readily available. Counselors, psychologists, and social workers are happy to meet those needs.

I would also note that current chaplains will serve with respect to any servicemember, religious, nonreligious, nontheistic, atheistic or agnostic alike who comes to them, providing these brave men and women with any resources they might need in their service to the Nation. So we have chaplains and secular advisers who can help anybody who claims to be or wants to be an atheist.

Chaplains come to the military via the Department of Defense- recognized faith groups, very important. Faith groups. It would be impossible for an individual who does not belong to any faith group to receive an endorsement, much in the same way that atheists have long insisted that they are not, in fact, a faith group and would thus be implausible that they would serve as a chaplain in the military.

Mr. Chairman, General George Washington founded our Chaplain Corps on July 29, 1775, to make sure that the Continental Army could have worship services.

Just in summary, I would like to say this, Mr. Chairman. The saddest thing I could ever imagine is someone standing over a dying man or woman from combat and saying to them, there is no hope. If you die, there is no world, there is no life thereafter. That is the saddest thing I could ever imagine.

I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) for bringing us together this evening with a number of colleagues talking about an extremely important topic today, and that is health care conscience rights. You've heard some of the major points here, and I'm going to touch on more.

On August 1, 2013, the administration's coercive health care mandate will take effect. It will force religious organizations, American family businesses, universities, and countless others across the great country of ours to violate the deeply held moral and religious beliefs that we have. The HHS mandate is a serious affront to religious freedom and leaves American businesses, nonprofit religious organizations, and individuals with three terrible decisions.

First, they could violate their conscience and religious convictions and comply with the mandate, purchasing and providing items and services they find morally objectionable.

Second, they could resist the mandate, not complying with the Federal regulations, and face fines up to $100 per employee, per day.

Or third, they could drop employee health coverage altogether--which defeats the purpose, the basic idea of ObamaCare to begin with--leaving employees to fend for themselves and still pay a Federal fine of $2,000 per employee, per year, according to the business that employs that person.

These are not actually choices, but a top-down, burdensome Federal regulatory scheme that forces the American public to participate in a government-run health care plan that violates their values.

Who are we talking about? Who will be affected by the HHS mandate? Mr. Speaker, to date, 61 cases and over 200 plaintiffs have filed suit against the Federal Government to preserve their First Amendment right of freedom of religion. One of the nonprofit lawsuits was filed by Louisiana College, a private Baptist college in Pineville, Louisiana just outside of my district.

Offering degrees in art, music, science, nursing, social work and teaching, this central Louisiana school has over 70 programs of study, has a student enrollment of about 1,500 students, and a faculty/student ratio of 13-1.

The HHS mandate requires that Louisiana College provide employee health insurance covering abortion-inducing drugs and counseling on the use of such drugs. This, Mr. Speaker, is a violation of Louisiana College's belief that all life is sacred, including the life of the unborn.

Who else? Hobby Lobby is another example of a well-known business throughout the country--we have 11 stores in Louisiana--employing more than 2,000 people in 41 States. The business practice of Hobby Lobby mirrors their religious principles. Their hours of operation are family friendly, and they are closed on Sundays. Employee pay is important.

Well, what is the anecdote to this problem created by ObamaCare and the rules rolled out of this administration? I'm going to just quickly touch on them, and then yield back to my good friend from Nebraska.

Section 3 provides much needed protections to ensure that the Federal Government cannot force individuals, charities and businesses to buy plans for their employees that provide or facilitate coverage of items or services to which they have a deeply held moral or religious objection.

Section four provides much needed protections to ensure that any government agency that receives Federal funds cannot force pro-life health care entities to be complicit in abortion or discriminate against them because they are pro-life.

Section 5 of the Conscience Rights Act amends title II of the Public Health Service Act. It includes a private right of action for victims who have been discriminated against. You see, at this time, Mr. Speaker, people who are discriminated against, or coerced or forced in some way by this mandate don't have access to courts. This opens up a private right of action so that those of us who may object through our conscience will have our day in court.

Just in conclusion I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that ObamaCare has provided many, many problems and really no solutions. But there are even unintended consequences, and that is forcing people of conscience to have to make that decision on whether to end providing certain care for their employees or for their--really to their patients--or suffer large fines, or just give up on health care coverage at all for their employees.

I think it's time that this country comes together and decides, let's make health care attractive and affordable and protect life, and protect those who want to protect life, and not have this top-down, bureaucratic, coercive system that's now in law that will require many of us to do many things against our conscience. That is simply un- American.

With that, I thank the gentleman for his time today.

Mr. Speaker, two-thirds of the uninsured say they may not purchase insurance under ObamaCare. A new survey of the uninsured says only 19 percent will opt for coverage by January 1, meaning that only the sickest will buy insurance, driving up the cost of health care for all of us.

In fact, 61 percent expect their health care costs to go up as a result of ObamaCare. You may recall that earlier this year a Federal analysis estimated that the cheapest health insurance plan available for a family in 2016 will cost no less than $20,000 a year per family.

And it's not just the uninsured who are filled with uncertainty about ObamaCare. More than two-thirds of small business owners surveyed by the U.S. Chamber say ObamaCare will make it harder for them to hire more employees. Many are busily converting employees to part-time as we speak.

American families cannot afford ObamaCare. It must be repealed, just as I and my Federal Republicans, and even some Democrats, have voted to do.

I thank my friend from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill. It's very interesting that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that more oil production doesn't affect the price of oil or gasoline. Well, that's the same thing as saying that gravity doesn't exist and the Earth is still flat. Neither one of those are true.

We all know that it's a marketplace, it's a commodity, and the more you produce, the lower the price. How well do I know that? In my own district in Louisiana, we produce more natural gas than we can use, and the price now is so low that we can hardly produce it because of the low reimbursement for the cost. But that will come up over time.

Two cents a gallon in 1 day is how much gasoline prices have recently increased. It has increased 7 cents a gallon just in the last week. It may not sound like much, but the price of gas is going up once again. One headline says, ``Gas Prices Spike Ahead of Memorial Day.'' That's hitting just about every American in the wallet, and yet the President continues to play games with a project that will carry an estimated 830 barrels of oil per day from Canada to the gulf coast for processing.

So what are we waiting for? More studies? This project has been studied

to death. Every State that it would go through has already sent its approval. It's been 1,700 days since TransCanada first applied to the State Department for permission to build the Keystone XL pipeline. TransCanada says pipeline construction will create about 20,000 jobs. And our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, Why aren't we talking about jobs? Twenty-thousand good-paying jobs, plus lower prices to the consumer.

I thank the gentleman.

But the Obama administration's State Department has politicized this project and stalled it in order to kowtow to the far-left environmental fringe.

We need the jobs and we need the energy benefits. We need the lower costs for consumers and for manufacturing.

Mr. Speaker, I want to be certain that the administration and Pentagon leadership do not deny our men and women in uniform one of the very freedoms they are fighting to protect.

On Monday, I led on a letter sent to Defense Secretary Hagel demanding details about a meeting between Pentagon officials and anti- Christian extremist, Mikey Weinstein. Weinstein has spent 9 years at war, those are his words, at war with evangelical Christians, who, he says, are committing ``spiritual rape'' against the U.S. military, Christians who are merely exercising their First Amendment right, or primary duties, in the case of chaplains.

Mr. Weinstein exploits freedom of speech to name-call and to label Christians as the ``Christian Taliban'' and ``al Qaeda.'' But he seeks to shut down the religious freedom of expression of servicemembers in the process.

I am troubled with several anti-Christian steps the Pentagon has taken in recent years. That is why my colleagues and I seek answers from Secretary Hagel on this important question now.

I thank the gentleman from Tennessee.

Of course, all of us here today talking are physicians of different specialties. Most of us were actually here during the ObamaCare debate. We actually began that in 2009. It actually went in to law, it was signed into law March 23, 2010.

The interesting thing about this law--the Affordable Care Act, which I refer to as the Unaffordable Care Act, but lovingly and affectionately known as ObamaCare--is the fact that what it does is it adds 15 million more Americans on to Medicaid, which already way underreimburses physicians, which means most doctors don't accept that as payment, and it adds another 15 million Americans to a system that's already stressed.

Ultimately, what's going to happen is you're going to have more Americans carrying more cards that entitle them to health care, but it really will entitle them only to a waiting line--a waiting list--just as we see today with Canada and Great Britain.

Let's talk for a moment about the promises. You know, Washington, Mr. Speaker, has a reputation for making promises it can't keep, and indeed that applies to ObamaCare.

First of all, the President said if you like your plan, you can keep it. Well, we know that's not true. We know now that you're going to get whatever plan and mandates that go with it, and you'll have to pay the cost that goes with it.

ObamaCare will not add one dime to our deficits. The CBO has now come back to show that the early estimates were way out of line. It's going to add billions of dollars to our deficit, and I think that's really an underestimation.

``No Federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and Federal conscience laws will remain in place.'' Federal conscience laws have been totally gutted. We know that, for instance, Hobby Lobby will be fined to the tune of millions of dollars as a result of its unwillingness to pay for abortifacients--that is, pills that can cause an abortion--and other things that are against the conscience of those who are in management and ownership there.

President Obama said, ``I will protect Medicare.'' Well, if he's going to protect Medicare, why did he take $716 billion out of Medicare to fund ObamaCare? He says that's savings. Well, if we can save that kind of money out of Medicare over 30 or 40 years, why didn't we do it once? We didn't because we can't without changing it structurally. It will simply be cuts to services.

ObamaCare will not raise any of your taxes. Mr. Speaker, ObamaCare includes 21 new taxes. And they're not just on rich people; about half of them are on the middle class.

I'll just give you an example of one very nasty tax that's coming your way. If you're a business owner, there is a tax--3.8 percent--on unearned income, which includes capital gains, dividends, rents, royalties and interest, which means that you're going to get hit hard and very hard. And then also a device tax on revenues--not on profits-- which those who make everything from tongue blades to artificial hearts tell us will drive them out of this country into another country. And we'll have to buy back those devices, killing tens of thousands--maybe hundreds of thousands--of American jobs.

ObamaCare will ``lower your premiums by $2,500 per family per year.'' Mr. Speaker, no one has told me their premiums have gone down as a result of ObamaCare. In fact, in most cases, it's gone up $3,000. That's a net of $5,500 change, and many of them are expected to double and even triple as a result of ObamaCare. You can't just keep adding mandates to insurance and expect not to have to pay for them. That's just the simple truth.

What about IPAB? We heard some discussion about the Independent Payment Advisory Board, and it's really straightforward what they do: they take out of the hands of Congress our ability to find more efficient ways and ways to limit costs to Medicare patients. In fact, it's a 15-member board that's appointed by the President--not necessarily health care providers--who will have more power than Congress itself. It will actually be able to determine what gets paid for, how much it gets paid for, what type of doctors/providers will be paid for their services to Medicare patients. Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely the beginning of rationing and long lines for health care.

One other point before I yield back. Let me quote something that's already been referred to today in our discussion.

Senator Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, who helped author ObamaCare, before a hearing, out of frustration, he asked Secretary Sebelius, he said, we've got all kind of problems, aren't you going to help us on this? Here's a quote from Senator Baucus--who shortly after this decided to retire. He said:

I am very concerned that not enough is being done so far.

Very concerned. When I'm home, small businesses have no idea

what to do, what to expect. They don't know what

affordability rules are, they don't know what penalties may

apply.

I just see a huge train wreck coming down. You and I have

discussed this many times and I don't see any results yet.

And we've yet to hear a good answer, a reasonable answer from Secretary Sebelius on how this has come together. We know that much of this has to be implemented really by October and finished by the first of January of 2014, and nobody knows what's going to happen, how it's going to happen.

Business owners today are looking at, should they have 50 employees or less than 50 employees? What kind of penalties are they going to have to pay, which is not tax deductible. There is nothing but chaos across America among small businesses.

Even parts of ObamaCare have already either been repealed or just simply dropped. The CLASS Act, long-term care, which was unworkable and is not going to help fund it. A very onerous 1099 tax reporting requirement has been dropped. So, little by little, this bill is beginning to fall apart. I'll just say, finally, that this train wreck not only is coming down, but the wheels are falling off the train.

So with that, I would like to yield back to the gentleman and certainly stick around for more discussion.

Your experience is exactly the same as mine when it comes to blood disorders, blood cancers, solid tumors in children. That used to be a death warrant when you and I were in medical school. Today, the vast majority of those children survive and live a happy life.

Yet, what we see today is some of the oldest chemotherapeutic agents, some that are 60 years old--and of course the patents have run out a long time ago--are in severe short supply because, again, the heavy boot of government on the neck of industry that can't produce these at a rate that can meet up with demand. So it's important that we begin to pull back on this now, because we're going to be in the same situation as Canada and Great Britain, who have government-run health care, where early diagnosis, early treatment and using the best chemotherapeutic agents shows up in their statistics. Their death rates from cancer are much higher than ours are.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to expand a moment on what you were talking about small business is critical. I'm a small business owner myself, apart from my medical practice. We employ around 500 employees. Many of them are entry level. Businesses and business owners across America, at this very moment, are in a state of panic. Mr. Speaker, businesses across the country are, at this moment because of ObamaCare, in a state of panic.

The reason is because of what you said. They're calculating if they have more than 50 employees, they've got to ratchet below them if they can. They've got to know how much of the punishment--or penalty, I really should say, but it's more like punishment--they can absorb for those employees that they can't afford to pay for their insurance. This is having a direct impact on our economy and on job creation. This is something that's critical going forward what this is doing to small business, which, arguably, employs about 75 percent of Americans.

I just want to put an asterisk to your comment about employment.

We met with Mort Zuckerman, economist and editor of U.S. News & World Report. He says that much of the ``growth'' in jobs reports that you see is actually people reentering the job market, but they're actually getting part-time jobs instead of full-time jobs and, in some cases, getting a second or third part-time job so that we're actually seeing an inflation of the actual number.

So ObamaCare--and I would argue Obamanomics in general--is actually taking us to not only an underemployed society but to an unemployed and underemployed society, and much of it is from ObamaCare.