Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Fleming

Amendment No. 23: Page 29, line 7, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $160,000,000)''.

Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $160,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, President Obama announced today that he is releasing 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to alleviate supply disruptions that he claims are as a result of the conflict in Libya. The irony here is obvious: Who attacked Libya and created the disruptions in the first place?

Furthermore, this is the same President whose policies and regulations over the past 2 years have systematically choked our domestic energy production, stifled job creation and resulted in record energy prices for the American public. Releasing oil from the SPR is an obvious political move to cover up the high gasoline prices created by the President's policies.

Mr. President, if you were truly serious about increasing the supply of oil and lowering prices, you would stop being the candidate-in-chief and begin taking leadership on a sound energy policy, parts of which the House has already passed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate The Community Foundation of North Louisiana on its 50 years of exemplary service to the people of North Louisiana. Since its establishment on June 26, 1961, by Colonel John Hellums Tucker, Jr., the Foundation has demonstrated exceptional service and leadership throughout the many communities it serves in my district, bettering the lives of countless families and individuals.

Starting out with a modest $21,000 in funds, The Community Foundation of North Louisiana

has since grown to being a steward of more than $75 million of charitable assets. In pursuing its mission of strengthening communities and supporting the citizens of North Louisiana, the Foundation has awarded more than 4,000 grants totaling nearly $40 million. In addition to its vital stewardship of charitable investments, The Community Foundation has exhibited leadership by working with other non-profits to promote philanthropy and service in the community. Through managing innovative projects, responding in times of disaster, investing in critical research, and convening leaders to discuss issues facing the area, the Foundation's activities have served as a catalyst for positive change.

Today, I am pleased to express my support and gratitude to The Community Foundation of North Louisiana as it celebrates this important milestone. With great honor and enthusiasm, I wish it continued success over its next 50 years of service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the positive influence of the AbilityOne Program in my district. Since its establishment in 1971, AbilityOne has grown to become the largest source of employment for those who are blind or have other severe disabilities in the United States.

Individuals employed through the AbilityOne Program provide vital services to hundreds of nonprofit organizations and the federal government. Within my district both the Fort Polk/Joint Readiness Training Center and Barksdale Air Force Base employ individuals enrolled in the AbilityOne Program. By assisting those who are blind or severely disabled in finding and keeping jobs, AbilityOne vastly improves participants' quality of life, giving them the dignity of work and the security of financial support.

I am proud to support the underlying goals and purpose of the AbilityOne Program, and commend the many constituents I have in the 4th District of Louisiana who have found meaningful and productive employment through this program. I realize Fort Polk's and Barksdale's AbilityOne employees are critical to the success of these installations and their important missions.

With great honor, I applaud the AbilityOne Program and its participants for making a difference in unemployment among people with disabilities in Louisiana and throughout the United States.

Mr. Speaker, we are at a great turning point in history when it comes to the survival of Medicare. The CMS actuary just informed us that Medicare will become insolvent in just 12 years. That means that if you're on Medicare, or expect to be on Medicare in the next 12 years, you need to think about how you will finance your health care after that period.

And what is the President's plan or the Democrat congressional plan? Sorry, there is no plan.

When asked, Mr. President, why no plan when the law requires you to have one? He said, and I paraphrase, that he would rather Republicans take the lead so he can demagogue ours. Never mind that ObamaCare takes one-half trillion dollars from Medicare to subsidize its crazy schemes.

The Ryan budget plan that was passed here in this Chamber has the only credible plan to save Medicare. It ensures traditional Medicare coverage indefinitely if you're over 54 years of age. It provides for a choice among many private plans with premium support based on financial need for those who are under. It is time congressional Democrats and the President step up on this vital issue.

Mr. Speaker, the CMS actuary just came out with the grim news. Apparently the insolvency date of Medicare was just moved up 5 years to 2024--that is only 12 years from now--and will probably move up further before we get there.

Furthermore, this is after one-half trillion dollars has been shaved from current Medicare to extend the life of Medicare, and, as we all know, that money is already infamously booked twice: once for middle class insurance subsidies and the other to extend the life of Medicare.

The 2012 budget that passed the House with bipartisan support is the beginning to the solution for this problem. It preserves Medicare for those 55 and over and reforms it to a market-based system with lots of choices for those under 55 today. Meanwhile, Democrats simply play ``mediscare'' on this issue and insist on doing nothing.

I thank the gentleman, my colleague, my fellow classmate, Dr. Roe from Tennessee.

What I thought I would do is take just a moment and discuss the historical aspect of Medicare and how we got to where we are today.

I began medical school only 7 years after Medicare began. In fact, my colleague, Dr. Roe, I think you're probably of similar age and station in life and also Dr. Gingrey who is here, and some of us may even remember before that.

I watched Medicare grow, and the promise to physicians and patients at that time was that government, if this is passed, would not mess with anything. It would all be between doctors and patients. However, by the time we got to the '80s, we found that couldn't be true. The costs were exploding far beyond inflation, so the government--Congress, in fact--began to go through a number of calisthenics in order to make it work.

One was RBRVS, which was a formula by which doctors would get paid rather than by what their costs were--then DRGs, diagnosis related groups, to tell hospitals exactly what they're going to be paid regardless of their costs, then CLIA, and then finally SGR, sustained growth rate, which we're struggling with now.

It basically means, if we miss budget targets, doctors get across- the-board cuts, which would be up to 25 to 30 percent today. Of course, Congress keeps kicking the can down the road because Congress knows that, if we were to actually implement the cuts that are required by law, physicians would stop taking Medicare patients, and we'd have a serious, serious problem.

So, if we fast-forward to today, why is it that we can't control the costs to Medicare? I just have to bring it down to the bottom line here. You control health care costs by one of two methods:

One is a market-based, patient-centered method in which the patient is in the driver's seat, working in partnership with his or her health care provider, making the decisions, but also having a responsibility to control costs, which means the patient has skin in the game, meaning through health savings accounts and things of that sort. They have an investment in controlling costs for them. Therefore, they control costs for the rest of the system. Fraud, waste and abuse is taken care of by the user, the consumer in that case, making, in fact, the patient a savvy consumer.

On the other hand, you've got a command and control, top to bottom, which is what ObamaCare is. The only way that you can control costs, Mr. Speaker, by doing that is to use a system like IPAB, this independent payment advisory board--15 appointed officials who have absolutely no accountability to anyone. They are unelected and unknown, for the most part; and if you have a problem with their decision, there is nobody to go to. No one is going to answer the phone.

So what does this relate to ultimately?

We get an inkling of where we're going with this through funds going into this comparative effectiveness board, where studies will be determined to see how effective various treatments are and for whom. This comes down to what is already implemented in Great Britain, NICE, which stands for the National Institute of Clinical Excellence. For a lot of people, it's not so nice.

So how does it work? It goes like this:

There is a certain number of procedures, diagnostic-or treatment- wise, and there is so much money that can be spent on those. Then there are the needs, the people who actually need these. So a determination is made based on a graph, if you will, or on a matrix as to someone's value to society, as to the value of one's life. In fact, they actually have a numerical value each year for what one's life is worth. They go to this matrix, and they determine in Great Britain whether or not it's worth that investment for them. That may mean a hip replacement, it may mean renal dialysis, or it may mean that your cancer doesn't get treated.

In fact, if you look at the comparative statistics between the survival rates of prostate and breast cancer, which are two of the main cancers we deal with in this country, against Canada, which also has socialized medicine--and Great Britain--there is absolutely no comparison. The death rates are much higher in those countries.

So today I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that if we continue down the ObamaCare road, the implementation of IPAB, which is controversial even among the left of the left and is very concerning for everyone, I think this is sort of the last shoe to drop when it comes to the creating of a government-run, socialized health care system in which bureaucrats, rather than you and your physician, will be making decisions about your individual life.

We very much want to repeal ObamaCare; but even if for some reason we can't or until we do that, we desperately want to get rid of this IPAB, which we view to be toxic for our health care system and for our culture in general.

With that, I want to thank the gentleman for having this discussion tonight, and I look forward to many more.

I thank the gentleman for allowing me to speak on this important issue, H.R. 1229.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, it is one of a trifecta of bills that we're passing out of the House, once and for all and after 40 years, to begin actually putting together a cogent energy policy for this country. Now, before I talk about it, I do want to make a couple of comments.

Our President has been saying over and over again that our energy production, our oil production is at the highest level it has ever been. Ed Markey, the ranking member of the committee said the same thing. Mr. Salazar of Interior, Mr. Bromwich just the other day, and Ms. Wasserman Schultz said the same thing.

Why are you saying this?

Very clearly, right now we are producing oil at a level of 6 million barrels a day, down from a high in 1972 of 9 million barrels a day; and off the gulf coast, where you claim that production is its highest ever, we were down from 1.7 million barrels a day last year to 1.59 million today, and it will be going down by another 225,000 barrels of oil per day by next year.

For heaven's sake, there's a reason we have a structural increase in the cost of our energy. It is, very simply, that we're constraining the output of oil. So let's get on it. Let's finally start producing oil in this country, and let's become energy independent once and for all.

Louisiana is being hurt in two ways. Number one, of course, is the increasing price of gasoline; but it's also jobs. As the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson) just mentioned, Dr. Joseph Mason from Louisiana State University, from my home State, said that we're looking at a loss of 36,137 jobs over an 18-month period out of the gulf coast alone. In February, Seahawk Drilling, which owned and operated 20 rigs on the gulf coast, filed chapter 11 due to the Obama administration's de facto moratorium.

I thank the gentleman.

We have lost 12 rigs so far to such countries as Nigeria, Egypt, the Congo, and Brazil, and guess who we just gave $2 billion to drill oil? Brazil, of all places. So we gave them the rig, we gave them the money so they can drill oil to sell back to us and to put tax money into their coffers. For heaven's sake, this is crazy.

So in conclusion, I'd like to say today, let's get our Louisiana and Texas and other people back to work. Let's invest in our energy across this country, and let's get the gas prices down.

I thank the gentleman.

I wanted to respond to a couple of things from the other side. First of all, Mr. Landry and I are both from Louisiana. We are not potted plants. We are actually from a State that is on the coast. In fact, Mr. Landry lives, actually, on the coast. So I think we speak from experience and knowledge on that.

With respect to seafood, yes, there is a problem with the seafood. It's a perception problem. Seafood in Louisiana is the safest seafood in the world. We have just got to get that message out to the American people.

Let's talk about subsidies. We hear about subsidies. Well, you know there is a profiteer when it comes to oil: 36 to 63 cents per gallon is swept off the top. And who profits from that? The government profits from it. And what does the government do with much of that money? It puts it into so-called alternative energy with so-called phony green jobs that we are yet to see being produced, wind and solar, et cetera.

Now, it's also been suggested, Well, perhaps we should punish these evil oil companies by taxing them. Mr. Chairman, who pays the taxes? It's the consumers. It's the American people. You add a 10 percent tax to oil exploration or gasoline or whatever, and it's us, it's we--we are the ones who will have to pay that, not the oil companies.

Like any company, they pass these costs along to the consumer. So I want to see gas prices go down, not up, like the other side.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Bishop.

I am from Louisiana, and of course these leasing issues, the issues of drilling and oil production are very important to my State. And certainly any issue with regard to oil spills affects my State the most in the last year or so because of the Deepwater Horizon.

But here is the point I want to make: The President has said that oil production in the United States and offshore in the gulf is the highest it has ever been. When I asked Secretary Salazar in the Natural Resources Committee, he said the same thing. Then I asked Mr. Bromwich and he gave the same answer.

The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that the oil production off the Gulf of Mexico peaked at 1.7 million barrels a day. It is now down to 1.5 million barrels a day, and in the next year it will decrease by another 225,000 barrels a day. And even if we restore drilling permits at the level they have been previously, it will continue to decline over the next several years.

So I think we can ill afford, Mr. Speaker, at a time when our gas prices continue to go up, to continue this activity that we have, this ruse, where we have a slowatorium off the Gulf of Mexico.

I think we are up to about 12 permits in the deep water at this point. And I was speaking with the gentleman, an expert on this, yesterday. He said that we normally pace about 40 or 50 permits a year. So that means that we are at a fraction of what the actual permitting process would normally be in the best of times.

Now, some would say, well, we haven't proven that it is safe. Well, if that is true, why is the administration releasing permits? Obviously that is proof that the administration is comfortable that we can again drill in the deep water off the Gulf of Mexico.

So I say today that with America being at gas prices that will soon approach $5 a gallon and the USGS now saying that we now have more coal, natural gas, and oil than we have ever thought we would have, really more than any other country in the world, including Russia, and many more times than what Saudi Arabia has, 1.3 trillion barrels of oil equivalent if you add coal, natural gas, and oil, why in the world are we pulling back on the exploration and production of these vital resources that we have?

I thank the gentleman.

I will say in summary, I am from the Fourth District of Louisiana where we have a veritable Saudi Arabia of natural gas in my district, the most natural gas in North America and the fourth largest deposit in the world, and we didn't even know about it 4 years ago. That just goes to show you how new technologies in the area of exploration and development are creating many more resources than we ever thought we had, and it will help stabilize our prices.

So I ask that we pass this bill today and that we finally get this country back onto stable footing.

I thank the gentleman.

I appreciate Dr. Burgess allowing me to speak on this specific bill, but let's just talk about the elephant that's in the room here this afternoon, and that is the so-called Affordability Act, the so-called Patients Affordability Act, PPACA. We call it ObamaCare affectionately.

Folks, we've got a bill here which is now law that is, at best, questionably constitutional. We have a bill that is going to add another trillion dollars, ultimately, to our deficit. It's full of smoke and mirrors. We have got $500 billion that's going to be taken out of Medicare and then put on both Medicare extension and then on subsidy of the private health plans. Even if we ever saved that $500 billion, this whole law has questionable financing. And then today we're talking about construction money that may or may not exist.

So, Mr. Chair, I just have to say, as a physician with 30 years of practice, I was here during the health care debate of 2009 where this body has come up with and the President has signed into law something that is really a disgrace. The American people are not behind it. PPACA is, in some surveys, opposed by the American public two to one. It is a complete government takeover of our health care system.

Just the other day, I got questioned from my constituents, physicians, who asked me: What about this IPAB? What is that? What is this board? And I had to explain to them that now when you are not sure how much you are going to be reimbursed for the health care that you provide, you can at least go to Congress and petition Congress.

But under ObamaCare, we now have IPAB, which is a special board of unelected, unaccountable, unnamed bureaucrats that serve at the pleasure of the President who will then decide these things, creating a nonmarket responsive health care body out there that will then--we'll see much worse shortages than what we have today.

I stand in support of Congressman Burgess and his bill and certainly, ultimately, the repeal of ObamaCare.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to a possible shutdown, I have to say that this is a direct result of a distinct lack of leadership.

Former Speaker Pelosi showed no leadership in not even attempting to submit a 2011 budget in the 111th Congress. Senator Reid has been totally unwilling to submit an alternative 2011 budget, and the President, until this week, has totally checked out of the process.

This country desperately needs leadership. Speaker Boehner has been providing that leadership as he has been fully engaged and has submitted a number of excellent 2011 budget proposals, but he can't do it by himself.

Mr. President and Senator Reid, it is not too late to step up and provide the kind of leadership this country wants and desperately needs. Do the right thing now. Agree to this legislation that will help get this country back on sound fiscal footing.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the ``kinetic military action'' in Libya, it appears the tail is wagging the dog. The President first says we won't go but Qadhafi must. Then he says we must go but not Qadhafi. He consults the Arab league before his own Congress and then telegraphs to the enemy our mission limitations, yet does not clearly define the mission or goals to the American people. Then he bombs people and calls it a humanitarian act.

I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I don't understand this new value system the President is asking us to accept. Let me suggest instead that our President in future conflicts consult the American people and Congress first, then build a coalition, then lead that coalition with a clearly defined mission, taking nothing off the table rather than being pressured into action by other world leaders.

Mr. Speaker, we in Louisiana had to suffer through the BP spill, which is bad enough, but look what the President has done to us since. First, he placed a moratorium on offshore drilling, killing thousands of Louisiana jobs. Then the President was held in contempt of court for not issuing permits, and now we have two token permits created when gas prices are headed to $4 a gallon. On top of that we have a tax on coal, domestic oil, and hydrofracking, which is necessary for natural gas production. Finally, Secretary Chu told us higher prices may be a good thing.

Perhaps we're discovering President Obama's real agenda, and that is deliberately constraining fossil fuel production to make prices go higher so alternative energy sources, which aren't really cutting it in the marketplace, will appear more competitive.

Mr. Speaker, what happened to the rule of law?

Last week, the U.S. Justice Department announced that President Obama would stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act. I remind you that the President took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

The Defense of Marriage Act became law in September 1996 to solidify traditional marriage within Federal law. The President now abandons the defense of this law, claiming that no reasonable argument can be made to demonstrate that the law is constitutional--a position many legal scholars have ridiculed while pointing to a wealth of legal authority, including to relevant Federal case law.

So it appears that, not only is the President substituting his power and judgment for that of the Congress when it comes to a number of bold administrative measures to write law from the Oval Office, but he is now substituting his power and judgment for that of the Supreme Court. It appears to me that President Obama sees no need for the other two branches of the Federal Government.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, one thing that is lost in this debate is this fact, and that is there is a difference between coverage and access to care. I have been a physician for 35 years. I can tell you that today, pre- ObamaCare, we have 85 percent coverage, but we have 100 percent access to care. Anyone who wishes can report to any emergency room in this country and receive care. Now, they may receive a bill, but if they pay that bill or not, they can still return for care.

Now let's move to Canada and the U.K. where they have supposedly 100 percent of coverage. Well, they oftentimes wait a year, maybe 2 years, for a CT scan or an MRI scan, and then once they get the results back, they may wait another year to get surgery.

It's not unusual to be told, hey, we could have helped you had we made the diagnosis in time.

It's perfectly acceptable in these countries to have a death rate from lack of treatment. Look at the death rates from cancer, prostate, breast cancer in our country versus others; a horrific difference. Why? Because we diagnose it much earlier; we treat it much more aggressively.

But if we go forward with this ObamaCare, then what we will have is budgets coming up against the decision on what type of care our citizens can receive. We'll be taking it out of insurance companies; but, yes, we'll also be putting it in the hands of the government.