Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, two Middle Eastern newspapers reported today that Syria has transferred scud missiles to a terrorist group in Lebanon. This repeats actions by Iran and Syria in 2006 when they gave cruise missiles to Hezbollah. It shows that the Syrians and Iranians have no wish to control their arsenals. They will transfer any weapon they own to terrorist groups. These reports tell us two things:

First, the U.N. army that we sent to Lebanon in 2006 is an utter failure that makes no effort to stop the largest missiles from deploying next to their very own U.N. camps. Second, it shows that, once Iran makes nuclear weapons, it will transfer them to terrorists like Hezbollah and who knows who else.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3590, the Senate Health Care bill. I strongly support reforms to lower the cost of health insurance and cover Americans with pre-existing conditions. That is why I authored the Medical Rights and Reform Act, H.R. 3790. Under our centrist Reform Act, we cover Americans with pre-existing conditions and advance three major reforms:

(1) The Medical Rights Act: Under our bill, Congress shall make no law interfering with the personal decisions that you make with your doctor,

(2) Lawsuit Reform: By applying the lawsuit reforms (recently eliminated in Illinois) similar to successful California reforms, we could reduce defensive medicine, saving over $200 billion annually, and

(3) Granting Americans Interstate Rights: Our bill grants the right to all Americans to buy health coverage from any state in the union, especially if you find a plan that is less expensive or more flexible for your family or small business. This improves choice and competition for each American.

Unfortunately, the Congressional leadership will not permit a debate on our bill. Instead, the House will only allow one vote on the health care bill adopted by the Senate.

Under the Senate bill, the Congress will increase spending by $1.2 trillion, including $940 billion for new subsidies, $144 billion for new mandates, $70 billion to administer the bill and $41 billion in unrelated spending. To attempt to pay for the bill, Congress will raise taxes, cut Medicare and borrow a historic amount of money. To pass the Senate, the bill also included the ``Louisiana Purchase'', ``Cornhusker Kickback'' and ``Gatoraide'' that advantaged Louisiana, Nebraska and Florida over the people of Illinois.

The bill imposes 12 new federal taxes, imposing over $500 billion in new payments to the government, including over $23 billion in taxes on the people of Illinois. Among the new taxes is a new ``Individual Mandate Tax'' (IMT) of $2,250 per household or 2 percent of

household income. The bill increases the Medicare payroll tax and does not adjust this for inflation. Therefore, like the infamous Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), the new Medicare tax will soon reach most middle class families as inflation pushes more Americans into its bracket.

The bill also increases the capital gains tax. Most economists worry that too many businesses plan for the short-term, hurting long-term economic growth. That is why investments which are held for longer periods of time pay a lower capital gains tax. The Senate bill reverses this wise policy by imposing a new 3.8 percent tax on capital gains, raising the rate from 15 percent to 23.8 percent by 2013.

Both Americans for Tax Reform and the Heritage Foundation estimated that the new taxes and Medicare cuts in the bill would cost over 600,000 job opportunities per year or an estimated 26,042 fewer Illinois jobs. The bill also has a number of budget gimmicks to hide spending. Once the Social Security Trust Fund, long-term health care and student loan gimmicks are removed, the bill adds $755 billion to the federal deficit or $2,460 in new debt for each man, woman, and child.

Here is a look at the estimated national job losses under the bill:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sector Jobs ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting.................. -5,441 Mining...................................................... -5,478 Construction................................................ -43,316 Manufacturing............................................... -105,229 Wholesale trade............................................. -47,663 Retail trade................................................ -84,339 Transportation and warehousing.............................. -36,806 Utilities................................................... -5,271 Information................................................. -26,342 Financial Activities........................................ -77,269 Professional and business services.......................... -132,596 Educational services........................................ -32,102 Leisure and hospitality..................................... -49,682 Other services.............................................. -46,564 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total................................................... -698,098 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Half of all people employed in Illinois work in a small business and over 80 percent of job losses during this Great Recession have been from small business employers. Nevertheless, this legislation requires the federal government to levy a new $52 billion tax on small businesses, even though unemployment now tops 12 percent in Illinois. The bill begins a new $2,000 tax on small business with over 50 employees. Over 21,600 small businesses in Illinois could be subject to this new tax. This tax applies to part-time as well as full-time workers. The follow-up Reconciliation Bill also includes an unprecedented extension of the Medicare tax to all non-wage income.

The legislation stands for the principle that we should cut senior health care under Medicare to fund a new entitlement spending program. Over 40 million seniors depend on Medicare for their health care. Under the Senate bill, the federal government would cut over $500 billion from Medicare. This includes cutting over $200 billion from Medicare Advantage, cancelling the Medicare choice of over 120,000 Illinois seniors.

Here is a summary of the Medicare cuts:

------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Medicare Advantage........................ $202 billion. Home Health............................... 39 billion. Medicare Part B........................... 25 billion. Hospital DSH Payments..................... 25 billion. Medicare Part D........................... 10 billion. Medical Imaging........................... 1 billion. Preventative Services..................... 700 million. Durable Medical Equipment................. 1 billion. Power-Driven Wheelchairs.................. 800 million. Hospice................................... 100 million. Medicare Improvement Fund................. 20 billion. Medigap................................... 100 million. ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total................................. $523 billion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------

While the American people overwhelmingly want to lower health insurance costs, the bill increases costs because it requires Americans to buy health insurance that include new mandates for coverage. According to the Administration, individual insurance premiums will increase by 10 percent for over 600,000 people in Illinois. On average, Illinois individuals currently pay $2,499 annually for insurance. Under the bill, costs will go up at least $150 a month to a level of $4,299 annually.

On March 4, the Chicago Tribune reported that for ``more than half- million consumers in individual health plans, base rates will go up from 8.5 percent to more than 60 percent.'' The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reported that the bill's provisions that double the tax on health insurers, drug makers and medical devices will all be passed on to patients in the form of higher health costs and rising insurance premiums.

Under the federal Medicaid program for the poor, states must pay half of all costs. As you know, the State of Illinois has one of the highest deficits of any state, totaling over $12 billion. Spending on the Illinois Medicaid program rose 65 percent from $8 billion in 2001 to $13 billion in 2008 to now cover 2.4 million people. Under the Senate Health Care bill, Illinois would have to cover an additional 400,000 people, adding an additional $1 billion to the state's deficit over five years.

Health care under Medicaid is already deteriorating. Over 9,000 doctors in Illinois refuse to accept Medicaid patients (28 percent nationwide), in part because it takes Illinois over 100 days to pay for services.

About the only jobs created by the legislation would be at the IRS. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the IRS would need to hire over 16,000 people--over 700 just in Illinois--to audit the American people and impose the new taxes and mandates of the bill. New IRS agents would verify if you have acceptable authority, fine you up to 2 percent of your income for failure to prove that you have purchased ``minimum essential coverage,'' confiscate your tax refund and conduct audits. Under the bill, nearly half of the new individual mandate taxes will be paid by Americans earning less than $66,150 for a family of four.

I will vote against this legislation because it costs Illinois jobs, raises taxes and deepens the debt our children must one day pay. I wish that we could adopt a more modest set of reforms that do not have such harsh consequences for our economy.

In the coming days, I will outline policies and legislation that will reduce spending, lower the debt and prevent new taxes on the American people. While we did not prevail in this contest, I will continue to work and ensure a strong economy and bright future for every Illinois citizen.

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Iran Sanctions Enhancement Act, a bipartisan measure to enforce U.S. law regarding Iran.

As the New York Times reported last Sunday, for far too long, international businesses have ignored the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996.

The Iranian regime continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons and remains the world's leading sponsor of terrorist organizations, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. While the original ISA was intended to deter investment in Iran's energy sector that serves as the main source of financial support for the regime, no entity has ever been held accountable under the Act.

The executive branch has disregarded the enforcement of existing U.S. sanctions on Iran for far too long--and this Administration has been no exception to the rule. In October of last year, fifty members of Congress wrote to the Administration, requesting an investigation of potential ISA violators identified by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS). Despite a pledge by the Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Feltman to conduct such an investigation within 45 days, the Administration still has not provided Congress with the full results of its investigation.

Therefore, this bill would require the President to investigate and determine ISA violators within 45 days and to notify Congress. To aid the Administration's efforts, this bill mandates the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to publish monthly a list of those entities suspected of violating the ISA.

The time to act is now. To stop Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and curb its sponsorship of global terrorism, I urge my colleagues to join in cosponsoring this important bipartisan legislation.

Madam Speaker, I feel compelled to rise today as the only Member of this body who has deployed twice to Afghanistan, both times as a Navy Reserve intelligence officer in Kandahar in 2008 and 2009. I'm not worried about the outcome of this debate. My colleague from Ohio will be defeated today more decisively than during his Presidential campaign.

I am worried about why the Speaker scheduled this debate. In the face of record job losses, a trillion-dollar health care takeover bill, and serious corruption charges leveled by the bipartisan Ethics Committee on some of the most powerful Members of this House, the Speaker has thrown an irresponsible bone to the far fringe of her party by scheduling this debate on the only unqualified success of the Obama administration, his surge to Afghanistan. By setting up this pointless debate, she risks undermining the Obama administration's admirable combat record in Afghanistan. Parts of this debate will now be replayed and misquoted by the Taliban and Iranian radios in ways that will hurt the elected government of Afghanistan, our NATO allies and Americans who wear the uniform now in the field.

I can speak from personal experience. There are no Republicans or Democrats in Afghanistan. There are American troops, our troops, who delivered a stunning set of military successes just in the last 3 months. General Nicholson and his marines took the narco-Taliban stronghold of Marjah in a single week, sending the Taliban fleeing. This is the heroin heartland that has funded the rerise of the Taliban.

In a quiet shadow war, our allies then captured the Taliban's top military commander, the equivalent of our Secretary of Defense. And when he was interrogated, we then followed up by capturing the Taliban governors of several provinces and key military leaders. If the Taliban military was a company, it has lost its CEO, its vice president, and its best salesman. At this rate, the guy who is running the mail room will now be attempting to run the Taliban soon.

We all witnessed 9/11. Especially for those of us representing large cities, the lessons that we learned on that day have now come to the core of our public service. It's obvious to say that President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and Secretary of Defense Gates fiercely oppose this resolution. Given our overwhelming bipartisan opposition to the resolution, many of our troops would ask, Don't they know that we're winning? What are they doing in Congress? And I would ask, given the growing ethical cloud over this House, given record unemployment in the United States, given a trillion-dollar flawed health care bill, why would the Speaker choose to schedule a forum to question of one of the biggest successes of our President?

I will just say that we know the resolution will be defeated. But given the opportunities that it gives Taliban propagandists on the radio, we should ask, Why did the Speaker even schedule such a lopsided debate on this floor?

Would the gentleman yield?

I would just say that we probably spend enough time naming post offices in the House of Representatives during the worst economy in our country----

Mr. Speaker, while I was flattered that the President chose to include seven parts of my bill, the Medical Rights and Reform Act, in his latest health care proposal, he left out nearly every major reform in our centrist health care legislation, including the Medical Rights Act guaranteeing decisions made with your doctor will be made without government interference, lawsuit reform, and granting the right of every American to buy insurance from any State in the Union if you find a plan that is less expensive for your family or your small business.

The White House proposal is based on a very expensive Senate bill with half a dozen major new taxes levied in the teeth of the Great Recession. The new proposal would tax retirement savings, cut Medicare for seniors, and adds to our long-term deficit.

I urge the President to start over, to invite key congressional leaders to Camp David--there we could find reforms that we all support, like covering Americans with preexisting conditions--and present a more modest set of reforms that we all could support.

Mr. Speaker, this morning, we read reports that the administration will announce that a prison in Illinois will be home to over 70 al Qaeda core detainees. After spending $275 million on a state-of-the-art facility in Cuba, we will walk away from that investment.

The new plan poses an unnecessary risk on the American people. Administration briefings revealed that we are not ending Gitmo, just moving it to the heartland.

Members of Congress posed over one dozen questions on this plan 1 month ago--with no answer. Here is one of the key unanswered issues: In his archives speech, the President announced that approximately 75 of the detainees are ``too dangerous for trial or release.'' They are to be held indefinitely without civil or military trial.

It is illegal under our Constitution for the executive to hold a person inside the United States indefinitely without trial. Question: How will the President suspend our Constitution's writ of habeas corpus once he brings these 75 detainees to the heartland? Courts will force him to answer, and the American people should know right now.

Mr. Speaker, Congressman Andrews and I are the two grandfathers of this bill and its policy. After 4\1/2\ years of working on this legislation, I strongly support this bill, especially its underlying policy, which is the last best hope for diplomatically ending Iran's nuclear weapons program.

In January of 2005, I wrote to the Secretary of Defense with a comprehensive analysis of Iran's economy, discovering a critical weakness. Despite its status as a leading oil exporter, Iran has so mishandled her domestic energy supply that the regime relies on foreign sources of gasoline for 40 percent of its needs.

In 2005 and again in 2006, Congressman Andrews and I introduced the congressional resolutions calling for a multilateral restriction of gasoline deliveries to Iran as the most effective sanction to bring their leaders into compliance with their commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In 2007, we introduced the Iran Sanctions Enhancement Act to extend current sanctions to the provision of gasoline to Iran. This year, Congressman Brad Sherman and I re-introduced the Iran Diplomatic Enhancement Act. This bill today is modeled after our bipartisan legislation.

A restriction of gasoline deliveries to Iran administered through multilateral sanctions and enforced by the world's most powerful navies will pit our greatest strength against Iran's greatest weakness, all without a shot being fired. For the bill to succeed, the Iranians must believe also that it will be enforced, otherwise we will go down a failed policy of diplomacy in the absence of effective sanctions. My hope is that the Senate quickly takes up action on this bill, and then the administration provides needed enforcement.

I want to truly thank the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Chairman Berman; our ranking member, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; Congressman Andrews and Congressman Brad Sherman for all working with me. This has been 5 years of my life working on this legislation. This is bipartisan legislation which offers the last best diplomatic hope to resolve this problem.

Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 961 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

I thank the gentleman.

This bill totals 2,500 pages. Initial estimates show that it has 5,000 earmarks, and these earmarks in this legislation stretch over several hundred pages. Now, any time Congress moves a 2,500-page appropriation bill on short notice, we should urge caution. This kind of spending may be in line with other spending of this Congress.

This morning, Congressman Price and I released a list of the 11 worst spending items approved by the 111th Congress. Items included $1.9 million for a water taxi to nowhere in Pleasure Beach, Connecticut, opposed by a local mayor there that said the reason why we never did this is there is no local support for this project. Or $578,000 to fight homelessness in Union, New York, a town that has reported no homeless citizens. HUD officials said, ``We hope and encourage these new grantees to develop creative strategies for this funding.''

Now, remember, the Bureau of Public Debt reports that we must borrow $160 billion per week for the United States to service our current debt and add new IOUs. Forty-six cents of every dollar spent by this Congress is borrowed, and most of it from abroad.

This bill has 5,000 earmarks over several hundred pages buried in this legislation. I do not think that it represents responsible management of Federal finances. The press reports indicate that the congressional leaders will soon approve adding $1.8 trillion to our national debt next year. They need to do this to fund 10,000 earmarks they've already approved--5,000 just in this legislation--that totals $446 billion in a 2,500-page bill, accelerating spending by $50 billion over last year alone. I think we should turn away from this kind of spending and enact a more frugal set of spending priorities.

Madam Speaker, with little more than the blink of an eye, the American taxpayers have lost $25 billion--with no transparency, accountability or justification.

In December 2008, the Treasury Department loaned General Motors $13 billion. In the spring, Treasury loaned GM another $6 billion. Days before GM declared bankruptcy, the Obama administration poured in another $30 billion--just in time to convert taxpayer loans to equity and take ownership of this American giant. All of these funds came from the Troubled Asset Relief Program--a bailout never intended for such purposes. As the Congressional Oversight Panel wrote last month, ``the use of TARP funds for the automotive industry raises questions regarding both presidents' authority to use these funds under EESA legislation and, more broadly, under the U.S. Constitution.''

Last month, the ex-``Car Czar'' Steve Rattner, the Government Accountability Office and the TARP Congressional Oversight Panel independently estimated the taxpayers' $49 billion investment in GM to be worth about $25 billion. The government's ``Bridge Loan to Nowhere'' lost half of the taxpayers' money. This is only one company. The U.S. taxpayer owns debt and equity securities in other private corporations, including Chrysler ($12.5 billion), Citigroup ($45 billion) and AIG ($41 billion). How much are taxpayers losing on nearly $100 billion invested in these struggling firms?

Today, I introduce the ``Taxpayer Investment Protection Act,'' which sets a December 2010 deadline for the Treasury Secretary to divest the federal government's ownership of private firms. These TARP-funded government investments add to the Treasury's $12 trillion debt burden and put taxpayer funds at risk for greater loss. The time has come to protect the taxpayer from any more losses and set a timetable for withdrawal to get the government out of private business.

Madam Speaker, recently, the administration announced it may move up to 215 Al Qaeda terrorists to Illinois. This proposal imposes an unnecessary new risk. We should slow down and answer basic questions.

The facility is only 22 miles from a nuclear reactor. What precautions are taken?

Commissions will be in Illinois--how will we protect the families of judges and jurors?

We learned yesterday that two-thirds of the jobs claimed will be active-duty military. The Bureau of Prisons will hire no one over 37 years old and will hire nationwide, not just Illinois.

The United States spent more than $50 million to build the state-of- the-art Guantanamo Bay detention facility to keep terrorists from U.S. soil. Al Qaeda terrorists should stay where they cannot endanger Americans.

Today I introduced the Guantanamo Detainee Transfer Impact Assessment Act of 2009. My legislation prohibits the transfer of terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay to any location in the United States unless the President presents to the State's legislature a ``Homeland Insecurity Impact Statement'' conducted by the Government Accountability Office, in consultation with the Inspectors General of the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the legislature then approves the transfer by a majority vote.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in ensuring that a thorough threat and risk assessment is conducted and shared with the elected representatives of the American people before any terrorist from Guantanamo Bay is brought to the United States.

Recently, the administration announced it may move up to 215 al Qaeda terrorists to Illinois. This proposal imposes an unnecessary new risk. We should slow it down and answer some basic questions.

The facility is only 22 miles from a nuclear reactor. What precautions are being taken? Commissions will be held in Illinois. How do we protect the families of jurors and prosecutors?

Since the facility will replicate Gitmo's military administration, how will Great Lakes Gitmo improve American PR?

Yesterday, we learned that two-thirds of the jobs claimed to be created will be active duty military. The Bureau of Prisons will hire no one over 37 years old and will hire nationwide, not just in Illinois.

It's ironic that the administration promised $200 million to Palau to accept six terrorists--$33 million a terrorist. But for 215 terrorists, Illinois would only get $120 million--$500,000 a terrorist. That's 66 times less than the rate paid to Palau.

The people of Illinois deserve to know a lot more about this proposal and how it would affect our safety.

Mr. Speaker, our goal in health care reform should be to lower the cost of health care, making it more affordable for Americans to purchase coverage. Many young adults from Illinois and elsewhere will be hit very hard under this legislation if they do not have coverage provided by their employers. We should not force young Americans to purchase coverage that costs them more because of reform. This is a new expensive tax targeted to young workers--and I oppose it.

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, 29 percent of individuals between the ages of 18 and 24 are uninsured and 27 percent of individuals between the ages of 25 and 34 are uninsured. Prices in the individual insurance market are already so high they do not think it is worth it. The misnamed ``Affordable Health Care Act'' that we are debating now will make this coverage even more expensive.

The reason is that this bill requires that insurers may not charge 64-year-olds more than twice what they charge healthy 19-year-olds. This mandate will raise premiums on young adults tremendously. Young, healthy people who lack coverage, mostly because they find it too expensive at a current cost of $1,700 to $2,000 for it, will be forced to buy policies that cost $3,000, even after federal subsidies. The House bill's ``age rating'' of 2 to 1 is far below the 5 to 1 ratio currently prevalent in the insurance market. Why does this ratio exist? Simply because the medical bills of healthy young people are a fraction of what older Americans spend. Comparisons of the House bill with an estimate of what is available on the individual market now using data provided by the Kaiser Family Foundation demonstrate that a 25-year-old single individual making $30,000 will pay a premium of $3,169 under the House bill after subsidies, while similar standards with a 4:1 age rating cost $2,258. It is almost a $1,000+ leap. This is a big deal for those earning only $30,000.

The Kaiser Family Foundation provides a way to estimate how insurance premiums will rise for young workers and their families:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

House Current Higher

Salary bill market premium ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Policy:

21...................... $30,000 $2,724 $2,258 $466

25...................... $35,000 $3,169 $2,258 $911

28...................... $40,000 $3,169 $2,435 $734

30...................... $42,000 $3,169 $2,676 $493 Family of Four:

28...................... $75,000 $8,102 $7,402 $700

30...................... $90,000 $8,543 $7,862 $681 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

I proposed an amendment to this bill that would ensure that anyone purchasing insurance coverage after January 1, 2013 is exempt from the individual mandate if a less expensive insurance plan than those available under today's bill Act was available six months prior to its enactment. Unfortunately, this amendment was not made in order by the Rules Committee.

In health care reform, we should do no harm. We must enact reforms that will actually lower the costs of insurance premiums so Americans can afford to purchase coverage. Enacting a bill that makes it more expensive for young workers to buy insurance coverage and then forcing them to buy such coverage is wrong.

In closing, I want to commend Shauna McCarthy of my staff for the many months she has committed to health reform, contributing to this amendment as well as the Medical Rights and Reform Act, which seeks to prevent government intervention in the important relationship between patients and their doctors.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 841 and 842, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 841 and ``no'' on rollcall 842.

Mr. Speaker, we should pay special attention to the sections drafted under the supervision of the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

Chairman Charlie Rangel supervised the drafting of 70 pages of this bill, pages 296 through 366. This is the same Congressman under investigation by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct on five separate counts: using official resources to raise money; problems with apartment leases; undisclosed ownership in Dominican Republic Yacht Club; compliance with the storage rules of the House; and problems with his financial disclosure and income tax.

This bill raises your taxes, but ethics is investigating whether Rangel paid his. Leaders may respond with two spins: Chairman Rangel had nothing to do with writing this bill, or, he has no ethics problems.

A 2,000-page bill and a coming manager's amendment that will be a chamber of horrors of special deals, supervised by a Congressman under five separate ethics investigations, that is what we will vote on this week.