Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, centrists in the House have put forward a health care reform bill that defends your relationship with your doctor, lowers the cost of insurance, and extends coverage to Americans who don't have it. It is a better bill than the Senate bill, which has $1 trillion in cost.

CBO says that bill will cover 31 million Americans, but another 15 million will lose coverage under the legislation, giving a net of just 16 million Americans getting coverage. At a cost of $1 trillion, that means it costs $62,500 per patient over 10 years.

Our centrist plan covers more people at much less cost while finally guaranteeing the rights of your medical treatment against any government restriction.

This House is suffering trillion-dollar sticker shock from the Senate bill. Our centrist health care reform bill is more responsible and will not break the Treasury.

Madam Speaker, popular culture often romanticizes casual marijuana use, and those who warn that marijuana is a ``gateway drug'' that can lead to use of other, harder drugs are ridiculed as being out of the mainstream. The reality is that marijuana today is vastly different than the marijuana that was prevalent in the '60s. According to the National Drug Intelligence Center, the average THC content of seized marijuana was less than 4 percent in the early 1990s. By 2007 that level rose to nearly 10 percent.

Local police in my district are now reporting a new threat from ``Kush,'' street slang for a strain of highly potent marijuana with a THC content of at least 20 percent. The rise of Kush mirrors the increasing trend of high-THC marijuana, which has become more accessible with the rise of hydroponics. Drug growers are able to strictly control light, temperature and humidity and can cross-breed to maximize THC content. According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Kush has been known to sell for as high as $600 per ounce--creating the same profit potential as crack cocaine.

Today I am introducing legislation to bring federal penalties for trafficking high-potency marijuana in line with penalties for cocaine, heroin, and hashish, all of which have similar retail prices on the street. The gangs and cartels trafficking Kush are the same trafficking cocaine and heroin, and the profits they realize represent an equal danger to the public. In my view, the penalties for trafficking this dangerous drug should also be equalized.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Wilmette Police Chief George Carpenter, one of the finest public servants in my congressional district. Next month, Chief Carpenter will retire after 35 years of service to the people of Wilmette, serving as Chief of Police for the last 18 years.

The police chiefs of the 10th District work closely together to address their shared concerns. I've had the good fortune to work with them and their departments to help combat gangs, drugs and weapons that make their way into the suburbs, and the respect that Chief Carpenter has among his peers is testament to what kind of a leader he is.

As chief, he spearheaded education reforms in the Wilmette Police Department and leaves a legacy of forward-thinking, well-trained officers who will continue to serve the Village. He steadily increased recruitment of women, minorities, and those with foreign-language ability to diversify and bring new skills to law enforcement. These policies have resulted in increased approval ratings of the performance of the Wilmette Police Department, reflecting a high level of public trust.

He helped form task forces to counteract the growing sophistication of criminals in our area which created a more united regional police force. His dedication to quality and service has been a great example for other communities in the 10th District. This is particularly crucial as Illinois now has the most gang members per capita in the nation. I know we are better prepared to meet this emerging threat because of Chief Carpenter's service.

On behalf of the people of the 10th Congressional District, I thank Wilmette Police Chief George Carpenter for his outstanding public service and wish him the best in his future endeavors. Our community is safer and stronger because of his leadership.

I thank the chairman.

I want to praise the chairman and his team for putting together a bipartisan bill regarding our assistance to Pakistan. This is a very critical region for the United States and assistance is authorized under this legislation, and necessary. But as was stated before, when Colin Powell called the President of Pakistan right after September 11, he offered a choice: you're either with us or against us. And President Musharraf picked well. Under that arrangement, we did provide $12 billion to Pakistan but largely without strings attached. And the Pakistani effort against the militants, especially in the frontier autonomous region, was initially aggressive but then petered out. The United States was providing $16 million a month to the Pakistani military but after 2005 was receiving little benefit.

Under the new government, that is, unquestionably, a democratic government, I think we have a more stable partner to deal with in the war on terror, specifically in what the Pentagon would call the ``al Qaeda core.'' With this new government really representing the essence of the Pakistani middle class, we now take on their true aspirations in which the central issue for the long term is not nuclear competition with India, but how quickly Pakistan is falling behind India's rising economic growth.

In that view, then, a bunch of radicals ruining the economic and business climate of Pakistan is a mortal danger to the future income of Pakistanis. On that basis, a war on terror is solidly grounded in democracy, in the Pakistani middle class, and the joint interest to the United States. But this bill reflects what we have learned over the last 5 years, that strings should be attached, that benchmarks should be established, that we should have accountability in that very difficult part of the world.

I will also praise this bill because it is probably the only free trade bill this Congress will adopt, and it represents a true bipartisan will that will help add to the employment of Pakistan and stability of that country.

Mr. Speaker, tonight, what we would like to talk about is a new and positive medical reform agenda as Congress prepares to debate health care in the United States.

I want to focus this discussion on what we should be for--a bipartisan and centrist agenda for the United States--and compare our country to plans in other countries to make sure that we take the best of all medical care around the world but don't replicate some of the problems that we see both here and abroad.

When we look at a comprehensive reform agenda that would receive widespread support both in the House of Representatives and the Senate, we basically unify around eight major themes.

First, we want to make sure that we guarantee that medical decisions are kept in the hands of patients and their doctors and not a new government bureaucracy.

Second, we want to lower the cost of insurance to make sure that the competitive advantage that the United States could enjoy would be realized, and that also individual costs for all American families are lowered.

We want to increase the number of Americans who have health insurance to make sure that more and more families have the peace of mind that they need to protect their family incomes, their health, and most importantly, their lives.

We want to allow Americans to keep the insurance they like because we know that over 80 percent of Americans--and especially voters--report that they are either satisfied or extremely satisfied with the health insurance plan they have.

And we want to make sure that we replicate the doctor's principle, that first we should do no harm. And in the Congress, on health care policy, we should follow that advice.

Fifth, we would like to improve quality and accountability and make sure that especially the cost of defensive medicine is reduced and that we know exactly what we are doing with regard to health care outcomes to make sure that we are maximizing the treatment and cures provided when a patient presents in a health care facility.

We want to increase personal responsibility, especially for many of the decisions Americans are making because we know that if they lose weight, quit smoking, and stop drinking, their health care will improve dramatically.

And, finally, we want to lower demand for more Federal borrowing at a time when the United States is already reporting that it will borrow $1.8 trillion this year. It is difficult to argue that we should turn every family's health care over to the Federal Government, an institution which is already, as the President says, ``out of money.''

When we look at health care across the world, we see that the percentage of patients who wait more than 2 months to see a specialist is not a dramatic issue in the United States, but this is front-page news in both Canada and the United Kingdom. According to the Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey of Sicker Adults, they report that about 10 percent of Americans wait more than 2 months to see a specialist, but one-third of Britons do, and approaching half of Canadians wait a long time for health care.

We know that health care delayed is health care denied. And imagine-- especially if the specialist that you need is an oncologist, someone who treats cancer--what a 42-week wait would be as compared to what we see in the United States.

Secondly, we know from asking Americans, What is the most important thing you would like to see in health care?, they say lowering the cost of their health insurance. Many in this body also say the number one priority is to expand health care coverage so that Americans who do not have health insurance can get it. I would say those two goals are very important, but the most important goal of health care is to determine whether you live or die, to make sure that, especially if you are facing health care challenges of the most severe degree, you have the greatest chance for you or a member of your family to survive. This is most clear in the case of cancer.

When you or I or a member of our family gets that terrible diagnosis from a doctor that you will be fighting cancer, the question is often asked, How much time do I have? Will I be able to survive? When we look at The Lancet, Britain's number one medical journal, they did a ground- breaking study of cancer survival rates across Europe, Canada, and the United States and found that you are more likely to survive in the United States than you are in especially European countries.

They looked at a number of different cancers. For example, prostate cancer: a 78 percent survival rate in Europe--which is fairly good--but a 99 percent survival rate if found in the United States. Bladder cancer: only 66 percent of Europeans survive bladder cancer, 81 percent of Americans. Breast cancer: 79 percent of Europeans will survive breast cancer, but 90 percent of Americans. And uterine cancer: 78 percent of Europeans will survive, but 82 percent of Americans.

Why is it that Americans are doing so much better against cancer than Europeans? Part of it is because in Canada and Europe advanced oncology medicines to fight cancer are restricted; and especially imagery to find cancer, either through x rays, MRIs or CAT scans, are much more available in the United States to find cancer, especially at its earlier stage, which means that Americans, bottom line, have a greater chance of surviving cancer than Europeans.

When we look at 5-year survival rates, overall the picture is also stark. Women fighting cancer have a 63 percent chance of surviving if they are treated in the United States. That survival rate drops to just 56 percent in Europe. For men, the difference is even starker. Sixty- six percent of American men will survive a cancer diagnosis, only 47 percent of European men.

Bottom line, once again we see, across both men and women, you are much more likely to survive cancer in the United States than in European countries. And much of the reason why is because in countries in which the government controls more of the health care sector, they restrict access to oncology medicine and to imagery. That means that cancer is found later and is fought with less aggressive drugs, meaning that Europeans will die at a higher rate than Americans.

When we look at high-tech medical procedures in Britain, Canada, and the United States, many people would say that health care costs are derived by too much access to high-tech medical care. But what we see here is that survival rates are higher in the United States, meaning high-tech is good. And

the chance of your family member surviving improves when you have access to oncology medicine and MRIs.

We see the differences between Britain, Canada, and the United States most clearly here where Britain, who has had the longest record of socialized government-controlled medicine, has very low rates of providing dialysis care as opposed to the United States. In coronary bypass, we see even Canadian rates are much lower. And especially in coronary angioplasty, the United States far outdistances countries with socialized medicine, leading to higher survival rates and better outcomes for Americans over patients who face socialized medicine.

When we look at quality outcomes, this is another study showing the amount of time that you have to wait to see a specialist doctor. In this Commonwealth study, they rated the percentage of people that had to wait more than 4 weeks to see a specialist doctor. This is not a critical issue in the United States, but once again, front page news in the U.K. where we see the rate of patients that have to wait and, therefore, are denied care is three times the rate of the U.S. rate in Canada and in the United Kingdom as opposed to the U.S. And only Germany has a level somewhat equaling the U.S. record of getting you to see the specialist you need when you need to see it without a wait.

This is another chart which shows patients having very long waits. We see that in the United States, only 8 percent of Americans have to wait more than 4 months to see a key specialist, but 41 percent of people in Britain. Imagine getting a diagnosis of cancer, knowing that it is in your body, and being told that you had to wait more than 4 months before you could even see the specialist that you need to survive. This is why we are quite worried about the restrictions that would be caused and denial of care in a socialized system.

Remember also that since the U.S. Government is $1.8 trillion in debt just this year, if you give control of your health care to the government and the government is already out of money, how will it try to save money to rectify the deficit? If it's in control of your health care, it may do what the Canadians and Britons do, which is control your access to care.

I am very happy to be joined by my co-Chair of The Tuesday Group, Congressman Dent from Pennsylvania, who has been a leader on health care and has engaged in a number of these international comparisons.

I think one of the key lessons that we want is, we want Americans to have health insurance as good as a Congressman, but we don't want them to have to call their Congressman to get good health care. One of the things that we've also seen is that the United States really stands out in a couple of areas that drive health care costs up. We have very little to no Federal lawsuit reform in the United States for health care, meaning that defensive medicine is the practice of the day in our country as opposed to other countries because doctors are so likely to be sued. Another is that, yes, Americans generally have a higher degree of obesity as compared to other countries. And so the Congress and the President, on a bipartisan basis I think, will have a lot of common ground in working and encouraging a reduction in weight by Americans because this will lower health care costs. One of our key experts on how lawsuits drive health care costs up is our colleague from Pennsylvania as well, Congressman Dent.

I think the gentleman's point is well taken, especially in comparing two States and the average premium for health care in these two States. In New Jersey, the average premium totals over $6,000 per person, a State that has very little lawsuit reform; and a number of the other reforms that we are talking about in our reform bill that we will be outlining next Tuesday from the GOP centrists are not there in New Jersey. In California, a number of the successful reforms that we've put forward are there; and the average cost of our premium is just $1,885, meaning that if you back the kind of reforms that will be in the outline bill that we put forward next Tuesday, you can drop the cost of health care by thousands of dollars per patient.

When we're looking at preventive care, which is so essential, in many countries with government-controlled systems, because these systems are generally out of money, as governments generally are, they have restricted access to preventive care. So particularly in a Pap smear and a mammogram, two essential procedures in finding cancer in women early, we see that 89 percent of American women will have had a Pap smear within the last 3 years, but only 77 percent of Britons. In a mammogram as well, American women are 86 percent, whereas women in the United Kingdom are 77 percent. All of these major industrialized powers, allies of the United States, have much lower access to care, even though they have government systems.

One of the other things that we've been concerned about is the increasing price of medical malpractice insurance in the United States. Especially if you look between 2000 and 2002 for obstetricians and gynecologists, for physicians, for internists in general, you've got an explosion in the cost of buying insurance. We do not have 30 percent more malpractice in America in just 2 years, but what we may have is a 30 percent greater chance of being sued in America, the most litigious society on earth. All of this drives health care costs up, as physicians have to cover the cost of malpractice insurance and, of course, over-prescribe tests and other procedures.

So 71 percent are dropped, but a payment is still made because it's a settlement, and that's going to drive up insurance rates anyway.

But does it mean though that doctors in Connecticut were 300 percent worse 2 years later?

The bill that we are going to be putting forward by the centrists on Tuesday has a number of liability reform provisions authored by Congressman Dent, and community health center and volunteer liability provisions authored by Congressman Murphy.

One of the things we talk about is access to care. A critical issue coming up is the uninsured. Now, the Census Bureau indicates that there are about 45.7 million, about 46 million people in the country who are lacking insurance. Of those, about 9.5 million are non-citizens, and the question we have to ask is, should we provide taxpayer-funded care to those people who are not legally present in the United States?

About 12 million of the currently uninsured are already eligible for public programs. Because of lifestyle or because of their choice, they haven't even signed up for the health care that the government already will provide them. About 7.3 million have higher incomes than most Americans. They make over $84,000 a year. And about 9 million are only temporarily uninsured.

As you can see here from an older chart showing 49 million uninsured, a large number of the uninsured were uninsured temporarily, only 5 months, and another 25 percent were uninsured for only 6 months, leaving about 53 percent of this cohort uninsured for a long time, a group we all agree should be addressed.

When you take 45.7 million people uninsured, remove the noncitizens, remove the people who haven't signed up for the government programs they have already been eligible for, remove people who have higher incomes than most Americans and should buy it anyway, and remove the temporarily uninsured, you get down to a number of

only 7.8 million. But this might not be a big enough number for a government takeover.

I want to just point out, and I do want to go on to expanding health care insurance, we find for many small businesses they lack health insurance for their employees, and we ought to allow small businesses to join together. For example, the Libertyville Chamber of Commerce Association Health Plan is right now prohibited under Federal law. We should allow small businesses to band together to create large insurance pools on their own, because we know half of all Americans work for small businesses, and many don't have a plan through their employer, and that will be included in our legislation.

One of the things that you have put forward, Congressman Murphy, is the need for public health clinics, et cetera. I think that puts forward a critical point right now missing in the debate.

We know that of the uninsured, by this estimate 44.7 million, of the uninsured, currently 14.7 million are already eligible for public coverage.

That is right, Medicaid, SCHIP and other State programs. But as we found in the State of Massachusetts, when a mandate that everyone has to buy health insurance is put forward, what they have generally found is that a technical and legal solution is not adequate.

They thought that by putting a health insurance signup machine at the entrance of every emergency room in the State they would register and collect the required number of people who hadn't yet signed up for the public assistance that they were eligible for.

What they found is, for a small percentage of the most difficult patients, either because of alcohol, drug abuse or law enforcement problems, these patients were not registering under similar names, not registering under similar addresses, and were failing to report for appointments and other preventive care, meaning for that very small percentage of Americans, we need to provide an open public clinic.

It is the much-more appropriate health delivery system than an insurance system, because for this small group of Americans we have different names, different addresses and different lifestyles, and yet we still want to provide care. But having a 100 percent insurance mandate didn't do it. You needed to do it through a public health clinic.

One of the things that we want to make sure is sometimes in this debate when you hear about the uninsured, you may have the impression that the Federal Government doesn't spend any money already providing health care to low-income and needy Americans.

As this chart, already somewhat outdated from 2004 shows, it is a total of almost $35 billion in assistance given to cover the uninsured. But one of the problems has been that some of the patients directly eligible for these government programs don't sign up.

By the way, the gentleman points out Canada, a country that has basically a two-tier health care system, the Canadian health care system, and then when you are denied care, which is especially prevalent in any care needing advanced imagery or new oncology medicines to fight cancer, the relief valve is they come to the United States. Some Canadian doctors call it ``Fargo-ing a patient,'' meaning when a patient is denied care or care is going to be tremendously delayed under the Canadian system, they will then refer that patient to Fargo, North Dakota, where they will immediately get care under the U.S. system.

The concern I have though is if we have the government take over health care, where will we be able to drive? Where will we be able to go? That is why in our legislation that we will be outlining on Tuesday, it includes the Medical Rights Act, and the Medical Rights Act says this: We guarantee the right of patients to carry out the decisions of their doctors without delay or denial of care by the government.

The legislation protects the right of each American to receive medical services as deemed appropriate by their doctor.

Let me just follow up. I want to talk about some of the solutions we are going to put forward, because what is lost sometimes in this debate is we agree with the President that we should lower costs. We agree with the President that we should expand health care. But we think we have a better way.

Many times in partisan debate people can say that we have no alternative. So we have spent about 90 percent of our time coming up with that alternative. We want to make sure that we guarantee the rights of each patient in the doctor-patient relationship so that you or a loved one in your family is allowed to carry out the decisions made by you and your doctor and not be interfered with by a government bureaucracy.

Also though we are focusing in our legislation coming up on lowering the cost of insurance through alliances, through equalizing the tax benefit for individuals so they get the same benefit that employers get when they buy health insurance, and obviously what we have talked about here, lawsuit reform.

And here's what we've been working on. We want to equalize the benefit so that if you buy your own insurance, you get the same tax benefit that an employer gets when it buys for employees.

But here's what I'm concerned about. There are ideas building in strength now, in the Congress and downtown, that talk about cutting the tax benefit that employers get for providing health insurance to their employees.

One study by the Llewellyn Group says that if that tax break that employers get for providing care to their employees is cut, 100 million Americans will lose their health insurance. And so a health reform bill, ironically, will cut the number of Americans who have their own insurance from 170 million to 70 million.

Our bill, our positive alternative, goes in exactly the opposite direction. We're enhancing employer-provided coverage and making sure that it's more available.

But I yield to the gentleman.

That's what we worry about. They're talking about maybe a $1 trillion cost of a government plan. And so the most obvious response with such a cost is a huge income tax increase, but we know most Americans oppose that.

Some, including Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the heads of the President's advisory committee, has talked about a national sales tax on top of the other tax, but I think there's significant opposition to that. So they've talked about cutting back on the tax benefit that employers get when they provide health care to their employees, but by this estimate, it could cost over 100 million Americans their health insurance.

I yield to the gentleman.

If the gentleman will yield, we also not only see other examples of the government poorly running the bureaucracies that it already has taken over, but recently the government took over the largest bond dealer, Bear Stearns. The government has taken over the largest insurance company, the American International Group, and the government has taken over the largest car manufacturer, GM. And I don't think that any us of would argue that the government is running it better in their current states.

I want to emphasize the point the gentleman raises. Not only, if we create a government health care program, will it compete and may be the lowest cost option because it has a taxpayer subsidy, but that taxpayer subsidy may be paid for by ending some of the tax break that employers have in providing health care to their employees.

Right. And so, employers seeing that they don't get a tax break anymore for giving health care to their employees will simply cancel your health insurance program, and then the government will be your only option.

I am going to keep this on the positive side because what we're doing is we're putting together a positive alternative. And one of the other reforms that we will be outlining is to dramatically expand the number of Americans who can have a health savings account, very much like an IRA, so that they can save, especially in their younger, more healthy years, in a tax deferred account that they will use to make up for their deductible expenses and their health insurance.

Over time, as with our IRAs, an account balance will build up. And then, if each of us reaches the age of Medicare, at 65, with a balance in that account, that account either can become part of our retirement plan or eventually a part of our estate to our children.

This is a much more flexible way of providing health care and, more importantly, it's owned by you, not by a government bureaucracy.

I yield to the gentleman.

If the gentleman would yield. What you heard tonight is focusing on positive outcomes, making sure we reform health care, less defensive medicine, deploy health information technology, health individual savings accounts.

We have spent far less time criticizing the President and far more time outlining a new positive agenda. But to close tonight, I'd like to turn to Dr. Murphy, who's been more in the health care system than all of us, to finish us out.

I thank the gentleman, and we will be outlining a positive set of reforms that we think can attract tremendous bipartisan support this Tuesday, from the centrists.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent that Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague Marsha Blackburn.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, on May 19, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change released a draft negotiating text. The draft, in part, calls for the removal of ``barriers to development and transfer of technologies from developed to developing country Parties arising from the intellectual property rights protection including compulsory licensing for specific patented technologies.''

The American people need to know that those were code words, like ``compulsory licensing'' and ``technology transfer,'' that really mean allowing other countries to steal the American patents, copyrights and trademarks for anything related to climate change, efficiency or energy under the draft climate change treaty.

If the United States agrees to a climate change treaty that allows developing countries to seize U.S. intellectual property in this area, economic consequences for green-collar jobs would be devastated. American inventors now hold 50 percent of the world's patents on clean energy, 52 percent of the patents on fuel cells, nearly half of the world's wind patents, 46 percent of the world's solar patents, and 40 percent of the world's patents in the hybrid-electric vehicle market.

By 2030, industries with green-collar jobs could provide up to 40 million American jobs, and they could generate up to $4.5 trillion in annual revenue; but none of that would happen if a climate change treaty specifically allowed compulsory licensing so that Chinese competitors, for example, or European opposition could simply steal the intellectual property of a key U.S. green-collar manufacturer.

Now, one leading American innovator told me, If we lose intellectual property rights, capital markets die.

This industry needs all of the innovation we can muster to deliver on what the world and on what the U.S. needs. Shorting that will guarantee no new investments or breakthroughs for green-collar jobs.

Now, this innovator was none other than Gregg Patterson, the CEO of PV Powered--America's largest manufacturer of solar power inverter technology. Many of us remember this photo when then Presidential candidate, Senator Obama, visited Mr. Patterson last year, promising future green jobs and a green economy at his factory. Mr. Chairman, these jobs will not be created if we do not protect the intellectual property of American inventors and manufacturers. So far, the State Department has been very silent on this issue, but countries like China and India now put it at the top of their lists for negotiations in Copenhagen to ``relax intellectual property rights.'' That means to steal the innovations of Americans in green-collar areas.

This amendment lays down a marker. It says, if Copenhagen produces a treaty that allows the theft of U.S. intellectual property under compulsory licensing or under the weakening of IPR, the U.S. will not sign on.

Now, our Larsen-Kirk amendment is endorsed by the Solar Energy Industries Association, by the National Hydrogen Association, by the National Association of Manufacturers, and by the Chamber of Commerce.

I really want to thank Chairman Berman, Chairman Waxman, Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen, and Chairman Rangel for supporting this very commonsense piece of legislation.

I yield back.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment on the roll.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for their bipartisan work on this, for a good underlying bill, in my view, as well.

This amendment will assist in our fight against terrorism across the globe, especially in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Currently, the terrorist rewards program run by the State Department assists in our hunt for terrorists by promising a cash reward or other type of assistance for information leading to the arrest of some of the world's most deadly terrorists. The Rewards for Justice Program, established by the 1984 Act to Combat International Terrorism, has now paid over $77 million to more than 50 people who have provided credible information to put terrorists behind bars and prevent acts of terrorism.

As a staff member, I helped write the amendments that President Clinton asked for when we wanted to offer rewards for persons indicted for war crimes, for example, in the former Yugoslavia. We also passed legislation under Chairman Hyde that loosened up this program so that we could provide more than cash assistance, more meaningful assistance to farmers and other people who may not be able to read in very rural parts of Central Asia.

The program has been the key to success in apprehending people, including Mir Amal Kansi, a terrorist who murdered two CIA employees and injured three others in his 1993 rampage outside of CIA headquarters in Virginia. The program was also important in nailing Ramzi Yousef, convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; Uday and Qusay Hussein, the two murderous Hussein brothers; Khadaffy Janjalani and Abu Solaiman, two high-ranking members of Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines; Libyan Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, convicted on January 31, 2001, for the murder of 270 people on Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie; Hamsiraji Marusi Sali, the leader of the ASG; Muhsin Khadr al-Khafaji, a member of Saddam Hussein's top Ba'ath Party leadership; Iraqi Khamis Sirhan al-Muhammad, a former official military commander; and Muhammad Zimam Abd al-Razzaq al-Sadun, number 41 on the Iraqi ``top 55'' wanted list.

Under current law, though, the United States may not pay an award to an officer or employee of another government. I have traveled to Pakistan in each of the last 4 years where I have met a number of government officials, and at the strong suggestion of the fairly poorly paid, especially IB, intelligence bureaus, I believe the Secretary of State should be allowed to pay such a reward especially if it has to do with nailing the greatest terrorists. If there is anyone anywhere working for anyone who has information related to the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri, we should be doing everything possible to elicit that information.

As Secretary Clinton, Secretary Gates, General Petraeus, and Ambassador Holbrooke execute the President's new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, we should do everything we can to develop a complete picture of where the al Qaeda and Taliban leadership is hiding. This amendment provides our key State Department and intelligence officials with every possible tool that they could have to make sure they can offer a reward even if that person, for example, works for the Pakistani IB bureau.

In the last Congress, the House overwhelmingly passed this amendment 419-1, but it did not pass the Senate, which is why I offer it today.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate the chairman's work. I also appreciate David Fite's work on this because we were together when we first saw how this restriction could impede the hunt for the two top al Qaeda terrorists-- Ayman al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden.

For a poorly paid official--and there are many who are patriotic, good servants in Afghanistan and in Pakistan especially--we ought to be able to offer this reward. This will significantly incentivize the hunt for some of the people who have killed most of the Americans. I urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, on Friday, the International Atomic Energy Agency submitted a report on the Iranian nuclear program. After producing low-enriched uranium at a rate of 40 kilograms per month over a 21-month period, Iran has now increased its stockpile by 60 percent in just the last 6 months, doubling its rate to over 80 kilograms per month.

With 5,000 centrifuges now active, Iran is producing enough enriched uranium to produce two nuclear weapons per year, one for them, one for Hezbollah.

The IAEA now reports that Iran has denied inspectors access to the Arak heavy water reactor since August of 2008, where we suspect they will try to produce plutonium.

Mr. Moussavi, the leading candidate for President in Iran, told Der Spiegel, I will not suspend uranium enrichment. On April 13 he said to the Financial Times, No one will stop suspension.

No matter who wins the Iranian elections on Friday, we know that the production of fissile material useful in this oil-producing country only for nuclear weapons is accelerating.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to call on Egypt to demonstrate that it is a force for tolerance in the Arab world by releasing Kareem Amer from prison.

A young human rights activist, Kareem Amer, was sentenced in February of 2007 to rot in prison for 4 years based solely on what he wrote on his blog. He is the first blogger of the Arab world to be jailed completely for his Internet comments. And his only crime was criticizing extremists who persecute women and minorities.

We have a unique opportunity to right this injustice. President Obama should call for the release of Kareem to protect the free speech of all of us on the Internet.

The Egyptian Government is heavily subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer. Americans are going through tough times and would not be happy supporting a regime that set a precedent that put the first blogger in jail solely for promoting tolerance. Egypt should not stand out as a repressive regime that stifles Internet speech. That is why Kareem Amer should be released from prison before the President leaves Egypt.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the 90th birthday of Ira Weinstein. For almost 60 years Ira has been a resident of Illinois' 10th District, and currently lives in Glencoe, IL. We also take this time to commemorate Ira, a WWII hero and an ex-POW for his bravery and service to his country.

Born in Chicago in 1919 to a family of modest means, Mr. Weinstein found his calling in advertising when he worked for his high school newspaper. Unfortunately, his career aspirations were soon interrupted by the attack on Pearl Harbor and America's entrance into World War II.

In 1942, just before completing his training as a bombardier- navigator, he married Norma Randall, a marriage that would last until her death in 1995. While overseas, Ira was based with the 702nd Squadron in the 445th Bomb Group of the famed 8th Air Force. He flew two dozen harrowing missions, each time taking over the piloting duties of the massive B-24 Liberator.

Trying to close out his quota of missions in order to go back home to his new bride, he traded in his pass for the Jewish High Holidays to complete one more mission. What was supposed to be a routine-mission became the ill-fated Kassel mission--the greatest single loss of men during the European air war. On September 27, 1944, his B-24 was critically damaged by an enemy attack forcing him to evacuate the bombardier's compartment while the aircraft was burning, falling to the ground in a dizzying flat spin. After a failed attempt, he bailed out with little time to spare. Landing safely in the tree line, Ira watched the locals pull his copilot out of the wreckage and pitchfork the man to death.

After 6 days of evading capture, Mr. Weinstein was forced to turn himself in to local authorities in Germany. For the better part of the following year, he was held prisoner in Stalag Luft I in Barth, Germany, enduring brutal and unthinkable conditions. On May 11, 1945, the camp was liberated and for his heroism Ira was awarded several medals, including the Purple Heart and the distinguished French Croix de Guerre.

Returning to Chicago, Mr. Weinstein took over a small advertising agency and grew it into a nationally known direct marketing firm. To those close to him, Ira was indefatigable, inquisitive, and inspiring, a man of unquestioned integrity, a loving father to two daughters, Laura and Terri, a proud grandfather, a

cherished husband and a successful businessman acknowledged by his peers as a pioneer in his field. Today, Ira is retired and remarried to Mary Gandelman, with whom he continues to travel the globe.

On June 10, we pause to celebrate the 90th birthday of Ira Weinstein. I commend Ira for his hard work and determination throughout some of the most challenging moments in American history. I hope that his story will never be forgotten.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Terrence L. Barnich. Terry served as Chairman of the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) in the early nineties, and spent the last two years as Deputy Director of the Iraq Transition Assistance Office in Baghdad. Terry died on Memorial Day after his convoy was hit by a roadside bomb on the outskirts of Fallujah.

Terry was appointed Chairman of the ICC by Gov. Jim Thompson in 1989, serving for three years before joining the private sector. In 2007 he took a leave of absence from his job as CEO of Paradigm Resources Group to spend a year working with the State Department in Baghdad. After that year, Terry volunteered to stay in Iraq to continue his work helping the Iraqis build modern public utility systems. He embodied the American commitment to the people of Iraq, and his work was helping us fulfill that commitment.

Terry died after inspecting a new wastewater treatment facility that will provide essential services to Fallujah and Anbar Province. His patriotism and love of his work are evident in a quote he gave a Chicago newspaper shortly after he arrived in Baghdad. He said:

``To those back home who say the Iraqi experience has made the Iraqis unready or incapable for democracy, I say come work with me. I deal with Iraqis who daily brave physical hardship, violence and threats of violence to make their contribution to building a government that deserves the consent of the governed.''

Funeral services were held today in Chicago, and I hope my colleagues will join me in sending our condolences to Terry's family as we remember his dedication to public service.

Madam Speaker, we are running out of other people's money. We borrowed $1 trillion from China, and their leaders are reluctant to lend more. In response, the Federal Reserve has begun electronically printing dollars to cover new debts. Chinese leaders told me that this was unconventional and troubling. They worry that America will try to repay her debts with newly printed dollars. The Fed so far this year has printed $130 billion that it does not have. Rating agencies have already cut Britain's AAA credit rating and warned we are next.

Later this week I will ask the Fed to stop printing money to buy U.S. debt. Unless we stop, the enemy of the middle class and seniors-- inflation--will come back to hurt our recovery.

Mr. Speaker, the dollars in your wallet are about to become less valuable, a lot less valuable.

Over the last several months, the Federal Reserve has been lending money to the Federal Government using ``monetized'' assets. That's Washington-speak for printing money we do not have. To date, the Fed has printed over $130 billion by just running a virtual electronic printing press on its balance sheet. Most Americans do not know this is happening. Most Chinese do.

The dollar-printing policy of Chairman Bernanke and Secretary Geithner should worry every American. High interest rates and inflation are the enemy of homeowners with a mortgage and senior citizens on a fixed income. Nothing sinks a middle class faster than inflation.

Concern for the dollar is also front page news in China. China's leaders approved over $1 trillion in lending to the U.S. And if the Fed continues printing money, then China's dollar-denominated loans will lose considerable value.

As co-chair of the China Working Group, I led a mission to China, where I heard about deep concern in China. It's a concern that we should all listen to for our own sakes, as well as our international trade.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand here today to introduce the Medical Rights Act of 2009 that will protect the doctor- patient relationship, the integrity of the medical profession and the right of Americans to choose the care they deem appropriate without federal delay or restriction.

The President outlined three principles for health care reform--lower costs, choice and access. I support these goals. To back them,

the President should endorse the Medical Rights Act. Our legislation is founded on this: Congress should make no law to block the decisions that American patients make with their doctor. If patients are our prime focus, their rights should be protected in law.

We can look to Great Britain and Canada to show us how government takeover of health care puts Congress, then the government in charge of your health care decisions, allowing them to decide what treatments you should or should not have. While over 60 percent of Americans are actually satisfied with their health care plan, only 55 percent of Canadian seniors are satisfied. The starkest difference in care appears when you are sickest. In Britain, government hospitals maintain nine intensive care unit beds per 100,000 people. In America, we have three times that number at 31 per 100,000. In sum, Britain has less than two doctors per 1,000 people, ranking it next to Mexico and Turkey.

If we do not enact the Medical Rights Act, patients will be at risk when government denies care, as they routinely do in Canada and Great Britain. Once denied government care, many Canadians find doctors in the U.S. If Congress orders the government to take over America's health care, where can we drive once care is denied by a new government health care system? To prevent this nightmare, Congress should pass the Medical Rights Act.

We need to promote patient-centered health care reform, where every American has access to the care they need, when they need it. It is not the role of the federal government to decide the type of care a patient should have but the role of doctors and medical professionals. I urge my colleagues to support the Medical Rights Act to stop the federal government from taking control over decisions made by you and your doctor.