Floor Statements

I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn). She has done an outstanding job leading this Special Order tonight, and I thank you for what you are doing.

We have so many women in our conference that wanted to be here tonight, and they can't all be here. The women in our conference understand one thing, and it is that women in the United States overwhelmingly make the health care decisions not only for their families, not only for their children, not only for their parents, but quite often women run a lot of the H.R., the human resources offices as well in business after business.

I think one thing that people in business are understanding is they are going to have fewer choices before them rather than more.

What we have seen from the bill that the Speaker of the House released last Thursday, on page 92, I believe, is that by the year 2013, no one will be able to purchase private insurance anymore. That's it. Now let that thought penetrate for a moment, Mr. Speaker.

If we have to be frozen in time and we can purchase no new private insurance after 2013, what will happen? What will happen to our choices? What will happen to the plans that we really have?

Well, it's interesting; a lot of people haven't been waiting around, they've been doing studies. One group called

The Levin Group showed that by looking at the health care that we have in front of us, in all likelihood about 114 million Americans will be thrown off the current health insurance plan they have and onto the government system, which means about 114 million Americans won't have the health care that the President said we would all be entitled to keep. And we remember what the President said, he said, If you like your current health care plan, no problem, you can keep it.

The only problem is, that's just not so. If you take 114 million Americans, throw them off the health care they already like, well, then they're stuck being in the government's plan. That means fewer choices. And that means the women of America don't get to make the choices anymore, it's government.

I think the thing that all American women really get out of this is that there is going to be an enormous hassle factor. There is a big hassle cost that's in all of this. That's what we women deal with, we deal with hassles--hassles with our jobs, hassles with the kids, hassles with trying to make the books balance, and now the biggest hassle of all, life and death decisions because if government literally controls the health care decisions from cradle to grave--because it would be every single American--that means the hassle cost goes way up. That's kind of the last thing we women need right now.

Women are tired, we're burdened, we have so many things on our plate. And I think especially women who are senior citizens, because they're watching this debate, and they get that $500 billion is going to be cut out of Medicare. That's what we know--cut out, gone. So what that means is scarcity, and that means less. So we are all going to be paying a lot more, but we are all going to be getting a lot less. The simple fact is we can do so much better.

The Republican women here know that there are many positive solutions that we can do. We can really do a lot better. I will be real brief, and I will end with one positive solution we could take.

I am a former tax lawyer. Rather than government owning your health care and making all the decisions, or rather than your employer making the health care decisions for you, we change the tax code so that you, every American, gets to make your own health care decision. You own it, you make the decision, it's a wonderful thing. So you own it, you make the health care decision, and you get to take your own money, tax free, purchase the health care plan of your choice--you're not limited to what government says you buy, you buy any plan anywhere. Anything that we don't cover out of your own tax-free money you get to fully deduct on your income tax return. Have true lawsuit reform that costs billions of dollars. In fact, that covers 95 percent of Americans. For the 5 percent who truly, through no fault of their own, can't afford health insurance, we can take care of them and we will take care of them, but we won't break the bank to do it.

We have great solutions. Let's try that rather than burdening the American people, and especially women who don't need those burdens. And I yield back to the very kind gentlelady who's doing an outstanding job tonight, Mrs. Blackburn of Tennessee.

I rise today, Madam Speaker, to honor Staff Sergeant Mike Mills of Freeport, Minnesota, who is the first Minnesota recipient of The American Patriot Award. He joins an exclusive group of only 8 American heroes who have been recognized by the American Patriot Project, comprised of nine volunteer organizations united by love of our national pastime, baseball, and a desire to honor those who have served in uniform.

Mike was wounded in 2005 in Iraq while serving with the Minnesota Army National Guard. On June 15, 2005 an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) exploded near Mike's vehicle. In the explosion he suffered a cracked clavicle and scapula bones, a dislocated shoulder and burns on more than 30 percent of his body. With extraordinary inner strength and the love and faith of his family and friends, he walked the long road of recovery. There are few awards that could properly acknowledge his service.

Given Mike's incredible experience, it would be understandable if he had turned to bitterness, sadness and anger. But, Mike turned around what he had gone through to help other veterans discharged or retired with injuries. He helps them turn their feelings of guilt, shame and failure into hope, pride and joy through his Web site, www.fortheveteran.com. By sharing his own powerful story through words and pictures, Mike has said to every veteran you are not alone and you will never be alone. It is a lesson that far too many veterans never hear, leaving them with feelings of isolation and guilt and depression. His Web site should be required reading for any returning citizen- soldier.

Like many veterans, Mike is the definition of a hero. But Mike stands out for his bravery and his sacrifice for our freedoms in a land thousands of miles away. I pray that Mike, his wife, Suki, and their children will continue to be a blessing to one another and to other veterans facing difficult times. I am so humbled to honor him today to this Congress, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans were just castigated for being the party of ``no,'' and I would submit that it is just the opposite, and this is why.

The President of the United States, in a historic move, gave a speech to the joint session of the House. He said, If any Republicans have positive ideas, they need to come to me, and I'll be happy to sit down with them.

Well, I wrote a letter to the President, taking him up on that wonderful offer, and said, I have a positive alternative, Mr. President. Could I sit down and share that with you? I'm still waiting by my desk for that return phone call, and I have yet to receive the courtesy reply as have multiple of my Republican colleagues offered to the President to share with him their positive alternatives.

The party of ``no'' is the party that locks the door on Republicans to even prevent them from coming into a committee room to offer our positive alternatives. We have them. What has the majority offered? They've offered to cut Medicare to senior citizens by $500 billion. Is that a positive alternative? We have loads of them. We're the party of ``yes.''

Stop being the party of ``no.''

I thank the gentleman from Iowa and appreciate all that he has contributed to this conversation this evening, as well as my colleague, Mike Burgess from Texas, who did the very kind favor of coming to Minnesota and speaking as an expert on the health care issue. I know my constituents still tell me how much that meant to them, and I appreciated it as well.

I was very interested when the gentlemen were speaking about the lack of bipartisanship on this current bill. I would agree. I recall when all of us were filling this Chamber during the President's joint session to Congress, and he stood here in this room, addressed us, and he said if any of us have suggestions, we should come in and sit down with him, and he wants to hear those suggestions.

I was so pleased, I took him up on that. I wrote him a letter, told him about positive alternatives that I had, bills that I had presented. I still haven't had the courtesy of a reply yet. I know there are a number of other Members that took the President up on that offer as well. I don't know what the President would be waiting for. I'm here. I'm ready. A lot of other Members have been anxious to go and meet with the President and give our positive alternatives. There's one that is actually fairly simple that we can do and it's this: Rather than the government owning our health care, rather than our employer owning our health care, we could change the Tax Code so that every American could own their own health care.

Quite simply, we would erase the boundaries between the various States. People could purchase any health insurance policy from any State in any amount. People could do that with their own tax-free money that they have set aside, and any expenses over and above what's in the tax-free account that they fully fund themselves, they can fully deduct on their income tax return. People can take their tax-free money, roll it over year after year and, upon their death, will it to their children.

Then we have true lawsuit abuse reform. That takes care of over 95 percent of the people in this country without spending trillions of dollars and getting our country more bankrupt than what it already is. Those who truly, through no fault of their own, can't afford to purchase health care, that's something we can take care of. Not a problem.

But why not offer and why not embrace first, before we build yet one

more big government bureaucracy, why not try a simple, positive alternative that is free market oriented, that makes sense to people. Everywhere I go in Minnesota and talk to people about this option they say, Yes, why not offer that? Why not do it? Why not? Why not do that first before we embrace something that will cost so much money?

There are really two questions that we need to ask ourselves. With the current Democrat proposals that are before Congress, we just ask ourselves this: Will this bill give me more control over my health care? Or will it give government more control?

The bill that Dr. Burgess held up in the air was about this thick. What was that, about 6 inches, perhaps, thick? That bill would give government almost all, virtually all control over a person's health care, rather than the individual. Then let's ask ourselves this question, and I think Congressman King alluded to this: Will this cost me more money or less money?

Well, the government plan we know will cost more money. Estimates that have come out so far have said people's health insurance premiums could be estimated to rise by as much as $4,000 a year; $4,000 a year more.

How is this going to benefit the average family? The average family would be getting less health care, more rationing of care, and they would spend $4,000 a year more. What about senior citizens? Senior citizens are paying attention to this debate. They're hearing that the Democrats that control the Senate, the Democrats control the House, the Democrats control the White House, they control every lever of power in Washington as Congressman King rightly said. The Republicans aren't the one holding this bill up. We don't have the votes.

The Democrats have the majority of votes. But what do they plan to do? They plan to cut Medicare. That's right, Mr. Speaker, they plan to cut Medicare by $500 billion. What does that mean for citizens? Less care, more cost, less care, rationing. That is not the future that they want to have.

What about people under 30? What do they have to look forward to in this bill? People under 30 are looking at having, perhaps, 8 to 12 percent of their income taken away to go to pay for health care. That's a direct new cost that government would impose on young people.

What about businessmen? Businessmen are looking at an 8 percent payroll tax. Most businesses don't even have an 8 percent profit margin. They don't know where they are going to get that 8 percent to pay for that additional amount.

What about the job creators in our country? They are looking at a 5.4 percent surtax on their income. That won't help right now and also, a 40 percent tax on insurance premiums. How do you like them apples?

That doesn't do anything to help anyone in this country bring down costs and expand care because here's the context of our time. Congressman King had mentioned we are currently sitting at 9.8 percent unemployment, and the White House has told us that we will see probably 10 percent unemployment by the end of 2009, and we will see this level of employment on into next year.

The White House is telling us, high unemployment is the new normal. Well, maybe for this White House it's the new normal, but not for those of us on the Republican side of the aisle. We know it's possible to have lower unemployed and to create jobs in this country, and we can do it by having government spend less money and cut taxes.

Well, this bill would add 5\1/2\ million to the unemployment rolls if it goes through. Also, we have seen that the dollar has dropped 16 percent in the last 7 months in value. We have seen China, Russia, the United Nations call to take the dollar away as being our international currency and create some new form of currency. That's going to increase the lowering of our dollar.

We saw this year that the government has spent $1.4 trillion more than what they took in. That's more debt than all previous 43 Presidents put together. President Obama increased the size of the spending in the Federal Government 22 percent this year. In fact, he is increasing what we are spending on welfare next year by a third. How big is that number? That increase is more than what we spent on 8 years of the Iraq war. In fact, it's 25 percent more than what we spent on the Iraq war. We are burying ourselves and our kids in debt, and we are getting nothing to show for it. In fact, the Inspector General said in a report last week that there are untold billions of dollars that he can't account for out of that $700 billion bailout that went to the banks and the auto companies and AIG. Billions. They can't even account for it.

In this context, we are going to give Members of this Congress 3 days to read the bill, and it might be over 6 inches high. This is not only an insult to Congress, this is an insult to the American people. We should have 3 months to read this bill so that we can truly debate and see, will this help America or will this hurt America? Will this take us out of debt? Will this put us more in debt? Will this give the average American more control over their health care or less control? Will this cost the average American more in their income or will it allow them to save? That's the context that we need to discuss this in and not just Republicans in the Chamber, but Democrats working together to truly craft the best possible solution that we could have.

But right now what we need to do is fix our economy and get people back to work. The rest of this will take care of itself. There are people out there tonight, Madam Speaker, who are suffering. They don't know if they are going to have a job tomorrow. They don't know where they are going to go to find food for the table. Well, let's rev up this economy. We can do that with our positive solutions, and let's move forward in the debate.

I will now hand it back to Stunning Steve King of Iowa.

Mr. Speaker, today the majority leader just committed himself and the Speaker of the House to giving the public and Members of Congress 72 hours--or 3 days--to read the bill that will require the government takeover of health care. Three days. How magnanimous of them. A bill that will destroy America's health care system, and doctors, nurses, hospitals, clinics, insurance companies, families, and individuals will have 3 whole days to read this bill and then call their Member of Congress to weigh in. Three months to read this bill would be an abbreviated amount of time.

This bill will soon become Medicare for all. Medicare, as we know, will be bankrupt inside of 8 years, and as the ship is taking on water and sinking, this Congress wants to pour more water into the boat. And they think it's magnanimous to give us 3 days to read the bill? Please. Three months would be a minimum.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The House bill to have government take over health care contains section 2511 which would put clinics in our schools. Minnesota has experience with these clinics.

Here is one girl's testimony:

``Hi. My name is Jamie. I hope my personal story and experience with the West Suburban Teen Clinic will convince you that bringing this clinic into the school campus will endanger the health of many students.

``At age 14, I was what you could describe as a rebellious teen. My parents had rules, like all parents, and tried their best to instill moral values in my life they hoped would guide me down the right road. But I chose a path that led to the West Suburban Teen Clinic. It was there I learned how easy it was to get birth control, morning-after pills, exams, condoms, or whatever else I needed to have sex and not tell my parents. I didn't even have to go to a real doctor.

``At the clinic, I was told my parents didn't have to know about any of my visits or what birth control the school clinic was giving me. The clinic made it so easy for me to have sex. They made it so easy to hide things from my mom and dad. After all, since it was my right not to tell them about birth control, they didn't need to know anything else about my life either. The teen clinic opened the door for me to lie and supported me in my deception. Looking back, I can see that their counseling affirmed a continuous pattern of lying, secrets, and cover- up. This destroyed any mutual trust between my parents and me.

``The West Suburban Teen Clinic convinced me I was doing a good thing by going there because I was practicing safe sex. Was it safe to break the trust with the only people who really truly protected and cared about me? Was it safe when the clinic jumped at the chance to give the morning-after pill to a 14-year-old without revealing to

me any of the negative health-risking side effects?

``They didn't even care who I was having sex with. Imagine, a 14- year-old. I could have been having sex with an older man. It could have been rape. Anything. They never once took the time to ask me. I was so young. All I thought was, oh, I won't be getting pregnant if I take this morning-after pill. I was never given the facts about side effects.

``I went to the West Suburban Teen Clinic multiple times to get the morning-after pill. They would ask me if I needed a couple of back-up pills to keep in a friend's house just in case, or to hide at my own house so I wouldn't have to ride all the back way back to the clinic.

``I can honestly say that the clinic visits also had a very negative effect on my education. As I became more involved sexually and had more visits to the clinic, I would sit in class thinking about what courses and classes I could miss so I could make my school clinic visit for more pills and condoms before the end of the school day. It made it difficult for me to focus on my class assignments when I was thinking about a pelvic exam or the thought of having an STD or being pregnant.

``Now I'm 20 years old. I'm very concerned about the long-term damage to my health thanks to this so-called safe-sex clinic. They not only helped me hide things from my mom and dad, they hid the truth from me. The West Suburban Teen Clinic didn't care that I was a minor teen. They didn't care what the side effects of these pills would do to my reproductive system. And my body is messed up. They gave me pills and condoms and they left it to my parents to pick up the pieces.

``If only I knew what I know now, how the West Suburban Teen Clinic's advice and pills damaged me physically and emotionally, I could have prevented so many of the problems with my parents and my family. If only I had never gone there. And now you are bringing these clinics to all the high schools?

``You need to protect kids. You need to uphold the desires of parents, not the wishes of clinics that make money off kids' mistakes. My parents tried to protect me. The clinic took that right away. They took over the role that my parents were intended to have and they hid everything from them, the people who loved me the most.

``Please stop this clinic from coming in and ruining more kids' lives. I wish I could warn all the students at high schools about these clinics. They need to know about the physical and emotional damage that can be done by a pattern of pills and promiscuity. I wish I could tell them. I know the West Suburban Clinic won't.''

Madam Speaker, this is a story of tragedy by one girl in Minnesota. Minnesota has experience with the school-based sex clinics that are being proposed in the bill that would have government take over health care in this country. Surely we can do better by our children than encouraging them to gain experience in a lifestyle that will bring them only heartache and perhaps physical devastation.

I thank the gentleman from Iowa, and I thank you for clearly laying out what the problem is and what some of the solutions are that are being offered by the Democrat majority that controls both the House and the Senate and the White House.

As the gentleman stated, we're looking at about 85 percent of the American people who have health care who, in survey after survey, have demonstrated that they are happy with their health care; they have no desire to change that system that they're currently able to receive. They're very worried, though, because they know that the Federal Government very likely will cause their current insurance system that they have to go away. And they're right.

President Obama has made three things abundantly clear: one is that if we have current insurance, we won't lose it; we will be able to hold on to it. We know that's patently false from the legislation that the House has taken up, H.R. 3200. It states quite clearly that within 5 years, insurance programs would all have to conform with the Federal Government. And that's individual insurance plans, which are only 8 percent of all outstanding insurance plans. Other programs are employer-sponsored plans. So overwhelmingly within 5 years, all insurance plans will have to come under the one-size-fits-all option.

And isn't it interesting with the proposal of the public option, pretty soon that will be like the blob that ate New York City. The public option will be the only option for the American people.

It happened with the student loan situation 2 weeks ago. The last vote we took was to have the Federal Government take over the student loans in this country. Twenty-five years ago, all student loans were private. Then the government introduced a public option. Well, that one choice, just as Representative King of Iowa said, adding that one choice to 1,300 insurance companies was like having the Federal Government add one choice to multiple

hundreds of banks across the country that were already making loans privately to students.

But here's the problem. Let's be serious and let's be honest with the American people. The government doesn't like competition. It didn't like competition when it came to the student loans that were offered. It wanted all of the revenue that potentially could come out of that, and it thought it could do a better job, even though on the private sector more people chose to go with private student loans than the public student loans. It didn't matter. The Federal Government wanted to have the whole market to itself, and it captured that market.

It's the same thing now with health care. The President of the United States is suggesting that he wants a public option. As a matter of fact--and this shouldn't shock anyone--during the course of his campaign when he was running for President, he clearly stated that he wanted to see the Federal Government have a single-payer plan where the Federal Government would be the provider of all of the health insurance in the United States.

Knowing that, it's no shock that this is the direction that this body wants to go. We know that. Let's be honest. Let's not dance around this. Members within this body on the other side of the aisle--meaning the Democrats in this body--numbers of them have said they want a single-payer plan. What's that? Government takeover of health care. That's the ultimate goal, Mr. Speaker, to have the government take over health care.

What's the result? Health care will cost far more than it ever did in the past. It will be more expensive to individuals, more expensive to businesses, and it will provide less services. We know that. We know that's exactly what's going to happen despite the fact that the President has said if you have health care, you will get to keep it. Wrong.

Then the President said each American would be able to save about $2,500 a year. In other words, we'd see cost savings of about $2,500 a year. There is no estimate anywhere that has ever verified that wild statement that the President made.

Then the final statement that the President has made over and over and over again, people making $250,000 a year or less would not see any tax increases. Well, that's verifiably false. We know exactly that Americans will see tax increases.

But there's something that hasn't been talked about much, and it's the whole idea of school-based clinics in schools all across America. And that's in H.R. 3200.

Now, this would raise the hackles on the necks of school parents all across this country when they understand section 2511 of H.R. 3200. The House government takeover of health care bill has a section called school-based health clinics. It would allow a nonprofit health agency-- just say Planned Parenthood because that's what this is written for. Again, we need to be serious. Planned Parenthood is an organization that is the largest abortion provider in the United States. And written into this bill is a provision whereby Planned Parenthood could become the proprietor for school-based clinics in every school across the United States. These have been more accurately called school sex clinics.

One of the very first school sex clinics that was put into this country was in St. Paul, Minnesota. And it was told to the families and the parents that this would actually reduce pregnancy. Of course we knew it wouldn't reduce pregnancy. It increased pregnancy. It increased sexually transmitted diseases. It was a disaster for young women in St. Paul public schools.

The greatest, kindest, most compassionate gift we could give to our young people--whether it's young girls or young boys--is to teach them and tell them the travesty that they can encounter with early onset of sexual activity. It really is an epidemic now in this country.

For so many girls across this country now, 25 percent of girls have sexually transmitted diseases, potentially life-threatening sexually transmitted diseases. Boys as well.

This isn't the kind of country that we grew up in, but today where we have almost a patting on the back of telling young people, It's your choice; do whatever you want to do. Now the Federal Government is going the final step, and they're saying, Let's put sex clinics in our schools.

Can you believe this, Mr. Speaker? Let's put sex clinics in our schools, and let's put Planned Parenthood in charge of these sex clinics, because the bill requires under this provision, Planned Parenthood would be authorized to serve as a sponsoring facility for the Nation's schools. As a matter of fact, the bulk of this health care bill is scheduled to go into effect in 2013. Remember, all the taxes will start this coming January, Mr. Speaker. Right away, at the time we can least afford it, the taxes will go into place, but the provisions of this bill actually go into effect in 2013.

Not the school-based sex clinics. They would go into effect next summer so that these clinics would appear in public schools next fall, and it would require that the school-based sex clinic would provide on- site access during the school day when school is in session and have an established network of support and access to services with back-up health providers when the school is closed. Can you imagine what this would cost, Mr. Speaker, if every school in the United States had a built-in health clinic? And this health clinic, parents won't have access to.

How do we know that? Parents are going to be excluded from Planned Parenthood as they write these clinics because the bill orders that these clinics protect patient privacy in student records.

What does that mean? It means that parents will never know what kind of counsel and treatment that their children are receiving. As a matter of fact, the bill goes on to say what's going to go on--comprehensive primary health services, physicals, treatment of minor acute medical conditions, referrals to followup for specialty care. Is that abortion?

Does that mean that someone's 13-year old daughter could walk into a sex clinic, have a pregnancy test done, be taken away to the local Planned Parenthood abortion clinic, have their abortion, be back, and go home on the school bus that night? Mom and dad are never the wiser. They don't know any different.

As a matter of fact, the bill also provides for mental health planning. This is very concerning. In our State in Minnesota we've done a lot of research on this. Mental health; mental health assessments; crisis intervention; counseling; treatment; referral to a continuum of services, including emergency psychiatric care, and mom and dad can't know what's going on?

Mr. Speaker, I am almost without words to think that we have come to the time when the Democrats that control Washington, D.C.--and, make no mistake, they control every level of power in this city. Now they want the taxpayers, if they haven't been beleaguered enough, to pay for sex clinics all across the United States.

Planned Parenthood, which takes in a billion dollars a year, $300 million of which is taxpayer subsidies--hey, that was just the prologue. This is the gravy train. Because now it would be billions and billions and billions on into the future.

What did the President say earlier this week or last week? He wants America's schools to have longer school days and longer school years. Where in the Constitution does it say that the President decides how long the school day is or how long the school year is? And now we're going to have the sex clinics in the schools and they're essentially going to take over the health care services of our kids?

I don't know about you, Representative King, but this is highly offensive to me as a parent to think the audacity--the audacity of the President and of this Congress stepping into this area of privacy of family life.

If the gentleman would yield, Planned Parenthood has a real problem on their hands--a big problem on their hands--almost on the level of ACORN and the problems that ACORN has had. It's simply this. There's a case that's been filed in California, and Planned Parenthood apparently, allegedly, has been overcharging the Federal Government tens of millions of dollars, because what is alleged is that Planned Parenthood has fraudulently marked up the birth control pills that they have been giving out to people.

So they have been giving out birth control pills free to people in California and charging the Federal Government for those pills. They aren't charging the going rate, allegedly, according to this complaint. They've overcharged the Federal Government.

Well, the President stood in this Chamber and said that he was planning to pay for this big health care extravaganza by getting rid of waste, fraud, and abuse in the health care system. Easily, Planned Parenthood can be considered a part of ``the health care system.'' Why? The President considers abortion part of health care. He considers abortion, what he calls reproductive rights, which is a code word for abortion, he considers that essential health care. Well, by the President's own definition, Planned Parenthood is a part of his essential care.

And this is the payoff. This is the payoff to Planned Parenthood. They would be given free access to our kids all day long, and this is an organization that allegedly has overcharged the Federal Government tens of millions of dollars.

Here's another opportunity for the IRS; here's another opportunity for them to go after a 501(c)(3) organization. Again, they brought in a billion dollars last year. They received probably $300 billion worth of benefits, meaning they didn't pay any taxes, but they received $300 billion of taxpayer money. This is an organization that should be investigated by the IRS; very, very likely should lose its 501(c)(3) status, as should ACORN; and they should have all taxpayer subsidies pulled everywhere across the United States.

If the gentleman would yield, just to add to that, Planned Parenthood was one of the organizations that gave money to ACORN for the purpose of voter registration before this last election. And it wasn't just Planned Parenthood. It was also the teachers' union.

We've seen videos coming out in these last 2 weeks of little schoolchildren, kindergarten schoolchildren, on videos, they're all across the Internet, where little children are being taught praise of the United States almost in a personality cult-like worship in video after video after video.

Again, this is concerning because we have a teachers' union--there's nothing wrong with unions--but we have a teachers' union that came out and gave money to ACORN for the purpose of voter ID.

It's interesting how you can link Planned Parenthood with ACORN, with the President. And there's a lot of questions that need to be answered.

Staging materials. That was a big problem for the President during, of course, the election because he had falsely listed on his FEC report that money that was given was for staging materials. That was very concerning. That was brought to the attention of the campaign. They changed that once they found out about that. But, again, this is over $800,000 that was transferred from the Obama campaign to

Was this prior to the election?

If the gentleman will yield, in my home State of Minnesota, it was 41,000 voters who were registered by ACORN. And of course we know year after year, election after election, State after State, the polls' rolls are flooded with false and fraudulent voter registrations, and there's a reason for that. If you have that many, it is very difficult for those who are in charge of the voter registration polls to be able to make accurate counts. Plus, once a person casts their vote--let's say you register the day before you cast your vote-- that vote stands. That vote isn't thrown out. So there is method in the madness for ACORN.

Again, you take a look at tax money going in, tax-exempt status, and you see one political party being benefited. How is this allowed? I don't understand it. And what's amazing to me is there hasn't been one investigation yet, not from the Department of Justice. We haven't seen one from the Department of Housing. ACORN, after all, was the organization that was literally shaking down banks, shaking down mortgage companies. This was also at the behest--our President, again, was involved in ACORN during this time.

All of this agitating was going on for the purpose of relaxing lending standards, lowering lending standards. But for the work of ACORN lowering those lending standards, would we have had the disaster in housing that we have today? I mean, these are very serious questions. And nobody's investigating? Not the IRS, not the Department of Justice, not the Department of Housing. We've been hearing that the IRS will be investigating ACORN, but there have been no investigations.

As a matter of fact, as you and I stand here, has there even been a defunding of ACORN? There have been votes, but has one dime been cut off from that? That's why the American people know that something doesn't smell right now, and they have to continue to call their Member of Congress. They have to continue to call their Senator and demand a full and complete investigation.

Has an audit occurred? Does the gentleman know? Has any audit occurred? I believe the gentleman told me that there is something like 361 affiliate organizations under the ACORN umbrella. Has a full audit occurred?

Do we have a Federal investigation? These are Federal dollars that are going in. Again, ACORN has received $53 million from 1994 forward. But since the President of the United States, Barack Obama, came in, a former employee under ACORN with Project Vote, he now has given access to this organization of $8.5 billion, an unheard of amount of money. Certainly the taxpayer has the right to demand that investigation occur.

Yet when George Stephanopoulos did an interview with the President and asked him about ACORN, the President didn't seem to know. He didn't seem to know much about the votes we took in the House and the Senate. He didn't know much about ACORN. Maybe it's because he's working on going to Copenhagen to get the Olympics in Chicago. I don't know, but he certainly didn't seem to know much about ACORN.

Let alone the charitable organizations, large, well- known charitable organizations that have put money into ACORN. It's time these charitable organizations and the trustees of those organizations be held responsible for putting money into the account of a corrupt organization.

What is the section number?

I would also add to the gentleman, if we look at the legislation that came before us, the very beginning of this year, it was the expansion of AmeriCorps. Remember, that was a $5 billion bill. Part of that bill were volunteers--of course they're all paid--but these volunteers were also going to be health workers. So it would be curious to look at that language as well to see if they also paid money to community organizations to be workers under AmeriCorps, kind of to also link together with this particular provision, and then work with an ACORN as these volunteers under AmeriCorps all for the effort of putting together this plan.

It really reminds me of the poster that the gentleman from Iowa has of the President with ACORN stitched onto his shirt with the windmills in the background. We're looking at a complete dominance and takeover of American society. Remember, it was just 1 year ago that we had the $700 billion bailout. Prior to that bailout, 100 percent of business profits were private.

After that time, today, 30 percent of all private business profits today are owned or controlled by the Federal Government. And if the President gets his dream to come true and takes over 18 percent of health care, that means he will have taken over and controlled 48 percent of our private economy.

And if his national energy tax, the cap-and-trade global warming tax, goes through, that's another 8 percent, or 56 percent of our private economy that he plans to take over. That is something that should give pause to every American. It's stunning. It's stunning, and it's frightening.

I would ask the question of the gentleman from Iowa, didn't the President say to us at the very beginning of this debate in early August that we needed to pass this health care bill, or I guess I should say in July, that we had to pass this bill by August 1 so we could hurry up and start saving money? Do you remember that? We are going to save money if we have the government take over health care in the United States.

I'm wondering, to the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Iowa, how in the world does paying people ACORN, for instance, to do all of this assistance, how does that save money?

Madam Speaker, just as the United States is a symbol of hope and freedom around the globe, Israel stands as a symbol of freedom and democracy in an area historically rampant with violence and oppression. For this reason, I am compelled to voice my strong objections to the allegations made in a recent report commissioned by the United Nations Human Rights Council and carried out by former South African Judge Richard Goldstone. The report alleges human rights violations on the part of Israel.

Madam Speaker, the U.N. Human Rights Council has long been recognized for its anti-Israel bias, so it comes as little surprise they would rubber-stamp the ``Goldstone Report'' and its findings of ``crimes against humanity'' with regard to Israel's activities in Gaza. As you may know, Israel is the only country listed on the Council's permanent agenda, which examines only supposed Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights, while ignoring the threats or actions of terrorist groups, or the nations that support them, and their calls for the destruction of other U.N. Member States. To quote Israel's Ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, ``Israel basically was the equivalent of being summoned to a court in which its guilt was already presumed . . . I can't think of any country in the world which would participate in such a farce of justice.''

Indeed, while this report condemns Israel's actions, it ignores the precipitating causes of Israel's self-defensive actions, concluding that Israel's military operations were ``deliberate and systematic,'' and directed at the people of Gaza as a whole, failing to acknowledge Israel's right to defend itself against terrorism, namely the thousands of rockets launched daily at its citizens. Moreover, the Goldstone Report ignores the extraordinary steps taken by Israel to minimize civilian casualties, often putting its own soldiers at greater risk to do so.

The United States and Israel have shared a close relationship of friendship, cooperation, and strategic alliance that serves as an example to the rest of the world. In order to preserve and foster this relationship, I believe it is imperative for the United States to unequivocally reject the findings of the Goldstone Report. And while recent years have unfortunately been marked by escalating armed conflict between Israel and Hamas, the United States should stand steadfast in its commitment to a free and secure Israel as the Middle East comes to embrace the liberties and freedoms of democratic societies.

I'm so grateful for the gentleman from Iowa and the comments that he's been making regarding ACORN and the situation that they find themselves in.

One thing that we have seen from the American people in a recent Gallup survey is that today, at the highest level ever in the history of our country, more people believe that government is wasting money than at any other time in modern times. Today the American people believe that the government wastes about 50 cents of every dollar. And as if these activities were bad enough that the gentleman from Iowa was speaking about, the stunning Steve King of Iowa, I think, Mr. Speaker, one thing we recognize is that the American taxpayer should not be paying for these activities.

Now, this is stunning. This truly is a stunning feature, that you have an organization that's been the recipient of about $53 million since 1994. And you have a photo, I noticed, a poster, of the President with an ACORN emblem on his shirt. Since President Obama, who formerly was the attorney for Project Vote, yet one of the many affiliates of ACORN, since that time, he has made available to his patron, to ACORN, he has made available to them $8.5 billion.

And if a bill that went through this House actually passes, that would be $10 billion that is available to this organization, who we have seen has been furthering the trafficking of illegal aliens, minor girls into childhood prostitution and child abuse. This is unconscionable. And this same organization has been educating individuals that they should take their money and bury it in a tin can in the backyard rather than paying taxes.

And we're giving this organization $10 billion in tax money? How could this be? No wonder that the American people are saying, at the highest time ever, that they believe 50 cents of every dollar is wasted.

We need an investigation, I believe, Mr. Speaker, into that fact. Do we know how much of our tax money is being wasted? The American people think it's 50 percent of every dollar. Perhaps it is if you have $10 billion going to an organization like this.

Mr. Speaker, the focus of my remarks over the next hour will be on the issue of health care. This is the issue that has really captured the attention of the American people over these summer months, and well it should. This for many States is one of the top spending priorities in their States and here for the Federal Government as well.

We have learned, as we've looked through the budget this year, since President Obama has assumed the Presidency, under his leadership we have seen the Federal budget increase 22 percent at a time when the American economy is contracting. In one quarter alone we saw a 5 percent contraction rate. The private sector is contracting in this current economy, and yet what's government's response? Government is on a party. It is growing. Growing to the tune of 22 percent. That's almost a one-fourth level of increase.

Imagine if any of us, Mr. Speaker, in our own lives, in our own businesses, in our family situation would increase our spending 22 percent when our income had fallen 6 percent. None of us would ever consider treating our own finances in that way. No business could consider treating its own finances in that way. It's only a government that looks to our pockets and to our resources to finance its party, only a government that's out of control, that has capitulated to practically fiscal hedonism, fiscal hedonism, to run up bills that are unconscionable for the next generation.

I think we are looking at a time, Mr. Speaker, unlike any other in the history of the United States. That's why this health care debate plays into the center of where our economy is at.

Mr. Speaker, I'm a former Federal tax litigation attorney, and I had done a study when I was in my post-doctorate program at William and Mary Law School down in Williamsburg, Virginia, back in the late 1980s. And at

that time, the study came out that said the kids who are today about 22 years of age, when they get to be in their prime earning years, knowing what we know about the current demographics, the number of people who will be 65 or older, eligible for Medicare, those who will be 62 and older, eligible for Social Security, we know approximately how many Americans we have to support who will be age 62 when today's current 22 years olds will be in their peak earning years.

And what this study showed, Mr. Speaker, is those now-22-year-old children, those born back in about the year 1987, will look at an unprecedented debt load out of their paycheck. And here it is:

Those kids will be looking at spending approximately 25 percent of their earnings just for Social Security. So imagine 25 percent of your earnings goes just to pay for Social Security.

What else do we know? We know that Medicare is also an obligation that the Federal Government has made, a promise, if you will, that we have made to America's senior citizens. Medicare costs exceed those of Social Security. So if, then, America's young people, now 22 years of age, in their peak earning years have 25 percent of their income taken to support Social Security and if we know that Medicare is more than Social Security, those two components alone would consume 50 percent of the average person's paycheck in just a few years hence, 50 percent of the paycheck just going for Social Security and Medicare.

That doesn't even contemplate Medicare part D, which is the pharmaceutical portion, a relatively new entitlement that has been put before the American people. So let's be very conservative and say 5 percent of that young person's paycheck. That would be 25 percent for Social Security. Government would take another 25 percent for Medicare. Now we're up to 50. Let's say another 5 percent for Medicaid part D, and that's very conservative. Now we're at 55 percent.

Well, what about the Federal income tax? That doesn't even contemplate what an individual would pay in Federal income tax. Federal income tax could easily be another 30 percent of that young person's income. Now we're up to 85 percent. For an American born in 1987, we are up to 85 percent of their income check going to the Federal Government just to pay for entitlement programs.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that doesn't include the State income tax program. In Minnesota, the State that I'm from, that could well be an additional 8 percent, which would add up to 93 percent of an American's paycheck. An American born in 1987, when they get in their peak earning years, could be looking at a minimum of 93 percent of their paycheck going to pay just Social Security, Medicare, Medicare part D, Federal income tax, and State income tax.

But, Mr. Speaker, that doesn't include property tax. Mr. Speaker, that does not include sales tax. So property tax, sales tax, gas tax, every-time-you-turn-around tax. There won't be enough money, Mr. Speaker, in the next generation of young people that are only now just beginning to earn their first W-2 wage withholding. Those young people are looking at a burden no other generation has ever yet contemplated.

In the middle of this financial crisis that we are looking at, Mr. Speaker, now comes forward the health debate. And what is the solution put forward by President Obama and by the majority that controls the House of Representatives, the Democrat majority? We have one-party rule in Washington, D.C. One party controls every level of power. And what is the solution? Well, let's just have government take over the rest of health care. As if we already haven't obligated ourselves on health care, now the proposal being advanced is that the government would take over the rest of health care.

What would that mean?

Well, we know at minimum, according to the Congressional Budget Office, it would be an additional, perhaps, $990 billion in expenses. That's according to President Obama's figures. Yet what were the initial figures we were given when we were told of and were talked to about this government takeover of health care? Mr. Speaker, it was $2 trillion, upwards of $2 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Why do we think that this isn't stretching things, $2 trillion?

Well, because we know, when President Johnson implemented the modern welfare state in 1965, President Johnson and those here in Washington, D.C., estimated that the cost of Medicare to Americans would be about $9 billion, adjusting for inflation by 1990. What was the actual cost? The actual cost was $67 billion. The Federal Government only undershot its estimate by a factor of 7, but it wasn't just on Medicare. It was on hospitalization insurance. You can go down the list. One new revision of Medicare after another undershot the true cost to the American people of what Medicare would cost them down the road, sometimes by as much as 17 to 1. The Federal Government was off by that much.

Well, what has that done to our budgets?

That has caused us to go into a deficit mode so severe that now the Chinese are lecturing Americans. Chinese Communists are lecturing American free marketers on our out-of-control spending and on our debt. Why? Because China owns so much of our debt.

Mr. Speaker, what are the options, if you will, that the Federal Government has in front of itself when it comes to paying for these government programs? Well, there are three:

The Federal Government can either increase taxes or it can increase borrowing from countries like China, countries which are a lot more reluctant to purchase our debt. When we were a producing country--when we were making washing machines and irons and cars--other countries were only too happy to purchase our debt; but now that our new industry is producing more welfare, countries like China aren't quite so interested because they know we aren't actually producing a good. We're providing government welfare benefits. Now China is not quite so interested in purchasing our debt.

So we can raise taxes on the American people--that's not going to work in a down economy--or we can issue more debt. That's not working. China is calling for throwing over the American dollar as the international currency and means of exchange. Now China, now the U.N., now Russia, now Brazil, now South America, now country after country is calling for a new international, one-world currency. This is a new event, Mr. Speaker. This is a new happening. Why? Because this is the greatest country that has ever been in the history of man. In 5,000 years of recorded human history, there has never been a country greater or freer or more powerful than the United States of America. That is our richness and that is our legacy. Now, for the first time, we're hearing a call for the replacement of the U.S. dollar as the international means of exchange, to be replaced with a new international, one-world currency, probably regulated by a world regulator, perhaps under the International Monetary Fund.

What would that mean for the dollar? What would that mean for the stability of our country economically? What would that mean for America's senior citizens who are dependent upon the Federal Government now for their health care through Medicare and for their Social Security/retirement? What does that mean for our senior citizens?

Well, here is the third option that's available to the government when it comes to dealing with finances. Again, the government can tax our people. Ouch. That really hurt. The government is already whacking us a lot with our taxes.

Then we talked about the area of borrowing. Well, other countries aren't too keen on that right now.

What's the third option, Mr. Speaker? It's this: As a last resort, governments can do what the Weimar Republic did in the 1920s. They can print money. They can print money that's basically worthless. In some sense, the paper is worth more than what's printed on it. What that is and what that represents is the good faith, the hard work, the years, and the toil of the American people.

Just this afternoon, I made a call to some constituents back in my district. One man named Richard told me that he was thinking about moving to Singapore. Richard said the reason he is moving to Singapore, Mr. Speaker, is

that he spent his whole life working. He worked so hard. He took his American dollars, and he put them in the bank, and now he sees what our government has done. Our government has flooded the money supply with money that they've printed.

From one of our leading financial papers, one gentleman told me that we had about $1 trillion in currency in circulation. We had about 1 trillion U.S. dollars in circulation here in the United States. Last year, the Federal Reserve pumped an additional $1 trillion into the currency.

Well, what does that mean?

If you had a dollar in the bank when your government flooded the money supply with an additional $1 trillion on top of the $1 trillion we had with no more goods and services backing that money up, that meant that an American's dollar was only worth 50 cents.

Well, that's why Richard was upset. He said to me, Congresswoman, I don't want to hold onto American dollars if my government is going to inflate its way out of this current problem. If they do that to pay their bills--to pay their Medicare bills, to pay their Social Security bills--then we're all poorer. We're not richer. We're poorer.

That brings us to the context, Mr. Speaker, of our debate in health care, and that's why I believe we are seeing the American people soundly rejecting the Federal Government's taking over of health care-- yet one more area where it seems that it's wasting money.

Again, a Gallup Poll was just released that showed, for the first time, the American people believe that this government wastes 50 percent of every dollar it gets, which is why we should have an investigation. Truly, what amount of money does Congress waste? What actually goes to a true and a beneficial purpose? What are the alternatives for us as we look at health care?

Today, 85 percent of Americans have health insurance. They like it. They enjoy it. One of our Democrat colleagues was on the floor here earlier this afternoon, and he said that the majority of doctors in our country support the government takeover of health care. Only he didn't call it the ``government takeover of health care,'' Mr. Speaker. He called it the ``public option,'' which is the government takeover of health care.

Well, that isn't true. That isn't what doctors in this country believe. Surveys were sent out. There was a survey sent out by Investors Business Daily that has been reported for the last 7 days. They received surveys back from 28,000 physicians in the United States. They sent the surveys out to all physicians, and physicians responded back--28,000 physicians. Of those physicians, two-thirds of them said that they believe that the government takeover of health care will lead to diminished care in the United States. They believe that senior citizens will be worse off if the government takes over their health care.

That's exactly what I'm hearing from my constituents as well and from senior citizens who don't care if it's a Republican plan or a Democrat plan. They don't care. They're very smart, Mr. Speaker. America's senior citizens are very smart. They're watching this debate carefully. They're watching. They're paying attention. They're listening to what the conversations are because they know they have the most to lose in this system.

Why?

President Obama was here, speaking to the 535 Members of Congress in a speech to the joint session of Congress. He spoke to all of America when he said he will be cutting the Medicare Advantage program. That's about $149 billion out of Medicare. He also said that he will have about $500 billion in savings from Medicare. Well, what does that mean? It means $500 billion that America's seniors will no longer be able to count on.

That's not what we want to do to America's senior citizens. We can do so much better than this. We have a great option, great plans that do not put the government in charge. That is one thing, Mr. Speaker, that I would say to America's young people, to America's middle-aged and to our senior citizens. In the middle of the debate on health care, Americans really need to ask one question, and it is this:

Once this health care bill goes through and is passed, will it give more power to the government and more control to the government over my health care or will it give me more control over my own health care? Will I have more options or will I have fewer?

With every plan put forward so far by the Democrat majorities that run Washington, D.C.--whether it's our Democrat President or the Democrats who control the House or the Democrats who control the Senate--they've all run to the left, to the liberal option. They've all said there is only one way to handle this health care problem: Me. You need me. You need more government. That's what the liberals are saying in Congress, that government needs to be the one to take this over.

Well, I don't think so, Mr. Speaker. The American people don't think so. They think this Congress wastes 50 cents of every dollar. They may be right. The American people are some of the sharpest people in the world, and they know when they've been had. We don't have to go down that road. There is a positive alternative which we can embrace and which can immediately bring down costs.

Again, 85 percent of the American people already enjoy health care, and they enjoy the health care that they have. For those who don't have health care today, a large percentage are illegal aliens. We have no business as American citizens being forced to subsidize and to pay for the health care of illegal aliens, of people who are in our country against our law. We have no obligation to pay for that health care. We also have a large segment of our population, Mr. Speaker, which makes over $75,000 a year. They could purchase their own health care. They simply choose not to. They choose to spend their money on other items. It's not their priority. We have a huge segment of our population which makes over $50,000 a year, which also chooses not to purchase health care. Many people in that category are between the ages of 18 and 35. They are, perhaps, without health care maybe for 4 months, so they roll the dice and think maybe they'll be healthy for the next 4 months and won't need it.

Mr. Speaker, I've been in that situation. My husband and I were in that situation when we had children. We had a few months where we didn't have health care coverage, and we simply could not afford the very high rate that we would have had to have purchased by ourselves to have been able to cover ourselves and our children, so we rolled the dice. A lot of Americans do that.

Yet there is a segment of our population which truly can't afford health care, and we have safety net after safety net after safety net that this body has put into place for people who truly, through no fault of their own, can't afford to purchase health care. There certainly are people in that category. We will always have that safety net. What can we do? We have a positive alternative. It's very simple. This is what we can do:

Every American can purchase and own their own health care. Today, it's not that way, but we could be that way. Today, we have American employers owning most people's health care. So it's either our employer who owns our health care or it's the Federal Government or it's the State government--one of the two. It's either the government or an employer who owns our health care. Very few Americans actually own their own health care, but they would like to. It's the same way they own their car insurance. It's the same way they own their homeowners' insurance. It's the same way when they go out and purchase any other item. They would like to be able to purchase their own health insurance. We can make that possible for them. So this is where we start:

We start by letting every American purchase and own their own health insurance coverage. How do we do that? We allow Americans to band together with anyone they want to. Maybe it will be with people who live in their communities. Maybe it's all teachers. Maybe it's farmers. Maybe it's Realtors. You can band together. Maybe it's other senior citizens. You can band together so you can have a large purchasing power. It's like a credit union would act. It's with people in the geographical area. Maybe you live in a rural area, Mr. Speaker. People could band together, and they could purchase

health insurance as a pool. They own it. They purchase it as a pool, together in a big, large group so that they can have better purchasing power. It's just like if you go to Sam's Club or if you go to Costco. They're able to offer cheaper prices because they buy such a large volume of the product. Well, let's let American citizens do that.

If it's good enough for Sam's Club, if it's good enough for Costco, why can't it be good enough for the average American person?

You have banded together with whoever you want, buy your own insurance. Then, Mr. Speaker, we let people buy whatever level of coverage they want. Maybe they want to buy a policy that is expensive that has all the bells and whistles on it. Or maybe, Mr. Speaker they only want a small amount of coverage.

Maybe they only want hospitalization. So in case something happens to them, they have to go to the hospital for a heart attack or for cancer treatments or they get laid up somehow and they have to go to the hospital. They only want catastrophic coverage, truly catastrophic. That would be a very inexpensive plan.

Why don't we allow people to do that? In my home State of Minnesota, Mr. Speaker, we are the most, if not the most, we are one of the most heavily mandated States in the country. In other words, our State legislature, where I used to be a State senator, we have about 70 different mandates. In other words, 70 different requirements before any insurance company can sell an insurance policy.

An insurance company might decide I would like to sell this low-cost, low-frills insurance plan. I think that maybe I could sell it for, oh, $60 a month.

Well, in my State, an insurance company can't do that. Why? They are prohibited by law. Because my State mandates that an insurance company has to have 70 different requirements before they can sell the policy.

In other words, they have to sell a Cadillac policy rather than a Kia. No offense to Kia owners, no offense to Cadillac owners.

But the point is simply this. We should allow insurance companies to sell truly a wide variety of products. Isn't that what President Obama said when he was here in this Chamber? He said he wants choice. He wants competition.

Well, his words don't line up with his actions. There is a little problem here with what the President has said. How is it choice and competition if government is the choice, if, after 5 years time, as the House bill has said, all insurance plans have to look exactly like the government plan?

You could have 45,000 different insurance plans but so what? If they all look exactly the same, and if the Federal Government controls what you would spend on premiums for that policy, this is nonsense.

The thing is, Mr. Speaker, the American people are too smart. They are seeing through the rhetoric from the President and from the majorities that dominate this Congress. That's why, Mr. Speaker, the American people are embracing our plan, which has rested on the groundwork of freedom, which is about the American people owning their own insurance policy, banding together with whomever they want to, to purchase whatever level of coverage they want from any State in the country.

I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, you will see States all across this great country change the number of mandates that they require on insurance policies. Their State can be the go-to State for issuing insurance policies, and from there, as a former tax lawyer, I would recommend this: I would recommend that every American be allowed to set aside, tax free, in an account, money that every American believes that they want to set aside to pay for their own health care. It's completely tax free. No taxes paid on it.

If they have a catastrophic event, where their expenses out-pace their tax-free money, they can fully deduct the cost of their premiums, of their copays, of their medicines, of their medical devices, of their surgeries, of their hearing aides, of their chiropractic care, of their acupuncture care. Whatever it is, they would be allowed to fully deduct that on their income tax returns. In other words, truly own and take responsibility for your own health care.

Then from there, finally, true lawsuit reform. Everybody knows this. You ask a doctor what do we need to do? Lawsuit reform, without a doubt. Eighty-three percent of all doctors sued in this country today are found not liable for the alleged problem. What's happening?

We are seeing now today people filing lawsuit after lawsuit. And rather than go through the hassle and worry about a jury award, doctors are settling, Mr. Speaker, when they don't want to settle, when they know they are innocent, when they know they didn't do anything wrong.

This isn't helping anyone, not anyone, not even the trial lawyers. Because, why? It's bringing down this great country. We truly do have the finest health care that has ever been offered to people ever in the history of the world. From my State of Minnesota, we are a leader in medical ally and medical devices. We have Medtronic. We have Boston Scientific. We have Guidance. We have great companies in Minnesota that have contributed mightily to medical advances and breakthroughs.

And now what? Now the government wants to impose a 10 percent tax on these medical devices? Why would we do this? Who gains? Who gains from all of this?

We have a positive alternative. Rather than the government taking it over, rather than the government ramping up expenses, rather than taking away choice from America's most vulnerable citizens, we could instead embrace a positive alternative where Americans own their own health care, ban together with more people so they have purchasing power, purchasing any level of care they want from anyone they want in any State they want, putting aside tax-free money, deducting on their income tax return, their orthodontia, their hearing aids, their eyeglasses, truly owning their health insurance. Then they finally get rid of these evil lawsuits that are eating up so much of America's substance.

This is a positive alternative. It won't break the bank. When our country is functionally bankrupt now, this won't break the bank. It will cause our country to turn itself right-side up so we can get back on track, get people back to work. We want to be able to see this positive alternative.

Right now, Mr. Speaker, I am joined by two great physicians here in our body. One is Dr. John Fleming, and he is a new Member of Congress with great ideas.

Another Member in our Congress is Dr. Phil Gingrey, who we are just so proud of for his courage. He offered an amendment in his committee that would keep illegal aliens from having access to taxpayer- subsidized health care. President Obama told America that illegal aliens will not receive taxpayer-subsidized health care.

That was after the Democrats in this body rejected Dr. Gingrey's amendment that would have denied taxpayer subsidized coverage to illegal aliens. We have a lot we can talk about.

I want to now turn over to my colleague, Dr. John Fleming.

I want to thank the gentleman so much for his remarks and for his comments. It is tremendous credibility to be able to come here on the floor and speak as a physician. You've had years of service treating and healing patients all across the United States. You look into the eyes of your patients and know the fear that they feel, knowing that they may lose some of the finest health care ever. And we don't want to see our physicians have their hands bound.

As a matter of fact, I just want to refer to, again, Investors Business Daily, which did a seven-part series, and they have said that 45 percent of American doctors may leave the profession if government takes over health care. As a matter of fact, doctors, more than anyone, detest the current status quo and the role played by insurance companies.

They want to see us change health care, which we agree. But this is not the route to go. And physicians are telling us that. As a matter of fact, two-thirds of practicing physicians said that senior citizen care will suffer under the government's plan. Three of five doctors think that drug development of new drugs will also be thwarted. Also, they see that fewer doctors will be entering the new profession of medicine.

Before I hand this over to my colleague, Dr. Gingrey of Georgia, I would like to just add something that we saw happen. There was an article in The Wall Street Journal. This just happened. Now we have a directive last week from one of our Senators, Mr. Baucus. He has ordered Medicare regulators to investigate and likely punish Humana for trying to educate their enrollees in their Advantage plan about the fact of the Medicare Advantage.

This is very concerning. We're seeing a United States Senator calling for an investigation of a company that is communicating with its enrollees in its companies. So a company with its customers is simply communicating material and now a company is given a gag order by the government?

Well, this didn't occur with the AARP. The government isn't telling the AARP, which also offers Medicare Advantage plans. They aren't putting a gag order on them.

This is really concerning, Mr. Speaker, because we can't have the Federal Government engaging in censorship. That's what this is, pure and simple.

The Obama administration and Democrat Senators are calling for censorship. They want to stop insurance companies from communicating with their customers about what government takeover of health care might mean for them. This is unconscionable. Who would have ever thought we would live in a time when government would be calling for censoring a company because the company is not communicating the message that government wants it to communicate.

Well, with that, I want to hand the next few minutes over to my colleague from Georgia, the great Dr. Phil Gingrey, who courageously has offered amendment after amendment after amendment in committee to try and make it clear that no bureaucrat should ever come between you and your doctor, and also that no illegal alien should ever receive taxpayer-subsidized health care.

These issues were all brought up by the President in his joint session speech. Dr. Gingrey put Members of Congress on record. And that's why the American people are concerned--and rightly so.

Dr. Gingrey.

Thank you to the gentleman from Georgia.

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

I thank the gentleman from Iowa. I think that is something that we wanted to consider when the President was here was speaking to the joint session of Congress. He made it clear there were some large details that had yet to be worked out. Essentially what that is is the President saying to the American people, Trust me. Trust me. Not only the American people, but to the Senators and the Members of Congress that were here serving as representatives of the people in this Chamber. Trust me. Because the details aren't worked out. There are so many vagaries. We don't know, for instance, how the bill will be paid for. Trust me, the President says.

Then the President talks about various commissions that will be set up. We know another health care czar will be set up in the bill. A czar? The American people are already saying government is wasting too much money. The American people's opinion is that 50 percent of every dollar we spend is wasted, and now we are supposed to give authority to a health care czar to basically write the bill over a 4-year period because as the current bill, H.R. 3200, is written, it is very interesting, who is the enforcer of this bill? Well, none other than the Internal Revenue Service, the IRS. That's the enforcer of this bill. Loads of new taxes larded onto the backs of the American taxpayer. Loads of new taxes enforced by the IRS. My goodness, Mr. Speaker, could we add insult to injury to the American people? It is amazing.

And the taxes would be scheduled to go in place January 1. In just a few months, the taxes will go into effect on insurance companies, on individuals, on businesses. The taxes will go into place January 1, 2010. Well, what about the care? What about all of the new care that people are going to get? Oh, that doesn't go into effect for another 3, 4 years down the road. What?

So we are paying for this with larded new taxes to the Federal Government for 3 or 4 years, and then the care comes down? And we are supposed to trust this administration? We are supposed to trust this Democrat majority that they will figure it all out and somehow it won't cost any money and we won't have to worry about it. We are going to bring another 47 million people into the system, not add any new doctors, and we are going to actually cut costs? That is like saying you can eat a chocolate cake and it has no calories. This doesn't add up. That's why there is no credibility on the government takeover of health care, which is why our colleague, Dr. Gingrey, offered his very simple amendments, put up or shut up.

Will illegal aliens be covered or not? Oops, Democrats apparently think they will.

Will abortion be covered by taxpayers? Our colleague, Joe Pitts, put that in. Oops, I guess that it will because they didn't take it out.

What about bureaucrats? Will bureaucrats be able to substitute their decisions for you and those of your doctor? Will a bureaucrat get between you and your doctor? That was offered by Dr. Gingrey. Oops, I guess it is up to a bureaucrat now, not a doctor.

There is a reason why the American people are panicking on this issue, and we are right there with them. Because we think you deserve better than that. Because, Mr. Speaker, this is the American people's money; and because, Mr. Speaker, this is about life and death. That's why we have such a great alternative. That's why we say to the American people, you own your own insurance policy. You ban together with whoever you want to buy that policy. You buy it from anyone you want to buy it from. You buy it in any amount you want to buy it, and you buy it anywhere in the United States. And that's why we say buy it with your own tax free money and deduct the rest on your income tax return. And then let's truly have lawsuit reform. That is 95 percent of the problems; done just like that. What does it cost the Treasury? I guarantee it doesn't bankrupt it, not the way that this $2 trillion monstrosity will do.

That is why we are here this afternoon, because we have a positive alternative to the government takeover of health care. We can do far better.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

There are 1,018.

I thank the gentleman from Louisiana, the gentleman from Georgia and the gentleman from Iowa. Clearly, the American people know we can do better. That is what we will do.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 8 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, September 25, 2009, at 9 a.m.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor one of the most passionate families I have ever met, Gary and Lisa Walters and their children, Jackson (age 15) and Jessica (age 14). They are passionate about making a difference in their community. To raise awareness and funds for Kinship Partners, a mentoring program that relies only on donations, the Walters Family traveled from Brainerd, Minnesota to our capital, Washington, DC. But unlike most Americans who travel to Washington, D.C. for a cause, they

chose an unusual mode of transportation. Gary and Jackson both rollerbladed across the country, while Jessica biked along side them.

From August 13th to September 7th, Gary and Jackson woke up and strapped on their trusty rollerblades, Jessica hopped on her bike and together, they embarked on this heart-warming adventure. They were sore; they were tired; but they were not discouraged by challenges. For the past 7 years, in fact, Gary has put himself through some rigorous challenges to raise awareness for Kinship Partners, including walking the length of Minnesota, biking to New Orleans and camping out on the Brainerd, Minnesota water tower for more than a week. It is his unwavering dedication to Kinship Partners that has helped raise over 100,000 dollars and kept the program strong.

Kinship is a mentoring program in north-central Minnesota that matches children with caring adults based on mutual interests. For a few hours a week, they get together and spend time doing whatever it is they like. It's not a complicated formula, but it is a somewhat new take on mentoring programs. And Kinship Partners is seeing success stories in 24 Minnesota communities as a result of their back-to-basics strategy. In fact, there is even a waiting list. When children know that there is someone who is absolutely crazy about them and committed to their well-being, there are no limits to their success.

I must have my cape on. To the stunning gentleman from Iowa, the great Steve King, I want to thank you for allowing me to be a part of this discussion that you're broaching. And you've done a wonderful job all week on different occasions talking about the true depth of this problem and the positive alternatives.

I appreciate the fact that you've tried to lay context about truly how many people are in need of insurance and how many people are without coverage. That's a very important part. We can't make true decisions unless we actually have the facts on the table. And I'm also extremely grateful that you're trying to give a positive alternative.

We're looking at a couple different options here to deal with health care. One would be President Obama's option, and the option that's been offered here in the House with essentially about a trillion dollars of spending on health care, and in the Senate, with something like $850 billion worth of health care from Senator Baucus that was just released.

Senator Baucus' plan so far has not engendered much bipartisan support. I think there's a reason for that. It's because of the tremendous tax burden on the middle class of the Senate plan, and I'm sure we'll be talking about that as we go forward.

But here's a part of our positive solution. We can have one plan that will burden future American taxpayers with trillions of dollars in unfunded mandates, trillions of dollars of spending, borrowing, taxing, and that is a burden as we go forward when our country can least afford it. Or, we can take an alternative that would free up our economy and give free choices to the American people and not add to the burden of our Treasury.

It's very simply this: As my colleague Steve King of Iowa has said, we want freedom for the American people. We want the American people individually to own their own health care. Just like they own car insurance, just like they own their house insurance, we don't want the government to own their insurance policy. We don't want the government to call the shots or have control over people's health care decisions, or their employer. We want people to own it individually.

Then, next, we want people to have the freedom to band together with whomever they prefer, whether it's Realtors or teachers or farmers or maybe a community, like a credit union. You come together in a geographic area. You join together with whomever you want to buy or purchase a policy. So you have purchasing power.

Next, we want people to have freedom to buy any policy they want, anywhere they want in the country, from anyone they want to purchase the policy from. True choice in purchasing insurance.

Then, as my colleague Steve King said, we want people to be able to set aside in an account, whether it's $5,000 a year or $10,000 a year or $15,000 a year, tax free. In other words, you take that money out of your earnings or out of your savings and you put it tax free in an account up to a certain amount.

If you spend more than that account, then you can deduct those health care savings off of your income tax return. That would include eyeglasses, dental work, hearing aids, chiropractic care. Whatever your health care would be, you get to fully deduct that.

Finally, we want lawsuit reform so that we don't have unnecessary spending so that doctors can try to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits.

These are very simple, commonsense solutions. And you notice not one of these solutions requires a vast infusion of Federal tax money. That's because it's called freedom. That's the American way. And that will solve about 95 percent of our health care problems.

Will we need a government supported safety net? Always. We will always have one because there will always be people who, through no fault of their own, have physical conditions that won't allow them to work, that won't allow them to be able to pay their premiums or pay for their health care. We can afford--and we must pay for those people. But for the vast, overwhelming majority of people we can make health care affordable. That's why the proposal that was just offered by Senator Baucus is so concerning on the Senate side.

Congressman Steve King has made an excellent case against the House measure, H.R. 3200, and he made an excellent case why this option is so expensive and so burdensome on the individual. The reason why the Senate plan is equally negative in our eyes is for this reason.

I take this out of the Wall Street Journal. It said: The centerpiece of the Obama-Baucus plan--because, remember, it was just a week ago here in this Chamber when President Obama essentially backed the Senator Baucus version of the health care plan.

But this is what the Wall Street Journal has to say today: The centerpiece of the Obama-Baucus plan is a decree that everyone purchase heavily regulated insurance policies or pay a penalty.

Now, imagine that. I don't even think this survives a test of constitutionality. The Federal Government would make the American people purchase a product or service that people don't want to buy, and the government would fine them and tax them with penalty of going to jail if they don't buy the product or service that the government tells them they have to buy.

Think of how incredible this is. The enforcement of this mandated, brute force health care policy would be enforced by the Internal Revenue Service. So we would be forced to buy services and products we don't want to buy at a cost we can't afford, and the Internal Revenue Service would be the enforcement mechanism.

This is not what the American people want to have, which is why the Republicans' positive alternative makes so much sense. You own it, you band together with anyone you want to purchase in any amount of policy from anyone you want, anywhere you want, with tax-free money or money that you deduct on your income tax policy, and then we have lawsuit reform.

I think it's a great alternative, and I yield back to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. Speaker, prayer has been an important part of our country since the founding of our great Nation, and attempts to take prayer away from the American people are attempts to take away the essential freedoms that have been guaranteed to every American since the beginning of our United States Constitution.

I thank Mr. Forbes for bringing this to the attention of this body, and I share his shock, I share his dismay that criminal charges were brought on behalf of Mrs. Winkler, Mr. Lay and Mr. Freeman for the simple act of engaging in prayer.

As the court explained in Santa Fe, not all religious speech that occurs in public schools or at school-sponsored events is speech attributable to government. There were no students present at either event.

Additionally, the court held the proposition that schools do not endorse everything they fail to sensor is not complicated. The Supreme Court held that ``there is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the establishment clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the free speech and free exercise clauses protect.''

In no way were these individuals trying to associate the school with prayer. They were offering the prayer, one at a privately funded event, the other at an event with private donors. The court held that ``private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the free speech clause as secular private expression.''

Teachers and administrators, when they act in their official capacity, may not encourage or discourage or participate in prayer with students. However, teachers may take part in religious activities before or after school or during lunch since the context makes clear they are not acting in an official capacity. Although schools may not direct or endorse religious activities, students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that this displays a trend and a tendency that we are seeing where groups like the ACLU strike at one school district after another, one public display of religious expression after another, until they have reached their ultimate goal, which is to purge the marketplace of ideas of any semblance of religious expression. At that point, Mr. Speaker, we will have turned the First Amendment on its head, and the Founders in turn will be rolling in their graves.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate two schools from my state of Minnesota. Both Delano High School and the Math and Science Academy in Woodbury have been recently recognized as ``Blue Ribbon Schools'' by the U.S. Department of Education. The Blue Ribbon Program honors public and private middle, junior and senior high schools that demonstrate academic superiority, especially with minority populations.

This is a great honor to the teachers, faculty and administration of these schools. And, in particular, Delano's Principal Matthew Schoen and Woodbury's Director Paul Simone, should be exceedingly proud of their efforts. Their dedication to foster a positive learning environment encourages families and students across the nation. Through the Blue Ribbon School program, other educators have a set of ``Best Practices'' in classroom tactics, school programming choices and administrative strategies like none other.

These schools are shining stars in America's education system. It is my honor to recognize two of these schools, Delano High School and the Math and Science Academy in Woodbury, before this Congress today. I encourage every school in America to look at these Blue Ribbon winners not only as a resource but also a reminder of what our schools can be.