Floor Statements

I find it interesting. I admire my colleague from New York. He is a great speaker. And the reason he comes to the floor is to try to talk about everything else other than what is in the bill. He wants to say what Republicans are for so that they don't have to talk about what is in their bill. And that has been, really, the effort all along in this particular debate.

There is great bipartisan agreement on this bill, and it is overwhelmingly in opposition. Republicans and Democrats not only on this House floor worked together to say ``no,'' but the American people worked together to say ``no.'' And why? Why would they do that? And why wouldn't you talk about the things that you had to do to try to get people to vote in favor of the bill?

There are a slew of things which this body is about ready to approve. The Louisiana purchase. You made special adjustments. If this is so good and so wonderful, why do we have to put special provisions in this bill to exempt people from its provisions? Why? Because it's bad if everybody has to be a part of this bill, so individual Members said, If you give me just something I can go back and tell my people that I got them out of, it'll be a great day.

You know what, you're asking Americans to pit an American against an American, a trillion-dollar bill that's not paid for, a bill that raises premiums, a bill that raids the Social Security trust fund to pay for a bill that still puts us in deficit. That's what this bill is. It's amazing.

I think, you know, wow, we've fought for associated health plans where one small business could negotiate with another small business to lower their premiums, and the government, your government, said, no, you can't do that; that's illegal. We said, Hey, let's allow folks to cross State lines and force insurance companies to compete against each other so that we get lower premiums. And your government, your Democrat policies said, no, that's illegal. And then they said, you know what, this whole system isn't working because we can't associate together with small businesses and buy premiums because we don't like that idea. You can't go across State lines and force insurance companies to compete and be more transparent, we don't like that idea. So we made that illegal.

So guess what, the government created the problem, and now they're saying, you know what, this is so hard and so complicated, we're going to give up on democracy and freedom; and the government is going to solve this problem for you. The arrogance is unbelievable.

There are such simple things that we could do to lower premiums. There are such simple things that we could create in the free market that would allow people with preexisting conditions not to be discriminated against. You don't have to cut Medicare $500 billion to do it. You don't have to raid the Social Security trust fund to do it. This isn't about health care anymore. It's about politics. And that's so unfortunate.

It's unbelievable what you are about to do to the American people. There's a new tax in here, a new tax on everything a doctor touches from the blood pressure cuff to the x ray machine to the smock that he wears. I have to tell you, you can't add cost to the health care system and have the premiums go down.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the accomplishments of the late Stuart Dunnings, Jr., the first African- American attorney to practice law in Michigan's Capitol City of Lansing, and founder in 1950 of the city's first African-American owned law firm.

Mr. Dunnings, who passed away March 10, 2010, at age 85, was a champion of minorities from the beginning. President of the Lansing Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in 1951, he had been involved in the civil rights movement for half a century. He led the fight to get Lansing schools to hire more black teachers and successfully represented a Detroit basketball team's black student athletes when they were refused hotel rooms while in a Lansing tournament.

Mr. Dunnings was co-counsel in school desegregation lawsuits in several Michigan cities, and served on civil rights committees and in lawsuits seeking equality for minorities.

In 1992 he was honored by the Michigan State Bar Association as the ``Champion of Justice.'' He was inducted into the National Bar Association Hall of Fame.

Mr. Dunnings and his late wife Janet had four children: Stuart III, Steven, Susan and Shauna. All four have law degrees, and one of eight grandchildren is attending law school. Stuart III is the Ingham County Prosecutor.

Born in Staunton, Virginia, Mr. Dunnings graduated from Lincoln University, then from the University of Michigan Law School. During college, he hitchhiked back and forth to the east coast to visit family and seek employment in places like Washington, D.C. before opening his Lansing practice. He often hitchhiked to the courthouse in Mason when his cases were before the court.

Facing the challenges of being the city's first black attorney, Mr. Dunnings practiced law until mid-afternoon, worked the Oldsmobile evening shift on the fender line, and spent weekends cleaning his office building to support himself and his family.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the late Stuart Dunnings, Jr., a man whose hard work, family commitment, and community spirit represent all that is good about our great nation and its people. Mr. Dunnings is truly deserving of our respect and admiration.

Thank you to my friend from California.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I think, was a very, very important symptom for us to all understand, and it's easy to get confused, by the way, in who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. When you take the fight on the war on terror from a proactive intelligence approach to a law enforcement approach, things get pretty murky in a hurry, and everything slows down, and information exchanges slow down.

What we have done, what they have tried to do in the middle of the night, is sneak in a provision that would actually, when you read the entire thing, treat terrorists with a special carve-out that not even white-collar criminals, organized crime members, extortionists as American citizens would get, that your interrogator could be brought up on charges for what you believed might be incidences that offend you. Unbelievable. But that's exactly what happens when you are confused about who the bad guys are.

This bill should be known for what it doesn't do. I mean, right now, they are getting ready to bring, through the administration policy and support of this Congress, hundreds of some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world to the United States. Do you know that about over a dozen times where these terrorists have been held overseas, including places like Great Britain, that terrorists have tried to break in to break them out? And guess what? Our policy is to bring them to the United States, give them a special carve-out, and treat them like American citizens at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.

You know, we had the opportunity to do disruptive activities to al Qaeda, and some speculate that between the Fort Hood shooting and the Christmas Day bomber, there were methods and activities that we as a Nation didn't engage in because we were confused about being proactive on intelligence against terrorism or treating it like a law enforcement matter. There is a lot to be accountable in that decision, but it can happen when you get confused who the bad guys are.

We have never had a full vetting of what was known at one time as the Global Justice Initiative where you send FBI agents around the world, including to the battlefield, to Mirandize foreign-trained terrorists who have declared war on the United States. That can happen when you forget who the bad guys are. There is nothing in this bill that protects the very courageous CIA interrogators for following Department of Justice guidelines in the interrogation and the development of information that will have saved lives in the United States.

And, by the way, it was brought to our attention that the same interrogators who gave us about 70 percent of what we know about the logistics and operations of al Qaeda are subject to criminal investigations. You know why that happens? Because it's easy to do when you are confused about who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.

Yesterday was that symptom, Mr. Speaker, that when you make that decision, there are serious consequences. Now, folks want to say, oh, that's just politics you are trying to interject.

This is serious business. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will come to New York. Some estimate it as high as $200 million just for the security. That city said, ``No.'' Michigan said, ``No.'' Kansas said, ``No.'' Americans are saying, ``No.''

We ought to stand together in this body and say, ``No.''

This bill falls short of addressing the serious debate we better have ongoing from a proactive intelligence approach to a law enforcement approach. This is not about you have the right to remain silent and if you can't afford an attorney one will be appointed for you at the expense of the U.S. taxpayers. This is about aggressively pursuing terrorists where they live, where they train, where they operate.

If our whole new plan is a law enforcement approach and we are going to catch them at the airport, we are going to lose this fight, and that's exactly what this bill fails to address. You cannot let one stand in the line with any American citizen and hope to God your last defense works, and that's what happens when you go to a law enforcement approach and you treat CIA officers like criminals and you treat foreign terrorists like high-status American citizens. You could get confused on who the good guys are and who the bad guys are in a hurry.

I would recommend strong rejection of this bill. We need to start over, and we need to start asking hard questions

about what this policy is doing to the national defense of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, something fundamentally different has happened in the last year. We have fundamentally changed the way we deal with terrorists in the United States. We should absolutely fully have that debate on the policy of that switch. Why? Because it has had tremendous consequences.

Think about this: The CIA officers who, given direction by the Department of Justice, interrogated and debriefed and got some 70 percent of what we know about al Qaeda through their debriefings, are now being treated as criminals. Foreign-trained criminals are being brought to the United States and being treated as Americans.

The fact that we would take a terrorist off a plane who had just attempted to kill some 300 people and the people on the ground and say you have the right to remain silent--wrong. You don't. I need to know if there's anybody else out there. I need to know where the training camp was. I need to know a name of an airline you may have heard while you were training in a place like Yemen to come to the United States on a combat mission and kill Americans. They should be treated as enemy combatants. That's exactly who they are. And when you make this fundamental switch from a proactive intelligence approach to keep them at bay to a law enforcement effort to bring them to the United States, it will have negative consequences for the national security of the United States.

To not allow the amendments--I have had many and many of my colleagues here who had amendments to debate and talk about these very serious issues. There is a reason that they couldn't wrap up the fact that there was a shooting at Fort Hood and the Christmas Day bomber. There's a reason that happened. Because when you bring in law enforcement, it slows things down.

They stop providing information until their lawyer can cut their best deal possible. This can't be about lawyers in the back room cutting good deals for foreign-trained terrorists trying to kill Americans. It has to be about the protection of every citizen in the United States and our allies abroad. When we lose that focus, we will lose the ability to stop everyone that comes to these shores.

And if our new program is we are going to catch them at the airport by spending lots more money, we are going to lose this fight. We need to get them in Yemen, in Saudi Arabia, in the tribal areas of Pakistan, and wherever else they train, they finance, and they commit themselves to an act of combat to kill U.S. citizens.

I can't tell you how disappointed I am in this bill for all that is at stake in the country.

When there was a switch in debate about how we approach the war on terror, that's a legitimate argument, a legitimate debate to have, and we should do it under the light of day with all of the sets of consequences that come with any change of policy about how we go after terrorists overseas. And the notion that was brought out that, gee, if we just treat this like a law enforcement environment, if we treat it the way we would treat the average American citizen and extend the rights and the privileges to foreign-trained terrorists, the world will like us, the world will be a better place, we will have no more problems, they're going to go away, we will get them in the courtrooms of America, there is a fundamental flaw with doing this.

In order to fully function as a law enforcement effort, the administration has sent FBI agents overseas into the battlefield to read Miranda rights to tell foreign-trained terrorists who probably couldn't find, some of them, America on a map that you have the right to remain silent; if you can't afford a lawyer the United States will appoint one for you; we will pay for it.

The fact that if they get to the airport and stand in line with an explosive device next to you or your children or a family member or some other American citizen, we will catch them then, and we will put them in trial and read them their Miranda rights even though they were recruited overseas, trained overseas, in many cases surreptitiously moved to different parts of different countries in order to get every aspect of their training. And they're taught that they are on a combat mission. That is what they're taught, that your goal in this event is to go cause harm and casualties and chaos to Americans on American soil or to our allies on their soil. So they look at this as they have when they've declared war numerous times. They have declared war on the United States, and they're ready to kill Americans to prove their point.

So some notion that by the time they get to the airport or board the plane we've been successful because we've had the opportunity to read them the Miranda rights is fundamentally flawed, and that is a fight that we will lose. We're going to lose that fight. You can't hire enough TSA agents. You can't hire enough domestic FBI agents. You can't send enough FBI agents into the battlefield to read Miranda rights to stop their effort.

When you treat them like a criminal and read them their rights, you allow a defense attorney to start the negotiations about how much they will or will not cooperate. That starts. That happens. Clearly, the Christmas Day bomber enjoyed that same benefit.

And I'll tell you, that first 24 to 48 hours is critically important in the intelligence community because of a small thing. This guy isn't going to be able to give you all of the layout of al Qaeda and all of their financing and all of their logistical movements, but he could have given us incredibly valuable information--maybe the name of another airline that may have been targeted on that day that we didn't know about, maybe the name or the description of a bad guy who trained in how to use that explosive device or a place or a town or a person that they may have seen in their training cramp. To most people, that wouldn't mean a lot. To trained professionals in the intelligence business, it means the difference between stopping them and them being successful. That little, small piece of information can save lives.

They made a fundamental shift, from proactive intelligence overseas to find them where they train, to where they finance, to where they recruit, to a law enforcement effort to bring them back to the United States. We're bringing foreign-trained terrorists to the United States and putting them in mainstream courtrooms. We're prosecuting CIA officers for following legal advice from the Department of Justice in interrogation. So we're treating CIA officers like criminals, and we're treating foreign-trained terrorists like Americans with all of the benefits and the privileges therein.

You almost couldn't make this up. You couldn't come to this conclusion. And with it, we've got consequences.

When you look at the series of events from the Fort Hood shootings to the Christmas Day bomber and the mistakes that were made and the lost opportunity for disruption, we all ought to sit down and work this out and get us back to where we're putting the interests of Americans first versus the interests of the rights of terrorism before the safety and security of the United States.

I strongly urge a rejection of this bill.

I, too, along with my colleague from Texas, and certainly the ranking member from Michigan, want to bring to the attention of this body just how dangerous the amendment is that says this, ``Any officer or employee of the intelligence community who, in the course of or in anticipation of a covered interrogation, knowingly commits, attempts to commit or conspires to commit an act of cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment.'' And it goes on to talk about infringing on their religious beliefs by any notion whatsoever that isn't defined in the bill.

Sleep--it talks about lack of sleep. As a matter of fact, the interrogators are probably getting a lot less sleep than actually the terrorists they are interrogating because they also process the information before and after the interrogations.

You have created a whole new direction to go after the very people who are interrogating people trying to kill Americans, and you are saying we are going to put you in jail if you push your limits. And by the way, torture is already against the law. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is pushing torture. What we're saying is, you cannot make this so unreasonable that they won't do it. And if you don't think that this will have an impact on an agent making the determination, should I or shouldn't I, you know what? I was hoping to turn around and find 300 screaming, cheering Americans saying thank you for your patriotism and your service, not 25 Justice Department lawyers with subpoenas.

You will absolutely freeze the intelligence community's ability to go out and get information that they need, and it is absolutely naive to believe that they're going to do it anyway. I'm sorry, that's not the way it works. These folks want to follow the law; they want to follow the Constitution. And guess what? At the end of the day, they're willing to risk their lives to protect their country and their fellow Americans, and this is the treatment that we give them.

This one provision alone will disrupt I can't tell you how many operations worldwide and is worthy of our rejection of this direction in the intelligence community.

Madam Chair, just to further again tell you how dangerous the amendment is on making it a criminal act for CIA officers to try to conduct interrogations, again I just want to read-- this goes after specifically any intelligence officer or employee of the intelligence community. So saying we're just restating law simply isn't true. And then it goes on to say ``interrogation knowingly commits, attempts to commit, or conspires to commit an act of cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment.'' ``Degrading,'' of course, is undefined.

But think of this: It goes on to explain at a further portion in their language ``if you seek to blaspheme his or

her religious beliefs.'' Now, we know that al Qaeda through their training always says when you're caught by the United States, allege abuse. It shuts the system down. Guess what we just did. Does that mean a Jewish FBI official is no longer able to go in and conduct an interview? I don't know. Does it mean that if an uncovered woman goes in to conduct an interview, we've blasphemed their beliefs and their religion? I don't know. But we've certainly made it easier to make the allegation, haven't we? We have made it almost impossible for them to do what we have to have them do, and that's extract information that's going to save lives. I mean you could go on to any sector of any religion that has become radicalized and understand it's impossible to meet that standard. Impossible. We are hugely restricting and handcuffing our intelligence community from doing what they need to do, and that's to get information, without torture, that keeps Americans safe and alive.

And, again, al Qaeda, Madam Chair, uses the technique, and we know this through a whole series of sources, to allege abuse. They use it in their media campaign, and they know it makes us chase our tail for weeks on end. This only enhances, this only strengthens their cause and al Qaeda's operational tactic to slow us down in the obtaining of that information.

I can't tell you how serious this amendment is with no debate and no discussion. It's dangerous. I urge rejection on this alone.

Madam Chair, it's not that you're giving terrorists better rights than Americans. It's the fact that you're extending to foreign terrorists, foreign nationals, foreign-trained individuals coming here to commit acts of violence and kill civilians the same rights as Americans. That's wrong. They are enemy combatants.

You say, well, we can't have Abu Ghraib. You're right; we can't. Torture is illegal. It was illegal then, and guess what? It was investigated and they have been prosecuted, rightly so. They abused people. Wrong. They go to jail. That's what happens in this system.

What you're doing now is interjecting mass confusion into the people who are going to try to conduct debriefings all over the world, and they're going to go to dangerous places, and guess what? You've engaged one of the worst parts of the al Qaeda playbook that says, remember, when Americans are shooting at themselves and chasing their tail, they are not shooting at us. Allege abuse. You've just put 11 confusing pages right into the hands of our enemy to say, make it really hard on the folks who are risking their lives to save Americans so that we can continue to do what we do, and that's plan, train, recruit, and we will send people to America to kill American civilians.

This is a dangerous, dangerous, dangerous step that you take. No debate. No discussion. Lots of confusion. Don't do this to the men and women who risk their lives every day to protect the United States of America.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, it's with a heavy heart I rise with this amendment. This has been a bipartisan issue for, I hate to say it, going on 5 years where the Director of the FBI implemented a new policy, and the policy was designed to try to get a different talent pool of individuals to come to Washington, D.C. to be supervisors in their new bureaucracy of the intelligence community, if you will. They were having a difficult time doing it.

So what they ended up doing is they forced supervisors in the field. These are FBI experts in a whole variety of fields--it could be white- collar crime, it could be organized crime, it could be foreign counterintelligence, could be counterterrorism efforts--and arbitrarily said, after 5 years you're done. You either have to step down, you have to come to Washington, D.C. and apply to be an ASAC or other job, or you have to move on. You can either leave the Bureau, you can step down and go back to the ranks of what we used to call a brick agent in the

Seeing there's no further speakers, I would just urge the body's quick support and, again, hopefully we can stand with the men and women who have stood with us in difficult times across the country. I yield back my time.

Madam Chairman, I want to thank my good friend, Ms. Eshoo from California. You know, sometimes you can get ahead of a problem. We don't often do that in Congress. I think this is a great way to get ahead of a problem.

Given the fact that these individuals who have, who are doing great things for their country, we're thankful for it, takes sometimes a piece of intellectual property that really belongs to the people of the United States, and some of it is very sensitive, very compartmentalized. It's information that is shared with very few. So it is an incredible responsibility. And for us not to have a policy on how we make sure that those people don't use that information for personal gain on the outside of that community, especially the intelligence community, I think is wrong. And I think this is a good measure that puts some really basic protections, not only for them, but for the intelligence community and the people of America.

And I want to commend the gentlelady for her work and effort on this. And I wholeheartedly support this effort.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Debbie Wasserman Schultz for her courage to get up here and talk about her ailment. I, too, am a cancer survivor, and it is a difficult process. But my concern is greater than even our own personal experiences. It is what is the actual result of that health care reform bill that leads us to this resolution.

We are scrambling around on the floor today to say that a government- appointed commission, this task force, has made a recommendation based on quality of year lives and cost, not good science, not that what saves lives, that women between 40 and 49 need not get mammograms. And you say, listen, that doesn't mean rationing. It doesn't mean anything. It doesn't have any weight of law. But guess what? The health care reform bill that passed this House makes those recommendations law.

Let me read a couple of quick things, Mr. Speaker, if I may. By the way, you have to go to three different sections, two different complete books, to understand how this impacts real women in America, some 2,000 pages into it.

One section: Limitation on individual health insurance coverage may only be offered on or after the first day of year one as an exchange- participating health care plan. Pretty fancy Washingtonspeak.

Let me tell you what it means in another section of the bill about 1,000 pages later: A health plan is prohibited from offering coverage for benefits not included in the essential benefits package.

And you say, Oh, no that's a floor.

It's not a floor. The language in the bill goes on further. And do you know what it does? It says that the only difference between the levels of plans is the amount of cost sharing, not what it covers.

Here is the scary part, of which I don't think you all realize that you did to about 47,000 women in America: All recommendations of the Preventive Services Task Force and the Task Force on Community Preventive Services as in existence on the day before the date or the enactment of this Act shall be considered to be recommendations.

The bill goes on to say that they must use that in the calculation of benefits. Guess what? Forty-seven thousand women who are under the age of 50 today will be diagnosed with late-stage breast cancer because of your bill. It's in your bill. It's in your language. Do you know what that means? Eighty percent of them will die because of their diagnosis.

Do you realize that more women will die because of this bill than we lost men in the Korean War? And I know you think, Oh, scare tactics.

No. It's the bill. But do you know what? You can't read it on page 1 or 2. You have to keep going back and forth in 2,000 pages to understand the full impact of what will happen to women who are 40 to 49 years old.

You did it in your bill.

I am going to plead with you. For the lives of 37,000 women who will die and 47,000 women, according to the recommendations of this task force which you make law----

I am going to plead with you, please read the bill, not just 1 to 2,000. Go back to the other sections and understand its full impact.

And you say, It won't happen in America. Guess what? This task force recommendation resulted on December 2 in California prohibiting low- income women under the age of 50 from receiving mammograms. It is happening today. This task force is doing it today. With your bill, it becomes law. They are prohibited. And it is illegal for them to get coverage other than what the government says they can get. And guess what? Mammograms don't qualify for women 40 to 49. Please think of those women and those families.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lynch and Mr. Towns, thank you very, very much for your work in a bipartisan way on this very important piece of legislation.

Sometimes, with all of the big issues that we deal with, we do pause and pay attention to issues that impact lives like some circumstances like no other. And if you imagine the Federal law enforcement community--and I used to serve proudly as an FBI agent and was proud to count myself as one of them--that every single day somebody suits up quietly, with a search warrant or an arrest warrant to serve it somewhere in America. And we forget because they are exceptionally good at doing what they do without getting hurt or harmed, but it is incredibly dangerous work. They get drug dealers and they get child pornographers and they get bank executives committing bank fraud. They get Mafia dons, and they get terrorists of the hardest sort, and they bring them to justice as a part of

defending the Constitution and the communities of the United States of America.

And what this particular case exemplified is that there was a glitch in the law, because we ask these Federal law enforcement officers to move and uproot from their communities. They swear an oath to their country and their Constitution and to uphold the law of the United States. And then we ask them to leave their hometowns of, say, Baltimore or New York or small towns anywhere in America and take their families with them to these new places to fight crime wherever they find it. And this pointed out one very, very significant glitch is that if an officer, a Federal law enforcement officer was killed in the line of duty in the United States, their families had no means, the Federal Government could not assist them in moving back home, the very place that they stood up and said they would serve proudly with their loved one wherever that mission would take them.

Many, the FBI, specifically, makes it very well known that you have no right to serve where you want. You will serve at the needs of the FBI. And other agencies serve in the same capacity, and their families suffer the same sacrifice when we ask them to move.

This is a small token, just a small token of what we can do for those families who have sacrificed so much and lost their loved one while killed in the line of duty. And it's named after a very, very brave FBI agent who risked his life for his country serving a narcotics warrant in Pittsburgh. I mean, this is someone who had a strong history of public service. He was a teacher. He was a Baltimore police officer.

His FBI agent colleagues described him as brave and courageous and the anchor. When they were going through their training at the FBI academy, they said this is the guy that you wanted to go in the door with. He's the guy that would anchor and teach them how to safely get in and safely get out of homes in very dangerous situations. And the agents and all that were interviewed were certainly, by press reports, tearing up and reliving the memories of what was a great American who was absolutely committed to the ideals of the FBI: fidelity and bravery and integrity. And in that pursuit, in his pursuit to live up to the standards of the FBI, he risked and ultimately gave his life for his community and his country.

So what this bill does, with the help of Mr. Lynch and Mr. Towns and so many others, Mr. Cao--thank you--is it says that we will respect what you have given your country, and we will help those families move back to where they call home in that final, final rest and trip in remembrance of someone who did something so great for their country.

His peers also described him, Mr. Speaker, as a humble and giving man, an outstanding FBI agent, somebody whose dream job was to wear and carry the badge of a special agent of the FBI.

He is survived by his wife, Brooke, and his 3-year-old son, Noah.

And for all that he has done, I think it's so fitting that the committee sought to name this bill after one agent. And in the Bureau, it's never anyone's particular case. He didn't own that case. He didn't own that incident, but he was part of a bigger team. And so, when you name this bill after an agent like this, it really sends great condolences to the family and respect to every officer that falls in the line of duty. His name may be on the bill, but it is a gift to every family who risks their lives every day in the service of this great Nation in the law enforcement community.

And I would, again, urge all of us to support this with vigor.

And I also want to thank the FBI Agents Association for their work and diligence on this. The Department of Justice has been very, very good to work with, and the FBI itself has given their time and commitment, once again proving their commitment to the family of the FBI and the work that they do.

Again, I thank you all for the work that you have done. I think his family would be humbled. I think the FBI agents are humbled, and I think our Federal law enforcement community is humbled that we would pause in all of the debate and remember their service and sacrifice to the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the SGR fix is incredibly important, but this approach is disingenuous at best. Let's go back quickly.

In 2008 the Medicare Improvement for Patient and Providers Act, sponsored by my friends on the other side of the aisle, had a 21 percent cut to go into effect for doctors this year. Your bill, your issue, your 21 percent. And you come here today knowing full well this bill will go nowhere.

Why this is disingenuous is because 2 weeks ago, you added about 16 million people to Medicaid that shorts doctors hundreds of millions of dollars in reimbursement every single year. And, oh, by the way, you tax doctors, and everything in their operation; their costs go up. And here's the thing: you cut a half trillion dollars out of Medicare, hospitals, home health services, nursing homes, hospice care. You cut Medicare a half trillion dollars. You know this bill will go nowhere.

This is an easy fix. Let's work together. Let's find some offsets. Let's fix it for doctors. And, by the way, let's go back and take back that money that you have cut, a half trillion dollars, out of Medicare for the lives and betterment of seniors.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, there are huge consequences to the 85 percent of Americans who have earned their health care in this bill. Not only will they get longer wait times and more expensive premiums, but at the end of that, with new debts, some $1.5 trillion in new spending, 18 million Americans won't have coverage. But more importantly, there will be another victim.

There is nothing more sacred than the bond between a mother and a child, that trust, that love, that nurturing when that child is sick. And when a mother goes to the doctor under that 2,000-page bill, that relationship that they enjoy between their patient and their doctor and what that mother wants for that child is no longer sacred, because now, through the 118 different boards and commissions, their comparative effectiveness research allows the Federal Government, through forced government insurance, to ration and deny care. You have violated the most important trust, the most important thing that we have in the building block and the foundation of the values of this country. That mother, that doctor knows what's best for that child. You will find no compassion in a Federal bureaucracy.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge the strong rejection and the protection of that bond between doctor and patient and mother and child.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 859, I was unable to vote as I was in Michigan attending to a recent death in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 812 I was not able to vote on the House floor on the amendment to H.R. 3619, the Coast Guard Authorization Act offered by Representative Kratovil due to a family matter. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 813 I was not able to vote on the House floor on the passage of H.R. 3619, the Coast Guard Authorization Act due to a family matter. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my appreciation for Special Agent Frederick E. Bragg--a dedicated public servant and an outstanding President of the FBI Agents Association (FBIAA). The FBIAA is over 20 years old and has grown from several hundred agents to a professional association of over 11,300 current and former agents from across the country.

Mr. Bragg's long history of public service began in 1986 with the Onondaga County Sheriff's Department in Syracuse, New York where he worked as a patrol deputy and an investigator. Mr. Bragg joined the FBI in 1991 and has served as the President of the Tri-County Law Enforcement Association, spent a decade as an Assistant Team Leader of the Minneapolis SWAT Team, and has helped lead efforts to combat terrorism, public corruption, and health care fraud. Mr. Bragg's commitment to the mission of the FBIAA began in 1995 and in 2003 he was elected President of the FBIAA. Throughout the duration of his involvement with the FBIAA, Mr. Bragg has advanced the charitable and law enforcement goals of the FBIAA, and his efforts have benefited agents and their families worldwide.

Mr. Bragg has been a leader when it comes to providing for the families of FBI Special Agents who give their lives in the service of our country. Mr. Bragg has helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for the FBIAA Memorial Scholarship Fund, which helps provide college scholarships to children of deceased FBI Agents. During Mr. Bragg's time as President, this scholarship fund grew to a level where 80% of a student's college costs are now covered--and because of his efforts it is likely this percentage will continue to increase.

In addition to his charitable work, Mr. Bragg has also been an effective voice for FBI Agents on questions of policy. I have had the opportunity to work personally with Mr. Bragg and have witnessed firsthand his unwavering commitment to our nation's FBI Agents. His advocacy played a key role in many important policy issues, such as debates over whether a domestic intelligence agency should be created, the implementation of new ``pay for performance'' standards, and the importance of criminal investigations to our nation's security.

As a former FBI Special Agent, I commend Mr. Bragg for his excellent service on behalf of our nation's premier law enforcement agents. His work has earned the thanks and appreciation of this body.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express concerns regarding health reform proposals which would create unfunded state mandates. Legislation currently before the House would dramatically expand the Medicaid program and place over $35 billion in new liabilities on state budgets over the next ten years. In addition, these proposals would expand the federal government's role in administering Medicaid, which would severely handcuff states' ability to run their own programs and preempt state authority to manage Medicaid eligibility and benefits.

Over the last several weeks, governors have expressed concerns over these proposals. I would like to submit for the Record the following letters from the governors of Alaska, Alabama and Arizona:

September 8, 2009.

Hon. Max Baucus,

Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, Hart Senate Office

Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. Charles Grassley,

Ranking Member, Senate Finance Committee, Hart Senate Office

Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley: States

cannot afford to carry the huge costs of health care reform.

States (and their businesses and residents) are struggling to

recover financially. The National Conference of State

Legislatures(NCSL) reports states had a $113 billion dollar

budget shortfall in 2009 and the situation is getting worse.

NCSL estimates state budget shortfalls will increase to $142

billion in 2010. I am also concerned with the proposed new

federal mandates that would undercut stare authority over the

Medicaid program.

On fiscal impact, H.R. 3200 expands Medicaid coverage to

all citizens under 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Level

(FPL) while the Senate HELP committee legislation assumes an

expansion to 150 percent of the FPL. The Congressional Budget

Office estimates these proposed expansions would require

spending hundreds of billions of dollars in new public funds.

While the proposals would initially place responsibility on

the federal government to pay for expanding Medicaid

coverage, a shift would later occur to state treasuries and

the impact would be significant. For Alaska, the National

Governors Association estimates it would cost $140 million in

state general funds to expand Medicaid for all Alaskans up to

133 percent of FPL in 2015. (Assuming there is full federal

funding the first two years.) This amount would increase to

$168 million by 2019, with new state expenditures amounting

to billions over time.

This fiscal hit to states would come on top of the Medicaid

funding cliff created by Congress in American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act. (ARRA). ARRA established a temporary

increase in the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP)

rate to help states deal with Medicaid costs. This higher

FMAP rate is set to expire on December 31, 2010. If the

higher FMAP rate is not extended, states will face an

immediate and significant increase in costs to operate

Medicaid programs. In Alaska, approximately $120 million more

in state general funds will be needed to operate the Medicaid

program for just one year.

Further, proposals in Congress would give the federal

government a stronger role in administering Medicaid and

undercut state authority. Coverage would have to be expanded

to childless adults who qualify and would replace the current

state option to cover parents of low-income children with a

federal mandate to provide coverage to qualifying adults.

Maintenance of effort requirements would prevent states from

adjusting eligibility to meet ever-changing fiscal

conditions. Lower limits of practitioner reimbursement and

coverage limits would be imposed. New services and the

coverage of additional provider groups would be mandated and

stale flexibility in the eligibility process would be

constrained. All these mandates limit state control and

flexibility to control the Medicaid program.

While I am sympathetic to the dilemma of health care reform

and I applaud your efforts to find a solution, I cannot

support legislation from Congress that imposes costly

unfunded federal mandates on Alaska and other states.

Instead, the federal government should be looking for ways to

give the states increased flexibility with federal funding to

meet the unique needs of each state's population. This tact

would lead to innovation and cost-containment as compared to

the current rout pursued in existing health care legislation.

Sincerely,

Sean Parnell,

Governor, Alaska.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express concerns regarding health reform proposals which would create unfunded state mandates. Legislation currently before the House would dramatically expand the Medicaid program and place over $35 billion in new liabilities on state budgets over the next ten years. In addition, these proposals would expand the federal government's role in administering Medicaid, which would severely handcuff states' ability to run their own programs and preempt state authority to manage Medicaid eligibility and benefits.

Over the last several weeks, governors have expressed concerns over these proposals. I would like to submit for the Record the following letters from the governors of California and Florida:

July 31, 2009.

Hon. Harry Reid,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John A. Boehner,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Reid, Senator McConnell, Madam Speaker and Mr.

Boehner: I appreciate your commitment and hard work toward

reforming the nation's health care system. I think we can all

agree that the current system is not working as it should,

and I have long supported a significant overhaul. Costs

continue to explode, while tens of millions remain uninsured

or underinsured. Many families are one illness away from

financial ruin--even if they do have insurance.

We have the greatest medical technology in the world at our

fingertips, yet Americans' health status lags behind many

countries that spend less than half what we do per capita.

Any successful health care reform proposal must be

comprehensive and built around the core principles of cost

containment and affordability; prevention, wellness and

health quality; and coverage for all.

Cost Containment and Affordability

Cost containment and affordability are essential not only

for families, individuals and businesses, but also for state

governments. Congress is proposing significant expansions of

Medicaid to help reduce the number of uninsured and to

increase provider reimbursement.

Today, California administers one of the most efficient

Medicaid programs in the country, and still the state cannot

afford its Medicaid program as currently structured and

governed by federal rules and regulations. The House

originally proposed fully funding the expansion with federal

dollars, but due to cost concerns, members decided to shift a

portion of these expansion costs to states. I will be clear

on this particular proposal: if Congress thinks the Medicaid

expansion is too expensive for the federal government, it is

absolutely unaffordable for states. Proposals in the Senate

envision passing on more than $8 billion in new costs to

California annually--crowding out other priority or

constitutionally required state spending and presenting a

false choice for all of us. I cannot and will not support

federal health care reform proposals that impose billions of

dollars in new costs on California each year.

The inclusion of maintenance of effort restrictions on

existing state Medicaid programs only compounds any cost

shift to states. We simply cannot be locked into a cost

structure that is unsustainable. Governors have three primary

ways to control Medicaid costs: they can adjust eligibility,

benefits and/or reimbursement rates. Maintenance of effort

requirements linked to existing Medicaid eligibility

standards and procedures will effectively force state

legislatures into autopilot spending and lead to chronic

budget shortfalls.

The federal government must help states reduce their

Medicaid financing burden, not increase it. A major factor

contributing to Medicaid's fiscal instability, before any

proposed expansion, is that the program effectively remains

the sole source of financing for long-term care services.

Therefore, I am encouraged by congressional proposals that

create new financing models for long-term care services.

Proposals that expand the availability and affordability of

long-term care insurance are steps in the right direction,

but they must be implemented in a fiscally sustainable way.

More fundamentally, however, the federal government must take

full responsibility for financing and coordinating the care

of the dually eligible in order to appreciably reduce the

cost trend for this group. This realignment of

responsibilities is absolutely essential to controlling costs

for this population, while ensuring that state governments

will be better positioned to fill in any gaps that will

undoubtedly arise from federal health care reform efforts. I

also encourage Congress to incorporate other strategies to

help stabilize Medicaid costs for states.

Delaying the scheduled phase-out of Medicaid managed care

provider taxes pending enactment of new Medicaid rates,

reimbursement for Medicaid claims owed to states associated

with the federal government's improper classification of

certain permanent disability cases, and federal support for

legal immigrant Medicaid costs are examples of federal

efforts that could provide more stability to state Medicaid

programs. Moreover, given the fiscal crisis that many states,

including California, are experiencing, I strongly urge

Congress to extend the temporary increase in the federal

matching ratio to preserve the ability of state Medicaid

programs to continue to provide essential services to low-

income residents pending full implementation of national

health reform.

Prevention, Wellness and Health Quality Prevention

Wellness and health promotion, along with chronic disease

management, can help to lower the cost curve over the long

run and improve health outcomes in the near term. This was

one of the cornerstone pieces of my health care reform

proposal in California, and I continue to believe it should

be a key piece of the federal efforts. Prevention, wellness

and chronic disease management programs should include both

the individual and wider population levels.

At the individual level, proposals to provide refunds or

other incentives to Medicare, Medicaid and private plan

enrollees who successfully complete behavior modification

programs, such as smoking cessation or weight loss, are

critical reforms. To ensure they are widely used, individual

prevention and wellness benefits should not be subject to

beneficiary cost sharing.

Because individuals' behaviors are influenced by their

environments, health reform must place a high priority on

promoting healthy communities that make it easier for people

to make healthy choices. California has demonstrated through

its nationally recognized tobacco control efforts that

population-based strategies can be effective and dramatically

change the way the people think and act about unhealthy

behaviors, such as tobacco use. A similar model, community

transformation grants, has been advanced in the Senate

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pension

legislation, and it should be included to support policy,

environmental, programmatic and infrastructure changes that

address chronic disease risk factors, promote healthy living

and decrease health disparities.

Quality improvement measures are also critical to health

reform. The House proposal for a Center for Quality

Improvement to improve patient safety, reduce healthcare-

associated infections and improve patient outcomes and

satisfaction is a positive step. Coordinated chronic disease

management is necessary to improve outcomes for chronically

ill people.

Systematic use of health information technology and health

information exchange, including access for public health

agencies, is vital to providing the necessary tools to

measure the success of quality improvement efforts. Finally,

investments in core public health infrastructure can be

facilitated through the creation of the proposed Prevention

and Wellness Trust.

Coverage for All

Coverage for all is also an essential element of health

care reform and I believe an enforceable and effective

individual mandate, combined with guaranteed issuance of

insurance, is the best way to accomplish this goal. The

individual mandate must provide effective incentives to help

prevent adverse selection that could occur if the mandate is

too weak. Creating transparent and user-friendly health

insurance exchanges to help consumers compare insurance

options will also help facilitate participation. States

should maintain a strong role in regulating the insurance

market and have the ability to maintain and operate their own

exchanges, with the understanding that some national

standards will need to be established. California has a long

history of protecting consumers through our two separate

insurance regulators, one covering health maintenance

organizations and the other monitoring all other insurance

products. Maintaining a strong regulatory role at the state

level is in the best interest of consumers, and I urge

Congress to maintain this longstanding and effective

relationship as you design these new market structures.

I hope our experience in California working toward

comprehensive health care reform has informed the debate in

Washington. There will be many short-term triumphs and

seemingly insurmountable roadblocks for Congress and the

nation on the road to comprehensive health care reform. We

must all remain focused on the goal of fixing our health care

system and remember that we all have something to gain from

the reforms, and we all have a shared responsibility to

achieve them. I look forward to working with you as you move

forward on this desperately needed legislation.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger,

Governor, California.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express concerns regarding health reform proposals which would create unfunded state mandates. Legislation currently before the House would dramatically expand the Medicaid program and place over $35 billion in new liabilities on state budgets over the next ten years. In addition, these proposals would expand the federal government's role in administering Medicaid, which would severely handcuff states' ability to run their own programs and preempt state authority to manage Medicaid eligibility and benefits.

Over the last several weeks, governors have expressed concerns over these proposals. I would like to submit for the record the following letters from the governors of Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana and Minnesota:

September 15, 2009.

Hon. Mike Crapo,

U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Crapo: Idaho has a proud history of fiscal

responsibility, ensuring that our State government serves its

proper role for the people of Idaho while staying within

their financial means. As the United States Congress attempts

to address the healthcare challenges facing our nation, it is

important that we remain diligent in assessing the

implications of our decisions, always ensuring that we take

seriously our duty to safeguard the financial resources of

the American public, and allocating taxpayer money in an

efficient and effective manner.

As revised healthcare proposals continue appearing in

Congress, the full consequences of these reforms remain

unknown and we are uncertain of the possible negative impacts

on local businesses, families and senior citizens. However,

it is clear that these sweeping proposals would irresponsibly

shift a substantial and unmanageable financial burden to the

states. Like Idaho, many states already are functioning under

severely limited and strained budgets. It is certain that the

burden of these reforms would be placed upon the shoulders of

hardworking Americans.

The costs associated with these proposed reforms are

astounding. Conservative estimates from the Idaho Division of

Medicaid indicate that the bill's Medicaid eligibility

proposal would increase our state share of Medicaid and the

federal matching rate effective would drop in the middle of

fiscal year 2011, leaving Idaho struggling to fill the void.

Idaho's tax base could not support this large unfunded

mandate without resorting to tax increases, including a

possible increase in Idaho's already 6-percent sales tax--an

irresponsible action which would do serious harm to Idaho

taxpayers. The proposed reforms would impose an undue burden

on citizens already struggling in this difficult economy.

It has been estimated that combined federal-state Medicaid

costs in Idaho could increase by $501 million. In addition,

raising the Medicaid reimbursement rate to 110 percent of the

Medicare reimbursement rate would increase total federal-

state costs $50 million more.

This proposed change in the federal reimbursement rate

likely would reduce the number of plans that are offered to

persons on Medicare, resulting in increased premiums and

reduced services and access to service providers. Seniors in

rural Idaho already have trouble finding providers who accept

Medicare patients.

Should these changes be approved, that trend could continue

statewide--severely limiting access to medical care for some

of Idaho's most vulnerable residents. The people of Idaho

have entrusted us with a responsibility to use our government

resources wisely and efficiently. Imposing costly federal

mandates that cannot be sustained in the long run is an

irresponsible violation of this public trust. Quite simply,

these proposals are financially irresponsible and would not

adequately address the needs of senior citizens and other

vulnerable groups.

I encourage you to join me in opposing current health care

reform proposals. By ending these nonsensical debates and

stopping the proposed reforms, we can move forward in a more

positive, measured and reasonable direction, using common

sense to find a workable healthcare solution that benefits

all Americans.

As Always--Idaho ``Esto Perpetua'',

C.L. ``Butch'' Otter,

Governor, Idaho.