Floor Statements

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, my amendment would prevent funding of the U.S. Army Corps' beach replenishment program and projects. Authorized at $91 million for 2011, up almost a billion dollars over the next decade, the Army Corps plans to replenish sand at certain beaches to slow the course of erosion.

First and foremost, this is not a proper constitutional function for the Federal Government. Each beach community, along with their local government, should decide how they will best approach erosion. As the primary beneficiaries, they can best decide their needs and financial priorities.

The top-down system currently employed comes from a flawed mindset, a mindset that we must address if we hope to escape our spending crisis, a mindset that the Federal Government does everything for everybody. This is simply Federal spending that we cannot afford and Federal control that we don't need.

I ask that my colleagues support my amendment to defund this now and work with me to strip this and other similar projects from future budgets as well.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I love beaches at Tybee Island, and my friend from Florida's beaches, as well as my friend from Washington's beaches, as well as my friend from Oregon's beaches. In these hard economic times, I think it's just absolutely incredible that we are spending this kind of money, almost a billion dollars over the next 10 years, just for beach replenishment.

I yield 1 minute to my friend from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I thank the gentleman for weighing in on this. Certainly the science is questionable, as a lot of science is questionable on the policy that we generate; but it's also fiscally irresponsible I think to spend this kind of money. And so I hope that my colleagues will support this commonsense, fiscally responsible amendment and vote for my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, in the United Nations over and over again we see enemies of America, enemies of our freedom, voting against us over and over again. We see an organization there that's just rife with fraud, corruption, with a tremendous amount of problems. We see the U.N. bring people over here who have diplomatic immunity who have been caught in the business of spying against America, want to harm us. We see in the U.N. an organization that in their Human Rights Commission is populated by countries that are basically run by terrorist organizations.

Mr. Chairman, it's time to take a solid stand against our supporting this kind of organization by giving our taxpayers' hard earned money and taxpayers' dollars to an organization that I believe is not in the best interests of America.

Mr. Chairman, I personally would like to see us get out of the U.N. and get the U.N. out of the U.S., but we cannot do that today. But what we can do is in this continuing resolution we can deny taxpayer dollars being wasted on this organization.

And so I have the amendment to stop the United States from paying dues to the United Nations. I think it's in our best interests to do so. I think it's in our best interests to the taxpayers of America to prevent wasting their hard-earned taxpayer dollars on funding the U.N. through our dues to the U.N. So I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to defund the U.N.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Chairman, I am not an isolationist, but the U.N. has been an abysmal failure. We need to stop throwing our money down a rat hole. It's not dependent on us to keep the world safe. In fact, we, with our allies all across this globe, can do what's necessary far more efficiently without the wasting of American taxpayer dollars in trying to foster democracy, to foster human rights, to foster women's rights all across the world stage.

Continuing to pour money into the U.N. is not going to do anything except for keep a group of people who are in power there, who go against us as we try to stand firm for Israel, as we try to stand firm for world peace and democracy. Our efforts are thwarted through the U.N. And, in fact, they want to take the U.N. governance and apply it to every American citizen.

This is not in our best interest. It's a waste of taxpayers' dollars. It was totally ineffective, as my good friend from Georgia has said, in Rwanda and many other cases. It's time for us to stop funding this inefficient organization that is not in our best interest.

I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the chairman.

This is a half-baked idea. The chairman and I have written NOAA over and over again trying to get information. It has not come before our Science Committee. It has not been vetted. It may be a good idea; it may not be.

I ask that Members of this body vote ``yes'' so that the Science, Space, and Technology Committee can look at this issue, can talk to NOAA, can find out all about it. It's not going to prevent people from getting climate information or weather information. We should not launch out into something when we don't know what the consequences, or even what may be bad consequences, of this might be.

So we need to support this amendment. Please vote ``yes'' so that the

Science Committee can come and totally vet it, find out what NOAA's doing, as we should. We have the jurisdiction in the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, so it's absolutely important for us to do this without NOAA just launching off on its own.

It has been said by many that, when one goes to heaven or hell, you have to fly through the Atlanta Airport.

Just yesterday, I was talking to a contractor who is involved in doing the expansion of the Atlanta Airport, of the Hartsfield-Jackson Airport. We were talking about his business and what was going on, and he was complaining to me about the construction costs and the increase that is mandated by Davis-Bacon.

The previous speaker said that it doesn't raise the costs, but that's totally false.

In fact, this contractor told me just yesterday that the increased cost to the people of Atlanta, Georgia, and to the State of Georgia is 40 percent above what it would be if we did not have Davis-Bacon just leering over their heads like a dagger, causing them to have to pay a higher amount of money.

While we are here in tough economic times, we need to look at what the Federal Government is doing to try to increase the costs for our children and our grandchildren so that they have to pay it in the future. Davis-Bacon is one of those laws, antiquated laws, that does cost today's taxpayers a tremendous amount of money, but it's going to cost our children and our grandchildren their future.

The reason it does that is we're spending money we don't have. Davis- Bacon is a culprit in causing the debt of this country, the debt of Atlanta, Georgia, and the debt of the State of Georgia to go higher.

It is time to put Davis-Bacon to rest. It has outlived its usefulness, and we have to vote to stop the spending. Vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to enter into a colloquy with my friend and distinguished chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government. I would like to thank you, Madam Chairman, as well as Chairman Rogers and your respective staffs, for all your hard work. I appreciate your willingness to work with me and my staff on this issue.

I planned on offering my amendment, No. 264, that would have prevented any funding in this act to be used for vacant Federal properties. However it's drafted, this language would have had serious unintended consequences. We see those sorts of things happen around here a lot.

I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the intent behind my amendment and how it highlights an increasingly larger problem. According to a Senate report on questionable spending, roughly $25 billion is spent annually to maintain vacant or unused Federal properties. My goal is to close off that spigot of Federal waste. Unfortunately, my amendment as drafted would have inadvertently prevented basic security or the ability to respond to an emergency situation such as a broken pipe or others.

That being said, even with the current funds, we have numerous vacant Federal buildings crumbling all across our Nation. The Veterans Administration alone spends $170 million a year, often on buildings that they would rather sell, were Congress not standing in the way. In fact, a good example is those at the Charlie Norwood VA Center in Augusta, Georgia, that I represent.

If we intend to tackle other difficult problems, we cannot continue to punt on the simple ones. It is outrageous that hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted on unused buildings sitting for over a decade waiting for renovation funding. We need to sell what isn't absolutely necessary and in the meantime stop burning dollars on the maintenance of buildings going to waste.

The problem with these buildings is symbolic of the Federal Government as a whole; so large and bloated that some are lost in limbo, decaying and sapping valuable resources. We have redundant agencies and regulations lost in the bloat, just like these buildings. Again, if we hope to make headway on the critical budget issues that we face as a Nation, we must begin with these smaller commonsense changes.

I hope that my colleagues will allow me to work on this issue with them during this process and the upcoming 2012 appropriations cycle. And I just request from the chairman, I hope that you will work with me. We've got many vacant unused Federal properties all over this country that we need to stop funding. We need to sell these and reduce the debt by the funds that we do.

So I'd like to ask the chairman of the subcommittee if she'll be eager to work with me on this issue.

Thank you, chairman. I appreciate your willingness to work with me.

Amendment No. 189 Offered by Ms. Woolsey

Make no mistake about it. This is about abortion.

Just prior to coming to the floor tonight, before this debate ever began, I was answering an email I got from a friend of mine in Atlanta. And he said, stop public funding of abortion. I was talking to him on the phone when I saw Mr. Pence come down here and start this debate. And he was telling me about his sister-in-law that had an abortion about 30 years ago. She has nightmares. She has visions of these two babies that she aborted.

I'm a medical doctor. I've performed all these health services that my Democratic colleagues keep talking about, and I have for years. I like women. I'm married to one. I have two daughters. I have thousands of patients that I've seen over the years, and I've done pap smears and breast examinations and sexually transmitted disease tests and all those health care services that my Democrat colleagues keep talking about. This is not about that.

We keep hearing about the Hyde amendment. And certainly the Hyde amendment is in place. But make no mistake about this. What Planned Parenthood does is the proverbial shell game, shifting funds so taxpayer dollars still go to an organization that provides abortion, and the more we pour money to this organization, the more abortions they're going to try to promote and provide. And, in fact, Planned Parenthood was established on the philosophy of eugenics. And they're still carrying out that philosophy. There are more black babies killed through abortion today proportionally than there are white babies or any other colored babies.

And we've also seen tapes where Planned Parenthood operatives have even promoted that type thing.

I move to strike the last word.

So this is all about preventing abortion. I know my Democrat colleagues are well-meaning. They all say the same talking points, and I believe in the depths of my heart that you all really believe what the Democratic colleagues say. And I know they're well-meaning.

But the American people demand better. My patients demand better. The taxpayers, your taxpayers, Democratic colleagues, demand better.

This is about abortion. Planned Parenthood is not going to shut down if the Pence amendment is passed and this continuing resolution is signed into law. Planned Parenthood won't go away. They can continue to supply the services that they get from other financial sources. They can continue to provide abortions. So it's not going to even stop that.

I believe very firmly in my heart that we must stop abortions because these are babies. I introduced H.R. 212, which is the Sanctity of Human Life Act that defines life beginning at fertilization, and I know, as a medical doctor, that's when my life began, that's when all of our lives began.

Those babies deserve the right of personhood. They deserve the right to live. So this debate is about life. It's about giving children the right to grow up and become functioning citizens in our society. And it's about taxpayers' funds continuing to support an organization, the largest provider of abortions in the world, to continue that process of killing babies. So we must take the taxpayer funds away.

It's not going to stop Planned Parenthood from doing Pap smears, breast examinations, STD exams, all those things that my Democrat colleagues keep talking about. It's not going to stop that.

What it will do is just take taxpayers dollars out of the equation. Planned Parenthood can no longer do the cost shifting, use taxpayer dollars for other purposes besides the stated purpose of abortion. And hopefully, they won't continue to provide abortions with taxpayer dollars. It's not fair to taxpayers. It's not fair to women. It's not fair to my patients. It's not fair to even the Planned Parenthood patients that are not seeking abortions.

I encourage my colleagues, let's have some sanity here. Let's have some civility here. Let's think about what really this is all about. It's about abortion, not providing health services to

underprivileged women. I have provided those services. I have given away hundreds of thousands of dollars of my services over an almost four-decade career practicing family medicine.

I care for my patients. I want them to have the services that they need. I have provided those services. But this is about abortion. Let's stop the funding of Planned Parenthood by taxpayer dollars. Let them do their business until we outlaw abortion. Hopefully, we can, because it's killing babies.

You see, I don't believe that God can continue to bless America while we're killing 4,000 babies every day. They are babies. They are human beings. We treat green turtle eggs better than we treat human being babies in the womb. We've got to stop it.

That's the reason I support the Pence amendment. That's the reason I hope all my colleagues and the American public will demand a stopping of the public funding of abortions through Planned Parenthood by supporting the Pence amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman from Illinois' amendment which would strike funding for ARPA-E within the Department of Energy.

There is little disagreement in Congress on the importance of fundamental advances in energy technologies to America's future economic and national security. It is a priority that we all share. The challenge lies in how best to structure the Federal Government's involvement in energy research and development to maximize use of limited resources.

Republican Members on the Committee on Science, Space and Technology have had serious reservations regarding the appropriateness of ARPA-E since it was first debated in the 110th Congress. A primary concern was that ARPA-E would focus on late-stage technology development activities that the private sector was already addressing, and we've seen that happen.

While language was incorporated into ARPA-E's authorizing statute directing the agency to only support ``technological advances in areas that industry by itself is not likely to undertake because of technical and financial uncertainty,'' there are numerous instances of ARPA-E awards that indicate the agency is not following these guidelines, instead providing funding to companies that are already actively pursuing development of the technology area for which they are requesting funding. This is a serious issue--taxpayer funding for R&D should only go toward areas that are too risky for private investment.

Due to these concerns, Mr. Chairman, I along with Chairman Hall, chairman of the Science, Space and Technology Committee, have requested that the Government Accountability Office undertake a study to review and report on the extent to which this problem is occurring with respect to other awards. At least until this study is completed and Congress has had an opportunity to consider its findings, ARPA-E should not receive additional taxpayer money, especially in this current environment of fiscal disaster that we're headed towards.

I urge support for the gentlelady's amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Broun of Georgia

Amendment No. 246: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Broun of Georgia

Amendment No. 263: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Broun of Georgia

Amendment No. 264: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduced the Retirement Savings Access Act of 2011. This legislation would allow financially struggling Americans access to their retirement dollars without penalty.

As the economic downturn continues, most Americans who have fallen on hard times are not looking for the Federal Government to bail them out. Instead, they are simply asking for the government to get off their backs.

Currently, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) levies a 10% penalty on all early withdrawals from Investment Retirement Accounts (IRAs), meaning money that is taken out of an account before a beneficiary turns 59\1/2\ years old. This provision encourages saving for retirement and planning for the future, but it is a menacing tax to levy on people who are in dire financial straits, such as the unemployed.

This legislation would exempt individuals who have already exhausted the standard 26 weeks of unemployment benefits from the tax penalty they would otherwise normally incur for a withdrawal from their retirement accounts before they reach 59\1/2\ years of age.

We have bailed out Wall Street financial institutions and propped up the ailing automotive sector. But it is our constituents who are hurting the most, and this legislation would help them access their own money without a government penalty for doing so.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduced the Jumpstarting Our Business Sector Act of 2011 (JOBS Act). This legislation permanently eliminates capital gains and dividends taxes, as well as the corporate tax rate. Additionally, it allows for 100 percent of business expensing for 2012.

As our Nation's unemployment continues to hover around 10 percent and the federal ``stimulus'' bill passed last Congress did little to improve our economy, it is time that Congress does what should have been done in the first place: help small businesses create jobs.

Abolishing capital gains and dividend taxes would be a much more effective means of stimulating the economy than more government spending. The elimination of these taxes would not only provide a short-term ``stimulus,'' but they would encourage new long-term investment and growth.

By the end of 2011, the United States will have the highest corporate tax rate of the 34 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Eliminating the corporate tax rate will immediately increase the competitiveness of our economy, attract more investment, and lead to job creation.

In addition, extending 100 percent of business expensing for 2012 will provide an incentive for businesses to invest more money back into the business, setting the stage for expansion and the creation of new jobs.

Small businesses are the engine of our economy and create the vast majority of new jobs in this country. And yet, nothing that the Federal Government has done so far to address our economic crisis has been directed towards helping our business community.

We have seen the effects of unchecked and unwarranted Federal Government spending on our economy and employment. Now is the time to once again put our trust in the small businesses and entrepreneurs and to get the Federal Government off their backs and out of their way. I believe the JOBS Act will be a positive step towards that goal.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the greatest moral issue we face as a Nation is the killing of 4,000 unborn children every single day through abortion. Mr. Speaker, God cannot continue to bless

America while we are killing these children. They're children. They're babies. They're human beings.

When I came to Congress in 2007, the very first bill I introduced was my Sanctity of Human Life Act. I am a medical doctor. I know without any question that life begins when the spermatozoa, the sperm cell, enters the cell wall of the oocyte, the egg, and produces a one-celled human being called a zygote. That zygote is totally different from its mom. It has every function, every bit of genetic makeup to be a grown human being if we just nurture it and allow it to grow and allow it to live.

I have been involved with a crisis pregnancy center in Athens, Georgia. Not long ago, we had a young lady who was considering abortion. She came there, and she had an ultrasound. She was about 10 or 12 weeks along. I don't recall exactly, but it was early on in her pregnancy. She had just found out a few weeks before that she had missed her period, so she came for a pregnancy test.

When she saw that ultrasound, her exclamation was, ``That's a baby.''

That's what we see over and over again with these expectant moms when they see those ultrasounds. That's the reason she understood it was a baby. It is a baby. It is a human being. There is no greater freedom, no greater liberty, than to live. There is no greater protection that we as a government can give to protect human beings all the way from the time of fertilization until they have natural deaths.

You see, Mr. Speaker, God creates those children. We do not have the moral authority to take their lives. We've got to protect their lives. In a free society, where liberty is held in the highest esteem by every individual in this country--whether Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative--the right to life is a fundamental form of liberty. We have to protect life. That is the reason the first bill I introduce in every single Congress will continue to be my Sanctity of Human Life Act.

My friend and fellow Member from California, Duncan Hunter, Junior, has reintroduced his dad's bill, Duncan Hunter, Senior. Their bill is called Life at Conception Act. I am a cosponsor of their bill, as Duncan Hunter, I, and now Duncan Hunter, II, are of my bill. We have to stop this travesty, this awful, horrendous attack, moral attack, upon our basic rights as human beings--and that is the right to life.

Mr. Speaker, if we cannot protect life, then we cannot protect any liberty. We cannot protect any freedom that our Founding Fathers created the Constitution to protect--those God-given rights.

We have had many of our colleagues tonight speak from the preamble that Thomas Jefferson penned in 1776, the preamble of the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson is considered one of the least religious of our Founding Fathers, but he believed in life. That's the reason he penned it there. He believed in God. We're not taught that in school anymore, but that's factual.

You see, even if you don't believe in God, from a scientific perspective, there is only one place in a person's life where you can draw the line between no life being there and life and human being and personhood being established, and that's at the time of fertilization.

Roe vs. Wade, in the decision, was predicated on there being no legislative definition of the beginning of life. That's the reason it is absolutely critical that we define life as beginning at fertilization--to protect those one-celled human beings.

It is absolutely critical that every person in this country who loves liberty and who wants to protect life contacts their Congressmen, contacts their Senators and says, We have to protect life. We have to protect all our God-given freedoms, particularly life. ``Contact your Senators,'' is what I tell my constituents.

What I tell people all over this country is ``Contact your Senator. Contact your Congressman.'' Tell him to support the Sanctity of Human Life Act, my bill, or Duncan Hunter's bill, the Life at Conception Act. Join in this fight because there is no greater moral issue that this country faces. If we want God's blessings upon America, we have to protect these most vulnerable of human beings--the unborn children.

In Proverbs, God says, Speak up for the speechless in the cause of those appointed to die. That's what we are here tonight to do is to speak up for those speechless, those appointed to die by abortion.

We have got to end abortion. We don't need a constitutional amendment. We need a legislative definition: the beginning of life to occur at fertilization. Once we have that placed into law, we will stop this blight upon our society, this dark era in the history of this Nation that began in 1973 with this awful decision of the Supreme Court called Roe vs. Wade. We have to protect life. We have to protect liberty. We have to protect every single human being's God-given rights.

Protecting life is important--from fertilization all the way to natural death--and I promise that I will continue with every bit of my being, and many other of our colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, will continue to fight for life.

So, Mr. Speaker, if we want God's blessings upon America to continue, we have to end this blight upon America.

We have to define life beginning at fertilization and protect life for these unborn children.

Thank you, Mr. Smith. And I want to personally thank you for your tireless fight in this issue because you've been a stalwart here in this House for many, many years, and I greatly personally appreciate the great work you've done for years and years in protecting life. So thank you and God bless you. And we have to get the killing of these unborn children stopped so God can continue to bless America.

Thank you, Mr. Smith.

Thank you, Dr. Gingrey. I really appreciate your doing this Special Order tonight, and I look forward to this opportunity. We had great fun in the last Congress talking about how bad ObamaCare is, and I'm excited that today the Congress, the U.S. House of Representatives, voted to repeal it.

I was on Neil Cavuto this evening, and Neil Cavuto played some tapes or speeches of our Democratic colleagues and said we've heard over and over again that the Republicans don't have anything to offer. We heard last Congress that the Republicans are the Party of No. Well we are the Party of K-n-o-w because we know how to lower the cost of health care. We know how to provide good quality health care at the lowest price. And we know how to create jobs and create a stronger economy. And those are the things that we're going to be doing in this Congress with the Republican majority. So I'm excited.

But where do we go from here? Well, yesterday I introduced my bill, one of two that I had in the last Congress. I reintroduced one yesterday. The new number is H.R. 299. And what it would do is do five things. Number one is it would repeal ObamaCare if it is passed into law; number two, it would allow people to buy health insurance across State lines, which is a constitutional thing. Actually, we should under the commerce clause expand commerce. That's what the original intent of the commerce clause is. So that's what my bill would do.

Thirdly, it will allow anybody in this country, businesses, individuals to join associations so that they could join a huge pool, and this would mean that they would have multiple insurance products that they could buy at a much lower cost than they're paying today.

The fourth thing it would do is it would stimulate States to set up high-risk pools. Many States have already done that very successfully. And the fifth thing is it would allow everybody to deduct 100 percent of their health care costs off their income taxes, which would markedly change the dynamics of health care financing. I introduced that last time. I introduced it yesterday. My other bill, the Patient Option Act, it was H.R. 3889 in the last Congress, we will be reintroducing that.

But our colleague from Georgia, Dr. Tom Price, who at the time was the RSC chairman, introduced the RSC bill, H.R. 3400 in the last Congress, which was the RSC's bill to reform health care financing. We've had multiple bills introduced. Why has nobody heard about these things? Well, because Nancy Pelosi has operated in a very dictatorial manner. She didn't want our bills to ever see the light of day and neither did the mainstream media. But I think you're going to see these bills come forward.

We need to repeal and replace ObamaCare. ObamaCare itself is going to destroy jobs. It's going to destroy budgets. It's going to destroy the quality of health care. It's going to destroy jobs. We just had our friend, our Democratic colleague Keith Ellison from Minnesota, just here talking about how repealing it would hurt small businesses. Well, the simple truth is that keeping ObamaCare is going to hurt small businesses. I have talked to a lady, a small employer, she has right now, today, eight employees. She desperately needs to hire some more, but she's not going to until we repeal ObamaCare because of the financial strain it will put on her business. It's going to break the budgets of every State in this country with the increased Medicaid.

We've got to repeal ObamaCare. We've got to replace it with something else that reduces the cost, not just slows the cost, but reduces the cost of every health care service and product in this country. And we can do that. My bill would do that. Other bills will do that.

And, Dr. Gingrey, we're going to repeal and replace ObamaCare. We're going to put it out for the American people to see so that they know that the Republican Party is the party of K-n-o-w. We know how to solve these problems.

The President told us and the American people if anybody has any other idea besides ObamaCare, his door is always open. I know I knocked on his door and nobody was home. They didn't answer the door as they have for other members of our caucus.

We hear from our Democratic colleagues that the budget deficit is going to be increased by repealing ObamaCare, but that is just simply not true. The Democrats have used some faulty accounting techniques, deceptive accounting techniques, to show that. The actual cost if we keep ObamaCare over the next 10 years, it is going to increase the deficit by over $700 billion. If we keep it. We cannot afford it. States cannot afford it. They are already suffering. My home State of Georgia has a $2 billion deficit, and the increase of Medicaid premiums that will be forced on States all over this country, they cannot afford to continue to do that.

We can lower the cost of health care. We can maintain good quality health care that is patient centered so patients can make their own decisions with their doctor. That is exactly the kind of health care system that we are going to bring forth to this House. We are going to repeal ObamaCare and we are going to continue to fight if it takes all of the way through the 2012 elections so that we get, hopefully, a President who will sign a repeal and replace bill. And then we will get through the Senate. So we will continue to fight for that.

I yield back to Dr. Gingrey.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, January 20, 2011, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am honored to introduce a bill that repeals the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the accompanying Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, and replaces it with four specific health care reform policies which will improve the challenges facing our country's health care financing.

Americans desire true health care reform that lowers premium costs, meets their medical needs regardless of what job they currently have or which state they live in, strengthens the doctor-patient relationship, and provides an affordable approach for medical insurance coverage for those uninsured or with pre-existing medical conditions. Many Members in Congress have expressed support for the ideas listed above and for the following specific solutions to these issues:

(1) Individuals should be afforded the same tax advantages that businesses have by being able to deduct their 100 percent of all of their health care expenses from their taxes, including insurance.

(2) Strengthen and expand new avenues for affordable health care for sick Americans through high-risk pools.

(3) Expand choice and competition by allowing consumers to shop for health insurance across state lines.

(4) Create association health plans, which would allow small businesses and other entities to form pools that will increase availability and allow their sheer size to negotiate lower costs for their employees or members.

While it's understood that these concepts do not make up a complete solution to our nation's health care financing problems, they would be a strong foundation to start to address the inequities inherent in the health care financing system, while still allowing for future additional reforms.