Floor Statements

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 5 o'clock and 36 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, October 22, 2009, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Chris Lee from New York, for yielding me some time.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to come before you today to speak in favor of this bipartisan, commonsense bill which will help so many of our small businesses in our country. In my opinion, the manner in which this legislation was crafted, with input from both sides of the aisle, with the FTC and with the various sectors that would be adversely affected if we had not acted, is the model for how this House can work to actually solve the problems facing our country.

I wish very ardently that we could get together, Republicans and Democrats alike, and find some commonsense solutions to the health care financing in this country the same way that my friend, Mr. Adler, and the rest of the Democratic colleagues and those of us on our side came together on this. And I think that's the way that this House ought to operate.

I congratulate Mr. Adler for what he has done and other colleagues on both sides for bringing forth this commonsense legislation. I would personally like to thank my colleagues, Mr. Adler and Dr. Simpson, for their tireless efforts as we worked to put this very effective, commonsense legislation together. I also want to thank the committee staff that helped in this process.

This legislation is a very specific exemption without which it would cost so many small businesses thousands of dollars to unnecessarily implement. But it also allows the FTC the ability to exempt other businesses that aren't one of the three industries outlined in this bill. And that just makes sense, also.

When enacted, H.R. 3763 will truly reflect the original intent of the FACT Act and codify an exemption for health care providers, accounting firms and law firms that were never meant to be wrapped in this overarching Red Flag legislation.

So, again, I would like to thank Mr. Adler, Mr. Lee and Dr. Simpson and each and every person who helped bring this legislation to fruition. This is the way we ought to operate. And I think it is just a great day for this Congress as we, as Democrats and Republicans, came together on this commonsense legislation.

Madam Speaker, I practiced medicine, general medicine, in the State of Georgia for almost four decades. The American people need to understand if the House bill or the Senate bill is passed into law, my patients and physicians like me all across this Nation are not going to be able to give the kind of health care to their patients that they are today.

Medicare patients are going to lose the quality of care that they are getting today. Tens of thousands of people are going to lose their private insurance. The cost is going to go up for everybody in this country.

The quality of care is going to go down. It's going to be too costly. We are going to be all forced on the government bureaucrat-run health care system, and the American people need to know that, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove Congressman Sam Johnson of Texas as a cosponsor of H.R. 3612.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues and express my deepest appreciation for a great accomplishment in community service in my district.

On Saturday, October 17, 2009, the Madison County Rotary Club will be building their four-hundredth handicap-accessible ramp. As a Rotarian myself, I know that service projects like this allow thousands of disabled Americans to live more independent lives each and every day.

Since 1990, Madison County Rotarians have completed numerous service projects to benefit their community. The club consists of more than 60 members from very diverse professional backgrounds, and over the past 13 years, they have collectively built enough ramps to stretch over two miles if placed end to end.

These folks do not volunteer their time and resources to build these ramps for public recognition, nor do they profit from their work. In fact, they have given away over $600,000 worth of labor and supplies through their ramp-building effort. Instead, these wonderful folks see themselves as a part of something much bigger: an organization of 1.2 million members divided into over 33,000 clubs--all over the world.

Rotary International operates under the motto ``Service above Self.'' This service organization works all across the world to make people's lives better. It combats hunger, improves health and sanitation, provides education and job training, promotes peace, and is working to totally eradicate polio.

I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the Madison County Rotary Club, its dedicated members, and the goals that all Rotarians are striving to achieve. Their accomplishments make the world a better place every day, and they deserve our heartfelt thanks.

Counterterrorism officials have warned mass transit systems around the country to increase patrols after they discovered that a group of individuals within the United States were allegedly planning to detonate backpack bombs aboard New York City trains.

In the past month, we have once again been reminded that terrorists are still targeting U.S. mass transit systems and other major landmarks. We have to continue to be proactive against those seeking to do us harm and minimize our vulnerabilities, especially vulnerabilities on U.S. soil.

I'd like to discuss one continuing threat that needs to be addressed. In 2002, 2003, and 2004, personnel from Iran, a designated state sponsor of terrorism, were caught photographing and videotaping the New York City subway and other popular landmarks.

I ask my colleagues and the American people to think about why Iranian personnel would photograph and videotape the New York subway system and other popular sites. I'm referring to individuals from state sponsors of terrorism that are here with diplomatic immunity, supposedly in the United States for official business at the United Nations.

Let me be clear. Personnel from a state sponsor of terrorism have been caught on numerous occasions spying. What do you think they intended to do with that information, the videotapes and the photos? These are not our friends. A few, but not all, of these individuals were expelled by the U.S. Department of State. Between 2004 and 2009, the State Department issued over 8,600 visas to delegates and representatives from countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism.

Through the 1947 United Nations Headquarters Act, the United States is required to allow diplomats and personnel into the United States for official business at the United Nations headquarters complex in New York City, including personnel from countries who otherwise would be ineligible for U.S. visas.

We can't afford to take these threats lightly. The presence of hundreds of individuals with diplomatic immunity from countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism is an overwhelming and expensive task for U.S. counterterrorism and counterintelligence resources.

Michelle Van Cleave, the U.S. National Counterintelligence Executive from 2003 to 2006, put it well when she said, ``While the FBI--by far, America's premier counterintelligence agency--is assigned responsibility for countering all foreign intelligence operations in the United States, it lacks the manpower, the resources, the training, and probably the public support to venture into the complex grounds of analyzing the vast foreign presence in the country to identify the intelligence operations embedded therein.'' . . . ``The counterintelligence problem is not one of sheer numbers, though by any measure there are far more intelligence operatives in the United States than we have personnel to address them. The larger and more compelling issue is the scope of their activities. Historically, embassies and other diplomatic establishments within the United States have served as a hub for foreign intelligence activities because of the operational security that they afford.''

Why are we helping state sponsors of terrorism gather intelligence information within the United States? When and where will we draw the line?

If we can't stop these people from coming to the United States, the least we can do is limit their access to our country by dramatically limiting the radius that personnel from state sponsors of terrorism are permitted to travel.

Congressman Dan Boren and I have introduced H.R. 3611, the LIMITS Act, Limiting the Intrusive Miles of International Terrorist Sponsors, which would limit personnel from state sponsors of terrorism to a half- mile radius of the U.N. complex. A half mile is more than enough space for personnel from state sponsors of terrorism to obtain lodging, food, and other necessities, and will be an easier and more cost-effective use of U.S. counterterrorism and counterintelligence resources, as well as the New York Police Department.

The FBI's top two priorities are to: number one, protect the United States from a terrorist attack; and, number two, protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage.

When it comes to state sponsors of terrorism with diplomatic immunity in our country, it is past time to make the FBI's job a little easier. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the LIMITS Act and restrict access of State sponsors of terrorism on U.S. soil.

Dr. Gingrey, thank you so much for yielding to me. I, indeed, went down to the park where all these physicians were. I know Dr. Gingrey and our colleague Dr. Tom Price, also from Georgia, was at that same meeting with the physicians. This was a group of physicians from all over the country that are very concerned about ObamaCare, about the direction that they perceive that the Congress is going. They see H.R. 3200, the ObamaCare bill here in the U.S. House, as well as the bill that Max Baucus has over in the U.S. Senate, as being a tremendous attack on their ability to practice medicine, to be able to make the decisions along with their patients of how health care is delivered within their offices and how they can deliver surgery, prescriptions, and the tests and procedures that they need.

I think they're exactly right. Dr. Gingrey, I know you spoke with them before I did. But Mr. Speaker, when I was down there, I spoke to these physicians, and I told them that they and their patients around this country are what's going to stop this steamroller of socialized medicine that's going on here in the House of Representatives. I reminded them that if we can generate enough grassroots support all over this country to ask particularly the leadership here in the House and the Senate as well as the President to open up this process, to listen to all of the second opinions that Dr. Gingrey and others are putting forward.

I know you are going to talk a little while tonight about your health care bill of rights and the 10 Prescriptions for a Healthy America. I applaud you, Dr. Gingrey, for bringing this forward, but the only thing that's going to slow down this process of the Federal Government taking over the health care system is the ``We the People.'' The Constitution of the United States starts off with three very powerful words, ``We the People.'' Up here we're supposed to be representatives, not rulers, and we, the people, need to stand up and say, Whoa, this is an issue that is too important to rush through. We should not have any deadlines. The Speaker and the President have talked about trying to get a bill on his desk before Thanksgiving. This is too complex of an issue to rush it.

What we, as physicians here in Congress, are trying to do is to offer a second opinion. Actually, we've got many opinions that Republicans have introduced. Dr. Gingrey, you have been very instrumental in fostering the idea of health information technology, digitizing electronic medical records and that sort of thing, which would help save money. We have to find a way to lower the cost. In my private practice of general medicine, I couldn't afford to buy health information technology for my patients. We've got to lower the cost of that, but we have got to lower the cost of everything in health care.

The Republicans have many ideas. I, as well as you and the other people on our side, want to see us open the process so that all the ideas are put on the table, and unfortunately, neither the President nor Speaker Pelosi are allowing that to happen. The American people just need to stand up and say ``no'' to ObamaCare. Let's put these ideas all on the table. Let's discuss them, find ways to lower the cost of health care without creating a big Federal debt, which ObamaCare, H.R. 3200, will do. The President said it wouldn't, but that was not true. He also said that it would not give free health care to illegal aliens, and that is not true. A lot of things that he said that night were not true. In fact, the only person who said the truth that night in that speech was Joe Wilson, our dear colleague from South Carolina.

But the thing is, the American people are in charge. That's what I told the doctors, Mr. Speaker, when I was down there is that the physicians in this country and everybody who is concerned about where we're going in health care--and particularly the elderly--need to say no to this H.R. 3200, which is going to be disastrous for everybody. And let's open up the process, and in a bipartisan way, in a bicameral way use the House and the Senate together, let's find some commonsense market-based solutions that lower the costs for health care.

And in doing so, let the doctor-patient relationship dictate how health care decisions are made, not through some government bureaucrat, as in the House bill right now. The ObamaCare bill here in the House will put a government bureaucrat between a doctor and a patient. Let's find ways of lowering the cost of medicine in the drugstore. Let's find ways of doing the things that make sense economically without stealing our grandchildren's future. We can do that, and we can do that in a bipartisan way if the leader of this House and the leader of the Senate would just open it up and let us do so.

Dr. Gingrey, I applaud your effort, because you've been a leader, right on the forefront in this process of trying to offer second opinions. You've been here week after week, as well as many others. A lot of physicians in the House have been here on the floor week after week offering second opinions. Republicans are the party of K-N-O-W. We know how to solve the health care financing crisis here in America. We know how to solve the energy problems in America and make America energy independent without having this huge energy tax that the cap- and-trade--I call it the tax-and-cap bill--will put on the poor and elderly, those on limited incomes who will really be hurt by that energy bill. We know how to stimulate the economy without creating a bigger government and without bailing out Wall Street. We need to bail out Main Street.

So we are the party of know. We have got about 10 physicians and medical personnel who are a part of the Republican Doctors Caucus, and we are offering many second opinions, really. So Dr. Gingrey, I applaud your effort. I applaud everything that you're doing. You're the chairman of the House Doctors Caucus on the Republican side, and I am honored to be one of your two cochairmen on that group. The American people should know, need to know, that there are alternatives beside the ObamaCare bill, and the American people need to stand up and say, Let's do this in a bipartisan way. Let's stop all the partisanship, the bickering, the discord and all the things that are going on in this country, and let's do it so that people can manage their own health care along with their doctors.

Dr. Gingrey, I will yield back, and I thank you for what you're doing.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009. I oppose this bill because, as the nonpartisan CBO has reported, it will cost taxpayers more than $15 billion over 10 years. And it could also eliminate as many as 30,000 private-sector jobs.

In fact, H.R. 3221 will eliminate choice, competition, and innovation, while growing government and increasing the deficit. This bill will eliminate choice and competition by ending the Federal Family Education Loan Program and giving the Federal Government a monopoly over student aid financing.

This bill will also reduce innovation and grow the government by expanding mandatory and entitlement spending by billions of dollars.

When will the massive spending and Federal takeover end?

Congress should not be growing government and increasing the debt burden on taxpayers. It has no business putting taxpayers on the hook for defaulted student loans when the private sector would gladly bear this risk.

As Herbert Hoover once said, ``blessed are the young, for they shall inherit the national debt.'' That is a sad truth. We should be working to lessen that burden, not take away their choices and reduce their chances to succeed.

Parents, college presidents, and financial aid professionals are against this takeover. They are the experts on this issue because they are the ones that have to foot the bill. I urge my colleagues to hear them and vote no on this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Hall.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward. To be blunt, I'm asking this body to show the tiniest sliver of fiscal restraint to freeze the authorization levels that this bill outlines at next year's levels.

As the bill is currently written, next year this body will authorize $550 million for advanced vehicle technology. This is money in addition to the billions of dollars in funding already authorized and made available to the auto industry in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and the millions more made available to them just this year in the nonstimulus bill.

Starting in 2011, and for the next 3 years, this authorization calls for $10 million in increases for each ensuing year. Surely, Mr. Chairman, we can all agree that with all of the money out there already and with the massive increases authorized in this bill, saving $30 million is more than reasonable. Additionally, because of all the money that is already available to this program and similar programs, my amendment asks that we end this legislation's funding authorization after 2013.

Mr. Chairman, we are spending money at record rates. And with a proposed health care reform bill, a potential highway bill, cap-and- trade, and a whole slew of other bills that will be considered in the near future, there does not seem to be any end in sight. Surely we can all agree that showing just a tiny bit of fiscal responsibility is in all of our best interests.

The American taxpayers and future generations are on the hook for trillions of dollars in spending, borrowing, and interest payments over the coming decades. I'm simply asking for us to show a modicum of restraint. For simply put, isn't $550 million a year for a program that already has multiple funding sources enough? I think so.

I thank my friend, Mr. Hall, from Texas for yielding me more time.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation has support from both sides of the aisle, but as was made perfectly clear in our committee markup back in July, there are some serious concerns with the amount of money being authorized and where exactly it will go. In recent bills, such as the Wall Street bailout and the stimulus bill from earlier this year, we have provided a lack of appropriate oversight for the money being spent. I do not want to see us make the same mistake with this legislation.

Most of us can agree that developing alternative fuel cell technology is a necessary precursor to taking control of our energy consumption needs, and all of us on both sides of the aisle have that philosophy and believe in that, but simply throwing money at a problem is never a solution, and my amendment is just a good, commonsense improvement, however minor, to this otherwise very noble legislation. So I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I thank Mr. Hall.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume and rise in support of my amendment.

(Mr. BROUN of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very straightforward. In fact, it's just a small technical correction to the bill. As the bill is written, there are two titles. The first is specific to commercial and passenger vehicles, and the second is to medium-size and heavy duty vehicles. Both sections obviously deal with advanced vehicle technologies, but only one has a reporting requirement, title II. My amendment adds a reporting requirement to title I as well.

If enacted, the Secretary of Energy will have to submit an annual report to the relevant congressional committees on the implementation, progress, and long-term goals of this program.

This legislation authorizes a large amount of taxpayer dollars to a program that, like every other government program, is susceptible to waste, fraud, and abuse. The easiest way to combat that is through diligence and a certain amount of oversight and transparency. My amendment fits both of these requirements.

Mr. Chairman, we need to exercise more caution with where taxpayer dollars are being spent. That entails both doing more research about the programs that we are funding before we write and pass legislation as well as exercising our oversight responsibilities after the money has been authorized. This amendment is very simple. The simple technical corrections go directly towards fulfilling the latter objective.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the chairman. He has been a great chairman for us, and I enjoyed working with Chairman Gordon on this issue. My dear friend from Texas, our ranking member, Mr. Hall, would like to speak, so I yield him 2 minutes. And I just very much appreciate the Chairman's acceptance of my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, again, I thank Chairman Gordon for accepting my amendment. I greatly appreciate it. I think this is a commonsense amendment. It will offer more transparency and more accountability, which I think we ought to do in all legislation we pass. Unfortunately, there is not a lot of that around here with multiple branches of the Federal Government. I thank the chairman for accepting my amendment.

I urge a ``yes'' vote for everybody.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

In its current form, I am.

Mr. Speaker, my motion would seek to improve this legislation by allowing it to take effect at a time when our fiscal house is more in order and at a time when no other taxpayer dollars are being spent on the same activities that are authorized by this bill.

The motion specifies that no money may be spent for the activities authorized under this bill until such time as the funds which are already being spent for these same types of activities under authorizations, such as funds from the Energy Independence and Security Act and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, are expended.

Additionally, the legislation specifies that $2.83 billion authorized under this act is only authorized to be appropriated if we are able to reduce the current deficit to $500 billion.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to get our fiscal house in order. The American people deserve that. There are at least five major funding programs related to advanced vehicle technologies that the Department of Energy has announced just in the past 9 months. The Energy Independence and Security Act alone has three specific authorized programs that allocate taxpayer dollars in the form of grants or loans for advanced vehicle technologies.

Additionally, the stimulus bill passed earlier this year allocated to the Department of Energy hundreds of millions of dollars for fuel cell production as well as for the production of high-efficiency passenger vehicles and trucks.

Clearly, there is a lot of money out there for programs like this already. Maybe we should look now to take a step backward and remember that we really cannot afford to keep up this level of spending. The consequences for spending without heeding the consequences are staring us right in the face. By adopting this provision I've just laid out for this body, we will finally start to act seriously about bringing down our deficits and about addressing this country's long-term debt.

Mr. Speaker, everybody in this body agrees that energy independence is a key economic and strategic goal, but of even more vital interest to our economic and strategic prospects as a Nation is our ability to show fiscal discipline and to be the stewards of the

people's money that they elected us to be. These commonsense changes to this bill will allow us to exercise some fiscal constraint at a time when we have been literally mortgaging our children's and grandchildren's futures. Their futures depend upon our being fiscally responsible.

My motion to recommit will help move us in that direction. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank my friend from California for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, Cash for Clunkers has serious problems that are administrative problems. I have dealers in my district in northeast Georgia who probably are going to go bankrupt because of these problems. I hope, as we go forward, that we'll fix these administrative snafus that are in this problem.

We're throwing money into another government program that has very serious problems where dealers can't get their money. I have one dealer who has paid out of his pocket for 50 cars but has only gotten money back for one. Now, that dealer, if he doesn't get paid back, is going to have very severe financial problems, and his employees are going to be put out of work if we don't fix this.

Certainly, we've sold a lot of cars because of this program, but just throwing money into a program that has tremendous administrative, red tape problems and other problems is not going to be the long-term answer. I hope that the administration will straighten out these administration snafus and will get the money to our dealers, money that they desperately need.