Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my leadership, the majority leader on the Republican side, the Speaker of the House, and our conference chairman, Representative Jeb Hensarling, for giving us the opportunity--us, the House GOP Doctors Caucus--to have the Special Order hour this evening.

It's kind of convenient, Mr. Speaker; my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the well-respected Members, my friends from the Congressional Black Caucus, were talking about the budget and what we're trying to do with regard to moving forward, talking, of course, about safety net programs and entitlement programs, such as Social Security and Medicare. And that's a great segue into the topic of our discussion this evening because it's going to be about the Medicare program.

We, on our side of the aisle in the Republican-passed House budget, take a responsible approach to solving the Medicare crisis, which the trustees have said to all Members of Congress--not Republicans, not Democrats, not House Members, not Senate Members, but all of us--that according to the trustee report, by the year 2024, if we don't do something about the Medicare program as it currently exists, as it's currently funded, the amount of spending that occurs year after year-- and will only increase as more and more of our baby boomers are reaching age 65--if we don't do something about that, then that Medicare part A hospital trust fund is not supported by any constituent premiums, it's going to go broke. It absolutely is going to go broke.

So I say to my Democratic colleagues who just spoke, the compassionate thing--and I know they have great compassion for those who, maybe through no fault of their own, can't help themselves; but the compassionate thing, Mr. Speaker, is to save the program, to guarantee, preserve it for current Medicare recipients. Indeed, even for folks that are only 55 years old today, Medicare, as we know it, would be protected, would be strengthened for all of those individuals. And by the time those who are 55 years old today become 65, in 10 years, around 2024, there would be something like 65 million seniors and a smaller number of disabled individuals in the Medicare program as we know it. They would be in that Medicare program as we know it for the rest of their natural lives. And thank God, because of good health care in this country, women, I think, are living on average to age 82 and men maybe to age 78. So these 65 million people will be on Medicare for a long time. Medicare as we know it.

My colleagues didn't mention this in their hour; but what we do in our budget is go forward with a plan for younger folks--indeed, even for my grandchildren, my 10 grandchildren, the oldest two are 13-year- old twins--but let's say them, or 25-year-olds, 35-year-olds, 45-year- olds, indeed, we create the adult approach, the mature approach to solving the Medicare problem so that it will be there for them instead of nothing come 2024. And maybe some of us have paid for 25 years that FICA tax that's taken out of our paychecks every week or every month.

So I say to my friends, this idea that President Obama has and the leadership of your party of just simply kicking the can down the road doesn't get the job done. It's what we call sometimes--and I know all of us know the expression ``whistling past the graveyard,'' in other words, pretending that a problem doesn't exist. And that's an unconscionable approach.

I am very pleased tonight, Mr. Speaker, to have a number of my colleagues who have joined with us. Some of them are a part of the House GOP Doctors Caucus. We are mostly medical doctors. There are a number of registered nurses in our caucus. We have a lot of health care providers. There are dentists. But in the aggregate, the members of the House GOP Doctors Caucus are medical professionals who spent a lot of their lives practicing medicine and providing care, indeed, under Medicaid and the Medicare programs, seeing those patients mostly at a financial loss, but still very willing to try to help those folks who need us to be there for them in these safety net programs.

I think in the aggregate, the membership of the House GOP Doctors Caucus may have over 350 years of clinical experience. Some of us are getting a little long in the tooth and a little gray by the sideburns. But we are now Members of Congress, and we are trying to do things for our constituents and the seniors of this great country of ours to make sure that we preserve and protect programs like Medicare and Medicaid. And that's what this is all about tonight.

I want to first yield to my friend from Tennessee, my co-OB/GYN doctor. Dr. Phil Roe has been a Member of this body now for 4 years and has been a great asset. And I know that Dr. Roe has a bill that he wants to address concerning some problems that were enacted under ObamaCare.

I would gladly yield to Dr. Roe from Tennessee.

If the gentleman will yield, I would like to call my colleagues' attention to this poster, because this is exactly what Dr. Roe, Mr. Speaker, is talking about now, this IPAB, Independent Payment Advisory Board. I want all my colleagues to see this poster because this is what Dr. Roe is taking us through at this point.

I thank the gentleman very much for his presentation on the IPAB, that board which Dr. Roe describes, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues. Again, I'm going to refer back to a previous poster that I wanted to present as Dr. Roe got into talking about the Democrats' solution to so-called ``save Medicare.''

They wanted initially to ignore the problem, the fact that Medicare is going broke. As I pointed out in my opening remarks, Medicare today will be broke in less than 10 years. Without action, the Social Security trustees report that Medicare seniors will either see a 22 percent benefit cut or workers will see a 22 percent hike in payroll taxes. So basically, not really completely ignoring the problem, but what the Democrats want to do is create this so-called IPAB board, which Dr. Roe describes. They say there will be no rationing, yet they're restricted in the recommendations that they can make in regard to cuts, and those cuts will be to providers; they will be to pharmaceutical companies that provide the drugs that so greatly keep people alive today that in the past were ending up in the emergency room with strokes because of uncontrolled high blood pressure, needing amputations because of uncontrolled diabetes or needing to be on a dialysis machine because of uncontrolled renal disease. All of these have been helped by Medicare part D. So, clearly, the plan that the Obama administration and our Democratic colleagues have is not for saving Medicare.

At this time, let me yield the floor to my colleague from Georgia, fellow physician and member of the House GOP Doctors Caucus, Dr. Paul Broun.

If the gentleman will yield, that would be $63 trillion, if I'm not mistaken.

I've got a poster that points out just exactly what the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Broun, is saying.

If you look, colleagues, at the bottom of this poster, CBO estimates individual and corporate income tax rates would have to rise by 90 percent through the year 2050 to finance Medicare and Medicaid. And if Medicare is not fixed, millions of workers today will lose the money that they have invested. And, indeed, they have invested with that payroll tax over those many years of their employment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much. And while we're on the ``D'' word, if you will, deny, delay, demagogue, I'll use another, D word, and it's really the softest thing I can say about the Democrats' plan, and that is disingenuous.

For them to stand up, or for the President to stand up and say that he's going to fix Medicare, at the same time, Dr. Roe talked about this earlier in the evening, I'm going to refer back to him in just a few minutes, but at the same time, in the creation of a whole new entitlement program in March of last year, we know it as ObamaCare. Officially, I guess I should say, it's called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I think it's the unaffordable care act in that it cost $1 trillion.

But where did the money come from to pay for this new entitlement program that really has nothing to do with seniors?

Well, my colleagues, look at this poster to my left, your right. Here's where at least half of the money came from. Cutting Medicare, cutting Medicare by $575 billion. I mean, right out

of the Medicare program. That included home health care; it included Hospice. But the biggest cut was $130 billion, that's bullet point No. 2, $130 billion from the Medicare Advantage plans. And my colleagues know this, and I'm sure they'll want to comment on it, of the 47 million people, 45, 47 million people today who are on Medicare, about seven to 10 million of them receive their medical care on the Medicare Advantage option, which gives them more benefits, more bang for the buck; and it covers a lot of preventive services that are not given, not offered in traditional Medicare as we know it.

So that cut, $130 billion, that's something like a 14 percent cut out of that program. That means that at least half of these seniors are going to have to go back into Medicare as we know it and get a lesser benefit.

In fact, it's been said by the actuary of Medicare, Richard Foster, on April 22, 2010, that 15 percent of hospitals, nursing homes, and home health care providers will close because Medicare pays less under ObamaCare.

I want to yield just briefly again to the gentleman from Georgia before I yield some additional time to my colleague, our cochair of the House GOP Doctors Caucus, the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia.

I now yield to my cochair of the House GOP Doctors Caucus, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Dr. Tim Murphy.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate so much the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who has spent his professional life providing medical services to his patients, just as so many of the doctors in the caucus.

Talking about this cut to Medicare Advantage, as Dr. Murphy described that method of getting care, Mr. Speaker, it is exactly what we continue to talk about today of wanting to reward health care based on quality and

not necessarily quantity. Just strictly fee-for-service--the number of times you go to see a provider and that provider getting paid, albeit a small amount--is not a very efficient way. And certainly a much more efficient way--and we continue to talk about this--is to provide quality of care. And Dr. Murphy correctly pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that's exactly what Medicare Advantage does; it offers a quality of care and a wellness provision. Were we paying these plans a little too much for those services? I don't know, maybe, possibly. But if you're going to cut any amount, certainly 14 percent, $130 billion, is too much because that guts those plans.

But whatever savings you get out of Medicare, shouldn't they stay in the Medicare program, if you believe the Medicare actuary and the trustees that say that if we don't do something by 2024, the trust fund, the hospital trust fund is depleted, there is no more Medicare as we know it or any other way. So if you're going to find savings in the Medicare program, you don't take that money, $575 billion, and use it to create a whole new entitlement program so that everybody in the whole country has health insurance whether they need it or not, whether they want it or not. I can think of a lot of things in the Medicare program where this money could be well spent. How about long-term care, extended care facility coverage to keep that money in Medicare? Instead, what ObamaCare comes up with is something called the CLASS Act--which is a classless act, Mr. Speaker, because it is a misleading program that can't fund itself, that absolutely can't fund itself.

So there are so many things about ObamaCare and Obama's plan to save Medicare--which really, as Dr. Broun pointed out, is no plan at all, other than what Dr. Roe has pointed out in regard to this Independent Payment Advisory Board that is going to cut spending for the most vulnerable seniors, those that are the sickest, those that incur the highest cost. And they say there is no rationing, but it will indeed, as my colleagues have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, be denial of care.

At this point, I would like to yield back to the gentleman from Tennessee to talk a little bit more about that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe. What he was describing, if I can elaborate a little more on that point to our colleagues because I think some still are confused, possibly on both sides of the aisle, but clearly this plan that is put forth in the House budget, and it's the Republican budget because we are in the majority. It is sometimes referred to as the Paul Ryan budget because he is chairman of the Budget Committee. It is sometimes referred to as the Path to Prosperity.

But in that budget which we sent to the Senate; and, unfortunately, the Senate majority leader has deep-sixed it, if you will, but in that budget plan that Dr. Roe was referring to, it has

taken the responsible approach based on the trustees' estimate of the Medicare program going totally broke by the year 2024, and that information is bipartisan. That's the Medicare board of trustees.

To ignore that, as my colleague from Georgia said in his remarks, the ``D'' words, to defund, to deny, what were some of the others, Dr. Broun? To deny, delay, destroy, demagogue, and I added to those ``D'' words their plan is rather disingenuous, but what Dr. Roe was describing is to protect and preserve Medicare as we know.

Whether it is traditional Medicare, maybe we can salvage Medicare Advantage, and hold harmless anybody that is over age 55, 55 through 65. They were 10 years away from being eligible for a Medicare benefit. So they will be in those plans as we know it. But this approach that Dr. Roe so adequately describes, Mr. Speaker, this premium support program, not a voucher, as he pointed out, the premium support program, which by the way would be administered by the Office of Personnel Management, the same folks that talk to us and find out what kind of health care benefit we want, those Members who are under 65, that you pick and choose and you negotiate. They will do the same thing for future, those under age 55 today, future Medicare beneficiaries. They will get the best bang for the buck, the best care for their individual needs.

Now, it is estimated that in 2022 that premium support amount on average will be $8,000 a year. Now, our Democratic friends, Mr. Speaker, want to say, Well, that's not enough. That's not enough. Seniors are going to have to reach in their pocket.

But what they don't tell you, Mr. Speaker, is that premium will be higher for anybody who comes into the Medicare program who is already sick, who already has several things wrong with them; and that certainly is possible.

When I got Medicare eligible, I had already had open heart surgery. So these people will have a higher premium than the average of $8,000 a year. And as they age, even if their health is perfect the day they come into Medicare, they become Medicare eligible--they may have the Methuselah gene and have wonderful health. They may jog 3 miles a day, don't smoke, don't drink excessively, don't skydive--but as they get older, that premium support will automatically go up because we know statistically that as you get older the chances of something happening are greater.

And last but not least, the higher your income, the lower your premium support.

So our seniors, who need it the most, will get a higher--they won't get the average $8,000. They will get a higher premium support. I think it is a wonderful plan, Mr. Speaker. I absolutely do. It shows the responsibility of the majority party in this House of Representatives.

Of course, as my colleagues have pointed out, what is the plan from the Democrats, the Democrat majority in the Senate and from this President: deny it, delay it, destroy it, demagogue it. Or, as my colleague from Tennessee has pointed out, kill it by creating this Independent Payment Advisory Board, IPAB, which will, without question, lead to denial of care and rationing.

I yield to my colleague from Tennessee.

What Dr. Roe is talking about, Mr. Speaker, is on top of these cuts that our medical providers are currently facing under this so-called flawed formula sustainable growth rate, which I'm sure I'm correct on this, in the past 9 years every calculation has been a cut to provider reimbursement to the point now that while we in Congress have had the ability to mitigate that, that if these cuts finally in the aggregate come due December 31 of this year, it is a 30 percent cut. So we haven't solved that problem yet for our providers but yet we are adding on top of that this IPAB board that can make additional cuts to provider reimbursement without any ability of the Congress, we the Members of Congress, to stop that injustice.

If the gentleman will yield, still, we can overrule with a two-thirds vote. But we still have to find cuts in the Medicare program somewhere else for the same dollar amount.

I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman from Georgia is kind enough to have stayed with us throughout the hour, and I would like to yield additional time to him, if he would like.

As I said earlier, the kindest thing I can say is it is disingenuous.

Stop the Democrats' plan to end Medicare. If left alone, the Democrats' Medicare cut plan created in ObamaCare threatens Medicare seniors today as well as those who will come into the program tomorrow.

So, colleagues, how do we stop the Democrats' Medicare cut plan first and foremost? We need to repeal ObamaCare. But we need to vote and support Dr. Roe's bill to repeal this IPAB board and tell President Obama and Democrats that Medicare reform should not rely on restricting benefits and access for sick and disabled seniors in need.

As we conclude tonight, let me just say, colleagues, oppose the Democrats' Medicare cut board. Visit the GOP Doctors Caucus Web site and sign the online petition. Oppose the Democrats' plan to destroy Medicare.

And here are the Web sites: doctorscaucus.gingrey.house.gov or doctorscaucus.murphy.house.gov, the two cochairs of the House Doctors Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I thank our leadership for giving us an opportunity to bring to the American public and to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle the true facts of this case--that we have a plan; the President has no plan.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise, of course, in strong support of this bill and rule, that of cut, cap, and balance.

The gentlelady from Texas just stood up and said she would call it the ``Tap Dance'' bill. Quite frankly, what the President has in mind I would refer to as the ``Whistling Past the Graveyard'' plan. This cut, cap, and balance approach to this problem is just that within the first provision of cutting spending, Mr. Speaker, of $111 billion and with $35 billion of that, by the way, for mandatory spending, yet not one dime--not one dime--from Social Security or Medicare. We protect our seniors.

But as to this spending problem, I mean, it's just like the problem in this country with drunk driving. Are we going to solve that problem by raising the blood alcohol level? Absolutely not. Are we going to solve this problem of runaway spending by just simply raising the debt ceiling without these caveats of cut, cap, and balance? Absolutely not. That's why we have to do this--to rein in this spending and to bring it down to historical levels of 20 percent of GDP.

Then the final part of cut, cap, and balance, Mr. Speaker, is the balance part. The President is asking for a balanced approach. That's exactly what this is. This is the balanced approach that makes sense because every other pledge in the past with regard to reining in spending, whether we're talking about Pay-As-You-Go--the Democrats like to tout that plan--never has worked because we don't abide by these pledges; we continue to spend.

The only way to make sure that future Congresses rein in this spending on a permanent level is to have a balanced budget amendment that calls for a supermajority to raise taxes. There are 49 out of 50 States that have a balanced budget amendment. Why in the world wouldn't Democrats join with Republicans in calling for a balanced budget amendment? Then to think that the President would issue a statement of administrative policy in opposition to this is absolutely ridiculous.

Support this commonsense bill. Stand strong for our country. This is the land of the free, but it has to be the land of the strong before it can become the land of the free.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 493 on final passage of H.J. Res. 68, authorizing the limited use of the United States Armed Forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya, I am not recorded because I was absent due to a death in my family which required me to immediately return to Georgia. Had I been present, I would have vote ``no.''

On rollcall No. 494 on final passage of H.R. 2278 to limit the use of funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for United States Armed Forces in support of North Atlantic Treaty Organization Operation Unified Protector with respect to Libya, unless otherwise specifically authorized by law, I am not recorded because I was absent due to a death in my family which required me to immediately return to Georgia. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 478 on final passage of H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011, I am not recorded because I was absent due to a death in my family which required me to immediately return to Georgia. Had I been present, I would have voted, ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 491 on final passage of H.R. 1249, the America Invents Act, I am not recorded because I was absent due to a death in my family which required me to immediately return to Georgia. Had I been present, I would have vote ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 672, and I commend my good friend from Mississippi (Mr. Harper) for his authorship.

The distinguished minority whip, the former Democratic majority leader, just made the statement essentially saying that few things are more important in this country than ensuring that every American citizen's right to vote is protected, and the EAC helps America to vote.

We agree on this side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker. We agree that few things are more important than ensuring Americans can vote. However, the Election Assistance Commission's support in this area is negligible at best.

In 2005, and again in 2010, the National Association of Secretaries of State, the individuals in the States tasked with overseeing elections, called for the dissolution of the EAC. The committee heard firsthand testimony from Secretaries of State that affirmed the passion with which they support this bill, the Harper bill, and how useless they feel this agency has become.

When those who oversee elections call for the dissolution of an agency supposedly meant to be supporting their efforts, Congress should listen.

But no, it's like President Ronald Reagan once said, and I quote him: ``No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this Earth.''

Mr. Speaker, the minority whip just basically said the same thing, that once an agency is created, even after it's performed its function, it's done its duty, it's time to eliminate it. And we're talking about millions of dollars.

This is an important bill. As the gentleman from Mississippi so clearly stated, if we can't do this, what can we do in regard to reducing unnecessary spending of the taxpayer dollars so we'll have those precious dollars for other more important matters to help our States?

So I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, please, let's have a unanimous vote in support.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today not just as a Congressman, but as a physician with nearly 30 years of experience treating and interacting with patients. Wearing both of these hats has allowed me to understand our health care system at each end of the spectrum, and it allows me to say with absolute certitude that the Democrats and President Obama have written the wrong prescription for Medicare. With 47 million Americans relying on our Medicare system and millions more to enter soon, it is absolutely irresponsible not to inform the public accurately of the facts about its current path if left unchanged.

The truth is, Mr. Speaker, when the President's health care bill was signed into law, it ended Medicare as we know it. According to the nonpartisan Medicare Actuary, Medicare will run out of money in 2024. That is what, 13 years from now. The Congressional Budget Office says it will be as soon as 2020, 9 years from now.

House Republicans have chosen to face the facts and responsibly proposed a comprehensive plan for Medicare. The Republican budget saves Medicare by maintaining benefits as they are for those 55 years and older, while also strengthening it by bringing true choice and competition to maintain and save Medicare for our children and for our grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrats' plan for Medicare reform is included in the 2,400 pages of, you guessed it, ObamaCare, which is bad for American seniors and bad for the country. Their plan empowers a panel of unelected bureaucrats to ration senior health care. This panel will focus its cuts on the chronically ill and the disabled, these Medicare recipients who need care the most because they use the most health care services.

Health care rationing has never, Mr. Speaker, has never been the American way, but it certainly appears to be the Democrats' way. As a doctor, I know that the last thing patients need are bureaucrats who are unanswerable to the public, indeed, even to the Congress, making health choices for them.

The Democrats' plan also allows for a $500 billion raid on Medicare to fund programs in ObamaCare, a fact that they have conveniently ignored while they are consistently criticizing Republicans for so- called ``cutting'' care. The plan put forth by President Obama and the Democrats is a plan that cuts Medicare for seniors today, and it leaves Medicare bankrupt for our future generations, our children and our grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, my diagnosis is that American seniors should be worried only if we sit back and do nothing about Medicare or accept the Democrats' plan to gut it from sick and disabled seniors. We cannot allow it to continue on its current path to insolvency, as the Democrats and President Obama would have it. We need to support Medicare reform now so that we will have Medicare tomorrow, and that includes eliminating this rationing board as soon as possible.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I can say this to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: While I've been sitting here this morning, I haven't heard anything from either side that I disagree with. I am going to support Speaker Boehner's resolution, and I am going to probably oppose Representative Kucinich's resolution for this reason the Speaker convinced me of, and I listened very carefully to him: With regard to within 2 weeks pulling everything that we have in Libya out and coming home, it would set a dangerous precedent in regard to our NATO allies.

Make no mistake about it, this President got us into this mess. It was his ignoring of the War Powers Resolution. I don't know who was advising him in regard to that, whether or not it was the Attorney General, but it was an absolute mistake. Now that he has committed us-- the United States of America and our troops--to NATO through this U.N. resolution, I feel it would be a mistake to immediately, within 14 days, pull the rug out from under that operation.

I am not completely satisfied with the Boehner resolution, but I think it does lay down a marker. It makes a statement. The Speaker was very clear in speaking to us that this is not the end of this, that this is the beginning. We have the ability to amend, if we need to, the War Powers Resolution. We need to make it very clear. I don't know who the President notified in regard to this operation. What did he do-- send a tweet to the chairmen of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees and the respective Select Committees on Intelligence? That's not good enough for me, a Member, one of 435 in this body. It should never happen again, and that's what this is all about today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for leading this hour on such an important discussion. And of course I thank all of my colleagues on the floor here tonight.

I understand that Dr. Roe has authored the repeal legislation of IPAB, this Independent Payment Advisory Board, created under ObamaCare.

Dr. Roe, Mr. Speaker, just said that the doctor-patient relationship, the provider-patient relationship, be that provider an advanced practice nurse or psychologist, a physician, even the hospitals, of course, are huge providers of health care, and who should we be concerned with as Members of Congress. Well, it is those 700,000 people that each of us represent all across this country and that doctor- patient, provider-patient relationship that is most important. Cost, of course, is important. But, first and foremost, is the sanctity of that care, and that is exactly what Dr. Roe is speaking of, Mr. Speaker, and why it is so important that we do vote to pass his bill, and we do it as quickly as possible to repeal this very bad decision.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, back I think in December of 2009, almost 2 years ago now, our colleague on the other side of the aisle, a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Richard Neal, offered a letter that many of us in a bipartisan way cosigned. I think there were over 100 signatories to that letter literally begging the President and the administration to forget this idea of creating this exact same board that Dr. Roe is talking about and my colleagues will be talking about tonight. It was called something different then in the construction phase of ObamaCare.

But whatever you call it, today of course we understand it as IPAB. IPAB, Independent Payment Advisory Board; I call it IBAD, Independent Bureaucratic Absolute Dictators, these unelected 15 people that can literally, and will, as the gentlewoman from New York just said, Dr. Hayworth, they will have the ability come 2014 to start making these cuts and to make them where the biggest growth area and cost is.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we all know, they say that there will be no rationing. Well, you can say it is not rationing, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it's a duck. And it is rationing. What will happen, and we know it, we health care providers that have spent, what, 500 years of clinical experience in the aggregate, we know exactly what these bureaucrats will do. They'll say if someone is above a certain age, let's pick one, say if you're 65 years old and you come down with leukemia, lymphoma, and what you desperately need when that chemotherapy has failed to keep you in remission is a bone marrow transplant, but because that is so expensive, the decision will be made that no, nobody over a certain age, nobody over a certain age will be eligible for a transplant of a kidney, of a lung, of a liver, of a heart, indeed. This is something that is absolutely unacceptable to us. It is unconscionable.

So, Mr. President, and I say this through you, Mr. Speaker, please, listen to us. Listen to us. We have another letter coming. It is going to be signed by all 21 of the members of the House GOP Doctor's Caucus. I wish we had some Democratic members as a part of this group, but hope springs eternal and maybe they will. But listen to us because we know of what we speak. Don't make this mistake. Don't go down this road. This is not the way to solve the Medicare crisis and the insolvency that is coming very quickly by 2024.

You say you can't accept the House Republican budget, the so-called ``Ryan budget,'' the path to prosperity that includes some, I think, significant and very thoughtful, adult, mature decisions regarding what we need to do on Medicare. All right. Let's get together. Let's get in a room and let's talk about it. But you want to kick the can down the road and do nothing except slash Medicare to pay for your new signature issue, ObamaCare--slash it by $500 billion. Don't put it back into Medicare, but create this whole new program and force more people on to Medicaid, weaken Medicare and then just hope for the future. Well, I think the American people have seen enough of that.

I know there are a number of my colleagues here tonight who need time, but I thank the gentleman from Tennessee, and I will close with this:

On the House GOP Doctors Caucus Web site, Mr. Speaker, folks, my colleagues, you can go to that Web site, and your constituents can go to that Web site. It's DoctorsCaucus.Gingrey.house.gov or DoctorsCaucus.Murphy.house.gov. The reason for the ``Gingrey'' and the ``Murphy'' is that we just happen to be the co-chairs now of the House GOP Doctors Caucus. That, obviously, will change in future Congresses, but that's the way to go to the Web site. We are going to ask you to sign a petition: Oppose the Democrats' Medicare cut board, because that's what it is, a ``cut board.'' Visit the GOP Doctors Caucus Web site. Sign the online petition: Oppose the Democrats' Medicare cut plan.

I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for yielding me this time.

As everyone knows, the financial health of this Nation is in a very precarious State. Unfortunately, it was made worse by the spending decisions and actions of this last Congress. Today, the Federal Government borrows 41 cents of every dollar it spends. We are facing a $1.6 trillion deficit for this fiscal year, the third straight year of trillion-dollar deficits, an all-time record in nominal terms and a new post-World War II record as a share of the economy.

The reckless spending of the last Congress has only exacerbated this problem. The so-called stimulus bill--that didn't stimulate much besides a lot of wasteful spending--and ObamaCare, the Patient Protection and I think un-Affordable Care Act, are two such examples of legislation that spent recklessly.

Mr. Chairman, among the 2,400 pages of ObamaCare, the last Congress created $105 billion in secret slush funds that can be used to advance the political goals of President Obama and his administration without our oversight, congressional oversight.

At a time when our country is facing financial ruin, my concern is how much damage to our national budget the White House can do with these funding streams. The time for blank checks is over. The time for leadership is now.

Section 5508 of ObamaCare provides a $230 million direct appropriation for teaching health centers residency programs. H.R. 1216 would simply convert the direct appropriations into an authorization of appropriations. The legislation allows for teaching health centers to receive funding through the normal appropriations process with proper Congressional oversight.

Mr. Chairman, many Members of this Congress have supported medical education--I certainly count myself among them--including graduate medical education for children's hospital programs. However, in her testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee earlier this year, HHS Secretary Sebelius stated that the President's fiscal year 2012 budget eliminates children's hospital graduate medical education programs because they duplicate the teaching center funds in ObamaCare.

Mr. Chairman, is this the future of medical education that we want for our children? Teaching our medical professionals in clinics that might not be equipped to properly train them to handle emergency situations versus in hospitals regarded as centers of excellence like Children's Healthcare of Atlanta in my own home State of Georgia. This is why the appropriations process is so important--we need congressional oversight to help decide what the priorities of tomorrow should be.

This Congress, the 112th Congress--is focused on reining in spending and reducing our deficit. We cannot do the job of the American people and make the spending cuts necessary unless the legislative branch has oversight over Federal spending. If this is truly the people's House, give back what the last Congress gave away--control over the budget. If this body is sincere in its wishes to restore fiscal sanity in this country, I see no reason why this body should not be voting in a bipartisan manner to prevent this President--or any President, for that matter--from spending our Nation into insolvency.

So I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1216. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his bill and for yielding me this time.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, sitting in my office and listening to this debate, and I can't help but feel that this is nothing but a bunch of demagoguery on the part of our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle.

I take this opportunity to oppose the amendment, but, more importantly, to ask my colleagues to stop this demagoguery in regard to throwing Grandma under the bus in reference to the Medicare program and what our side of the aisle has proposed in the Republican budget.

You know, the average age of this body is 58 years old. Almost all of us are Grandma and Grandpa, and you are running these ads all across the Nation, I guess, particularly in New York 26, showing a reasonable facsimile of our fantastic chairman of the Budget Committee pushing Grandma in a wheelchair off the cliff.

Look, New York 26 is over. You don't need any more votes. Stop all this demagoguery.

You have done nothing in regard to the Medicare program. What is there in the 2012 budget, in the Obama budget, that does anything toward trying to solve the Medicare program, which will be bankrupt in 2024 if nothing is done? That is the total irresponsibility and the hypocrisy of this side of the aisle, Madam Chairman.

And the responsible side of the aisle is the Republican side of the aisle which says, look, let's save this program for our children and our grandchildren, guarantee, protect and strengthen it for Grandma and Grandpa, our current seniors, and not only the current seniors who are 65 and those who are disabled and already on the Medicare program, but anybody who will come into the Medicare program within the next 10 years.

And, you know, Madam Chairman, at that point, in 2022, you will have about 65 million people on the Medicare program as we know it, traditional Medicare; and they will be on that program until their natural death and many of them, thank God, because of our great health care system in this country, will live to be 90 years old.

So this idea of killing Medicare is an absolute misinterpretation, and you know it. You are misleading the American people.

This program that we are proposing, and it's a proposal, it's something that we can work together on both sides of the aisle, we can negotiate, you know, it's not set in stone--but what we say, what Speaker Boehner says, what Chairman Ryan says is, look, let's try this program in 2022 where people who are coming into Medicare at age 65, many of whom are working and in excellent health, we will simply give them a premium support, but not a voucher in their hands, but to send to the insurance company of their choice. Let them get their medical care where Members of Congress get their medical care. Let them have the same options to choose from, Madam Chairman.

That's what's this is about. And the average, if it is $8,000, it will be adjusted every year for inflation and that average 8,000 will be higher for an individual who comes into the Medicare

program at age 65 that is already sick, that already has heart disease or diabetes or is on dialysis. It's somebody, as they get older, that premium support will increase.

This is the way we save the Medicare program; and, oh, yes, by the way, folks like us, like members of the subcommittee, our premium support will be significantly less because we are not Warren Buffett, but we can afford to pay more, and we should pay more. If that's $4,000 a year more, so be it. We save the program for those who need it the most, those who are middle- and low-income seniors, and that is the compassionate thing to do.

So, colleagues, stop this demagoguery. Let's get together, let's work together and solve this problem once and for all.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado, my good friend, for yielding.

I would just rhetorically ask, and maybe he would like to definitively answer, how much of the windfall profit taxes, if you will, against Big Oil, Big Pharma, big anything, are you going to put back into the Medicare program? And, by the way, how much of the Medicare Advantage cuts that came from ObamaCare are actually going back into the Medicare program as we know it?

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1229, the Putting the Gulf Back to Work Act, and I thank Natural Resources Committee Chairman Hastings for yielding me time.

At a time when hardworking Georgians are paying $3.88 per gallon at the pump, it is critically important that we enact commonsense energy production policies to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and create jobs. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has adopted policies that have stifled energy production in this country, and have led to 12,000 jobs lost during the moratorium imposed in the Gulf of Mexico last year.

Mr. Chair, H.R. 1229 will end the ongoing ``de facto'' moratorium caused by the White House's refusal to approve permits in the Gulf by requiring the Department of the Interior to grant permits for exploration of oil and natural gas. This commonsense legislation will create thousands of jobs, help recapture $4.7 million that the Federal Government is losing on a daily basis from a lack of energy production, and will lead us to greater energy independence.

I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1229.

I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.

I do rise in very strong support of this rule as well as the underlying bill, H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.

I would also like to commend our colleague from New Jersey, Representative Chris Smith, for his leadership on this legislation and for his steadfast pro-life stance throughout his tenure in Congress.

Madam Speaker, as a practicing OB/GYN physician for nearly 30 years, I believe that all life is sacred. The issue of abortion is a very personal issue for me as it is for many people across the country and for many Members of this body. However, that is not why we are considering this legislation on the House floor today. Instead, we are here to answer one simple question:

Should American tax dollars be used to fund abortions? When an elective choice can decide life and death, should the Federal Government be allowed to use tax dollars to pay for that choice?

Madam Speaker, H.R. 3 is a bill that seeks to set right what the last Congress got wrong: to ensure that abortions are not funded by taxpayer dollars. At its very base level, H.R. 3 simply codifies the Hyde Amendment, which has been enacted in some form or another as an appropriations rider since fiscal year 1976. Through this legislation today, we will make permanent the prohibition on Federal funding for abortions, thereby eliminating the inherent vulnerability that riders like the Hyde Amendment face as part of the annual appropriations process.

Furthermore, H.R. 3 codifies the Hyde-Dr. Dave Weldon conscience clause that has protected health care providers from discrimination by State and local governments for simply refusing to provide, to pay for or to even refer for abortion. Additionally, H.R. 3 will allow those health care providers who choose not to perform abortions legal recourse if they face, as they often do, overt discrimination.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 3 also prevents Federal funds from being used for tax credits that subsidize health insurance coverage that includes elective abortion through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, so-called ``ObamaCare.'' One of the many problems with this law ObamaCare is that there is no statutory language prohibiting premium assistance from being used for abortions despite many efforts of House and Senate Republicans during the last Congress. H.R. 3 provides the assurance that our taxpayer dollars will not be used in any form of Federal subsidies for abortion coverage.

So, Madam Speaker, as a father and as an OB/GYN physician who has delivered over 5,000 babies, I will be voting to ensure that the Federal Government does not use taxpayer dollars for any elective abortion. I ask all of my colleagues to support this rule as well as the underlying bill, H.R. 3.

Mr. Speaker, today is a great day in the history of our country. I can't remember a better day.

Thinking back to maybe 1980, when our ice hockey team beat Russia in the semifinals and went on to win the gold, that was at the height of the Cold War. Shortly after, Nikita Khrushchev took off his shoe and said, ``We will bury you.'' Yes, that was a great day that we had back in 1980. But today, the ``Finally, we got him'' moment in regard to, yes, I am talking about Osama bin Laden.

I want to take an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to commend the President, commend the CIA, commend our military, commend the Navy SEALs, the brave men and women that effected this. They have been working hard.

And let's not forget the intelligence officers that worked so diligently at Guantanamo Bay, at Gitmo, not torturing but getting intelligence, finding out who that courier was, the best friend of Osama bin Laden that lived in his neighborhood in Pakistan. Intelligence is how we got him.

It's a great day. Let's all take credit. Let's commend the President. We should be tremendously proud today of this accomplishment--this guy, the monster that caused 3,000 people to die on 9/11 and 17 on the USS Cole. And the men and women that have given their lives defending this country since then, God bless them.

I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman, I was listening to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. The ranking member of the Budget Committee, our friend from Maryland, talked about the fact that, according to his poster, the Bush tax cuts in the years 2000 to 2006 caused the loss of an untold number of jobs. I have my own statistics which basically show, during that period of time and despite those tax cuts, we had an increased revenue of something like $700 billion.

Now, I'll check my facts with his facts later on, Mr. Chairman, but how in the world could you produce $700 billion of additional revenue when you lose jobs? It's not possible. The fact is that those tax cuts created a broader base, albeit at a lower rate, and they generated more revenue. That's exactly what the chairman of the Budget Committee is talking about in his Path to Prosperity.

Another one of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle stood up and said, according to this budget plan--at least, thank God, we have one. The Democrats couldn't produce one last year because of their fear of the political consequences--Medicare as we know it, by the year 2022, will disappear. How is that possible when, by that time, there will probably be 75 million people on Medicare as we know it before we will go to this premium support plan that Chairman Ryan has proposed?

Our friends on the other side keep saying, You keep giving tax breaks to the rich. Well, according to this plan, the people who are in the top 2 percent of income will only get 30 percent of the premium support, an average of $8,000 a year. The people in the top 8 percent would get 50 percent. So you keep wanting to beat on the producers in society that create the jobs.

Support this plan. It's a great budget.

I thank my chairman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, at least some Members of this body can remember ads back years ago touting the miraculous benefits of Sal Hepatica and Carter's Little Liver Pills. Probably all of the Members can remember, because it was just a year ago, Andy Griffith touting the new health care reform bill. And those of us who are on Medicare remember getting those glossy mail outs, very expensive, slick-looking ads touting the benefits that ObamaCare has brought to Medicare, even though the new bill, the new entitlement creation took something like $550 billion out of Medicare, and yet they had the audacity to send these ads out, these fliers saying that it improved Medicare. ObamaCare improves Medicare; go figure. Well, that is a concern here. That is why I am standing in strong support of Chairman Pitts' bill, H.R. 1217.

The Prevention and Public Health Fund is established under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, for prevention, wellness, and public health activities authorized in the Public Health Service Act and administered by Secretary Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human

Services. But she can use those funds in any way she deems appropriate as long as she says it is for public health.

Can it pay for political TV advertising for President Obama ahead of the 2012 elections? Absolutely she could. Nothing could stop her; the Congress couldn't as long as she deems it is necessary for public health. Pay for thousands of signs in communities all across the country declaring that PPACA is a success, nothing could stop this Secretary, or any Secretary from doing so, as long as they call it for public health. No, not even Congress.

And as the chairman said, Mr. Chairman, the amount of $17 billion, almost $18 billion, is just a down payment, if you will, because in perpetuity $2 billion a year continues to be appropriated. And you do that with a bill that quite honestly this Member thinks will be declared within a year and a half, hopefully sooner, unconstitutional. So we are spending money that is absolutely unnecessary at a time when we are sitting here with $14 trillion worth of debt and listening to the Secretary of the Treasury say within 6 weeks we are going to have to raise the debt ceiling so we can borrow more money. And here we are spending $17 billion, with a ``B,'' and that is not just chump change by any stretch of the imagination.

Last year in 2010, the CDC actually spent some of $500 million to promote an increase in the excise tax on tobacco to the States; basically saying to the States, you need to make sure you raise taxes on tobacco.

I thank the chairman for yielding me this additional time.

Let me just conclude that clearly this is a necessary bill to let Congress once again have the opportunity to control spending. That is our responsibility. That is our constitutional right. That's what the American people want. I think the chairman is absolutely right with this bill, and I fully support it. I urge all of my colleagues to do so as well.