Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank Mr. Lungren. I thank Mr. Brady. I thank Mr. Walden and the members of the transition team, many of whom have spoken on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, clearly, it is time for us--we Members of Congress of the House of Representatives--with House Resolution 22, to show good faith and regard to tightening our belts. It has been said by other Members that cutting the Members' representational allowance is kind of routine for a lot of the Members.

I know that, this past year, I returned something like $160,000 of the MRA to the Treasury and, over the course of my 8 years in Congress, in the aggregate, some $900,000. Quite honestly, that is more than a 5 percent cut. So it can be done, and many Members have done that as well.

We have concerns, of course, as to where that money goes to. Does it go to truly reducing the deficit and long-term debt?

I will be introducing, Mr. Speaker, legislation later on today that by law requires that that money that is turned back in goes back to the taxpayer. Yet this piece of legislation, House Resolution 22, is something that I think will have wide, if not unanimous, bipartisan support.

As I say, the former chairman of this committee, Mr. Brady, now the ranking member of the current chairman's committee, my good friend Dan Lungren from California, is of the same mind in regard to fiscal responsibility and doing what is right for the American people.

On November 2, they were telling us, Look, we are sick and tired of you guys who just keep throwing money at things, like the $1 trillion cost of the stimulus bill and another $1 trillion for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Some people recognize that better as ObamaCare. But, you know, when you've got $1.4 trillion worth of deficit for 2 or 3 years in a row, no wonder you add $5 trillion to the long-term debt, and you get up to something like $14 trillion.

So, Mr. Speaker, at a time when there is a 9.8 percent unemployment rate and when families across the country are forced to tighten their belts, I wholeheartedly believe that Congress should lead by example. That is what we are doing with this bill.

I appreciate my colleagues giving me time to weigh in on this. I fully support it, and I look forward to being a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 22, a resolution that will reduce House budgets by 5% across the board for the 112th Congress. I commend the author of this legislation--my colleague from the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Walden--for his leadership on this resolution and for the work he has done over the past few months in leading the Republican transition efforts.

On November 2, 2010, the American people spoke very clearly at the ballot box to stop the out-of-control spending here in Washington. They were rightfully tired of the $1 trillion so-called ``Stimulus'' bill and the $1 trillion ObamaCare bill.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, these bills are largely to blame for $1.4 trillion deficit for Fiscal Year 2010 that has ballooned our national debt to $14 trillion.

Mr. Speaker, at a time when there is 9.8% unemployment and families across the country are forced to tighten their belts, I wholeheartedly believe that Congress should lead by example.

H. Res. 22 provides for a 5% reduction for each Member's MRA, which I--as a new Member of the House Administration Committee--believe is a good starting point for us to rein in federal spending.

I know that some of my colleagues across the aisle will criticize this proposal for being an act of political theater or not going far enough, so I would ask them a simple question. If--as Members of Congress--we cannot support proposals to cut our own budgets, then how can the American people trust us to make much more difficult budget decisions down the road to reduce our massive debt?

Mr. Speaker, as families across the country continue to struggle financially, it is imperative that we show fiscal restraint, and there is no better place to start than here in the halls of Congress.

I ask all of my colleagues to support H. Res. 22.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory of Georgia State Patrol Trooper First Class Chadwick LeCroy, of Marietta, Georgia, my hometown, who was killed in the line of duty by an unrepentant thug on Monday, December 27.

At the young age of 38, Mr. LeCroy was a highly respected husband, father, and public servant. He graduated from the 85th Georgia State Patrol Trooper School in August of 2008 and had been a highly respected law enforcement officer in the Atlanta area ever since.

Trooper First Class LeCroy is the 27th Georgia State Trooper to be killed in the line of duty, and he leaves behind his wife and two young sons.

A hero like Trooper First Class LeCroy will not be forgotten, and I join his family and friends in mourning this momentous loss to them. I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering this loyal and heroic Georgian.

Madam Speaker, my remarks will be about saving money, but I can't help but take an opportunity to respond to the previous speaker, my good friend, the gentleman, the good doctor from the State of Washington.

I would say to him, Madam Speaker, and to my colleagues, when we repeal ObamaCare, which we will do in this House next Wednesday, parents will once again be able to afford a health insurance policy on which to include their adult children. That is what we will be doing.

As far as this $110 billion worth of savings we lose in repealing ObamaCare, Madam Speaker, we spent $1.1 trillion to save $110 billion. Hey, Madam Speaker, it is true that you can indeed go broke trying to save money.

With that, Madam Speaker, let me get on to my 5-minute discussion.

I rise today to encourage my colleagues to recall the conversations they had with their constituents during the recent campaign season. As we begin the 112th Congress, to remember that the American people spoke with a resounding voice, didn't they, on November 2. They told us to abide by the Constitution, to rein in spending, bring about economic stability, create jobs, and end the culture of crafting legislation in the dark of night, 2,400 pages on the health care bill, outside of the view of the public.

In order to fulfill this mandate, we must fundamentally change the way we do business here in Washington. I have taken the first steps by introducing several legislative initiatives this week, and they are all centered around the pursuit of meaningful government reform.

Madam Speaker, transparency is an integral part of this package and a necessary element for real government reform. For the first time, the Constitution, a document critical to understanding our parameters and responsibility, was read right here in the House today, on the House floor.

I am proud to have introduced a bill as part of my initiative stating that any legislation brought to the floor must cite its constitutional authority. Many may find it surprising to know, Madam Speaker, that while votes taken on the floor of the House are available on the Net to view, or on the Web site, that is not necessarily the case in committee. Therefore, my package also contains a committee transparency bill. It would require committee votes to be posted online, on the committee Web site, within 48

hours, so the American people are kept better informed of what their Members are doing and how they are voting in committee.

Madam Speaker, the rejection by the American people of the Democrats' reckless spending emphasizes the importance of fiscal responsibility, doesn't it? This is the reason I incorporated the Congressional Budget Accountability Act into my plan.

Each year, my colleagues and I receive a fixed budget for all office expenses. We call that the MRA, or the Members' Representational Allowance. This bill would codify that our unused MRA funds must be returned to the Treasury for debt and deficit reduction.

Along these lines, I have also included what is called the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which will preclude any Member of Congress from being eligible for a pay adjustment, a so-called COLA, if we have incurred a budget deficit in the previous fiscal year.

We may not have a balanced budget amendment, Madam Speaker, but that doesn't mean we can't balance the budget, and I want to hold our feet to the fire. This is yet another way that we can do that.

Also in the package, Madam Speaker, is a bill to prevent Federal employees from engaging in union activity on official time. It is amazing that this goes on, but we have estimated that in a 5-year period of time we could save the taxpayer over $600 million and $1.2 billion in a 10-year period of time.

Put simply, it is unacceptable that government employees paid with, yes, your tax dollars, are currently permitted to spend time during their workday performing union activities. I have already given you the savings.

Equally unacceptable is that legislators in Washington commonly attach legislation that cannot pass on its own merits to unrelated must-pass bills. Let me give you an example, Military Construction-VA.

A couple of years ago, we passed that out of committee with an almost 100 percent bipartisan vote. The Democratic majority held that bill up for 100 days because they wanted to attach an unpopular bill, something like the Dream Act or Don't Ask, Don't Tell, some controversial bill, and put our veterans at jeopardy. They literally held them hostage. This bill, Madam Speaker, would say from now on, no attaching unpopular bills to good standalone bills, especially if they are for our veterans and the military.

Madam Speaker, in conclusion, while these bills may seem like a small start compared to the big challenges we have ahead of us in this Congress, the 112th, it is a pathway to start changing business as usual in Washington and fulfill the promises we made on November 2 to the American people.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Missouri yielding, and I know that when he was referring to my medical expertise in regard to knowing that subject inside and out, no pun was intended when he mentioned that.

I do know a lot more about health care, probably, than I do about government spending, but one thing's for sure, Madam Speaker, as the gentleman pointed out: We are spending way too much money. And I think the figures today, this year, last year, we spent a third more than we took in. I mean, you know, we have a revenue stream from taxation of the American people, and yet we went beyond that by $1 trillion of borrowed money; and, of course, of the nondomestic creditors, the largest one is China. They hold a lot of our debt. They happen to be, now, the second largest economy in the world at $9 trillion GDP.

We had about a $15 trillion GDP, but the thing that is so scary and frightening about that is we owe $14 trillion. So our debt to GDP ratio is approaching 100 percent. So, you know, when we stand up, Madam Speaker, as we're doing right now and talk about this issue, we're almost in panic, and we should be because we're right on the precipice, right on the edge of becoming part of the PIGS acronym--Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain.

And, you know, we point the finger at them. But goodness gracious, it's like the Bible scripture that I'm sure the Representative from Missouri probably knows by heart. But it goes something like, If you've got a plank in your own eye, you shouldn't be pointing out the speck in somebody else's. We've got a plank in our own eye. And this is why in this 112th Congress, we have a huge challenge, don't we, my colleagues? We have a huge challenge. We're up to it. We're up to it, and I hope that we are going to be up to it on both sides of the aisle.

Well, reclaiming the time that the gentleman yielded to me, Madam Speaker. Absolutely. The gentleman from Washington, our esteemed colleague, a physician, Mr. McDermott was on the floor a little earlier talking about, well, what we were trying to do in repealing ObamaCare, or the formal recognition of that bill, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

That's a lot easier, socialized medicine, Madam Speaker; but that's essentially what it is. That is essentially what the former majority party was pushing towards.

But the gentleman who spoke said, Well, it's a stunt. These Republicans know they can't repeal ObamaCare. And, furthermore, even if they did, it would be at a cost of $200 billion. And what I pointed out to him, Madam Speaker, as he was leaving the floor was, You know, that's really interesting. It's going to cost us $200 billion, if that's accurate, to repeal while it cost us $1.1 trillion to enact. So you can literally go broke saving money, can't you. And by golly, we're going to repeal it because that's what the American people want.

If we fall short in our efforts, despite 110 percent on this side of the aisle or, well, in this body and in the other body, then we have a backup plan B. And I know my colleagues would like to talk about that.

So I will yield back to the gentleman from Missouri, and let's continue the discussion.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding back to me. And I know we've got two other colleagues on the floor that want to speak. I can only stay for a few more minutes because of a prior engagement, so thank you for giving me an opportunity kind of in front of the queue, if you will.

But I'll tell you, one of the things in regard to how you cut, is it by picking and choosing, or in one fell swoop across the board?

You know, we just passed a bill, last vote of the day, in regard to our own budgets. And that was a 5 percent across-the-board cut, Madam Speaker, in our member representational account, our expense account that we're allotted each year to pay the salaries of our staff members, and to have a round trip flight back to our districts once a week. And those budgets vary a little bit, depending on, obviously somebody from California is going to have more travel expense than somebody like myself and Representative Graves from Georgia. But we just basically voted to cut 5 percent.

And I, quite honestly, and this question that has come up, Madam Speaker, my colleagues talk about, well, how do you do it? I just think we more and more need to look at this thing and say there are no sacred cows. And let these Departments make their case for why maybe there shouldn't be an across-the-board, 2 percent, 3 percent, 4 percent cut. I know I voted in favor of that every time it comes up on these appropriations bills. We didn't get to vote on any in the 111th Congress because our Democratic colleagues didn't get their work done. But this is something we need to really look at carefully.

I know that most people, Madam Speaker, are reluctant to talk about cutting Homeland Security and cutting national defense, particularly when we have two wars going on and certainly not wanting to cut the veterans benefits. But there's waste, fraud and abuse and duplication of things across every spectrum of this Federal Government. If we're going to get serious about it, we need to have an adult conversation.

And, Madam Speaker and my colleagues, that includes entitlements as well, because if we don't address entitlements, we're looking at one- sixth of the budget; and we're never going to get there just addressing that small portion of the budget.

With that, I yield back and continue to listen to my colleagues.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Calhoun High School Lady Yellow Jackets, Georgia's 2010-2011 Competitive Cheerleading State Champions.

Coached by Ginger Reeves, Calhoun's Varsity Competitive Cheerleading Team has been a dominant force in cheerleading in my home state of Georgia, winning four state titles since 2006.

The varsity squad consists of Jade Ables, Nikiki Bertuca, Makenzie Blalock, Erica Carter, Christina Cumbey, Gabby Defalco, Brooke Dixon, Morgan Diamond, Ashlyn Gilbert, Jessica Goswick, Melanie Hampton, Asliyah Harris, Mackenzie Kessler, Katelyn Langston, Kristen Langston, Hannah Magnicheri, Magen Pinyan, Mary Plunkett, and Hillary Rhodes.

I am proud of all of their accomplishments and their contributions to my home state and the 11th District of Georgia.

Madam Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring the Calhoun Lady Yellow Jackets.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Carrollton Trojans who have been a dominant force in high school football in my home state of Georgia.

Carrollton ended the season with a 14-1 record and ranked number two in the state in Class AAA. Coached by Rayvan Teague, Carrollton's offense racked up an eye-opening 632 points this season--averaging 42 points a game--while their defense recorded six shut-outs.

I am proud of the Carrollton Trojan's accomplishments and contributions to my home state of Georgia and the 11th District of Georgia.

Madam Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring the Carrollton Trojans.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Calhoun Yellow Jackets who have been a dominant force in high school football in my home state of Georgia, and in my 11th Congressional District.

Calhoun finished the season with a 14-1 record and ranked number two in the state in Class AA. Coached by Hal Lamb, the team beat the number one ranked team in Class AA to reach the finals, only to lose a heartbreaker in overtime.

The team was led by senior quarterback Landon Curtis; wide receivers JT Palmer, Ben Lamb, Chase Riserson, and Clay Johnson; and running back Dustin Christian.

The Yellow Jackets have won Georgia AA Region Seven for the past ten years straight. I am proud of their accomplishments and contributions to the 11th District of Georgia.

Madam Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring the Calhoun Yellow Jackets, their five-time State Champion cheerleading squad, Superintendant Dr. Judy Stiefel, Principal Kelly Bumgardner, and the entire student body and community of Calhoun, Georgia.

Madam Speaker, I come to the floor this evening to again make the case for why the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay should remain open and why Khalid Sheikh Mohammed--or any other hardened terrorist currently residing at Guantanamo Bay-- should never be transferred to the United States to stand trial or for continued detention.

When a clear majority of the American people support keeping Gitmo open--as you can see from this chart to my left, Madam Speaker, this pie chart basically says, when you ask the American people what should happen to Guantanamo, fully 55 percent say keep it open. Only 32 percent are in favor of closing Guantanamo Bay detention facility, and 13 percent had no opinion.

Well, Madam Speaker, President Obama made closing Guantanamo Bay an immediate priority upon taking office, and he pledged to close the facility within his first year in office. It has indeed been troubling that the administration, in its push to close Guantanamo Bay to, so- called, ``improve'' our world standing, has succumbed to letting untruths dictate the popular story line about how the United States treats its detainees. Rather than expend the effort to correct what have become blatant fabrications, they continue to fight--even as recently as this

week--congressional attempts to ban any transfer of detainees to the United States.

Put simply, Madam Speaker, Guantanamo Bay has been and remains the best option to detain terrorists that pose a threat to our national security at home and abroad. Let me be clear. Guantanamo Bay houses some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world, some of whom have succeeded in their plots to kill American citizens and soldiers. Yet, despite their record of plotting attacks on civilians, beheadings, and using innocent women and children as shields, our military personnel provide the detainees with a host of rights, privileges, and, yes, indeed, respect.

If the administration won't tell the full story about how we treat Guantanamo detainees, Madam Speaker, then I certainly will.

Among the rights and privileges extended include 24/7 medical service, comprised of things like annual dental checkups, eye exams, physical therapy, mental health services, and one medical staffer for every two detainees. Detainees are afforded anywhere from 4 to 20 hours of outdoor recreation daily; are allowed unmonitored legal communication, have access to more than 15,000 books, magazines, and DVDs in 18 different languages; and they are, indeed, allowed to observe their religious customs. Cultural and dietary needs are met. Each detainee receives up to 6,800 calories per day, with six menus from which to choose. No wonder the average weight gain, Madam Speaker, has been 15 to 20 pounds.

That's the reality of Guantanamo Bay. Having gone to these lengths, it is simply, to me, incomprehensible that we would spend hundreds of millions of dollars to transfer these detainees to our shores and make accommodations for them within our borders, especially with a $13.8 trillion national debt that's only growing.

Furthermore, Madam Speaker, terrorists who cannot be prosecuted should not be released. This is particularly true given that the recidivism data that was released just last week indicates that up to 25 percent of those released from Guantanamo Bay have reaffiliated with terror groups and rejoined the fight against us, continuing to kill Americans.

Madam Speaker, the American people know that the Gitmo detainees-- which include terrorist trainees, terrorist financiers, bomb makers, Osama bin Laden's body guards, terrorist recruiters, and would-be suicide bombers--are not minor offenders by any means. Indeed, attempted attacks on our homeland in the skies over Detroit, in the streets of New York City, and in a courthouse square in Portland, Oregon, remind us that the battlefield is not limited to our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Those that seek to do us harm should never be transferred to our soil or tried in our Federal court system, where they would essentially be provided the same protections under our Constitution as the very U.S. citizens they would love to kill.

Transferring terrorist detainees to the U.S. could eventually lead to their release--on American soil, Madam Speaker, putting our own citizens at risk. Indeed, any facility where they could be held-- whether for trial or lifelong detention--could itself become a terrorist target.

Simply put, the American people believe that bringing Guantanamo Bay detainees to American soil--for any purpose--putsAmericans at risk and is a national security threat. The President and his Administration would be wise to listen to the voice of the American people, follow the lead of this Congress, and keep Guantanamo Bay open.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong opposition to the rule providing for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. While the majority in the Senate has been unsuccessful in repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell through the National Defense Authorization Act, my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle seem adamant to move forward on this issue by bringing it to the floor again today yet as a standalone bill. What we should be doing, Madam Speaker, is prioritizing the need of our troops over the majority's social agenda and considering the National Defense Authorization Act free of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell language.

I know that advocates for this repeal will point to the survey of U.S. Armed Forces personnel regarding the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, that 9-month survey that my friend from Florida just mentioned. But let me point to a specific statistic from that survey as well. Question No. 71, posed to active servicemembers with combat deployment experience since September 11, 2001, asks how unit effectiveness would be different if Don't Ask, Don't Tell was repealed. An overwhelming number of those surveyed for this question answered that unit effectiveness for those stationed in a field environment or out at sea would be ``negatively'' or ``very negatively'' harmed by repeal.

Madam Speaker, this survey, which does not present any benefits of appeal and it solely focuses on the mitigation of consequences, has not presented a clear path forward to the question of repealing this ban. The Marine Corps Commandant, General James Amos, stated that repealing the 17-year-old ban could endanger troops and cost lives. Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz echoed concerns about overturning the ban in the midst of the global war on terror.

Here is a quote from General George Casey, the Army's Chief of Staff: I believe that the implementation of repeal in the near term will, number one, add another level of stress to an already stretched force; number two, be more difficult in our combat arms units; and three, be more difficult for the Army than the report suggests.

Because military leaders must fulfill their constitutional mission of defending America, their views on how to achieve optimal readiness should be respected.

Madam Speaker, none--not one--of our service branch chiefs have outright endorsed repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Similar apprehensions have been noted by the American Legion; over 1,500 retired flag and general officers, and countless others. Clearly, the Democrats believe they know better.

Madam Speaker, I do not believe that now, in the midst of the war on terror, is the time to rewrite tested military policies. Indeed, the Armed Forces is a special institution that must be free to hold itself to stricter rules than those observed by the rest of our society. And for these reasons, Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues, oppose this rule and oppose the underlying bill.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 5281, the so-called DREAM Act; in fact, many of those and my constituents who abide by the rule of law would call this a

``nightmare act'' rather than the DREAM Act.

This legislation has been misnamed from the beginning as an avenue for young men and women to obtain the American Dream; but let me be perfectly clear, Madam Speaker, H.R. 5281 is nothing short of amnesty for illegal immigrants. According to the Migration Policy Institute, an estimated 2 million immigrants will be eligible for amnesty under this bill. That number is not too difficult to imagine given that H.R. 5281 would allow these individuals, once they are naturalized and become 21 years of age, to exploit our broken system by sponsoring their immediate relatives with no numerical cap.

We call that chain migration. In fact, they could each bring in something like 179 other individuals.

Further, the potential for fraud is exponentially great, considering that one provision of the bill mandates that the immigrant has resided in the United States since they turned 16. My question is simple: How can we verify how long an illegal immigrant has been in the United States? We cannot and should not require ourselves to rely on the word of individuals whose very presence in the United States is illegal.

So, Madam Speaker, we all know that the requirements to become a legalized permanent resident under H.R. 5281 do not actually mandate that the potential naturalized citizens complete any college or vocational degree. They just simply have to show up and go for 2 years. If the bill attempts to integrate and educate the immigrant workforce into America, this legislation certainly will not achieve that goal.

So, in closing, Madam Speaker, H.R. 5281 will open the doors, yes, to criminal aliens obtaining permanent status to the detriment of legal immigrants. This legislation allows an illegal alien to submit an application for legalized permanent resident status; and in doing so, the Department of Homeland Security will no longer be allowed to deport them, criminal or not.

I urge my colleagues, oppose this rule and the underlying legislation.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I thank my gentleman friend from Missouri for giving me the opportunity to join with him and with Representative Thompson of Pennsylvania in this Special Order hour this evening talking about taxes and job creation and the State of the economy.

And certainly, as we look at his first slide and the Art Laffer curve referencing, of course, as the top marginal tax rate over the last 40, 60 years, in fact, has gradually decreased, then the amount of revenue has, in turn, increased. And we have seen that, Mr.

Speaker. We saw it in 1960 with the Democratic President John F. Kennedy. We certainly saw the same thing occur in 1980 under our great communicator, President Ronald Reagan. The economist Art Laffer, talks about this often, presents it in a very simplified form with his Laffer curve.

You know, I think one of the things our colleagues need to understand in regard to the so-called Bush tax cuts, and as Representative Todd Akin has pointed out, Mr. Speaker, it's really been 10 years ago, and so it's a Bush era.

But in a time when those lower marginal rates were enacted back in 2001, 2003, we cut the taxes on dividends from a marginal rate to 15 percent, capital gains from 20 percent to 15 percent, even for the low- income earners to 10 percent. I mean, these things had a profound effect, positive effect on revenue.

And, of course, when you are faced in an 8-year period of the Bush administration with two wars, the 9/11 attack, the dot-com bubble burst, certainly deficits are going to go up, debts are going to go up, but revenue continued to go up. That's something that I think people need to understand to put it in the proper context.

Certainly, as we continue this discussion this evening, I want to close my opening remarks, if you will, by saying this President, President Obama, I am very encouraged by the coming together with the Republican leadership in regard to deciding what is best for this country, what could best stimulate the economy, put people back to work, not have another November unemployment rate of 9.8 percent and over 14.5 million people unemployed--and not only unemployed but, Mr. Speaker, over 40 percent of them unemployed more than 6 months. So this is why the President, thank God, has been, it seems to be, trying to moderate his position.

To say to a Republican leadership, I do agree. You have maybe dragged me crying and screaming to the alter of sanity in regard to fiscal policy, but we cannot, in a recession with these kinds of unemployment rates and this number of people unemployed for this prolonged period of time, we can't raise taxes on anybody, and we are not going to do that.

And I thank God that the President kind of sold the wisdom--I mean, he has said many times in the past, elections have consequences. Indeed, I think he knows now that on November 2 the American people have spoken, and he is coming our way.

I can only hope that the Democratic leadership and the rank-and-file membership of the Democratic Party will listen to him and will listen to Vice President Biden as they come over here and plead with this Democratic majority that it is time to get on board and to moderate, not for the sake of the next election, but for the sake of this and the next generation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friends from the Show Me and the Keystone States. We Representatives from the Peach State are very proud of our colleagues and the commonsense discussion that we're bringing to the House floor this evening as part of this Special Order hour, pointing these salient points out to both our Republican and Democratic colleagues.

And I join with my friends in saluting the President. I would only wish that I had the opportunity, not being part of either the current Democratic majority leadership or the current Republican minority leadership, to be in that room over at the White House, the Oval Office or wherever they've gotten together to sort of discuss these things.

But I would love to be a fly on the wall and listen to some of the advisers. Of course Christina Romer's gone, Peter Orszag's gone, but people like David Axelrod and others are still there. And I can just hear them saying to President Obama, you know, Mr. President, we have given you some advice over these last couple of years and, indeed, you've gotten some advice from Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid and the members of the Democratic majority in the legislative branch that hadn't worked out too well. And, you know, Mr. President, you had said to the American people, elections have consequences and, indeed, you know, we're looking back on November the 2nd and seeing a net gain of Republicans, a net gain of 63 in the House of Representatives and a net gain of six in the United States Senate, Republican Members, and something like 600 Republican new Members in State legislatures across the country; 29, in fact, new Republican Governors.

Mr. President, indeed, elections have consequences. It's time, sir, for you to maybe moderate, to get back to the middle a little bit and to listen to the American people. If it's so partisan that you can't listen to the minority party, listen to the American people.

They have spoken loud and clear. They are saying it makes absolutely no sense to raise taxes on anybody, especially those who create the jobs. You know, I had heard and have heard from my Democratic colleagues, Mr. Speaker, this mantra, you are going to cut taxes for the rich and it is going to add $800 billion to the deficit, totally ignoring if you cut taxes for everybody else making less than $200,000 a year, that you are cutting $3 trillion of revenue out of the budget.

So where is the concern. You are concerned about spending $800 billion to extend the tax cuts for everybody, but you totally ignore the fact that keeping the tax rates in place for everybody making less than $200,000 a year, if you listen to this arcane way of scoring, CBO, that is a $3 trillion increase to the deficit. Our colleagues tonight, Mr. Speaker, are talking common sense, and that is what the American people want. They understand it. They understand when you have a 14.5 million population out of work, an unemployment rate in November alone of 9.8 percent and over 40 percent of these people out

of work more than 6 months, no wonder they are begging for an extension of unemployment benefits to the 99 weeks for these additional workers.

But the bottom line is when the President comes together with Republican leadership and says: I agree, it is a give and take. It is a check and balance, and I am going to sit down with you guys and gals and I am going to agree that we are going to keep those marginal tax rates just where they are for everybody, we are not going to let the taxation on dividends go back up to 39.6 percent. We are going to keep it at 15 percent so mom and pop can get a decent return on the dividends, we are going to let capital gains stay at 15 percent. And, furthermore, we are going to cut the payroll tax one-third on Social Security, from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent for the individual, for the employee.

It is a little contradictory to do that at the same time under ObamaCare that we raise the payroll tax 3.8 percent on the so-called high earners, but that is a whole other story.

But I think we are coming together with the President. I am pleased with that. I am pleased with him. I think we need to look very closely. Obviously, it is not perfect. I know there are Members on our side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, who are very concerned with the fact that extending unemployment benefits for another 13 weeks to 99 weeks for those who have been unemployed for more than 6 months is not paid for, and that is a concern and we need to address that.

But again, this opportunity to come together on the floor tonight to talk in a bipartisan way to all of our colleagues, to say yes, the American people want us to do this now. They don't want us to wait until after January 1. They want us to get this accomplished now.

I thank my colleague for giving me an opportunity to weight in.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I wanted to at this point interject once again my thoughts as a physician Member of this body about the enactment in March of this past year, almost 10 months ago now, of the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act of 2010, or what we refer to as ObamaCare.

Well, there are a number of terms to describe it. I think, if you do look at a Canadian system or if you look at a British system or many other countries across the world, certainly it is a national health insurance program or, certainly, a march in that direction, and some people do refer to it as socialized medicine.

When I joined the Energy and Commerce Committee at the beginning of the 111th Congress, when President Obama took office, I had the opportunity to serve with our Governor-elect of the great State of Georgia, Nathan Deal, who was the ranking member on the Health Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce. We saw that, as this bill came forward, you know, right

after several months of trying to pass and, indeed, passing in the House so-called ``cap-and-trade,'' not all of the above, that there was this great emphasis on a carbon tax and on an energy bill that would end up costing every family in this country about $3,000 extra a year in utility bills.

So we spent all of this time on this. Why? Was it because elections have consequences or because this was near and dear to the hearts of a Nobel laureate for Vice President Al Gore or our very liberal Speaker of the House of Representatives, Ms. Pelosi, from Haight-Ashbury? You know, I don't know. They were determined, since they had these giant majorities, Mr. Speaker, that we were going to do these things come heck or high water.

Then, all of a sudden, you come with this health care bill that costs in a very conservative--I don't know--almost ``cook the books'' estimate by the Congressional Budget Office of only $1 trillion at a time when, as the gentleman's charts depict, we were suffering. The American people were suffering. People were out of work. There were 16 million who were out of work. If you had asked them after 6 months of unemployment, Hey, you can have your job back, but we're not going to be able to offer you health care, they would have taken it in a minute.

So it is a matter of priorities, Mr. Speaker, and that is what I want to point out to my colleagues. We wasted a lot of time spending a lot of money while people were suffering and couldn't support their families, while they didn't have jobs and while they were becoming frustrated, depressed and angry. By golly, the result was the election on November 2.

I think the President got a wake-up call, and to his credit, he has awakened. What we are talking about a lot here tonight is to say we tip our hat to him in order to be able to come together, to be willing to moderate and to do something to get us back on track.

Now, I don't know at what point he might, if ever, admit that ObamaCare was a mistake, but come the House majority of the Republican Party in the 112th Congress, we will, as depicted in our Pledge to America, do everything in our power to repeal that expensive monstrosity that failed on every promise: if you like what you have in health care, you can keep it. It's going to lower the cost of premiums, and on and on and on.

So I yield to my colleague as we continue to have this spirited discussion.

If the gentleman would yield back to me. And I would claim time from my friend on this same point that I think we do need to elaborate on this.

I would, Mr. Speaker, suspect that all of my colleagues--certainly most of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, the Republican Members of the Congress--would philosophically agree that there should be no tax on death. Death should not be a taxable event. I think Steve Forbes, the brilliant owner, editor and publisher of Forbes magazine, said a number of years ago when he was running for President--I will always remember this--``no taxation without respiration.'' I love that comment. And as a physician, I certainly can relate to it. And again, I would prefer that there be no death tax, estate tax, as our friend from Pennsylvania, Representative Thompson, has just said. This year there is none, there is no taxable event if you die in this calendar year of 2010; but you better hurry up and do it because come January 1, all of a sudden the estate tax goes up to 55 percent with a little old exclusion of $1 million. Well, there are many, many, many small business men and women and farmers who paid for that investment with after-tax dollars that would get hit with that.

So as part of this compromise, as my colleagues know, Mr. Speaker knows, the President sat down with the Republican leadership and said, you know, you guys passed a bill on the House floor and it would be a 45 percent tax on everything above $3.5 million, but we will compromise and agree that there will be a $5 million exclusion and the tax on the overage would be only 35 percent. In fact, that's what soon-to-be- former Senator Blanche Lincoln from Arkansas had proposed on the Senate side, along with our Republican colleague, John Cornyn from the great State of Texas. They wanted to do that. That was the bill in the Senate. So basically, again, the President has recognized that.

So we get down to the point where .03 percent--a very, very low number--of estates have any tax at all. Well, do our colleagues on this side of the aisle, do the American people say, oh, well, the principle is no double taxation, no taxation without respiration, or do we accept this compromise where hardly anybody pays an estate tax? Again, these are tough questions. They are going to be tough for our Republican colleagues in the House and Senate and I guess tough for our Democratic colleagues as well because they want the 55 percent and they want the exclusion to be $3.5 million or less.

So these are the things that we are debating. I think the American people need to know about it. Mr. Speaker, our colleagues need to think about it. But again, I will take the opportunity this evening to commend the President to be willing to come that much closer to what the American people want.

If the gentleman from Missouri would yield, and I thank him very much.

I am going to ask him to give me permission to speak and to shift gears just a little bit. I know we're talking about the economy, and that's the main point of the Special Order hour this evening. But we had another vote this afternoon that was pretty important as well, barely passed on the House floor maybe an hour or so ago, the so-called DREAM Act.

The DREAM Act which people in the 11th district of Georgia, northwest Georgia think is a nightmare. It may be a dream if these students want to go back to their own country and attend one of their great universities. But bottom line is, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say, and I will put in the Record, that I came to the floor and, with my electronic vote card, voted a resounding ``no.'' I had to step out quickly, only to come back in and find out that it wasn't recorded. That was very disappointing to me because I think that vote was to allow about 2.5 million people in this country illegally to ultimately be granted amnesty, and I think it was a very boneheaded wrong vote.

And with that, I will yield back to my gentleman friend from Missouri.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the 50th anniversary of The Center for Family Resources. Founded in 1960, founders Fred Bentley, Sr., Howard Ector, and Harry Holliday envisioned a better way to combine six existing emergency assistance organizations in Cobb County under one roof.

Families repeatedly faced limited access to affordable transportation, childcare and housing, as well as a lack of education and training to secure and maintain employment. The organization determined the removal of those barriers was the real key to breaking the cycle of poverty.

Cobb Family Resources has grown from a small emergency aid agency to a multi-function human services organization, serving both generations of the family to develop personal responsibility and a self-sufficient lifestyle.

Today, it serves as an average of 10,000 individuals each year. Records also indicate more than 400,000 individuals have been served by CFR since 1960.

Madam Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring the Center for Family Resources.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your patience as we tried to get our act together here this evening, not realizing of course that here it is almost Christmastime, that our pages have all gone home. It reminds me of what a great, great job these young men and women do for the Members in so many ways, not the least of which is of course helping during these Special Order hours. But, Mr. Speaker, thank you for your patience.

I want to of course thank my leadership on the Republican side for allowing me and my colleagues in the House GOP Doctors Caucus to lead this Special Order for the next hour. And we are going to do that, Mr. Speaker, on health care and on the recently passed--I say ``recently''; 10 months ago, March of this year--the passage of ObamaCare, now, I know, formally referred to as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

But this is a piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, that the American people, at the 60 percent plurality level, opposed and have remained here 10 months later, as certainly was seen in the results of the election on November 2. The American people felt that this was something that was forced upon them against their wishes, although they had a 2-year period of time to let not just our Democratic majority and President Obama, but every Member of Congress in both the House and the Senate understand not only that they were opposed to this bill but why they were opposed to it.

And, in fact, during this campaign, our Republican Party made a pledge to America on many things, not the least of which, of course, was to repeal this bill, this 2,400-page monstrosity that has done hardly any of the things that President Obama had hoped, wished, promised that it would effect. So we said to the American people, you give us an opportunity, you give us an opportunity to elect, to choose, to have John Boehner as the next Speaker of the House and give the Republicans an opportunity to lead, that we will repeal this bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, this evening I am very proud, as the cochairman with my colleague from Pennsylvania, Dr. Tim Murphy, to chair the House GOP Doctors Caucus. There are about 11 current active members. That includes medical doctors, psychologists, dentists, people that were involved in health care before they came to this body as a profession. And I am telling you, I think most of our colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, that the number of years of clinical experience among this group is something like 350 years. Several of us have got a little gray hair around the temples.

But I think we have served a great purpose for our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make sure that everyone understands from a health care perspective what this bill has done, the

harmful effect that it's had--harmful effect on individuals, harmful effect on the practice and profession of medicine, harmful effect on companies across this country. We will talk about that tonight, the burden that is placed on small business men and women trying to abide by these provisions of ObamaCare. Last but not least, of course, Mr. Speaker, the harmful effects that it's had on the entire Nation in regard to our economy, the lack of recovery, the joblessness rate.

The unemployment numbers came out just this past November, 9.8 percent, creeping a little higher, not getting better, despite a trillion dollar stimulus package, which hasn't saved jobs. But this bill, and the reason we were so opposed to its passage even 2 years ago when it was first introduced in the Energy and Commerce Committee in the House, was Members on our side of the aisle understood very clearly that the number one priority for this country was to put people back to work, to jump-start this economy. And yet we spent literally 2 years, these first 2 years of President Obama's administration, on passing-- trying to pass an energy bill. Thank God, Mr. Speaker, in my perspective, it did not pass, the so-called ominous cap-and-trade, which would have increased the energy costs for every family in this country approximately $3,000 a year. Thank goodness this bill, after passing in the House, became bogged down in the Senate. And hopefully, it will remain there quietly dying.

But unfortunately, ObamaCare did pass, and the economy is no better. We just got our priorities a little bit backwards. But I am pleased to say that a couple of our colleagues in the GOP Doctors Caucus, House GOP Doctors Caucus are with me tonight to discuss this issue: Congressman John Fleming, a family doctor from Shreveport, Louisiana, and Congressman Paul Broun, my colleague from Georgia, also a family practice doctor. I will call on them. I am going to defer to them as much time as they want to take, Mr. Speaker.

We will basically have a colloquy and talk about some of these issues tonight in regard to ObamaCare and what we Republicans, the new Republican majority in the next Congress, the 112th Congress, have pledged to the American people that we will do. Our pledge was to repeal this bill. And first and foremost, we are going to make every effort to be faithful to our pledge and to try to repeal this bill. Understanding, of course, and I think the American people do understand this, that President Obama is the President, and he will be President for the next 2 years. The Democrats do have a continuing majority in the United States Senate, and they will have for the next 2 years.

So while we feel very confident that we can lead the charge, the House GOP Doctors Caucus lead the effort of repeal in this body, the House of Representatives, we will succeed in doing that and fulfill our pledge to America and make every effort to do the same thing in the Senate, although we know that we don't have the votes. But maybe we can persuade some of our Democratic colleagues, especially some of those that are up for reelection in 2012, Mr. Speaker, to understand finally, at long last, what the American people said on November 2.

Then, of course, the hurdle of getting a bill passed, a repeal bill passed, by President Obama. He has the veto pen, there is no question about that.

But, you know, hope springs eternal. I think the negotiations with the Republican leaders a couple of days ago in regard to keeping the tax rates the same for every American taxpayer for the next 2 years sheds a little light on maybe the President's attitude of working with the heretofore minority and soon-to-be majority in the House and kind of moderate his stance on some of these things. Because, as the President himself said, Mr. Speaker, elections have consequences. And this election on November 2 certainly would tell President Obama that people do not like this bill and they want it repealed.

So maybe he won't veto. But in the likely event that either we are not able to get the bill of repeal passed through the Senate, or if we do, that President Obama, indeed, would use his veto pen, then, of course, the options that we have are a couple that I want to talk about. I know my colleagues will get into that as well.

But there are so many provisions in this bill that we will have the opportunity in this House to defund, to absolutely pull the plug on some of this spending so that this bill will not go forward. And, again, in the meantime, there are a number of parts of the bill that we will have individual pieces of legislation that will strip that away. And these are the things, Mr. Speaker, that we will be talking about tonight.

I would like, at this time, to call on my colleague from Louisiana, Representative John Fleming.

Dr. Fleming, thank you for being with us this evening.

Before I defer to my colleague from Georgia, Dr. Paul Broun, I just wanted to mention something, Mr. Speaker, that Congressman Fleming just said in regard to the taxes, the tax situation that we have and hopefully the compromise, obviously, the compromise worked out between President Obama, his administration, and the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate. All of that has to be approved, Mr. Speaker, as you know, by the entire Senate and by this entire House before it becomes law. I hope that we will be able to do that before we leave here for any kind of a break, even a Christmas break.

But as part of that compromise, there is to be this cut in the payroll tax for a full year to literally cut the employee portion of the Social Security payroll tax from 6.2 percent down to 4.2 percent. I think, Mr. Speaker, that's a good thing, just as keeping the tax rates that currently exist, and have for almost the last 10 years, to keep them all in place, not to raise any, especially not on the job creators, the small business men and women, the so-called rich.

But the ironic thing about this, my colleagues, is in this bill, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, it called for raising the payroll tax, for raising the payroll tax on Medicare for anybody that makes above a certain dollar amount of income, by 3.7 percent. That is going into effect right now, by 3.7 percent, to increase the payroll tax.

And that's why, Mr. Speaker, we're here on the floor tonight as representative of our leadership to try to point out some of these things and say, gosh, you know, that really makes no sense at all to say that we need to cut payroll taxes and we're going to do it on Social Security for the next year for everybody. No matter what their income might be, we're going to cut it by a third, in fact.

And then on this bill to raise the Medicare taxation 3.7 percent, it doesn't make a lot of sense--as a lot of things about this bill don't make a lot of sense.

Before I call on Dr. Broun again, I want my colleagues to look at the easel to my left, to your right, on the number one priority, as I mentioned at the outset, our Republican priority and our Pledge to America is to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

Now, on this second slide, and I talked a little bit about that--and we'll get into that as the hour progresses--but priority number two, in the event that we're not able to repeal because we just don't have the votes or that President Obama uses bad judgment and vetoes our repeal bill, we're going to have the opportunity--and Dr. Broun will talk about this--to defund certain provisions in this bill.

And with that, I'll yield to my colleague from Athens, Georgia, and my great friend, Dr. Paul Broun.

If the gentleman will yield?

Reclaiming my time just for a second from Dr. Broun.

Dr. Broun, if you don't mind holding that poster up again because I wanted to enter, Mr. Speaker, into a colloquy with the gentleman, my colleague from Georgia.

In the four points on his poster, addressing that first one, allowing individuals to deduct 100 percent of health care expenses, including the expense to purchase health insurance--whether it's first dollar sickness coverage or long-term care, which people, when they get our age, need to start thinking about.

But under current law, and I want my colleagues to correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I think under current law, an individual in filing their tax return if they itemize their deductions, they can only deduct health care expenses that are more than 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income. And hardly anybody reaches that threshold.

And I think what Dr. Broun, Mr. Speaker, is suggesting in regard to this change in the IRS Code--of course this would have to come through the House Ways and Means Committee--but what a novel and a great idea that he and Mr. Shadegg and Mr. Dent have proposed during this Congress.

I am refreshed to know that Dr. Broun will introduce this bill in the 112th Congress, but the point he was making is not only that bullet point, Mr. Speaker, but on his poster, the three others with regard to purchasing health insurance across State lines for an individual, for a group of individuals sometimes referred to as an association, to be able to avoid, Mr. Speaker, the mandates that so many States have passed in regard to what a health insurance policy has to cover.

Every time you add a little mandate, a little test here, a little test there, then the cost of the cheapest health insurance in the individual State goes up. So that is why this idea of someone who needs a policy in Georgia being able to go online and see what is offered in Louisiana, as an example, is a great idea.

What Dr. Broun was saying, we had some ideas. We are the party of K- N-O-W, he likes to say, not the party of N-O; and President Obama knows that. And the Democratic majority knew that, knows that. And they ignored it; and as a result, they are soon to become, at least in this body, the Democratic minority.

I yield to Dr. Broun for other comments before I call on Dr. Fleming.

Dr. Broun, thank you. Your four commonsense solutions are great. Keep that poster handy, we may want to refer back to that.

We are going to get into the subject of Republican priority No. 3, and that is on my poster to my left, attack key components of ObamaCare until the bill can be repealed. So in the next 15-20 minutes or so, we will be talking about some of these key components of ObamaCare that we can legislatively attack.

I am going to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming) to begin that discussion or any other comments that he wants to make before we get into that.

With regard to the last comment that the gentleman made with regard to preexisting conditions, and Dr. Broun referenced it on his four commonsense solutions, in regard to those high-risk pools that the States can create, can set up, can say to health insurance companies, whether it is the Blues or Aetna or Cigna or smaller companies, there are literally 3,000 health insurance companies across the country offering policies, not these big, huge mega-companies, but to say to the ones that are doing business in your State, to have to abide by a requirement of a State insurance commissioner or a Governor of a State, like our Governor-elect in Georgia, Nathan Deal, who spent 18 years in this body and left here as chairman of the Health Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce, these Governors know. We will get into a little bit of their concern about the Medicaid expansion in a few minutes, but they know.

Like Representative Fleming was saying, these high-risk pools can be set up in States, and we won't spend $6 billion of the taxpayers' money doing it. And that won't even be enough with the Federal bureaucracy trying to run these high-risk pools.

I appreciate that, and I yield back to the gentleman. If you want to engage in a colloquy with Dr. Broun, certainly he may want to ask you about that as well.

If the gentleman will segue back to me, I'll yield additional time to Dr. Broun.

I just wanted to comment, Mr. Speaker, on Representative Fleming's last remark in regard to the medical liability reform that he and I have worked very hard on. In fact, this is my fourth term; and every year that I've been here--even before Dr. Fleming and Dr. Broun joined us and joined the House GOP Doctors Caucus--I have introduced medical liability reform legislation, sometimes referred to as ``tort reform.''

I won't go into the details of it; but, basically, it is a fair and balanced approach for people who are hurt by practice below the standard of care, whether it's by the physician, the hospital or by anybody associated or affiliated with their care, who would certainly have to answer for that. These people would have an opportunity to have their redress of grievances. So, when we say ``tort reform,'' we don't mean taking away anybody's individual rights.

I will tell my colleague that the incoming chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the House, Representative Lamar Smith, has already informed me that he will be having hearings on our legislation, Representative Fleming, and on other pieces of legislation regarding this type of reform that the CBO says very conservatively would save $54 billion over 10 years. The RAND Corporation says it would save more than that on an annual basis. So I did want to let my colleague know that hope is on the way, and we will continue to work hard on either our legislation or on anybody's legislation.

Maybe, Mr. Speaker, one of our colleagues who is on the Democratic side of the aisle would like to work with us in a bipartisan way. Maybe they've got an even better idea in regard to that.

I would like to yield back to the gentleman from Georgia (Dr. Broun).

Mr. Speaker, I have put up an additional poster

that I want to call my colleagues' attention to in regard to this very important point that Dr. Broun is discussing.

So far, 34 States and the District of Columbia have had to cut funding for K-12 education, which is 5 years old--kindergarten--through the 12th grade. Mr. Speaker, we all know that education has always been near and dear to the hearts of our Democratic colleagues. It is near and dear to the hearts of, hopefully, all of us on both sides of the aisle; but it has been a signature issue for the current majority Democratic Party. In doing something like this, in putting a Medicaid expansion mandate on the States, all of which have a constitutional requirement to balance their budgets, they can't just print money. Treasury Secretary Geithner and chairman of the Federal Reserve Bernanke want us to come up with another $600 billion worth of money. They can't do that. They have to balance their budgets.

So, if they have to expand Medicaid because of this requirement that Dr. Broun and Dr. Fleming are talking about, what do they do? They cut money for public defenders, first responders or education. It's just so counterproductive and counterintuitive. Thirty-four States already, plus the District of Columbia, have had to cut that funding.

I yield back to my colleague.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time--in fact, I will yield back to Dr. Fleming because I would, on this poster, again, that's here for my colleagues to peruse, this first item, the individual mandate--Mr. Speaker, there are probably 12 different line items, bullet points on these next two posters. We may not have time to get to all of them tonight, but we will continue this in another hour. But I want to hear what my colleagues have to say about individual mandate, employer mandate. Dr. Broun has already talked about the Medicaid expansion, but the cuts in Medicare? So I will yield to my colleague from Louisiana.

If the gentleman will yield to me just for a second.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to--and I know the gentleman from Louisiana and the gentleman from Georgia know this--to remind my colleagues, that cut to Medicare that Dr. Fleming is talking about, Mr. Speaker, is $528 billion over 10 years. It's about a 10 to 12 percent a year cut annualized, and it includes cutting Medicare Advantage $160 billion. It includes hospital cuts, cuts to hospice-- that organization that takes care of people that are dying of cancer-- cuts to nursing homes, home health cuts.

But again, it's kind of embarrassing almost to see these television ads, Mr. Speaker, about Medicare, or get some flier, some glossy flier in the mail--those of us who are on Medicare--touting the benefits that ObamaCare has brought to the program and how it's going to make it so much better, and yet it cuts $528 billion out of the program.

I agree with the gentleman from Louisiana, and I yield back to him.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, and I thank the gentleman from Louisiana.

And my colleague from Georgia may want some last few seconds of comments, and I yield to him.

If the gentleman will yield back to me for maybe a concluding remark.

And yes, the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, has brought up the ``R'' word, ``rationing,'' and that's exactly what we're talking about with regard to all of these bureaus and boards and agencies, I don't know, something like 40--I wish I had brought that chart with me--but comparative effectiveness is research, is Medicare, payment board--this new board, IPAB. These things are going to lead to rationing. And the folks, Mr. Speaker, that we are most concerned about are our precious senior citizens, our parents, our grandparents, who are the ones that we fear, because of this legislation, are going to get pushed under the bus.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. And as I predicted, we wouldn't get to all the bullet points that we wanted to discuss, but this colloquy, this Special Order is to be continued.

And I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of H. Res. 1740, which recognizes and honors the National Guard on the occasion of its 374th anniversary. I would also like to thank Congressman Latta for offering this resolution and for his recognition of this important aspect of our Armed Forces.

The National Guard is America's oldest military component dating back to 1636 when colonial militias--comprised of ordinary citizens--would put aside their occupations to defend their fellow countrymen and towns from hostile attacks. From their service in the Revolutionary War where they stood their ground during the opening shots at Lexington Green and Concord Bridge to most recently valiantly fighting in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Guard has participated in every major American conflict. All Guardsmen are combat-trained, and while abroad they serve in combat missions, build schools and hospitals, and train local peacekeepers.

In 1824, the 2nd Battalion, 11th Regiment, New York Artillery became the first military organization in the United States to adopt the title ``National Guard.'' During the Mexican War, more than 70 percent of the total manpower effort was from citizen-soldiers, and in the Spanish- American War, over 160,000 National Guardsmen volunteered for active duty on behalf of their country. As evidenced throughout history, the Guard has always been there in our time of need. Guard troops comprise more than 40 percent of the manpower for the U.S. in World War I, 300,000 Guardsmen participated in World War II, 183,000 in the Korean War, 23,000 in the Vietnam War, and 70,000 in Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Finally, since the September 11, 2001 attacks, hundreds of thousands of Guardsmen have and continue to serve in combating terrorism at home and abroad.

Mr. Speaker, while the National Guard has certainly had an impressive track record of keeping our nation safe at home and throughout the world, they also support our countrymen when they are endangered by storms, floods, fires, and other disasters. Every state in the United States utilizes the National Guard for disaster assistance, and when Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf of Mexico, over 50,000 Guardsmen were deployed to aid in clean-up and restoration efforts.

I am particularly honored to have the Georgia National Guard headquartered in Georgia's 11th Congressional District, which I have proudly represented for 8 years. In 2005, the Naval Air Station-Atlanta was closed by the Base Closure and Realignment Commission, and on September 29, 2009, the Georgia National Guard took control of that facility adjacent to Dobbins Air Force Base. The Georgia Guardsmen have always served with integrity and have been there for our State during times of need.

I would also like to congratulate Major General William Nesbitt--who has a decorated career in the National Guard--for being reappointed as the Adjutant General of the Georgia National Guard by my good friend and former colleague in the House of Representatives, Governor-Elect Nathan Deal.

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a privilege to recognize the 374 years of service of the National Guard on behalf of our country, but we must take a moment to honor the men and women who have paid the ultimate sacrifice on the battlefield keeping the citizens of this great Nation safe. I want to say a gracious thank you to these brave individuals for their service and thank their families for bearing the great cost of a loved one so that America can be a better place. We will never forget these heroes, and we will always honor and admire their sacrifice.

The National Guard has and always will be an icon of the United States Armed Services, and I am very proud of the job these men and women continue to do at home and around the world.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from California for yielding.

Since the stimulus passed in February of 2009, the private sector has shed over 3.2 million jobs, and our national unemployment rate now stands at a staggering 9.5 percent. With the rest of America struggling to make ends meet, it is unconscionable that my Democratic colleagues think that we should give yet another perk to Federal employees. By requiring Federal agencies to duplicate an existing law, and allowing them to spend a fourth of their time out of the office and on a mobile work site, H.R. 1722 will cost the taxpayers another $30 million while promoting an even more inefficient Federal workforce.

Madam Speaker, this is now the third time the House will consider this legislation. When H.R. 1722 initially failed to pass under suspension of the rules in May, the Democratic majority brought it up again under a closed rule in July. It was only then that my Republican colleagues and I had the opportunity to amend this bill through a successful motion to recommit which made a number of improvements to this legislation. However, as H.R. 1722 was considered in the Senate, this motion to recommit was completely dismantled. A provision that required an agency to certify to the Office of Personnel Management that the agency's telework program will save money, rather than increasing spending, was stripped from the bill.

Furthermore, Madam Speaker, a provision that would prohibit Federal employees with seriously delinquent tax debts from teleworking was removed. A third item required employees of the Executive Office of the President to copy their official e-mail accounts on any business communications that are made on personal e-mail and social media accounts. This would ensure that Federal employees are actually working instead of socializing on official time. Unfortunately, this requirement is now gone. Finally, Madam Speaker, I am most disappointed that the provision included in the House-passed version of H.R. 1722, that would have prohibited Federal employees from engaging in union recruiting or collective bargaining activities while teleworking on official, taxpayer-funded time, has been removed by the Senate Democrats. OPM reported that in fiscal year 2008 alone, nearly 3 million official time hours were used in collective bargaining or arbitration of grievances against an employer. It equates to over $120 million of tax money spent on union activities, Madam Speaker. That's irresponsible to use these dollars for nonrelated official duties while on official time.

Madam Speaker, the motion to recommit was necessary to save precious tax dollars and ensure the integrity of the Federal workforce. How will we obtain the trust of the American people who are struggling every day in this economy if we allow Federal employees to participate in union activities while on official time, give them benefits when they're delinquent on their taxes, and increase spending in Federal agencies trying to make this flawed teleworking system work?

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, in conclusion, now is not the time to increase the bureaucratic maze in Washington but to rein in the overlapping, redundant policies that have made the Federal Government so large. We must reduce spending and diligently work towards a more efficient and more effective government that can live within its means. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.