Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, as I stood a few minutes before in expressing my concerns about the bill that Representative Lipinski brought forth, the same issue exists with regard to my good friend from California (Ms. Matsui) regarding H.R. 5156, Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act.

Ms. Matsui, Mr. Speaker, just momentarily said we need to be exporting clean energy technology. Well, with all due respect, what we need to be exporting is beef and pork and corn and soybeans and, yes, Harley Davidson would like to export a few motorcycles to Colombia, but they can't do it because they face such a high tariff.

Again, the bill is fine as far as it goes, other than the fact that you are authorizing another $75 million. And you can say, well, it's an authorization; it's not an appropriation. But if you give permission within committee to let those that do the appropriating, you essentially open up the floodgates for 75 additional million dollars of taxpayer-funded programs.

As President Reagan said, you know, government is not the solution to our problems; it is the problem. More and more government growth, spending, deficit debt, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, the American people have spoken. I'm going to tell you they are going to speak again.

We leave here, I guess, sometime Friday afternoon, and we will be in our district work period this year for not 1 month but probably 6 weeks. We have got to face these people, not just me in the 11th Congressional District of Georgia, but every one of us. All 435 of us have got to go home and look these folks in the eye.

We have to say, you know, I am trying to explain to you why, in our last week before our break, we authorized another $75 million worth of spending, adding to the $1.4 trillion deficit this year and, indeed, finally adding to the national debt which is now, as we all know, over $13 trillion, something like 95 percent of our gross domestic product. That makes no sense.

Again, with all due respect, I know these bills came through committee, voice voted in subcommittee and full committee, but there were concerns. There were concerns about the spending.

Representative Parker Griffith, Mr. Speaker, our colleague from Alabama, had an amendment. He said, Look, we need deficit neutrality in this bill.

That was one thing that we did vote on, that amendment, and it failed along party lines 30-15, even though the majority party keeps saying, well, you know, we honor PAYGO--except when we don't honor it.

Again, my colleague from California is a most respected Member of the committee and this House. As a friend of mine, she is trying, just as Representative Lipinski was trying with his bill. But let's get the job done by lowering corporate tax rates and taking the burden, the regulatory burden off of our manufacturers, and go ahead and pass these free trade agreements with Colombia, South Korea, and Panama.

They have been negotiated to a fare-thee-well, and I think the Democratic majority ought to explain to the American people why we don't do that. That's what we need to do to grow jobs immediately and not just continue to kick the can down the road and study it and study it and study it with an unemployment rate of 10 percent and 16 million people, many of them in the manufacturing sector--in fact, 2 million manufacturing jobs have been lost in the last couple of years.

This has got to stop.

Madam Speaker, I rise not really in opposition to H.R. 1796, the Residential Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act--in fact, parts of this legislation I am very much in favor of, particularly regarding the encouragement in the grant program to try to help people to know of what the gentleman from Maryland just said in regard to the danger of carbon monoxide, which is colorless and odorless. It causes far too many poisonings and, indeed, deaths. I think, 170 Americans each year. One would be too many, Madam Speaker.

I question, somewhat, the necessity of making the standards for the detectors going from a voluntary standard to a mandatory standard.

But in regard to encouraging widespread use of the detectors, not only in places of business but, absolutely, in a home setting where a lot of times you have got these generators because of a power outage or camping equipment that, you know, is misused or malfunctions and it leads to these tragedies that we are trying to avoid.

I absolutely commend my colleagues, and in particular my friend from Utah, Jim Matheson, in bringing this bill forward. I was very supportive in the committee markup.

Madam Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to relate the same story that I did in committee, a true

story, unfortunately. When I was growing up, my parents owned what you might refer to as a mom-and-pop motel, sort of like a Motel 6, except I think we had 25 units and we charged $8 a night for one person and $10 a night for two, but that was a family business.

For a number of years, Madam Speaker, we didn't have a home. My parents had an efficiency apartment in the office of the motel. Most of the time we would have vacancies, so my two brothers and I would spend the night in one of the motel rooms, and it would vary from night to night.

I was about, I guess, 13 years old, one weekend in unit 1. Unit number 1 was a unit with two double beds. It was a larger unit of our 25-unit motel, so we would always like to stay in unit number 1. On the weekend, a cold winter night, my brother was 14, I was 13, and his best friend was 14, and we stayed in unit number 1.

Well, the very next weekend, unit number 1 was rented, so we weren't able to stay there. I remember going to mass on Sunday morning. My dad was Methodist, my mom was a Catholic, and Mom took my two brothers and me to mass.

When we came back, unfortunately in the parking lot of that motel I saw what I had never seen before, a beige-brown hearse--in fact, two or three of them--in the parking lot of this motel.

Madam Speaker, what had happened is three soldiers that weekend stayed in unit No. 1; they were 18-19 years old. They had crossed the State line because you could drink beer in South Carolina when you were 18 years old, and you couldn't do it in Georgia, so we would get a lot of weekend business from the military. These young soldiers got asphyxiated that night with carbon monoxide poisoning. It was just such a devastating thing to my dad. It just about caused him to lose his mind, quite honestly, and his business, even though it wasn't his fault. It was a faulty heater that the way the wind was blowing that night, it blew the burnt fuel back into the room, and these three soldiers, young boys, God bless them, lost their lives that night.

So when Representative Matheson brought this bill before the Energy and Commerce Committee, as you know, Madam Speaker, as also a committee member, man, it brought all of that back. It was 55 years ago that that happened, and it was just like it was yesterday.

So I commend the gentleman, I absolutely do. I have some concerns about changing from a voluntary standard to a mandatory standard; but this is good work, this is good legislation, and for that reason I am going to support it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution, House Resolution 1499, honoring the achievements of Dr. Robert Campbell, Jr. and the work that he did in regard to not only this particular device that Mr. Pallone just described but in regard to a lot of other pediatric medical equipment.

I guess today is my day for reflection, Mr. Speaker, because, as a practicing physician for 31 years before being elected as a Member of the House, I distinctly recall having a patient who actually died of this Thoracic Insufficiency Syndrome, which Mr. Pallone was discussing in regard to how Dr. Campbell invented this device, this vertical expandable prosthetic rib. I don't know when that invention occurred. Well, I do know. It was in 1987. So, Mr. Speaker, the story of my patient was before that.

My patient was someone who was born with spina bifida, someone who never had usage of her lower body, her limbs. She was what I guess you would refer to as a paraplegic. She did live into adulthood. When she was my patient, she was in her midthirties, and she was beautiful. Her name was Fran. Out of respect for the family, I won't say her last name, but Fran was beautiful. She looked like a child even though she was in her midthirties, but her chest--her thorax--as was just described with Dr. Campbell's patient, had not grown or fully developed, and it was difficult for her to breathe. When Fran actually died, I am sad to say, maybe a couple of years after she became my patient, that is what she died from.

Maybe if she, as a child, had had the opportunity to take advantage of Dr. Campbell's knowledge and expertise and contributions to medicine, particularly in the field of pediatrics and pediatric birth defects, maybe Fran would be alive today. That would be great, because she was a wonderful person.

So I am very supportive of this resolution honoring Dr. Robert Campbell, Jr.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support House Resolution 1499, the resolution honoring Dr. Robert Campbell, Jr.

I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, my amendment would prohibit funds in the bill from being used to exercise eminent domain without just compensation to the individuals involved. This is necessary because the Kelo v. City of New London Supreme Court decision expanded the so-called ``public use'' provision of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. This decision allows State and local governments to practice eminent domain for the benefit of one private party over another.

In this specific case, Madam Chairman, the City of New London, Connecticut, used its eminent domain authority to actually seize private property to sell to private developers in order to aid a struggling economy in the name of economic development, but not specifically in the traditional interpretation of ``public use.''

Justice John Paul Stevens' majority opinion states that the Fifth Amendment does not require a literal ``public use.'' However, the Fifth Amendment of the document this Nation holds sacred--and I have it right here with me all the time, Madam Chairman--the Fifth Amendment of this document clearly reads: ``Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.''

This decision represents the disparity between constitutional interpretation and, yes, judicial activism. Governments should solely be allowed to compel an individual to forfeit their property for the public's use, but not for the benefit of another private person.

I agree with the dissenting views in the case which point out that the decision is an intrusion into private citizens' lives, and it picks winners and losers in the private market at the cost of an individual losing their personal property.

Madam Chairman, according to the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, all levels of government have a responsibility and a moral obligation to defend the property rights of individuals and only exercise eminent domain when it's necessary for public use--the literal interpretation of public use--and then just compensation is paid to those affected individuals. Any execution of eminent domain by State and local governments that does not specifically adhere to these requirements constitutes an abuse of government power and a usurpation of the individual property rights as indeed defined in the Fifth Amendment.

My amendment would take one step toward ensuring that property rights of citizens are protected and they are justly compensated when they are taken for public use.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank Mr. Edwards for that commitment. I certainly appreciate his comments.

Again, I would urge all of my colleagues to support the amendment. Let's end this abuse of eminent domain. Eminent domain is necessary, but it is being abused; this definition of which, with the help of very liberal interpretations by the Supreme Court in some cases, has been blurred to seemingly allow one private entity to benefit over another. That, as the gentleman from Texas indicated, is the intent of the amendment, and I am very grateful for his support.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to ensure that no funds in this bill are used to construct or to renovate any facility in the United States to house Gitmo detainees.

Now, I realize that the majority will likely support my amendment given that the bill contains no funds for this purpose; but today, Madam Chairman, I want to challenge the Democratic majority to commit to adhering to an underlying principle, that being that it is wholly unnecessary to transfer the detainees and to close Guantanamo Bay, or Gitmo. No matter what appropriations bills we are considering--today, MILCON/VA, when we come back, DOD, Homeland Security, CJS--this fact still holds true.

We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the facilities at Gitmo, and the only reason we continue to debate its status is, quite honestly, Madam Chair, for public relations reasons.

As I witnessed most recently in April during my third site visit, the Gitmo detainees are treated with dignity and with respect. They are allowed access to their attorneys. They are allowed access to the International Committee of the Red Cross. They are provided with excellent medical care. As I am a physician Member, I know of what I speak. They are even allowed to live in a communal setting. If they were to consume everything provided to them on a daily basis, they would take in 5,500 calories per day. Indeed, most of them have gained anywhere from 15 to 25 pounds since they were originally detained. Their religious customs in all areas of their lives are respected, and they are provided with everything necessary to observe those customs.

If the world knew how we were actually treating these detainees, we would not be facing the prospect of spending hundreds of millions of dollars more--money that we don't have unless China will continue to lend it to us--to duplicate what we are already doing at Guantanamo Bay.

Madam Chair, transferring the detainees to the United States could eventually lead to their release on American soil, which would put our own citizens at risk. It could create significant immigration issues as aliens could become eligible for asylum or other forms of immigration- related relief from removal. It most certainly would make any facility where they are held a terrorist target.

Not surprisingly, Madam Chair, the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to closing Gitmo. In a March 2010 CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, 60 percent of Americans expressed that the United States should continue to operate the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. They understand that the battlefield is not limited to our military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. They have recently witnessed two attempted attacks on our homeland in the skies over Detroit and, indeed, on the streets of New York City.

The American people know that the detainees located at Gitmo are not minor offenders by any means. These detainees include terrorist trainers, terrorist financiers, bomb makers, Osama bin Laden's bodyguards, terrorist recruiters, and would-be suicide bombers. Indeed, one of three adolescents originally detained is currently being tried by a military tribunal. Another, who was released after extensive efforts at rehabilitation, was subsequently killed on the battlefield after returning to the fight in Afghanistan.

Madam Chair, simply put, the American people believe that bringing Guantanamo Bay detainees to American soil for any purpose puts Americans at risk and is a national security threat. It is time this Congress listens to the collective voice of the American people and stops perpetrating the ``Washington knows best'' mindset.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment on this bill--and on all other appropriations bills--to prevent the wholly unnecessary transfer of Gitmo detainees to American soil.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I want to thank my friend from Texas. In knowing him and his heart, I am not surprised that he would support this amendment, but I want to ask the gentleman a question.

Mr. Edwards, can I count on you to commit to supporting this amendment in future appropriations bills so that we can end the debate as to whether Guantanamo Bay should be closed once and for all?

I hope the gentleman will answer the question.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ranger in Gordon County. It's almost my district. We have contiguous congressional districts, and we have the privilege, actually, of sharing Gordon County.

The gentleman from Ranger, Representative Graves, has done a great job in a short period of time, Mr. Speaker, in the House of Representatives, and he knows of what he speaks. I mean this is the kind of work that he did in the Georgia House of Representatives, and he represented us extremely well at the State level. It is really interesting to see him on the floor of the House of Representatives now, here to explain to the American people and to our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, what truly is going on here.

He and I had the privilege, I guess you could say, of watching the previous hour, of watching our colleagues from the Democratic majority. It seems, Mr. Speaker, that they spent an hour whining about competition from other countries, particularly from China. They wanted to focus in on China and talk about, you know, all of these unfair trade practices and what China is doing in regard to their currency and dumping and all of these things. You'd think there were, indeed, no World Trade Organization to police anything. Yet it was, you know, a whole hour of blaming other countries for the woes that we have in our country.

As Representative Graves pointed out, the fact is that we have an unemployment rate of 10 percent, and 16 million people are out of work.

I even heard from the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, the Representative from Wisconsin, the distinguished Dr. Kagen, say that the problem is that the economic stimulus package of February 2009 of $862 billion--that's right, with a ``b''--was not enough, that they just simply didn't pour enough money into this problem.

Of course, we all know on this side of the aisle that we conservative Republicans are going to continue to fight this plan the Democratic majority has of just spending more money. You cannot spend your way out of debt. Every family in this country understands that and understands that very clearly. We'll talk about this in the ensuing hour as we proceed with the colloquy.

As Representative Graves points out, Mr. Speaker, the problem is not them. The problem is us. We can blame other countries all we want for our own woes. We can blame Greece. We can blame Spain. They spent an hour blaming China. How about blaming our tax policy that has a corporate tax rate of 35 percent? It is one of the highest rates of any industrialized country. While all of the other countries in Western Europe are lowering their corporate tax rates, we just leave it alone. We don't do anything about it.

As the gentleman from Calhoun and from Gordon County just said, we are about to let--not ``we,'' but you, Mr. Speaker, and the Democratic majority--the Bush tax cuts expire.

Representatives Graves talks about marginal rates. He didn't have a chance yet--and I'm sure he will--to get into the estate tax and, instead of there being a 15 percent tax on dividends, letting it go up to the marginal rate, indeed up to 39.6 percent, and letting capital gains go back up from 10 or 15 percent to 20 percent.

These are the job killers. All of these regulations, union wages, kowtowing to them, giving them special deals, paying them, in many instances far more, and, indeed, even letting them work Federal jobs and negotiate union activities while they're supposed to be working for the taxpayer.

I could go on and on, but I want to yield back to the gentleman controlling the time and look forward to my colleagues as we go through this hour.

If the gentleman will yield.

In regard to America Speaking Out, the poster--if you don't mind, Mr. Speaker, have the gentleman put that America Speaking Out poster back up so our colleagues can take a good look at it. I was just, as I stood here, thinking about our colleagues from the majority side of the aisle who had the previous hour. There was a Member from Ohio, there was a Member from Wisconsin, and there was a Member from California.

And I will just bet you, Mr. Speaker, if the folks in those great States will take the opportunity of going on that Web site, www.AmericaSpeakingOut .com, and input what their concerns are, it would probably mirror what is on that poster that Representative Graves has presented to our colleagues this evening in regard to balance the checkbook, cut spending, repeal the stimulus, $862 billion. Indeed, the Representative from Wisconsin said that wasn't enough spending; we need to spend more.

If the gentleman will yield, I would say that the gentleman is absolute, Mr. Speaker, right on target. And he said a key word. And that is that this is a nonpartisan Web site. Yes, it is created by the Republican minority for all of America to let us know, whether they be Democrats, Republicans, independents, libertarians, whatever. Let them have the opportunity to tell us, and let's have a bubble-up-from-the-bottom contract with America, not a top-down driven government-knows-better-than-anybody-else kind of plan that it seems the Democratic majority is heck bent and determined to force on the American people, just as they tried to force a year-and-a-half ago cap- and-trade, an energy policy that was run amok, that would result in probably $1,500 minimum a year per family in increased energy costs.

And then of course they come right back after that with this ObamaCare that Representative Graves is talking about. He mentioned the $600 billion worth of increased taxes to pay for it.

What he didn't mention was the additional $525 billion cut to the Medicare program, which we all know, all four of us know, is $75 trillion of unfunded liability over the next 50 years, and you're going to gut it 12 percent a year and then have the unmitigated gall, Mr. Speaker, to spend taxpayer money and send out these brochures, these glossy, fancy Medicare brochures assuring seniors that it's going to be better for them to cut their programs 12 percent a year and Medicare Advantage 18 percent a year.

I think the American people know better, and I think that the folks in Wisconsin, the folks in Ohio, and the folks in California are going to let those three Representatives know and give them a sure earful when they get back to their districts come August recess.

If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely astounding. I have seen that chart before, not maybe in quite such a vivid highlight and outline, but Mr. Speaker, my degree is in chemistry. And when I first saw Representative Graves put that chart up for all of our colleagues to see, I thought that was the periodic table. Really, it took me back to my chemistry days and the periodic table of the elements. It's probably changed some now because it has been a long time since I attended Georgia Tech and got that BS in chemistry, but this is more complex than the periodic table.

And I'm sure the gentleman from Ranger will agree with me, it's something like 130 new Federal agencies that were created by this mess, all between the doctor and the patient. Maybe my colleague will point out where the doctor is on that chart and where the patient is.

You know, you talk about there is a temptation to try to surgically repair. But, Mr. Speaker, when you look at that chart that Representative Graves is presenting and you realize the complexity and there is so much wrong with this bill, I am afraid that by the time that you tried to surgically repair, there would be very little left to say grace over. That's why so many of our colleagues on this side of the aisle feel like that we need to repeal this bill, this monstrosity, this omnibus of 2,400 pages, government takeover of one-sixth of our economy, 16 percent, and start over, and start over.

Just this past week in the Energy and Commerce Committee--but we deal with a lot of health care issues, and this monstrosity, indeed, started over a year ago. We passed, this week, eight separate health care- related bills, none of which were more than five pages long, and we did it in a bipartisan way.

We can certainly come back and, with four or five really good solid ideas, and maybe we can present those in a subsequent town hall meeting or Special Order hour here on the House floor, but that's what we really need to do. I think it's important that people understand that.

I thank the gentleman for having us here and this colloquy so that our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and the American people can better understand what we truly need to do to repair this.

Mr. Speaker, as one of the cochairs of the bipartisan Congressional Taiwan Caucus, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 266, and I particularly want to commend one of my fellow cochairs, Ms. Shelley Berkley of Nevada, for her leadership on this issue. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, I would like

to applaud the leadership of other cochairs, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida and Mr. Gerry Connolly of Virginia, for their work in bringing this resolution to the floor, and I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding me time.

Since its inception in 1947, the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, has been a great resource for the international community to develop and to foster the most efficient and the safest means of airline travel across the world. In the aftermath of the horrific terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, it was the ICAO that convened a conference to endorse a uniform, international strategy to ensure aviation safety throughout the entire world.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, our friends in Taiwan have been excluded from participation in the ICAO since 1971. Not only has that diminished Taiwan's ability to stay at the cutting edge of aviation, it has also presented obstacles to the international community as a whole, because ICAO cannot completely fulfill its mission to meet the needs of all people in efficient and safe air travel.

Taiwan has a very large footprint within commercial aviation that warrants its inclusion within ICAO. The Taipei Flight Information Region, as has been mentioned by my colleagues, covers an airspace of 176,000 square nautical miles. It provides air traffic control services to over 1.3 million flights annually. Additionally, there are over 174,000 international flights carrying more than 35 million passengers that fly in and out of Taiwan each and every year.

With this high volume of air traffic, Taiwan certainly deserves to have a seat at the table of ICAO at least, Mr. Speaker, as an observer.

This is precisely what this concurrent resolution seeks to accomplish. Providing Taiwan with meaningful participation at ICAO benefits both the Taiwanese and the international community as a whole.

Due to our longstanding relationship and our respect for our friends in Taiwan, I want to urge all of my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 266.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the late Paul Coverdell, the former United States Senator from Georgia, as Sunday marked the 10th anniversary of his death. Senator Coverdell was known to be a fair and honest statesman, and I always admired him for those traits along with his reputation for being a voice of reason in the Senate. Many of my colleagues from Georgia say that he wasn't a man of many words--but he always meant what he said and followed up on his promises.

Senator Coverdell was accomplished in his trade on many different levels. Before coming to the U.S. Senate, Paul spent 19 years representing the best interests of Georgians in the State Senate, where he served as the Minority Leader, and as the Chairman of the

Georgia GOP. It was during this time that Paul met and formed a friendship with then-Governor George H. W. Bush--who would later appoint Coverdell to serve as the Peace Corps Director when he became President.

In 1992, Coverdell was elected to the U.S. Senate, where he was influential on many different committees. Under the slogan ``Coverdell Works,'' Paul became the first Republican from Georgia ever to be re- elected to the U.S. Senate. In his second term as Senator, he created the Coverdell Education Savings Accounts, also known as the ``Coverdell Plans.'' These accounts have allowed millions of students to save money and then withdraw it later--tax free--in order to fund their college educations.

Senator Coverdell left a lasting impression on both the State of Georgia and the Nation--and I am honored to have known and worked with him. He understood the importance of compromise, and was very well respected and liked by people of all political persuasions. We miss him to this day, and my thoughts and prayers are with Senator Coverdell's wife Nancy this week.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1483, to honor the service and sacrifice of the 14th Armored Division during World War II; and I thank my friend, the distinguished chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Ike Skelton of Missouri, for being an original cosponsor and also want to thank Representative Critz of Pennsylvania and Representative Conaway of Texas for their support.

As Americans learn about World War II, most are familiar with the Battle of the Bulge; yet few know about Hitler's last major offensive along the Western front. Operation Nordwind was Hitler's final attempt at pushing back the Allied march toward Germany. The Allies blocked the German counterattack, and the Germans began withdrawing to defensive positions. But victory came with a heavy price, Madam Speaker. Of the approximately 41,000 casualties, roughly 16,000 were from Allied forces.

Today, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in honoring one armored division, the 14th, that played a vital part in stopping this offensive. Madam Speaker, the 14th Armored Division arrived in Marseilles, France, on October 29, 1944, and soon after participated in the liberation of the French province of Alsace that November. The 14th went on to enter Germany on December 6, 1944. In addition to its efforts in Operation Nordwind, the men of the 14th Armored Division liberated tens of thousands of Allied personnel from German captivity. Among them were thousands of Americans.

So celebrated is the legacy of the 14th, Madam Speaker, that the division has been distinguished and designated as a ``Liberating Unit'' by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in recognition of its liberation of civilians of many nationalities from concentration camps. All in all, Madam Speaker, in their selfless efforts to free those confined to these camps, 447 of the 14th's finest were killed in action, 1,998 were wounded in combat, and to this day, 442 are missing in action.

Madam Speaker, I came to know the storied history of the 14th Armored Division through my deputy district director, John O'Keefe, whose grandfather, Private First Class Norman Narsted, served in the 62nd Armored Infantry Battalion of the 14th Armored Division; and he, indeed, was killed in action on March 1, 1945. With John's help and that of the division's historian, Jim Langford, we were able to put together House Resolution 1483. It is especially timely given that the 14th

Armored Division Association will be holding its 45th annual reunion on September 8, and with the anniversary of the end of World War II right around the corner.

In honor of this occasion, Madam Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me today in honoring the liberators.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Issa for offering this motion to recommit.

Since the stimulus passed last February, the private sector has shed over 3.2 million jobs and unemployment now stands at a staggering 9.5 percent. Now is not the time to give another perk to Federal employees while the rest of America is struggling to make ends meet.

By requiring Federal agencies to duplicate an existing law and spend 20 percent of their official time out of the office and on a mobile worksite, we're costing the taxpayers another $32 million while promoting an inefficient Federal workforce.

I'm proud that this motion to recommit corrects some of these problems. Thankfully, if adopted, this motion will require that each agency must certify to the Office of Personnel Management that the agency's telework program will save money, rather than increase spending. Furthermore, teleworking privileges will not be granted to employees that have been disciplined for poor work performance and behavior, such as viewing pornography on work computers, having a record of being absent without permission, or who are delinquent in paying their taxes.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am very proud that this motion will prohibit Federal employees from engaging in union or collective bargaining activities while teleworking. 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, equating to over $120 million tax dollars spent on union activities. It's irresponsible, Mr. Speaker, to use these dollars for nonrelated official duties while on official time.

So, Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is necessary to save precious tax dollars and ensure the integrity of the Federal workforce. I commend Mr. Issa for bringing this forward. I urge my colleagues to support this motion.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a very distinguished businesswoman, Sandy Morris, the founder and CEO of Bradley Morris, Incorporated based in Kennesaw, Georgia. Sandy built Bradley Morris, Incorporated--BMI--from the ground up. Her goal was to create the biggest and best military recruiting firm in the country, and nearly 20 years later, I would say Sandy has more than surpassed her goal. BMI is now the largest military recruiting firm in the country and they have helped more than 20,000 military personnel find careers after serving our country.

Madam Speaker, Sandy's career--influenced by her father's service in World War II--has taken her all the way to the top 3 percent of all women-owned firms with revenues of $1 million or more. She is truly an impressive woman, and I wish her the best of luck.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the service of a very influential spiritual leader within the Marietta community, Reverend Kenneth Marcus, the Senior Pastor of Turner Chapel A.M.E. Church.

Reverend Marcus came to America from the Island of Trinidad in 1975 to pursue a higher education. He received his undergraduate degree from Morris Brown College and master of business from Atlanta University. He first felt called to preach while in college, and then attended Emory, where he received a master of divinity in theology.

Reverend Marcus is very well respected at Turner Chapel, as he transformed a small church of just over 150 people to a large congregation consisting of over 6,000 members today. Most notably, the African Methodist Episcopal University in Monrovia, Liberia, conferred the doctor of divinity degree on Reverend Marcus in recognition of his impact on the city of Marietta.

Mr. Speaker, Reverend Marcus's wife is also his co-pastor, the Reverend Cassandra Marcus, and I send them both my best wishes.

Madam Speaker, all across the country, Americans are asking Congress to get our fiscal house in order. This desire for change and fiscal responsibility can be seen in the 1.1 million votes for House Republican Whip Cantor's YouCut initiatives. Each vote is a vote to cut spending and to cut that spending now. I can think of no clearer message to the Democratic leadership who, unfortunately to date, have kept their earplugs in and they have refused to listen.

Their solution instead has been more borrowing, more spending, and more bailouts. Indeed, that's what they recommended at the recent G-8/ G-20 conference in Toronto which was totally rejected by the other participating nations.

Madam Speaker, this week, week six of the YouCut program, Americans chose my proposal to address the waste associated with Federal employee unions. In 2008, the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, reported in a sample of 61 Federal agencies that approximately three million official time hours, taxpayer time hours, were used in union activities by Federal employees for a cost to the taxpayer of $120 million.

Currently, some Federal employees spend up to a hundred percent-- that's right, a hundred percent--of their work day paid by taxpayers doing work for their unions. My proposal prevents Federal employees from using taxpayer-funded time to participate in union activities and would save $1.2 billion over the next 10 years and 30 million hours of taxpayer time--$1.2 billion and 30 million hours.

So Madam Speaker, every American knows that Congress has a spending problem. Our national debt is simply unsustainable, and tough choices need to be made now to get our debt and our budget deficits under control. I urge you to listen to Americans across the country, to Republicans on this side of the aisle, and to act now. And this proposal is a first step.

A worthy second step would be actually passing a budget this year, because as every American family knows, you can't begin to cut spending until you actually come up with a budget.

Madam Speaker, the American people are tired of this reckless spending addiction that has resulted in a record national debt and record budget deficits. Like every addict knows, the first step to recovery is admitting that you have a problem.

I urge my Democratic colleagues to take that step and start addressing the problems by saving taxpayers over $1 billion to date. Vote to defeat the previous question so we can amend the rule to include this YouCut provision of fiscal responsibility submitted by the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the city of Acworth, Georgia, for being recognized as an All-American City in the recent contest sponsored by the National Civic League.

Acworth is part of Georgia's 11th Congressional District, the district that I am privileged to represent. And after spending a good bit of time around town, I can tell you that Acworth truly embodies what is best about America.

The city recently raised $1 million to build a special needs field which will give kids with disabilities a chance to play sports. Acworth's police department and citizens ran the bases of one of these fields for 24 hours as part of a fundraiser to build the facility. The finalists in the All-American contest traveled to Kansas City to give presentations on their efforts. Acworth sent 40 members of their delegation, along with 25 special needs children, and finished in the top 10.

Mr. Speaker, I want to offer my congratulations to the Acworth community, as I am very proud to represent this city in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you and I thank my leadership on the Republican side, Leader Boehner, and our leadership team for giving me the opportunity this evening before this packed House Chamber, of course, Mr. Speaker, with the exception of those few names that you just read off, but on this occasion of the 3-month anniversary, if you will, the 3-month anniversary of the signage into law of the health care reform bill, better known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, sometimes referred to, with no disrespect, as ObamaCare, not unlike HillaryCare of 1993, which never became law.

And, Mr. Speaker, indeed, when I say ObamaCare, I do not mean any disrespect, although I consistently, along with my colleagues on this side of the aisle, voted against the passage of that legislation. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, I would hope when we on my side of the aisle, on behalf of the American people who overwhelmingly continue, 3 months after passage of this bill, continue in all polls taken oppose this legislation, so when my Republican colleagues and I, Mr. Speaker, regain the majority and control this Chamber and we repeal ObamaCare and we replace it with legislation that I am going to talk a little bit about tonight, I would not be offended in the least, Mr. Speaker, if they called it GingreyCare, or maybe even better Dr. GingreyCare. I would be very proud of that.

Mr. Speaker, the concerns I think of the American people and their continued opposition to this reform is not that they are opposed to certain health insurance industry reforms. No, not at all. Nor are we in the loyal minority for things like the rescission of a policy after the fact. So many of our colleagues in their own families, or maybe their distant relatives, extended families, have seen situations like that where health insurance industry abuse directly affected their families.

I have a grand-niece who went into the hospital, Mr. Speaker, to have a gall bladder removed. It was an emergency situation. And after the fact, she was told that the health insurance that they had had for a number of years--her family, of course, her mom and dad, that covered the children--was not going to cover, would not be applicable because somewhere in filling out that policy, 8, 10, 12, 14 pages worth of minutiae, they failed to dot one I or cross one T. Fortunately, as a Member of Congress, and this is what we do in regard to helping not just our constituents but our family members as well when we can work with other Members of Congress in their district, we were able to get the insurance company to pay that claim.

But people across the country are rightly outraged about health insurance abuse. And we need to change

that. We need, indeed, to make sure that people with preexisting conditions have a way to be able to get affordable health insurance. And certainly that can be done and was being done even before this bill, Mr. Speaker, in a number of States where they have these high- risk pools. And the health insurance companies that are licensed to sell their product in those specific States, like my State of Georgia, are required to participate in these high-risk pools and are not allowed to charge, say, an arm and a leg--that really gets medical, doesn't it--but you know what I mean, my colleagues, way over and above four, five times what a standard policy premium would be. Well, that's a de facto denial of coverage. So we all agree that that needed to be changed and the American people would like to see that changed. Of course they would.

But their concern, and I see this, Mr. Speaker, every time I go back home. And I go home, as most of my colleagues do. As soon as we get out of here, we head to the airport so we can get back in our districts and have those town hall meetings and those tele-town hall meetings and, you know, go see folks at senior centers and church and Rotary clubs and Kiwanis clubs and wherever our constituents are, ballparks with their children on Saturdays. And we talk to them about these things and we listen to them. More importantly, we listen to them.

And what I have heard from day one, Mr. Speaker, I am talking about a year-and-a-half ago, was: Why are we doing this? Why are we doing this when 15 million of us are out of work? The unemployment rate in Georgia is 10 percent--a little higher in my 11th Congressional District of northwest Georgia. We need to go back to work. Why are you men and women in Congress, you Democratic majority, Republican minority, why aren't you all working together in a bipartisan way to stimulate this economy and to put us back to work? Many of us have been out of work for 6 months or more and we don't have health insurance but, you know what, we don't have a job either. And we will take our old job back even if we don't have health insurance. Eventually, we will be concerned about that, but right now we can't put groceries on the table. We can't clothe our children. We can't pay our taxes. We cannot pay the mortgage on our home. We are going to lose the roof over our head. And you guys are spending a year-and-a-half trying to figure out how to come up with a trillion dollars. We know how you're doing it. You're doing it by slashing the Medicare program to the bone, $500 billion worth, and you are raising taxes $575 billion worth. How is that going to create jobs?

So, Mr. Speaker, that's why the people were opposed to this. That's why the people in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Bay State, elected Scott Brown to replace Teddy Kennedy, a Senate seat I guess held by the Kennedy family going back to our former President JFK, all those years. And the whole delegation in Massachusetts is totally Democrat. But the people in the Bay State, when Scott Brown was campaigning, Mr. Speaker, what was his main point to make on behalf of his candidacy? I am going to go to Washington, if you give me this opportunity over Ms. Coakley--a decent candidate in her own right. You give me this opportunity, and I am going to be the 41st vote in the United States Senate, and you know what that means. That means that stops this bill dead in its tracks under regular order, under normal operating procedures.

The people of Massachusetts understood that. They understood that very clearly. They were, Mr. Speaker, very concerned, weren't they, about Commonwealth Care? They had had about 2, 2\1/2\, 3 years of that, and they knew that the cost of health insurance with that kind of approach, those premiums didn't go down; they went up. They wanted no more of that. They wanted Scott Brown--the Honorable Senator Scott Brown now--to go to Washington and be that 41st vote, so that cloture could not be invoked, the filibuster could not be overridden, and this bill could be stopped dead in its tracks.

And it would have been, Mr. Speaker. It would have been, except for smoke and mirrors, hook or by crook, promise them everything, anything you have to to get a vote, and then this arcane, strange stuff called reconciliation. And really, Mr. Speaker, what was done here 3 months ago, we celebrate this 3-month anniversary, a bill, a massive 2,500- page bill, was crammed down the throats of the American people.

Now they ain't done. I will say this, Mr. Speaker. It ain't over--it isn't over--it isn't over until the people win. And I tell them, I tell them in Georgia and my colleagues tell them all across the country, you resist. You continue to resist. Don't roll over and say, it's done, it's a fait accompli, it's passed, there's nothing we can do about it.

Yes, there is. Yes, there is. We can resist, we can resist, we can resist right up until November 2; and then we can make some changes. We can't change hearts, so we change faces, Mr. Speaker. And then we repeal. And then we start over. And we do this in the right way. We do it indeed by making sure that health insurance companies don't continue to literally abuse their clients by rescission of policies, by denying coverage.

All of these things we can take care of, and we could do that probably in six or eight pages' worth of legislation. It doesn't take 2,500. It doesn't take the creation of 130 new bureaucracies. It doesn't take 15,000 new IRS agents to go over with a fine toothed comb everybody's return to make sure they not only have a health insurance policy but the one the government dictates to them; and, lo and behold, if they don't, they get to pay a fine, eventually of up to something like $695. And if they don't pay the fine, Mr. Speaker, John Q. Public gets to go to jail, spend a little time in the crossbar hotel, as my father used to call it.

Can you imagine in this country that that could happen under the ruse of the commerce clause? Indeed, what does the commerce clause of our Constitution say? I know I have it here somewhere in my pocket. I try to keep that with me all the time. In fact, I tell folks in my district, if you catch me without it, the first person that catches me, I'll have a $5 bill in my pocket to hand to them.

But when you look at the commerce clause, it doesn't mandate commerce; it regulates commerce. And that's so important, Mr. Speaker, for our colleagues to remember. You can't mandate to someone that they engage in commerce, that they buy something against their will. If they're involved in commerce and it's interstate, and I realize most commerce is interstate, then the government's heavy hand is always involved, to regulate. But to mandate? To tell a young man or woman who has just graduated from college or maybe had a nice job opportunity straight out of high school, and they're making less than $25,000 a year, they take care of themselves, they're healthy, they were an athlete in high school or college, they don't smoke, they don't drink, they're not obese, they don't have a family history of heart disease or cancer. Indeed, their family seemed to have the Methuselah gene. They have grandparents in their late nineties. Those people that decide, even though maybe their employer offers health insurance and pays 60 percent of the premium or 50 percent of the premium but they've got to pay the other half, and they can't afford it. They just can't afford it. So they opt to take a chance and hope that that healthy living will serve them well, and it will be many years before they'll have a need to spend a great deal of money on health insurance.

You tell me, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, that they should not be allowed to do that in this country? To continue to forever be able to make that choice? I'm not as a physician Member going to stand up here and say that that's what I would advise them to do. No. I would be glad to do a public service announcement, if somebody would pay for it, saying, folks, don't take that chance now. It's kind of like riding a motorcycle without a helmet. It might look cool with your sideburns flapping in the breeze, but there's a tree up ahead, or somebody is going to run a stop sign, and you don't have much protection.

I would encourage them to try to economize and maybe have a health insurance policy that has a very low monthly premium and a high deductible. That deductible, let's say, is $3,000

or $4,000. In other words, they're going to have to pay the first $3,000 or $4,000 each and every year of health care expenditures out of their own pocket. But in return for that, their monthly premium is low, very affordable, and it gives them catastrophic coverage so that if they do hit that tree on that motorcycle without that helmet and they have a massive head injury and they're not dead but they're in a coma for a long, long time, that they're not financially totally wiped out and forced into bankruptcy. They have that kind of protection. That's called a health savings account combined with that low monthly premium, high deductible with catastrophic coverage.

Those plans, Mr. Speaker, have gotten so popular. They were limited by Teddy Kennedy back when they were first proposed a number of years ago, but since then they have been expanded and are very popular with young people. So, so many of these folks that are so-called ``uninsured,'' they're really not uninsured; they have some coverage, and it is good coverage. But under this bill--now I know people will say, well, that doesn't kick in until 2014, 2013.

Hey, Mr. Speaker, it seemed like yesterday when I walked off the campus of St. Thomas Aquinas High School in Augusta, Georgia, in 1960, and I thought I was done learning and grown up. And it seemed like that was yesterday. By golly, it's been 50 years ago. So the time flies. It will be like a blink of an eye, we'll be at 2014, 2015, and all these horrendous requirements in this bill, ObamaCare, will kick in: like the requirement under penalty of law with those IRS agents, 15,000 of them, looking over your returns and, ah, we caught another one. I don't know, maybe they get a bonus every time they catch some poor, young individual who's not poor enough to be eligible for Medicaid or PeachCare or SCHIP, that's taking a chance, and even those that have the insurance but it's not adequate because the Federal Government said, oh, that's not good enough, we want first-dollar coverage, we've cut this deal with the insurance company for them to go along with ObamaCare, and we're going to require first-dollar coverage.

That's the kind of thing that really, Mr. Speaker, is appalling to me as a physician Member. I am honored to be cochair of the GOP Doctors Caucus along with my good friend from Pennsylvania, psychologist Tim Murphy, child psychologist, author of several books, and now a lieutenant commander in the Naval Reserves. These are the kind of folks on my side of the aisle.

There are about 15 of us. Most are MD's. We have probably 375 years' worth of clinical experience. The whole spectrum of specialties: whether it's OB-GYN, my specialty; or family practice, the specialty of Dr. John Fleming; gastroenterology, the specialty of Dr. Bill Cassidy; psychology, the specialty of Tim Murphy; cardiothoracic surgery, the specialty of Dr. Charles Boustany; OB-GYN, again the specialty of Mike Burgess and Phil Roe; orthopedic surgery, the specialty of my colleague from Georgia, Tom Price; family practice, indeed, house-call medicine, the specialty of my colleague again from Georgia, Dr. Paul Broun. I could go on and on.

These are Members on our side of the aisle who were just begging, calling, writing letters to the White House: let us participate. We know about that sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship. We know what rationing will do and the fear that our seniors have of being rationed because they're too old to have taxpayer dollars spent on their hip replacement. So you just say, no, take a couple of Advil and we'll buy you a walker, maybe even a wheelchair, although that's debatable as well.

And, Mr. Speaker, to compound this problem, ObamaCare, now our President has named the new director of CMS, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Donald Berwick. Dr. Berwick may be a fine human being, I'm sure he is, I don't know him personally, but I have read quotes and I know that he's written a book. And one of those quotes, and I'm not going to be able to give it verbatim, but basically, Mr. Speaker, says, it's not if we need to ration; it's that we need to ration with our eyes wide open. It's not if we need to ration care, but that we ration with our eyes wide open.

I'm looking forward, as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Health Subcommittee, to having Dr. Berwick soon after his appointment as director of CMS to come before the committee and explain to us just what he means by that. So that the seniors who are relying on Medicare, like my mom, my 92-year-old mom, is she going to be able to, as she did last year, to have her knee operated on? Or is she just going to get a walker and a bottle of Advil and told, you're just too old? We can't afford it. We're going to ration care.

Again, this is what people are concerned about. Mr. Speaker, when half of the pay-for, the trillion dollars, to be able to get an additional 15 or 20 million people into some kind of health care coverage, whether it's these State exchanges, or eventually I'm convinced that the real plan is to go to a U.K.-type system, Canadian- type system and have national health insurance; the Federal Government to take over one-sixth of our economy, one-sixth of our entire gross domestic product, $2.5 trillion a year, the Federal Government controlling this, lock, stock and barrel.

Madam Speaker, the American people don't want that. The American people didn't want the Federal Government to completely take over the student loan industry, but they did. This President did. This majority did, Madam Speaker. The American people don't want a cap-and-trade bill, an energy bill, that results in a $1,500-a-year minimum increase in the cost of electricity in this country. The American people don't want that.

The American people want our borders secured, Madam Speaker--ask any of them--and not just the people in Arizona. Ask the people in Georgia. Ask the people in Michigan. They want our borders secured. They don't want amnesty. That was tried in 1986, and I think something like--I don't know--6 million, maybe, were granted amnesty, and now we've got 12 million to 14 million illegals in our country.

So it is just a fact, as I said, Madam Speaker. It's not that people don't want to have more affordable health care, lower insurance premiums, and better coverage. They want that--of course they want that--but they don't want the Federal Government to take it all over and to literally come between a doctor and her patient in an exam room:

No, no, Doctor. You can't do that. It says here in the manual that bureaucrat No. 128 of the 131 new ones is over that, and you can't order that test because there is a cheaper way to do it.

The doctor says, Well, yeah, but you know, for this patient, I know this medication will work. We tried the other, and it didn't work for my patient. In fact, she had a bad reaction to it.

Well, you're going to have to get a waiver then, Doctor.

But, Madam Bureaucrat, the patient needs care today.

Well, you know, we'll probably have an answer for you in a week or two.

That is the kind of stuff that we are talking about. So I'm going to tell you this, Madam Speaker. That is the reason there are physicians all across this country, on both sides of the aisle, who are seeking the nomination of their party to come join us, to become one of the 435 or one of the 100 in the other body. I've never seen so many running for office, giving up, you know, more lucrative careers financially than what you earn as a Member of Congress.

They want to make a difference. They want to make a change. They are, I'm sure, pretty frustrated and disgusted about their lot, about their wonderful medical profession that many of them devoted 25, 30 years of their lives to. They probably didn't even get started until they were in their early thirties and had $200,000 worth of student loans to pay off.

They went through all of that, and now we're going to come along and say, Well, you doctors work for us now. You work for the President. You work for Ms. Sebelius. You work for Dr. Barwick. We are going to call the shots. Not only are we going to set your salary--and, indeed, until today, you were facing a 21 percent cut, a 21 percent cut over last year in what we reimbursed you for anything: seeing a

patient, doing a consultation in your office, making a diagnosis, taking out an appendix, delivering a baby, seeing someone at 2 o'clock in the morning in the emergency room--but, if they are Medicare, we are going to pay you 21 percent less.

Actually, Madam Speaker and my colleagues, that went into effect last Friday. So, for any claims that Medicare was holding, the doctors will be reimbursed. Now, yeah, okay. In this bill we passed today, they will be able to hire, I guess, a new employee who will spend the next several months resubmitting those claims. Maybe, within a year, they will get that 21 percent cut back.

Though, do you know what we did here today? It's amazing. We should have done this months ago. We certainly should have done it last Thursday so that this effect, this cut, this 21 percent cut, would not have been allowed to go into effect.

Madam Speaker wanted to hold that up so that these other things could get done and could be attached to it. In other words, kind of using this as an incentive to pass some other things that--yes, you guessed it--involved more government spending, more deficit, and more debt. Thank goodness our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and especially our Republican colleagues, said, no, we will not vote for that. We are $13 trillion in debt, and our deficit for the year is $1.6 trillion. If you look at it over a 10-year period, it is going to average to about $850 billion worth of red ink each and every year over the next 10 years. We are not going to spend another dime on whatever you want to call it--Stimulus I, Stimulus II, Stimulus III. The first one hasn't worked. Yet our Speaker wanted to hold out for the passage of that and, really, figuratively, wanted to hold a gun to the heads of the doctors.

Well, we finally did pass it, as a stand-alone measure, to mitigate those cuts, but do you know what? Colleagues, you know what. Of course you do. We mitigate it until the end of November--barely 6 months. Then, all of a sudden, they are hit with it again. If we don't permanently fix this problem, then next year the cut will be 25 percent.

With ObamaCare, with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, we had an opportunity, and the President promised the doctors at the convention of the American Medical Association in Chicago, his hometown, that tort reform would be in there, that payment reform would be in there--``in there,'' the bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--but, oh, no, it was stripped out because it cost too much. Yet we gutted Medicare of $500 billion, and $130 billion of it was taken from the Medicare Advantage program.

Fully a fourth of our seniors on Medicare get their care from a Medicare Advantage plan. Why? Because screening procedures are offered and paid for. Annual physical examinations are offered and paid for. Nurses call the patients to make sure that they are taking their medications--and the medications are paid for.

Yes, it costs a little bit more, and our majority party said, Well, you know, we shouldn't be paying more for those programs, but look how much more you're getting if you believe in wellness rather than in just treating episodes of illness?

That's why you came up with this program, for goodness sakes. That's why we passed Medicare part D, the prescription drug part. This was when you criticized us so severely back in 2003 and said, Oh, you're not paying for that. It's going to cost another $450 billion on the Medicare program to provide these seniors with coverage for their prescriptions.

Well, Madam Speaker and my colleagues, you know that many of these seniors--I know. I'm one of them--are taking four, five or six medications a day to lower their cholesterol, to lower their blood pressure, or to get their blood sugar in line to make sure they don't end up on renal dialysis, to make sure they don't end up having their coronary arteries bypassed or stented.

In the long run, this cost of Medicare part D will be a savings because we won't be spending as much money paying cardiothoracic surgeons to crack people's chests; we won't be paying nursing homes for all these folks that couldn't take medication for the blood pressure that end up with massive strokes and, God bless them, they didn't die and they are in a nursing home for the rest of their lives, which may be another 20 years. So in the long run, that bill was a good bill, and we will save money because we will shift costs from Medicare part A and part B to part D, the prescription drug part. And isn't it a more compassionate way to treat a human being?

Madam Speaker, I'd like to suggest that we have a lot of good ideas that were ignored. But it ain't over. It ain't over.

I've got a couple of posters here I wanted to show my colleagues. I don't know how much more time I have. Maybe I will ask the Speaker how much longer we have.

Madam Speaker, thank you very much.

Well, I said, colleagues, that I'm representing the Republican minority tonight during what we call the Leadership Hour. Our Democratic colleagues will have the second hour. They may refute every word I've said, Madam Speaker. I hope not, but they could. But that's what we do up here. And it's important that we try to bring, as honestly as we can, from our own perspective our views so we can learn from each other. But, again, as representing the leadership and as cochair of the Doctors Caucus, as you can see on this first slide, this just says: Yes, today, ObamaCare. Three months later.

I'd like for my colleagues to pay attention to the easel, if you would, because I want to go through a few important things--quotes and promises. What we were promised. And this is a quote, ``Health care reform that will provide access to quality, affordable health care for all Americans is now law. The enacted reforms will help bring down costs for American families and small businesses. It will give all people the security of health insurance that can't be taken away.'' The majority leader, the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Steny Hoyer) said that on June 23, 2010. I believe that was Wednesday. That was yesterday that Steny Hoyer made that quote, that statement.

Well, that's part of what we were promised. Here's what we got. My colleagues, again, I refer you to the easel: ObamaCare hurts small businesses. And these three bullet points. Small businesses were promised a tax credit to help with compliance with ObamaCare. On paper, the credit seems to be available to companies with fewer than 25 workers and average wages of $50,000, but in practice, a complicated formula that combines the two numbers, that works against companies that have more than 10 workers and $25,000 in average wages.

I will give you an example on this same slide, the last bullet point. An Illinois furniture supply store owner, Zach Hoffman, he ran the math. And his small business with 24 employees and $35,000 average wages would get--listen carefully, colleagues, if you can't see it-- zero help because he created too many jobs and he paid them too much. And he's got 24 employees and an average salary of $35,000, and he's not going to get any help. So much for the promises.

More of what we got. More of what we got. ObamaCare hurts all employees. Increased costs. The majority of employers anticipate health care reform will increase health costs. Most say they plan to pass on increases to their employees--they have no choice--or reduce health benefits and programs. Some say that less benefits will be available for retirees.

Now, I want to elaborate on this a little bit. More than three in four employers--85 percent--believe health care reform will reduce the number of large organizations offering retiree medical benefits, and 43 percent of employers that currently offer retiree medical plans plan to reduce or eliminate them. Well, let me explain that to my colleagues.

Shortly after ObamaCare became law, a number of companies--IBM was among the companies; Caterpillar. I can name several others that would be recognized, I guess, by everybody in the Chamber as Fortune 500 companies--companies that employ a lot of people, companies who have a lot of retirees who were promised that they

would have a health care benefit, and if they retired at age 50, they could rely on that company providing them health care until they became eligible for Medicare, and then I guess it would become secondary to Medicare. But what a great benefit. But after all, when you work for a company--I guess a lot of people don't do that today, Madam Speaker. But if you spend 25 or 30 years, 5 days a week, 365 days a year being loyal to that company, you have earned it. It's not a gift. It's something that you have earned.

And when Medicare part D was passed, a lot of concern on the part of the Federal Government that these companies would just say, Well, okay, we'll just drop the coverage for our retirees and they can, when they get eligible agewise for Medicare, they'll just pick up their health care then.

Well, a tax break was given to these companies on that cost that they incurred in providing the health care benefit for their retirees, and indeed it did include prescription drugs for many of these companies. And all of a sudden with this new law, ObamaCare--ObamaCare, Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act--that tax break was taken away. I really didn't realize it. I'm on the Energy and Commerce Committee and very involved in all the markups and back-and-forth that went on for a year, but I wasn't aware of that provision. But in the aggregate, something like $6 billion worth of tax advantage to incentivize these companies to continue to pay the health insurance for their retirees was taken away.

Well, they were required, the companies, as this was a cost to their bottom line, the SEC requirement was that they immediately let the SEC know, to make a filing to that effect. And what they did, they were literally threatened to be drug before the Energy and Commerce Committee with the threat of subpoena to come and prove they weren't lying.

Madam Speaker, my colleagues, and the American people, that is a pretty scary scenario, is it not? Is it not? It's unbelievable is what it is. But these companies submitted all the required documents that the committee demanded and then the committee realized that the companies were right and they were wrong. This indeed was an unintended consequence. And this bill is riddled with stories like that. It's been 3 months and we're finding something new like that almost every day.

Here's also what we got, as I refer you back to the easel. ObamaCare hurts all employers. Independent Mercer Survey on ObamaCare: 97 percent of employers responded that the legislative changes would cause premiums to rise. And indeed they have.

The survey also examined business' fears about the law's new employer mandate penalties. More than one in four employers, 26 percent, and nearly two in five retailers, 39 percent, may not be in compliance with provisions requiring coverage of all employees working over 30 hours per week. And finally, of those, a majority, 59 percent, said they would consider changing their business practices so that fewer employees work 30 hours or more per week.

So what we're talking about, again, is that this bill, while it may get a few more people health insurance, it's going to cause so many more people to lose their jobs, to add to that 16 million. And, Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, these people, once they've been out of work a while, they want health insurance, but they also want a paycheck because they have to support their families. And they'll do everything they can to protect their health.

You know, they won't let them walk to school on a busy highway, and they'll make sure they're wearing their helmets when they get on their bicycles. But, you know, food is not free, clothes are not free, mortgage payments are not free.

So, again, this is why the American people said, you know, we're in a rut. We're in a ditch, and we think it's time for you to stop digging. You are making it worse. You are digging the hole deeper, borrowing all of this money and us being $13 trillion in debt. You cannot spend your way out of debt. It's impossible. It can't be done. It's never been done. Let's get this country back on its feet and get people back to work, get that unemployment rate down to 6 percent again; and then we can do the things that we need to do.

Madam Speaker, I could talk about a number of Republican alternatives. Wally Herger, my good friend from California who is the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee on Ways and Means, just introduced a bill within the last couple of days that does all the things that we need to do. And I can assure you, Representative Wally Herger's bill is not 2,500 pages long. And that's a commonsense sort of thing.

I am going to mention one other thing to my colleagues, and then I'm going to wrap up this evening. I was so disappointed, and my physician colleagues were so disappointed, Madam Speaker, when the President did not follow through on his promise to do something about medical liability reform, so-called tort reform. We've tried to many times pass that in this Chamber under a Republican majority, but we couldn't get it through the Senate. I have given a lot of thought to that. And particularly when the CBO says that we could save $54 billion over 10 years, I think it's probably closer to $100 billion a year. I have seen many other studies that suggest that.

But I think that the bill that I am introducing right now--it's called MEDMAL Act of 2010. MEDMAL is an acronym. It stands for Meaningful End to Defensive Medicine and Aimless Lawsuits. Doctors all across this country are ordering all of these unnecessary tests. They're getting criticized for getting a CAT Scan on everybody that comes into an emergency room with a headache. But I'm telling you, they're doing it not to gin up their own revenues. They're doing it because they're scared to death that if that one in a million situation where the person has a brain tumor or an impending stroke is missed, they will be sued and not only lose all of their assets, they would lose their profession. We can't continue that way. And I would think Republicans and Democrats alike, if we could join hands can do something about that.

So I have introduced a bill, and, Madam Speaker, I think that it will really make a difference. And I will be talking about that a lot as we go through these remaining 6 months of the 111th Congress and trying to work my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make sure it's something that's fair, that our trial attorneys who, for the most part, are great people and are very skilled in what they do, and they're representing their clients who have been injured maybe by some doctor or hospital practicing below the standard of care, they deserve their day in court. We don't take that away. That would not be right.

But we also try to end this frivolous jackpot justice that exists today. And I think this bill will do that. So while I don't have too much time to talk about it tonight, Madam Speaker, I certainly do plan on sharing it with my colleagues maybe as we come back next week.

Well, let me thank you for your attention tonight. I thank my leadership for giving me the opportunity. I probably needed another hour to really go over everything that I wanted to talk about. But I think it's important for us to know that the American people are not done with this. As I said, it's not over until the American people win because that's why we're up here. We're up here to win for the American people, not for the special interests, not for ourselves. We're public servants, and we're obligated to continue to work to try to do what's right for the American people. And I think we can and will do that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Chevez Clarke, a baseball player from my hometown of Marietta, Georgia, who, along with two other Georgians, Kaleb Cowart of Cook High School and Cam Bedrosian of East Coweta High School, was drafted with the first round of the 2010 Major League Baseball draft by the Los Angeles Angels.

Clarke, who's a senior at Marietta High School, is a switch-hitting center fielder, and scouts say he has the ability to be a ``game- changer.'' Marietta Coach Chris Stafford said Clarke is the most talented player he has ever had the chance to coach and is a ``very mature, focused kid.'' No doubt Marietta High School benefited greatly from the playing ability of Chevez Clarke.

Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my congratulations to Chevez Clarke's mom and dad, who I know played a big part in his success, and I wish Chevez all the best.