Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today we vote to repeal the sustainable growth rate, a formula that was flawed from its 1997 beginning, and it has run its ugly course.

As cochairman of the House GOP Doctors Caucus, I would like to thank the Energy and Commerce Committee, especially Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Waxman, Health Subcommittee Chairman Pitts and Ranking Member Pallone, and especially a member of the Doctors Caucus, Vice Chair Dr. Michael Burgess, and, of course, the Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee and their staffs for their tireless work to produce a policy which will help to ensure that seniors continue to have access to quality providers.

Included in this legislation is my bill, and it is called the Standard of Care Protection Act. It provides much-needed clarity to the practice of medicine by confirming that Federal quality incentives are no substitute in a medical malpractice case for the standards of care developed by specialty societies and determined and practiced by physicians. This is an extremely important determination that will provide fairness to both patient plaintiffs and doctors.

With the vote today, we take an important step toward replacing the flawed formula, while at the same time protecting Americans by delaying the individual mandate of ObamaCare by 5 years. While the current administration continues to add delays when it is politically expedient, this policy gives certainty to individuals that they won't be taxed or fined, Mr. Speaker, for not complying with a law that they can't afford.

This may not be the final version of the bill, but it is time for the Senate to pass their own version and appoint conferees. SGR repeal is too important for both seniors and their doctors, and we have come too far for this policy to not reach the President's desk this year.

Let me just say again, we have come too far for this policy to not reach the President's desk, and I mean this year. The Senate Majority Leader needs to come to the table. Let's find a suitable path forward, and let's repeal this unsustainable physician payment policy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of H.R. 3865, the Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act, offered by my friend and Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Camp of Michigan.

In the wake of the IRS's admission last year that it improperly targeted conservative groups, troubling information continues to come to light detailing just how high the scandal went. In response, the President briefly feigned the appropriate indignation and did some cursory bureaucratic reshuffling.

Then, rather than actually addressing this stunning abuse of First Amendment rights, the Administration decided to double down by proposing a regulation that all but codifies the targeting. The proposed IRS regulation--which would change the way that tax exempt status is determined for social welfare organizations--is a move that would significantly impact the activities and First Amendment rights of those organizations. It adds a massive paperwork burden for organizations, and broadens the IRS's power over political activity.

The IRS issued the rule despite six ongoing investigations into the discriminatory targeting and the fact that the existing guidance has been in place and functioning for more than 50 years.

In order to combat this proposed overreach by the IRS, H.R. 3685 prohibits it from finalizing this unnecessary rule--and similar rules-- for one year.

Despite President Obama's claims that there was ``not even a smidgen of corruption'' at the IRS, I believe the American people still deserve real answers and a true commitment to preserving their First Amendment rights. H.R. 3865 is critical to working to regain the trust of Americans and preventing the Administration from codifying the IRS's unacceptable and discriminatory targeting.

Mr. Speaker, Americans deserve more than opaque and hurried rule changes meant to crush political discourse. At the very least, the Administration should commit to having all the facts from completed investigations before drastically changing the rules to suit its election year strategy. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to join me in fighting the IRS's continued attempts to stifle free speech by supporting H.R. 3865.

Mr. Speaker, here we are now in February 2014, and the second session of the 113th Congress has begun. The administration still has to deal with daily headlines speaking of the disaster of--you guessed it--the Affordable Care Act. I have to sometimes refer to that as the ``Unaffordable Care Act.''

Today, the news came from the nonpartisan CBO, the Congressional Budget Office. My colleagues are all familiar with that. Their report states that the administration's rosy projections are a mere fairy tale. If you take a dive into these numbers from the CBO, Mr. Speaker, you will see last year's goals amended lower as the low participation and atrocious rollout of the exchanges have finally caught up with those estimates.

Let me just give you, colleagues, a few highlights:

The CBO lowered the estimate of exchange enrollees to 6 million. That is 1 million less than they estimated at this time last year. Now, this isn't all that surprising given the problems with the Web site-- healthcare.gov--and the rest of the implementation of ObamaCare, but it definitely reinforces the notion that this plan is not working.

The CBO estimates that 31 million Americans will still be uninsured in 2024. Colleagues, when this bill was being discussed in Energy and Commerce way back in 2009--in 2008 even--the Democratic majority at the time said there were 45 million people who were uninsured. That number really shrunk down considerably when you realized that there were a number of people who were eligible for Medicaid who just didn't know it. It could have been as many as 10 or 11 or 12 million. Obviously, there are a lot of people in this country illegally uninsured but who are not eligible. Then there were the people making $75,000 a year in their households who could afford health insurance but who just chose, because of the Constitution--their personal liberty--to pay as they went. It is not something I recommend. The CBO estimates now that in 2024--10 years later--after its passage and full implementation on October 1 of this year, 2014, that there will still be 31 million Americans uninsured. What have we really solved here? It doesn't sound like we have really helped very much.

Now, this bill was sold to the American people as the solution to eliminating the uninsured. Instead, the bill only, really, adds cost in the form of very expensive mandates to everyone who already had insurance. A lot of them now are just saying, Heck, I will be one of these who will go bare. I will, maybe, set up my own savings account for health care, and will put $100 a month--or whatever--in a checking account and get a physical when I need it annually or biannually, and I will pay my own way--that has happened--and pay the little fine of $95.

So that is what is happening, and it is quite a legacy for the President's signature piece of legislation. I don't think it is the legacy that he anticipated, and it is certainly not the one that he wants today.

Finally, there is the headline from the newspaper, The Hill. Most of us read that, don't we, colleagues? We read all of these newspapers if we don't run out of time. In The Hill today, here is its headline: ``CBO: O-Care Slowing

Growth, Contributing to Job Losses''--with ``O'' standing for ``ObamaCare.''

The CBO projects that the law will reduce labor force compensation by 1 percent from 2017 to 2024, twice the reduction it previously had projected. This will decrease the number of full-time equivalent jobs by 2.3 million in 2021, and this is up from the previous estimate of 800,000. There is a big difference, my colleagues, between 2.3 million and 800,000. This is remarkable. Through a combination of higher health care costs, resulting in lower compensation and perverse incentives for folks to not work as much in order to preserve their subsidies, it is truly not the American Dream.

The administration, Mr. Speaker, continues to push for more money for jobs programs, yet, at the same time, it continues to fight for a bill that has yet to work and will lead to rewarding people for working less. What were these jobs programs? Just get rid of--what can I call it?--the worst bill, maybe, that has ever been passed in the history of this body, of this Congress. The Affordable Care Act has given us higher costs, not lower. It has performed much worse than was promised, and it will incent our citizens to work less. That is not what we want. That is really not what they want.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the administration to give in to reality and to let us repeal this bill. I don't think it is the first choice to just sit back and see it collapse under its own weight. You hear that expression a lot. I think that very well could happen, but let's take, maybe, a more responsible approach.

Mr. Speaker, I would say this to the President:

Mr. President, let's take a more responsible approach, and you work with the Congress--with Republicans and Democrats, with the House and the Senate. You get more engaged than you have ever been before, and work with us. Let's repeal it, and let's start over with something that truly does work, because we all agree that we have the greatest health care on the face of this Earth. Why is it that people pay thousands of dollars to get on a jet plane to fly from other countries to go to the Mayo Clinic or to Sloan-Kettering or to the WellStar Health System in my district, the 11th of Georgia, to get their health care, to get their surgery, to get their treatment for cancer? You don't see people from this country going in the opposite direction, because they get that good care here. So, Mr. President, we can work together. We can. The American people want us to. They don't want one side jamming the other. They do want us to work together.

I want to take some time during this Special Order hour that our Republican leadership has afforded us. I hope some of my colleagues from the House GOP Doctors Caucus will be joining me momentarily, and I will yield to them as this is the opportunity for us to explain to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle what needs to be done and how we can work together and clearly get this done and get it done in a timely fashion, if not this year, certainly in the 114th Congress.

This Doctors Caucus that I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, is something that I put together a number of years ago, and we are now up to about 22 members. I say ``doctors.'' There are a lot of categories of doctors, but I am talking about doctors who work specifically in the health care space, which is one-sixth of the economy of this country. These doctors can be medical doctors. They can be dentists. They can be psychologists. They can be advanced practice nurses. Indeed, even hospital administrators are part of this group because they know. They understand that in our caucus we have, probably, 600 years of accumulated clinical experience. That means there is a little gray around the sideburns on a few of us.

This knowledge--this expertise--our leadership on the Republican side recognizes that. Our committee chairs on Energy and Commerce and on Ways and Means and Education and the Workforce--every one of those committees that has any jurisdiction over health care--understand that, and they look to us. They look to us for expertise and guidance and explanations just as we who have worked in the health care sector before we got elected to the Congress look to educators, look to accountants, look to attorneys in their previous lives to help us on issues that we are not so up to date on or on which we don't have that level of expertise. That is the way it should be, and that is the way it should be, in my opinion, on both sides of the aisle.

So we Doctors Caucus meet, if not weekly, at least every 2 weeks. We talk about issues. We have been talking about this Affordable Care Act for the last 3 years and going through it section by section and trying to have a thorough understanding. We bring understanding to the table, but everybody can learn something that they didn't know in a 2,700-page bill. That is the due diligence that we have done over these last several years.

When we read in the media or we hear from the Democratic side of the aisle, or either in the House of Representatives or from the Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Democratic majority in the Senate, saying, well--or even, Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States. How many times have we heard him say: If you have an idea, if you have a better plan, bring it to me, bring it to me; I am all ears; I want to listen? And we have done that.

I value the opportunity to be here today to explain some of the things that have been done and that they have really come through the House GOP Doctors Caucus. One of our members is my colleague from Georgia, an orthopaedic surgeon, Dr. Tom Price. Dr. Tom Price and I served in the Georgia Senate. We are medical colleagues: he, an orthopaedic surgeon; I, an obstetrician. Now we have been in the Congress together for 10 years. And so he is a very active member of this House GOP Doctors Caucus, and he has a bill.

To just set the record straight, colleagues, let me tell you about Dr. Tom Price's bill, H.R. 2300, Empowering Patients First Act. Well, that bill is not 2,700 pages, but it is a comprehensive bill. A lot of the sections in that bill are individual ideas that have come from the Doctors Caucus. I am proud that he has included a number of my suggestions in regard to medical liability reform and other things. And so, it is a compendium of ideas.

It is a very good bill, a very good alternative. It is market driven. It does not interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, that sanctity, and it is a sanctity. Dr. Price understands that, and every member of the House GOP Doctors Caucus understands that. This bill, believe me, has the opportunity to get traction and, when it is brought to this House floor, to pass this Chamber.

Now, at the same time, we just heard, Mr. Speaker, in recent days that the Senate has drafted a bill. It doesn't have a number yet, but Dr. Tom Coburn, the OB/GYN family practitioner from Muskogee, Oklahoma, whom I have worked very closely with, the Doctors Caucus has worked very closely with, and Dr. Barrasso and Dr. John Boozman. So, the Senate Republican doctors and the House Republican Doctors Caucus have worked together.

Dr. Coburn, along with Senator Burr from North Carolina and Senator Orrin Hatch, one of the most senior and thoughtful and brilliant Members of the Senate from the State of Utah, they have this bill. They call it the Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility, and Empowerment Act, the acronym, Patient CARE Act from the Senate.

So, we are right there, Mr. President. With all due respect, we have ideas. We have Dr. Price's bill. We have Dr. Coburn's bill. We have other members of the Doctors Caucus. And the Doctors Caucus in the Senate is smaller, but we are here to help. We want to help. We truly want to bring down the cost of health care and maintain that quality that we are so proud of. It can be done. It can, indeed, be done.

Let me talk a little bit about the economy in regard to current law, PPACA, ObamaCare, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. ObamaCare has forced employers to cut hours, and as a result, part-time employment has gone through the roof. It has already forced many businesses to choose between, on the one hand, hiring new workers or providing health coverage. Mr. Speaker, they just can't do both.

President Obama always says health costs are rising at the lowest rates ever. Well, that is not because of his bill. That is because the economy is

dragging. His bill has not helped the health care industry. The costs are lower because people are not seeking care; they don't have the money. And so, yeah, sure, the overall costs of health care are going down, but that is not a good thing. That is a bad thing.

The Obama administration delayed the job-killing employer mandate for a full year so that doesn't go into effect, colleagues, until January 1 of 2015, 11 months from now. It has left the rest of Americans on the hook for this massive tax hike. The bill adds costs to running a business, massive tax increases, and of course, as I said at the outset, higher monthly premiums.

You know, one of the promises the President made, among many that he failed to keep, was that the average cost, of a health insurance premiums would be $2,500 a year lower than pre-ObamaCare.

Just the opposite has happened. And I don't think he ever said anything about what the deductible would be, Mr. Speaker. But in some of these policies, an individual deductible might go from $1,000 a year to $3,000 a year, and a family deductible from $3,000 a year to $8,000 a year. That is a 200 percent increase, a doubling of the monthly premiums. It creates just enormous uncertainty across large corporations, small businesses, and, of course, particularly the one- sixth of our economy that is the health care industry.

Think about the medical device tax and what it is doing to jobs in that industry. The medical device tax has already forced companies like Michigan-based Stryker Corporation to cut a thousand jobs. Boston Scientific canceled plans to build new facilities in the United States, instead moving these high-paying, highly technical, and innovative research jobs across the pond, overseas.

Let's look for a moment at the effect on small businesses. I speak often, and I know all of you do, too, on both sides of the aisle, because we go back home and we face our constituents; we have to, and we should. But I speak with these small business owners in the 11th District of Georgia, northwest Georgia, and my four counties. I want to know how President Obama's health care law has affected the day-to-day operations of their companies.

Well, ObamaCare has not even been fully implemented because of all these executive orders and the fiats that come down and the waivers that are granted to certain ones but not others. So ObamaCare really has not been fully implemented, even though the date is passed, but job creators and employees in Georgia and nationwide are already feeling the pain. Across the board, they have expressed frustration with its new rules and the ``moving target'' regulations, the increase in health care costs, and, of course, the uncertainty that they hate. This law has certainly created a heck of a lot of that, hasn't it, colleagues?

ObamaCare has forced employers to cut hours; and as a result of that, part-time employment has gone up, as I said a few minutes ago. It has already forced many businesses to choose, again, do I hire that 50th worker or do I just say no, I am going to take two part-time workers instead of one full-time? Or, even worse, I am going to hire that 50th worker, but I am going to drop health care coverage, Mr. Speaker, for all of my employees. And while I get a waiver for the first 30, for the next 20, I am going to pay $2,000 a year per employee that will go into the exchange.

One Georgia businessman who employs 47 people told me that ObamaCare has forced him to hire subcontractors instead of hiring new full-time employees. Another owner who has 49 workers recently purchased a robot instead of hiring new welders. That robot doesn't have to feed a family of four. It may be very efficient, but the robot doesn't have a heart and doesn't have anxiety.

On Main Street, uncertainty and higher costs get even worse when a company needs to create more than 50 jobs, as I just mentioned, creating a barrier to job creation and the expansion of their business.

ObamaCare forces employees to work fewer hours to stay on as part- time workers. It is estimated that ObamaCare will require American job creators, families, and health care providers to spend--get this, colleagues--more than 127 million hours a year on compliance. The EPA couldn't have been more onerous than this bill, and they are pretty darned onerous.

One Georgia businesswoman has been forced to hold numerous meetings on company time for her employees to help them understand the paperwork involved in trying to get health care. Besides a loss in productivity, these new rules are costing her. She recently hired an outside health care expert just to ensure she is running her company ``by the books.''

Mitzi Smith's small plumbing company in Marietta, Georgia, is known for its quality and its compassion and the excellence of its workers; and yet they are struggling to hold on, even with a wonderful reputation, because of this law.

Providing relief for taxpayers by delaying these costly mandates for 1 year is not enough, and I will continue fighting to dismantle every single piece of this train wreck law. I pledge to the people of Georgia that that is what I am going to do. It is an accountability pledge. It is not a term limit pledge. It is just to say, Look, I am not up here to be a potted plant. You have hired me to be your voice to speak for you on issues like this one. There are others. But I think now, as we approach the elections of 2014, what is more important than putting people back to work and providing them assurance that they can keep their doctor, they can keep their hospital, they can keep the health care that they want, not larded up with a bunch of funded mandates, really, that are causing those premiums to go up that they don't need and they don't want?

It is a one-size-fits-all. And in health care, one size, colleagues, and you know this, one size doesn't fit all.

I mentioned a few minutes ago about the excise tax, the 2.3 percent on medical devices. Let me mention a couple of companies that have been in touch with my office concerning this issue.

Smith & Nephew medical company announced in February that it will lay off almost 100 workers in their Tennessee and Massachusetts plants.

Cook Medical, a very familiar name, has canceled plans to open five, count them, five United States factories because the tax, this medical device tax, would cost them $20 million a year in the coming years. And remember, colleagues, this medical device tax is not on their profits. This is a tax on their revenue, so it is much more onerous than if it were just a tax on their profit.

Boston Scientific, planning for a more than $100 million charge against earnings in 2013, has now built, get this, a $35 million research facility in not Boston, but in Ireland, and is building a $150 million factory in China.

Stryker Corporation, based in Michigan, blames the tax for 1,000 layoffs.

Zimmer, based in Indiana, is laying off 450 people and taking a $50 million charge against earnings.

Medtronic, one of my classmates from Georgia Tech was the CEO of Medtronic, brilliant man, retired now, but I will never forget him. He was brilliant at Georgia Tech and throughout his entire career, and he was the CEO at a time for Medtronic. They make heart valves and many lifesaving medical devices. They expect an annual charge against earnings of $175 million.

Covidien has cited the tax in explaining 200 layoffs and a decision to move some production to Costa Rica and Mexico. I have nothing against Costa Rica or Mexico, great countries, great people, but, you know, when we are looking at an unemployment rate of 6.7 percent--if you believe that, it is probably closer to 15 percent when you count all the people that have just given up. They have been unemployed for over a year and they are just out of it, they are not even counted anymore.

So, I could go on and on and on and give you examples. I will give you one more.

A Guthrie, Oklahoma, Taco Bell has cut its full-time employees' hours to 28 per week or less. If you had a job and you got to work 28 hours a week, colleagues, I don't know about y'all, but I would need three of those jobs to support my family and my children and help support my grandchildren.

Former employee Johnna Davis said, and I quote Johnna, ``They informed everybody,'' the company, ``that nobody was considered full- time any longer . . . that everybody was now

considered part-time, and they would be cutting hours back to 28 or less due to ObamaCare.''

Spiritwear, an Idaho-based clothes company that specializes in licensed college and football team colors and logo apparel is poised to more than double their business this year.

Mr. Speaker, that is great news, isn't it?

However, the company is on the cusp of having 50 full-time employees. She is upset that what seems to be her best solution, hiring independent contractors, would give her less control--and it would-- over worker hours and how much involvement they can have in other parts of the company.

Darden Restaurants, parent company of such well-known and very good restaurants as Olive Garden and Red Lobster and Longhorn Steakhouse, they tested making some workers part-time last year. The chain has decided not to make all full-time workers part-time, but it has not ruled out a broader shift toward that very thing, part-time work.

Then in January 2014, Target announced that they would no longer provide health care coverage for their part-time employees.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have left?

Mr. Speaker, we have some time left, but I think, colleagues, that you get the picture here. We have a real problem right here in River City--and by that, I mean the Nation's Capitol, but I also mean the entire country--and we have to do something about it.

We can't just keep kicking the can down the road, as we have done with Medicare and Social Security, needed reforms, protections, strengthening to make sure that these programs are there for our children and our grandchildren.

But here we have created a whole new entitlement program that really, when you look at it, it is punishing both our seniors and our young because it is forcing the young people who finally reach that 27th birthday, and they can no longer, now, be on their parents' health insurance plan. Maybe they have been living at home, post-college, and the parents have finally just said, Honey, you are just going to have to move out. We need our space. We need a little privacy.

These young people have a job, and they want to move out with a friend or someone that they went to school with. They want to move on with their lives. They are adults now, and they have got a job, and they find that, to get health insurance, it is astronomical. Yet the salary that they make, their entry-level salary, is too much to make them eligible for a subsidy.

So what are they going to do? They are going to pay that fine, that $95 fine, and maybe even when it gets to $600, they are going to pay that, and they are going to go bare. I use that as an expression of being not having health insurance coverage. They may be 10-foot tall and bulletproof. They may take care of themselves. They may not do skydiving and some risky sort of behavior. But you never know when that Mack truck is going to run you down and you are going to end up in the emergency room.

So we want to make sure we get this right. So far we have gotten it totally wrong. But we can do better. We will do better. We need to do it in a bicameral, bipartisan way.

I mentioned my colleague, Dr. Price, and his bill. I mentioned my other colleagues on the House GOP Doctors Caucus as we continue to work on things, my cochair, Dr. Phil Roe, a fellow OB/GYN from Tri-Cities, Tennessee, former mayor of Kingsport or Johnson City. We can do it and we will do it.

But, Mr. President, you said, if you like what you have, you can keep it. You also said, if anybody, Member of Congress, has a better idea, bring it to you and you will consider it. Well, I have mentioned two bills here tonight. We have other ideas, and you have 2\1/2\, almost 3 years left in your second term. You want a legacy? We are going to help you have a legacy, and a good one, but you have got to work with us. It is a two-way street.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 357, the GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act. In addition to requiring all public institutions to give veterans in-state tuition rates as a condition of receiving GI Bill education benefits, this legislation also includes a five year limitation on executive bonuses at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Under current practice, the VA pays out about $400 million in bonuses each year. Recently, we have seen these bonuses too often go to people whose work does not merit a reward, and to the contrary, may even warrant reprimand.

This practice has been evident at the Atlanta VA Medical Center, where despite the fact that four unexpected deaths were attributed to mismanagement and lack of oversight, tens of thousands of dollars in bonuses were awarded to top level executives at the facility. At the Charlie Norwood VA Medical Center in Augusta, three patients died after management failed to act in a timely manner to schedule appointments. Despite requests to the VA, we are still waiting to hear whether those responsible received bonuses instead of reprimands.

It is past time that we stop blindly handing out rewards pay--bonuses should be the exception, not the norm. Furthermore, at a time when so many of our soldiers are returning from war, and in light of the deaths in Atlanta, I believe the VA should prioritize veterans' health and well-being above all else.

Mr. Speaker, we should reward our veterans with quality care and services in exchange for their commitment to our country and our freedoms. I urge my colleagues to join me in expressing support for our nation's veterans by supporting H.R. 357.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of the Coweta County Board of Commissioners and to congratulate the members for receiving the 2013 Prosperity Award. This award--presented by the Newnan-Coweta Chamber of Commerce--honors contributions the commissioners have made toward promoting prosperity in their community. Since 2007 this award has been presented in recognition of 30 different companies and organizations that have made a similar outstanding impact.

The Coweta County Commissioners have demonstrated a clear and enduring commitment to protecting small businesses and encouraging economic growth--most recently through their decision to eliminate impact fees on development in the county. These commissioners are critical to the economic growth in their area and have shown a great lasting commitment to promote the prosperity and betterment of their community. I am proud to have the opportunity to stand before you today to highlight the achievements of my fellow Georgians and to congratulate them on earning the 2013 Prosperity Award.

Mr. Speaker, I extend my thanks to the hard working people of the Coweta County Board for their leadership role in the community, and congratulate them on receiving the 2013 Prosperity Award.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 10 on Final Passage of H.R. 2279, the Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act of 2013, I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the long and accomplished career of one of baseball's all-time greatest managers, for Atlanta Braves Manager Bobby Cox.

On Monday, Cox was unanimously elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame by a 16-member committee, and will be inducted in Cooperstown this coming July.

Throughout his 29 years as a Manager in the Major Leages, Cox became one of the winningest coaches of all time. He accrued 2,504 wins; the majority taking place during his 25 years leading the Braves. During that time, he brought an unprecedented 14 consecutive division titles, 5 National League championships, and the 1995 World Series pennant to Atlanta.

As a manager, Cox was respected by his players and kept only three rules--show up on time, wear your uniform correctly, and play hard. After the 2010 season, he retired from his job as the team's Manager, but still holds a role as a special assistant that allows him to keep being a part of the game he loves.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Georgia's 11th Congressional District and Braves fans everywhere, I extend my thanks to Bobby for the decades of entertainment and the legacy he brought to our great state. It is with great pride that I congratulate him on achieving the highest level of recognition possible in America's pastime. Go Braves.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize The Lovett School Lions varsity football team on an exceptional 2013 season.

This Saturday, the Region 6-AA Champion Lions will make their first championship game trip to the Georgia Dome, and their first championship game since 2007.

Following an impressive 12-1 season, the Lions defeated Brooks County 35-12 last Friday in the Class AA semifinals. They now face Lamar County in the title game. What's more, they now have the opportunity to best the team that eliminated them from last year's playoffs in a hard- fought game.

This season, Coach Mike Muschamp, his staff, and these young men have worked tirelessly to earn their place in Georgia football history. The team's seniors will enter the next chapter of their lives knowing that they have upheld their school's legacy of excellence and have set a high bar for future Lions teams.

I encourage the entire team to reflect proudly on their impressive season and remember the season's important life lessons of responsibility, persistence, and self-discipline. These traits will serve them well throughout their lives.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I wish the Lovett Lions football team the best of luck in the Class AA State Championship title game, and congratulate them on their impressive season. This team has brought great pride to their school, the city of Atlanta, and Georgia's 11th District. Go Lions.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the United States National Guard as they celebrate 377 years of selfless sacrifice to our great nation.

The National Guard pre-dates all other active U.S. military branches. On December 13, 1636, what we have come to know as the National Guard was formed as a colonial militia, made up of ordinary citizens who stood to protect their communities. From their service in the Revolutionary War where they stood their ground during the opening shots at Lexington Green and Concord Bridge, to 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.

National Guard members have established a proud history and tradition of service in all 50 states, organized territories, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. Today's force is comprised of both Army and Air Force divisions and has grown to nearly 500,000 soldiers strong.

The National Guard in my home state of Georgia will hold a special celebration at Clay National Guard Center, giving special recognition to its retirees, Maj. Gen. Jim Butterworth, Brig. Gen. Joe Jarrard, and displaying many of its units' specialized training.

Mr. Speaker, it is with sincere gratitude that I extend my deepest thanks and appreciation to our servicemen and women in the National Guard for their sacrifice and hard work to protect our way of life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1992--the Israel QME Enhancement Act. I would like to commend the author of this legislation and colleague from Georgia, Mr. Collins, for his leadership on this issue. I would also like to thank the Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Royce of California and Ranking Member Engel of New York on quickly moving this bill through the Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that our strongest ally in the Middle East is the State of Israel. It is, therefore, incumbent upon us to provide them with our unwavering support. In order to uphold this commitment, we must understand the ongoing security threats to Israel. H.R. 1992 helps achieve this goal by increasing the frequency by which the Secretary of State must report to Congress on Israel's qualitative military edge (QME).

Unfortunately, Israel is constantly on alert from various threats to its existence, particularly cyber and asymmetric ones. In fact, regional, Iran has stated that its desire to ``wipe Israel off of the map.'' Therefore, despite the interim agreement between the P5+1 that was adopted on November 24, 2013, I still believe that it is critically important that we prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.

Congress took an important step during 2012 by implementing economic sanctions on Iran through the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012. This important legislation punishes individuals who knowingly sell more than 1,000,000 barrels of refined product, or individuals that sell, lease, or provide Iran with goods, services, technology, or information.

However, despite these sanctions, Iran's nuclear program has continued to grow. Earlier this year in June, the International Atomic Energy Agency stated that Tehran was violating international regulations by increasing the number of centrifuges. Although the November 24th interim agreement caps Iran's proliferation at 5%, I remain skeptical of Iran's motive for continued nuclear activity.

Mr. Speaker, that is why the bill we have before today is absolutely essential in assisting Israel. By increasing the QME reports delivered to Congress, we can oversee the potential emerging threats that Israel will face in the future. I urge all of my colleague to join me in supporting H.R. 1992.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3521, the Department of Veterans Affairs Major Medical Facility Lease Authorization Act, introduced by my good friend and Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, Mr. Miller. This legislation authorizes the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out major medical facility leases at twenty seven facilities--including a facility in Cobb County, Georgia--that were requested by the Department of Veterans Affairs in their 2013 and 2014 budget submissions.

A change in Congressional Budget Office (CBO) accounting methods made the reauthorization of these leases very difficult, but this important legislation will allow authorization while increasing transparency.

This legislation, however, is about so much more than leases and definitional changes. This legislation is about ensuring the care of our veterans, and paying them the debt of gratitude we owe them.

The VA facility in Cobb County served 6,634 unique patients outpatients in Fiscal Year 2013, providing services in outpatient treatment, mental health, and lab work. These services are critical, provide convenience, and reduce driving time for veterans, many of whom would otherwise be forced to travel 70 miles or more round-trip to visit the overcrowded Atlanta VA Medical Center. With passage of the legislation before us today, the VA could authorize a lease for an expanded facility in Cobb County, one that would serve an estimated 64,000 veterans and provide more access to a greater variety of care. While mental health services, lab work, and outpatient treatment would still be provided, the expanded facility is intended to have the capability to provide eye care, physical and occupational therapy, radiology, and more.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a way forward for that facility and several more like it across the country. It seeks to expand access to care for veterans, not bureaucratic federal policies.

Our men and women in uniform--who put their lives on the line to protect our freedoms--deserve the best care that we can give them. They deserve quality care that is convenient and accessible. This legislation provides us with an opportunity today to show our veterans that we are committed to those goals. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3521.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 618 on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 429, providing consideration of the bills H.R. 1105--the Small Business Capital Access and Job Preservation Act--and H.R. 3309--the Innovation Act--I am not recorded due to a family medical emergency. Had I been present. I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 619 on adoption of H. Res. 429, providing consideration of the bills H.R. 1105--the Small Business Capital Access and Job Preservation Act--and H.R. 3309--the Innovation Act--I am not recorded due to a family medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 620 on the Maloney Amendment to H.R. 1105--the Small Business Capital Access and Job Preservation Act, I am not recorded due to a death in the family. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 621 on the Motion to Recommit to H.R. 1105--the Small Business Capital Access and Job Preservation Act-- offered by Mr. Horsford of Nevada, I am not recorded due to a death in the family. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker on rollcall No. 622 on Final Passage of H.R. 1105--the Small Business Capital Access and Job Preservation Act, I am not recorded due to a death in the family. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor United States Army Corporal Ivan A. Evans and recognize his service to our country in World War II.

This December 7, Pearl Harbor Day, it will be my great honor to present the late Corporal Evans' wife, Sarah Ann Evans, with his well- earned service medals and decorations.

At the age of 19, Evans enlisted in the U.S. Army and was stationed at Fort McPherson in East Point, Georgia. There, he was part of the 98th Infantry Division of the 367th Field Artillery Battalion before departing for Hawaii in July of 1945, where he trained as part of the Japan occupation forces. After Japan's surrender on September 2, 1945, Evans' infantry division helped oversee the country's transition from years of war into a democracy.

While answering the call of duty, Evans earned the Good Conduct Medal, the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal, the WWII Victory Medal, the Army of Occupation Medal with Japan Clasp, the Honorable Service Lapel Button, and the Marksman Badge & Rifle Bar.

Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honor to present Sarah Ann Evans with these commendations, signifying her husband's selfless sacrifice during World War II. To preserve our history and tradition of service, Corporal Evans and the soldiers who served alongside him can never be forgotten. Their stories are the ones that define ``the greatest generation,'' where free people across the world stood up to tyranny, risking their lives for our dearest principles.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the recognition, for this time to spend talking to my colleagues on behalf of the Republican majority in the House of Representatives about the continued problem with ObamaCare and with the www.healthcare.gov Web site.

The promise to Congress and to the American people was that by the end of November, November 30, the Web site would be fixed and that people would not have any problems whatsoever getting enrolled for ObamaCare on the government-created www.healthcare.gov Web site.

Well, the administration has said, Mr. Speaker, that the problems that people had been faced with for the last 2 months--of course the rollout was October 1--had been essentially solved, that 80 percent of folks now could get health care, could complete their application, and would not get kicked off the system with an error message.

But what they don't say is it is 80 percent of what. They go on to admit that 40 percent of the Web site, Mr. Speaker, has yet to be developed, and the law was signed into effect--and my colleagues all know this--was signed into effect on March 23, 2010. Well, today is, what, December 3, 2013. They have had over 3 years, 3\1/2\ years, essentially, to get this done. And it wasn't ready. The rollout was a colossal failure on October 1, even though $600 million, Mr. Speaker, had been spent to create this Web site; and that is what you get when you have a massive 2,600-page bill that was rushed through almost in the dark of night at the 11th hour in December of 2009 when the bill was not ready for prime time, and obviously this Web site was not ready for prime time.

So it is incredibly concerning that the Obama administration has continued, Mr. Speaker, full speed ahead on the rollout of the system even after numerous warnings from vendors and from Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle in both Chambers--the House and the Senate.

The Web site has led to confusion in the insurance marketplace as well as putting customers and consumers--patients, really. I say that as a practicing

physician for over 30 years in the great State of Georgia. The Web site has led to confusion and has put consumers' personal information at risk due also to lax security protocols. It is not just this health care information, which is sacrosanct under HIPAA law, but also the security of the information--financial information, as an example.

So I am still extremely concerned about the security risk inherent with this Web site that is 80 percent fixed; but 80 percent of 60 percent is 48 percent. So it is 52 percent not fixed after 3\1/2\ years.

In last month's House Energy and Commerce Committee www.healthcare .gov data security hearing--I am a member of that committee, Mr. Speaker, the Health Subcommittee--other members and I heard testimony on the Obama administration's efforts to protect private citizens' sensitive health care data in the online marketplace. Hearing recent concerns that the site would become a central target for these so- called genius hackers and online thieves, we must make the protection of personal data one of the top priorities going forward.

Www.healthcare.gov's rollout has been completely unacceptable, and we must work to ensure that the site's data security operations aren't fumbled, as well. It would be an even bigger disaster for the American people already faced with the other consequences of the law, including higher premiums and the likelihood that they will be unable to see the doctors who they are accustomed to, the hospitals they are accustomed to going to.

This disruption is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. And it is probably why Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah, back when this bill was signed into law by President Obama, said that, in his experience--and he has got lots of experience; he has been in both Chambers for years--that it was probably the worst bill that he had ever seen in his lifetime as a Member of Congress and as a Senator. And I definitely agree with him.

The Obama administration claimed just this past Sunday that it had ``met the goal'' for www.healthcare.gov, and the online exchange would work smoothly for the vast majority of users.'' But upon closer examination, Mr. Speaker, this is not the case. In fact, ``meeting the goal'' checked a political box, rather than fully repair the faulty Web site.

These are a few of the problems that still remain, Mr. Speaker. Get this: site engineers have created a disguised gimmick for these error messages that were frustrating people so much. Consumers will now be placed in what they call a queuing system, a line--queuing up--rather than receive an error message if the site is unavailable. That, supposedly, would make people less frustrated if they know they have got a place in line, rather than seeing this big old error message that I just saw probably 30 minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, when I tried to go online to www.healthcare.gov. I put in all the information that they asked me to put in.

And as you know, all Members of Congress have to go into the District of Columbia Health Benefit Exchange. We have to. As of January 1, we are no longer eligible to be on the Federal Employee Health Benefits plan. I don't really mind that because I thought from the very beginning what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I think the President, himself, will go on the D.C. Health Benefit Exchange Web site; and I had recommended that with an amendment back when the bill was first being debated.

But as I said, the White House claims that the site can now handle-- all of the site--a 50,000-person capacity limit. But the number is untested, and it is still far short of the volume needed to be on track to reach President Obama's 1-year 7 million people sign-up goal--7 million people that, heretofore, have not had health insurance or maybe they got kicked off their health insurance plan because the promise of, If you like your health plan, you can keep it, has not been kept. Unfortunately, there are very many people--something like 5 million-- who have already been notified that they are not going to be able to keep their health care insurance even though they like it.

Many health insurance professionals and public officials have gone public. They have reported that the site isn't anywhere near ready for prime time; and as much as 40 percent, as I said earlier, of the site has yet to be built.

My hometown newspaper in Atlanta, Georgia, the Atlanta Journal- Constitution, included a headline today: ``New and improved? Not so much, some Georgians find.'' And they went on to highlight three of the most glaring examples. Mr. Speaker, I am going to give you just a couple of examples in the interest of time.

Robert Shlora from Alpharetta, Georgia, in Fulton County: shopping online and over the phone, Shlora has faced roadblock after roadblock in his quest to sign up for coverage through the marketplace. Shlora is paying nearly $2,800 a month for health insurance for himself, his wife, and their son--three people--and hasn't been able to shop around for years because he has a preexisting condition. The health law was expected to offer him much more affordable options.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has been closely following Shlora's experience since the marketplace opened on October 1.

Colleagues, you are not going to believe what I am going to tell you. Just listen to this. It is a comedy of errors, Mr. Speaker.

On Saturday, the marketplace Web site still failed him--just this past Saturday--but he believed he had a breakthrough after a telephone operator said she could process the application that he had been working on for 2 months and sent his information over to Humana. He could call Humana Monday to arrange payment, she said.

And this is a quote from him: ``They told me, 'You're good--you're all set,''' Shlora said. When he called Humana Monday morning, however, the insurer said it had no record of his application. The insurer's phone rep said she had researched the issue and called him back. She did call him back, but with bad news. After further research, she still found no record of his application.

Shlora called healthcare.gov back and the telephone rep, Mr. Speaker, insisted he was enrolled with Humana, but could offer him no way to prove it. ``Humana said to check with them by the end of the week and maybe it will mysteriously appear,'' Shlora said.

Let me give you another one, colleagues.

Greg Paulauskis from my hometown of Marietta, Georgia. Paulauskis, an early retiree who buys his own health insurance, has also been trying to shop for coverage for himself and his wife since the day the health insurance marketplace opened. Again, October 1. What is it today? December 3.

I thank the Atlanta Journal Constitution for their due diligence. They have been closely following his experience.

Like Shlora, he has run into a series of frustrating obstacles. On Monday, he noticed that the Web site was quicker. They said that it was quicker. It is now handling 50,000 people at a time, and its appearance has changed. Its icons looked different.

He tried to access his application that had been completed over the phone with a representative so that he could finally get to the step of actually selecting a plan, but the application wasn't visible on the site.

Now this was just Monday. What is today? Tuesday. That was yesterday.

He called and went through another lengthy process, to be told again what he has heard before. He can't see the plans on the site, but the operator could read plan information to him. Paulauskis isn't comfortable making a decision without seeing all the options in writing. The supervisor handling his call told him she could put in a work order and someone would call him back. She put in a work order. Paulauskis said he has made such a request five times since the marketplace opened and has yet, Mr. Speaker, to get a response.

Now, who is Mr. Paulauskis? Well, he is a former college professor and he has a doctorate degree. He is a Ph.D. Paulauskis said he has probably spent more than 80 hours on the ObamaCare application process without being able to actually shop for a plan.

That didn't change on Monday with the improvements to the marketplace Web site that you are hearing this administration, President Obama and

Secretary Sebelius, saying: We're there. We have spent $600 million. It didn't work. So we brought in new, bright gurus, and they have been working 24/7 over the last 3 or 4 weeks, and now we have got it fixed.

And we don't have it fixed. Forty percent of it hasn't even been built. Twenty percent absolutely are going to be in a terrible bind come January 1 if they have lost their health insurance coverage that they previously had and they don't have any coverage; in other words, they are just going bare.

They don't intend to do that. They wanted to keep the insurance they had because they liked it. They found out that that was not true. I will be kind and use the word ``mendacity,'' rather than a lie. But it was pure mendacity. They weren't able to keep it.

And so if you can't sign up during that 5-week period, which is over Monday, this coming Monday, you can't get signed up and have coverage by January 1. My goodness gracious, what if your child gets run over by a car or you have a heart attack in the week or month or however much time it takes after January 1, if you are in that 20 percent group, to finally get coverage? By that time, you are truly, if you survive, bankrupt because of medical expenses that are not covered.

These stories were printed in the AJC, Mr. Speaker. There are plenty of others that have not been published.

Let me share with you a few other stories from my constituents back in the 11th Congressional District of Georgia about the lack of affordable options ObamaCare offers them.

Mike told me that ObamaCare ``has been a financial disaster for his family.'' It used to cost him just under $300 a month to cover his wife and daughter on their insurance plan. Under ObamaCare, that lowest level plan is the bronze plan. There are four choices. Gold, I guess, is the most expensive and covers the most things. It probably has the highest deductible. But under that bronze plan, instead of $300 a month, now he is going to pay, Mr. Speaker, $700 a month. And guess what? His deductible is $5,000. So he has to pay $5,000 out of pocket before insurance kicks in. He is paying $400 more a month. That is $4,800 plus the $5,000. His new plan under ObamaCare, because he is not eligible for any subsidy, is costing him about $10,000 more a year.

Teresa and her husband from Cartersville, Bartow County, one of the great counties in the 11th Congressional District, told me that their premium is increasing from $550 to more than $900 per month. That is almost, Mr. Speaker, a 40 percent increase.

Robert from metro Atlanta told me that, even though they were underwritten in June, his wife's policy has increased from $387 to $557 a month. And that increase is 30 percent. It is getting a little better, but, gee, a 30 percent increase?

When President Obama talked about his great new health care plan, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, he said that, on average, families would see a $2,500 per year reduction in what they are paying for health care. Mr. Speaker, let's go back to the word ``mendacity.'' Nothing could be further from the truth. The average increase is probably $2,500 a year, not a decrease. This is truly unacceptable that with new mandates in insurance markets concerning essential health benefits premiums have to increase.

And now we finally find out that Ms. Pelosi was absolutely right. Wait until you read it and find out what is in it. Where she was wrong is when she said then you would like it. I think the latest statistics that I read, Mr. Speaker, show that 61 percent of people today are opposed to ObamaCare--61 percent. That is a lot. That means 39 percent either don't have an opinion either way or are not sure or maybe they approve of it. But those are dismal, dismal numbers.

We have seen more insurance policies canceled than created as consumers are faced with this sticker shock, all in the name of a bill that was sold to the American people as a way to lower the uninsured rate.

Another statistic that I read just recently, and this is verifiable, when this bill was being talked about--again, back in 2009, shortly after Mr. Obama became our 44th President--it was estimated that there were something like 47 million people in this country, Mr. Speaker, who, through no fault of their own except couldn't afford it, didn't have health insurance.

Well, go through those numbers. And I have a book with me that I am going to reference, and I want to give proper attribution. The name of the book is, ``The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen's Guide.'' Maybe it could be ``A Patient's Guide,'' and this is written by Sally Pipes.

She talks in this book about that 47 million. Something like 15 million of those 47 million make more than $50,000 a year. Indeed, some make more than $75,000 a year, Mr. Speaker. They have just decided that they don't want health insurance; they will pay as they go. And there is nothing wrong with that. I don't advise it. I think everybody should at least have catastrophic coverage. But be that as it may, this is America. We have to insist on enjoying our liberties to do what we want to do with our hard-earned tax dollars and our own money.

There are probably 10 million, maybe, of these that don't have health insurance that are in this country illegally. There may be another 6, 8, maybe even 10 million of that 47 million who are eligible for a safety net program like Medicaid and they just have not gotten the proper information or not bothered to go find out if they were eligible. A lot of the people that are signing up now are those individuals.

So when you get right down to it, there will probably be not 47 million, but about 15 million that were falling through the cracks.

What we have done has thrown out a market-driven health care system that is not perfect. I guarantee you, I agree with that. It is too expensive. And yes, indeed, we Republicans have some other ideas.

I am going to yield in just a minute, Mr. Speaker, to my colleague, the cochair with me of the House GOP Doctors Caucus, the gentleman from Tennessee, fellow OB/GYN, Dr. Phil Roe, and he is going to talk about some of those Republican alternatives, or maybe even Democratic alternatives, because I think that is what it is going to come to.

We have to repeal this law and not be embarrassed about it. If you made a mistake, you made a mistake. Own up to the American people that this is a bad law and repeal it and start over. But I am saying start over in a bipartisan way, and we can do that.

We have got some thoughts on that, and I am going to, at this point, yield to Dr. Roe for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for being with us during this hour.

I want to hold up this card so our colleagues can see. Basically, this is the bill that Dr. Roe--Representative Roe from Tennessee--is the author of, and I am a proud cosponsor. It is called the American Health Care Reform Act. Dr. Roe described many of the aspects of this, I think, 180-page bill. It is not a 2,700-page bill but a 180-page bill.

As he points out--and I said this a little earlier, Mr. Speaker--this bill, the American Health Care Reform Act, a Republican alternative-- and we do have alternatives--first and foremost fully repeals the President's health care law, ObamaCare. It ends billions in taxes. It eliminates thousands of pages of unworkable mandates and regulations that literally--and I am not kidding you--are 8-feet high. I am not barely 6-feet tall, so just imagine that. It forces millions of Americans to lose access to their health plans and gets Federal bureaucrats, like IRS agents, out of health care decisions.

What do they know about doctor-patient relationships? They don't know a thing about that.

There are just seven bullet points on here, but they are good, commonsense, market-driven reforms.

Dr. Roe talked about tax reform, which allows families to deduct health care costs. If they are sole proprietors--somebody who is a craftsman, who makes furniture in his or her basement, and maybe it is a husband and

wife team--they don't get this break on their health insurance that Dr. Roe said was kind of artificially created back in World War II, back in 1942 or 1943. When wage and price controls were put in place and when companies, big companies, couldn't attract new workers because they couldn't pay them enough--they couldn't give them a decent raise--they started providing free health care, but the individual didn't get that break.

So that is just one of the seven. I won't read all of them because we have been joined also by a great member of the House GOP Doctors Caucus, the gentlewoman from North Carolina. Her husband is a general surgeon, and she was a surgical nurse before Congress, and is, as I say, a member of the House GOP Doctors Caucus. She knows of what she speaks.

I yield to Representative Renee Ellmers.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina.

It is now my pleasure to yield time to the gentleman from Indiana, Representative and Dr. Larry Bucshon, a cardiothoracic surgeon, and also a member of the House GOP Doctors Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Bucshon, the gentleman from Indiana, for those remarks.

I want to read a little bit from one chapter in Sally Pipes' book ``The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care.'' The title of this chapter, Mr. Speaker, is ``Solutions: Markets, Consumer Choice, and Innovation.'' That is really what Dr. Roe's bill is all about, the American Health Care Reform Act.

Listen to this. Listen to what Sally Pipes says:

None of the preceding chapters is meant to suggest that

America's health care system is perfect. It is not. Costs are

high, and too many Americans get left behind. Reform is

desperately needed.

But true reform of the health care system requires less

government interference--not more. Only with a freer market

can we lower costs and achieve quality universal health care.

If we have universal choice in health care, we will reach

universal coverage--a goal supported by all of us.

Republicans and Democrats.

Now, consider this: Mr. Speaker, I know you are familiar with LASIK corrective eye surgery. Most insurance providers, including government programs, won't cover the procedure. The market isn't distorted by excessive regulations. Providers operate in a free market where technology is constantly advancing, price competition is fierce, and the consumer is the king. Companies rise and fall according to their ability to provide customer satisfaction.

In the past decade, more than 3 million LASIK procedures have been performed. During that time, the average price of LASIK eye surgery has dropped nearly 40 percent from $2,200 per eye to $1,350 per eye. Unfortunately, LASIK is a rare exception to the general rule.

In just about every other area of health care, the government is heavily--heavily--involved. So the key to lowering cost and expanding coverage is to expand the LASIK model. That means encouraging competition by decreasing the government's role in the health care marketplace, not increasing it.

Again, she goes on to mention many of these bullet points in Dr. Roe's bill, the American Health Care Reform Act--a better way, indeed a better way.

At this point, I have just a few more minutes remaining, and I want to yield back to Dr. Roe.

Well, reclaiming my time and yielding it back to Representative Ellmers, let's hear some more passion from the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

Reclaiming my time, as we draw to a close, I said earlier, 61 percent of the American people are opposed even today, 3\1/2\ years after passage of this law, and they can't even get on the Web site. They can't get signed up. Wait until they get signed up and find out what they are going to have to pay and the amount of the deductible. I guess I would call that sticker shock. I think instead of 61 percent, it will be 80 percent will be opposed to it.

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Reclaiming my time as I close, I tried to get on today. I couldn't. I got the error message. I didn't even get put in the queue to make it a little softer. I got the error message and got kicked offline--and Monday is the last day. So I am going back to my office to try to get on once again. I am really feeling for the patients, the American people, the seniors who are in one heck of a mess because of this not well-thought-out, rushed bill that was totally partisan. You just can't do that in this Congress with a bill this important. We are talking about human lives here; life and death, and that is not the way to do it.

We will come back with a solution, and I hope we will do that in a bipartisan way. I love the American Health Care Reform Act. I am a cosponsor.

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