Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think the truth is finally coming out. I guess it's kind of like what Speaker Pelosi said maybe a week or just a matter of days before the vote on ObamaCare. They finally did get that passed, as we all know, by deem-and-scheme and reconciliation and everything that you can think of. It barely passed. But her famous quote was, Well, we need to hurry up and do this so that the American people can find out what's in it. And, boy, was she prophetic. Nothing could be further from the truth--finally.

And I think the gentleman from Missouri is absolutely right: now all of a sudden the true numbers coming out from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, are showing quite clearly that this pledge that the President, then-Senator Obama, made I guess back in as late as October of 2008 that if you like what you have you can keep it. Certainly, nothing could be further from the truth for those 11 million, I think, Medicare recipients who get their Medicare coverage under the Advantage Plan. That's cut 18 percent a year over the next 10 years, something like $150 billion. That plan is going to go away, certainly.

That is the exact quote, and I thank him for having that.

It is exactly what we all predicted on our side of the aisle, and that's why no Republicans could vote for this massive takeover of the health care system--a sixth of our economy. It's part of a grand scheme, of course, and that's why you see people all across this country who are upset, certainly not just Republicans, but Independents and the grass root activists, be they Tea Party patriots or the 9-12 Group or Freedom First or the Doctors for Patient Care. All of these folks have been coming to the people's House, to the Nation's Capitol, over the last year. They are the same folks who were turning out for the town hall meetings last August to whom the Democratic majority, Madam Speaker, just absolutely turned a deaf ear. They came back, and then all they did was change the name and the number of the bill.

So I thank the gentleman for giving me an opportunity to weigh in as a physician Member. There are 10 M.D.'s on our side of the aisle. There have been 31 years of experience for me and many, many years of experience for my colleagues who practice medicine.

I thank the gentleman for asking.

The answer is nada, a big zero. That is also true for the two Republican Senators, the only M.D.'s, in fact, in the Senate--Dr. Coburn and Dr. Barrasso.

There is expertise that we had. In the House organization of the Doctors Caucus, of the GOP's Doctors Caucus, there are, in fact, 15 of us--10 are M.D.'s, and there are others who were health care providers in their professional lives. The unfortunate thing is that none of us got an opportunity to try to help. Even though we were knocking on that door, it was never opened.

I yield back.

Will the gentleman yield for just a second?

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and of course I will yield the time back so the gentleman from Pennsylvania can continue to make his point.

He is right on target in regard to what is happening in the States and in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In the great State of Georgia, we have one more day, tomorrow. We have a 40-day session, and tomorrow is the last day.

They passed a budget for fiscal year 2011, which begins on July 1 in the State of Georgia, and it had to cut almost $1 billion. Now, that has been extremely painful, and I'm sure it's painful in the State of Pennsylvania.

Though, I want to commend the Governor of the State of Georgia and my colleagues in the general assembly--a Republican majority in the House and Senate. Madam Speaker, they have made these tough cuts, and most States--I think 47 States in the Union--have this balanced budget requirement as part of their constitutions. If they can do it, why in the world are we sitting here with--what is it?--$12.8 trillion worth of debt and with a $700 billion deficit already in this current fiscal year?

I hope my colleagues and anybody who might happen to be listening to us here tonight get what I'm trying to say. This is serious business, and we're not doing our job up here, quite honestly, and it embarrasses me.

I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid released a new analysis of ObamaCare that confirmed what Republicans have been saying all along: our Nation's health care costs will increase under ObamaCare, and this bill will hurt health care for seniors.

Mr. Speaker, a few simple facts:

First, under ObamaCare, our national health care expenditures will increase by $311 billion in the first 10 years. Second, health care will increase to 21 percent of GDP by 2019. Third, the government will spend $410 billion to expand Medicaid under ObamaCare. And, fourth, more than 7 million seniors will be forced off of their current Medicare coverage, including 50 percent of those who are currently on Medicare Advantage.

Speaker Pelosi, this is not the reform you promised; this is not the reform the country needs. That is why I will be fighting to repeal and replace this legislation with real reforms that lower costs and improve coverage and care without bankrupting our country.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered to be the first sponsor of H.R. 4336, a bill originally introduced by Representative Deal of Georgia, for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this morning with a simple message: we can do better. Just look around.

What has been accomplished under the Democratic leadership? A takeover of our health care system, otherwise known as ObamaCare, which spends money we don't have, without lowering the cost of health care. A cap-and-tax energy bill which would cost the average American family an additional $3,000 annually for the energy. And, of course, the failed stimulus legislation costing $861 billion that has yet to create a single non-government job, leaving our unemployment rate at an abysmal 9.7 percent.

Now the Senate is considering a permanent bailout for Wall Street, and the President's top economic adviser is pushing for a European- style value added tax on top of our current tax system.

Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better than they're currently getting, and House Republicans have a commonsense solution that will create jobs, lower the tax burden for American families, and stop spending money that we don't have.

I thank the gentleman from Texas, Judge Carter, for yielding to me. I was listening at the outset of the hour, and I will say to the gentleman that I agree with him completely in regard to where does the spin stop. And, of course, Judge Carter said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that the spin stops at the Constitution; and he just commented a second ago, furthermore, the spin stops at the Supreme Court.

I think it's absolutely right, if Judge Carter points out to our colleagues, the Constitution in the commerce clause says Federal Government can regulate commerce, but it doesn't say that the Federal Government can mandate commerce and that's exactly the point, Mr. Speaker, that Judge Carter, Representative Carter from Texas, is making.

He used some examples. I could throw out another and say, well, if the Federal Government can force, force people maybe against their will and their ability to pay, to have a health insurance policy, why couldn't they go on and say, well, every adult male and woman between the ages of 21 and 64 has to buy cowboy boots? And to take it a step forward say not just cowboy boots but cowboy boots that are made in the State of Texas.

Maybe that's what President Bush would have said since he is from the State of Texas.

But, Mr. Speaker, I think our colleagues get our point here. And I, quite honestly, when 20 States, the attorneys general of 20 States join in bringing a suit challenging the constitutionality of this provision that actually mandates commerce, and they represent, in the aggregate, those 20 States, what, about 40 percent of the population?

And then you have the State of Virginia, Attorney General Cuccinelli is filing his own suit on behalf of the people of the Commonwealth. In our great State of Georgia, Governor Perdue, Mr. Speaker, has asked our attorney general to join in this suit, to join Attorney General McCollum in the State of Florida and these other 19 States.

Our attorney general, our Democratic attorney general in the State of Georgia, Mr. Speaker has refused, even though the Georgia Constitution says if the Governor is requesting that the attorney general defend the State of Georgia, that the Constitution requires him to do that. But for whatever reason, I am not saying it's political, but our Democratic attorney general in the State of Georgia has declined to join in that suit.

I would commend Governor Perdue, and that there are great attorneys in the State of Georgia who have agreed to file suit on behalf of the State of Georgia and its 9.5 million residents, the largest State east of the Mississippi, fifth largest in population in the country. We are going to bring suit, and it's going to be done on a pro bono basis. These attorneys normally charged $700 an hour for their services. They are highly skilled, very experienced attorneys, and they are going to do this because our attorney general refuses to do it, unfortunately.

But honestly, and I want to hear further, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is an expert, Judge Carter is an attorney and a judge for over 20 years, he is the expert. But I think, and I really want my colleagues to hear this, I think the Supreme Court could vote 9-0 in favor of these 20 suits that are bringing suit against the constitutionality of this provision, mandating commerce, forcing people against their will to engage in commerce, as Judge Carter has said.

So I hope that it will be an expedited review, Judge, maybe I am not using the right terminology, and hopefully within a year, year and a half, that this thing will be settled.

Colleagues, what that will do is it will unravel ObamaCare. It will unravel ObamaCare because to try to simplify this, this thing would never have worked. Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that the health insurance plans, AHIP, these big insurance companies like Aetna, Blue Cross, Cigna, do you think they would have agreed to cover people with preexisting conditions at standard rates if they had not been given this deal?

They went over to the White House a year and a half ago, Mr. Speaker, along with the American Medical Association, and the American Association of Retired Persons and Big Pharma, and there was a deal for everybody, Mr. Speaker. That was a good deal for the health insurance industry because they were going to pick up all these additional people who were going to be forced to purchase health insurance, and not only health insurance, but as

Judge Carter pointed out, Mr. Speaker, they were going to be forced and are going to be forced to purchase health insurance that has first dollar coverage.

Do you think there's any plans ultimately to expand health savings accounts and let young people who are healthy, as the judge pointed out, and taking care of themselves and exercising and doing all of the right things to buy a health insurance policy they can afford, one with a high deductible, but a low monthly premium, and it has catastrophic coverage, they are not going to be permitted to do that? They are going to have to get these first dollar plans by 2014, and they can't afford it.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to share my thoughts. My colleagues, I think, know that I have practiced medicine for 31 years, and I know of what I speak in regard to the American people being opposed to having the Federal Government come in lock, stock and barrel and take over one-sixth of our economy to make decisions that should be made in the sanctity of the exam room between a doctor and a patient.

I look forward to the rest of your comments.

Madam Speaker, I thank my leadership for allowing me to speak to my colleagues over the next hour in regard to guess what? Health care reform, Madam Speaker. And I am going to be joined by several colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle who are physician Members, as I am, as you know, Madam Speaker, a physician Member.

And we are all just returning to Washington after the 2-week Easter recess, a time that I think Members on both sides of the aisle hopefully enjoyed with their constituents. I know certainly that I did. Also a little bit of family time celebrating Easter and the Passover. And now we are, of course, back here in Washington inside the beltway, and the wars, as we say, begin again.

But the time that I spent, these 2 weeks, in my district, the 11th of Georgia, northwest Georgia, in my nine counties that I represented, gave me, once again, an opportunity to meet with my constituents. We did that in a one-on-one format, and we did it in a town hall meeting format, several of those, and we did the tele-town hall meetings, I think a couple of those.

But I can tell you, Madam Speaker, the people in my district, the 11th of Georgia and the State of Georgia, are not happy. They are not happy with the Health Care Reform Act, the patient, whatever the acronym is for this bill. The people didn't want it. They made that very clear in every poll taken over the past year as we led up to the unfortunate passage of this massive takeover of one-sixth of our economy. Folks did not want that, and they still don't. And I think they're expressing that to Members on both sides of the aisle as they go home, and Members are going to be held accountable. I know, Madam Speaker, that Members on both sides of the aisle understood that when they either voted for or against this bill. And the American people are no happier today than they were 3 weeks ago.

I would like, at this point, to yield to my colleague from Tennessee, Dr. Phil Roe, a fellow physician and also a fellow OB/GYN specialist. Dr. Roe, being from Tennessee and practicing a number of years and delivering a lot of babies there in that State, knows all too well what happened with TennCare and had said the whole time that he has been in this 111th Congress--this is his first term--that you had the perfect pilot program for this bill that the Democratic majority insisted on passing against the will of the American people right in his home State of Tennessee.

And I would like to yield to him now, Madam Speaker. And maybe he can yield some light on what that experiment showed over an 8- or 10-year period in the Volunteer State.

I thank the gentleman from Tennessee, and I think he brought up some extremely good points. And, Madam Speaker, I agree completely with what he said in regard to this system, this health care reform act, being designed to fail. I think it was.

I think that from the very beginning--Madam Speaker, I serve on the Energy and Commerce Committee; and, as you know, that is the committee that has so much jurisdiction over health care, all of Medicaid, which the gentleman from Tennessee was just speaking of, and part B of Medicare, the Children's Health Insurance Program. So it is one of three committees in the House that has jurisdiction over health care but probably the most important committee.

The committee, Madam Speaker, as you and all of my colleagues know, has been chaired for many years in the past by the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, the Honorable John Dingell, a great Member, but a Member who for years and years, as his father also before him, was pushing and has continued to push for a single-payer national health insurance plan for this country, not unlike what exists in some Western European countries and other countries around the world, but certainly Canada and the U.K. are two very good examples of how national health insurance works.

But I truly believe, Madam Speaker, and I am basing this not just on my belief but on comments that were made in the Energy and Commerce Committee, as this original bill that was called H.R. 3200 at the time--and this was before the August recess of last summer, and when that bill was marked up in committee and amendments were submitted, there were so many amendments, Madam Speaker, from your side of the aisle, the majority side, that would ask to make this a national health insurance plan, a single payer, as it's described. And in that bill, of course, was a robust--that's the way the progressive wing of the Democratic Caucus described it--a robust public option.

Madam Speaker, just as the Democratic majority when President Clinton was the President of this country with the HillaryCare, they weren't able to get that bill passed. And this administration under President Obama and this Democratic majority realized that they could not initially get a single-payer plan through this Congress and past the American people, but they felt that they could get so close, one step away, by having this robust public option to compete with the private market and virtually squeeze the private market out of any hope of profitability such that eventually everybody would be in the public plan and eventually they would take that one additional

step in maybe the 112th or 113th Congress, if the Democratic majority continued and President Obama sought and got a second term, that they would get to that goal that so many Members on the Democratic side of the aisle who have been here for years and years and years, the ultimate goal of passing a single-payer national health insurance plan.

And so I think the gentleman from Tennessee is absolutely right in regard to what the overall plan was to accomplish, and that's a great fear that we continue to have.

I want to yield back to the gentleman from Tennessee. I know we've been joined by my colleague from the State of Georgia, family practitioner Paul Broun, and I'll call on him in just a few minutes for his comments as well. I yield back to the gentleman from Tennessee at this point.

If the gentleman will yield back to me, and I will yield back to you before, we, Madam Speaker, call on Dr. Broun.

But you know, you mentioned about jobs. And certainly, I felt very strongly. I've said it from this dais on this House floor, I say it back in the district every opportunity I can, that the number one priority, the number one priority when President Obama was inaugurated last January, over a year ago now, was the creation of jobs.

Now, you know, I heard our colleagues that were on the floor in the previous hour, Madam Speaker, Democratic Members from California, Wisconsin, Ohio and New York, touting the economic stimulus package, ARRA, the acronym, and how wonderful it was, and how----

And the gentleman from California said, I think he, Madam Speaker, he said coming from California back to Washington today he picked up the Sacramento Bee and the newspaper, his newspaper said that the average tax refund for this year was going to be $2,400 a family. And the group of Members went on to explain, well, that was because of the economic stimulus package, and that these people were going to get this nice tax return.

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that it's very likely that the average tax return out there in Sacramento, California, is because maybe during the last calendar year, that many of these people only got to work 6 or 7 months, and then they joined the ranks of the unemployed. They had filled out a W-9 at the beginning of the year, and so much money was taken out of their pay check to pay their estimated Federal income tax, if they had been employed for a full year and, God help them, they weren't employed, they lost their jobs, they joined the ranks of the 16 million, they became part of the 10 percent in this country of unemployed. And whoopty doo, they got a $2,400 tax return. Now, isn't that great?

And, Madam Speaker, I heard these same colleagues talk about, I think it was the gentlewoman maybe from Ohio, talking about all the jobs that were saved. Well, it must have been a heck of a lot of them. I think she said 2.5 million, because 3.3 million were lost. Maybe they saved 5 million. I don't know how you figure that.

But I do know, Madam Speaker, that when that bill was passed, the pledge to the American people for borrowing $787 billion worth of additional, I guess, borrowed money from China that we will use to stimulate the economy, the pledge was that the unemployment rate, which was 7.6 percent at the time, was not going to go above 8 percent and we were going to save all these jobs.

And no matter what the group said, and all the things that they tried to tout in regard to the economic stimulus package, I feel, Madam Speaker, and the American people feel it was a dismal failure. I guarantee you those 16 million that have been out of work for six or more months feel like it was a dismal failure.

And so, you know, here again, somebody, one of the other Members said, hopefully the American people understand who's on your side. I think that was a quote from the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Well, I would suggest the American people ought to think, well, who's your nanny? Who's creating the nanny state? Who's building your hammock that much bigger so that you depend on the Federal Government?

So as we talk about our concerns about the health care reform act with the Federal Government taking over one-sixth of our economy, it's not just about health care. We're pretty passionate about it, Madam Speaker, because the three Members on the floor on the Republican side of the aisle tonight are members of the Doctors Caucus, the GOP House Doctors Caucus. We're physicians.

In the aggregate, I bet you the three of us, Madam Speaker, have spent 75 or 80 years practicing medicine. So we're very passionate about that, the government taking over; not just the fact

that it's one-sixth of the economy, but coming between us and our patients, the doctor-patient relationship.

But it's a much bigger issue than that, Madam Speaker. And the gentleman from Tennessee referred to it. I know the gentleman from Georgia, my colleague from the great district that he represents in Georgia, including the University of Georgia and Athens and my hometown of Augusta, they're going to talk about that.

But we're concerned about much more than this egregious health care reform bill. We're concerned about the Federal Government taking over every aspect of our lives.

And, Madam Speaker, I will just make this comment before yielding to Dr. Roe: the bigger the nanny gets, the smaller we get.

The bigger the Federal Government becomes, the smaller each individual becomes, and our rights are eroded inevitably.

And I will yield back to the gentleman from Tennessee.

The gentleman from Tennessee, Madam Speaker, talking about this preventative services task force that came out with this recommendation, their timing couldn't have been worse, I think, in regard to the Democratic majority wanting to get this health care reform bill passed. But this was several months ago, and they actually came before the Energy and Commerce Committee and testified and said, Well, you know, we're just an advisory committee. I mean, this doesn't have the force of law, this preventative services task force. It's just making recommendations of what preventive services are good for patients and, indeed, are cost effective.

And, Madam Speaker, that's what Dr. Roe, the OB/GYN from Tri-Cities, Tennessee, is talking about. They came out and said that it was not necessary; in fact, indeed, it was a waste of money to do a mammogram screening for breast cancer in women during their forties. And then they went on to say it was really questionable whether it was cost effective or beneficial to do them in women over 65 and scared the bejesus out of all of our moms and grandmoms and sisters and, in some cases, daughters of this country.

And the scary thing about this, Madam Speaker, is this will become, this preventative services task force that's an advisory group will become part of this massive bureaucracy of the new health care delivery system, and what they say will be law and will be gospel.

Now, a physician who is advised by his specialty--so, say like mine and Dr. Roe, the American College of OB/GYN, we're both proud Fellows, and we get these best practices clinical bulletins on a monthly basis in regard to what is the best care. They continue to recommend that screening and the importance of that screening during the decade of the forties.

So, Madam Speaker, we're in a situation now where the OB/GYN doctors decide, I don't care what ObamaCare says, I'm going to continue to do those self-breast exams and I am going to look for that 2-centimeter lump that the patient is unlikely to find herself, and I'm going to do that screening mammogram. And let's say the screening mammogram shows something, something a little suspicious. And then the doctor takes the next step, the next logical and recommended step by the ACOG, and orders a needle biopsy. And maybe, Madam Speaker, that needle biopsy, thank God, comes back benign and it comes back not to be a malignancy. It was suspicious but turned out not to be a malignancy.

But lo and behold, that patient develops an abscess, an infection from that needle biopsy--which is certainly a risk, a very low risk that that could occur. That doctor would probably--he or she would be sued out of their practice for doing the right thing. But yet the provision of ObamaCare would allow this preventative services task force to make it appear that they had done the wrong thing and they would not be able to defend themselves.

So these are just some of the things that I guess Madam Speaker was talking about, the Speaker--Madam Speaker, I know you are the Speaker pro tem, as it were, tonight. But Speaker Pelosi was quoted as saying, I don't know, just maybe a week or so before the bill passed, that we need to hurry up and pass this bill so people can find out what's in it. Well, people indeed, Madam Speaker, are finding out what's in it, and it's not pretty. It's not pretty.

I think the gentleman from Tennessee wants to make one more point, and then I will quickly refer to Dr. Broun. And also Dr. Cassidy has joined us, and I look forward the yielding to him as well.

Thank you, Dr. Roe.

I now yield to Dr. Paul Broun from Athens and Augusta.

On his point in regard to the loss of jobs, I want to ask my colleagues to refer to this poster that I have. Because in the first week after this bill passed, these companies like AT&T, Verizon, John Deere, Caterpillar, these are companies that are, of course, household names, everybody recognizes before I mention them, but there are some 3,500 companies, other companies, smaller, medium- sized companies, some large as well as these four I mentioned, that are going to have to take charges against their future earnings. They are required, Madam Speaker, to do this by law, to file with the SEC, so the that the moms and pops across this country, retirees on fixed incomes who may have a few shares of AT&T, Verizon or John Deere and Caterpillar, in the interest of full disclosure, the companies are required to make those reports of charges against future earnings.

And in the aggregate, Madam Speaker, these companies have taken $14 billion worth of charges against future earnings because of a provision in the health reform act in regard to providing prescription benefits to their retirees, and that's exactly what my colleague from the 10th District of Georgia, Dr. Broun, is referring to when he says it is going to cost jobs. Because the only way these companies can continue to provide those benefits is to cut back on their employment base or simply say to the new hires, we are not going to be able to provide a prescription drug benefit to you in your retirement years. You just need to go sign up for Medicare Part D.

So you have got everybody losing. The company is losing, the retiree is losing, and the Federal Government and John Q. Taxpayer is losing. Because more and more people are getting the benefit for Medicare Part D rather than from these companies who wanted to give it to them, but the provisions in this bill snatched that opportunity away from them.

I thank the gentleman. And, Madam Speaker, I want to yield time now to another member of the House GOP Doctors Caucus, the gentleman from the Sixth District of Louisiana, Dr. Bill Cassidy.

The gentleman, Madam Speaker, is absolutely accurate in what he just presented to our colleagues.

And there is another point in this bill that I think the Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, may have been referring to when she said we need to pass it so folks can find out what's in it. The law before this was passed in regard to what people could take in the way of a tax deduction for health care expenditures was limited to that amount above 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income. Well, you would have to be a low-income person to take advantage of that tax break, if you will. This existed for a number of years. And most people's adjusted gross income, if they're in the middle class or upper

middle class, their medical expenditures in 1 year, Madam Speaker, are not going to be more than 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income unless they got into a catastrophic situation. So there is no advantage there except for our low-income taxpayers.

That 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income kicks in pretty quickly, and that's been heretofore an advantage to them. And yet in this bill that threshold has been raised to 10 percent, 10 percent of their adjusted gross income. This is just ripping the heart out of our low-income folks who are not on a safety net program. They have rejected the nanny state; they have gotten out of the hammock. They're working, they have pride in having a job and supporting their families, but we're making it that much harder on them, Madam Speaker. And this might be small potatoes to some people, but it's real to our low-income people who are working--the working poor, as we sometimes refer to them--and I wanted to make sure we pointed that out.

At this point, my colleagues, I will start with Dr. Roe from Tennessee, and then we will go back to Dr. Broun from Georgia.

If the gentleman would yield back, Madam Speaker, and I know we are getting toward the end of our hour. And I really appreciate him bringing that out, because in the process of doing that, I think it is important for all of our colleagues to know that taking over, the government taking over, first it was a public option, and as Dr. Roe just pointed out, Madam Speaker, now it is a complete government takeover of the student loan industry, and I think it is instructive, as I said at the outset of the hour, of what the intention is in regard to the health care system.

And, oh, by the way, in the process of the Federal Government taking away student loan lending from Sallie Mae and a lot of banks across this country, they destroyed about 70,000 jobs in the private market.

I want to yield to the gentleman from Georgia for a couple of minutes, and then if he will yield back to me to conclude.

If the gentleman would yield back me, and I just want to continue on that theme as we conclude. And I thank my colleagues from Louisiana and from Tennessee and from Georgia.

But the gentleman from Georgia just said it so well. We are going to repeal this bill. That is the pledge. The Republican minority party now, but hopefully soon to be the majority party on November the 3rd of this year, our pledge is to repeal this bill and to replace it. And I think it is very important that the American people understand that that is part of the pledge.

I read an article, Madam Speaker, today in the National Review by Jeff Anderson, this week's issue, and he described something he called a Republican small bill. And I will just quickly list about six things that would be in that replacement bill:

Number one, medical malpractice reform;

Number two, allowing people to buy health insurance across State lines;

Number three, incentivize folks for healthy lifestyles in the workplace, working out, stopping smoking, losing weight, and giving them a break on their health insurance premiums or the deductible or their copay to incentivize these people over a 30-year career in a job so that when they get on Medicare they are healthier, and that we indeed save a tremendous amount of money as a result of that;

Number four, equalize the tax treatment for individuals that are purchasing in the individual market or the small group market. Give them the same tax break that you give to employees and employers of large companies;

Number five, increase Federal support, Federal support for State-run high-risk pools that we can do in every one of our 50 States so that folks with preexisting conditions wouldn't have to pay an arm and a leg, three or four times what the standard rates were;

And, last but not least, get the uninsured out of the emergency room and into less expensive routine care and this expansion of community health centers. I agree with that part of the bill.

But there are so many things that are wrong in this bill. It doesn't lower costs. You know, it doesn't. It fails in the number one goal of the President, to lower the cost of health care. This bill absolutely does not do it. The small Republican bill would do it, and it would not cost a trillion dollars to do it in the first 10 years and $2.5 trillion to do it in the second 10 years. So that is what we say to the American people, give us a chance.

Madam Speaker, we want the American people to give us a chance, give us

an opportunity to regain the majority. We will repeal this bill and we will replace it with something that really truly does bring down the costs and insure so many of those 10 to 15 million that today do not have health insurance because they can't afford it.

I yield back.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 8 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, April 14, 2010, at 10 a.m.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the dedication and years of service that Deane Bonner has provided for Cobb County. Since 1997, Ms. Bonner has served as the Cobb County NAACP President, and she has chosen to step down from that post at the end of the year.

On Friday, February 12, members of the Cobb County community gathered at Chattahoochee Technical College to present Ms. Bonner with the inaugural ``Celebrating Diversity in Cobb County Award.'' In an outpouring of support, Ms. Bonner was praised by countless numbers of people for her kind spirit, generosity, and years of service to the community.

Madam Speaker, I can personally speak to Ms. Bonner's commitment to Cobb County. I am fortunate to be able to call her a friend, and I know how her hard work to improve the community has gained her a wealth of respect from everyone with whom she has served.

Madam Speaker, as Ms. Bonner steps away from the public spotlight at the end of the year, she will have very large--and difficult--shoes to fill. I would like to personally thank Ms. Bonner for her years of service to the NAACP and to Cobb County as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.

I left behind my medical practice of almost 30 years to run for Congress. And it's hard to put into words the joy I felt each time I helped bring a new life--actually 5,200 new lives--into this world. Yet in my heart, I felt strongly in the need to improve health care in this country. But, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not the health care reform that I had in mind.

Raiding $500 billion from Medicare is not reform. The Cornhusker kickback is not reform. The Louisiana purchase is not reform. Turning IRS agents--in fact, 17,000 new ones--into health care czars is not reform. And an unconstitutional mandate that will penalize poor families is certainly not reform.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my moderate and conservative Democratic friends who have been told by Speaker Pelosi and by the President, ``Just vote for this bill. Don't worry about your constituents. We'll take care of you,'' there is a Dear Colleague being passed around as I speak of pictures of Democratic Members, former Democratic Members, who were told the same thing back in 1993 on the issue of the Clinton tax increases. None of them who voted ``yes'' are in Congress today.

Mr. Speaker, let me quote President Obama from his speech yesterday: ``If

you don't think your constituents would be helped by this, then vote `no.' ''

I know Americans would not be helped by this bill. I cannot support it. I will not support it. I will be voting ``no.''

Madam Speaker, I rise in the strongest opposition to this flawed health care bill.

Mr. Speaker, it's certainly with sadness but great, great respect that I announce the retirement of our senior Member on the Republican side from Georgia, the Honorable Nathan Deal.

Nathan Deal, from Sandersville, Georgia, a graduate of Mercer University and Mercer School of Law, practiced law for many years in Gainesville, Georgia, in Hall County, where he also was an assistant prosecutor.

Nathan Deal also was elected to the Georgia General Assembly and served in the Georgia Senate for 12 years and rose to the rank of Speaker pro tem or President pro tem of the Georgia Senate before being elected to the House of Representatives 17\1/2\ years ago.

When most of this happened in the House of Representatives, first as a Democrat and now proudly as a Republican, Nathan has served on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and as all of you know, rose to the rank of chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and now ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee of Energy and Commerce.

I tell you tonight, again with great sadness, that he will be leaving us but only to go back home and work on behalf of all of the citizens of the great State of Georgia.

With that, I would like to yield a little time to the most senior member of the Georgia delegation, my friend, the Honorable John Lewis.

Let's all give a great round of applause to Nathan Deal.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to have been on the floor and heard from my colleague, my physician colleague from Texas, in fact, my OB-GYN colleague from Texas, who talked about the opinion and read the letters from the Texas Medical Society and also the Governor of Texas in regard to their opposition to this bill that we are going to be voting on tomorrow, H.R. 3590. In fact, I don't have any letters tonight from the State of Georgia, Mr. Speaker, but indeed, it was the Georgia Medical Association and the Texas Medical Association that came together months and months ago, an organized effort in many, many other State medical societies and special societies across this country, I think, representing some 500,000 physicians who are in opposition to this legislation, in contrast, Mr. Speaker, to the support, I'm still quite astounded by that, the support of the American Medical Association.

But it is important to know, while I respect the American Medical Association and their leadership, they represent probably less than 20 percent of the physicians in this country. And so I think we need to always put that in perspective. And again, I'm glad to hear from Congressman Dr. Michael Burgess from the State of Texas regarding that.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Democratic majority had the previous hour. I had an opportunity both while at home a few minutes ago and here on the floor in the more recent moments to hear some of the discussion. And it's real interesting to hear some of the comments. And I jotted down quickly some of those, and I would like to go over it a little bit so my colleagues can understand and get maybe a different, more possibly, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, more accurate perspective on some of that.

The gentlelady from California indicated in her remarks that in this bill, in this health care reform, that there is absolutely no deficit spending. In fact, she talks about something like $100 billion savings in the first 10 years, I guess it's calculated by the CBO. Of course, Mr. Speaker, we all know the CBO can only work on the numbers given to them. And they do a great job. And we are not here to denigrate the hardworking men and women of the CBO. They've been working hard for over a year and a half now. Every time there's a change, they have to re-crunch numbers.

It's kind of interesting from the historical perspective of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Remember when Medicare, the program, was passed in 1965? The CBO and the number crunchers at that time said by the year 2010, based on all of the information that we have, demographics and how long people live and that sort of thing, by the year 2010, this program, although not nearly as costly in 1965, will cost about $60 billion in 2010. Well, Mr. Speaker, you and, I think, everybody in this Chamber and everybody listening knows that we are in the process now on an annual basis in the Medicare program of spending about $480 billion, $480 billion a year. We are spending more on Medicare than we are spending on our national defense, $480 billion.

Well, the number crunchers didn't miss it too much, did they? They only missed it by $420 billion, just a little small accounting error, I guess, you round it off maybe in government speak. So, for the gentlelady from California, and I respect my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but no deficit spending indeed, and to suggest that there will be $1 trillion worth of savings in the second 10 years, don't hold your breath, colleagues. Don't hold your breath.

Well, it has been interesting today. It has been real interesting. I told the men and women on the west steps and the Mall earlier today, I don't know how many were there, Mr. Speaker, but thousands, maybe 25,000, people from all across the country, who came, I had an opportunity to ask some of them how they got here. Some drove, some came on buses, some flew, indeed, yes, there were even some from California. But God bless them, Mr. Speaker. The Member of the majority party in the previous hour referred to them as ``tea baggers.'' He called them ``tea baggers.'' I found that highly insulting, Mr. Speaker, to these men and women who made that effort to be here. ``We, the People,'' another gentleman in the majority party talked about ``We, the People,'' and referred to ``We, the People'' and talked about the Declaration of Independence in order to form a more perfect union and that this is a result, this bill, was going to give us a more perfect union.

And, Mr. Speaker, I know you have many on your side of the aisle who say we have been trying to pass comprehensive health care health care reform for 40 years, 50 years, 60 years. President Theodore Roosevelt tried to do it. President Woodrow Wilson tried to do it. President Franklin Roosevelt tried to do it. President Kennedy and President Johnson tried to do it. More recently, of course, President Clinton back in 1993 tried to do it. We almost did it, they said, Mr. Speaker. We almost got there, and now here we are right on the cusp of victory, as they describe, and tomorrow we are going to get over the finish line, we are going to do it for We, the People.

Well, Mr. Speaker, let me suggest to you and my colleagues why we have never done it over the past 40, 50 or 60 years, because We, the People don't want it. We, the People hate it. They did then, and they do now. We, the People have rejected this in every poll that has been taken for the last year and a half. And the Democratic majority and the Democratic leadership and the President of the United States, they know that. They know that. We, the People don't want it. We, the People don't want what Otto Von Bismarck had to offer 150 years ago. We don't want Western European socialism for this country. We, the People like what is written in the Constitution, and that is what we want. And we want to make sure that We, the People know that there are some sensible men and women in this Congress, in both the House and the Senate, that will continue to stand up, right to the 11th hour, with our last breath, to stand up for We, the People and to fight off this socialism that this administration and this majority is insisting on.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize some of my colleagues who are on the floor with me tonight that I think feel just as strongly as I do. And We, the People would like to hear from them as well. At this point, I would like to yield some time to my colleague from Georgia, my good friend from the Third Congressional District of west Georgia, the Honorable Lynn Westmoreland.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my colleague from Georgia, for being with us this hour and hopefully he will be with us for the entire hour, as long as he can stay.

We also have the gentleman from Texas, as I referred to previously, who did the special 5-minute talking about the Texas Medical Society and the way the Governor in Texas and the medical society have written letters to him to share with all of us, Mr. Speaker, in opposition, in strong opposition to the passage of this bill tomorrow. And I would like to refer to Dr. Burgess at this time.

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

I agree with him completely in regard to that so-called ``fix it bill,'' the reconciliation bill. It very likely could ping-pong back and forth forever, and nothing in that so-called fix it bill that maybe many of the Members, Mr. Speaker, on the majority side of the aisle are counting on as they make that difficult decision possibly to vote ``yes'' tomorrow. That ping-ponging back and forth could result in no changes to this bill that they vote on tomorrow, H.R. 3590, the gentleman from Texas just described, and that is it. The President will sign that, that will be the law for better or for worse, and they indeed will be stuck with that bill with having voted to support it, Mr. Speaker, and that is what they will have to go back into their districts in this fall campaign right up until November 2nd, and that is what is going to be hung around their neck. And I hope, Mr. Speaker, that every Member in this body understands what the gentleman from Texas is talking about in regard to that.

And I yield back to him at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas. He is absolutely right. I have the pocket Constitution; I keep it with me all the time. I think my colleagues here on the floor do as well. And he was making reference, of course, to the Democratic majority and the chairwoman of the powerful Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York, Louise Slaughter, saying that, okay, we have finally decided that we are not going to do the Slaughter solution, that we are not going to do the ``scheme and deem,'' we are not going to try to sneak this by the American people by not having our fingerprints on it. We are going to actually vote on the real bill tomorrow. We will vote on the rule, and we will vote on the bill.

Well, I don't know what caused that change of heart, Mr. Speaker, but I think the gentleman from Texas is very likely right on that. We, the people, all of these folks from all across the country that the gentleman from Ohio on your side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, referred to as ``tea baggers,'' they are the ones that were up here today. And I am sure that every Member of this body and the other body, Republicans and Democrats alike, you couldn't miss them. No matter how hard some Members may have wanted to not walk that gauntlet, they couldn't get away from them. So I think we, the people, had a lot to do with it.

It may be because former Attorneys General Edwin Meese III and Bill Barr said very recently in an article that they fully believe--I believe that article was in the Wall Street Journal--that it is totally unconstitutional according to article 1, section 7. I have it right here in front of me, Mr. Speaker. But for whatever the reason, I think it probably is a combination of both. I thank ``we, the people.''

With that, I refer back to my colleague from Georgia, the Honorable Lynn Westmoreland.

Mr. Speaker, indeed, indeed, there's a hole every other step. I had not heard that story, but I'm very glad the gentleman from Georgia related it to us, because the analogy is perfect.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I referred to the Democratic majority party who did their hour Special Order I guess 30 minutes or so ago and some of the comments that were made. One of the gentlemen made the comment that when they pass--the Democratic majority passes this bill tomorrow, H.R. 3590, if indeed they do, but he felt confident that they would, that he welcomed, Mr. Speaker, the debate as we go into the fall and as we all stand, as we do in every even year, every 2 years, for reelection to the House of Representatives, this great body, that he welcomed that opportunity to have that debate. In fact, he suggested that the Republican Party, our side of the aisle, none of whom will be voting for this bill tomorrow, would be campaigning on how we can win back the majority and do away with everything in the bill, all 2,700 pages of H.R. 3590, and the changes and the manager's amendment and whatever else we don't get to see but get to vote on.

Mr. Speaker, the minority party has had lots of ideas on how to reform the health care system so that we bring down the costs and give I don't know how many million--maybe it's 15 to 20 million people that don't get health insurance because they cannot afford it and they're not eligible. Their income is not low enough that they qualify for a safety net program like Medicaid or the CHIP program, Children's Health Insurance Program, for their families.

And when the President, Mr. Speaker, as you know, and my colleagues know, when he invited both Republicans and Democrats 2 weeks ago to come over to the Blair House and meet with him, I don't know that they realized that it would be 6\1/2\ hours, much of it filibustering. A lot of hot air in that room. A lot of oxygen sucked out of the room. But the President controlled it, and he recognized speakers when he wanted to and he made them yield back when he wanted to. But we had so many good ideas presented. And as we go forward and when we do regain the majority, we're not going to strike down every single provision of H.R. 3590. There are things in that bill that I, as a physician member, and many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle agree with and we think that they are good.

The gentlelady from California mentioned the expansion of community health centers. That's a good thing. That's a good thing. Someone else in the majority party mentioned allowing our children to stay on a family policy until they're 26 years old. Many of them, of course, are still in college or graduate school, and, heretofore, insurance companies have required at age

21, maybe in some instances even at age 18, unless they were in school, that these children no longer could be covered under the family policy, and that was wrong. And we're changing that. I'm glad that we're changing that.

So the gentleman from Ohio and others on your side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, I think they misspoke in regard to that. We can, should have worked together and come up with a solution that doesn't cost a trillion dollars, doesn't allow the Federal Government to take over our health care system--one-sixth of our economy, $2.5 trillion. Goodness knows, the Federal Government already controls about 60 percent of that when you think about Medicare and Medicaid and TRICARE, veterans' health care. For some reason, the Democratic majority and this President are not going to be satisfied until the Federal Government controls it all, lock, stock, and barrel, just like they said they have been trying to do for the last 40, 50, or 60 years. And I said in my earlier remarks, it's no surprise to me that it's had difficulty passing. I don't care how close it came, we the people didn't want it.

And as the gentleman from Ohio talks about, let's tee it up. We're ready. We're ready for those fall elections and we're ready to run on H.R. 3590, and we're going to beat these mean old stingy Republicans.

I want to, Mr. Speaker, give him a little history lesson. Thirty-four Democrat incumbents were defeated in 1994. Thirty-four incumbents were defeated. When was 1994? Well, it was one year after the latest and last great attempt for the Federal Government to take over our health care system. And that was known, my colleagues, as HillaryCare.

Let me just mention to my colleagues a few names, and I think it will be quite instructive because, I think, men and women, you will recognize some of these names who were among the 34 that went into that election cycle, I'm sure, very confident, having voted for HillaryCare and the takeover by the government of our health care system.

Speaker Tom Foley. Speaker of the House Tom Foley from the State of Washington, first elected in 1964. Tom Foley represented the Spokane area for 30 years. Thirty years. This was the first time since 1862 that a sitting Speaker was defeated in a reelection bid. Speaker Foley in 1992, Mr. Speaker, won by 11 points. In 1994, Speaker Tom Foley was defeated by 2 points, a 13-point shift.

Colleagues, Mr. Speaker, does the name Dan Rostenkowski sound familiar? The gentleman from Illinois, Fifth District of Illinois, first elected in 1958. He lost his seat in 1994, despite being a 36- year veteran of this House and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. In 1992, I say to my colleague, Mr. Speaker, from Ohio, in 1992, Dan Rostenkowski won by 18 points. In 1994, he lost by 13 points. Just a little 31-point shift. What happened? What happened? We the people decided to put him in the ranks of the unemployed.

I'm not going to read all of the names. Let me just mention one from my own State. Again, 1992. Donald Johnson from the 10th District of Georgia. He was first elected to his first term in 1992. He won by 8 points. He represented my hometown, Mr. Speaker, Augusta, Georgia, home of the Masters. Great area. It's always home to me.

Well, Donald Johnson was one of the last votes for the massive, massive takeover of our health care system, and also, Mr. Speaker, voted for the Clinton increase in taxes. People back home said, Don't vote for that. Don't vote for it and come back and expect us to reelect you, Don Johnson. Don't vote for that bill. But yet I think our former colleague Don Johnson may have been the 117th vote. In 1992, he won by 8 points. In 1994, the gentleman from Georgia lost by 30, Mr. Speaker, lost by a 38-point shift. He was replaced by our great and late, I sadly say, colleague, Dr. Charlie Norwood, who served so honorably in this body until his death about a year and a half ago. He died in office, God rest his soul. Don Johnson wasn't a bad man, Mr. Speaker. I didn't know him personally, but he made a bad vote and he didn't listen to we the people.

Let me mention one other, because I saw her on television earlier today and she was recommending to her Democratic colleagues that they vote for this health care reform, this massive takeover of one-sixth of our economy. She was recommending, indeed, that her Democratic colleagues tomorrow vote ``yes'' because it was the right thing to do. Well, Ms. Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky at the time. Today, I think her name is Marjorie Margolies. She represented the 13th District of Pennsylvania. She was elected in 1992. And it was her decisive vote on Bill Clinton's controversial 1993 budget; it was often argued to be the cause of her downfall. In 1992, she won by about a point. In 1994, she lost by 13 points, and she indeed was the deciding vote. And the people in Pennsylvania said, Marjorie, honey, it's time for you to come on home because you're not listening to we the people.

She said this afternoon on television that she has no regrets. That was 1994. So we're talking 16 years ago. I'm glad she has no regrets, but I don't think she ever intended, Mr. Speaker, to just serve one 2- year term. I don't think a lot of my Democratic colleagues in the majority party, particularly the freshmen and sophomores, had any intention or have any intention of going through the rigors and the expense and the agony and the stress of running to be elected to this House of Representatives to only serve one term.

I don't think so, Mr. Speaker, but that is exactly the fate that is going to befall them as they listen to some of their colleagues and listen to their leadership and listen to the President of the United States, and they make a decision that maybe the pressure from the leadership or maybe the offers from the leadership are so attractive, the promises, the arm twisting, that they come down here tomorrow, and they forget what we, the people, want them to do, and they make a career-ending vote.

I think it's important that if you don't know your history, you're going to repeat it. And that's why I spend the time talking about-- there are many more here that I could mention. But tomorrow is going to be a crucial, critical vote for many Members, and I hope and pray that those who know we, the people, from their district want them to vote ``no,'' Mr. Speaker, I hope they have the courage to do that. And then as long as you're responding to we, the people, you can't go wrong.

You know, when the bill started in the Committee on Energy and Commerce in the House--and I am proud to serve on that committee. I've got a few posters that I would like to share with my colleagues to express to you why it is on this side of the aisle and why we, the people--60 percent, 70 percent across this country--are so opposed to this takeover of our health care system by the Federal Government.

On this first slide, would you just look at the additional bureaucracy that is created as the Federal Government begins to take over. I don't know that in any of the congressional budget scoring that any expense item was assigned to the creation of some 32 additional bureaucratic czars. The health choices administrator, as an example, is every bit as powerful as the Social Security administrator. We talked about today the fact that there are going to be 17,000 new IRS agents so they can peruse everybody's tax return to make sure that they have purchased a health insurance policy. Now not any health insurance policy but one prescribed by the Federal Government. Not maybe a health savings account with a policy that has a low premium and high deductible. But yes, catastrophic coverage that's so popular with our young people because that's what they can best afford. No, that's not going to be permitted. We the people want it, but the health choices administrator is probably not going to allow that to occur.

There will be 32 new bureaucratic agencies and growing all the time. And add to that, as I said, 17,000 additional IRS agents. How did this bill get to the point that we find this at this time? It wasn't easy, I can tell you that. It couldn't get through the Senate until, as I show you on this second slide, many, many political payoffs that are still in this bill.

Remember the Cornhusker kickback? Well, that wasn't taken out. The original bill on the Senate side, this was a special favor granted to one particular

Senator from one particular State, the Cornhusker State. And instead of taking it out, when we, the people, complained, what did the Democratic majority do? They extended the Cornhusker kickback to every State in the Union, so all 50 States will now get this expansion of Medicaid and an unfunded mandate that the States cannot possibly survive with.

The Louisiana purchase. Mr. Speaker, I heard the Senator from Louisiana yesterday on television explaining why she asked for and received the Louisiana purchase payoff--of course, Mr. Speaker, she said it wasn't a payoff. I believe it was in an interview with Greta Van Susteren that the Senator said that, Well, Louisiana has to pay 70 percent of the price of the cost of Medicaid in her State, and the Federal Government pays 30 percent. And that wasn't fair. Well, I was astounded, first of all, Mr. Speaker, to hear that, because it's just the opposite. The State of Louisiana pays 30 percent, and the Federal Government pays 70 percent. And in fact, they've been doing that for many, many years and probably the State of Louisiana pays less into the Medicaid program than almost any other State in the country. Mississippi may be a little bit less. And the reason for that, this FMAP-matching is done based on the average income in the State. So a state that is suffering in poverty, they pay less in the Medicaid program, and we, the people, help them with the Federal match.

Louisiana for many years deserved to only pay 30 percent. But after Hurricane Katrina, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how many hundreds of billions of dollars have been given to the State of Louisiana to help them recover, and in particular in the New Orleans area. They needed it. They deserved it. A natural disaster, mostly through no fault of their own.

But the economy in Louisiana has improved drastically in the last 4, 5 years since Hurricane Katrina and income has gone up. People are making a better wage because of all the construction and all the money that has been poured into Louisiana. And the State of Louisiana and its representatives continue to ask for more. It's like my dad said to me one time, Mr. Speaker, How much more money does a rich person need to be happy? Well, the answer, Mr. Speaker, is just a little bit more, just a little bit more. So I suspect that the ask-fors will never end. But I'm glad--I am very thankful that the State of Louisiana is doing well now, and the average income has gone up. And they are supposed to, by the formula, by fairness, they're supposed to pay a little bit more into the Medicaid program than 30 percent. And yet the Senator insists that, no, that's unfair to Louisiana, and that's what is known now as the Louisiana purchase. It's still in there. Gator aid is still in there. Federal funding of abortion is still in there. And $500 billion worth of Medicare cuts are still in there.

Mr. Speaker, how in the world can we look seniors in the eye and say to them, We're going to cut this program $500 billion? What could possibly be the justification for doing that? This program, started in 1965, has an unfunded liability of $35 trillion over the next 50 years, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, in the previous hour talked about how cutting $500 billion out of the Medicare program was going to save the program, even suggesting that that $500 billion was waste, fraud, and abuse. Yet $120 billion of it is in the Medicare Advantage Program. Cutting Medicare Advantage 18 percent per year for the next 10 years--and really by 2014, there will be no Medicare Advantage Program.

Why is it that one-fourth of our seniors on Medicare sign up for Medicare Advantage? Because it's cheaper for them, and they get a better benefit. It covers wellness. It covers many preventive screening tests that fee-for-service Medicare does not cover. It gives them an opportunity to have a professional or a nurse practitioner call and make sure that they're taking their medications and they're seen on a regular basis, and yet we're going to eliminate that program. How does that make sense? Mr. Speaker, it doesn't. It doesn't make sense.

So as my colleague from Ohio was talking about, some of the things in this bill that they may pass tomorrow, they may pass with some of the tactics that have been used, like the Cornhusker kickback and the Louisiana purchase and ambassadorship here and ambassadorship there, and you name it and whatever promise, they may pass it. But Mr. Speaker, it's going to be a catastrophe, I think, for our seniors.

Let me just tell you why I think so. And I spoke to the--I call them Tea Party patriots, Mr. Speaker. I don't call them tea baggers. And they're not a bunch of angry white men, as I have heard a lot of folks say. Indeed, the two or three couples who asked me to sign their posters and to pose for a picture with them were African American families. And I was so proud to be asked to do that. I mean, again, all ages, men, and women, white, black, Asian. We, the people, were there today, and I think, Mr. Speaker, they'll be there tomorrow.

But here's what's happening to our seniors, and I had a few minutes to speak to the assemblage of maybe 20,000 people, and I reminded them of the stimulus package of over a year and a half ago. I guess it was maybe February of last year when that massive American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, whatever it was called. But we call it the stimulus bill. I think everybody understands. It was about $820 billion worth, and a significant portion of that package, Mr. Speaker, was--remember, it was for shovel-ready projects. If the project was not shovel-ready in reference to some of these construction projects in the various States, then the States couldn't draw down that money from the economic stimulus package; it had to be shovel-ready.

Well, Mr. Speaker, when you're having fun, time really flies. And even when you're not having fun, it flies.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from California (Ms. Speier) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan). I want to thank also my colleague in the Senate, Senator Saxby Chambliss, who is introducing the companion legislation.

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I do rise in proud support of authoring H. Con. Res. 244, expressing support for March 20 as a National Day of Recognition for Long-Term Care Physicians. And I want to give a loud shout-out to one of my best friends. In fact, he calls, he says we are pallbearer friends--now that's serious--Dr. Steve Jordan, who is a long-term care physician in Statesboro, Georgia, and one of my classmates in medical school.

Yet I support this resolution, Mr. Speaker, with a heavy heart because I fear that the Democrats' health reform bill will harm seniors and their long-term care. Seniors and patients all across this country have been telling our Congress that their health will suffer, their health will suffer if this bill,

ObamaCare, passes, $500 billion in cuts to Medicare when the program is already going broke. Seniors in my district know their health care costs will go up if this bill, bought with backroom deals, is passed.

This Democratic majority, while promising the American people they will reform insurance, will bring in billions of new profits to private insurance companies and for liberal bureaucrats. Let me be very clear about this, Mr. Speaker. If the Democratic majority jams this bill down the throats of American patients, our health care, their health care will suffer. It will not get better; it will get worse. And to top it all off, the majority party wants to negate the votes of 300 million patients in this country by not even allowing an up-or-down vote by their Members on this backroom-deal bill. And that, Mr. Speaker, is the worst deal of all.

Yes, of course, I stand in proud support of this resolution, and I thank my colleague for making it possible to bring it to the floor.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and of course I continue to support this great resolution recognizing March 20 as National Long-Term Care Physician Day.

As my colleague from Alabama, the gentleman from Huntsville, Dr. Parker Griffith, just spoke, Madam Speaker, as a medical oncologist he knows of what he speaks. And he talked about the long-term care physicians, many of us who have not yet needed their services but indeed we will. We will.

As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, I have great concerns. I have great concerns about their ability should this H.R. 3590, patient protection health care reform bill--I call it ObamaCare.

Should that pass, I have great concern about our long-term care physicians and what they can do, how they can help, how much in control they will be of the health and well-being of our senior citizens.

You know, the economic stimulus package of last year talked about shovel-ready projects. Well, that didn't have much effect, I don't think, on our senior citizens. But if this bill passes, if ObamaCare passes, Madam Speaker, then all of a sudden these senior citizens in our country will become shovel ready, and this bill will concern them. My great fear is they will be first in line to get thrown under the bus when we start rationing health care.

So as I support this resolution, as I said earlier, I have a very heavy heart and much concern. When you cut $500 billion out of a Medicare program that has $35 trillion, Madam Speaker, of unfunded liability over the next 50 years, and you are going to cut it 10 percent a year, Madam Speaker, for the next 10 years? How is that good for our senior citizens?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my colleague from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming, for not only yielding a little time to me but also for being here on the floor to control the time. Mr. Speaker, as you know, each side of the aisle gets a leadership hour, and it seems that maybe our Democratic friends who had the previous hour and only took 35 minutes came to the conclusion that the less said the better about this health care bill. That seems to be the way things have been going, Mr. Speaker, in regard to how much we know about what is in the bill. We will be talking about that a good little bit tonight. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, on our side of the aisle, we've got a lot to say. I think the more said the better.

The American people need to know. They need to be informed. Indeed they know already a lot, know enough to say, as 70 percent of them do, that they don't want this bill. Not this bill. As Dr. Fleming said, Mr. Speaker, I was doing a tele-town hall meeting to my constituents in the 11th of Georgia, northwest Georgia, the nine counties that I represent, the 700,000 people, salt-of-the-earth folks, just as Dr. Fleming represents the same kind of folks in Louisiana. Suffering folks, unemployed folks, struggling folks.

I did a poll question on this tele-town hall call that probably went out maybe to 25,000 households. And a lot of them were on the line and listening and asking questions and staying in the queue for the whole hour and 30 minutes, I think we went.

Mr. Speaker, the poll question was, if your greatest concern about this bill, the so-called Patient Protection and Health Accountability Act or whatever it is called, H.R. 3590, the Senate bill that is going to be deemed passed if the Democratic majority has their way, what's your greatest concern? If it's the economy, the effect that this bill will have on the economy, push ``1'' on your keypad. If your greatest concern is the effect it will have on your health or the health of your immediate family, press ``2.'' If your number one concern about this bill is the devastating effect that it will have on the Medicare program and our senior citizens, you, your parents, your grandparents, press ``3'' on the keypad. If your concern is all of the above, press ``4.''

Well, I am going to tell you, 65 percent of them, Representative Fleming, 65 percent of them, Mr. Speaker, pressed ``4.'' That is what I would have pressed, too. It was equal, 10, 12 percent equally divided among the other three.

People are outraged, Mr. Speaker. It is just unbelievable to me. Let's refer to the first slide, this poster that I have got to my right, your left. What Americans Want. I wasn't surprised at all by the poll that I took tonight because the American people have been saying this for months and months. The first bullet point on the slide, 73 percent of Americans want Congress to start over on health care reform, or if they are unwilling to do that, this is a situation where it's better to do nothing. They don't believe we should do something even if it's wrong. No, if it's wrong, do nothing. Second bullet point, 56 percent of people want the Congress to tackle health care reform on a step-by-step basis, not a wholesale government takeover.

Mr. Speaker, when Senator Lamar Alexander a couple weeks ago at the Blair House went to the health care summit, when he could finally get a word in edgewise after our President finished filibustering, said the same thing. Said, Look, we can solve the problem. We can actually lower the cost of health insurance and, indeed, the cost of health care if we do it in an incremental, commonsense way.

And then when Coburn got to speak, Senator Coburn, Mr. Speaker, he said, Mr. President, let me just make it brief here. I know you're not going to give me a lot of time, and you're controlling the clock and who gets to speak. And you took already twice the time that we did in your opening statement. But that is okay. You're the President. But give me a couple of minutes. I will make two points. One, let's eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. And Dr. Coburn had some great suggestions about that.

And then he went on to say--and, Mr. Speaker, this is almost unbelievable to us, to the physicians that serve in this House of Representatives, to the members of the GOP Doctor Caucus in the House and to our physician friends, Dr. Coburn and Dr. Barrasso in the Senate--the President said to the American Medical Society last summer, at the annual meeting--they invited him to be the keynote speaker--and when they asked, Mr. President, you want us to endorse, and the AMA went on and did endorse based on the President's promise that there would be reform of medical liability, so-called tort reform, ending frivolous lawsuits and ending the necessity for doctors to protect themselves and their practices by ordering all of these tons of tests, expensive tests, sometimes even, Mr. Speaker, dangerous tests, just to cover their back so that some slick expert witness in a court of law wouldn't say that, oh, you know, you didn't order a fizzle phosphate level on this patient? That's below the standard of care in Louisiana or in Georgia, in Marietta or Athens. That is the kind of thing we're dealing with.

And to just complete the slide, Mr. Speaker, I refer back to this first poster, the last bullet point. Sixty percent of Americans think the Slaughter solution is unfair. I'm going to let my colleagues, if they want to--or maybe when they come back to me I will talk about that--but there are other Members, other physician members, Mr. Speaker, that are here; and I want to yield time to them.

The gentleman from Louisiana was so kind to control the time in my absence. I yield back to him so that he can yield back to other Members. And I yield back to my good friend, Dr. Fleming.

Will the gentleman yield for a minute?

I appreciate my colleague for yielding because the gentleman points out an accurate statement in regard to the expansion of the IRS because there absolutely would be those that would be going through with a fine-tooth comb every tax return. And we're not too far from that date where people, if they don't put down and verify that they have that health insurance policy--and the gentleman was probably going to say this, but I will go ahead and say this--not just that they have a health insurance policy, but the type of policy.

In other words, a young person, a young, healthy person who exercises and takes care of himself, doesn't smoke, doesn't drink, runs marathons, and so he wants a health insurance policy that he can afford. He is just out of high school or just out of college. He is paying back student loans, trying to buy a car, trying to save up to get an engagement ring for his fiancee, whatever, paying for an apartment, yet he wants to have coverage. He wants to have catastrophic coverage, but he can't afford first dollar coverage, so he buys these high deductible but very low monthly premium--probably one-fourth of what the IRS and this bill is going to demand that they have. If he doesn't have it, he is going to jail.

It's just unbelievable. And very quickly, before yielding back to my colleague, I want to say this.

If we were in charge, Mr. Speaker, I think the three of us on the floor right now, we would eliminate the IRS. We wouldn't add to them and add to that bureaucracy. We would get rid of the IRS and the Federal income tax, and we would replace that with a flat tax or a fair tax, a national retail sales tax that our colleague from Georgia, John Linder, has been such a strong proponent of.

If the gentleman would yield just for a second, he may want to yield back to Dr. Fleming who is controlling the time. It is our colleague from our great State of Georgia, Congressman Nathan Deal, the ranking member on the Health Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce where this bill, by the way, originated as H.R. 3200, Mr. Speaker. We all remember that. But it was Congressman Deal, Nathan Deal, 17 years, this is his 18th year, in fact, in this body, had the amendment to stop that, to make sure that people had to give adequate verification, just like they do for the Medicaid program in our States and the SCHIP program. It's called PeachCare in Georgia. It was Congressman Nathan Deal--who, by the way, I think is going to be the next Governor of Georgia--who very strongly advocated for that. But unfortunately, as all Republican amendments, if they get heard at all, they get voted down on straight party lines, good commonsense amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

I agree with my colleagues that process does matter. We, physician Members in particular, are concerned mostly about the policy, and we are emphasizing policy tonight, and we will continue to do that. But the American people definitely care about process.

I want to go back, Mr. Speaker, to what my colleague from Georgia was just saying in regard to the insurance premiums are going to go up for those in the private market. There is no question about that. The CBO has said as much. And, Mr. Speaker, you wonder, maybe the American people wonder, if that's true, if the whole purpose of this reform plan was to lower the cost of insurance so more of the uninsured would have insurance, those that are not eligible for Medicaid and just don't realize it, that we have to lower the cost or they can't, we've wasted our time. We've spent $1 trillion and we have accomplished nothing.

But, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this may be intentional. This may, indeed, be intentional. If what you want, Mr. Speaker, ultimately is a socialized national health insurance system like other countries have, where rationing is commonplace and denial is commonplace and old people get thrown under the bus, if that is ultimately what you want, you want the Federal Government, and your mindset, your mentality is more government is better government, more control is better because the people are too dumb to run their own lives so we want to take over, we want to take over one-sixth of the economy, so you drive up the cost of health insurance in the 40 percent of the market that's private, eventually there is no private market. And everybody morphs into these public plans. That's why the Democratic majority insisted on a public option. They didn't get it, but that's coming next. That's coming next.

And I will yield back to the gentleman controlling the time to yield to Dr. Broun.

Thank you, Dr. Gingrey. Let me add a couple points and then I will yield to the other gentleman.

You know, we have got two bills right now. We have the Senate bill which has all of these ugly, sleazy deals in them that even the Members on the other side don't want their fingerprints on, and that is why we are going through this deemed process, because they want to pass it without voting for it. Crazy.

Anyway, the reconciliation part, the so-called correcting bill that they are wanting to vote on is going to do this: It is going to increase taxes by $155.8 billion on top of the Senate bill. So it is increasing taxes. It also takes over the student loan program. So what?

Well, this is the so-what. It is a job killer. It is going to take all the profits from the private industries that have been loaning this money, it is going to unemploy 35,000 Americans, and it is going to skim that profit to dump into this to go down the sinkhole.

On this point about the job killer, this student loan--Federal Government, once again, the Federal Government taking over the student loan program. Well, I don't know. Ten, 15 years ago they took over half of it, and that wasn't enough. Although that killed about 50,000 jobs, I say to my colleague from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming. And now, as he points out, now they want it all, and that is going to kill another 30,000.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about 80,000 jobs in the private market so that the Federal Government can have a 4-percent spread, borrowing money at 2.5 percent, lending it out to the students at 6.5 percent, 7 percent, and taking in $60 billion so this majority party can spend it on more social welfare programs. That is what we are talking about. And I yield back to my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, because I just happen to have a slide. I think my colleague from Louisiana noticed that slide. Maybe my good friend from Athens can't see it, but this is ``Notable Quotable.''

Look, Mr. Speaker, I respect the Speaker of the House of Representatives. We all do, of course. And anybody can misspeak and make a bad quote. But, gee, whiz, for the Speaker of the House to say-- here is the quote: ``We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.'' I have got to repeat that for you, Mr. Speaker, in case you didn't hear and my colleagues, both sides of the aisle. The Speaker of the House just a couple, a few days ago. Here is the quote: ``We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.''

Now, that is why the American people are outraged. They know that. 2,700 pages, and then they come here with this reconciliation package. And, oh, they are going to give us 72 hours to study it. And then, as my friend from Georgia was talking about, the Scheme and Deem or the Slaughter solution.

Mr. Speaker, I am telling you, the majority party, if they do that, if they pass this bill, this Senate bill without really voting on it to trick the American people so they don't have to go home and face the irate voters, they are going to get slaughtered in November.

I yield back to the gentleman controlling the time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. As we conclude, I have got one last slide I want to share with my colleagues. The title of it, the Slaughter solution. My colleagues have already mentioned it. But it would indeed let Speaker Pelosi send the Senate bill to President Obama without an up-or-down vote. It would just be deemed passage when they vote for the rule.

Americans deserve an up-or-down vote. And listen to these quotes as we conclude our hour.

President Obama: ``I believe Congress owes the American people a final up-or-down vote.''

The Democratic National Committee chairman, his quote: ``There is going to be a vote, and it's going to be an up-or-down vote. Everybody is going to be up or down on the record and be accountable either for a `yes' vote or a `no' vote.''

Have the intestinal fortitude, Mr. Speaker, to stand up and be counted. Stand up and be counted. That is all we are asking. And I yield back to the gentleman from Louisiana.

We're going to continue during this hour to talk about health care, my colleagues in the previous hour: Mr. Speaker, Dr. John Fleming from Louisiana, a family practitioner of many years, with many years experience; Dr. Paul Broun, a family practitioner. A house-call doctor, one of the rare breeds of physicians in this country still willing to make those house calls; and indeed he continues to do it when he goes home to Athens and the 10th Congressional District, seeing patients out of the goodness of his heart, mostly.

We talked about a lot of things. We want to continue this discussion because, Mr. Speaker, you just cannot say it all adequately, I don't think, in an hour. We have been blessed. The good Lord gave us this opportunity for another hour. We gratefully accept it. We'll continue to talk about it.

The gentleman who was controlling the previous hour was talking about the magnitude, Mr. Speaker, of this bill. We're not talking about naming a post office or flags flying over the Capitol, for goodness sake. We are talking about one-sixth--one-sixth--$2.5 trillion of our overall economy in this country. One-sixth of it, the amount of money that's spent each year on health care. We're going to let the Federal Government take over that? I don't think so. My constituents say ``no.'' In fact, they say, Heck no.

This is, again, as Representative Fleming said, Mr. Speaker, this is not just a little old bill. Bills have varying degrees of significance and importance, but this one is life or death, Mr. Speaker. This is life or death. And we don't want, our patients don't want, our constituents don't want the government in control of that. They don't trust the government. I don't blame them, Mr. Speaker. Why should they when this government is $1.6 trillion worth of red ink in the last fiscal year and has already spent something like $650 billion of red ink in this fiscal year, and we're not even halfway through it. It is unbelievable.

We're going to have a good time and try, Mr. Speaker, to enlighten our colleagues, to share our medical knowledge, maybe to show a poster or two. I think one of my colleagues has one up right now, so I'm going to quickly yield to the gentleman from Athens, Georgia, Dr. Paul Broun.

Would the gentleman yield for just a second?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, because I'm following along with him and he's quoting the Constitution accurately. The gentleman, I think, said--of course he did--if he approve, he shall sign it. It's not: if he deem, he shall sign.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's important we point that out. Approve, not deem. I yield back.

If the gentleman will yield back. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to ask the gentleman to yield his time back to me because the Lord knows we don't want to hear him sing. He's done a great job of reading the Constitution.

We're pleased to be joined, Mr. Speaker, by another of our colleagues, the gentleman from Iowa. I'm of course speaking of my mom's favorite Member of the body. I hope Mom's watching, Mr. Speaker. Mom is 92 years young, lives in Aiken, South, Carolina, in our good friend Gresham Barrett's district, or possibly Joe Wilson's, but my mom watches intently to what is going on up here, and she's a big fan of the gentleman from Iowa, Representative King. We're going to get to him in just a minute. Before I yield time to Representative King, I want to yield back to my friend from Louisiana.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming, for being courageous in the first hour of speaking out against something that may purportedly--at least one of the Members of the other body who represents the State of Louisiana, who arranged for the Louisiana Purchase. Representative Fleming, Mr. Speaker, is mighty courageous to stand up here--he's from Louisiana as well--to say, That's not right. That's not right. That's not playing fair. That's giving one State an unfair advantage. It's not a level playing field.

I yield back to my friend from Louisiana.

Dr. Fleming, would you yield for just a moment? If the gentleman would yield back to me, and I will yield just for a moment to Dr. Broun, and then I will yield to Representative King.

But I yield just a moment to the gentleman from Athens, Dr. Broun.

I wanted to just point out real quickly before yielding to my friend from Iowa, when I think about tea in this country, Mr. Speaker, I think about the Tea Party Patriots, God bless them.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to correct something that I said a few minutes ago because I misquoted Mom. I said that Mom said that Representative King was her favorite Member of Congress. That's not what Mom said. Mom told me that I was still her favorite Member of Congress. I think she even said that I was the best looking. But what she did say, Mr. Speaker, was that Representative King was the best speaker, and I was highly offended by that, but he is a pretty good speaker. And Mom, here he comes.

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa, Representative Steve King, my classmate.

If the gentleman would yield.

I just have to weigh in here just a minute because, Mr. Speaker, my favorite country singer, Merle Haggard, sung a song about that stew. I think he called it ``Rainbow Stew,'' if I'm correct.

If the gentleman will yield back to me, and I'm going to yield to my colleague in just a minute from Pennsylvania. But I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

And you know, while we're talking about songs, Madam Speaker, there was another one, one of my favorites by, I think it was Julie Andrews that sung this one. I don't know whether the movie was ``Mary Poppins,'' but I think it went by the title of ``Make the Medicine Go Down in the Most Delightful Way.'' You just add a little sugar. And maybe that's what my colleague is talking about, this stew, rainbow stew, toxic stew, whatever we call it. But add a little sugar, and it's going to go down a little easier in a most delightful way for Louisiana, for Florida, for Nebraska, for North Dakota, just add a little, little bit of sugar.

And add a little bit of sugar to recalcitrant Democratic Members, Madam Speaker, who are struggling to decide whether they go against their constituents, and vote for this thing, this toxic stew that the gentleman was talking about, or they have the courage to vote not only their convictions but the convictions of their constituents who overwhelmingly are saying to them, vote ``no.'' Have the courage to vote ``no'' no matter how much sugar they offer you to sweeten that toxic stew.

I'd like to yield to our good friend from Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, in the previous hour, our hour was, of course, about health care, and it was led by a physician group. But the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Representative Thompson, has been a hospital administrator during his professional career before being elected to Congress. And I would like--I think our colleagues need to hear from him from that perspective of what the hospitals are dealing with in regard to this toxic stew. And with that I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Madam Speaker, I think we're very, very fortunate to have heard from the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I think this is an aspect of this that we've not heard enough about and presented in the way that Representative Thompson just explained it. Even we physician Members can't do that. Maybe we can the next time. But I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I thank him for being here tonight and sharing that with us.

I want to yield to my colleague from Georgia, Representative Paul Broun for his comments.

If the gentleman will yield back, Madam Speaker, no pandering tonight, please. I will yield back to the gentleman if he promises not to pander.

I concur with the gentleman. I think there is a certain amount of arrogance, a lot of arrogance, and maybe indeed a certain amount of ignorance. There's a certain amount of shrewdness, too.

I want to yield back to the gentleman from Iowa because as he was talking about Otto Von Bismark and the creation of that hammock and that sense of dependency and that toxic stew that I referred to as rainbow stew, I want to yield back to the gentleman because I think he was making some excellent points, and I want to let him continue.

I think we have maybe 15 more minutes or so, and I would like to yield back to the gentleman from Iowa

We are getting very close, probably within 5 or 6 minutes of the end of our time.

I really appreciate, Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Iowa looking up some of the lyrics of ``Rainbow Stew,'' because, Madam Speaker, if this bill passes, this ``deem and scheme'' passage of this bill, if it passes, I'm sure the Democratic majority is going to think that they are drinking free bubble-ubb and eating that rainbow stew.

Well, I guarantee you, Madam Speaker, we referred to my mother a little earlier in the hour, and my mom knows what kind of stew they are going to be eating. And I would also suggest, Madam Speaker, that they're not going to be drinking free bubble-ubb. They're going to be drinking Jim Jones Kool-Aid. This is a toxic stew and a bad drink not only for Members of Congress and members of the Democratic majority who vote ``yes'' on this abomination, but it is horrible for the American people.

Madam Speaker, this is not a Slaughter House. No. This is the people's House, and that's what the gentleman from Iowa was talking about.

I want to yield a little bit more time to the gentlemen from Pennsylvania, and we have just a few minutes left, and let the gentleman from Iowa conclude.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania is absolutely right. In fact, I think the State of Virginia, the legislature just voted to say, We are not going to require, under the penalty of law, our people to have health insurance. We want them to have health insurance.

I thank the gentleman for pointing out the fact that this expansion of Medicaid is crippling States, not only the State of Pennsylvania, rural hospitals as he pointed out, inner city hospitals that are serving the most needy, but in my State of Georgia, our Governor is struggling, is struggling to find ways to pay for this expanded Medicaid and has just announced that it's possible that the reimbursement to the hospitals in Georgia, the rural hospitals, all the hospitals, indeed, and the providers in Georgia, will be cut 10 percent Medicaid reimbursement. The gentleman has already talked about the reimbursement is 60 cents on the dollar.

I want to yield back, Madam Speaker, to the gentleman from Iowa to conclude, and I yield to him at this time.