Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, as we begin the second session of the 111th Congress, more than 15 million Americans are looking for work. Our Nation's unemployment rate is 10 percent--actually, 12 percent in the 11th District of Georgia, which is the highest level of unemployment since June of 1983.

Last year, Democrats promised that borrowing almost $1 trillion on the backs of our children and grandchildren would create jobs immediately and that unemployment would not rise above 8 percent. Clearly, that is not the case.

So as we start this session, I urge Democratic leaders to finally take some commonsense steps to create jobs and to make health care more affordable. That means putting an end to spending money that we don't have. It means not continuing to pass legislation that imposes job- killing taxes on our small businesses, and it means passing health care legislation that actually reduces health care costs for all Americans without cutting their benefits.

Madam Speaker, the American people cannot afford any more of the Democrats' agenda for killing jobs and for growing the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, I thank our leader for allowing me to spend this time this evening in talking to our colleagues about some very important matters dealing with health care reform and the pledge of transparency. That will be the focus of the hour. I have a number of colleagues that will be joining me who are part of an organization within the House of Representatives called the GOP Doctors Caucus. We have about 13 members of the GOP Doctors Caucus, most of whom are medical doctors. We have an optometrist, we have a clinical psychologist Ph.D., and a couple of dental doctors in the caucus.

And for the last year literally in the entire year 2009, I think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know that this GOP Doctors Caucus has been working diligently, working diligently to try to have some input in regard to health care reform, making some suggestions, writing and cosponsoring comprehensive legislation such as H.R. 3400, an alternative approach.

Members of this caucus, Mr. Speaker, introduced individual bills on certain subject matter that the President has pledged that would be in the health care bill. And yet as we stand here today, at the 11th hour literally of merging these two versions from the House and the Senate, there is nothing about health care reform of the medical liability system which the President pledged to do.

The President, of course, made that pledge in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association, an association that represents maybe a fifth, 20 percent, of the doctors across this country, that has literally given their endorsement to the President's bill, but asks in return for some relief of the reimbursement under Medicare to the physicians, elimination of this flawed formula that year after year after year forces the doctors to take these deep cuts so they literally can't afford to continue to see Medicare patients.

And of course the request, Mr. Speaker, at that particular meeting back in Chicago, probably last May or June of 2009, that there be some meaningful medical liability tort reform. The CBO in fact estimated that would save $54 billion. Just that one issue would save $54 billion the CBO says over the next 10 years, and I respectfully suggest that is a most conservative estimate on their part. I think there would be a $54 billion savings each and every year over the next 10 years.

In any regard, I am blessed tonight to be joined by a number of the members of the GOP Doctors Caucus, and we are going to talk about the main theme of tonight and that is the issue of transparency. I want to get into that in just a second because nothing could be more important, particularly at this point, this 11th hour, when a bill is about to be presented. I say ``presented,'' really I mean, Mr. Speaker, forced upon the 435 Members of this body and the 100 in the other body, when the American people don't want it; but more about that later.

Moment of Silence Recognizing Cobb County Tragedy

Mr. Speaker, I would like with your approval to take just a moment because a tragedy occurred, and I was just notified by email just a few minutes before I started, that in my district, the 11th Congressional District of Georgia, Cobb County in one of its townships, Kennesaw, part of my nine-county district of northwest Georgia, there was a tragic, tragic shooting in my district, in the city of Kennesaw today, where two people lost their lives and three people are in critical condition.

I would like to ask my colleagues on the floor tonight to join me for just a moment of silence to remember the families of the deceased and the victims that are in critical condition and their families as well. We will take just a moment of silence before we continue.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing us to do that, and I thank my colleagues for joining me in their prayers for those of my district who have been killed and injured.

Well, we want to talk a little bit about the issue of transparency because that is what is in the news right now--this is a huge concern-- or I should say the lack of transparency in regard to the health reform bill. We are going to give you a second opinion today about that. And, indeed, we are going to roll the tape on health care doublespeak as we look at these slides.

Mr. Speaker, let me just start off by saying and calling the attention of my colleagues to this first slide: Where is the transparency?

Our President, then candidate, Senator Obama, in January 2008 on the campaign trail, and we all know what a great communicator President Obama and then-Senator, candidate Obama was, the best speaker, the best communicator, I think, that this country has possibly seen since the Great Communicator himself, Ronald Reagan. Here is what candidate Obama said in January of 2008, talking about health care: ``I would put my plan forward and I would welcome input, but these negotiations would be on C-SPAN so the public will be part of the conversation and will see the choices that are being made.'' Presidential candidate Obama made that remark to the San Francisco Chronicle in January of 2008, almost 2 years ago.

Continuing on the campaign trail, candidate Barack Obama said about 8 months later in August of 2008 as the primaries were getting hot and heavy: ``We will have the health care negotiations televised on C-SPAN so we can see who are making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.'' That was at an Obama town hall meeting in August of 2008. Once again candidate Obama, now President Obama, saying it's time for the American people to see what's going on, see it with their own eyes, hear it with their own ears, use their own common sense to figure out, to connect the dots, to see why one group or another group might be supporting something that on the surface seems almost incredulous that they would. Almost incredulous that they would.

So I would say to President Obama today, as I said to him, or at least through the television set I said to him, right on, Mr. Candidate, you are absolutely right. The American people need to know. They need to have this opportunity of transparency.

Where is the transparency? Where is it?

President Obama, and he went on and we all know now ran a great, great campaign and beat a tough opponent in the primary and a war hero in the general election, certainly a well-deserved victory for President Obama. And then shortly after inauguration, January 21, 2009, about a year ago, President Barack Obama said this:

``My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of

openness in government. We will work together to ensure a system of transparency, public participation and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy. And it will promote efficiency and effectiveness in government.'' Amen, brother. I agree with you, Mr. President. Unfortunately, we are not seeing it. We are not seeing it. Such a disappointment for the American people.

Well, here we are, colleagues on both sides of the aisle, here we are. We don't know exactly what is going on. Certainly we members on the Republican side, even leadership in the House and Senate on the Republican side, ranking members on the committees of jurisdiction on the Republican side, they are not meeting with anybody. They may be symbolically named as conferees at some point, if indeed we have a conference. My colleagues can talk about that. Maybe we won't have a conference.

But it is one thing to shut Members of Congress out and not allow them to represent their people. Almost 50 percent of the people are shut out by virtue of not including the minority party in any deliberations henceforth and to this point and to the final deliberations. And there are some serious issues, Mr. Speaker, that need to be resolved, that need to be resolved. The American people want to see this. They want to know. They want to have the opportunity.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that my wife is not the only spouse in this United States House of Representatives who loves to watch C-SPAN at all hours of the day and night, because they are so unbiased, and they cut to the chase, and they treat people fairly, and they take questions from Democrats, and Republicans, and independents. And it is no nonsense. It is just the facts, ma'am, sir. C-SPAN televises many of the things that we do in this Chamber and in the other Chamber and the committees process. Brian Lamb, who has been with C-SPAN, I guess he is president and CEO, probably been there 20 years, an icon, really, wrote a letter just recently to the President of the United States.

And, Mr. Speaker, here is the letter from C-SPAN to the House and Senate leadership. ``C-SPAN requests that you open all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings, to electronic media coverage,'' so the American people can see, can connect the dots, can understand about the Louisiana Purchase, can understand about the Nebraska Compromise, or is it the Cornhusker Compromise, in which it seems to I think a lot of people out there on Main Street that maybe Nebraska got the corn and everybody else got the husks.

That is why we need openness and sunshine. And that is why Brian Lamb and C-SPAN are making this request. And that is what we are here to talk about tonight. And as I say, I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to have some of my colleagues in the GOP Doctors Caucus with us. I don't know in what order they arrived on the floor. But I want to yield to each of them as much time as they desire to let's have a little colloquy and talk about this issue, because this is so important. And indeed, we are at the eleventh hour.

Let me first recognize my good friend from Texas, my classmate, a fellow OB/GYN physician. I think between us we have probably delivered about 8,000 babies. And I know I have 26 years at it, and I know he has 17 years at it, so I will call on the gentleman from Texas, OB/GYN doctor and great member of this body, Dr. Michael Burgess.

If the gentleman would yield.

I thank the gentleman. Certainly carrying along that same theme is an example, the Big Pharma, a willingness to contribute $80 billion toward the success of this program to reduce the cost of the doughnut hole for those who have Part D prescription drug part and they get in that donut hole. The question needs to be asked and the American people need to understand, well, what does Big Pharma get in return for that? The gentleman from Texas said the same thing in regard to the American Medical Association and the 250,000 members of that organization. What in effect do they get by endorsing this program? And the American Health Insurance Plans and the American Hospital Association and on and on and on.

AARP, the American Association of Retired Persons, that represents 40 million people in this country, you would think that when you have got a health program, Mr. Speaker, in both the House version and the Senate version that is cutting $500 billion out of the Medicare program, which already has an unfunded liability over the next 75 years of $35 trillion, why in the world would an organization who is supporting seniors who depend so much on Medicare support a program that is going to cut that program to the bone 10 percent per year, Mr. Speaker, over the next 10 years and 17 percent per year on the Medicare Advantage program? Why would that organization?

So again, these are rhetorical questions. And as the gentleman from Texas is saying, the American people and C-SPAN says indeed, let's put some sunshine on this and let people connect the dots and figure out, well, oh, yeah, now I see, now I understand. Make some sense out of it.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, at this point, I would like to yield time to a fellow member of the GOP Doctors Caucus and actually a member of the Georgia Caucus, a fellow physician who has a practice, a doctor who actually makes house calls, the gentleman from Athens and Augusta, Georgia, Dr. Paul Broun.

If the gentleman will yield.

Mr. Speaker, even so, we're talking about one-sixth of the whole economy of this great country of ours, and it's going to expand.

I yield back to the gentleman.

If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Speaker, just for a second.

The American people--and I think that my colleagues would agree with me--the American people have spoken, haven't they?

Over 60 percent of them are vehemently opposed to this government takeover that Dr. Broun is talking about.

I will make one other comment before yielding back to my friend, and that is that the Speaker herself--Mr. Speaker, you're in her stead in the chair this evening, but the Speaker, back in 2006 on the campaign trail when your party did indeed take over the majority, Mr. Speaker, Madam Speaker--minority leader at the time--said to the American people, You give us an opportunity to take back over control of the leadership of this Congress, this House of Representatives, and you will see the most open process you have ever seen. It will be a breath of fresh air. That sun will be shining in. The American people will come up and the children will sit around as I'm sworn in and they will be right there at my knee and I will be patting them on the head, Mr. Speaker, she said. And it will be wonderful. Happy days are here again. Well, when you say something like that--and I think my colleagues agree with me, Mr. Speaker--you need to deliver.

Now, she could have said, back in 2006 on the campaign trail, These rotten Republicans who have run this place for 12 years and they haven't given us a fair shake. Man, you give us an opportunity, put us back in, when we get there, we are going to roll them at every opportunity. Well, she would have been speaking the truth, Mr. Speaker. Madam Speaker would have been speaking the truth. That's what she should have done because that's what she did. We have no openness here. It's kind of like our current President said, you know, a change you can believe in.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think this is the change the American people were expecting, and they certainly don't believe in it.

I yield back to my colleague.

Reclaiming my time, and I thank the gentleman, I want to continue in just a second and introduce our next speaker, the gentleman from Tennessee and a fellow OB/GYN physician, Dr. Phil Roe. But the gentleman from Athens, Georgia, is absolutely right. And as he pulled out his pocket Constitution--and I'm so proud of him for keeping it with him at all times because there are things in this bill that we think, Mr. Speaker, and I think the American people feel are unconstitutional, that are unconstitutional. I hope Dr. Roe will speak of that. These issues are so important at this 11th hour to not let the American people see the process for Madam Speaker and the Democratic leadership and the President. I showed you all the quotes at the outset of the hour, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, and you know he said it, she said it. It's time to deliver.

I yield to my good friend from Tennessee.

If the gentleman will yield----

--Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if some of the teachers in the great State, the volunteer State, are having to take furloughs and leaves of absences and are having to work short days and that kind of thing.

I yield back.

If the gentleman will yield----

--I want him to go on and on because he has got a lot of facts to present.

The point, Mr. Speaker, is about AARP and other organizations and about wanting the people to have the opportunity to see for themselves with their eyes and to listen to the debate with their ears and to figure it out with common sense and to connect the dots. I mean, AARP, you know, do they make some money off the deal?

I do want to make one point, before yielding back to the gentleman from Tennessee, recognizing the good people of Nebraska--the Corn Husker State--and coach Tom Osborne, who is a former Member of this body, a great colleague, a friend of ours who is now the athletic director at the University of Nebraska. It's a great, great State. To their great credit, the Governor said, We don't want it. We don't want this sweetheart deal. This is not right.

I commend him, and I commend the State of Nebraska for understanding, Mr. Speaker, the inequity, the realization that the sweetheart deal for them means crumbs and bacon bits for everybody else. They understand that. Of course, now the Senator who was able to effect this sweetheart deal is saying, No, let's not rescind the deal. Let's just give the deal to everybody. Then what's going to be the true cost? Instead of $1.2 trillion, it will be $2 trillion; but anyway, I digress a bit.

Let me yield back to the gentleman from Tennessee.

I thank the gentleman.

I wanted to also mention a couple of responses from the White House in regard to the present CEO of C-SPAN requesting that the negotiations, whatever they are--whether there is a ping-pong back and forth between the House and the Senate or a mini conference or a full conference, whatever the deal is, for goodness sakes, let the American people see it. Even if they shut us Republicans out, let the American people have the opportunity. C-SPAN said, Look, we will provide all of the equipment--the digital--just as they do in this Chamber.

On the Sunday Morning show, Mr. Speaker--and I'm sure most of us watch it. I watch it every Sunday--here is what the press secretary, the Honorable Robert Gibbs, said on January 5, 2010. The reporter asked: Did the President regret making that earlier

promise to broadcast meetings on C-SPAN? Robert Gibbs' response: The President's number one priority is getting a bill through the House and the Senate.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we get that.

Let's get ourselves out of this hole that we've dug at any cost, with any sweetheart deal, whatever we have to do to get 60 votes. Let's pass this darned thing so that I can stand up here at the State of Union and declare victory. We can all pound our chests and do the high fives and the knuckle to knuckle, or however you do that these days, and declare victory and, for goodness sakes, move on to something else because this is killing us.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, if and when that happens, it is going to kill the American people. I have great concerns, and my colleagues do as well.

I yield back to the gentleman from Athens, Georgia.

If the gentleman will yield back to me, I want to point out to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that I realize our time is limited.

As we conclude our hour, the gentleman didn't mince any words. We know that, my colleagues, and I love him for that. He speaks plainly; he is blunt; and you can understand him unlike the typical politician, but what he is talking about are things like--and we mentioned it--the Corn Husker kickback. We're having fun with these names.

One-hundred million dollars for Nebraska's support of Obama health care. I credit the Governor of Nebraska who says, No, we don't want it. God bless him. The Louisiana purchase: $300 million to purchase the Louisiana vote. That's about 12 million more dollars than it cost to purchase the whole Louisiana Territory in current dollars. UCONN: $100 million for Connecticut's support. I guess that's Mr. Chris Dodd of the Obama health reform. Gatorade: 800,000 seniors in Florida get to keep their Medicare Advantage.

What about the other 10.2 million seniors in the rest of the country? What about the 175,000 in my great district, the 11th District of Georgia? What happens to them? Mr. Speaker, they get pushed under the bus. That's what's happening to them. It's not right.

Well, here is what the American people think. Here is what they think. I know the President knows this, and I know the Democratic majority knows this, and I know that's why they want to pass this thing in the dark of night. They don't want C-SPAN looking in. They don't want Republicans looking in. They don't want the American people looking in. They want to get out of that hole and get out of town. That's what their plan is.

Obama's health care marks hit a new low as 54 percent disapprove of Obama's handling of health care and only 36 approve. Look at his overall approval rating going back to February of 2009, Mr. Speaker, when it was 61 percent. Let's just fast-forward here over on this slide to January of 2010, and we are talking about 46 percent. Scary times for the majority party. Scary times for this President. But scarier times for the American people.

We hear this expression all the time. Mr. President said it himself: It is time to press the reset button in dealing with Vladimir Putin, the Russian President. It is time to reach out with an unclenched fist to Ahmadinejad, this dictator over in Iran, who is trying to develop a nuclear weapon despite all of our pleadings and reaching out with an open hand. It is time to push the reset button with Kim Jong Il in North Korea.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I suggest this time to push the reset button with the American people, and give them a fair shake and be honest with them and tell them what is in this bill, these 2,500 pages that they can't understand. They could if they had time or if they had an opportunity, and C-SPAN is trying to give them that opportunity to shine the light of day on this process.

That is what it is all about. That is what Madam Speaker promised. That is what this President promised. It is time for them to deliver.

Mr. Speaker, I want to yield a few more minutes, whatever time remains, to my good friend from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.

I thank the gentleman from Tennessee. I thank the gentleman from Texas. I thank the gentleman from the great State of Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, we thank all for the opportunity for the members of the GOP Doctors Caucus to spend some time tonight to explain to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle what our concerns are. I think we did it in a very fair way. We did it in a way that is not a personal attack on any individual, any Member of this body, any member of the administration. We are just asking to give the American people a fair shake.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Democratic Member from Connecticut just said it's prophetic that the government should be on our shoulders. Unfortunately, the government is on our backs, and it shouldn't be. And no better example of that is this massive health care reform bill, a complete government takeover of health care, bureaucrats coming between doctors and patients.

People in this country have spoken loudly, but the Democratic majority is not listening.

In my 11th Congressional District of Georgia, Mr. Speaker, there are 95,000 people on Medicare, and 13,000 of them, 14 percent of the total, get their coverage under Medicare Advantage. That will be taken away from them as we strip $120 billion out of the Medicare Advantage program.

What that means, Mr. Speaker, is that those 13,000 people in my district will have to pay an additional $180 a month for the Medicare fee-for-service coverage if they can find a doctor that will take them. They will have to buy a prescription drug plan at $30 a month and buy a supplemental Medigap plan to cover many of the things that are covered under Medicare Advantage without additional cost. That policy will cost them $150 a month. That's why the American people are outraged over this plan.

Listen up, Members. Vote ``no.''

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I do rise in full support of my good friend and colleague from Florida, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, for introducing this resolution. I certainly encourage all of my colleagues to support it. I am sure if we have a recorded vote, the vote will be 100 percent in favor of this resolution.

But, Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), both members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, both, as well as myself, at that hearing when we heard from the American Cancer Society and when we heard from the other witnesses, such as Susan G. Komen for the Cure organization, and in talking with my own specialty society, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, they will continue to recommend very strongly that women in their 40s continue to be screened, to have mammogram screening, maybe even digital mammogram screening, because they are at high risk.

Mr. Speaker, as our colleagues have pointed out, the two in our body, our

colleagues that are victims of breast cancer, God forbid if they had not gotten early detection, maybe their outcome would not be so great. I think that because of early detection their cure is probably almost 100 percent.

So we are in a situation where physicians practicing across this country, they are sort of in a catch-22. If they don't follow these guidelines that will be passed in this bill, in the Senate version, when this United States Preventive Services Task Force will no longer be an organization making recommendations, but they will be making law, they will be issuing mandates, if a physician decides, well, my patient is in their 40s, I'm going to go ahead and order a mammogram anyway and that mammogram is suspicious and it leads to a needle biopsy, which may turn out to be negative, but it results in a complication, such as a breast abscess, that physician, Mr. Speaker, could be sued for practicing below the standard of government health care as established by this new massive bill that the Democrats want to force on the American public.

So I stand here commending Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz and this resolution; I am in favor of it. But I would also recommend that my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle instruct their conferees, if this massive health care reform bill goes to conference, to take this resolution with them and say, look, these are our concerns, change the language. That's my recommendation. That's what my colleagues can do for the women in this country, the 47,000 that Congressman Mike Rogers from Michigan was talking about.

I think my colleagues on this side of the aisle are absolutely right as they point out in this legislation what the danger is.

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Harrison High School marching band for being selected to participate in this year's Macys' Thanksgiving Day Parade. The Hoyas were one of 8 high school marching bands chosen nationwide to participate in this once in a lifetime experience.

Being awarded this prestigious distinction for the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade is recognition of being one of the very best high school bands in the country. The Hoyas' selection is a testament to their dedication, devotion and hard work. The parade was a perfect opportunity for them to showcase their skills and countless hours of practice, and anyone who saw the parade on TV on Thanksgiving Day knows they did us proud.

I'd also like to commend the parents, faculty, and entire community who worked to make this possible by supporting the 193-member band.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of all my constituents, I am proud to congratulate the Hoyas on their selection and for their success at the parade.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate a few outstanding high school football teams for their efforts in the State playoffs. These tremendous athletes are an exemplification of true dedication and remarkable talent.

The teams being recognized in the 11th District of Georgia are as follows: Bremen High School in Haralson County; Bowdon High School, Carroll County; the Darlington School in Troup County; Trion High School in Chattooga County; Armuchee High School in Floyd County; Pepperell High School in Floyd County; Chattooga High School, Chattooga County; Calhoun High School in Gordon County; Carrollton High School, again, Carroll County; Hiram High School in Paulding County; McEachern High School in Cobb County; and last but not least, Marietta High School in Cobb County.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud these young men, their bands, their dance teams, their cheerleaders, for proving themselves such sound competitors in the State playoffs. I am certainly proud of them for their achievements.

Congratulations to all on a great season.

Madam Speaker, yesterday this House voted on a 2,500-page spending bill with a price tag of almost a half trillion dollars that we will have to borrow. The majority in this House just doesn't seem to get it. We are in the midst of a recession, with 10 percent unemployment, 15.4 million people out of work. Our Federal deficit is over $12 trillion, and the Democrats will vote next week to raise that another $1.8 trillion.

Yet this half-trillion-dollar spending bill, which combines six into one, represents a 12.5 percent spending increase over 2009 and a 24 percent increase over 2008; 24 percent over 2008. I ask, How much of this is real needs of our citizens versus just wants of spendthrift politicians?

Madam Speaker, the Democrats must stop this reckless spending spree. We need to have the ability to make tough choices to get our economy back on track and pass legislation that helps American families looking to make ends meet in these tough times.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to reflect on the impact that Democratic plans for the economy have on working families across the United States. This past November we reached the highest level of unemployment since 1983, 10.2 percent. And given the Democrats' pending misguided ideas for overhauling the health care and the energy sectors, there is no end in sight.

And now, Mr. Speaker, we hear plans for, yes, you guessed it, more spending. After their failed ``non-stimulus'' stimulus bill, the Democrats are planning another reckless round of stimulus spending, even if they may call it something else.

Mr. Speaker, America simply cannot afford another spending spree by this Democratic majority. There's a way to boost the economy without relying on all this irresponsible and unnecessary spending. Simply put, Republicans have superior plans for energy independence and health care reform that are attainable. They will not drive our country further into debt and will not kill jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 206, a resolution commending the soldiers and civilian personnel stationed at Fort Gordon and their families for their service and dedication to the United States and recognizing the contributions of Fort Gordon to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom and its role as a pivotal communications training installation.

Fort Gordon dates to 1940, when the United States Army recognized a need for a military installation near Augusta, Georgia that could aid in combat during the ensuing Second World War. The groundbreaking actually took place in 1941, and the base was originally named Camp Gordon after John B. Gordon, a general during the Civil War and former Governor of Georgia. During World War II, Camp Gordon was home to the 4th Infantry Division, 26th Infantry Division, and 10th Armored Division of the Army until they were deployed to Europe. However, in 1948, Camp Gordon became the home of the Signal Corps Training Center-- for which it is most commonly known today.

Throughout the Korean war the need for signalmen grew, and the Signal Corps Training Center became the largest single source for Army communications specialists. Camp Gordon was also made a permanent installation in 1956 and was renamed Fort Gordon. Further, during the Vietnam war era and after, communications specialists became an absolutely necessary component of highly technological and modernized warfare, and Fort Gordon was recognized as an exemplary institution for these soldiers as the Signal Corps Training Center came to be known as the United States Army Signal Center at Fort Gordon.

Fort Gordon and the troops and families stationed there were instrumental in Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and during the 1990s the installation was responsible for training most of the DoD personnel who operate and maintain satellites, as well as training signal troops of allied and former nations.

Currently, approximately 19,000 soldiers are stationed at Fort Gordon, and Augusta has been a welcome home to all of them. To this day, the base continues its tradition of success in the Signal Corps, as it trains soldiers for deployment into theater in Iraq and Afghanistan. On behalf of Georgia's 11th Congressional District, I am proud of the continued dedication to the safety and security of the United States of the men and women at Fort Gordon and thank them for their nearly 60 years of service to this Nation. Georgia has been blessed with an abundance of willing men and women who are committed to ensuring freedom and liberty for America, and I thank each of them for their service.

I believe that the brave men and women at Fort Gordon and every military installation who sacrifice for our present freedoms deserve our fullest support. Our Nation's service men and women represent the best our country has to offer, and they must be treated with the respect and honor they deserve. As we ask these courageous soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines--and their families--to do more and more, it's only right we continue doing all we can for them. Commending the accomplishments and service of our troops at Fort Gordon is just one small example of the gratitude that every American should express to our troops at home and abroad.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you take a hard look at the economic challenges facing our country. Across the United States, unemployment is at a 26-year high, 10.2 percent, and more than 2.8 million jobs have been lost since the $1 trillion stimulus was signed into law last February without a single Republican vote in this House.

In my home State of Georgia, eight out of the nine counties in my district have unemployment rates of 10 percent, and two counties are over 13 percent. Put simply, Mr. Speaker, my constituency needs jobs, and they need them now.

Yet the Democratic plans on the economy, on health care, and on energy do the exact opposite. These plans raise taxes, and they sacrifice even more jobs. This is not the way to stimulate our economy and not the way to help my constituents.

We need real solutions that will require tough choices in Washington. They involve tax relief for working Americans, and Republicans stand ready to work with you on that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule as well as the underlying bill, H.R. 4154, the Permanent Estate Tax Relief for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses Act of 2009.

In 2001, this Congress passed legislation that was signed into law by President Bush that provided significant estate tax relief for families. Before this action was taken, individuals who passed away could face up to a 55 percent tax for estates valued over $3 million. Additionally, if the value of those estates were between $10 million and $17 million, then the estates were hit with an additional 5 percent surtax, a grand total of 60 percent.

Since the 2001 tax cuts have been enacted, the overall estate tax has been gradually reduced. For deaths that occur in 2009, the estate tax ceiling is 45 percent for estates valued over $1.5 million, but it allows up to $3.5 million in assets to be exempted. Furthermore, current law dictates, and rightfully so, that the estate tax will be completely repealed in 2010.

Mr. Speaker, while a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will claim that the estate tax in this bill will only affect the lavishly wealthy, the estate tax has the potential to drive a number of hardworking families, many of whom are small business owners, to liquidate assets and sell their businesses and farms that they have owned for generations. Clearly, this is not the intent of any form of an estate tax. And I don't believe that Rev. Rick Warren's remarks on ``Meet the Press'' this past Sunday were advocating that our children and our grandchildren should be born poor and die poor.

I wholeheartedly believe that there should be no ``taxation without respiration,'' and I support a full repeal of the estate tax. Former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin issued a study earlier this year that indicated the long-term impact of eliminating the death tax would be to increase small business capital investment by $1.6 trillion and create up to 1.5 million jobs, something this country, Mr. Speaker, desperately needs.

Unfortunately, this closed rule and underlying bill look to break the commitments made by Congress in 2001 by extending the estate tax at the 2009 level in perpetuity. And I am also concerned that although the exemption level is $3.5 million under H.R. 4154, it is not properly indexed for inflation and we could, therefore, find ourselves in a situation similar to the alternative minimum tax where individuals could inadvertently be subjected to the tax in the future.

I urge all of my colleagues to defeat this rule. Let's go back and have an open debate, as the gentleman from Florida said, on the repeal of the estate tax. That is what we should do.

Madam Speaker, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of H. Res. 861, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of National Military Family Month.

The families of those who serve our country on the front lines deserve the admiration and appreciation of each and every citizen. These family members often watch their loved ones travel to faraway lands in support of a cause and an ideal so much greater than any one individual. The support given to our service men and women by their loved ones is irreplaceable, as it is the foundation for the bravery inherent in those who labor steadfastly in the defense of liberty.

The men and women of the United States armed services rely on the support and encouragement of their families as they strive to protect the liberties and freedoms we enjoy every day at home. From the service organizations that provide holiday gifts to the letter that a parent or sibling writes to a loved one deployed or stationed abroad, the love and support of our military families is paramount. The sacrifices performed by these families should never be forgotten or diminished because they represent the very foundation of the American spirit.

Let us also make certain that we remember those individuals who are in harm's way today in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice--we are forever grateful for your heroic acts and for your service to our nation.

The brave men, women, and families who have and continue to sacrifice for our present freedoms deserve our fullest support. These individuals represent our nation's finest qualities, and they must be treated with the utmost respect and honor. Recognizing the month of November as National Military Family Month is just one small token of our appreciation for the families and their sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters who labor steadfastly for the United States and its undying values of freedom and liberty for all. It is my hope that we will continue to do all we can and more for the members of our Armed Forces and their families.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of H. Res. 742, a resolution recognizing the accomplishments of the 2009 Warner Robins Little League Softball World Championship Team.

The Little League Softball World Series has long been a competitive outlet for our young women, providing them an arena for personal and athletic advancement. Their mission states, ``I trust in God. I love my country and will respect its laws. I will play fair and strive to win, but win or lose I will always do my best.'' No matter what the outcome for each team, I am positive that the opportunity to be a part of this competition is a valuable experience for every participant and provides them with memories that will last a lifetime.

Today, however, I am pleased to recognize the victorious Warner Robins Little League Softball Championship Team as they defeated the Crawford, Texas Little League Softball Team to become the World Champions on August 19, 2009. This victory distinguishes the Warner Robins Little League as the first little league to claim a baseball and softball championship.

On behalf of the 11th Congressional District of Georgia, it is my honor to congratulate the players, their coaches, and the managers who led them to this success. Your hard work and dedication have not only made you winners on the softball field, but will also be instrumental to your future successes. The 2009 Warner Robins Little League Softball Team is an example to America's youth of the values of teamwork and sportsmanship, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a medical practitioner, one of 13 on the Republican side, in strong opposition to H.R. 3961. H.R. 3961 does not fix our physician reimbursement problem. It simply replaces one system of cuts with another. The bill, however, would add more than $200 billion to the Federal deficit at a time when our patients are struggling to find or keep the jobs they have today.

Mr. Speaker, if the details of this bill are not bad enough, the political reality is even worse. The Senate tried a similar sham of a bill last month, and 13 Senate Democrats sided with every Republican to reject it; however, House Democrats don't seem to be listening.

The time for empty promises has long since passed. We as a Nation can no longer afford to walk blindly down this path of fiscal irresponsibility. As mentioned, with $12 trillion in debt, I, for one, refuse to add another quarter trillion dollars to that debt.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this empty promise.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

In its present form, I am.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California reserved a point of order. Does that not allow me the opportunity to speak to the point of order?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as an OB/GYN physician who knows very well the challenges that our doctors face with the current SGR system. I can say with 100 percent confidence as a physician Member of Congress that this bill, H.R. 3961, is a bad deal. It's a bad deal for doctors, it's a bad deal for patients, and it's a bad deal for the American people upon whom this majority seems content to simply pile another $210 billion worth of debt.

Mr. Speaker, during his meeting earlier this week with Chinese President Hu Jintao, I hope that President Obama asked for that $210 billion, because that's how the majority plans to pay for this bill, by borrowing more money from the Chinese.

Mr. Speaker, I will proceed.

To make matters worse, and contrary to the assertions of this majority, this bill does not fix our physician reimbursement problem, but it simply replaces one flawed system for another.

So, Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit ensures that physicians are reimbursed fairly and that this reimbursement is fully paid for and would add not one cent to the deficit.

Allow me to explain, Mr. Speaker.

This motion to recommit will provide physicians with a 2 percent Medicare payment rate increase in each of the next 4 years. The motion to recommit would erase the scheduled 21 percent cut in 2010----

Mr. Speaker, am I allowed to continue?

Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit would erase the scheduled 21 percent cut in 2010 and the estimated 5 percent cuts in 2011, 2012, and 2013. The Democratic bill would only provide eight-tenths of 1 percent payment rate increase.

Mr. Speaker, in this underlying bill, we actually pay for our plan by enacting legislation that will not only achieve savings, but will also----

Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I would like to say that unlike the underlying bill, we actually pay for our plan by enacting legislation that will not only achieve savings, but it will also improve----

Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to confine my remarks to the point of order.

In doing so, I say we simply prefer to pay for what we do without raising taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the recognition, and I thank on the minority side, my side, the Republican side for allowing me to take this hour this evening to talk about health care reform and talk about what happened on the floor of the House today in regard to what's known as the doc fix bill. I think it's very important, Mr. Speaker, that we take this time so that all of our colleagues will have a full understanding of what's been going on. Certainly we've all been here, but we each have not had equal access to the deliberations and the writing of bills and the writing of amendments and of course motions to recommit and this sort of thing. So this, hopefully, Mr. Speaker, will be an information hour for all of our colleagues as we move forward.

When the bill was first marked up--the bill, the Pelosi health care reform act of 2009, Mr. Speaker, when it was first marked up back in July of this year in the three committees of this House, the Energy and Commerce Committee, the Ways and Means Committee, and the Education and Labor Committee, there were certain issues that gave me great pause. I do happen to sit on one of those three committees, Energy and Commerce.

When we began to mark up that bill at the time, Mr. Speaker, as you recall, it was H.R. 3200. Now the bill that we voted on and passed last Saturday night is H.R. 3962. But in their original bill, and in the bill that has passed the House, I had great concern, as did many of my colleagues, especially on this side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, with a section in there called Comparative Effectiveness Research Council. We had trouble with another section in there that created something known as the health services coordinator. But let me get back to that Comparative Effectiveness Research Council, Mr. Speaker, for just a second because basically, as you read through that portion of the bill, it was obvious that these bureaucrats would decide based on hopefully accurate research, scientific research, what was the best treatment for each and every disease known unto man, but that hopefully it would be a recommendation that this research council could give to our practicing physicians.

We know, Mr. Speaker, that medicine is not an exact science like physics and chemistry. It's a science, yes, but not an exact science. There is a lot of art to the practice of medicine. Doctors have a sixth sense, if you will, many times where a diagnosis is made based on just an observation or a feeling or, indeed, a sixth sense and not necessarily a scientific test or a specific lab result. So that was why, Mr. Speaker, I felt very concerned with this Comparative Effectiveness Research Council, if this bill is enacted in its current form.

Of course it looks like the Senate is going to be taking up the bill sometime soon. And if this is in there, indeed, these people, these bureaucrats, these nonmedical government folks will have the opportunity to say, Doctor, you can or cannot do that procedure. You can or cannot order that test. You can or cannot prescribe that medication based on, hopefully, what is best based on research. But could they do it, Mr. Speaker, simply based on cost? And the answer, regrettably, is, yes, they could. Yes, they could. That's why I proffered, submitted an amendment when we were marking up the bill that said that no bureaucratic decision or recommendation from this Comparative Effectiveness Research Council could force a physician, especially based on cost, that could lead to denial and eventually to rationing.

Now that seemed like such a good amendment, Mr. Speaker, that I was very optimistic, indeed, that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--there are about 56 of us on the Energy and Commerce Committee. I think there are 35 Democrats and 21 Republicans. But I was optimistic. And yes, indeed, that amendment passed on a voice vote, and people on the committee I think realized that that was a concern, and they didn't want this to happen either. Now unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, when the Speaker--you are sitting in for her--but when the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, got the three bills from the three committees and sort of combined and came up with H.R. 3962 that, indeed, we voted on last Saturday night, that amendment disappeared miraculously, as did 15 other Republican amendments that were passed in committee. And in the dark of night, poof, they're gone.

You know, this is a pretty serious retraction, subtraction from the bill, and my fear, my concerns, Mr. Speaker, just this week have really come home to roost. Now I don't know how many of my colleagues have had the opportunity to read about, see about on television the United States Preventive Services Task Force, an entity embedded within the Department of Health and Human Services. Oh, by the way, Medicare and Medicaid is also embedded within the Department of Health and Human Services. Well, this little-known-to-some but well-known-to-many United States Preventive Services Task Force has come out, Mr. Speaker, with a recommendation that says that women should no longer practice breast self-examination in trying to detect early, at the earliest opportunity, if they have a suspicious lump.

They went even further and said that women should not routinely have a mammogram done every 2 years starting at age 40; they should put that off until age 50.

Now when an entity like this makes a recommendation, Mr. Speaker, it eventually becomes not a suggestion, but it essentially becomes, for all intents and purposes, a mandate.

Now, Ms. Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, immediately said, no, no, doctors can still do whatever they want to. We are not telling the doctor what to do.

But, Mr. Speaker, as most of my colleagues know, I am a physician, and I just happen to be an OB/GYN specialist and practiced for 26 years before I had the privilege to be elected to Congress back in 2002. I am also a very proud member of the American College--a fellow we call it-- of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and I am a board certified fellow. The recommendation from our college, our subspecialty, has been to commence routine screening mammograms for women at age 40 and to do that every 2 years, and of course not only allow, but to encourage and even to teach them how to do breast self- examination, probably commencing that in their early thirties if not their late twenties. It is something that I am just shocked that any so-called credible organization other than my own subspecialty of OB/ GYN or, indeed, the American Cancer Society would make that kind of recommendation, and they haven't. I think they are appalled at this recommendation.

And like I say, when the Secretary of Health and Human Services says not to worry, doctor, patient, you can continue to do whatever you want to, but the patients are already very confused and frightened. And even if the doctor recommends to, let's say, a woman in her early forties, Hey, it is time to get that mammogram done. I don't feel anything on the exam, and I am glad you are checking yourself on a regular basis. Everything looks good, but it is time to go ahead and get that screening mammogram because we would certainly hope, if you are unfortunate enough to develop breast cancer, that we can detect it with the mammography, which is an x-ray, before a lump has developed, certainly before the patient can feel it, and certainly before the doctor can detect.

You write out that prescription and that order and you send the patient to the hospital and she gets over there and she is told, Well, we can do it, but you are going to have to write us a check or you are going to have to pay cash for it because your insurance company doesn't pay for this anymore, and they don't pay for it anymore because the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says it is not necessary. We will be glad to do it. You have to write us a check, cash on the barrelhead, and we will do it; otherwise, we will see you in 10 years, at age 50. And at that point, that patient might happen to have, since she has been discouraged from doing breast self-examination, cancer the size of a golf ball, and that being cancer that has already spread to the point where her chances of survival over a 5-year period of time is down around 10 percent instead of 95 percent.

Mr. Speaker, this is serious stuff. This is life and death that we are talking about. That is why so many of us are so concerned about this massive takeover of our health care system by the Federal Government, by bureaucrats. We have got 13 practicing physicians on our side of the aisle that probably, in the aggregate, have 400 years of clinical experience. All kinds of specialists. In fact, I have a family practitioner with me tonight.

Mr. Speaker, maybe you wish that we had been consulted, and there are four or five doctors on the Democratic majority side. I don't think that they were consulted. It is a waste of talent and the waste of an opportunity for bipartisanship. This is the result of it, though. This is what happens when things are done behind closed doors. Folks overlook, forget. I am not saying that it is deliberate, but the unintended consequences have life and death consequences.

And with that, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Athens, Georgia (Mr. Broun).

If I understand the gentleman correctly, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is holding a poster. That poster is a representation of this health choices administrator in this new bill, this H.R. 3962 which has already passed this House, and it also could be representative of the U.S. Services Task Force. And I want to yield back to the gentleman from Athens, Georgia, and I want us all to focus in just for a minute on Boss Hogg, because I think it is a great characterization of what we are trying to point out here.

I thank Dr. Broun for that point.

As we continue this colloquy, Mr. Speaker, Boss Hogg could also restrict other screening procedures. It is probably never going to be proven that screening, mass screening for many different diseases is going to be cost effective, but it is going to save lives. You ask yourself, if we are going to get to the point where Boss Hogg or the health choices administrator or the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force or the Comparative Effectiveness Research Council decides that something is not going to be cost effective, as Dr. Broun points out occurs in Canada. And he has some experience. He lived there. We know it occurs in the U.K. They have a group, an oversight entity that goes by the nice acronym of NICE, N-I-C-E, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, but it is a rationing body that decides what can and cannot be done.

Indeed, talking about breast cancer, Dr. Broun, the survival rate, the 5-year survival rate for breast cancer in the U.K. is something like 15 points lower than it is in the United States, and it is simply because they are denied these routine screening procedures.

The point I also wanted to make in regard to other things, how many children, how many young children have to be screened with a blood test for sickle cell anemia before you find one? How many young children in preschool have to have a hearing examination before you find one that is hearing impaired, or vision screening before you find one that is visually impaired? How do you put a dollar value on these kinds of things, Mr. Speaker? You cannot do it. And if you start trying to do it, then you ration everything and it becomes a matter of what is a person's life worth, whether it is at the beginning or the end.

I yield to my colleague.

Representative Broun, Dr. Broun, I thank you very much.

Before we move on, Mr. Speaker, to another subject that's hugely important, indeed, what we took up here today on the floor of our great House of Representatives, I just want to make one closing comment in regard to this issue of rationing of care and in particular in regard to this new recommendation to dumb down the care, indeed, the screening, for breast cancer. I don't know how to put it any other way than to say that it dumbs down that care and that opportunity for early detection and lives saved.

Mr. Speaker, there are female Members of this body, great, great Members on both sides of the aisle, women that represent their districts all across this country that serve in this 435-Member House of Representatives. And, unfortunately, a number of them, a number of them have been stricken with breast cancer. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it may have even been before you were here that a Member on our side, a wonderful, wonderful Member from Virginia, struggled with her breast cancer for several years with great, great courage and fortitude and hopefulness and faithfulness, and God called her home. She died from the spread of that breast cancer. And it was such a sad day.

And then I think of Members, Mr. Speaker, on your side of the aisle that at a young age, in their early 40s, have been stricken with breast cancer, women with beautiful young toddler children. I've seen them walking down the Hall of the Cannon Building, you know, a great Member, a great friend, but I'm very thankful for her that early detection occurred because of, I don't know, probably a combination of breast self-exam but maybe it was mammography, and we hope and pray and really feel very confident that our colleague has a complete cure.

So when we bring up a subject like this, it's not to be morbid and not to scare people, Mr. Speaker, but just to inform in the reality and the unintended consequences sometimes of the things that we do. Particularly when we draft 2,000-page bills that you don't bring everybody together on both sides of the aisle in a bipartisan way and utilize the doctors, the doctors, not just the leadership and people that have been on these committees of jurisdiction for 30 years who write these bills in the dark of night and then just throw them out there in front of us and say you've got 24 hours to read it and vote up or down and, oh, by the way, you can't amend, it's a closed rule. It's wrong. It's wrong but it also is dangerous.

Mr. Speaker, in the time that I have remaining, I want to shift gears a little bit because today on the floor of the House the main thing that we dealt with was a bill called H.R. 3961. Now, the number is insignificant really except to look it up on the Internet, but let's call it what most people would recognize it as, certainly most physicians, all physicians across the country would understand, the ``doc fix'' bill. The ``doc fix'' bill.

Our physicians for the last 15-or-so years, maybe more, maybe closer to 20 years, but there is a flawed formula for calculating how much they are reimbursed for the procedures that are done under the Medicare program. And for the last at least 6 or 7 years when you calculate that formula--we'll call it for abbreviation purposes the SGR formula, sustainable growth rate--and every year for the last 6 or 7, the calculation says you doctors who are just barely breaking even, maybe not even

breaking even, maybe losing money, seeing Medicare patients out of the goodness and compassion of your heart, for which we commend you, are going to have to take next year a 5 percent cut, and then we calculate it and then the next year a 4\1/2\ percent cut, and on and on and on.

Well, each year over the last several years, we have come in and passed a law that would say we're going to mitigate that cut for this year, and we're going to let you get reimbursed on the basis of what you got last year and we're going to bump it up 1 percent or .5 percent or whatever, and we're going to do that for a couple of years.

We literally are going to kick the can, kick the can down the road, Mr. Speaker. You know that expression. Because that's what we're doing. Maybe we kick it soccer style. But the problem doesn't really go away. So the next time in the aggregate, instead of a 5 percent cut, you've got a 10 percent cut or a 15 percent cut. Indeed, January 1, 2010, in the aggregate that cut will be 21 percent if we don't do something about it.

Well, Mr. Speaker, what the Democratic majority and what President Obama said to the American Medical Association way back in June is in this bill, this health reform act that we're going to pass that we're going to totally reform one-fifth of our economy, we're going to have in there a permanent fix for the doctors. We're going to solve the problem.

And, doctors, also we know you have another concern. Mr. Speaker, you're aware of this. My colleagues, I know are aware of it. You doctors have this concern over medical malpractice and this need to defend yourself against these frivolous lawsuits by ordering all these tests on patients that are not only unnecessary but indeed could be downright dangerous to the patient, but yet you keep doing them because you don't want to be dragged into a court of law and have some slick attorney or some expert witness hired by some very capable, smart attorney saying, Oh, yes, this doctor practiced below the standard of care because he didn't order a fizzle phosphate level, whatever the heck that is.

So I was so thrilled when Mr. President said to the AMA, Mr. Speaker, that there would be medical liability reform. We would solve the low payment based on that flawed formula, SGR, and we would at last have medical liability reform.

This bill, 3962, that we passed last Saturday night had none of that in there, and the Democratic majority just took out the ``doc fix'' because, guess what. To do it costs about $290 billion, Mr. Speaker, and would push the cost of this massive monstrosity of a bill over the $900 billion, which the President had put a cap on, a ceiling, and said he wouldn't sign anything that cost more than $900 billion. I say even if you pay for something that costs $900 billion, if the final result is an Edsel, you have not accomplished very much.

But, indeed, the bill was pulled out and the President and Ms. Pelosi said, basically, not to worry, not to worry. We're going to come and we're going to introduce this bill as a stand-alone, and indeed that's what we did today, 3961, and we're going to pass it. But you know what? It ain't paid for. And whether it costs $210 billion, $230 billion, $275 billion, I'm not sure of the exact figure, but it's north of $200 billion, and my Georgia Tech math tells me that that's about a quarter of a trillion dollars. It's going to cost that much money and we're not going to pay for it.

The debt now is something like $12 trillion. So we're going to add another quarter-trillion dollars to the debt. In fact, we're going to even have to add to the debt ceiling because we're going beyond what the law allows us to do.

So, Mr. Speaker, my side of the aisle looked at this very carefully, particularly the physician Members, the 13 of us that form the GOP Doctors House Caucus. And we said, you know, we want to do right by our doctors and we want to do right by our patients and we want to do right by the country, and we can fix this and we can pay for it. So we had one opportunity today to offer a motion to recommit with our design of how we pay the doctors a 2 percent increase every year for the next 4 years under Medicare and we pay for it.

And the way we pay for it, Mr. Speaker, in that motion to recommit, is to have that medical liability reform in the bill among a couple of other things to generate revenue, and it's revenue that the CBO says is at least $54 billion. So our motion to recommit, our bill, on ``doc fix'' is paid for. It's a real ``doc fix.''

But you know what, Mr. Speaker? You were here. All my colleagues were here. We got ruled out of order. The Chair said our motion to recommit was nongermane because H.R. 3961, the Democrats' ``doc fix'' bill, the $290 billion not-paid-for bill, well, we weren't consistent with that because we paid for our bill; therefore, it was nongermane. Now, what can kind of idiocy, what kind of idiocy is that, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues?

This is something the American people need to understand, and certainly I think the doctors understand. We had an opportunity to do this and do it right, and we were denied even to vote on that motion to recommit. It was tremendously disappointing to me because, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity, the privilege, the distinction of offering that motion to recommit, and I wanted to explain to my colleagues exactly what our bill does. And the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee denied me the opportunity even to speak, getting the Chair to rule that our motion to recommit was nongermane.

So every time I tried to speak, I was gaveled down. Mr. Speaker, that's not what the American people want. If we were in the leadership, they would be appalled. I think they're appalled tonight with your party in the leadership. The American people don't want that. They want Members to have an opportunity to represent their districts, to represent their principles, and to represent and fight for this country and not be silenced.

And that's what happened on this floor today. And it's got to stop, Mr. Speaker. It's got to stop. And we will continue to fight. This bill that was passed here today, there was not--I think there may have been one Republican that voted for it, and there were 9 Democrats that voted against it. So there was bipartisan opposition. But your party, Mr. Speaker, had the votes, and you passed it.

But it's a sham of a bill, and you know it, because the Senate, 3 weeks ago, totally rejected the bill with 14 Democratic Senators voting no. They couldn't even get a cloture vote. That bill is dead on arrival when it gets to the Senate. Our bill had an opportunity to pass and get to the President's desk and give the doctors relief for the next 4 years, at least. But, no. We had to do it the same old same old way of forcing things on the American people. It's not right, Mr. Speaker, and it's not going to stand.

I appreciate the opportunity, as I said at the outset, to come and to talk about this with my colleagues, because I only had 5 minutes to speak about our motion to recommit this afternoon. Five minutes to explain, not hyperbole, not harsh rhetoric, just to explain what our bill did in contrast to 3961, the majority bill, which, as I say, is not going anywhere and the Democratic leadership knows it's not going anywhere. So it is a sham. It's not a ``Doc Fix,'' it's a ``Doc Trick.''

And I want to be, as I move to wrap up, I want my colleagues to just look at this one chart, one poster that I have to show. And this is my depiction of a Trojan horse. And you might not can read this writing, but on the Trojan horse is a saddle, and it says, the Democratic ``Doc Fix'' Bill, H.R. 3961. But on the back of the horse you see the overall health care reform act, the Pelosi Health reform act of 2009, yes, with the $500 billion cuts to our precious seniors under the Medicare program, kind of slipping right on in there. That Trojan horse is this democratic ``Doc Fix.''

But when they, and if they, and I hope and pray to God, Mr. Speaker, that it doesn't pass, but if it does, this is what's going to happen to the American people, not only to our doctors, but to our patients and especially to our seniors.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to yield a little time to my great friend from Texas, Judge Louie Gohmert.

After we don't pay.

Reclaiming just for a second on this point. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Speaker, is so right. And to do this, of course, now they're going to have--they're going to go over the current debt ceiling by law. They're within, I think, $70 billion of the current debt ceiling, so they're going to have to, in the next couple of weeks, before Christmas, they're going to have to increase the debt ceiling once again.

And you know what? That's not going to be a stand-alone bill, because they don't want that, the light of day to shine on that. That's going to be embedded in something else, is it not, my friend?

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Texas is dead on. He's absolutely right. This 3961, the so-called ``Doc Fix,'' and Representative Gohmert and I agree, it's a ``Doc Trick.'' It mitigates the 21 percent cut that's coming due January 1st. And it gives a positive update, I think, of 1 percent for 1 year. But then after that, Mr. Speaker, here comes the trick that Judge Gohmert was talking about. There's going to be a formula, a new formula, not the SGR, but this new formula, based on GDP. So if you're a primary doc and you're doing examinations, histories and physicals in your office, so-called ``evaluation and management,'' you get GDP plus 2 percent.

But if you're a specialist, like I was, an OB-GYN or, say, a urologist or general surgeon, it's going to be GDP plus 1 percent. Well, if the GDP is a negative number, then here again the doctors have no confidence that they're going to get paid a decent reimbursement for their services. So indeed, it is a trick. It is not a fix.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take an opportunity--we've been joined by our good friend from Missouri, who has been with us on a number of occasions on health care and other issues, and I want to yield to him some time. And I'll yield to the gentleman, Representative Todd Akin from Missouri.

If the gentleman would yield. Is that similar to a triple-dog dare?

I thank my colleagues. And they're well on target, of course. We're just, Mr. Speaker, trying to make sure that all of our colleagues, all of our colleagues and their constituents understand that we on this side of the aisle, the Republican Party, we feel that we have the best health care system in the world. We think doing routine screening mammograms starting at age 40 and emphasizing and recommending breast self-examination, screening young African American children for sickle cell anemia, doing routine screening of hearing and vision in preschool for all of our children, we think all of these things are good.

We have a great health care system, and it's not perfect. We know that there are things that can and should be done. But in an incremental way, Mr. Speaker. Not spending $1.5 trillion, not spending $900 billion. I guess the Senate got a score of $785 billion, and they're just elated.

Mr. Speaker, when you spend $250 billion--when you spend $100,000, for that matter, on something that is bad for the American people, you have done them a grave disservice--and especially all of the spending at a time when our unemployment rate is 10.2 percent. Some of us have members of our own family who have children who have lost their jobs-- 16 million across this country.

And we have this situation in Afghanistan where a four-star general, Mr. Speaker, a commander who was put there by President Obama, says to his Commander in Chief, ``Mr. President, I need help. We can win. I need help.''

Well, how can that not be a higher priority than totally reforming our health care system, throwing the baby out with the bath water, spending a trillion dollars, or $2 trillion, or $2\1/2\ trillion? How can that be more important than putting people back to work?

The President, Mr. Speaker, was just over there on a 9-day trip. I wish he had been right here inside the Beltway in the Oval Office working on this issue and this economy. But I hope while he was over there that he got some advantage out of it, Mr. Speaker, and maybe asked Hu Jintao, the Chinese President, to write him a check for $210 billion so he can bring it back and pay for this Trojan horse that we just passed here on the floor of the House today in the name of H.R. 3961.

I want to yield to my good friend from Texas, Judge Gohmert.

I have heard it said, ``I'm here from the government. Trust me. I'm here to help you.''

I think Mr. Reagan said it right. ``Trust but verify.'' The verification is yet to come.

I thank the gentleman from east Texas so much for being with me tonight.

Mr. Speaker, as I bring this to a conclusion, let me just say that we hear the term all the time in the military about collateral damage, and we worry about it. Every time we fire a rocket or use a predator drone to get the really bad guys, we worry about collateral damage.

Well, we should be just as worried about collateral damage in the social programs that we are enacting up here as the representatives of the people, especially when it's dealing with health care, because in both instances, both in the military and socially, the collateral damage can result in lost lives. We're talking serious business here. We will continue to fight for the right thing.

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