Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I oppose a government takeover of our Nation's health care system, like the one the House passed late in the night on Saturday, November 7. The Democratic legislation--a 1,990-page, $1 trillion bill--will raise taxes, it will increase our national debt, and, worse, it will put government bureaucrats between patients and doctors.

I agree it's important to reform our health care system, Mr. Speaker, but this is not the way to do it. I've spent the last 10 months trying to share my perspective as a physician for over 30 years with my colleagues. This legislation that the Democrats put on the floor of the House proves that the Speaker doesn't care what practicing physicians or indeed the American public think.

This legislation is the wrong direction for America, and it is a death knell for quality care for American patients, and I'm disappointed in my colleagues who voted to pass that measure.

Mr. Speaker, I reject any government takeover of our Nation's health care system.

Thank you, Mr. Akin. Referring to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the historian, what he was talking about, I carry this with me in my pocket all the time, and I am sure many of my colleagues do, a pocket Constitution. This is the inconvenient truth, and this is exactly what my colleague was just talking about.

You go in the back and look up in the glossary or the index and try to find anything about health care, it is not in there. It is not in there. My colleague, Mr. Speaker, referred to some of the posters that I have with me. I do want to point those out to Members on both sides of the aisle, because I think in many instances a picture is worth a thousand words. In this instance these posters are worth a thousand words.

Focusing in on the first one, Mr. Speaker, it shows the ship of state and the captain of the ship. That would be the administration, that would be the President of the United States, and that ship is the economy. Down here at the bottom of the poster it shows a trailer as we see on television news a lot of times: Alert, bulletin: 10.2 percent unemployment, and then the caption, ``Good news, I'm almost done reorganizing the medicine cabinet'' as the ship of state is sinking.

Mr. Speaker, it is a point that I have made over and over and over again. When the President sat right where you are, or stood right in front of where you are and spoke to the Nation before a Joint Session of Congress and said our number one priority is to reform our health care system. One-fifth of our economy, colleagues, I believe we are talking about, and yet we have spent $787 billion on an economic bailout when our unemployment rate was 8 percent, now 10.2 percent, and I think we have lost, and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, the loss of jobs since February of 2009 when we passed this so-called economic stimulus, which was supposed to stem the unemployment at 8 percent, it is now 10.2, and we have 16 million people out of work, an additional 3.5 million since February of this year. Why is that not our number one priority instead of reorganizing the medicine cabinet?

I have some other posters that I want to refer to as well, but I want to yield back to the gentleman controlling the time because there are other Members who would like to speak. Hopefully you will have an opportunity to come back to me.

If the gentleman would yield, I definitely do have some of those that I will bring up.

I thank the gentleman for yielding back to me. In fact, I would ask him to put the previous poster back up, the one that showed all those additional bureaucracies that are created by H.R. 3962. In fact, that poster was created when it was H.R. 3200 and, as the gentleman from Missouri said, a thousand pages, now 2,000 pages. But he said something about, Madam Speaker, putting that in cartoon form. Well, I've got the cartoon for my colleagues, and here it is.

When you put a gown on that chart, this is what it looks like: a bloated, bloated patient called the House health bill. And this is a cartoon actually from the San Diego Union Tribune a few days ago. And, my colleagues, look at the poor patient, and, of course, I don't know if you can see up at the top corner, ``nip/tuck.'' And these two Senators are standing over here. I guess that may be the majority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, and possibly the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee or the chairman of the Senate Health Committee standing next to Majority Leader Reid, and the caption is, ``Hey, this might take a while'' to nip/tuck this bloated 2,000-page bureaucracy that's depicted by my colleague Representative Akin.

It just shows you in a cartoon form, but unfortunately it's not funny, is it? It's not funny, my colleagues and Madam Speaker. This is serious business. And I hope and pray that the Senate will be the saucer that cools the drink of the hot cup that has come over from the House, because Lord help this country if we don't do a whole lot of nipping and tucking if not downright eliminating this bill, H.R. 3962.

No pun intended, of course, about the cartoon.

If the gentleman from Missouri would yield.

On this issue, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania just said, the actuaries of CMS, Medicare and Medicaid Services, just said exactly what he said, that over a 10-year period of time, the amount of Medicare expenditures are going to go up by something like $289 billion.

Look, colleagues, Madam Speaker, we are going to face something on this floor tomorrow, something called ``doc fix.'' I think the bill number is H.R. 3961. And I want to use my reference to my last chart to bring this home to our colleagues that this is nothing but a Trojan horse. Here's the Trojan horse with this 3961. I know, my colleagues and Madam Speaker, it's hard to see this, but it says ``Democrat doc fix,'' but what's inside that Trojan horse, of course, is the $500 billion cut to the Medicare program that the gentleman from Pennsylvania was just talking about. And also it says H.R. 3200. We now know with the Pelosi health reform act, as H.R. 3962, the poor horse is back because it's gone from a thousand pages to 2,000 pages. But that's what's inside this Trojan horse.

Make no mistake about it, my colleagues. Members back home and, yes, your physician constituents, your physician constituents are going to recognize this Trojan horse because they were promised in this massive bill, H.R. 3962, that there would be this permanent ``doc fix'' in there. But the leadership and the President got together and said, oh, no, that's going to make the cost go over $900 billion, and I promised not one dime more than $900 billion. So let's pull the doctor fix out and then we'll bring it forward as a stand-alone bill. But guess what, colleagues? It's not paid for. And the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I know that he knows this. That adds another $250 billion to the deficit.

Don't vote for this Trojan horse tomorrow, 3961.

I said ``doc fix,'' Madam Speaker. But I probably misspoke. I think the gentleman from Missouri is absolutely on target. Doc trick. Amen.

If my colleague would yield, and I'll yield right back to him because I know we've got another Member that wants to speak.

It is a doc trick. And what it does is it does not solve the problem. It just substitutes one bad formula for another. And I think, unfortunately, our doctors, if this thing passes, are going to wake up and find out that they are now working for the Federal Government and they're making far less on Medicare reimbursement than they are today.

In fact, the gentleman is right. I wish there was a ``heck no'' button, but I don't think there is. But I will be a definite ``no.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and unequivocal opposition to the underlying government takeover of the American people's health care.

When I appeared before the Rules Committee last night, I heard the chairman designee say that the changes to bring us these 2,000 pages that were enacted in the middle of the night were de minimis changing. Going from a thousand pages to 2,000 pages is hardly de minimis. And what I noted, of course, was of the 20 Republican amendments that had been approved in committee, only five remained and none of mine.

So, Mr. Speaker, I've brought forth amendments that the American public has told me that they want, such as that every Member of Congress, if the government option is so good, they ought to sign up for it; amendments such as medical liability reform, and the CBO has told us, Mr. Speaker, that it would save $54 billion; amendments such as no cuts to Medicare unless you keep that money in the Medicare system, which has a $35 trillion unfunded mandate; and finally no individual mandates on our young people who can ill afford it. It is unconstitutional.

Mr. Speaker, having spent most of my life in medicine and healing the sick, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. With double-digit unemployment at 10.2 percent, this so-called reform, which will destroy an additional 5.5 million jobs, is not what the American people want. Yet their opposition and protests have fallen on deaf ears as this majority simply does not seem to care.

One can perhaps see why. Democrats have the White House, 60 votes in the Senate and an 81-seat majority in this House. They have all the power. They can pass government-run health care without one single Republican vote. Mr. Speaker, just because they can does not mean they should. Might does not make it right. With $750 billion in tax increases, $500 billion cuts in Medicare, Mr. Speaker, if the House proceeds down this precarious path, I have no doubt that though the American people may forget what was said here, they will never forget what was done here and who did it to them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 89, a resolution encouraging greater support for Veterans Day each year.

Today, I would like to take this opportunity to express my deep sense of gratitude to the millions of veterans living throughout the United States. Since before the founding of this nation, our veterans have been on the front lines defending our safety and our liberty. Their commitment to duty, honor, integrity, and self-sacrifice has not gone unnoticed, and I commend them for a lifetime of exemplary leadership on and off the battlefield.

Veterans' organizations are one great example of the commitment to service all of our men and women in uniform possess. These organizations help create volunteer opportunities for our nation's troops when they retire from the armed services. Some of these include donating millions of man hours to the medical facilities of the Veterans Administration, sponsoring Boy Scouts of America troops all around the country, and awarding millions of dollars for college scholarships. These incredible volunteers give back to the very communities that they have already sacrificed so much for throughout their careers.

Mr. Speaker, the veterans who have passed away before this Veterans Day must also be

recognized and graciously thanked for their service. Our Nation has experienced many wars in a short history, but we have remained safe at home and abroad because of the valiant effort of the members of our armed services. The freedoms and liberty we espouse as a democracy have and will continue to be under threat. However, our veterans and active duty men and women are a testament to the preservation of justice and our form of government.

The families of those who serve our country on the front lines also 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.

Let us also make certain that we remember those individuals who are in harm's way today in Iraq and Afghanistan. Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom are successful because of the members of our armed services who are day in and day out giving their best to keep America safe at home and abroad. They have also sacrificed to secure liberty and democracy for other nations and peoples who desire to be freed from political oppression. Furthermore, let us not forgot those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice, and let us say a gracious thank you to them for their willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice for liberty.

I believe that the brave men and women 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. Recognizing Veterans Day in 2009 is just one small reminder of the superior job our troops perform for America at home and abroad, and it is my hope that we will continue to do all we can and more for the members of our Armed Forces.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the government takeover of our Nation's health care system. The Democratic legislation, a 1,990-page $1 trillion bill will raise taxes, it will increase our national debt, and it will put government bureaucrats between patients and their doctors. I agree it's important to reform our health care system, but this is not the way to do it.

I've spent the last 10 months trying to share my perspective as a physician with over 30 years' experience. My constituents and millions of Americans across this country have also spent the last 10 months trying to make their voices heard by the President and the Democratic majority. This legislation that the Democrats want us to vote on suggests that the Speaker just doesn't care what practicing physicians and the American public think.

This legislation is the wrong direction for America, and it's a death knell for quality care for American patients. Mr. Speaker, I reject any government takeover of our Nation's health care system.

Mr. Speaker, let me introduce you and my colleagues to someone. I would like to focus for just a moment on this first poster.

This is the Health Choices Czar. You may not know him today, but if Democrats have their way and they pass their government takeover health care, we will all know him soon enough.

In the fictional Hazzard County, Georgia, he was known as Boss Hogg from 1979 until 1985. Portrayed by the late actor Sorrell Booke, he was an infamous government corrupt official on ``The Dukes of Hazzard,'' who every week tried to exert his will on the people he was supposed to be serving. On the show, if it wasn't for honest citizens like Bo and Luke Duke and Crazy Cooter, he might have been able to run Hazzard County into the ground.

Mr. Speaker, Boss Hogg is a fictional character. The Health Choices Czar created under the Democrats' health care bill, unfortunately, is not. This boss, created by President Obama and Nancy Pelosi, is very real. This boss will have the power to tell you what health products you can and cannot buy. This boss will be able to decide whether you need to pay him a tax. This boss will decide whether your health coverage is legal or not. In its roughly 2,000 page manifesto, this boss will soon control every decision you and your doctor want to make.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the health care debate, I have heard a number of complaints from the majority that we are focused too much on the number of pages in their government takeover bill. In addition to the sheer number of pages of H.R. 3962, I think it's equally important to point out other numbers associated with the bill that are even more troubling.

$1.2 trillion--the total cost of the bill for the American taxpayer.

$2.5 million--the cost of each of the 400,000 words in this bill for the American taxpayer.

$730 million--this is the amount of new taxes created in this bill for small business, individuals who cannot afford health care coverage and employers who cannot afford to provide coverage that meets the Boss Hogg's standard.

10.2 percent--the Nation's current unemployment level reported just yesterday by the Department of Labor.

190,000--the number of jobs lost in the month of October reported yesterday by the Department of Labor.

5.5 million--the estimated number of jobs that could be lost as a result of taxes on businesses that cannot afford to provide health care coverage. This is according to a model developed by one of the President's chief economic advisers, Christina Romer.

114 million--that's the number of people who could lose their current health care coverage--coverage, of course, that they like--under the proposed government-run health plan in H.R. 3962.

3,425--Mr. Speaker, the number of times the word ``shall'' appears in H.R. 3962 that results in new duties for bureaucrats and mandates on individuals' businesses and states.

118--the number of new bureaucracies created by H.R. 3962.

Mr. Speaker, when the Democratic majority says Republicans focus too much on the number of pages of H.R. 3962, they really avoid a deliberative debate, because this bill is bad legislation. In fact, the editorial on Monday's Wall Street Journal called H.R. 3962, ``The Worst Bill Ever.'' That editorial said, ``Epic new spending and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting: The Pelosi health bill has it all,'' and I am quoting the Wall Street Journal.

According to this editorial, Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats in Congress are more like Boss Hogg looking to

exert their will on the American people than they are responsible Members of Congress. It states, ``Democrats have dumped any presence of genuine bipartisanship and moved into the realm of pure power politics.''

Clearly, the Wall Street Journal understands the ramifications that this legislation has for the American people. Quite frankly, I agree with that paper's characterization of H.R. 3962 that, ``In a rational political world, this 1,990-page runaway train would have been derailed months ago.''

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, in the case of this legislation, it seems to me like we live in Boss Hogg's Hazzard County, instead of a rationally based society. I urge my colleagues to look beyond the rhetoric that Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats use to promote ``The Worst Bill Ever'' and look at the numbers associated with this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, Boss Hogg went off the air in 1985. Unfortunately, this legislation is real and poses a real threat to the foundation of our health care system. Tomorrow, or whenever we vote on H.R. 3962, I hope all of my colleagues have the sense to defeat this irrational legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 858, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We were on the floor last night and a gentleman on the Democratic side on the part of the majority in their hour, Mr. Grayson, talked about the number of lives that were lost or are being lost in every congressional district across this country because of the lack of health insurance.

Last night I asked the gentleman to yield to a friendly question, and my question was going to be, Representative, are you pro-life or pro- choice on the abortion issue? The gentleman chose not to yield to me. I don't really know the answer to that question to this day.

But 4,000 babies are losing their lives every day. I hope the gentleman is pro-life, because he said, Stand for life.

Madam Speaker, I thank you for the time, and I thank my minority leadership for the time.

We will spend our hour talking about health care reform; and we will try to compare and contrast, Madam Speaker, many of the policies that were just described by our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle, by the majority party Members: the gentleman from Minnesota, the gentlewoman from California, the gentleman from Colorado. A number of statements were made in regard to their bill, the Pelosi health care bill, the 2,000-page bill. In fact, Madam Speaker, I have that bill behind me, and we'll take a look at it in just a few minutes.

We certainly want to talk about the 261-page bill, Madam Speaker, which is the Republican alternative that, indeed, as we know from a letter that we just received yesterday from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, across the board, the Republican alternative lowers the price of health insurance premiums on an average of 10 percent. I'm not sure that my colleagues who have left the floor now--and if they were still here, I would be happy to yield them time, but I'm not sure that they can say that with regard to this massive, monstrosity of a bill of

over 2,000 pages that they are going to have on the floor of this great body on Friday, tomorrow, to debate and on Saturday morning to vote on, the outcome of which, of course, remains to be seen.

Madam Speaker, I wanted to take a little time, though, at the outset to talk about the thousands and thousands of great Americans who came to Washington today to bring a message to this Congress--a message to their Members on both sides of the aisle but especially on the Democratic majority's side of the aisle--to tell them how strongly they are in opposition to the Federal Government's taking over our health care system lock, stock and barrel.

Madam Speaker, I had an opportunity with many, many of my colleagues, led by Mr. Ellison of Minnesota, the gentleman who just spoke; his colleague from the great State of Minnesota, Representative Michele Bachmann; and others. There were many who worked very hard in putting that together and in encouraging people to come to Washington--to take time away from your jobs, away from your families. There were many physicians in the group. They did it. They did it. We had an opportunity to speak to them.

When I took my minute or so, Madam Speaker, I said to them, You know, you're bringing a second opinion. You are practitioners of common sense. You are practitioners who love freedom and liberty. You've looked at this bill. You've probably read it. You've probably read more of it than have most Members of Congress, and you have made a diagnosis. You have taken the medical history, and you have done the physical examination. You have checked the pulse of the American people, and you have found it strong. You have checked the blood pressure of the American people, and you have found it, Madam Speaker, rising. You have taken a stethoscope, and have listened to the heart of the American people, and you have heard it pounding, pounding for freedom and liberty; and you have made a diagnosis, and you have written a prescription.

Madam Speaker, these tens of thousands of people who were here today brought that prescription to Capitol Hill, and here is what it said:

Dispense no taxpayer money to fund abortions. Dispense no taxpayer money to provide government subsidies to illegal immigrants, despite what my colleagues on the majority side of the aisle have said. Finally, that prescription said: dispense not one dime of my hard- earned taxpayer money to allow the Federal Government to take over our health care system and one-sixth of our economy, and come between me and my doctor. That's the prescription that these great Americans came to Washington to bring today.

I hope, Madam Speaker, I hope that the Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle but especially within the majority party--because, after all, it is your bill that's going to be voted on, not our bill. We have a bill. It will be a motion to recommit--a substitute, if you will--of 261 pages, which brings down the cost of health insurance across the board on an average of 10 percent. I don't think that they can say, Madam Speaker, that you can say, that the majority party can say, that your bill does that. This bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office, saves $61 billion over 10 years.

Now, Madam Speaker, I heard my colleagues say just a minute ago that their bill, which is the Pelosi bill, saves $100 billion over 10 years, but the Congressional Budget Office, again, that bipartisan group of expert economists who works for the Congress, the Director of whom is hired by Speaker Pelosi, said it's going to cost to create this legislation $1.55 trillion over 10 years.

So, my colleagues, if you save $100 billion but you've spent $1 trillion, do the arithmetic. This is not calculus. It's certainly not brain surgery. You have spent a whole lot of money saving $100 billion. In fact, my math tells me that you're kind of in the red there about $900 billion. It's ludicrous. It's absolutely ludicrous.

I say again, Madam Speaker, to those folks who came up--to those great Americans who came today on buses and in cars and on planes, many of whom traveled 16 hours--and I met some great Georgians from my State. They're folks I had talked to last weekend when I was home, and I encouraged them to come. They did. They came. A contingent of the disabled came. I was so proud to see them.

This was not a mob, Madam Speaker. These were not thugs. I'm not suggesting that you or any Member of this body has referred to them in that way, but certainly the media has; the press has--and it's insulting. It was insulting back in August when all of these seniors showed up for these town hall meetings. Every Member was describing town hall meetings that had 10 times as many people as they had ever seen before. It's true for me in my district, and I'm in my fourth term. It's true for others. We'll hear from Congressman John Boozman from Arkansas, and we'll hear from Congressman Paul Broun from the great State of Georgia, from Athens; and they'll tell you the same thing.

These were nice people. These were senior citizens. These were Medicare recipients, and they were scared to death, and they are scared to death today. I know that, of those who couldn't come, many of them maybe are shut-ins and who for health reasons were not able to come but would have loved to have been here. You were well represented, and you will be well represented in this Chamber come Saturday morning when it's time to vote.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle referenced back to the days in 2003 when we added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, which is something that our seniors have been wanting for so many years, long before I even thought about running for Congress. The problem, of course, was that in 1965 when Medicare was enacted, the emphasis was on surgical procedures and on hospitalizations, and we didn't have all the wonder drugs back then, 40-something years ago, that we have today.

So why was a prescription drug benefit so important? Why did the Republican majority at the time spend so much political capital giving that to the American people and our 40 million of them who are on Medicare?

It's because they couldn't afford it. The price of these prescriptions had gone up, these wonder drugs, research and development, very expensive. And people were halving the dose and in many cases not taking their medication if it ran out before the month was over and they had to wait 2 more weeks to get another prescription. And the people with high blood pressure were having strokes. The people with high cholesterol were having heart attacks. The people with diabetes, which was out of control because they couldn't buy their insulin, were having their limbs amputated. People with kidney disease were ending up on dialysis machines and in a long cue maybe for a renal transplant.

We, in a very compassionate way, Madam Speaker, passed Medicare part D so that these seniors could afford to have those prescriptions filled and to take them in a timely way. And I stand here today very proud that I voted ``yes'' on that bill on this House floor in the wee hours of that morning, yes. A very close vote because all the Democrats were voting ``no.'' All the Democrats were voting ``no.''

But what this bill has done has given them affordable prescription drug coverage. And it will keep these seniors, more importantly than the cost, out of the emergency room. It will keep them off the operating table. It will keep them out of a long-term skilled nursing home where they might be for life having had a massive stroke because prior to 2003 they couldn't afford the blood pressure medication to lower that blood pressure to a safe range. So, yes, I'm proud of that. I'm very proud of it.

Our Democratic counterparts, Madam Speaker, then in the minority, they fought it every step of the way. And they absolutely insisted, until the final moment when they knew that they couldn't accomplish it, they wanted the government to step in and control prices. They wanted government price control then and they want it now. It wasn't necessary then, Madam Speaker and my colleagues, and it's not necessary now.

The free market works in this country. It always has and it always will. The monthly price of those prescription drug plans, on average, was $24

when the Democratic minority said that it would be $40. In fact, the Democratic minority wanted us, the Republican majority at the time, to agree to set the price at $40 a month. We wouldn't do it because we knew, Madam Speaker, that the free market works and we wanted to see that competition without the heavy hand of the government in there being a competitor and a rule maker and a referee, just exactly what your party and its leadership, Ms. Pelosi, the Speaker; Mr. Reid, the majority leader; and yes, President Obama--they want the heavy hand of the government in this bill.

And what they really want, and I imagine if any amendment is made in order, it will be the one that will be proffered by our friend from New York (Mr. Weiner) from my Energy and Commerce Committee and part of the majority party, an amendment that would have a single-payer national health insurance program. Socialized medicine.

If we see any amendment, Madam Speaker, I am going to predict that that will be the one that will be here because, in fact, they want to make that statement one last time. They won't have quite enough votes to pass it, but there will be a significant number. And I think my colleagues certainly on our side of the aisle, we understand that. We understand what the plan is. And the American people understand that. But the majority party and this President and this administration and all the folks that are advising him, many of whom I guess advised President Clinton and his wife, Hillary, 15 years ago, they don't seem to get it. Maybe they're not going to get it until that first week in November of 2010.

We've got a lot of things to talk about tonight, Madam Speaker, and I am pleased and honored to have my colleagues join me. The hour is getting late. A lot of times folks at this point in the evening are ready to go home and get a little rest, do a little reading before they go to bed and face a long, hard, tough day tomorrow. But they're here. They're here tonight. That old saying ``miles and miles and miles to go before I sleep.'' I'm not sure which of our poets wrote that. Maybe it was Robert Frost. But my colleagues are with me tonight because they know how important this is.

They know that they are the sentinels. And we're going to fight this thing, and we're going to do everything in our power to stop it because we know it's wrong. It's the wrong prescription for America.

Let me at this point, Madam Speaker, yield to my good friend and fellow doctor from the great State of Arkansas. Dr. Boozman is a part of the GOP Doctors Caucus. We have been meeting on a very regular basis during this entire 111th Congress. We're 11 months into it now. Time really flies when you're having fun. But this group has, I think, brought a lot of knowledge to our side of the aisle on this issue. We have tried desperately to have an opportunity to meet with the President. We've sent letters. He said the door was open, but if the door was open, unfortunately the several gates getting to the door were closed.

But I'm honored at this point to yield to my good friend from Arkansas, Dr. John Boozman.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman and I hope the gentleman will stay with us so we can continue----

Because I do want to hear from Dr. Boozman in regard to the Republican alternative and some of the unique things that he's talking about. And I mentioned, of course, the CBO score and that's fantastic. But I think it is important for our colleagues to know, especially those who are undecided. And quite honestly, I think, Madam Speaker, there are a lot of undecideds.

I know there are many caucuses in the Democratic majority. You have 257, something like a 40-seat majority over us Republicans. And you have those many caucuses. You have the Hispanic Caucus. You have the Congressional Black Caucus. You have the Progressive/Liberal Caucus of which Speaker Pelosi is, I guess, the titular head. And then you have the Blue Dog Caucus, some 52 members, who many of them, Madam Speaker, and I know you're aware of this, hold seats that Candidate Senator John McCain carried in the 2008 election. So their districts, Madam Speaker, are not unlike mine. And I won my last election, my third re-elect fourth term with 69 percent of the vote. And I know that many of these Members are agonizing over their vote come Saturday.

Our colleagues earlier--I think the gentlewoman from California was here in 2003 when we had the vote on Medicare modernization and the prescription drug plan, Medicare part D. And she said some things that were accurate in regard to the length of the vote and the fact that it was a very close vote, and when the clock struck double zeros, there were still people undecided. And there was still a lot of persuasion going on. Maybe a little arm twisting, maybe a few calls from the President, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth. And then, of course, finally that bill did pass at 5 o'clock in the morning, as I recall.

I would say to the gentlewoman from California, you ain't seen nothing yet until we get to 2 days from now, on Saturday, when we're trying to--when I say ``we,'' I think most people on my side of the aisle, if given the opportunity to vote on our bill, would vote ``yes,'' every one of us, but I doubt if there will be too many of us voting for the Federal Government to completely take over our health care system.

And there's going to be some arm twisting and there's going to be some blood letting, not literally but figuratively. A lot of persuasion going on. So we'll see what happens.

I am also joined by a good friend who, like Dr. Boozman, is a part of our GOP Doctors Caucus. Dr. Paul Broun is one of three doctors, three on the Republican side, from the great State of Georgia. Our other colleague who is chairman of the Republican Study Committee, 110 conservative Republican members, Dr. Tom Price chairs that group.

And I want to, Madam Speaker, mention the fact that Dr. Price was also very involved in this effort today to have this House call on Congress and bring these 15,000. In fact, Dr. Price moderated that and did an excellent job.

But Dr. Broun has been wonderful on this issue, brings a tremendous amount of knowledge, plus about 40 years of clinical experience as a family practitioner who it comes as close to Marcus Welby as anybody I have met in years because he did house calls.

Madam Speaker, I will now yield to Dr. Broun so that we can hear from him.

And if the gentleman will yield just for a second, just for the visual effect. Congressman Gingrey also carries it, and I think every Republican--this document is not what we describe as a living, breathing, changing document unless we do it under the rules of the Constitution by amendment, but I wanted to let the gentleman know that I, too, carry this every day.

I yield back.

If the gentleman will yield back to me, and I think that is a very, very good point. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman that it, indeed, is stealing our children's futures to have a current debt of $11.2 trillion. A trillion, you can't imagine. I've heard Members describe what $1 trillion is. I won't try to do that tonight. It's unfathomable. Our current debt is $11.2 trillion.

It's estimated that in the next 10 to 15 years, if we continue down this road, that debt will be $24 trillion. We'll be paying more interest on the debt than we do on discretionary spending. We'll have no money to defend our country. In talking about that Constitution, when you really look at it, there is nothing in here about spending trillions of dollars for health care or for education, but we just keep spending and spending.

But I did want to take this a step further before yielding back to the gentleman from Arkansas, Dr. Boozman. We're not only stealing our children's and grandchildren's futures, Dr. Broun--and I know you know this--we are stealing their present. Now, let me explain.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, the irony of that is that in the cohort of people age 18 to 29 in this recent election, 66 percent of them voted for then-Senator, now-President, Obama. They elected him. In the 18- to 29-year-old cohort, 66 percent. Of that group, Mr. Speaker, that's the highest plurality for a President ever from that age group. I don't impugn their motive or their vote. That's what's great about this country. I'm not sure why each and every one of the 66 percent made that decision. I'm sure they were, as I was, impressed by then- candidate Senator Obama's youth, his energy, his charisma, his communication skills, and he made promises. He made attractive promises. You know, after 8 years of an administration, people are ready for a change, and he promised them change. Indeed, I think he said a change that they could believe in. My English teacher would have changed that and said a change in which they can believe. But in any regard, it made a good sound bite.

Shortly after the President was elected and inaugurated, the President was asked by the media or asked by the minority about these policies of massive government expansion in every sphere, and his response was a glib, Elections have consequences.

Mr. Speaker, indeed, elections have consequences. That's what I'm talking about, Dr. Broun, in regard to robbing our youth not only of their futures but of their present, because this bill that guarantees community rating and universal coverage, it drives up the cost of health insurance for all of our young, healthy 18- to 29- to 39- to 45- year-olds who are taking care of themselves, who are exercising, who are not overweight, who don't smoke. Today, they're able--in most States--to be able to get affordable health insurance because their lifestyle is less risky and because their age is less risky.

What the President and what Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid and the Democratic majority want to do is have a one-size-fits-all, where the costs for people that are in their fifties--obviously not eligible yet, Mr. Speaker, for Medicare--it will lower the cost of health insurance for them, and that's a good thing. But at the same time, it drives up significantly the cost of health insurance for those low-risk individuals. In fact, today, many young people will choose a low premium, a low monthly premium, you know, maybe $100 a month, with a very high deductible, and they'll combine it with a health savings account. Under this plan, H.R. 3962, they will not be permitted to do that.

Mr. Speaker, we are robbing the future of the youth of America.

With that, I yield to my friend from Arkansas, Dr. Boozman.

Reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman is making some excellent points, but we do want to have a moment to talk about our alternative. Dr. Broun is holding that up now, the 261-page Republican alternative that's fully paid for, that cuts insurance premiums on average by 10 percent across the board, according to the CBO, and saves $65 billion over 10 years.

I am going to yield back to Dr. Boozman. Before I ask him to go through a couple of slides with us, I want to point one out to our colleagues, this second opinion. I talked about this earlier, about these great Americans that were up here today, as Dr. Broun referenced. They were making a House call on the House, their House, the people's House, absolutely.

Their second opinion included, I talked about that prescription: dispense no money to pay for abortions, dispense no money to pay for illegal immigrants, dispense no money to let a big government bureaucracy take over our health care system and come between our great doctors and their patients, indeed, our constituents. But also in their second opinion they are going to say and they did say today, many of them are wearily driving back home now, but they said, and I point out in this slide: patients don't want government-run health care, period.

Now, I am going to yield to Dr. Boozman for a few minutes, because I have got a couple of slides. I hope he can see those. He should; he is an optometrist. He knows about eyesight. I will lend him my glasses if he needs them. But we will go through a couple of bullet points and talk about things that people are outraged, Mr. Speaker, outraged over.

It's unbelievable, but I will yield to Dr. Boozman and let him talk about it.

Reclaiming my time, Dr. Broun, as I referred to him earlier as a modern day Dr. Welby, I like the compassion, and I know that he treats people without regard of their ability to pay, and he is a good man.

I wanted to go back to Dr. Boozman because we got into talking about the cost. This next slide, and I want my colleagues to look closely, please. I hope you can see this because these three bullet points are hugely important. I will ask Dr. Boozman to begin to comment on the very first one.

Because on this chart, on this slide, this is how the Democrats, the Pelosi health reform bill comes up with the $1.055 trillion to so-call pay for this thing and not add one dime, as they say, to the deficit.

Dr. Boozman, I don't think there is anything about raising Medicare coverage to 150 percent and putting this burden on the back of States in the Republican bill, is there?

Dr. Boozman, I did want to go back to my first bullet point. Again, my colleagues, I refer you to this slide that's on the easel, ``no $570 billion in Medicare cuts.''

If the camera could focus on Dr. Broun for a second, because that bill, that bill, H.R. 3962, is right in front of him. I am glad he is not trying to hold it, because we would be working on his back tomorrow; he would probably be in a back brace.

But in that bill, that $1.055 trillion pay-for includes this $570 billion, $570 billion cuts in Medicare.

Dr. Boozman, would you elaborate on some of those cuts and why that should be of some concern to our seniors, because the folks on the other side of the aisle, Dr. Boozman, Dr. Broun, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, just an hour ago said they don't need to worry about that; they are not going to hurt them. They are going to be okay. Let's talk about that a little bit.

Well, you know like some others on this side of the body Dr. Broun just spoke out of turn, but we will forgive him for that.

I will yield now officially to the gentleman from Arkansas.

Dr. Boozman, reclaiming my time, I am so glad you elaborate on that $570 billion Medicare cut, because that's 12 percent a year over the next 10 years. We are not spending $570 billion today on Medicare; I can assure you we will in the very near future, but we are not today. So a $570 billion cut is more than what our yearly expenditure is today on Medicare. So over a 10-year period of time, about a 12 percent cut. The most egregious cut is coming from Medicare Advantage. Some 120-something billion dollars, a 17 percent cut per year, from that program.

Well, if that program was just some fluke that a few seniors signed up for and it wasn't that good of a program and we were wasting money on it, that would be one thing, Mr. Speaker. But 20 percent of our seniors are Medicare patients. They love it; they love it.

They get prescription drug coverage so they don't have to sign up for part D and pay that extra monthly premium. They get an annual physical. You don't get that in Medicare fee-for-service. They get screening, they get follow up, they have a nurse practitioner call them after their appointments to make sure they are taking their medication. They have a nurse call them when it's time for the next appointment, and they are staying healthy. The President and the majority party and all of us agree that preventive care is cheaper than treating the illness.

Yet you want to cut that program? That's bizarre to me.

I want to yield to my friend from Athens, Dr. Broun. He may want to discuss the $700 billion in taxes in addition to the Medicare cuts and where that is going to come from and whose back is that on. Is this from the ultra-rich, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett and folks like that?

Mr. Speaker, we have just a few minutes left. This bill that we are talking about, H.R. 3962, this bill that we will be voting on on Saturday, this massive increase in bureaucracy, when it came through the Energy and Commerce Committee, I counted that it had 53 czars. I think we are up to 120 now. But the most egregious of all the czars that have been created through this bureaucratic bill is someone called the health choices administrator.

Now the health choices administrator is the person who is going to say what has to be in every health plan. That is why I was talking about driving up the prices for the youth of America, and why we are robbing from their present as well as their future. This health choices administrator is going to be more powerful than the Social Security administrator. They are going to decide not only are we going to force you to buy insurance or we are going to charge you a 2 percent fine, maybe put you in jail, or force your employers to provide insurance for your employees or fine you 8 percent, or maybe put you in jail, too. The person that is making those decisions on what type of plan is offered, and, Mr. Speaker, I am sure these low-premium, high-deductible health savings accounts are the types that young people love because it gives them protection against ``horrendoplasty,'' as we call it in medicine, a terrible car accident which causes them to lose a limb, and every bit of their financial wherewithal.

Here on this slide is a caricature of the health choices administrator. The gentleman from Georgia recognizes him because he ran Hazard County, Georgia. His name was Boss Hogg. Some may be too young to remember the ``Dukes of Hazard,'' but Boss Hogg, he made all of the decisions. He was the health choices administrator. And Boss Hogg says, kind of like Big Boss Hogg says, the President of the United States, you can have whatever you like as long as the boss approves it. As long as the boss approves it.

Let me just conclude by saying the people that came up here today had a prescription for America, and they told us, and I had one, too. I had it in my pocket, I just didn't have a chance to share it.

Here is my 10 prescriptions for a healthy America:

No government-run health care plan.

No cuts to senior care.

No new deficit spending. The President promised that.

No new taxes. That is in the Republican bill.

No rationing of care. The seniors don't want to get thrown under the bus, but they will under H.R. 3962.

No employer mandate. It is unconstitutional to force them. We want to encourage them. We want to lower the prices, as the Republican bill does, so they can get health care insurance, but in a voluntary way.

And we don't want to have taxpayer-funded coverage for illegal immigrants.

And we don't want to pay for abortions with taxpayer dollars.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your patience. We will be back tomorrow night. God bless you and good evening.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the accomplishments of famed Atlanta sports reporter Furman Bisher upon his retirement from the Atlanta Journal Constitution after 59 years.

Furman Bisher was born on November 4, 1918, in Denton, North Carolina, and became the editor of the Charlotte News in 1940. During World War II, he honorably serve our Nation from 1941 until 1945.

In 1950, Furman Bisher became a sports editor for the Atlanta Constitution, and in 1957 he became sports editor and columnist for the Atlanta Journal and the Sunday Journal-Constitution.

Furman Bisher's accomplishments are legendary. He was the president of the Football Writers Association of America in 1959 and 1960 and named one of the Nation's five best columnists by Time Magazine in 1961. Furman was president of the National Sportscasters and Sports Writers Association from 1974 to 1976, and he covered every Kentucky Derby since 1950. He also covered every National Football League Super Bowl, except the very first one played in 1967.

As an Atlanta Braves fan, I am particularly grateful for the crucial role Furman played in facilitating the arrival of the Braves baseball team to Atlanta, which was Atlanta's very first professional sports team.

Furman Bisher is a member of the Atlanta Sports Hall of Fame, the International Golf Writers Hall of Fame and the National Sportscasters and Sports Writers Hall of Fame, and he was a recipient of Professional Golfers Association's Lifetime Achievement in Journalism Award in 1996.

A testament to Furman's reputation from the very beginning can be traced to 1949, when he became the only person since 1919 to secure an interview with ``Shoeless'' Joe Jackson, who had been banned from baseball.

Furman Bisher retired from the Atlanta Journal Constitution on October 10, 2009, after 59 years of service, typing his last column on the Royal typewriter that was the instrument of his first Constitution column back in 1950.

At age 90, Furman is still going strong, splitting his time between a homestead in Fayette County and a retreat on St. Simons Island with his wife of 21 years, Linda.

Furman Bisher's legacy is lasting. He wrote over 10,000 columns in the Atlanta Journal Constitution and hundreds more in newspapers in North Carolina dating back to 1938.

He forever impacted sports reporting and the Atlanta sports landscape with his actions and commentary. I know I, for one, like millions of others throughout the years, always enjoyed reading his column, and will deeply miss flipping to the sports section to find what he had to say about the sports news of the day, for it was in 1960 as a freshman at Georgia Tech that I first read his column and every Sunday morning watched his college football roundup in the TV lab at the Sigma Nu fraternity house.

I wish Furman and Linda Bisher all the best as they enjoy their retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I request that the gentleman's words be taken down.

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate Dr. Broun yielding to me. And in reference to the gentleman from Michigan, Representative Hoekstra, who just showed that 2,000-page bill and all the bureaucracy that's involved in that, I think it's appropriate for our colleagues to look at this chart that I have here at the desk that Representative Hoekstra is helping me hold; and it shows actually the bureaucracy involved in H.R. 3200. That was about a 1,200-page bill. Now the Pelosi health care reform that the Representative from Michigan just showed us, the 2,000-page monstrosity, these 53 bureaucrats, czarocrats, czarinas, whatever, have grown to about 150. And this is what it takes to grow a bureaucracy to have a Federal Government complete takeover of one-sixth of our economy.

And I just think it's appropriate, Mr. Speaker, for all of our Members on both sides of the aisle to understand where the almost $1.1 trillion is going to in this takeover of our health care system. You've got to feed all these animals in this bureaucracy, every one of these czars.

The gentleman from Michigan is absolutely right. It is not all going to health care. And we are proud to be able to present information this evening, Mr. Speaker, a letter from the Congressional Budget Office to Leader Boehner, the Honorable John Boehner, the minority leader of the House, in regard to the Republican alternative.

I am holding, as the gentleman said, Mr. Speaker, the letter from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Mr. Doug Elmendorf, who says that this Party of No, this Republican Party of No, who has no alternatives, no plan, well, surprisingly, we have a letter from the Congressional Budget Office that says this Party of No has a plan that will actually reduce health insurance premiums by 10 percent across the board.

And also over a 10-year period of time, saves something like $60 billion.

I just want to say that the Republican alternative that we have, and we can talk about some of the specifics of that as we go on tonight in this hour. Tort reform obviously is one of them; allowing people to buy insurance across State lines is one of them; creating high risk pools within the States is another. Again, there are a number of us here on the floor tonight and we can talk about this. But, overall, the CBO report, the all-important, nonpartisan CBO report, says that it reduces the cost of health insurance premiums 10 percent across the board and saves $61 billion from our deficit over the next 10 years.

Our plan works, and it doesn't break the bank. Their plan breaks the bank, and it is an Edsel. They have paid for an Edsel.

I will yield back to the gentleman that's controlling the time, but it's a pleasure to bring these facts to my colleagues tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the government takeover of our Nation's health care system. It would have a disastrous impact on women and their families. As moms, doctors, nurses, caregivers, and taxpayers, women play a critical role in the health care debate. Eighty-five percent of women are the primary health care decisionmakers in the home.

Women overwhelmingly support health care reform, but they don't want reform that will increase their health care costs, that will ration care or that will undermine their ability to make the best health care decisions for their families. Speaker Pelosi's bill empowers government bureaucrats; it increases taxes, and it raises health insurance premiums while using Federal dollars to fund abortions.

Mr. Speaker, I support reform solutions that let women, not your government, take over, continue to decide what is best for their families.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much, and I am proud to spend the next hour as the party of naysayers, as our young colleague from the other side of the aisle just described us. We have, Mr. Speaker, on occasion been accused of being the Party of No.

I have a number of colleagues with me this hour, one of them being my good friend and fellow Georgian, fellow physician, Dr. Paul Broun. He and I on a number of occasions just this past Monday, yesterday, I guess, did a number of events together in our great State of Georgia.

We said to editorial boards and television stations, we are the Party of No, guilty as charged; but we don't spell it n-o, we spell it k-n-o- w.

Maybe we do on occasion spell it ``no'' when we say, Mr. Speaker, we say to the Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, that, heck, no, we don't want this form of health care change to one-sixth of our economy with the Federal Government literally going into the exam room with a bunch of bureaucrats and coming in between a doctor and a patient.

Dr. Broun and I, Mr. Speaker, and many of our colleagues on this side of the aisle who are part of the GOP Doctors Caucus, there are about 15 of us, 12 M.D.s, some dentists, optometrist, a clinical psychologist and author, we are very proud of our almost 400 years of clinical experience, Mr. Speaker.

We are very disappointed, of course, that we were not able to offer some of the knowledge, the k-n-o-w part of knowledge, to this debate.

We sent letters, of course, along with many of our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle to President Obama, especially after hearing from him in the so-called State of the Union when he really took the opportunity to use this Chamber and to call together a joint session to speak to the Nation on health care and made some very distinct promises in regard to the need for medical liability reform, as an example, which we don't see one word of, essentially, in H.R. 3962.

What little bit, what little tiny piece of medical liability reform, adds an insult, Mr. Speaker, to those States that have already enacted, successfully, I might add, medical liability reform like our State of Georgia, like the great State of Texas and the great State of Florida, when it goes on to say these grants, this little minuscule amount of money in the millions, not billions or trillions, which is more applicable to H.R. 3962, when they say none of these grants are eligible for States that have already enacted any meaningful medical liability reform that limits contingency fees for trial lawyers, or has any caps on noneconomic judgments, awards.

That's the only medical liability reform, Mr. Speaker, that has ever been proven to be effective in the great State of California that, of course, enacted that legislation called MICRA back in 1978. It's pretty frustrating; it really is.

We are here tonight, Mr. Speaker, to speak to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We want to do that in a very respectful way and, again, as I say, to try to impart knowledge to the issue. We have a lot of ideas in regard to what could be done to help improve the greatest health care system in the world that's not perfect. We recognize that, and I think all Members, Mr. Speaker, recognize that in both Chambers. We are willing to work in a bipartisan way given the opportunity. Unfortunately, we have not been given that opportunity.

That's why we keep taking advantage of what little opportunities we have like these Special Orders late at night, or maybe 1-minutes. I think on our side of the aisle we have 178 Republicans in this House of Representatives, and I think 120 gave 1-minute speeches today talking about the Republican alternatives, a way to do this, to help make sure that we bring down the cost of health insurance, for those who, if it's 10 million, I don't know the total number, of 300 million people in this country who cannot afford health insurance. We want to bring down the price of the cost of health insurance so they can have access, but also to bring down the cost of health insurance for

the 85, 88, 90 percent of people that do have it, but it's just a little bit too expensive.

We can do that and that's what we are going to be talking about tonight, Mr. Speaker, about ideas, bills, individual bills. I think there are something like 53. I have introduced legislation over and over. This is my seventh year, my fourth term as my great constituents from the 11th of Georgia know, that would save, as a Congressional Budget Office, not me doing the number crunching, but the nonpartisan, Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Doug Elmendorf, hired by Speaker Pelosi, said that, you know, medical liability reform could save $54 billion over 10 years. I mean, that is a significant chunk of money.

We all know that a real concerted effort on reducing waste, fraud and abuse could save another $20 billion. From our perspective, from the Republican alternatives that we are offering, we wouldn't spend more than that amount of money. But we would make those two integral parts of the reform that we would offer, and that we have offered, we will continue to talk about.

We don't spend $1.1 trillion of taxpayers' money when this country is already $11.2 trillion in debt and that we just got through with the fiscal year, I guess, 2009 fiscal year with a $1.4 trillion deficit, Mr. Speaker, four times the largest previous deficit in the history of this country.

To say that, oh, well, look, we have got the numbers here and the Congressional Budget Office says this plan of ours is going to save, over a 10-year period of time, it's going to save $100 billion; but to save 100 billion, we are going to spend 1.1 trillion.

You know, when you do the subtraction, I think that makes you, what, 900-and-some-change billion dollars in the hole.

My Georgia Tech math, six quarters of calculus, I believe my high school arithmetic would tell me that that's not a real good deal for the American taxpayer. We are here tonight to talk about this, Mr. Speaker.

I am proud to have some of my colleagues from the GOP Doctors Caucus, and I want to yield to them. We will engage in a colloquy, and we will have a meaningful hour this evening so that Members on both sides of the aisle, and if there are any folks out there in the good old USA watching, I know there are some elections going on today, Mr. Speaker, that a lot of folks are very interested in, and maybe they will be tuned into that. But in any regard, we appreciate the opportunity.

I yield to my good friend and physician colleague from the great State of Georgia who represents Athens and my hometown of Augusta, Georgia, and a fellow classmate at the Medical College of Georgia, family practitioner, my good friend, Dr. Paul Broun.

If the gentleman will yield for just a second, Dr. Broun, in that regard, Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Georgia, this Medicaid increase in Nancy Pelosi's health reform bill, H.R. 3962, what kind of dollars are we talking about here? What kind of burden are we talking about, unfunded mandate that that would put on the State, and how does that come about?

If the gentleman would yield back to me just for a second, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the gentleman, why is that a problem for the States? Mr. Speaker, you and I both know that here in the great Congress, these Halls of Congress, if we want to spend money, if we want to overspend, we just print more money out. I think we have red ink of about $275 billion, and that is why today in the Federal Government we have this debt of $11.2 trillion. Can't the States do the same thing?

If the gentleman would yield, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to have the opportunity to ask the gentleman to share with us a little bit. He is mentioning about this comparative effectiveness research council and how, based on, hopefully, Mr. Speaker, qualified, good, solid research, and to not only recommend to our doctors across the country, the 850,000 of them, many of whom are primary care doctors, and we will hear from another primary care doctor, John Fleming, with us tonight from Shreveport, Louisiana, in just a few minutes.

To suggest is one thing, Mr. Speaker, but to mandate based on comparative effectiveness research, which our hardworking men and women, taxpayers of this country, are paying for that, and many, many, if not most of them are making less than $250,000, by the way, Mr. Speaker.

But what I wanted to ask Representative Broun to share with us is not only the fact that our seniors, as he suggests, Mr. Speaker, and I agree with him, could get thrown under the bus by this rationing that comes from this comparative effectiveness research study that says, oh, that won't work. Let's do something cheaper, and, you are too old and it is not going to be cost-effective so you don't get it.

But I would like for Representative Broun, if he would, Mr. Speaker, to share with us about these pay-fors. Ms. Pelosi and President Obama says it has got to be paid for. He won't add one dime to the deficit. It has to be paid for. I would like for Dr. Broun to talk to us a little bit about where some of this money is coming from, this $1 trillion so this health care reform is paid for.

I yield back to the gentleman.

If the gentleman will yield back to me, Mr. Speaker, I thank him so much for bringing that factual knowledge to us.

Absolutely, this figure that he just quoted, Mr. Speaker, of 5.7 million, I think, additional jobs would be lost because of this bill, it is not something that Representative Broun just pulled out of the air. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Chief of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President, Christina Roma, is the one that said that. That is where my good friend and colleague from Georgia, Representative Paul Broun, got those figures from.

He mentioned one other thing, before I go on to our colleague from Louisiana, and I am sure that we will talk about this as we go on this evening, the health choices commissioner, a very powerful new czar under this program, would say to the employers across this country, you can have anything you want. You can offer any health insurance policy plan you want, Mr. Speaker, as long as what Henry Ford said many years ago, you can get any color of T Model Ford that you want, as long as it is black.

I draw my colleagues' attention to this poster I have regarding that assembly line way back in the early part of the 20th century.

I thank the gentleman from Athens.

At this point I want to yield to a fellow member of the GOP Doctors Caucus from Shreveport, Louisiana, and that is my good friend Dr. John Fleming.

Reclaiming my time for clarification, in regard to the Medicare Advantage program that the gentleman from Louisiana was just talking about, I wanted to ask him, Mr. Speaker, if under those Medicare Advantage plans, which, by the way, some 20 percent, 11 million seniors, 20 percent of seniors under Medicare--for some strange reason, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, they pick that as their delivery system of choice because of some of the reasons the gentleman from Louisiana outlined. And I wanted to ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, if that in many cases does not also include prescription drug coverage, which would obviate their need for paying a monthly premium under part B.

And I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, before we go to the other doctor from Louisiana, I think the gentleman from Georgia wanted to engage maybe in a colloquy and ask a question, Mr. Speaker.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I certainly know of what the gentleman from Georgia speaks.

I had an opportunity last year to visit in Taiwan, the country of Taiwan, our great friends. And they also, like the U.K. and Canada and some other countries, have this government-run single-payer, sometimes referred to as national health insurance. They have a very similar program, Mr. Speaker, to what Dr. Broun was just referring to. And when I was visiting in Taiwan, I made sure that I had an opportunity to visit with the Minister of Health; and I asked them to describe the system to me, and Dr. Broun has just done a great job of sort of a mirror image of what goes on in Canada. And I also had an opportunity to ask some of the Taiwanese citizens about the national health program and what they thought about it.

And, Mr. Speaker, here is just a little bit of what they said, their response. And I think my colleagues need to understand this so they can share this information, and I hope they will on both sides of the aisle, with their constituents:

They said we really like this system, this national health insurance system, here in Taiwan, which has been in place since 1997.

And I said, What's so good about it?

And, Mr. Speaker, their response was, well, kind of like what Dr. Broun said, We only have to wait about 5 minutes. The queue is very short. They really get you in quickly, and you get to be seen by a doctor, and in general on average that visit takes about 5 minutes. And, Mr. Speaker, also they said almost every time you leave the office, you have a handful of several prescriptions, which is really good, according to them.

Mr. Speaker, of course I'm a physician and I know that in my practice, and my colleagues, I'm sure, experienced the same thing, people want to ask you questions. And a lot of time that's spent you can't charge them for and you don't want to charge them for it, but you want to be able to give them time to ask questions. I said, well, how about if you want to ask the doctor a question?

And, Mr. Speaker, the response was, Well, they don't really encourage that because they have a quota of seeing a certain number of patients a day, and if they sort of drag behind and take more than 5 minutes, then their evaluation at the end of the year, Mr. Speaker, is not so good.

So it's a mess is what it is. It's an absolute mess. And the reason, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues even bring it up is because this idea, in our opinion, in our humble opinion, of having a public option competing with the private market is so that the big arm--I should say the big foot--of Federal Government can get right there one step away from taking over the entire health care system in this country; and we then, within a very short period of time, 3 to 5 years, have a system very similar to the U.K. and Canada and Taiwan.

The American people don't want that, I submit to my colleagues; and that's why we're fighting this tooth and nail and will continue to until we defeat it.

I will yield to the gentleman, and then I will yield to Mr. Fleming so he can finish up and then Dr. Cassidy as well.

I yield to Dr. Fleming for any concluding remarks. I would welcome my colleagues to remain on the floor and let's continue this discussion. We have, I think, another 20 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I want to yield to our other colleague, a member of the GOP Doctors Caucus from Louisiana, the Baton Rouge area, a gastroenterologist, our good friend, Dr. Bill Cassidy.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments and for yielding back to me. I wanted to comment on one point he made in regard to the health savings accounts and the catastrophic coverage, the low monthly premium that is affordable, especially for a lot of young people in the job market for the first time and they are paying off their student loans and God knows what other debt they have got. It is a great thing, and it encourages personal responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure my colleagues know that one of the key components of the Republican alternative is to say that companies like Safeway that have these programs where if an employee shows personal responsibility and works very hard at wellness, at keeping themselves healthy--like if they're smoking, to stop, if they're overweight, to lose weight, if they have high cholesterol, to change their diet--to do things that would keep them healthy--as an incentive to them, Mr. Speaker--and this is part of the Republican alternative-- the employer, like Safeway and other companies, is able to reduce the out-of-pocket cost to the employee; and the out-of-pocket cost could be the monthly premium or a reduction of the deductible or the copay.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, under current law--HIPAA I think is the law--you can't cut that out-of-pocket expense more than 20 percent. Well, why not? Why not? If you have employees that have skin in the game, so to speak--I guess that's certainly true in regard to the specialty of dermatology--but if they are taking personal responsibility, then we say that an employer ought to be able to increase that discount to those employees up to 40 or 50 percent. Why not? There is not one thing in H.R. 3962 in regard to personal responsibility.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana. Also, I see my colleague from Athens is still here. I think he probably, Mr. Speaker, wants to talk about something in the bill called the health choices administrator, a very, very powerful--yes, another czar created by this bill, the health choices administrator. I want to yield to Dr. Broun and let him speak to that because I think he's got a slide that he would like our colleagues to pay attention to.

I yield to Dr. Broun.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Georgia knows of what he speaks because some of my colleagues may not be old enough to recognize that poster, that caricature of the health choices administrator; but, Mr. Speaker, I want to introduce you to Boss Hogg--H-o-g-g I believe it's spelled, from Hazard County, Georgia--or H-a-w-g, I'm not sure. But anyway, I appreciate the gentleman from Augusta and Athens, my good colleague, physician colleague and classmate from the Medical College of Georgia, sharing that poster with us. And I thank him for being with us tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I realize that our time is drawing to a close. We've probably got about 5 more minutes. I'm going to be spending the rest of the time concluding tonight.

I also want to ask our colleagues to direct their attention to a few posters that I have, a few slides. This first one, of course, is--at the very outset what I wanted to emphasize was that the Republican Party, the loyal minority, if you will, does have a second opinion, and that's what we've been talking about here tonight.

I think the most important part of our second opinion--and we listened very carefully, by the way, during the August recess, during those town hall meetings when so many seniors turned out, many of them fragile, so many veterans, many of them of the Vietnam era, World War II, with just multiple health problems and disabilities. They were so concerned about getting their Medicare cut or being thrown under the bus, so to speak, when the government takes over and starts rationing. And what they told us loud and clear is patients don't want government- run health care. They don't want it. They've seen government-run Indian health care, as an example. They've seen many things that the government

has run and made a thorough mess of. And this is life and death, this is life and death. And that's why they don't trust the government to run it.

Mr. Speaker, our President, it seems to me, is not listening to the American people. In this next slide I want to point out that what they're saying and what they continue to say--in fact, this coming Thursday you're going to see--I don't know how many are going to come to Washington for what my colleagues refer to as a ``house call,'' a house call on Washington; but this is not the physicians making the house call. This is the American public, this is the patients, these are our constituents making a house call on Thursday at noon.

I'm not sure whether we are going to have the opportunity to have them gather on the east steps where they can be seen by all, and all Members coming and going as we come to the floor and debate and vote on this, the most crucial issue that's been before us, I don't know, maybe in the history of this Congress, certainly in the 7 years that I've been here. But we're going to see a lot of people coming from all across this country. Whether they're constituents from Democratic districts or Republican districts, they're going to be here, they're going to be here. My colleague is going to talk about that, I think, in this next hour.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to all my colleagues, you ought to tell your constituents to come. Get on a bus, drive up here, bring a caravan and tell the Members of Congress and the President and this administration what it is you want and what you don't want. And I know they're going to be saying no government-run health care. They're going to be saying don't cut seniors' care to pay for health reform. We can't even get an annual physical under Medicare. We don't have any catastrophic coverage. We have to pay a $900 deductible before we can even go in the hospital under Medicare. And they're going to say don't raise the deficit. I think they think that $1.4 trillion is quite enough deficit for 1 year.

And they're going to say, Mr. Speaker, give us choices, but don't give us mandates. Don't force our young sons and daughters who are straight out of college to have to pay $900 a month for health care they don't need. Allow them, health choices administrator, allow them to pick a high deductible, low monthly premium with catastrophic coverage during the years that they are taking care of themselves and taking personal responsibility.

And they're also going to say, Mr. Speaker, and I will say this in conclusion, they're going to say we want you Members of Congress, Democratic majority, Republican minority, we want bipartisan compromise. We think that you ought to go back to the table, take a clean sheet of paper, throw away these 1990 pages. We know you destroyed a lot of trees, but let's start over again with one sheet of paper and do it in a bipartisan way and think first and foremost about the American people and not the next election.

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