Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What I have offered is an important, yet straightforward, amendment. It would simply extend the period in which a physician or a medical group could participate in the Small Business Health Information Technology Financing program from 5 years to 7 years.

Mr. Chairman, the promotion and advancement of health information technology should be one aspect of the health care debate upon which most Democrats, Republicans and Independents would agree. While a large portion of the health care debate has been focused on how to extend existing coverage and figuring out who pays for it, health information technology will actually improve the underlying quality of health care, and it also will lower the overall cost by reducing overhead and medical errors. Mr. Chairman, health information technology will not only save dollars but, more importantly, save lives.

For this reason, I have long been a proponent of health information technology. Since the 109th Congress, I have introduced the Assisting Doctors to Obtain Proficient and Transmissible Health Information Technology Act, or ADOPT HIT Act, so that we can encourage medical care providers to purchase and implement health information technology with the assistance of an up to $250,000 tax deduction under section 179 of the code.

Now the underlying bill provides for Small Business Administration loan guarantees of up to 90 percent, with overall caps of $350,000 for individual physicians or $2 million for physician groups. Even more importantly, a physician or a group of physicians could defer repayment of the loan for up to 3 years. Currently, there is a 5-year window in which a physician could participate in this program.

Very simply, as I stated at the outset, my amendment will extend this window from 5 years to 7 years in order to allow physicians more time to see the benefits of HIT and make arrangements to invest in the technology and to participate in this good program.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support my amendment and show their support for health information technology and the promise that it offers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I am deeply appreciative to Chairwoman Velazquez and also to Ranking Member Graves for their support of this amendment, and I thank them for that support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, health care reform should not hurt my patients, many of which are seniors. Somewhere in this Capitol Building, behind closed doors and away from the public view, the Speaker and her liberal allies are rewriting the health care bill that they want. We don't know what is going to be included in that health care reform bill, despite the allegations of my friend Representative Blumenauer earlier this morning. But one thing is for certain; it will gut our Medicare program.

Our seniors have suffered tremendously since this recession began. Many of their 401(k)s are now 201(k)s; they have lost 50 percent of their value. Yet, my Democratic colleagues don't think the seniors have paid enough. So they are asking our seniors to foot the bill for health insurance reform by cutting $500 billion from the Medicare program. These cuts will result in seniors losing benefits under the Medicare Advantage program, such as vision, dental, hearing, and even annual checkups. These cuts will result in longer wait times and even make it harder for senior patients to find a doctor.

Mr. Speaker, I say again: health care reform should not hurt our seniors.

Mr. Speaker, my patients' health care reform should not be written behind closed doors.

When Democrats came to Congress, they pledged, led by Speaker Pelosi, the most open Congress in history; yet, now, they are planning a costly government takeover of health care in the dark of night without any public input.

Mr. Speaker, a $1 trillion, 2,000-page blended plan that will dictate how Washington will run our health care system deserves real transparency, not just empty promises about openness.

Speaker Pelosi, my patients deserve better. Your legislation is going to tell them what type of health care their family can receive and what Medicare benefits will be cut from our seniors.

Mr. Speaker, even if the Democrat majority is going to prevent minority participation, my patients deserve to know what's going on behind these closed doors in the dark of night. If this bill really is the right prescription for reform in the health care system, then it will stand up to the light of day.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you, and I thank my leadership on the Republican side for allowing me to control the time during this Special Order hour this evening. And surprise, surprise, we're going to be talking about health care reform.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, we all know that this is something that has been on the front burner for the entire 7, 8, 9 months of this 111th Congress. It has certainly been a priority of the President; the President has said so on many occasions. In fact, President Obama indicated that reforming our health care system is the number one priority of his administration. First and foremost, it is the thing that he is willing to spend political capital, whatever it takes, to have comprehensive health care reform and to have it before the end of this first year of his first term.

I certainly can see that the President, Mr. Speaker, has followed through on that pledge. I personally feel that he has made a mistake on that. I don't think that the American people believe that fixing our health care system to the extent that we literally would throw out everything that we've got and let the Federal Government essentially take over lock, stock and barrel our health care system--which accounts for something like 16 percent of our total economy--at a time when our economy is literally, figuratively in the tank. We're sitting here with a 10.5 percent unemployment rate across the country and 15 million people out of work. It has even affected my own family very, very personally, one of my four children. They say, Mr. Speaker, that when your neighbors lose their job it's a recession, but when you lose your job all of a sudden it's a depression. I know that feeling right now, and a lot of people across this country know that feeling.

When we adjourned for the August recess, the District Work Period that's traditional in this Congress, all Members go back home, they may squeeze in a little family vacation, but you've got about a month, August, it has been traditional probably for 100 years that Congress has done that. And we got an earful, did we not, Mr. Speaker, during those 4 to 5 weeks of these town hall meetings that Members had all across the country? And by a factor of 10, the attendance had increased that much.

On a typical town hall meeting in my 11th District of Georgia in the nine counties I represent--and we would always try to have our town hall meetings at a time that was most convenient to our constituents, that would be easy for them to get to, maybe at a senior center, and try not to schedule it during suppertime or during prime time TV evenings--you might get 50 people on a good night, maybe 75 people when they were really ginned up about something.

Well, in my case, in the 11th of Georgia, we were getting 750 people, 1,100, 1,500--in one instance 2,000 in some of the town hall meetings we had. And we were seeing the same thing all across the country, whether they were Republican districts or Democratic districts. Mr. Speaker, what these constituents were saying--many of them, of course, were seniors--they're most concerned about the economy, of course, because they're on a fixed income. My mom is one of those. God bless my mom, Helen Gannon Gingrey, originally from Manhattan, New York City, but lived in the South most of her life. She is 91 years old now on a fixed income, relies on Social Security and Medicare and Medicare part B and part D. She's a little disappointed she's not going to get a COLA this year. But these folks showed up at these town hall meetings telling us, We don't want to pay for some new government-run health care system from A to Z that's going to be paid for on our backs. And what they're referring to, of course, is mostly the cuts, the deep cuts that the bills in the House and the Senate propose to take out of the hide of the Medicare program.

I'm going to be joined, Mr. Speaker, by a number of my Republican colleagues. In fact, tonight the participants in our hour are going to be for the most part the doctors on the Republican side. We have a caucus, a group that we call the GOP Doctors Caucus; there are about 15 of us in that group. We have a number of M.D. physicians. We have a doctor of psychology, we have a doctor of optometry, we have a couple of dental doctors, and people that have spent before coming to Congress--and some of us now have been here 8, 10, 15 years even, but before coming here our day job, if you will, our profession was delivering health care. We were health care providers.

We keep our licenses active, I think most of us do, and we keep up with medical issues, realizing, of course, that Congress is not necessarily forever, particularly young ones who may want to go back and go back into the practice of medicine. Those doctors will be with me tonight.

When I totaled up, I asked my colleagues, well, how long did you practice? Some of them are OB/GYN doctors, some of them are orthopedic surgeons. There is a gastroenterologist. There is a family practice, a couple of doctors do family practice, just all across the spectrum. In the aggregate, we probably have about 400 years of clinical experience. That says something about our age, Mr. Speaker.

But as an example, I spent 31 years, from the day I graduated from medical school, practicing medicine either as a family doctor in a small town or while I was in training during my internship and my residency and then 26 years of being a part of an OB/GYN group and delivering over 5,000 babies in my hometown, which became my adopted hometown. My hometown is Augusta, Georgia, but Marietta, Georgia, in Cobb County is where I now live and practiced for 26 years.

Mr. Speaker, we feel we have a lot to bring to the table. It's so disappointing we get to do these things at night--as I say, my colleagues will join me and I will yield to them when they arrive-- because this is our only opportunity. It's a shame we are in the minority. God forbid that it happens to the other side one of these days, and they will understand the feeling, but when you have got that knowledge of a particular profession, you would think, wouldn't you, that the Speaker of the House, the leadership, the minority side, both Chambers, they would open their arms and say, for goodness sakes, come on in here. Come on here behind this green door where we are trying to work out how we are going to do this health reform bill and tell us a little bit how it was when you were seeing patients and practicing and what were the things that would upset people about insurance, health insurance companies and denial of coverage or not being able to get insurance because of preexisting conditions. Also, Doctor, what do you think is causing the 10 percent, 12 percent rate of inflation in the cost of health insurance premiums year after year after year? Why is that?

Could it be this? I have heard some people say that maybe it's a medical malpractice issue and doctors ordering a lot of defensive unnecessary tests because they are afraid that if they are dragged into a court of law someone would say, well, you know, we have got, plaintiff's attorney, I have got this expert witness here from California. They will say, well, looking at the chart, I see where, Doc, you didn't order a fizzle phosphate level on this patient or some other esoteric test

that nobody has ever heard of and say, ah, you know, you are guilty of malpractice. Doctors order everything, almost to the point of the patient coming to the hospital, have blood drawn one day and becomes anemic the next morning for all the testing that's done.

Again, I bring up this point, Mr. Speaker, because we should be participating. We should be doing it on a bipartisan basis. If we would, if we had done it--and it's still not too late, my colleagues. It is still not too late. It's not soup yet. We have yet to vote on these bills that have come through committee on the House side or come through the committees on the Senate side. They haven't reached the floor of either Chamber. So there is plenty of time to amend, to start over. We don't need to rush it any more than we need to rush the decision to send the troops to Afghanistan.

The President, Mr. Speaker, made it very clear, as did his advisers and this administration, well, you know, you can't, you shouldn't knee- jerk now. I know what the General said. I know he said what his needs are, but we need to think about this. We need to get it right. It's better to get it right than to do it quickly.

Well, I sure wish they would take the same attitude toward reforming one-sixth of our economy, and I think that we could do that. There is no rush.

I will tell you where there is a rush though, Mr. Speaker. There is a rush in putting people back to work and stemming this tide of unemployment and all these jobs just disappearing and now 15 million people in this country out of work. That should be the President's number one priority.

But, anyway, we are going to talk about these issues tonight, and there are a lot of thoughts that my colleagues have, as I see them begin to join me. I am going to try to go in order of those that walked on the floor.

The first person that I am going to call on is our former majority whip, minority whip, someone who has been a part of the leadership with distinction on the Republican side of the aisle, and I am speaking of the gentleman from Missouri, Roy Blunt.

I yield to Mr. Blunt.

I appreciate the gentleman's comments.

I am sure the gentleman would agree with me that it's really disingenuous to take $500 billion out of the Medicare program over the next 10 years and then, at the same time, tell seniors that, oh, by the way, next year you are going to get to pay $110 a month for your Medicare part B--I think it's $98 a month, $98.50 now--and we are going to raise it to $110 a month at the same time that we are going to cut $500 billion out of the program.

I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri and thank the gentleman for his work in leading Leader Boehner's task force on health care reform on the Republican side.

My doctor colleagues that are with me tonight were a part of that small group of about 15. We worked on coming up with meaningful reform issues in an incremental way over the last several months. I think we had a good plan that we submitted to the President, Mr. Speaker, and we are still waiting to hear back from him on that, unfortunately.

Before I yield to my good friend from Louisiana, in fact, my two good friends from Louisiana--I am going to start with Dr. Cassidy, the gastroenterologist from Baton Rouge--I just want to say one thing. I have got this one poster. Dr. Murphy may have some other posters when he arrives, but we have a second opinion.

The GOP Doctors Caucus is the second opinion. The Republican minority, 178 of us, Mr. Speaker, we have a second opinion, and that second opinion is, no government-run health care.

We listened to our constituents during the August recess, and that is what they told us loud and clear. Somebody might dig up some ABC- Washington Post poll that says people want government-run health care. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, to all of the Members on both sides of the aisle, go back and check with your constituents, like I did last night during a tele-town hall meeting, when all of the seniors were on the phone and said, Goodness gracious, Congressman, we don't need that.

I will make this point, and then yield to Dr. Cassidy. There has been so much gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands and pulling of hair over the last several months, Mr. Speaker, trying to say how are we going to pay for this thing? It is going to cost a minimum of $1 trillion. And then President Obama said, No, we are going to limit the expenditure to $900 billion, but we are going to pay for it all. I won't sign a bill that adds one dime to the deficit.

So, you figure out, well, we are going to tax here, we are going to tax there. We are going to take $500 billion out of Medicare, as the gentleman from Missouri just talked about, Medicare Advantage. We are going to gut that program. And, hey, we have come up with $900 billion and we are going to do this government-run health care. What in the world, Mr. Speaker, have we accomplished?

I want to use this analogy. It would be like a family 25 or 30 years ago scrimping and saving and cutting down on food and clothing and family vacation and college education for the children to save up enough money, and you finally save up enough money and you buy an Edsel.

My colleagues, I hope you all remember the Edsel. I am not knocking Ford Motor Company, but I think most of you are old enough to remember the Edsel. You saved up enough money, yes, you have sacrificed, and you bought an Edsel.

That is what it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, what the Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, and the leader, Leader Reid and the President and his advisers, many of them holdovers from the Clinton administration, that is what they are wanting us to do. They want us to buy an Edsel. I don't care whether it is paid for or not, it is a bad deal.

With that, I yield to my friend from Louisiana, Dr. Bill Cassidy.

Dr. Cassidy, if you will yield back to me and I will yield to our good friend from Shreveport. That, of course, is our family practice doc who spent many years, and he will tell us about that, seeing lots of patients in south Louisiana, Dr. John Fleming.

I do yield to Dr. Fleming at this time.

If the gentleman will yield for one second, Mr. Speaker, for clarification, that limitation based on that formula, Dr. Fleming, applies to the doctors, doesn't it, all the health care providers? This is not applicable to the hospitals. They are reimbursed under a different system.

Dr. Fleming, thank you for those comments. Before I yield one more time to Dr. Cassidy, just following through on this point that you are making, you may have mentioned one of the companies, Safeway and others who have testified up here--I don't know if they have been before the entire House or Senate, but certainly they have met with Members on our side of the aisle and explained some of the things that they're doing in regard to incentivize people to take care of themselves, to take better care of themselves, to realize there is a personal responsibility issue here. You pointed out in regard to smoking cessation, to not be using recreational drugs, to exercise on a regular basis. Certainly if you are overweight, particularly massively overweight, get on

a good program. In fact, some of these companies, Dr. Fleming, I think they have programs in-house where it's free, and these employees are incentivized by a reduction in their monthly premiums for health insurance, their copay, their deductible.

When we were marking up the bill, the health reform massive H.R. 3200, a 1,200-page bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives, we had an amendment on the Republican side of the aisle to actually expand this program that Safeway and others had initiated to allow even more incentives. You know, for the life of me, Mr. Speaker, I do not understand even to this day--and it's been 6 weeks ago July 30 that we passed the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee--that amendment was voted down strictly on a party-line vote. Maybe one of these days they'll explain it to me. But to actually get healthier employees so there is less absenteeism, they have a longer work life, and to incentivize them with giving them monetary breaks in the cost of their health insurance, why in the world would we not want to do that?

Yes.

I thank the gentleman for yielding back. His final point was, give them the incentive when it really matters, not wait until it's too late.

With that, I will yield back to the gentleman from Baton Rouge, Dr. Cassidy.

I appreciate the gentleman for being with us. Mr. Speaker, I can't quote the chapter and verse, but obviously the gentleman's been reading the Good Book. It's somewhere in the Old Testament. I know about those wineskins as well, and I really appreciate his analogy and his great insight on health care reform.

We've been joined by another member of the GOP Doctors Caucus, and I will yield to him momentarily. But Mr. Speaker, as we heard from our colleagues from Louisiana--north Louisiana. I'll get that straight one of these days. Shreveport is not New Orleans. But they brought out some excellent points. There was some commentary about health savings accounts. I think most of our colleagues surely understand that program now, and maybe many of them--I bet many of them--I know that was the insurance plan that a lot of the doctors in Congress had when they were in practice, and Dr. Burgess may want to talk about that in just a minute when I yield to him. But a high deductible--in other words, you don't get first-dollar coverage on your health insurance. You have more out-of-pocket expense, but your monthly premium is much lower than your standard first-dollar coverage-type policy. I mean, it might be less expensive by a factor of four, and you can fund it by putting in money. Your employer can do that. You can do it yourself. Family members can do it and get a tax break from doing that. But up to the limit of your deductible, every year you can fund these plans, and for the out-of- pocket expenses, whether it's an annual physical or Lord knows if somebody breaks their ankle playing soccer or something, you know, you pay for that out of this health savings account. If at the end of the year you haven't spent all that money, and you don't have to get into the catastrophic coverage, then that rolls over to the next year. And if you take good care of yourself and you exercise personal responsibility, which does include exercise, maybe at the end of 20 years, a young person has an account that has enjoyed the miracle of compounding, and they may have accumulated $125,000 in an account by the time they are 65 and they're eligible for Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, these are great programs, and I, personally, would like to see them expanded. In fact, I would suggest that we could make some changes in the law in regard to COBRA, where if a person loses their job through no fault of their own, that they are able to continue to stay on the company group health plan, except they have to pay all of the premium, plus 2 percent administrative costs. They can do that for 18 months while they're trying to get another job and get other coverage. Well, most people when they're out of a job, they can't afford that. They can't afford to pay those premiums. So why not let them, during that 18-month period, switch

over to one of these health savings accounts that has a high deductible and a low monthly premium? This is an incremental thing that could be done and that Members on our side of the aisle have suggested. Just as we have a number of other incremental things, like equalizing the tax treatment, setting up State-administered high-risk pools, absolutely giving government subsidies to those who are low income but not low enough to be eligible for Medicaid or some other safety net program, let people buy insurance across State lines.

I live in Georgia. Why can't I shop on the Internet for a policy that's offered in Florida, South Carolina or Alabama, my neighboring States, that fits my needs better and is more cost effective, less expensive, something that I can afford? We have done all of these things, made these suggestions. And yes, also on the Republican side, Mr. Speaker, we have a number of comprehensive bills. Some of my colleagues on the floor tonight have written and introduced comprehensive health care reform that would be cheaper than what the Democrats want to do with H.R. 3200, with the majority in the Senate, with what they want to do, the bill that Senator Reid, the majority leader, is about to put on the Senate floor. But I would say that probably my colleagues on this side of the aisle would tell you in all honesty, yeah, we have better bills and they're less expensive, but you know what, we don't even recommend that we pass those right now when the unemployment rate is over 10 percent and the economy is in the tank, people are suffering, and 15 million have lost their jobs. We might want to do it next year or the year after that. Eventually we'll do it--probably better in an incremental way--but it is not the number one priority of the Republican Party to totally reform our health care system, throw out the baby with the bath water, spend $1.5 trillion and have the economy get worse and more and more people lose their job. This is not the number one priority.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to yield to my OB/GYN colleague and classmate, someone who I am proud to serve with on the Energy and Commerce Committee, Michael Burgess, an OB/GYN doctor from the Dallas- Fort Worth area, a great Member.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding back, and I thank him for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to yield the remaining time that we have. I wish we had more. When you're having fun, it goes fast. We've been joined by my cochairman of the GOP Doctors Caucus, clinical psychologist Dr. Tim Murphy from Pennsylvania. He is my classmate and is president of our class. He is going to take the rest of the time. Dr. Murphy served with me--or I should say I served with him on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I'm proud to yield time and the concluding remarks to Dr. Tim Murphy.

Dr. Murphy, thank you so much.

I failed to mention to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that Dr. Murphy is also an author, and has written a number of books on child psychology, and he knows of what he speaks.

I think the theme tonight, Mr. Speaker, is to try to present Members who are knowledgeable on the subject matter. If we were talking about the law, if we were talking about national defense, there would be the people like Joe Sestak and Colonel John Kline on our side of the aisle. You'd listen to those folks. I hope that our colleagues will understand that we're trying to do this in a bipartisan way to help impart knowledge. Knowledge is power, and we hope and pray every day that God will give us all wisdom and that we'll make the right decisions and that we'll reform our health care in a way that doesn't destroy what really is the best health care system in the world.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time. I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, health insurance reform should not cost my patients their jobs. I have with me some disturbing numbers about our economy.

My home State of Georgia has a 10.1 percent unemployment rate. This is about 10 percent worse than when the Democrats passed their supposed ``job creating stimulus bill.'' The overall unemployment rate in the United States, as we know now, is 9.8 percent, and 15 million Americans are actively looking for work.

Now, the Democrats are asking this Congress to vote to kill more jobs. Their health care reform plan, funded through massive new taxes on employers, will result in as many as 5.5 million additional lost jobs. Don't believe me? Well, ask the 22 Democrats who signed a letter to Speaker Pelosi on July 16 telling her the Obama plan would cause an increase of many small business taxes to up to 50 percent.

Mr. Speaker, Georgia businesses cannot afford any more job-killing taxes. And I respectfully ask you, on behalf of all Georgians, please stop voting to kill jobs.

Mr. Speaker, health care reform should not cost my patients their health care. In every plan, the Democrats pay for health care reform on the backs of my patients, particularly seniors and those who get health care from their employer.

Our seniors have suffered tremendously since the recession began. However, my Democratic colleagues don't think seniors have paid enough this year, so now they are asking our seniors to foot the bill for health insurance reform by cutting Medicare by $50 billion. And despite our tough economic times, the Democrat plans would fund the health reform plan by creating massive new taxes on employers that will result in as many as 5.5 million jobs lost.

Don't believe me? Ask the 22 Democrats who signed a letter to Speaker Pelosi on July the 16th telling her that the Obama plan could increase small business taxes to 50 percent. Fifty percent, my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, health care reform should not cost my patients their health care.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague, Dr. Broun, for yielding and for controlling the time and my colleagues Dr. Roe and Dr. Fleming. And plus we just heard, Mr. Speaker, from Roy Blunt, former majority whip, long-term member of our leadership. And talking about wouldn't it be better to have fifteen 100-page bills that we could look at and study and understand and take up in a very deliberative manner rather than one 1,500-page bill, or in the case of the House bill, H.R. 3200, I think, Mr. Speaker, we're talking about maybe 1,200 pages.

But, again, you hear this over and over again, whether it's the Sunday morning talk shows or inside the beltway up here, people accuse even President Obama suggesting that we weren't bringing him any good ideas, any meaningful ideas or, you know, the party of ``no.'' Well, Dr. Broun and I and others have spoken about we'll accept that accusation if you spell it correctly, K-N-O-W.

And those bills behind him, behind my colleague from Athens, attest to that fact. And probably my colleagues have already mentioned this. But just in our GOP Doctors Caucus, there are about 12 of us, and I was just looking at a list of bills on health care that have been introduced. Probably most of them are in those binders behind Dr. Broun.

But Dr. Boozman from Arkansas has three different bills, Dr. Boustany from Louisiana--cardiothoracic surgeon--two bills; Dr. Michael Burgess, our colleague from Texas, OB-GYN, has six different bills, including a paid-for doctor fix elimination of that SGR. Dr. Broun has a great bill himself, H.R. 227; Dr. Cassidy has a bill; Dr. Fleming has H.R. 615; Dr. John Linder; Tim Murphy, our colleague from Pennsylvania, has two bills; Dr. Ron Paul from Texas has six different bills; Mike Simpson from Idaho has a bill.

Let me just say real quickly, Mr. Speaker, because I know our time is running short, but you talk about a simple bill, an easy to understand, easy-read bill, my bill, H.R. 3700, here it is, Mr. Speaker. Here it is right here. This is easy. If you drop this bill, it just kind of floats down. But it is so important because H.R. 3700, Ten Prescriptions for Healthy America--I can run through them quickly and not take up too much of my colleagues' remaining time.

Number one, no government-run health plan. I hope my Democratic colleagues on the majority side haven't forgotten what people were telling them in August despite this recent poll they came out with. I think they need to think about that. People don't want a government-run health care plan. They certainly don't want cuts in senior care, that's $500 billion out of a Medicare system and literally gutting Medicare Advantage.

No new deficit spending. And the President said, Hey, not a dime will we add to the deficit. No new taxes. No ration of care, particularly for our seniors. They don't want to get thrown under the bus just so we can spend $1.5 trillion covering an additional 15 million people. That's what, 4 percent of the population--many of whom are young and healthy and really don't want that coverage. No taxpayer coverage for illegal immigrants.

So I could go on and on with these 10, but I know we're running short of time. But it's great to have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to let the Democratic majority and their leadership, let the President know we're here, we're ready. You say your door's open, we're knocking on it. We're ready to come in and present some of these ideas.

I yield back to my friend from Athens.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of H.R. 1327, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2009. Iran's ambition to become a nuclear power is unquestionably clear, and now is the time for debilitating sanctions that will curtail this dangerous path.

Despite the assertions of Iranian leaders that they seek to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes alone, their actions and obfuscation suggest otherwise. Further, President Ahmadinejad has continued to cause international frustration through comments he made at the United Nations summit in September. His efforts also go far beyond words. On numerous occasions, Ahmadinejad has tested mid to long range missiles, and in February 2009, Iran launched a low-orbit rocket that is the necessary first step to firing an intercontinental ballistic missile. Further, intelligence sources point to Iran's ready capability of firing short, medium, and long range missiles that endanger our brave men and women deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I therefore do not support President Obama's cuts to missile defense in the FY10 National Defense Authorization Act. In fact, I believe that we are putting our friends and allies at risk, as well as the eastern shore of the United States. However, if this chamber is forced to rely so heavily on economic sanctions, we must encourage and enable American divestment from Iran to squeeze their economy to a point that will rein in their dangerous ambitions.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 3689, a bill to provide for an extension of the legislative authority of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, Inc. to establish a Vietnam Veterans Memorial visitor center.

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial visitor center will pay a further tribute to the men and women who defended our nation's freedom by serving in the United States Armed Forces during the Vietnam War. Currently, there are three other monuments that mark the sacrifice paid by these brave individuals on the National Mall. They are the Three Soldiers statue, the Vietnam Women's memorial, and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall. Just last year, there were over 3.8 million visitors to these memorials, and I believe that constructing a visitor center to facilitate their passion for our veterans is a noble cause.

The visitor center will become one of the largest war memorials in Washington, DC at 25,000 square feet. It will be built underground in front of the Lincoln Memorial and may include a movie theater, a three- dimensional battle scene, mementos left at the memorial, and a wall where pictures of slain soldiers will be displayed on their birthdays. The center will surely prove to be a fantastic tribute to the service and sacrifices made by veterans of the Vietnam War and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the brave men and women who have sacrificed 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. Creating the Vietnam Veterans Memorial visitor center is another act of appreciation for our veterans and a reminder of the superior job our troops perform for America at home and abroad. 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 urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of H. Res. 445, a resolution recognizing 100 years of military aviation and expressing continued support for the military aviators of the United States Armed Forces.

Military aviators have had a long history of defending our nation at home and abroad, as well as supplying humanitarian assistance throughout the world. From the very first military purchase of the Wright Military Flyer in 1909, we have been privileged as a nation for the service of the world's best aviators, as well as the finest platforms in which they fly. In fact, the most technologically advanced fighter jet in the world is the F-22A Raptor--proudly manufactured in the 11th District of Georgia which is my honor to represent. Throughout both World Wars, the Vietnam War, and Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom, aviators have been a critical component to successful combat from establishing air superiority to providing invaluable logistical and intelligence support to the Armed Forces.

Mr. Speaker, we must take a moment to recognize the communities around the nation that lend support to these aviators and their families. Again, I am proud to mention Marietta, Georgia, which is in my district and is home to Dobbins Air Reserve Base. The 94th Airlift Wing at Dobbins is part of the Air Force Reserve Command and provides the Department of Defense with exceptional C-130 Hercules training and combat-ready units ready to

deploy on short notice to support more than 10,000 guardsmen, reservists, and civilians at the world's largest joint air reserve base.

With our military engaged in two wars, this chamber must take the opportunity to express thanks to all of our military aviators and other troops abroad who have defended our homeland and the values and ideals we espouse as a nation. 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 100 years of military aviation is just one 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 urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 621, the Girl Scouts USA Centennial Commemorative Coin Act. The Girl Scouts of the USA is an outstanding organization dedicated to nurturing young women in the leadership skills they will undoubtedly utilize in their futures.

Founded in 1912 in Savannah, GA by Juliette Gordon, Girl Scouts of the USA has magnanimously carried out its mission to ``build girls of courage, confidence, and character, who make the world a better place.'' In fact, this organization has grown very large over its 97 year history to include 3.7 million Girl Scouts, 2.7 million girl members, and 928,000 adult members who serve as volunteers. Further, Girl Scouts has become a global organization including 236,000 troops and groups in over 90 countries.

Girl Scouts are known nationwide for their delicious cookies; however, this organization does much more than baking for the lives of young women. While various activities and youth groups teach basic skills and promote teamwork, Girl Scouting goes beyond that and encourages youth to achieve a deeper appreciation for service to others in their communities. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Girl Scouting promotes activities that lead to personal responsibility and high self-esteem. As a result, when hard decisions must be made, peer pressure can be resisted and the right choices can be made.

Madam Speaker, from the beginning of the Girl Scout program as a Daisy to the eventual completion of the program and attainment of the rank of Ambassador, Girl Scouts of the USA has long trained young women in the necessary skills that will enable them to be the future leaders of the United States. The young women in this organization complete ``journeys'' that enlighten them on social issues, promote community service, and instill in them the necessary confidence and courage to have a bright and successful future. I applaud the efforts and the accomplishments of all of our nation's Girl Scouts, and specifically those of the 11th District of Georgia, which is my privilege to represent in Congress. I urge all of my colleagues to continue to support this honorable organization and the excellent young women that it continues to produce.

Madam Speaker, the Democrats plan to pay for health care reform on the backs of my patients, many of whom are now senior citizens. Our seniors have suffered tremendously since the recession began. Their 401(k)s are now 201(k)s.

However, my Democratic colleagues don't think seniors have paid enough this year. Now they are asking our seniors to foot the bill for health insurance reform by cutting the Medicare program by $500 billion.

These cuts will result in seniors losing benefits under Medicare Advantage, programs such as vision, dental, hearing, and even annual checkups, Madam Speaker. These cuts will result in longer wait times and make it harder for senior patients to find a doctor that will see them at all. Worst of all, these cuts will ensure it will be harder to fix Medicare, which it surely will, in 7 years.

Madam Speaker, my patients must not be used to foot the bill for health care reform.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Cassidy, for yielding to me. I am glad to be with him and my other colleagues during this hour talking about this important issue of health care reform.

What Dr. Cassidy is talking about in regard to the cost, I think, is very important. And we are constantly going back and forth trying to figure out what it's going to cost and how it's going to be paid for. One thing I would like for my colleagues to understand is that even if you can pay for something--and we're talking about a lot of money here. The 800-something-billion-dollar estimate, I think, is far lower than the actual cost, which is probably more in the range of at least $1.5 trillion over 10 years. And of course we can make a case, and I'm sure my colleagues will do that, when you really score this plan that the Democratic majority, Madam Speaker, has in mind, when you calculate it, when it's fully implemented in the year 2014 through the year 2023, then you're probably talking about something that, in fact, would cost more like $2.5 trillion.

So we're talking about huge numbers here. But even if you can pay for it, even if the President can fulfill his promise of not raising taxes or not adding one dime to the deficit, and all these promises he has made, that if people like what they've got, they can keep it and won't be forced out of their current health insurance plan, the point is you're paying for something that's a bad plan.

Let's think back 25 or 30 years ago. When somebody decided that they were going to buy a new car, they figured out how to pay for that new car: Well, we're not going to go out to eat but one time a month; well, we're not going to take the family to the movies; we're going to cancel our vacation this year, and we're going to finally come up with the money, and we've got it, honey. We've got the money, and we can buy this new car, and we go out and buy an Edsel.

Now that makes a whole lot of sense, doesn't it, my colleagues? No. It doesn't make a bit of sense. It's one thing to talk about paying for it, but if we are going to pay for something, if we're going to make those kinds of sacrifices, let's pay for the right thing. I hope my colleagues understand where I'm coming from on this.

We on the Republican side of the aisle know we need to reform our health care system. We can do it. We can do it in an incremental way, and we don't have to break the bank in the process. We don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water.

I want to not take too much time, because a number of my colleagues are here with us on the floor, and I want to yield back to the gentleman from Louisiana controlling the time so that he can allow the others to talk.

We can do this. And if the President will abide by the promises that he has made, I've got a bill that I have introduced that is based on 10 principles, basically, saying no new taxes, no addition to the deficit, no government bureaucrat coming between a doctor and a patient, no rationing of care, and absolutely no denying coverage to people that have preexisting conditions and to assure that anything that we do purchase is not an Edsel and that, in fact, we do bend the cost curve and lower the cost of health insurance to every American.

This is the thing that I want to stress, and I think it's hugely important that we always keep that in mind.

I thank the gentleman for giving me an opportunity to be with him tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to ask a simple question: Where are the jobs?

When Congress was asked to rubber stamp the President's trillion dollar stimulus proposal last February, we were told that legislation was the only way to keep the national unemployment rate from rising above 8 percent and that it would create jobs. Unfortunately, as we all know, this so-called stimulus bill has failed to do either of these things.

Nearly 3 million people in the private sector have lost jobs in America since the stimulus bill was signed into law. And the national unemployment rate? 9.8 percent and climbing, the highest level in 26 years. Moreover, 15.1 million people who are unemployed are looking for work, again the largest number in history, and it includes my son, who is celebrating his 38th birthday today standing in the unemployment line.

Happy birthday, Billy.

In my home State of Georgia, my State has lost 116,000 jobs since the

stimulus was signed. I ask again, Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs?

Madam Speaker, we currently have Democratic health care reform bills under consideration. Surveyed together, our options are frightening. H.R. 3200 adds $239 billion to the deficit, it opens the door for illegal aliens to get benefits, and it could move up to a hundred million Americans off of their current health care plan and onto the government-run option.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee bill forces a government takeover of our Nation's health care system and allows the government to sell products that all Americans must buy. The Senate Finance Committee bill cuts over $400 billion from the health benefits of our seniors. It increases the average insurance premium for American families by $4,000, and it still leaves 2.5 million Americans uninsured even with its $1.8 trillion expenditure.

As bad as these bills are, what they will become once Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and their liberal allies in the Senate take them behind closed doors to craft a final product will be much, much worse. Personally, the last people I want deciding my family's health care are Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid.