Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H. Res. 167, a resolution that supports the goals and ideals of recognizing September as Campus Fire Safety Month. This recognition would both heighten awareness and encourage improvements in the overall safety on our college and university campuses.

Since January 2000, 129 people including students, parents, and children, have died in student housing fires, many of which were preventable. Currently a majority of college students live off campus, and eighty percent of these deaths have occurred in off campus housing. One recent example is more personal for me. Over the 2008 Christmas break, there was a suspected arson at the Sigma Nu fraternity house at Texas A&M University. Thankfully, no one was residing in the house at that time, but as a Sigma Nu from my days at Georgia Tech, my prayers continue to be with the chapter in Texas for the rebuilding of their residence.

Nationally, more needs to be done to improve campus-wide fire safety awareness programs so as to prevent the loss of life and property damage on college and university campuses. Many of these fatal fires have occurred in buildings where the fire safety systems have been compromised, are obsolete, or have been disabled by occupants. College administrations must continue to make students aware of the need for automatic fire alarm systems and the safety they provide to occupants and local fire departments.

Madam Speaker, fire safety education is imperative on college and university campuses across the nation. This resolution encourages administrators and municipalities to evaluate the level of fire safety being provided in both on- and off-campus student housing. It further calls upon them take the necessary steps to ensure fire safe living environments through fire safety education, installation of fire suppression and detection systems, and the development and enforcement of applicable codes relating to fire safety. I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution so that we can protect future generations of our nation's leaders from the devastating and potentially life threatening effects of campus fires.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Secretary Sebelius coming to the Capitol yesterday to meet with the Republican Study Committee. And I asked the Secretary if the President intended to keep the promises he made on health care, specifically if he will stick by his pledge not to sign a reform plan that would add a dime to the deficit; ease access to taxpayer funds for illegal immigrants; reduce Medicare benefits to our seniors; or cause anyone who is happy with the coverage they currently have to lose it.

Secretary Sebelius gave no response regarding the first three pledges but on the fourth, she said it is impossible to guarantee Americans can keep the health coverage they now have.

Mr. Speaker, this underscores how flawed this reform plan is. The vast majority of Americans are happy with the health care coverage they currently have. Certainly we need reform for those Americans for whom the system is not working, but we shouldn't force as many as a hundred million persons into a government-run health care plan. H.R. 3200 would do exactly that.

We can do better.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today with my white physician's coat because apparently if you're a doctor, this white coat is a prerequisite for a meeting at the White House. You can see by this photo that the White House felt so strongly about this that they actually handed out white coats to the doctors that they invited to their photo-op on Monday.

Mr. Speaker, on September 11 I requested a meeting with the President, responding to his statement before Congress that his door is always open to talk about health care reform. Many of my colleagues in the GOP Doctors Caucus have also asked for meetings.

Mr. Speaker, I am here on the floor today to say to the President, I am a doctor, and I, too, have a white coat. I would like a meeting with you to talk about health care reform because I, like so many doctors across this country, we support meaningful reform, just not a government takeover.

And, Mr. Speaker, I am here to say I can even bring my own white coat.

Madam Speaker, residents in our Nation's Capital have been in for a real treat over this past week. First was free T-Shirt Day at Nationals Stadium. But it got even better because yesterday, apparently, was Free White Coat Day at the White House.

Look at this photo. The administration is actually giving out the white coats.

Madam Speaker, the free white coats were for President Obama's publicity stunt with a handful of medical professionals, where he touted doctor support of his health care plan.

As a practicing physician for over 30 years, I can assure the President that the majority of physicians in this country are for health care reform, just not the government-run reform that he prefers. I wish he had taken the time to talk to the thousands of physicians who have traveled to Washington, or the millions of patients who attended town hall meetings in August to share their concerns about government- run health care, or even the 12 Republican physicians in this House who have contacted him about a meeting to share their concerns.

Madam Speaker, if these voices are not enough to get his attention, maybe my white coat will.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you, and I thank my leadership for allowing me to take this Special Order hour to discuss what has certainly become the most important issue that has been going on in this Congress over these last couple of months, and that is the issue of health care reform or, as the Democratic leadership and the President himself have rephrased that now, reform of our health insurance industry, rather than reform of our health care system. But we're going to spend a little time, Mr. Speaker, talking about where we are with regard to this and what are some of the alternatives. Particularly from our side of the aisle, we are often criticized, I think unjustly, about being the party of opposition without having any sufficient alternative ideas to present. In other words, the accusation of being ``the party of no.''

My colleague from Georgia, Mr. Speaker, is here with me on the floor today, this afternoon, and he and I laugh about that a little bit. We both agree, yeah, we are the party of ``know''--it's spelled K-N-O-W. So I would like to take this opportunity to share with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle just what it is we do know and what are some of those suggestions with regard to health care reform or, indeed, health insurance reform, that

the minority, loyal minority wants to present.

We want to make sure that our President, who said his door is wide open as he spoke to the Nation from right here, from your seat, Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, saying, Look, if anybody--whether it's the Republican Party or doctors out across the Nation or some of the many men and women who have attended these town hall meetings throughout the month of August--If you've got ideas, bring them to me. My door is always open.

Certainly we have tried to do that, Mr. Speaker, in the way of writing letters, making calls to his staff and to say to the President, We do have some good ideas, Mr. President. In fact, just today within the last hour and a half, a group of physicians from across this country--they call themselves the Million Med March group, were here out on the Mall, talking about this be very issue and bringing ideas. Yes, there were some physician Members of the House with them to speak to the group that had a symbol. It is a grassroots effort, and there are lots of ideas, Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, Mr. Majority Leader. I say to Ms. Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, and to Senator Reid, Senate majority leader, we have lots of good ideas, and we want an opportunity to be heard.

So we are going to take this next 45 minutes or so to talk about some of these ideas. My friend from Georgia is not only a colleague here and a fellow Georgian but also a fellow physician. And while I specialize, Mr. Speaker, in OB/GYN, Dr. Paul Broun from Athens, Georgia, his specialty is family medicine, primary care. You talk about somebody whose voice needs to be heard, and I hope the President will also acknowledge the fact that Dr. Broun has some great ideas. I will yield to him right now and hear some of those ideas as we colloquy and so forth.

Dr. Broun, thank you for being here, and I would like to yield to you.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Broun brings up a couple of points that I think we need to elaborate on. He mentioned two things.

He mentioned the need for electronic medical records, and he also mentioned the need for medical liability reform. Mr. Speaker, these are two things that the President has said. In fact, in his speech to the Nation a couple of weeks ago from this Chamber, he mentioned both things. Of course there is money set aside in the stimulus package, the American Recovery Act 2009, toward electronic medical records. But what physicians know which maybe a lot of Members of Congress don't know, don't have any real way of knowing, is what are the impediments to practicing medicine and to getting fully integrated in an electronic medical records system.

Even though doctors realize that it would save time, it would save money--most importantly though, it would save lives with regard to electronic medical records--it's something that's very expensive. It's like trying to--you know, your old jalopy car is falling apart, and you need a new car. Let's make that analogous to this old medical records, keeping paper records, charts where records are falling out all over the place, and you can't find things in a timely manner when the patient maybe comes in with an emergency condition.

That's the old car. The new car, of course, would be a laptop or a notebook computer that you go into the exam room or go over to the emergency room, and you've got it, and all of a sudden you just with a punch of a key, you have that entire record of the patient. Maybe the patient happens to be a patient of an associate or a partner that you're covering for. But that information is there, and it's accurate. Well, that's the new car. Unfortunately the cost of the new car, the sticker shock, a lot of times is going to keep people driving the old jalopy that's polluting the Nation and putting people at risk--in this case, patients at risk.

I have introduced a bill for 2 or 3 years in a row that would incentivize even a small country doctor. Maybe he's got a partner or she's got a partner or two. But it's a small group, and they're seeing 75, 80 patients a day each. They can't afford to come up with $30,000, $40,000 per doctor to purchase an electronic medical records system, a computer, the hardware, the software, the maintenance program. They know--they're convinced that over a period of time that it's the thing to do and that eventually it would pay for itself. But by golly, they just can't afford that front-end sticker shock.

So we are, Mr. Speaker, continuing to introduce H.R. 1087 that would give them a break under the Tax Code. No free grant necessarily, but let them write off the expense in the first year to help them be able to do what Mr. President and what the majority party and minority party and all the doctors in the House and two in the Senate fully agree that we need to do: fully integrate electronic medical records by the year 2014. Indeed, former President Bush said the same thing. So that's an area in which we have full agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I really study this. I follow this. I go to the HIMSS meetings on an annual basis and usually speak to that group, the Healthcare Information Management Systems Society. It's an organization of people that are in this industry, in this business. And I know from talking with them that we're talking about maybe $150 billion-a-year savings because you cut down on medical errors, you cut down on duplication of not ordering very, very expensive things like CAT scans and MRIs; and, even more importantly, of course, not making the mistake of prescribing a medication that would be contrary to the patient's health based on other medications that they're having or conditions that they are suffering from. So this is something where we could save a lot of money. You're talking about $120 billion a year, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe if we did that, then we wouldn't have to try to pay for this health care reform, or is it health insurance reform, by taking $500 billion out of the Medicare system and literally gutting Medicare Advantage, a choice of fully 20 percent of our seniors.

Some 10 million of the 45 million Medicare recipients choose Medicare Advantage because for them it's better. They're able to go in and have an annual physical. They're able to have a lot of screening procedures done that are covered under Medicare Advantage and that are not covered under your typical Medicare fee-for-service.

There is a follow-up program usually provided by the insurance companies that offer Medicare Advantage where within a few days of your appointment, a nurse, a nurse practitioner, or maybe even a doctor herself, Mr. Speaker, will call the patient and make sure that they got that prescription filled, that they're not having any side effects.

We keep saying we need to go to a whole new paradigm. That word has become kind of trite, but a whole new paradigm where we incentivize our health care teams to provide wellness rather than just treat illness. It is a more compassionate way to deliver health care, but it also is going to save lives and save money.

So for me to look at these bills that are out there, whether it's this 1,200-page bill that I have behind me, H.R. 3200, that has been passed by three committees in the House, mainly by the committee that I sit on, Energy and Commerce, where we're going to reform the health care system by gutting Medicare of $500 billion over 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, I heard someone, and I believe it was an official of the AARP, suggest that, well, you know, this is just a little cut in Medicare; $500 billion, with a ``b,'' is a lot of money even for Washington, D.C.

But when you look at what we spend every year on Medicare, I think in 2008 the total expenditure for Medicare was about $480 billion. Well, if you cut that $500 billion over 10 years, do the math, Mr. Speaker. It's fairly simple, my colleagues. We're not all math majors, but this is arithmetic; this is not calculus. That's something like a 13 or 14 percent cut every year. Actually, it's closer to a 10 percent cut. But it cuts Medicare Advantage about 17 percent a year.

And 10 percent is a lot. If you don't believe it, ask those who are among that group of unemployed in this country right now, those 10 percent that are without a job. For them it's 100 percent. It's not a recession; it's a depression. It's a depression mentally and physically and actually.

So we can do these things like electronic medical records, and we could save a lot of money. We don't have to gut Medicare, and we don't have to raise taxes $800 billion, $900 billion and, further, cause small businessmen and women to lay people off or not hire new employees because they just can't afford to.

And, golly, how many jobs has it been, Mr. Speaker, since we passed the economic stimulus package that was going to save the country back in February? I think we've lost 2 million jobs since then. And when we passed that bill, the unemployment rate was 7 percent, 7.5 percent; and now it's 10 percent. We have got real problems here in River City, and it's not just the need to reform our health care system. We need to put people back to work.

I heard the President of the United States say we are in a crisis; we're losing 14,000 people every day; 14,000 people are losing their health insurance. Well, Mr. Speaker, the reason for that is because they're losing their jobs. And I think, yes, they have a concern about health insurance, but they also have a great concern about feeding their children and clothing them and providing shelter for their family. And then, of course, let's make sure that they get affordable health insurance.

Again, it's all about priorities. I think that we can do this, and I think we can do it without spending $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years or $2.5 trillion over the next 15 and running up an additional at least $250 billion worth of red ink and long-term debt. We can do it by adopting electronic medical records.

We also can save, Mr. Speaker, a tremendous amount of money by medical malpractice reform, medical liability reform. The President has acknowledged it. He said it to the AMA at their annual meeting in his hometown of Chicago back in June. He said it again right from this dais 2 weeks ago when he spoke to the Nation. He has acknowledged the need. He has said, If you've got an idea on either one of these things, medical records, medical liability reform, my door is open, I want you to call me. I want you to come see me.

Well, we are trying, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, and we will continue to try because I believe the President. I take him at his word. I'm going to be patient on this. Hope springs eternal because we do. It's not just me, but Members on both sides of the aisle, not just physician Members but all Members have ideas, and they need to be listened to just as in the amendment process that we went through when we marked up H.R. 3200.

Why was every Republican amendment rejected, and why was it done almost completely along party lines? That's something the American people, Mr. Speaker, want us to get away from. They want us to cooperate. It's fine for the President to say that if you don't agree with him that you're just bickering and complaining and griping and being untruthful. There's no corner on truth by the President of the United States or the majority party. Let's all be truthful. And if we disagree, that doesn't mean one side is being, shall we say, a serial disingenuous person, rather than using more inflammatory language. No, it's a fair and honest difference of opinion. And if we come together and share those differences of opinion and pick the best of both, then we come up with, I think, a bill that the American people can accept.

Mr. Speaker, these town hall meetings, people all across this country, whether they be of the Democratic or Republican persuasion or independent voters, whether they are young or old or African American, Asian, it doesn't matter. They're United States folks. They are hard working and they want and deserve us, their Representatives, to do it in a way that helps them, that we are not constantly in gridlock up here.

So, Mr. Speaker, my opportunity today to talk about some of these things is heartfelt and it's a commitment, and I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the same way, and we are going to work toward this solution.

Now, I particularly wanted to talk about a second opinion that I have. We talk about that in a lot in medicine about getting a second opinion and how important it is. Maybe the first opinion is not the best opinion. Maybe it is, but oftentimes a second or third opinion, you need that. You need that. So the second opinion that I want to talk to my colleagues about today, Mr. Speaker, is what I call a Health Care Bill of Rights, or, to put it another way, 10 Prescriptions for a Healthy America. And this is a bill that I introduced just today, and it's H.R. 3700.

Now, H.R. 3200, here it is. It's about 1,200 pages. The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee has been a Member of this body for a long time. He still looks young and healthy to me, thank God, but he's been here a long time. And he's an attorney. That's his profession. He's not a doctor; he's a lawyer. Somebody questioned him about whether or not he'd read the whole bill, and he said, I don't know. I mean, I need two lawyers to help me read it. And he is a Member of the majority party and an attorney himself and I think has been a Member of this body for at least 35 years. That's the problem with bills like this.

Now, my colleagues, I want to hold up for you H.R. 3400. H.R. 3400 is a bill that Dr. Tom Price is the original author of, Dr. Price on our side of the aisle, an orthopedic surgeon, chairman of the Republican Study Committee. And many of us, including myself, cosponsored H.R. 3400. It's a little bill. It looks like maybe about 260 pages instead of 1,200 pages. And it does many things in a way that is economically sound, that brings down the cost of health care, that makes health care affordable and accessible so that individuals can own their policy and the marketplace works, and we don't have any government takeover in this bill.

I want to commend my colleagues to go online, get a copy of this bill, read the summary, read the Cliff Notes, whatever, and understand that this is just one of, I would say, three or four Republican bills, alternatives to H.R. 3200 or the health bill that's come out of the Senate, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that was chaired by Senator Dodd, Chris Dodd, in the absence of Senator Kennedy while he was struggling with his illness. But this is a good bill, and I think the President needs to look at it and needs to consider it and keep that door wide open.

But what I am going to talk about in regard to H.R. 3700 is it's really a statement of principles. But it's a bill, and as I say, we just introduced it today. Mr. Speaker, I have it on a little card almost like a contract. Well, we call it 10 Prescriptions for a Healthy America or the Health Care Bill of Rights, similar to the Contract with America of maybe 15 years ago, that people can put in their front pocket and they can pull it out and they can look at it. But I'm going to take a little time to go through some of the principles in this bill because I think this is important. I think this is a guideline for whatever we ultimately adopt. And let's go through some of these posters, Mr. Speaker.

The number one principle of this health care bill of rights is to say this, and it does in the bill:

There will be no government-run health care plan.

That is what the American people are saying. They do not want a Canadian-style system or a U.K. system, or any system where the Federal Government interferes and makes decisions and tells the doctor and the patient that you are going to have to do it this way, my way or the highway. We don't want that. The American people don't want that, and they said that loud and clear during the August recess.

So number one in this Health Care Bill of Rights is no government-run health care system.

The second item in the Bill of Rights is no cuts to Medicare. Mr. Speaker, I have already talked about that in the $500 billion, those Medicare cuts. It is something like a $10 billion cut to the hospice program. I think we all know what the hospice program is. In the last weeks, days, months of people's lives, we are going to cut that program to provide access to health care for 5 percent of the population, many of whom prefer not to have health insurance and we are going to end up forcing them to? No cuts to Medicare. Medicare needs to be shored up. It needs to be improved.

Today, unless you are in a Medicare Advantage program, you cannot go and get an annual physical examination. You can when you first turn 65 and get on Medicare, that is called an entry-level physical exam. But how about when you are 68 or 72? You absolutely on an annual basis need a physical examination as you age to make sure that nothing has happened. And yet a lot of seniors don't go and get a physical because it is not paid for, and they are on a fixed income. For goodness sake, this year there is no increase in COLA for Social Security. How are they going to pay for these things? Yet, instead of solving that problem and putting more into Medicare, we are going to take $500 billion out of it. It makes no sense.

So under this Health Care Bill of Rights, my bill, H.R. 3700, no cuts to Medicare. And no new deficit spending.

You know, the President said, Mr. Speaker, and he said it very clearly, I will not sign any bill that adds one dime to the deficit. I think I am quoting him word for word. Well, Mr. President, you will like my bill because it says no new deficit spending. We can do this without any additional deficit spending. My colleagues, look at H.R. 3400 and you will see, it can be done without adding to the debt and spending into red ink.

Colleagues, number four is a good one and it is important to people across this country. Number four on the Health Care Bill of Rights, no new taxes. No new taxes. These bills, whether we are talking about H.R. 3200, the House bill, or the bill that is coming through the Senate, there are new taxes all over the place. The Joint Commission on Taxation has attested to that. That is a bipartisan group. The Congressional Budget Office has attested to that. Again, a creation of the Congress, they work for us, and their director is chosen by the majority party, indeed, by the Speaker of the House.

And you ask the question: Are there new taxes in here? Absolutely. There is going to be a tax on every insurance policy. The Senate bill is coming along that is being marked up this week and maybe next week as well, taxes some health insurance policies 40 percent. You put a 40 percent excise tax, Mr. Speaker, on these insurance policies, who pays that? I guarantee you the

premiums go up, and John Q. Citizen, who is not making $250,000 a year--the President promised when he was campaigning when he became President, if he became President, and of course he did, that nobody making less than $250,000 a year would see any increase in their taxes, not one dime, just like he said there would be not one dime of deficit spending for this health care, oh, excuse me, health insurance reform. So no new taxes. H.R. 3400, no new taxes.

The fifth thing on the group of ten, no rationing of health care. This may be one of the biggest concerns that our citizens have. As a former physician, OB/GYN doctor for 26 years, I can assure you that people worry about this. If we had this public plan, this public option, the government competing with the private marketplace, as H.R. 3200 calls for--and the Speaker and all three of the chairmen of the committees of jurisdiction, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Miller, they all want a strong government hand to really ultimately squeeze out the private marketplace. What happens is, and this is not just Phil Gingrey predicting this, Mr. Speaker, this is the Lewin Group, a well-respected group which says that within 3 to 4 years, probably 100 million people who today get their health insurance through their employer and they are happy with it, they will end up losing that because the employer will be in a position that it will be cheaper for them to just pay a fine and let them go into the government plan.

Well, so much for the President's promise that if you like what you have, you can keep it. Until you can't. You know, this is something that I think we need to hold the President's feet to the fire and say, look, let's promise the American people that they truly can keep what they have if they like it.

So you get the situation where everybody is on the government plan, well, that's when you get to the business of rationing when maybe the party in power has made a pledge of no new taxes, they are not going to raise taxes, and yet you have all these additional people, millions, maybe 100 million that have morphed off of their employer plan into the government plan, and we can't pay for all of them. So what are you going to do? You are going to have to raise taxes and cut reimbursement to the providers, to our rural hospitals who have a disproportionate share of the poor that they are trying to treat and people who can't pay, so you are going to lower reimbursement to them.

And finally, you are going to say to the patient, you know what, we would love to be able to fix your hip, but you are 85 years old and we just can't afford it. You are just going to have to take a little Advil or aspirin. And by the way, we will pay for a walker and an alarm that you can wear on your belt if you happen to fall. But we will not fix your hip or replace your knee. That happens in other countries that have single payer, government-run systems. That will happen here unless my bill passes which says no rationing of health care.

Number six on the Health Care Bill of Rights, no employer or individual mandate to provide or have health insurance.

Now look, colleagues, Mr. Speaker, of course I want employers to continue to provide that health insurance benefit for their employees. I think that is something that people have come over the last 75 years in this country to expect. A decent job includes health care coverage for you and hopefully your family, and that your employer pays the bigger percentage of that, and the amount you have to pay is a smaller amount. And I want employers to continue to do that and provide that benefit and not whittle away at how much they pay versus how much the employee has to pay.

I would encourage every person in this country, every adult who is working, whether they are 21 years old or 72 years old, to have health insurance. I think it is important especially to have catastrophic coverage, even if you think you are 10 feet tall and bulletproof and you are 26 years old and you don't smoke or drink alcohol and exercise on a regular basis, nobody in your family has ever suffered from cancer or heart disease, and your grandparents and great-grandparents lived to be 100 years old, and you think, I don't need this. I can't afford it, for one thing. I am paying for a car and rent on an apartment. I have $125,000 in student loans with interest that I am trying to pay off. I can't afford this.

And then you convince them, yes, but what if you get hit by a truck? What if you are the person who comes down with insulin-dependent diabetes or high blood pressure or heart disease and you are not covered? So at least purchase a health care insurance policy that gives you catastrophic coverage in the event of a catastrophe.

In the halls of the hospitals I worked in, we used to refer to those as ``horrendaplasties,'' when something horrible happens to a person, and it could, any motor vehicle accident. Have that catastrophic coverage. Get an insurance policy where you have a high deductible and maybe you have to pay $3,000 or $4,000 out of your own pocket before insurance kicks in, but we want to encourage people to at least do that.

But this bill, the big fat one, H.R. 3200, actually allows the government to say, no, that is not good enough. You have a mandate. You have to have health insurance, but this high deductible, low premium that you can afford, that gives you that catastrophic coverage, that doesn't count. We are not going to count that as health insurance. And so we are going to mandate that you have coverage and we are going to mandate that you have high first dollar and very high premium that you can't afford, and you are probably not eligible for Medicaid or some safety net program or a government subsidy. And yet we are going to hold a gun to these people's head, Mr. Speaker, and say you have to have health insurance, and if you don't, the IRS is going to fine you $25,000 and you could be charged with a misdemeanor and spend a year in jail.

My colleagues, is that America? I mean, you know, I try to always keep a copy of the Constitution in my pocket, and sure enough, here it is, the Constitution of the United States. If you go to the glossary, you are not going to find anything in here about mandatory health care. No. You talk about the Bill of Rights and freedom of speech and press and religion, but there is nothing in here about forcing people in this country against their will, even though it is good public policy for them to have health insurance, and we would encourage and try to provide, as we do in H.R. 3400, the 250-page bill, to help them be able to get an affordable policy, but to force them to buy something they can't afford, no.

So number 6 in the Health Care Bill of Rights, no individual or employer mandate. Just encourage them and help them to be able to do that.

Number 7, and this is what created all of the controversy, Mr. Speaker, when the President was right here at the dais giving yet again a fantastic speech, as he always does, and talked about, made the comment that in his health care reform plan, that no illegal immigrant would be eligible for any government subsidy, and then the comment was made, and you know the rest of the story.

But truth in fact is, and that's the reason for number 7, no taxpayer funded coverage for illegal immigrants in my bill, H.R. 3700. No taxpayer funded coverage for illegal immigrants.

I think the President realized though, after he made that speech here a couple of weeks ago, and maybe his crackerjack staff told him, said, Mr. President, you know, there is this problem in the bill where it doesn't make people verify who they are. You know, they don't have to show a photo ID or a secure Social Security number to attest that truly they are here in this country legally. And if you don't require that, as we do, by the way, Mr. Speaker, in other safety-net programs like Medicaid and like the SCHIP program, the Children's Health Insurance Program, if we don't require that in this new reform bill, you are going to have--let me tell you, that's just--you might as well point a strong electromagnet to the southern border and say, you know, Come on, hey, have we get a deal for you. We've got a great education system. We've got a great health care system, the best in the world and, you know, you too can enjoy that.

No, the American people don't want it. I don't want it, nobody in this

Chamber should want it. So no taxpayer-funded coverage for illegal immigrants. Number 7. Now, the last three items in this Health Care Bill of Rights, we've spent a little time here, Mr. Speaker, talking about what my bill would prohibit in any health care or health insurance reform. Now, I want to talk about the next three items, 8, 9 and 10, which would assure what we have in any health care reform bill or health insurance reform.

And Number 8, and the President has been very firm on this, and I agree with him completely. The Democratic majority has been very firm on this, and I agree with them completely. Preexisting condition coverage. Insurance companies would not be allowed to deny coverage to people because of preexisting conditions. And that denial can take two shapes, Mr. Speaker. It can be an outright denial of saying, No, I'm sorry, you know, you've got high blood pressure or you've got diabetes or you've had a coronary bypass and we're not going to offer you insurance. You're just not insurable. You're too big a risk for us.

Or they could do it another way and say, oh, yeah, heck yeah, we'll cover you. We're a great, good company and want to get some good PR out of this. But oh, by the way, your premium's going to be four times standard rates.

Well, that's pretty much a denial too. People can't afford that, so Number 8 is very important. Preexisting condition coverage. You know, you think about somebody that--I talked about young people and wanting to encourage them to have health insurance. Let's say you are 19 years old, straight out of high school and have your first job, or 25 years old, right out of college or graduate school, have your first job, and you're one of those people I described that's in good health and you think, gee, you know, I'd rather just kind of go bare and pay my own way. And I'll put money aside each month in an escrow account. I'll have a special savings account, and I'll save this money, and when I need it--hopefully I won't. Maybe I'll have an annual physical and spend $175. But I'm not going to get sick because I'm taking care of myself. I'm not like a lot of people who show no personal responsibility in regard to their own health.

And so you know, they really don't want to spend $400, $500, $600 a month paying a premium when they're not using it. But they do it anyway. They do it anyway. And they work for a company for 20 years, and for the first 15 they're paying that same premium that everybody else pays. They have to because of the Federal law, called HIPPA, and they're paying those premiums but yet the insurance company is not having to pay out any claims for them.

But during that time, you know, all of a sudden they get a little skin cancer that has to be removed. Or maybe they have a little chest pain and it turns out they've got some coronary blockage or their blood pressure goes up. And you know, here they've been paying, and then all of a sudden we get an economy like we have today and they lose their job, and then they try to get insurance after COBRA runs out, if they're even eligible--they have to work for a company that has more than 20 employees to be eligible for COBRA. And let's say that runs out. And then they're out of luck. Mr. Speaker, they can't get coverage.

Well, that's not fair. That's absolutely unfair. And I would say, under Number 8, to the insurance companies, you need to cover that person for the rest of their life, or at least until they go on Medicare, and you need to cover them at standard rates because you have made a really good profit off of them and now, when they need you, you should not be allowed to abandon them. These are the kind of things that we can agree on. And I think we do. And quite honestly, Mr. Speaker, I think the insurance industry, the health insurance industry, they're ready to do that. They have already made commitments and they're ready to do that. And these are some of the things that we can do. And that's Number 8 in my Health Care Bill of Rights.

The ninth thing, we've already talked about a little bit, medical liability reform. You know, there are a lot of different ideas out there, not just mine, although I've introduced a bill every year since I've been here for the last 7 years, calling on certain specific things. I won't get into the details today, Mr. Speaker, but it's called the Health Act. And it's a fair bill that guarantees that patients that get injured by a health care provider or hospital where they're practicing below the standard of care for that community, they've just messed up, that patients do not lose their right to a redress of their grievances to be compensated for their lost wages and for any health care that they need for the rest of their lives, quite honestly. In some cases you're talking about a compensation or a judgment in the millions of dollars.

So we don't deny that in wanting liability reform. What we try to do is cut down on frivolous lawsuits so that doctors are not spending so much time worrying about this and running up the cost of health care for everybody else by ordering needless, cover-your-back tests that, in some cases, could be downright detrimental to the health of the patient. And of course, so many doctors in high-risk specialties, at a fairly young age, before they turn 50, they give it up. They stop delivering babies. They won't go to the emergency room. So surely the President means what he says when at least he promises pilot projects on medical liability reform.

Please, Mr. President, please, it could save $120 billion a year. You would not have to tax people, the small business men and women $800 billion and cause us to lose more jobs, and you would not have to gut Medicare if you'll do these things. And Number 10. And this is the last in the list of the 10 prescriptions for a healthy America, called the Health Care Bill of Rights, H.R. 3700, the promise to reduce health care cost. Why should we do anything if it doesn't bring down the cost? And so far, Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office is just saying repeatedly, it doesn't.

What this bill, H.R. 3200, no matter how you slice it and dice it and combine it with the one out of the Ways and Means Committee and the one that came through the Education and Labor Committee and you shake it all around and let it come through the Rules Committee; it doesn't bring down the cost. In fact, it bends the curve in the wrong direction. So my bill would assure that we reduce health care cost. H.R. 3400 does that. Senator Dr. Tom Coburn's bill that he cosponsored with Representative Paul Ryan from Wisconsin, our ranking member on the Budget Committee here in the House--that bill brings down the cost of health care.

So that's my pledge. That's the bill that I wanted to talk about today to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that they will look at it. You know, I've got a--I carry this around in my pocket. And colleagues, you can go to gingrey.house.gov and look for the Health Care Bill of Rights or 10 Prescriptions for a Healthy America. That's what we've talked about here over this last hour, almost an hour. And I commend it to my colleagues, and I welcome their ideas. My door's open, just as the President said his door's open and he welcomes our ideas. It's a sharing. It's a bipartisan thing. Yes, let's stop bickering and let's get the job done. I thank you for the time, Mr. Speaker, and I will now yield back.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, The Washington Post published an editorial criticizing SEC Chairman Julius Genachowski's net neutrality proposal. This proposal would call for the Federal Government to introduce unnecessary regulation that would inherently slow down the Internet for all users.

Unfortunately, H.R. 3458, the so-called Internet Freedom Preservation Act, mirrors Chairman Genachowski's proposal and is currently pending in the House.

Today, the Internet runs smoothly and networks balance your email, music downloads, and streaming video because the Internet runs without government interference or regulation. Yet, net neutrality would destroy this model of service that consumers have come to expect and that already works--and works well.

Madam Speaker, in this case, The Washington Post got it right. Implementing net neutrality will stifle the very technological growth we need to continue to stay competitive in the global marketplace, and it needs to be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Naval Air Station Atlanta. Since April of 1959, NAS Atlanta, located close to my home in Marietta, Georgia, has played a critical role in providing for our Nation's defense.

Over the past 50 years, NAS Atlanta has seen its mission change from training, to fleet logistics, to housing Navy Attack Squadrons and Carrier Early Airborne Warning Squadrons. In the 1990s, the Marines joined NAS Atlanta with MAG-42 and Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 142.

Units from NAS Atlanta have been instrumental to our causes in the war on drugs and global war on terror, as well as to the relief efforts following Hurricane Katrina. NAS Atlanta and those who have served there have proven an invaluable asset to the United States.

This Saturday, NAS Atlanta's distinguished history will come to a close as the base will officially become the home of the Georgia National Guard, as mandated by the BRAC round.

To all the personnel who are and have been stationed at NAS Atlanta: thank you for a job well done and for your service to our community. You will be missed.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the gentlelady from Minnesota for carrying this hour of important information in regard to the health care reform proposal, H.R. 3200, and also my good friend and colleague, physician colleague from the great State of Louisiana, Dr. John Fleming.

As the gentlelady has said, before coming to Congress from the State of Georgia, I spent something like 32 years practicing medicine; 26 as an OB/GYN physician. The physician Members in this body--and there are about 17 of us; 5 on the Democratic side, 12 on the Republican side-- probably have over 400 years of clinical experience combined in regard to health care.

We bring to this issue, I think, a fund of knowledge that needs to be listened to--and listened very carefully to. Not that we're necessarily the experts on the last word, but I think we are a very important word.

As Representative Bachmann was saying, the President right here, Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, as he spoke to the Nation about the need for health care reform and he had a joint session here--the Senate, the House of Representatives, his Cabinet, the Supreme Court Justices--the President was talking about promises that he had made to the Nation in regard to health care reform.

You remember, Mr. Speaker, that was when one of the Members on our side of the aisle in a moment of extreme passion and emotion suggested that the President was guilty of serial disingenuity.

But as we look at the speech and we look at the things that the President said about health care reform and you go through it almost line by line, certainly there are some statements that need to be questioned. And we will continue to question, and I think the American people will continue to question, Mr. Speaker. And they deserve answers. They deserve straightforward and accurate answers.

I have a little chart, Mr. Speaker, that I want my colleagues on both sides of the aisle this afternoon to pay close attention to. It's called the Obama Health Care Test. This is just sort of an abstract, really, of a much larger test. But I think it gives the Members and their constituents an idea of where this test is going and what the likely grade would be.

The President said, ``The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.'' Well, quite honestly, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3200, that bill that has passed three committees of this body, including the committee that I serve on, Energy and Commerce, well, H.R. 3200 fails in regard to the President's pledge that the reforms would not apply to those who are here illegally because in this bill, while it says no one in this country illegally will be eligible for any government subsidies in this health reform plan to help them purchase health insurance, it takes out the provision that currently exists in law that says if you are going to be a beneficiary of a safety net program such as Medicaid in the 50 States, or the CHIP program, the Children's Health Insurance Program--a great program, but it's heavily federally funded with taxpayer dollars--in those programs you have to show verification: a Social Security card, a verifiable number; in some cases in some States, a photo identification. All of that is taken out in H.R. 3200.

So, quite honestly, that first statement the President makes, H.R. 3200 fails on that pledge.

The second quote I would like to have my colleagues be aware of, the President said--and this, again, is in his speech 2 week ago: ``Nothing in the plan requires you to change what you have.''

H.R. 3200 fails miserably in regard to the President's pledge of: if you like what you have, you can keep it. That certainly is not true for those 10 million of our Medicare recipients--that's 25 percent, by the way, of everybody that's on Medicare that gets their coverage through Medicare Advantage. And they pick Medicare Advantage because it covers so much more. And I think Dr. Fleming spoke about that.

Under traditional fee-for-service Medicare, you can't even, Mr. Speaker, go to the doctor for a routine annual physical and have it paid for, other than that first entry level when you turn 65. But under Medicare Advantage, certainly you do; and you can on an annual basis. You don't have to be sick to be seen.

You can get coverage for things like hearing aids, and you have the opportunity when you get your prescriptions filled that a nurse will call and make sure that you're taking those medications.

So wellness and prevention, two aspects of improving health care in this country that the President, the Democratic majority has continued to stress. That is a huge part of Medicare Advantage. That's why we created Medicare Advantage and that's why 25 percent of our seniors choose that as the delivery system that they get.

In this bill, to help pay for it, $500 billion, Mr. Speaker, $500 billion, is ripped out of the Medicare system, and $170 billion for Medicare Advantage. That is a 17 percent cut per year over the next 10 years, each and every year, cutting that program by 17 percent.

It's estimated now by the Congressional Budget Office that at least 3 million people--that's 30 percent of those who are on Medicare Advantage--will lose that coverage because of the plan to pay for this massive new government takeover of our health care system.

Again, going back to the test, nothing in the plan requires you to change what you have. That is just absolutely, Mr. Speaker, not true. H.R. 3200 fails on that account.

I'm going to skip down to the last question on my little mini-test in the interest of time. The President says, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficit. I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficit.

Well, again, Mr. Speaker, let's go back to what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says--and the director, Mr. Elmendorf, is chosen by the Speaker of the House and by the Democratic leadership. And he says this bill is not fully paid for. In fact, $260 billion are not paid for. That's a little bit more, Mr. Speaker, than one thin dime, isn't it, $260 billion?

So I could go on and on and on. But the Obama health care test, quite honestly--my colleagues may have trouble seeing this--but we have a grade in the left-hand corner, and it's a big old fat F.

The American people understand that, and the American people are not happy with it. They're not happy with this idea also of a public option that they know and that we on this side of the aisle know is going to lead to a government takeover.

I'm going to close out, Mr. Speaker, so I can yield the time back to the gentlelady from Minnesota so she can yield to other speakers. But I want to close out with this: in our committee yesterday, as we continued to mark up some amendments to H.R. 3200, one of the most powerful members of that committee on the Democratic majority side made this statement: ``When there is a marked failure in this country, the government must step in.''

Now let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. One of the most powerful members of the most powerful committees drafting and writing this health care legislation made this statement: ``When there is a marked failure, the government must step in.'' I guess just like they did with Government Motors, just like they did with AIG, just like they want to do now with health care.

That's not the American way. And I don't think the American people want that. We should have the freedom under our Constitution to succeed or fail and not have the government come in and take over. That sounds like some other country that, thank God, I was not born and raised in.

I yield back to the gentlelady from Minnesota for a question from the gentleman from Iowa.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I just want to refer back to the other night and the President's speech and the issue of whether or not illegal immigrants were covered. That was the point at which my good friend, Mr. Wilson, Joe Wilson from South Carolina, made his comment, and it kind of upset the applecart a little bit, if you will.

But, Mr. Speaker, after the speech was over with and the President was back at the White House, I don't know, possibly talking with Rahm Emanuel or David Axelrod and they went through the speech, went through H.R. 3200 and said, Mr. President, the gentleman from South Carolina was a little bit on the rude side, but by golly, maybe he was a little bit on the right side as well and we need to do something about this verification, because if we don't, then illegal immigrants are going to be able to take advantage of our hardworking taxpayers across this country.

And so the President in subsequent speeches, and on Sunday morning he was on a number of shows and he is continuing to give speeches, he made the comment, you know, we absolutely do need a verification system very similar to what we currently have with our safety net programs that I referenced earlier, Medicaid and the SCHIP program.

So I think the President is certainly paying attention and is maybe getting a little more careful about understanding and reading those-- how many pages are in the bill, 1,200?

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Ros- Lehtinen for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of H. Res. 733, expressing condolences to the people and the Government of the Republic of China, Taiwan, in the aftermath of Typhoon Morakot, which struck the central and southern region of the island on August 8, 2009.

Additionally, I want to thank Chairman Berman, Representative Watson, Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen, and the House Foreign Affairs Committee for helping to bring this resolution to the floor today. As one of the four co-Chairs of the Taiwan Caucus, I want to express my gratitude to my fellow co-Chairs, Representatives Shelley Berkley, Lincoln Diaz- Balart, and Robert Wexler, as well as RSC Chairman Tom Price for helping to marshal support for this resolution.

Natural disasters like Typhoon Morakot are never respectful of persons or nations. Their devastation knows no political boundaries nor social divisions. In fact, as we debate this resolution, my mind cannot help but turn to my own home State of Georgia where historic rains and flooding have claimed the lives of 10, at the latest count, and caused hundreds of millions of dollars of damage while ravaging many communities in my district; in fact, four counties. So, Mr. Speaker, I rise not only with a sympathetic heart, but also with an empathetic heart for the people of Taiwan as they move forward after Typhoon Morakot caused flooding and mudslides that have claimed the lives of over 600,000 people and created billions of dollars of damage.

While this resolution expresses condolences to the victims' families and mourns the loss of life, it also honors our Nation's deep ties and dedication to Taiwan. This dedication was reflected in the relief efforts provided by the U.S. military through helicopter and airlift support.

Mr. Speaker, this past March, this House spoke in one voice with the passage of H. Con. Res. 55 that marked the 30th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act. It reinforced our Nation's deep-seated commitment to Taiwan and the defense of Taiwan.

This resolution is another demonstration of that commitment and an expression of our sorrow for Taiwan's loss. My thoughts and prayers continue to go out to the people of Taiwan, as well as to the people of my home State as these waters begin to recede and its families and communities begin to put their lives back together.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support and sympathy for the people of Georgia, including so many of my constituents who have been affected by the devastating floods across the Southeast. From flooded basements to homes, businesses and schools that are completely under water, the damage is acute, an estimated $250 million.

Mr. Speaker, most tragically the flooding in Georgia has claimed nine lives, including two in the counties that I represent, little 2-year- old Preston Slade Crawford from Carroll County and 15-year-old Nick Osley from Chattooga County. My thoughts and prayers are with their families at this incredibly difficult time.

I do want to take a moment to commend the first responders and the State officials who have been working around the clock since the flooding began. We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude for their efforts.

I will continue to work with Governor Perdue and with the State and local officials to ensure that they are getting the resources they need to help recover from these floods. My thoughts and prayers remain with all of those affected by the floods as we look forward to recovery.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Speaker. I hope my patients don't hold it against me as well.

But actually I just wanted for you to yield me time so I could ask our good friend from North Carolina, Ms. Foxx, a question in regard to this. You are right, she is a Member of our side of the aisle on the Rules Committee, does a great job of handling rules for us, and apparently does all of the education bills that come on the Floor.

There was some discussion, Representative Foxx, about how many jobs, in this time of losing jobs--they keep saying 14,000 people a day lose their health insurance; we know why, because they are losing their jobs--but in this particular instance, as far as that private sector, can you give us a number on that?

Well, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding, and that essentially is the amendment that we proposed. There were a number of others. But on that particular one, early on, back on July 30 I believe is when we were marking up into the wee hours of the night, and the big concern was with when you look at the chart, this massive bureaucracy that was created between the patient here and the provider, there were all these government bureaucrats who had the authority under this bill, H.R. 3200.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is right. I was able to hold that up when we were marking up the bill in Energy and Commerce, and, of course, C-SPAN cameras were there and showed the morass of bureaucrats on this in a chart depiction. But I think people got it, Mr. Speaker. They could see.

Absolutely.

Well, what I am going to say, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman asked that question. I have answered that. If you asked every doctor and if you asked every patient, the answer would be, We don't want some government bureaucrat coming in this exam room telling either one of us what to do. This is a sacred relationship, really.

They voted it down, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman asked a specific question. They voted a lot of great amendments down.

Mr. Speaker, there was maybe one or two exceptions in the vote. They have 36 members on the Energy and Commerce Committee. I say ``they,'' Mr. Speaker. The majority party. They were assigned to that committee by the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi. And we have 23 Republicans. So it is 36-23.

Absolutely it did, as did all the other amendments. You might say, Mr. Speaker, that the deck is pretty well stacked against us.

Mr. Speaker, the question, does that give you any sense of comfort that bureaucrats won't come between the doctor and his or her patient, it gives you total discomfort, is the answer to that question. Otherwise, we would have had almost a preponderance of members, both Republicans and Democrats, voting in favor of that amendment. Surely some, more than one or two, felt that way, but they didn't vote that way.

Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take some time from the gentleman from Missouri, and then I will be glad to yield back to him so he can let our family practitioner, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming, also speak on this issue.

But yes, this sustainable growth rate formula--and it's very complicated. I've had six courses of calculus at Georgia Tech, and I still can't quite figure out how they come up with these numbers--is flawed, and everybody knows it's flawed and needs to be done away with. You can't fix something so badly flawed. For the last, I would say, 5, 6 years when they calculated that formula, the doctors end up taking a cut in something that already is underpaying them. It doesn't cover their basic expenses. It's calculated far differently from the way hospitals are reimbursed.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is right in his comment, that every year we're patching it. And that's no way to run a bank. That's no way to do business. You patch it, and yet then the next year you take the cut for that year plus the patch that you removed. So you essentially have 5 percent for the patch and 5 percent for the current year. In fact, on January 1, 2010, the doctors, if we don't do something about it, will take a 20 percent cut.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman asked me the question if I had heard about that. And absolutely I have heard about it. It's amazing, isn't it, that what we hear from the leadership in the majority party and from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is that everybody that is questioning H.R. 3200, or the bill that came out of the Health Committee in the Senate and has great concerns about whether illegal immigrants are going to be covered, whether the general taxpayer, whether they are pro-life or pro-choice, is going to have to pay for subsidies that low-income people get through the exchange if they choose a plan, either a government plan or a private plan, that offers abortion services. It's in the bill. I mean, it's clear language. And yet we're just getting all wee-wee'd up, according to certain sources, because we don't understand. It's like the only people that are telling the truth are the White House and the Democratic majority party. Everybody else is lying. It's absolutely insulting.

Mr. Speaker, that's why the people in the town hall meetings were so wee-wee'd up. They're tired of being insulted by these people that have all the power, all the power in the White House and both Chambers of Congress.

If the gentleman would yield for just a second on that point.

The gentleman from Missouri, thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to my good friend from Iowa because he's absolutely right. The President did make the comment of, hey, you know, this problem will go away. All we have to do is grant amnesty to 12 million illegals, and then we won't have this problem, and they'll all be eligible for government subsidies under the government plan or under the exchange or whatever.

He did say, Mr. Speaker, emphatically that there should be a provision in H.R. 3200--if that happened to be the bill, and I hope it won't be. He said that he agreed that there ought to be an absolute provision that specifically states that before people are eligible for any of these government subsidies they have to have proof of their legality, not citizenship, but proof that they're in this country legally. That proof, he said, speaks for itself. I'm paraphrasing what the President said, but he was pretty emphatic.

I yield.

If the gentleman would yield, don't take that poster down just yet.

If you'll notice, Mr. Speaker, on that poster, it is dated August 25, 2009. In the Energy and Commerce Committee, H.R. 3200 passed committee on July 30, 2009. So this is an opinion rendered by CRS almost a month after that bill passed committee.

If the gentleman would yield for a clarification.

On that very point that Dr. Fleming made, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the amendment:

Back in July, during that 2 or 3 days of markup, that amendment was offered by my colleague from Georgia, the ranking member with 17 years' experience on the Health Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce. He offered that very same amendment, and it was rejected on party line.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you, and I thank the minority leader, John Boehner of Ohio; the minority whip, Eric Cantor of Virginia; and the minority conference chairman, Mike Pence from Indiana--our leadership--for giving me the opportunity to take this hour this afternoon as the designee of the Republican Party, the minority party.

Like my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Democratic majority that you've just heard from concerning health care reform, my hour also will be spent discussing this topic of tremendous importance to the American people. Certainly, we were home during the August recess for almost 5\1/2\ weeks, and I think, for each and every Member on both sides of the aisle, if they didn't know health care was the number one issue when they went home to their districts, they found out pretty quickly. I think, Mr. Speaker, you would agree with me on that. Certainly, it was all over the television news--cable news and the networks.

So we are in a time of this 111th Congress where we're dealing with something that is just as important as almost anything that you can think of. There are other issues, of course, that are on people's minds, issues which are equally as concerning. One of those, Mr. Speaker, is the economy. The economy has been pretty rough, and we all know it. For the last year and a half, we've been in a pretty deep recession, and it seems like no matter what we do that we're not able to pull ourselves out of that ditch.

So I would say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, while the health

care reform issue is important--and it is important that we lower the cost of health insurance so that everybody in this country can have affordable, accessible health insurance plans and can have the opportunity to see physicians when they need to--there are other great concerns. One of those great concerns, of course, is the economy.

I looked at some polls earlier today, and when 1,000 people were asked to list in the order of their own priorities what their greatest concerns were, 44 percent of them said, My greatest concern is the economy.

In second place was reforming health care at 14 percent of the respondents, and our national defense tied in third place when 14 percent also said that was their greatest concern. It is important that we keep this issue as high a priority as it has, and as important as it is to people in this country, that the economy is the number one issue.

Mr. Speaker, I think it was President Clinton that said, It's the economy, stupid. Or maybe somebody said to President Clinton, remember, that it is the economy.

And it is. There is no question about it. When you are looking at an unemployment rate bumping up to 10 percent, and people losing jobs since February, when we passed the economic stimulus act, Mr. Speaker, $787 billion, I believe, of borrowed money, a third of that money borrowed from the Chinese government. That was going to stem the tide; we were going to make sure that unemployment did not get worse than 8.5 percent, and that we stopped the hemorrhaging of jobs and, indeed, began to grow jobs.

Well, now, here we are, some 6 months later in the process. We haven't spent it all, but appropriated that much money again, $787 billion, to try to get things going to stimulate the economy. We have lost another 2 million jobs, and the unemployment rate is approaching 10 percent.

I think that one thing that I wanted to share with my colleagues this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, is the revision of our health care system. The revision of our health insurance system, while important, and important to our economy, it's not the number one issue. The number one issue is to get people back to work and start creating some jobs and do something about the homebuilding industry, where sales are down. Prices of homes are down 40 percent, probably, in some parts of the country.

Jobs are lost in that industry, and there are so many things we could be doing, should be doing, to stimulate this economy. Yet the President's attention has been diverted so much that he is going all across the country, doing his own town hall meetings, almost like in a campaign mode, lobbying for this idea of a comprehensive, total reform of our health care system such that the government has more involvement. Maybe not total involvement, but from my perspective, Mr. Speaker, and those of us on the Republican side of the aisle, we have great fear that these plans--my colleagues that spoke in the aisle before were comparing the Senate version versus the House version.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that I have concern about both versions, about both versions leading to a total takeover of the health care system by our government. Ms. Woolsey and Mr. Ellison are very good people, compassionate Members, as we all know, and you could tell from hearing them speak, that they have good hearts.

But if you ask them, or, and I have heard, actually--I am not going to put words in their mouths, but I have talked to a number of the members of the Progressive Caucus, of which they are a part, Mr. Speaker, and what many of them have said, and don't deny it, is that they are not going to be satisfied until the Federal government completely takes over the health care system in this country. That is similar, if not identical, to the Canadian system, or the UK system, a nationalized, socialized medicine, is actually what we are talking about.

And so we feel, on the Republican side of the aisle, first of all, that's not desirable. The people don't want it. The town hall meetings told us that they don't want it. The recent polling tells us that they don't want it.

They clearly want lower prices for health insurance, they want us to do something about that, and they want to make that opportunity to have health insurance more accessible to each and every one of them and the members of their families. But they don't want a government takeover, Mr. Speaker.

I say to my colleagues, look, the President, in the joint session of the Congress, where our colleagues on the House side, our Chamber, were obviously here. Our colleagues on the other body, United States Senate, were here. Cabinet members, Supreme Court justices were here as the President addressed the Nation in prime time.

You know, you can't have a better bully pulpit than that opportunity for the President to make his case. During that 45-minute speech, another great speech by President Obama, he said one thing that I agreed with, well, probably several things that I agree with, many things that I don't agree with, like a public option, which is a euphemism for a government takeover of our health care system.

But President Obama did say that one thing, one area of reform that he has not yet seen in any bill is medical liability reform, and that he felt that that would bring down the cost and that he was willing to listen, Mr. Speaker, to ideas presented to him. His door was open--I don't know about those three or four levels of gates before you get to the door--but I am really hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that his door is open to Republicans and Democrats, and rank and file, leadership, to every Member of this body.

In fact, even, it would be great if his doors were open to the citizens of this country that have great ideas and where we get most of our great ideas, if the truth be known. But this, this idea of medical liability reform, I have sent him a letter based on what he said in that speech. He also, Mr. Speaker, said the same thing to the American Medical Association annual meeting in his hometown of Chicago this past June.

Mr. Speaker, I know you know this, but some of my colleagues may not know that in my prior life, before I came to this body 7 years ago--I am now serving in my fourth term--I spent 31 years practicing medicine, 26 as an OB/GYN specialist in my 11th District of Georgia, where I still live and will spend my entire life. It's a wonderful, wonderful community in northwest Georgia.

This issue of health care--I am as compassionate about it as anybody, just as compassionate as my friends on the Democratic side that had the previous hour. This idea of doing something about medical liability reform--I am so glad that the President said to the American Medical Association at that annual meeting, Yes, in response to a question from one of the doctors, We do need to do something, and I will take that into consideration.

Now, he wasn't specific, just like the other night he wasn't specific in regard to what he would be amenable to in regard to liability reform.

Mr. Speaker, tonight, I am going to spend some time talking about a bill that I have introduced every year since 2003, that was the 108th Congress. I have been a Member of the 108th, 109th, 110th and 111th and hope to be a Member, Mr. Speaker, of many more Congresses to come. I love this place. I love this body, I love my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

But each year I have introduced the bill called the HEALTH Act, and it is about medical liability reform. The bill number, for those of you who would like to look it up--and I hope you will, because I have got about 60 cosponsors right now, Mr. Speaker. I want cosponsors on both sides of the aisle, because I want this to be a bipartisan effort. I think that's the only way we can really accomplish things that the people will be happy with.

But H.R. 1086 is called the HEALTH Act, and it's modeled after a bill that was passed in California. California, with its 35 million people, passed a bill back in 1978. The acronym for the bill is MICRA. The most important aspect of that bill, Mr. Speaker, was to put a cap on awards from a jury to a plaintiff for pain and suffering.

Now, when a medical case is brought before a jury, and there is alleged malpractice, and the patient has been harmed or injured in some way, there is all kinds of evidence given to the jury in regard to what the patient has

lost, how much they are disabled and whether or not they can continue to work, and if they can't continue to work over a lifetime, you know, maybe 25 more years, that they expected to work. How much is that worth? That's called compensatory damages, and those awards can be in the millions of dollars and sometimes are.

In most of those cases, I would say, bravo, Mr. Speaker, that the patient was injured by some physician or some hospital practicing below the standard of care, and they have got just compensation. We call it a redress of their grievances. Maybe it doesn't make them whole, but it helps.

Well, this bill, though, doesn't say anything about that, doesn't take away one scintilla of their right to redress of those grievances. It simply says that if it's a minor situation, a minimal injury or even, in some cases, where the jury says we know, based on 2 weeks of the attorneys, the plaintiff's attorneys and the attorney defending the physician, that the doctor didn't do anything wrong, that this was really just an unfortunate outcome; the doctor followed all of the standard practices, best practices in the community. But, golly, you know, we just feel sorry for the patient and, after all, the doctor is not really going to pay this. He or she pays a high malpractice premium to be insured, but it's that old insurance company, and we are just going to go ahead and award $4 million for pain and suffering.

Well, that's what drives up the cost of health insurance, Mr. Speaker, for everybody else. And it is estimated that if we limit that kind of opportunity, just out of compassion, not based on any factual evidence, that these sort of runaway jury awards are given, if we limit that, then we could save, in this health care system of ours, Mr. Speaker, up to $120 billion a year, $120 billion a year, that estimate by the RAND Corporation.

It just seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if we go in this direction, that we wouldn't have to say to the American people, we are going to pay for health care reform by taxing the so-called wealthy an additional $800 billion a year. My friends, we are talking about, well, it's okay if you had a lot of money, why not give to the poor and the downtrodden and follow the Good Book. That's fine. I mean, I understand.

But there is another perspective on that. You teach a man to fish, you feed him for life. You give a man a fish, you just give him one meal. And many of these people, these so-called rich that are going to be taxed in the House bill that they were praising so much, I think the number is H.R. 3200, there's a surtax on people with a combined income, I forget, something like $250,000.

Well, many of those people, Mr. Speaker, are small business men and women who pay their taxes just like an individual, like a small business, sole proprietor. And when you add that surtax on top of their marginal rate and on top of their State and local taxes and FICA, they are paying 52 percent, more than half of their income, in taxes.

So many of them will just simply say, you know, this little company that we started years ago, this little roofing company, this sheet metal company, this real estate shop, and we created these 10, 15, 20, 25 jobs, and we have been good to our employees and provided them health insurance, we are now in our fifties and we have been prudent and frugal and saved back and we planned on working another 10-15 years and keeping this company going and maybe turning it over to our children or grandchildren, but this is crazy. We are not working for ourselves or employees, we are working for the Federal Government so they can totally reform health care and turn it into a socialized medicine system. Well, we are just not going to do it and we are going to close the doors, and we are going to have that many more people on the unemployment rolls and that many more people without health insurance.

I have been hearing my colleagues talk about, and I think President Obama, Mr. Speaker, said it just last week in his speech, this is a crisis; 14,000 people every day, 14,000 people every day are losing their health insurance, and we have to do something about it.

Mr. Speaker, 14,000 people are losing their health insurance every day not because of the cost of health insurance. They are losing it because they lost their job, 6 million of them in the last couple of years, 2 million since February when we passed the so-called economic stimulus bill. So we have to put all of these things in proper perspective.

So this bill that my colleagues were praising, H.R. 3200, I am on the committee, I have read the bill, the 1,100 pages. The pay-for of $1.5 trillion over 10 years, and that is a very conservative estimate as told to us by, as they said, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, $1.5 trillion, $8 billion coming from taxation on those small business men and women, that job-killing taxation and another $500 billion, Mr. Speaker, taken out of what, the Medicare program.

Do you think, my colleagues, that we can afford to cut Medicare by $500 billion when we have already been told by the trustees that by 2017 there will be less money coming in from Medicare FICA than is going out in benefits to our 45 million, I think there are, Medicare beneficiaries? And that the long-term unfunded liability of Medicare out to the year 2075 is $35 trillion, and that is with a ``T,'' $35 trillion.

So we say, oh, well, we need the money because the President said we are not going to do this bill, either the Senate bill or the House bill, whatever is the one that is ultimately chosen, we are not going to spend one dime, no, I think he even said one penny, I think he said one penny. We are not going to spend one penny of Federal money; it is all going to be paid for. So that's the pay-for, the $800 billion worth of taxes and the $500 billion cut to Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, $500 billion over 10 years. I heard someone from AARP say that is a small cut. Well, in 2008 we spent $480 billion on the Medicare program. So if we cut it $500 billion over 10 years, that, my colleagues, is $50 billion a year. Divide 500 by 10, $50 billion a year. Well, $50 billion as a numerator over $480 billion as the denominator, I believe that is more than 10 percent a year. Mr. Speaker, cutting Medicare when it is about to go broke by the year 2017, over 10 percent a year for the next 10 years, you tell me that makes sense, so we can guarantee insurance for another 5 percent of our population, many of whom don't want it but yet we are going to force them to take it, to buy it. Certainly it is not going to be free.

But what happens to our Medicare recipients, our moms and dads and grandparents who are let's say on Medicare Advantage. Medicare Advantage is that option that you have under Medicare, you have to pay a little bit more, but it covers prevention and wellness and you get to go to the doctor and have an annual physical and Medicare pays for it. And you have screening for a lot of dreaded diseases, and Medicare pays for it. And a nurse calls you back, maybe a week after your appointment, to make sure that you got your prescriptions filled or that your fever went down or that you checked your blood pressure and it is okay.

All of that is provided under Medicare Advantage that is not available to the 80 percent who get Medicare as traditional fee-for- service. It doesn't pay for a physical except the entry physical to Medicare when you first turn 65, but you need one when you are 68. You need one when you are 72, and then you might need one every year thereafter.

So Medicare Advantage, my colleagues, we may be paying too much and we may need to sharpen our pencil. I'm not saying that we don't look at everything very, very closely. We should do that on everything, every dime. As the President said, Mr. Speaker, every penny of taxpayer dollars that we spend should be well spent, and we should be sure that we are not overpaying the insurance companies that provide the Medicare Advantage option.

But it must be pretty popular, Mr. Speaker, because 11 percent of those seniors pick Medicare Advantage. Well, to pay for that $500 billion out of Medicare, guess where the biggest chunk comes from? It comes from Medicare Advantage to the tune of about $170 billion. It literally guts Medicare Advantage. It literally guts Medicare Advantage.

So when the President says, Mr. Speaker, you and I and all of our colleagues have heard him say it many times, if you like what you've got in regard to your health care, nothing will change. If you like what you have, you can keep it.

Well, try to convince those 10-11 million people, senior citizens, precious senior citizens who are on Medicare Advantage. They may want to keep it, but if the providers of the Medicare Advantage are losing money on the programs--and they will if you cut 17 percent of their reimbursement--they will simply say, look, I have other business lines. I sell property and casualty. I sell automobile, homeowners, catastrophic, I sell life insurance; but I'm out of this. There is no way.

So that is 11 million people, potentially, not all of them, but a large number of them who will lose their health insurance, what they like; they wanted to keep it, but they didn't get to. So it is an indirect taking it away from them.

When you talk about, well, this is a way we are going to pay for it and not spend one extra dime, it is very important. It is just very important that people understand what the pay-for is. That is why I say in regard to medical liability reform, the current system of the runaway awards given to patients for pain and suffering, there are a couple of other provisions in my bill, the provision of course that we cap the award for pain and suffering at $250,000. Several States have done that. Several States have actually done that and expanded that number to $350,000. And it has worked fine.

My mind is open in regard to some changes because the bill, H.R. 1086 that I am talking about, is based on a California law that was passed 30 years ago. So, you know, to say today, well, $350,000, I think is a reasonable thing. And I would be willing in a heartbeat to talk to the President about that, to talk to the leadership of the Democratic majority party about that.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of other things about medical liability tort law that I think our colleagues need to understand. There is something called joint and several liability. So here's the scenario. A patient suffers an injury and the plaintiff's lawyer names everybody that had anything to do with that patient during a hospital stay. Let's say it is a patient that is scheduled for surgery on Monday, a routine operation. And the doctor who is going to perform the surgery says to her partner, I'm going to be at church Sunday morning with my family. Do you mind when you are making rounds seeing your patients, would you stop in and see Mr. Smith and just make sure that everything is okay and tell him that I will come by this afternoon and check on him and see if he has any last minute questions before the surgery?

So the doctor's partner does that. He kind of sticks his head in the door and says hello, and your doctor will be by this afternoon.

Well, that doctor could, under current law, be just as liable of any adverse outcome of that next day surgery as the operating surgeon. The way the current law says, if that doctor who all he did was say hello, I'm your doctor's partner and I just wanted to stop in and tell you that she will be by this afternoon, if he has the most coverage, maybe he bought a more expensive malpractice policy, Mr. Speaker, and he has--well, you have heard the expression, he has the deepest pockets, then in a lawsuit, he could be liable for everything, although he never even laid a hand on the patient. Well, that's wrong and that ought to be corrected.

That's why we need to eliminate this policy. It is called joint and several liability. In other words, everybody who is named is equally liable. Clearly, as that analogy I just presented shows, that's not the case. It ought to be very specific, and it ought to be proportioned.

I would think, Mr. Speaker, that would be plain as the nose on your face. There is another provision of H.R. 1086, the Health Act. It is called collateral source disclosure. I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, about the evidence that is presented to a jury so they can figure out what award, if any, is appropriate for a patient who is injured by a physician or a hospital, medical facility, that has practiced below the standard of care, and it is a very scientific approach.

If the patient had to come back in the hospital and stay for another 2 weeks or month, if the patient had to have another surgical procedure done, if the patient had to be put to sleep and had to have the services of an anesthesiologist, if the patient went home and had to have a specialized wheelchair, if the patient had to have an assistant to help them with daily living, all of that stuff is--and I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I use the word ``stuff.'' That is improper. But all of those things, items of cost, are used to calculate what the total amount of a judgment should be if in fact it is determined that what the doctor did led to this terrible, unfortunate outcome.

Well, if the patient has disability income insurance, and when the injury occurred they were 30 years old, that disability income compensates them for 80 percent of their salary for the rest of their life. If the patient has health insurance that covers anything else that had to be done, that information should be known to the jury because, if not, we're looking at a situation we sometimes call double dipping. All of these things, Mr. Speaker, drive up the cost of health care and health insurance for everybody else. For everybody else.

So, Mr. Speaker, that's why I was so pleased to hear the President say that he acknowledges that and something ought to be done about it. His mind is open. And I will say to him and to my colleagues in this body and in the Senate that my mind is open as well. And we should sit down, if necessary, Mr. Speaker, with a blank sheet of paper and just say, Look, certain things in Representative Gingrey's bill, H.R. 1086, we don't agree with, but here are some other sections that we think are very good. And, by the way, we have some ideas here--the majority certainly, because it would be their bill--and would say, Look, let's put this in and that in, and let's get to a point where we can all agree.

If we take this attitude, Mr. Speaker, on every aspect of health care reform and health insurance reform, I can name, and, in fact, I would like to name, several things that I just know that there would be bipartisan agreement on in regard to how the insurance companies treat their clients.

We, on my side of the aisle, we Republicans absolutely would prohibit insurance companies from canceling or rescinding a person's health insurance coverage after the fact by saying, Oh, you know, 5 years ago when you took out the policy, you didn't answer every question just right. You had a lab test that you didn't tell us about or you had hepatitis when you were 16 years old in playing high school football and you completely recovered, but still, you didn't tell us about it and so now you're 45 and you have to have your gall bladder taken out and, lo and behold, that $20,000 bill, estimate of benefits that you got, we're not paying a dime of it. You're paying all of it. That's got to stop. That absolutely has to stop.

We are in total agreement that insurance companies should not be allowed to deny coverage for preexisting conditions. We are in agreement that setting up exchanges, insurance exchanges in every State where a person who doesn't have insurance or works for a small company that doesn't offer it can shop. And you've got multiple insurance companies. There are 1,300 of them, I think, across the country, that offer health insurance products that they can compete and that a person could go online and know exactly what is covered, what the deductible is, what the copay is, who the doctors are in the provider network. Even go online and check and find out if the doctors have a good record, if they're cost-effective, and make a decision. If their income is lower than 300 percent of the Federal poverty level--for a family of four, that's about $65,000 a year--then to supplement them so that they can afford to buy those policies.

We're in agreement with that, Mr. Speaker. My colleagues, we don't disagree. We have compassion, too. The two Democrats who were here earlier may be two of the most compassionate Members of this body, but we have a heart as well, and we want to help people. We want to help the downtrodden. But we don't want to, as I said at the outset, to just simply say we can't solve this problem.

Golly, we put a man on the Moon in 1969. It took us about 8 years to do it. We caught Russia and passed them because we had the determination, the will to do that. And you tell me now, 50 years later, that we can't solve this problem without just saying, Look, we throw up our hands. We can't do it. The Federal Government, you take it over and run our health care system and let's have everybody on Medicare or Medicaid.

No. We have a lot of things that we can work together on, and we need to do that.

This idea of medical liability reform and the savings that it brings, certainly it should be on the table, and heretofore it has not been. There's not one section in any of the three bills that came through the House or the two bills that came through the Senate. We need that, just as we need, Mr. Speaker, a comprehensive electronic medical records system. That's another cost saver of maybe $150 billion a year.

Yes, there's some upfront costs. Indeed, I think the President put $19 billion into the economic stimulus package to make sure the government continues its efforts to set the standards so that all these computer systems, hardware, software, for every specialty and every subspecialty, can talk to the Medicare system, can talk to the Medicaid system, can talk to the VA, can talk to the military, can talk to every private insurance company across this country.

So if you go on vacation and if you have a little card about the size of a VISA card or American Express card that's got your identification in there, very secure and encrypted, and you're at the South Pole, for goodness sakes, and you fall and hit your head on the ice and you're in a coma and they take you to the emergency room, somebody can reach in your back pocket, get your wallet out, swipe that card and know exactly what your medical history is, what medications you're on; if you're taking Plavix, not inadvertently give you Coumadin and kill you. So electronic medical records is something that we can, should, and I think do agree on.

Mr. Speaker, I think that if we put the bickering, as the President said, try to put the bickering aside and listen, and the majority party allows the minority party in the room, we can do this. We can do this. And I think the American people would be proud of it.

There's one other thing that I have been proposing and my colleagues on this side of aisle, this idea of why is it that people can only buy health insurance in their own State. Their own State may have passed all kinds of mandates on health insurance that require a test for this, a test for that, coverage for this, coverage for that. All of these things that sound nice when you propose them, but they are part of a basic policy, and so every policy that's sold in the State has to include all those things.

Well, these people can't afford health insurance in that particular State. Maybe it's my own State of Georgia, or Alabama, Louisiana, or Florida, Massachusetts. But yet, they are forced to buy insurance in their own State--and many of them don't because they can't afford it.

Well, let's let them go online and shop in a neighboring State or anywhere in the country that they want to look and see. Just like on Medicare part D, the prescription drug plan, you will see that the competition in the free market will keep those prices down and make them competitive and that an individual can pick a policy that's almost tailor-made for him or her, just as they do in the prescription drug plan.

In the prescription drug plan, part D of Medicare, my mom goes online and she makes a list of the six medications that she's on and she gives her Social Security number, she gives her zip code so that she would know which pharmacies are close to her and what plans are available, and she looks and sees how much the different plans charge for the medications that she's on. She doesn't care what they charge for something that she's not taking. That doesn't matter to her. It's the uniqueness of her that allows her to shop in that way and get the best price.

We can do that with these health plans through these exchanges. We can set up these high-risk pools so that people that have birth defects or they come down early in life with type 1 diabetes or they have osteoporosis or multiple diseases, they can become part of a high-risk pool in each State. And we can say to the insurance companies once again, You have to participate and you can't charge more than 1\1/2\ percent--1\1/2\ times what the standard rates are.

Again, I started out the hour specifically talking about medical liability reform and the significant savings. I think I even referred to it as a silver bullet worth of savings. And I think that that is something that certainly ought to be--if we pass health reform this year, that certainly should be a major provision; electronic medical records, of course, as well, and many of the things that I mentioned. But to just throw up your hands and say, We can't do it.

We have got 435 of the best and brightest people in this country serving this Congress. All walks of life, all educational levels, all previous professions, and we can't do this? We have to just literally toss up our hands and say, Let's let the Federal Government do it?

There yet is not one word in this Constitution that talks about health care and the requirement of the Federal Government providing health care, not one word, and I look at it often, my colleagues. I look at the glossary often.

I look at things like: Arms, the right to bear; assembly, the right of; counsel, the right to; grievances--we talked about that earlier, didn't we--redress of; petition the government, the right to; the press, freedom of; religion, freedom of; speech, freedom of. But not one word about health care.

I want to just close by saying to my colleagues, we don't want to let the Federal Government take over our health care system. There's an art to medicine. It's not an exact science, and we don't need bureaucrats getting between our doctors and our patients.

The American people are telling us that. And I say woe be unto us if we turn our back on them and force a government-run health care system down the throats of the American people by some parliamentary trickery. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues are smarter than that. I know they are. I know they are.

In the final analysis, we're going to do the right thing, and I hope and pray that we do it in a bipartisan way.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strongest support for H. Res. 679, a bill that recognizes American Legion Day and commends the exemplary service of the veterans of the United States Armed Services. The American Legion was granted a charter by this body on September 16, 1919, and since that time the Legion has remained active on the local, state, and national level as a volunteer service organization for our nation's veterans.

Today, it is an honor to express my deep sense of gratitude to the thousands of veterans who are members of the American Legion. The American Legion provides many 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.

Community involvement is only one aspect of the American Legion. These Legionnaires also provide an extraordinary amount of support for troops returning from war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Legion Posts all around the nation have been involved with providing financial assistance to veterans displaced by natural disasters or families of veterans that are struggling to pay for basic needs such as housing. The American Legion has a Family Support Network that provides much needed assistance to families of members of the Armed Services, and the organization focuses on reintegrating troops returning from deployment into the workforce in the United States.

It is appropriate that we take a moment to recognize and say thank you to the active duty members of our Armed Forces for their dedication, sacrifice, and honor. Each and every day, they keep this great nation safe and protect the freedoms that we enjoy. We are proud of all of our servicemen and women and are eternally grateful for their efforts in the Global War on Terror. 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.

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 far away lands in support of a cause and an ideal so much greater than any one individual. Indeed, our democratic form of government is a testament to the courage and valor of our Armed Forces. The support given to our servicemen 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.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the brave men and women who sacrifice-- and have sacrificed in the past--for our present freedoms deserve our fullest support. Our nation's servicemen and women represent the best our country has to offer, and they must be treated with the respect and honor they deserve. Recognizing American Legion Day in 2009 is just one small reminder of the invaluable contributions made by our troops at home and abroad, and it is my hope that we will continue to do all we can and more for the veterans of our Armed Forces. The American Legion is an exceptional organization for veterans and communities all around the nation, and we now reaffirm our commitment to these heroes by recognizing this day.

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

Madam Speaker, experts have predicted that meaningful liability reform can save our health care system $126 billion annually. What does $126 billion in annual savings mean? We would not have to cut $500 billion from our seniors' Medicare program over the next 10 years. We would not have to levy $800 billion in job- killing taxes on our economy. We would not have to ask every American to give up their liberty because of a government edict to purchase government insurance that they may not be able to afford.

My colleagues, meaningful liability reform is the silver bullet in this debate. It can stop the practice of defensive medicine, save our health care system over $100 billion a year, and protect the American people from the occasional greedy lawyer seeking a windfall.

As an OB/GYN who practiced medicine for over 30 years, I know how dire the consequences are if we continue our failure to act. It is time to put partisan politics aside and stand up for the American people. Meaningful liability change cannot wait. It must be included in any health care reform bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the tremendous achievements of 17-year-old American tennis player Melanie Oudin.

Melanie was born on September 23, 1991, in Marietta, Georgia, where I reside; and she captured the heart of America with her inspiring performance at the 2009 United States Open.

Melanie entered the United States Open as the youngest player in the top 100, numbered 67--the number three American behind Serena and Venus Williams. This was Melanie's second U.S. Open, and she played incredibly well. Melanie ousted the number four seed, the number 13 seed and the number 29 seed before losing in the quarterfinals to the number nine player. This series of wins comes on the back of her performance at Wimbledon this summer where she made the fourth round.

Melanie's sneakers, pink and yellow with the word ``believe'' stamped on the heel, sum up her attitude about life and sports, and she has shown all of us what can be achieved if you only work hard enough.

I know that I and the other residents of Marietta, Georgia, are proud to call her one of our own; and we look forward to watching her continued rise in the sport of tennis and in life.