Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, one of the American people's biggest fears about the Democratic health care reform plan is the prospect of having some government bureaucrat stand between them and the doctors they trust. I've heard this message time and time again in townhall meetings, in letters and in phone calls from patients throughout this country.

The House Democratic leadership has promised the American people that their fears about the bureaucrat-rationed care they will receive are unfounded, even while drafting a 1,000-page bill that creates this Comparative Effectiveness Council to decide which treatments will be covered.

Late yesterday evening, I gave my colleagues a chance on the Energy and Commerce Committee to put their money where their mouths were by offering an amendment in the Energy and Commerce Committee that would simply bar Federal political appointees and bureaucrats from intervening in patient treatment decisions.

An easy vote, Mr. Speaker. Who do you want making your health care decisions--your doctor or a government bureaucrat? However, every Democrat on the committee, save one, voted against this amendment.

It's time for Congress to focus on strengthening the doctor-patient relationship and not the bureaucratic-patient relationship.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank one of our newest and hardworking members of the Republican Conference, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, for generously yielding me time on this resolution today.

As a member of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus and author of this resolution, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 270, a resolution recognizing the contribution made by Hunters for the Hungry programs across this country.

I would like to thank Chairman Peterson, Ranking Member Lucas, my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Scott) and all of my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee for bringing this resolution to the floor today in a bipartisan manner.

I also want to thank the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, especially co-chairs Dan Boren and Paul Ryan, for their support. This bipartisan organization, comprised of close to 300 Members of the House and the Senate, focuses on protecting the interests of our Nation's sportsmen. Mr. Speaker, as a proud Member of this caucus, I know that it works diligently for our sportsmen who have historically shaped the character and the quality of America's cultural heritage, natural resources, and our economic vitality.

I first introduced the Hunters for the Hungry resolution in the 108th Congress back in 2003, as well as in each subsequent Congress, to bring attention to an often overlooked group--our Nation's hunters--who feed thousands of homeless and hungry people each year. The purpose of this resolution is to praise the work of Hunters for the Hungry programs across our country. These programs provide a unique way in which to address our Nation's hunger problem.

Although these organizations are called by different names in the 45 States where they are located, Hunters for the Hungry organizations show the humanitarian and the kind-hearted spirit of our Nation's hunting community. These programs are volunteer and cooperative efforts among hunters, sportsmen's associations, meat processors, State meat inspectors and hunger relief organizations. Over the past 3 years, these programs have brought hundreds of thousands of pounds of excess venison to homeless shelters, to soup kitchens, and food banks. Each year, donations have multiplied, and many programs now cannot even cover the costs of processing, of packaging and storing, and distributing the abundant supply of donated venison.

Hunters for the Hungry organizations serve as a great example of how our Nation can address issues like hunger without government intervention. These organizations receive no Federal funding. They operate from donations and volunteer services. We must raise the awareness of these organizations so that they can have the resources and the volunteers to serve America's underprivileged.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that in my home State of Georgia, over 28,000 pounds of venison was donated as a result of this program just last year, raising the overall total in the State to over 200,000 pounds since this program was initiated back in 1993. I commend the kind-hearted hunters of my State, along with those across the country, who donate their time and their money for those people in need.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution so the House can show its gratitude to these selfless hunters across the country to honor their great community service.

I thank the ranking member for yielding to me.

I want to say right off that I support the gentleman's request for unanimous consent but I certainly rise to oppose this striking amendment No. 7 by my friend and colleague from Arizona. I want to thank Chairman Serrano and Ranking Member Emerson for supporting this request, this project.

I commend the gentleman from Arizona. I think that his heart is true and consistent in regard to wanting to reduce government spending and waste, and I think he is to be commended for that. And I think the gentleman from Arizona knows that I too feel the same way. In fact, I have introduced legislation to bring some fairness and equity to Member initiatives, to cut them in half indeed. I know the gentleman is aware of that.

He doesn't know a lot about this project, and I'm sure that a lot of Members when their project for their district, for their constituents is challenged, they may dread coming down here to the floor. But I don't dread it at all. I'm thrilled to have an opportunity to come down and explain to the gentleman about this project.

Very simply, this $100,000 would go to the University of West Georgia's Small Business Development Center and their partnership with the Carroll County Economic Development Foundation's Burson Center to simply fund the expansion of their small business support center, or incubator. This center, which already exists, provides resources ranging from business counseling, to temporary office space, to technical support and access to an online database of Angel Investors Networks looking to support a potentially successful small business.

Specifically, this expansion will target the more than 12,000 veterans from west Georgia that will be returning in the coming year. Given the tight job market, 30 percent or more of these returning veterans will attempt to start their own business and will likely require some type of support in beginning that effort.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this striking amendment.

Mr. Chairman, again, a lot of what the gentleman says, I can agree with, but I continue to believe that some portion of Federal dollars that my constituents send to Washington is returned back to them and to our district, the 11th of Georgia. Yes, preferably through tax relief. But when necessary, through direct support of responsible and well-vetted local initiatives.

Let me explain to the gentleman and provide just a little more context for this request and the needs that this center is seeking to meet. Here are the six counties that the center services as well as the unemployment rate in each

county: Carroll County, 11 percent unemployment; Bartow, 11.5; Floyd County, 10.4 percent; Paulding, 9.8 percent; Haralson, 12.2 percent unemployment; and Polk, 10.5 percent unemployment.

As I said, Mr. Chairman, at the outset in defending this initiative against the gentleman's amendment to strike, this is a good project. And as he says, Well, why don't they go through the regular process. Well, I think if they went through the regular process, this project would have a 98 percent chance of getting funded. But I think it's my responsibility if I can to make sure that we don't take that 2 percent chance. I proudly stand here and defend this project.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks as well as in accordance with Clause 9 of Rule XXI, I am submitting the following information regarding the earmark I received as part of H.R. 3183--the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2010.

Requesting Member: Congressman Phil Gingrey

Bill Number: H.R. 3183

Account: Construction

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District

Address of Requesting Entity: 100 W. Oglethorpe Ave., Savannah, GA 31401

Description of Request: The $2,000,000 in construction funding will be used to begin construction of the Savannah Harbor Expansion Program. While the Record of Decision will not be signed until mid-2010, these funds can be used for final pre-construction monitoring and engineering design of the channel and mitigation components for the project. Additionally, these funds will be needed immediately after project approval for negotiation of the Project Partnership Agreement. Construction contracts cannot be awarded prior to the completion of this agreement.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks as well as in accord with Clause 9 of Rule XXI, I am submitting the following information regarding the earmark I received as part of H.R. 3170--Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2010.

Requesting Member: Congressman Phil Gingrey

Bill Number: H.R. 3170

Account: Small Business Administration

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: University of West Georgia

Address of Requesting Entity: 1601 Maple Street, Carrollton, GA 30118

Description of Request: In cooperation with the Carroll County Economic Development Foundation, the university will use funding to establish a small business incubator to assist small business in a six county area of West Georgia (Bartow, Carroll, Haralson, Floyd, Polk, and Paulding Counties). This program will offer counseling, resource information exchange, and distance learning opportunities for entrepreneurs and small business ventures. The program will also provide online access to and navigation of the West Georgia Angel Investors Network.

This project will provide the expertise of academic and business professionals directly to the budding entrepreneur. The program will include counseling, consolidated business resource databases, information blogs, and links to regulatory programs and funding sources. Video and online conferencing will afford real-time communication between individuals and groups. Distance learning opportunities will include training webinars in both live simulcast and archived viewing. Finally, the virtual resource center will provide a perpetual 3-D ``tradeshow'' exposure for participating businesses, including direct links to client websites.

The program will also give potential business entrepreneurs access to much needed seed capital through angel investors in the region. Business financial analysis and exit strategy development are just two of the resources that will be available to the entrepreneurs interested in investment capital. Counseling and guidance in developing an investment package would prepare the business owner for serious consideration by the Angel Investors Network.

The $100,000 in Small Business Administration funding will be applied according to the following expenditure breakout:

Project Manager, $55,000

Support Staff (3), 90,000

Senior staff supervision and oversight, 80,000

Supplies, 20,000

Program Launch, 45,000

Program Development, 30,000

Technical Assistance, 25,000

Equipment, 205,000

Travel, 10,000

Administrative and accounting, 30,000

Mr. Speaker, yesterday House Democratic leadership held a press conference to introduce their health care reform legislation. As a physician who has practiced medicine for more than 30 years, I have major concerns that this plan will ultimately put a government bureaucrat in between patients and their doctors and eventually lead to a one-size-fits-all health care system where the government decide what treatments are necessary for patients. When money gets tight, this leads to rationing of care and long waiting lists for patients. We've already seen the pilot of this program. It's called TennCare. Just ask the Democratic governor of Tennessee what it's done to the budget in their State.

I want to read just a sentence of testimony from a Canadian doctor who has seen firsthand the consequences of a single-payer system on his patients.

``What we have in Canada is access to a government state-mandated wait list. And the wait lists are long, the patients are languishing and suffering on wait lists. Our own Supreme Court of Canada has stated that patients are actually dying as they wait for care in Canada.''

Mr. Speaker, this is not the sort of health care reform that the American people want or need.

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

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know, I just called previously for a motion to adjourn this body. I don't typically do dilatory motions. I think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know that. What, Mr. Speaker, I am trying to say to those who are now in charge of this body--Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, the chairman of the Rules Committee--is, look, as the gentleman from Arizona has pointed out, you have taken away so many opportunities-- not, indeed, all of the opportunities--for the minority to represent their constituencies. Those constituencies are close to 700,000 people in all of our districts across this country, and we don't have this opportunity, particularly on these very important appropriations bills--on these 12 spending bills--which, after all, are probably one of the two most important things that we as Members of the legislative branch are charged constitutionally to do year after year after year.

I commend the majority for wanting to get the work done and for wanting to have all of that done by the end of the fiscal year. It's insanity not to do that, but we can do it in an open way, as the gentleman from Arizona has pointed out. Going back to the fairness that you all called for when you were campaigning so hard in the fall of 2006, you gained the majority, to a large extent, on that kind of a platform and on that kind of a pledge. So this is wrong, and this is why we're making these points.

Madam Speaker, after losing an additional 467,000 jobs last month, our Nation's unemployment rate reached a 25- year high of 9.5 percent. It is time for the administration and the Democratic majority to admit what the American people know all too well: the vaunted Democratic stimulus bill has failed to stimulate anything other than a few Federal bureaucrats and the Chinese, who are loaning us, with hefty interest, I might add, those stimulus dollars.

When President Obama and the Democratic leadership rammed the 1,073- page stimulus bill through Congress without giving Representatives on either side of the aisle, much less voters back home, a chance to actually read it, they promised that the $1 trillion price tag would go to ``saving or creating 3.5 million jobs.'' Well, Madam Speaker, I must ask the question, Where are the jobs?

To make matters worse, the House passed the ``Pelosi Global Warming Tax'' 2 weeks ago that will only make it harder for businesses and families to survive by piling an additional $3,000 on to every household's energy bill. This cap-and-tax policy, they call it cap-and- trade, but it is a cap-and-tax policy, would further impose artificial emissions standards on American companies and energy producers, increasing the cost of doing business and forcing them to cede market share to overseas competitors who will not be subject to these limits on carbon dioxide emissions. I repeat: they will not be subject to these limits, and I'm talking, of course, about China and India.

And now the same people who turned General Motors into ``Government Motors'' have set their sights on a government-controlled health care system that gives power to bureaucrats rather than doctors, like myself, to make decisions about your care. As we have seen in Great Britain and Canada, the end result would be the virtual elimination of private health insurance and the creation of a one-size-fits-all government health plan that would ration care by limiting the types of treatments patients can receive.

Madam Speaker, instead of another government takeover, we need real solutions which will make health care more affordable and more accessible while leaving critical choices and decisions about their health where they belong, in the hands of patients and their physicians.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

It is a pleasure to be on the floor with my colleagues talking about this bill that was finally, as we all know, introduced by Speaker Pelosi at a press conference this afternoon. And hearing our colleagues from Tennessee talk about really the ultimate pilot project, we are always in Medicare, anytime they are trying to do something to improve a situation, we start with a pilot project, which makes sense.

Well, this was the ultimate pilot project, I think, this TennCare that Congresswoman Blackburn and Dr. Roe, Congressman Roe, have described to us; and as their Democratic Governor said, it was a complete abysmal failure.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, and yet we are going to repeat this now on a grand national scale.

I want to just take a few minutes to talk about what the Blue Dog Democrats said to their leadership just last week in a letter that was sent to the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, Madam Speaker, and the Honorable Steny Hoyer, the majority leader of the Democrats. And 40--I think there are 52 Members of the Blue Dog Coalition of Democrats, those Members who are a little more conservative than the typical moderate to liberal Democrats, and basically these 40 Members, 40 out of 52, and there are a number of things in their letter, but I just want to go over a couple. One of the provisions that they say that absolutely needed fixing in this bill before they could support it is small business protections.

Here is what it says: Any additional requirements for employers must be carefully considered and done so within the context of what is currently offered. Small business owners and their employees lack coverage because of high and unstable costs, not because of

any unwillingness to provide or purchase it. We cannot support a bill that further exacerbates the challenges faced by small businesses.

Now, look, my colleagues, what this bill says that just came out today, this is the burden, the additional burden that will be put on small businesses. If the payroll of a business does not exceed $250,000, then there is no surtax. But if the payroll exceeds $250,000 to $300,000, there is a 2 percent surtax. If the payroll exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $400,000, there is a 6 percent tax on small business, and if the payroll exceeds only $400,000, there is an 8 percent surtax on these small businesses.

What I want to make sure everybody in this Chamber understands is that these small businesses are not subchapter; they are not C corporations. They are Subchapter S or they are sole proprietors. And they pay as an individual. And this is on top of the fact that President Obama is going to let the tax cuts expire that President Bush put in place in 2001 and 2003.

I am reading directly from that provision, taxes on employers and individuals.

I have read a portion of this bill.

The gentleman from Arizona is absolutely right. One of the provisions that they stated in the letter is this, finally, any health care reform legislation that comes to the floor must be available to all Members and to the public for a sufficient amount of time before we are asked to vote for it.

Well, if the gentleman will yield.

I can respond to the gentleman from Arizona, absolutely, and again in this letter, and I'm quoting directly from the letter: too short of a review period is unacceptable and only undermines Congress' ability to pass responsible health care reform that works for all Americans.

And our colleague from Tennessee, Dr. Roe, just held up that 1,100- page bill. I wonder when they are going to get around to reading it. And I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I thank this gentleman from Missouri for yielding. I know time is running short.

I just wanted to point out, in regard to the government plan, the Blue Dogs, who sent this letter last Friday to Ms. Pelosi and to the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer. It reads: Providers in the government plan must be fairly reimbursed at negotiated rates, and their participation must be voluntary.

The bill that was introduced today by Ms. Pelosi, in regard to providers forced to participate, reads: Establishment of a provider network for the government plan. Health care providers participating under Medicare are automatically participating providers in

the public health insurance option unless they opt out in a process established by the Secretary.

So, in talking about the powers of the commissioner, I also worry about the powers of the Secretary, and every doctor in America should worry about that.

I yield back.

Recipients.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I stand to strongly oppose this rule on the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act of 2010.

Mr. Speaker, this is unconscionable, what the Democrat majority is doing regarding these appropriations bills. I think this is about the fourth or fifth appropriation bill that we brought to the floor with a structured rule, and this has never happened, to my knowledge, in the history of this Congress.

These should be open rules so that every Member, not just members of the Appropriations Committee, the 40 or 50 members that study these bills, but every single Member of this body who represent 675,000 people across this country and these 50 States should have an opportunity to offer amendments.

I have offered 10 amendments to these five bills. Not one, not one, Mr. Speaker, has been made in order, and not one of these amendments are dilatory.

As an example, on this particular bill, the Veterans Administration Appropriation, I have an amendment that says no party, no Republican or Democratic majority should hold that bill hostage once it passes to put it in the form of a minibus, combine it with some other legislation to pass something that we don't want to pass, and hold our veterans hostage so that they don't get the pay raise they need, they don't get the benefits they need, they don't get the health care they need.

That, Mr. Speaker, is unconscionable.

For that reason I stand strongly opposed to this rule. The rule should be open, and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee knows that, and I challenge him to bring these bills to the floor in an open fashion, which we have always done on both sides of the aisle.

It is time to end this mendacity and this unconscionable activity. Let's all vote against this rule. Let's send it back. Let's bring forward an open rule and a fair process so that veterans in every congressional district across these 50 States will have an opportunity to be heard.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, today, the residents of Adairsville, Georgia, in my district, the 11th, are saying good-bye to a local hero who died while bravely serving his Nation in Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Seth Sharp was killed in action on July 2, 2009, from a gunshot wound to his neck during one of the biggest United States military operations in Afghanistan since the global war on terror began back in 2001.

Later this week, I will join Seth's family, his friends and supporters at his funeral in honor of the life of this brave soldier, a life given as the ultimate sacrifice, a sacrifice of duty and love. For, as it is written in John, ``Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.''

This was not Seth's first deployment in the global war on terror. He enlisted with the Marines at age 17 and was serving his Nation in Iraq at age 18. Even at such a young age, Seth embraced the challenge of the Marine Corps and took pride in serving his country. His service and his sacrifice will never be forgotten.

Lance Corporal Sharp leaves behind his fiancee and lifelong sweetheart, Katie McMahon; his father and his stepmother, Rick and Tiffany Sharp of Adairsville, Georgia; his mother, Angela Preston of Alligator Point, Florida; as well as many other close relatives and friends spread out all across the country.

Mr. Speaker, my prayers go out to his family, and my most heartfelt gratitude goes out to Lance Corporal Seth Sharp for his selfless sacrifice for this Nation. I ask all Members to please join me in honoring the distinguished memory of Lance Corporal Seth Sharp.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for organizing the hour tonight and for bringing this important issue before the Members of this body and the American people. Of course, as my colleagues have said, next week in the Energy and Commerce Committee, the Ways and Means Committee, the Education and Labor Committee of this House, markups are going to begin on this bill. So we are at the dividing point where people need to understand what this is all about. And as my colleague from Texas said, yes, we have formed a Doctors Caucus on the Republican side. We asked the Members of the Democratic side who are also health care providers to join that group. They declined. But we have a group of about 14, including a number of doctors who are on the floor tonight participating in this special hour, with over 330 years of clinical health care experience and has any one of that group--and in that group, I think we're talking about 10 or 11 physicians. We're talking about an optometrist, a clinical psychologist and three dentists. And not one of those Members, Mr. Speaker, has been asked to participate in the drafting and crafting of legislation that would improve the health care system that we have in this country.

And when I talk about improvement, I mean exactly that, Mr. Speaker. We do not need to destroy a good system. We need to make it better, and we can do that. That's why the District of Columbia Medical Society at George Washington Hospital this week invited this group of physicians, this group of health care providers to come and be on a panel and to answer questions from their doctors, from employees of the hospital, from nurses, from people from all walks of life, really, to let's talk about this issue and give an opportunity for another town hall meeting. President Obama had one with ABC or NBC, one of the major networks, coming from the White House, but it was totally one-sided. So as my colleagues have said, we can fix this system. We can do it. We don't need to throw the baby out with the bath water, as the old expression goes. We feel that if there are 10 million people in this country who cannot afford health insurance or are denied it because of a pre- existing condition, that's too many.

There are a number of things that we can do, and I will just briefly mention a couple. Clearly we can agree with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle with regard to the efficacy and money-saving aspects of electronic medical records. I would hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle could agree with us that meaningful tort reforms, where doctors weren't constantly having to order just tons of unnecessary tests, and hospitals doing the same thing, knowing that they're unnecessary and maybe downright harmful to the patient. But with this fear, this constant fear of frivolous lawsuits facing them, all this extra money is spent for naught. So these are just a couple of things that we can do. Certainly the insurance industry, the health insurance industry needs to reform. There are a number of things that they could do, and hopefully later in the hour we can get back to that. But I think the most important thing for our colleagues and the American people to understand is that we do have the best health care system in the world, and we have the capability of coming together in a bipartisan way. My colleagues who have already spoken have plans, have bills that they've worked on for years. But do they get to see the light of day? Absolutely not. The President and this majority is so focused on this public plan. One of my colleagues is going to speak in a few minutes; and he is going to talk about, Well, since that public option is so darn good, then maybe President Obama, Mrs. Obama and those two precious children ought to be on that public option plan rather than a Blue Cross/Blue Shield or some other Federal Employees Health Benefits plan. If it's good enough for the general public, it ought to be good enough for Members of Congress. I may be stealing somebody else's thunder. At this point I will yield back to my colleague from Texas, as he continues to control this time.

I realize we are running short on time, but I just wanted to comment on the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming's resolution. Mr. Speaker, it would be akin to a member of a public school board, let's say in your own community or in my community. In fact, I was on a public school board, and do you think I would have had the audacity to have my children enrolled in a private school while I served on the local public school board? Absolutely not. All four of my children went to that public school. It wasn't a perfect school, but it was my job to make it perfect, as perfect as I could.

And so for this Democratic majority, and this President, I would take it a step further than what Dr. Fleming said. I would say to the President, and to Mrs. Obama and to the children, you know, Sign up for this public health plan, because you are purporting it to be the best thing since sliced bread, better than any private, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, WellPoint, whatever is out there in the private market.

This is a wonderful hour, and I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for bringing up this commonsense point.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

With all due respect to my colleague from Oregon, my former chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, I do rise in opposition to this rule.

I had an amendment that would have addressed my concerns. While I am generally supportive of the bill, I have some concerns relating to venture capital involvement, and unfortunately, the rule does not provide for any commonsense amendment offered by Members on both sides of the aisle that would address these concerns. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) spoke just a few minutes ago, a former chairman of the Small Business Committee, about these same concerns.

Venture capital helps small business entrepreneurs gain credibility on solid ideas that have the potential for commercialization. However, while venture capital serves as an important component in facilitating small business success, it must also be closely monitored and scrutinized. Because these grants are intended, Mr. Speaker, for small business research and development, we must ensure that venture capital does not represent a majority of the financial interest within the company of SBIR applicants.

Existing law and regulation limits a single venture capital firm from owning 49 percent of the interests of the company applying for the grant. This bill leaves open the possibility that multiple venture capital firms could own the majority of the financial interests within the company. Anyone could own up to 30 percent, or they could own 90 percent of the company. So I believe this goes against the spirit of the program, Mr. Speaker.

The SBIR program is designed to provide assistance to a small business that may have an idea that can be considered a diamond in the rough without necessarily having financial backing to bankroll a promising idea. We had hearings on this issue, and venture capitalists came before us, and they were in the business of, it seemed to me, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, of churning this program, and I just had great concerns about that. I think overall it is a good program.

Mr. Polis, you can put me down as supporting the program with all those other organizations that you mentioned, but we should have improved this. We should have had better oversight on venture capital.