Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, on March 24, 2009, the House of Representatives passed H. Con. Res. 55--recognizing the 30th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA)--unanimously by voice vote. The Members of this House have spoken in one voice affirming the need to further deepen the relationship between the United States and Taiwan.

This anniversary is an important milestone and represents an incredible opportunity for us to further build upon and strengthen the U.S.-Taiwan relationship. On April 12, 2009, President MaYing-jeou in his address on the anniversary of the TRA declared ``the TRA has come to symbolize the strong friendship and trust forged between America and Taiwan over these past decades'' and the TRA has served as an anchor of ``peace and stability.''

In his address, President Ma laid out the historical and political significance of the TRA and the diplomatic path hewed by its enactment:

The TRA was enacted in 1979 by the U.S. Congress to cope

with the Taiwan situation after the U.S. had switched

diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing. It replaced

the terribly inadequate arrangement of the Carter

Administration, by keeping all aspects of the Taiwan-U.S.

relationship intact except, of course, formal diplomatic

ties, a mutual defense treaty and the stationing of American

troops in Taiwan. One American commentator said in 1979 that

while the U.S.-China Joint Communique establishing diplomatic

relations derecognized Taiwan, the Taiwan Relations Act has

re-recognized it. My Harvard professor Detlev Vagt said to me

after the passing of the TRA that Taiwan is the most

recognized unrecognized government of the U.S.

In an imperfect world, the TRA, which largely accommodates

Taiwan's needs for continuity, reality, security, legality

and governmental status in the new Taiwan-U.S. relationship,

is the second-best choice for Taiwan. Today the TRA is more

than a convenient solution to a political dilemma. Its very

existence changed the evolutionary course of cross-strait

development by stabilizing the triangular relationship among

Taiwan, the United States and mainland China.

President Ma also addressed the need to promote Taiwan's economic growth and to take the necessary steps to ensure Taiwan's rightful place in our global economy:

We believe that rapprochement with mainland China will

improve Taiwan's prospects for expanding our international

space. Certainly, the international community will benefit

significantly from this change, whether by capitalizing on

the new business opportunities thereby made available or

simply by no longer being caught in volatile cross-strait

relations. For example, the establishment of the Three Links

has made it logistically feasible and economically cost-

effective to fly, ship or send mail across the Taiwan Strait.

The establishment of direct cross-strait travel and

transport provides an incentive for the international

community to include Taiwan in regional economic arrangements

in East Asia. In fact, right after we inaugurated the Three

Links across the Taiwan Strait, Taiwan was able to join the

Government Procurement Agreement last December, which we had

been unable to participate in when we became a member of the

World Trade Organization six years ago. This new development

is good news to many potential foreign investors in the U.S.,

Japan and Europe.

The United States interest will always be in the defense of democracy and in honoring our

commitment to the protection of democratic institutions and peoples. President Ma also expressed his commitment to these same principles:

In fact, Taiwan has much to offer foreign investors. We are

a country with a sophisticated legal infrastructure, a

democratically open and stable political system and a viable

and liberal economy.

We therefore want to end Taiwan's isolation from the world

by putting our economic relations with the Chinese mainland

on a more normal footing. At the same time, the more

contentious political issues will be left on the back burner.

We will put off political talks until after a firm foundation

for economic, cultural and educational exchanges has been

established and buttressed by reciprocal trust and confidence

on both sides.

Strengthening the relationship between the United States and Taiwan is essential. This Congress must continue to remain firm in our commitment to Taiwan and meet our obligations under the TRA, as President Ma expressed:

Undoubtedly, the resilience of the TRA and the recent

cross-strait detente have opened new opportunities for

Taiwan, the U.S. and the mainland to pave a common path

towards cooperation, instead of confrontation. This new

equilibrium can result in a win-win-win situation for all

sides. Obviously, America's role is pivotal. For peace

negotiations to continue, the United States is well advised

to not only reaffirm but also bolster its commitments under

the TRA. The newfound rapprochement with the mainland only

means we must with equal, if not greater, effort work to

fortify U.S.-Taiwan relations on the basis of mutual trust.

This I believe calls for an expansion of bilateral

interaction especially at higher levels so as to always

guarantee clear communication and better cooperation.

Furthermore, a strong commitment in U.S. arms sales and

support for expanding Taiwan's international space will

enhance our position in face of a power imbalance now rapidly

developing across the strait.

Therefore, we come here today not only to commemorate a

historic point in cross-strait relations, but, more

importantly, to celebrate the endurance of Taiwan-U.S.

relations. The strength of the TRA is more vital and crucial

at this critical juncture of development than ever before.

U.S.-Taiwan relations, the stability of the status quo and

even the entire region hangs in the balance. Therefore, I

call on Taiwan and the United States to continue to honor the

commitments that have bound their destinies together in

common friendship and interest for the past three decades.

Madam Speaker, it is my express hope that as we move forward from this 30th Anniversary, the United States and Taiwan will continue to recognize the importance of our shared destinies and act accordingly for the preservation and promotion of our shared values.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Mabry Middle School Band, which is currently on a special trip to Washington, DC. Mabry Middle School is located in my hometown of Marietta in Georgia's 11th Congressional District. The Mabry Band Program, directed by Jill Barnocki and Kimberly Bruce, has 377 students enrolled in grades 6-8.

Madam Speaker, members of the band program consistently earn recognition in both the Georgia All-State Band and the Georgia District 12 Honor Band. All of the school's bands earned straight superior ratings in the Georgia Large Group Performance Evaluation. The Mabry Band program has also received invitations to perform at prestigious conferences and competitions throughout the country, including the International Band & Orchestra Conference in Chicago in 2008, the Georgia Music Educators Conference in Savannah, Georgia in 2007, the Southeastern Middle School Band Clinic at Troy State University in 2003, and the University of Georgia Mid-Fest in 2002.

Mabry Middle School has been an exemplary part of the Marietta City School System since it opened in November of 1978. The school is ranked in the top ten schools in the state of Georgia and is a Georgia School of Excellence. In 2005 Mabry Middle School was awarded the Scholastic and Intel's Schools of Distinction Award for Technology Innovation and Georgia's Silver Award for Academic Achievement. Mabry is also a 2008 No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon School of Excellence. I ask that my colleagues join me in recognizing the accomplishments of the students and band of Mabry Middle School.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the gentleman from Texas for yielding and for giving me the opportunity to join with him on the floor tonight as we talk to our colleagues about our impression of the first 100 days.

I was actually on ``Fox News Sunday,'' just yesterday, basically talking about the same thing, and my comment then was: well, you know, what bothers me more than the first 100 days and the performance of the President is the fact that yesterday was National Debt Day. It was the day on which the Federal Government had spent every bit of the money that we've taken in. All of the revenue has been spent on expenses, on discretionary spending and on mandatory spending, and now, for the rest of the year, it's borrowed money. We're going to be spending borrowed money for the rest of the year.

The striking--shocking almost--thing about that, Mr. Speaker, is that this is occurring 3\1/2\ months earlier this year, the gentleman from Texas, than it did last year. So, yes, there's no way that I could stand before my colleagues and say that I would give the President a good grade on this.

My worthy opponent in the majority yesterday, as we always have a Republican and a Democrat on these television shows, said: Well, you know, the President ought to be scored on a curve. I guess he meant compared to the last President--President Bush and the previous administration. In the opinion of this gentleman, the President should get an A on the curve. Now, he's a Harvard-educated lawyer, an accountant, and I think he, maybe, even has a Ph.D. In the Ivy League, I don't think they give anything, Mr. Speaker, but A's and B's. I went to Georgia Tech, and there is no curve. There is no grade inflation at Georgia Tech. I hope my friends at Georgia Tech won't get on to me about this. I'm a Georgia Tech graduate, and I speak only for myself, but I would give him at best a C-minus.

One of the things that bothers me the most is this recent release, this declassification and release of these memos that were written by attorneys in the previous Justice Department in regard to enhanced interrogation to try to make sure that anything we did as a country was done legally and within the bounds of the law and within the bounds of our great Constitution. I'm sure they struggled--it was a difficult thing to do--and in good conscience said to the President: This is what you can do. This is what you cannot do. We're in a desperate situation. We have just been attacked. Three thousand or more people were killed when the Twin Towers came crashing down after the Islamic extremists-- the terrorists, global terrorists--I guess we call that overseas contingency operations now.

I guess we can no longer talk about terrorism.

We were in a desperate situation, Mr. Speaker, and to think that the President--I read this in the paper about how he spent 5\1/2\ hours with his top-level people over in the West Wing, debating pro and con whether or not to release these memos--to declassify them and to embarrass, I guess, the previous administration and our country to the world. After 5\1/2\ hours of debate, pro and con, the President made a decision to release those memos, and then of course said: But now, you know, we need to move forward. I'm a leader--and I hope and pray that he is--who wants to look to the future.

We've got a lot of problems. This economy is terrible. With everything we've done, we're just right back to where we were, you know, as far as the Dow goes and as far as continuing to lose jobs. So we need to move forward and not focus on the past. We're not going to be prosecuting these people because what they did they did in good faith. Then, what, 6 days later, all of a sudden, he said: Well, maybe I'm not so sure about that.

Mr. Speaker, this is dangerous stuff, and I think the President really needs to rethink this. This business of gotcha and saying that, you know, everything is the fault of the previous administration, I think, has got to stop. If he wants to get a good score on his first 100 days, well then, let's start thinking about the next 100 days. I'm ready to give him a good score if he--the President, Mr. President, the 44th President of the United States--doesn't try to take over our health care system and doesn't bring us towards socialized medicine and a single-payer system, if he doesn't tax the middle class to death with this carbon trade scheme, regime, European Union idea, that, I think, is crazy in these economic times. If he wants a decent score in the next 100 days--and I'll yield back to my colleague--then hopefully he will and this Congress will and this majority will reject these ideas as we move forward.

I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding.

We thought we would spend a few minutes this evening talking about another problem, a huge, huge problem, and, of course, that is with our health care system in this country and the fact that the administration has made one of their top priorities for this Congress health care reform.

Those of us on the Republican side, Mr. Speaker, the loyal minority, feel that our health care system does need some reforming, but not in the way that the President has proposed, not in the way that the majority party has suggested the road in which they want to travel in regard to health care reform.

I have got an opportunity this evening to be joined by a number of doctors on our side of the aisle; in fact, we are part of a new caucus in the House, the Republican or GOP Doctors Caucus. We have about 12 members in that group, Mr. Speaker. And I was trying to get my staff to real quickly this evening estimate the number of years of medical provider experience that, in the aggregate, we have got in this group. And that estimate, as just given to me by one of my colleagues, 331 total years of medical practice among the GOP Republican Doctors Caucus. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker, 331 years.

Now, I am not going to say that that necessarily makes us experts, but it certainly does give us, in the Republican Doctors Caucus, a perspective, an experience that we should definitely be heard on this issue of how to best reform this health care system of ours that we love to say and proudly say is the best in the world.

We know that it's not perfect, and we know that when statistics are thrown out by the United States Census Bureau that 47 million Americans every day throughout the year go without health insurance, that is a staggering statistic, and I would say, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, an unacceptable statistic.

Now, the truth of the matter is, when you peel back that onion, though, of 47 million people that have been determined by questions of survey that's done in the typical Census Bureau fashion, what you find is that this is just kind of a snapshot, Mr. Speaker, of any point in time there may be 47 million people who are without health insurance. But many of them, in fact, it's estimated that as much as a fourth of that number or maybe even as much as 40 percent, within 2 to 3 to 4 months, at the most, will have insurance. They may have lost it temporarily because of a job change or an illness, or they just happened to let their premiums lapse, and they regain that health insurance.

But one of the things that's without question, as we look at the statistics, the 47 million, is that there are 18 million of them who clearly can afford--I am not saying they live in luxury, but they could afford to provide health insurance for themselves and probably for their family as well, because 18 million of the 47 million make more than $50,000 a year.

Eighteen million of the 47 million have an income more than $50,000 a year, and 10 million of that 18 million make more than $100,000 a year.

So there are people in this country that are just simply, they are probably, I would guess, demographically between the ages of 22 and 35, who are healthy and young and in many cases single, have good jobs, professionals, just don't want to spend the money and just feel like, well, if I get sick, I will pay it out of my pocket.

I think it is a mistake. I think it is a huge mistake, and I certainly don't recommend that. I think people are playing Russian roulette almost by doing that because of some catastrophic illness, a broken neck in a motor vehicle accident that would leave a person disabled for life. That is a worst case scenario I guess you could think of. But that just shows you that the number is not as bad, that 47 million. Then it is estimated that one fourth of those are people who are not even citizens of this country.

So you get down and you start peeling the onion, and you peel the onion, the layers peel back and you may have 15 million in this country, 10 or 15 million people who, through no fault of their own, they are not poor enough to be eligible for our safety net programs like Medicaid and maybe the CHIP program, Children's Health Insurance Program, and they are not old enough to be eligible for Medicare. They are not disabled, thank goodness, but they don't make enough money to be able to afford it.

We definitely need to do something about that, and I can tell you that every member of the Doctors Caucus, the Republican Doctors Caucus, agree that number is too high, and we want to do something about it, and we will do something about it. There are a number of things that need reform in our system, and we will talk about that tonight.

I have been joined by a couple of my colleagues as I look across the Chamber and I see Dr. Murphy from Pennsylvania, and I see Dr. Fleming from Louisiana, and I think others will join us as we get deeper into the hour. But I am going to engage sort of in a colloquy, maybe an open mike with my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, talking about what we feel needs to be done, but, more importantly, what we feel absolutely should not be done as we bring to you these 331 total years of medical experience and working with patients, constituents now, that we have morphed into proud Members of the Congress, but to understand what they want, what the doctor-patient relationship is all about.

Some of our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, have not had that unique opportunity, and it is our obligation to share it with them as they share with us their experience in their professional lives. That is really why we are here. That is what we are all about.

Anyone that says Republicans are the party of no, they have no opinion, they just show up and vote no, that is absolutely an unfair characterization, Mr. Speaker. We do have a plan. We have a second opinion, as I point to this first slide before yielding to my colleagues. We have a second opinion, heck, on everything, on every issue.

We heard from Mr. Scalise a few minutes ago about spending and a second opinion that we Republicans have on the budget, a second opinion that we Republicans have on the Energy and Commerce Committee in regards to what kind of comprehensive energy bill this country needs that is not this cap-and-trade and the silent hidden tax of $3,000 per family that hits middle class Americans so hard, and that is what the second opinion that Mr. Scalise was giving in regard to that issue.

Well, by way of introduction, Mr. Speaker, that is what we are going to be talking about here for the next 45 minutes. I see my colleague from Pennsylvania is here and ready to go, and I want to yield 5 to 7 minutes to the good doctor from Pennsylvania, Dr. Tim Murphy, my classmate and colleague.

Dr. Murphy, if you would yield back to me just for a second on that point, this second slide, the cost of the current government-run health programs, well, on this first bullet, colleagues, look at this. CBO estimates that individual and corporate income tax rates would have to rise by about 90 percent through 2050 to finance projected increases in Medicare and Medicaid. That is what Dr. Murphy is talking about. The cost of reductions in Medicare payments then are passed on to consumers who purchase their own care or get it from their employer, and that adds $1,500 annually or 10.6 percent to the annual cost of coverage for a family of four.

So, Dr. Murphy, I agree with you completely that we are in a situation where if that is the model, then God help us, if that is the model that we are going to adapt for all Americans. ``Medicare for all'' I think is the way Senator Kennedy put it.

I think there is a formality here, Mr. Speaker, in regard to who controls the time. Our colleague from Louisiana, he is not a physician, he is just a very smart Member of this body and my colleague on the Energy and Commerce Committee where we deal with health care, as is Dr. Murphy, where we deal with health care every day, and Mr. Scalise, the professor from Louisiana, is controlling the time, and I yield back to him as he yields to other colleagues.

Well, I thank the honorary Dr. Scalise for yielding time back to me because the point, before we go back to Mr. Scalise and then hear from Dr. Roe, is this a point about a new government-run health plan that, I think, we want to emphasize to our colleagues because this is the one thing that we fear the most.

Well, I guess the one thing that we fear the most is, in one fell swoop, going to a single-payer system of socialized medicine like they have in Canada or in the United Kingdom or in other countries where there are major, major problems that some of my colleagues might want to address. That's the worst thing.

What we fear from the strategy of the Democratic majority, Mr. Speaker, is to get there in two steps. The first step, of course, would be to have a government plan, a government health insurance plan, to compete with the private market, but the question is: Will that government plan compete fairly? We think not, and we have a great fear that it would drive the private market out of a competitive position and that it would cause employers who right now cover 119 million lives through employment-provided health insurance to just simply drop that and say, Well, shoot. You all go get it from the government.

I will yield back to my colleague from Louisiana, Mr. Scalise, so he can yield time to other colleagues in the doctors' caucus.

Thank you very much.

Just momentarily, before we go to east Georgia and Dr. Broun, I did want to show in graphic form on this next slide, this poster that I have--my colleagues, when I talked about the employment-based health insurance, the 119 million, here they are in this pretty green box here, chart, showing that 119 million in these private plans under this so-called public default plan will end up over here in this nice orange bar graph showing something like 132 million people on the government plan.

And as our colleague from Pennsylvania, Dr. Murphy, was talking about earlier, if that's the model that we want, that's the model that right now, 33 percent of physicians have closed their practices to Medicaid, 12 percent have closed their practices to Medicare. Why? Because these artificially low reimbursement rates do not even cover the doctor's expenses.

Physicians want to give their time out of compassion and to treat the poor who cannot afford health care through no fault of their own, but they can't keep the doors open. They're small business men and women as well, and they have salaries to pay. They have insurance to provide. So it's just a matter of going down a road that's not sustainable.

Representative Scalise, thank you for yielding me time, and I yield back to you so you can yield to Dr. Broun.

Representative Scalise, I thank you for controlling the time, and I know we are getting very close to the end here.

But just to say we are not picking on our great neighbors to the north, Canada, or our great friends in the United Kingdom--they do wonderful things, they are wonderful people, but we don't necessarily feel that we want to adopt their health care system. And of course part of the reason is because so many Canadians come down to our country every year, they spend $1 billion annually on getting health care in the United States, so there must be a problem.

I think the main problem is a long cue because of rationing, and it's going to cost trillions of dollars to try to cover everybody under a single payer system, Mr. Speaker.

We Republicans, the Doctors Caucus on the Republican side, are here tonight to talk about better ways to do it and share that with all of our colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, and especially with the administration. And we hope that President Obama is listening because I know that he wants to do something to improve health care in this country. But, hopefully, we can talk him out of having a default plan that everybody morphs into a single-payer system.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of House Resolution 247. This Resolution expresses support for the designation of March 22, 2009 as ``National Rehabilitation Counselors Appreciation Day.''

I am particularly pleased to be able to join my good friend, Chairman Ike Skelton, on this important Resolution. Since my first days in the Congress, Chairman Skelton has been a good friend and I have worked with him on a number of issues critical to our nation's defense. It is a particular honor to work with Chairman Skelton in bringing this Resolution to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 247 recognizes the hard and important work of our nation's rehabilitation counselors who day in and day out improve the lives of those who are in need of rehabilitation either from an injury or from a permanent disability. These counselors play an integral role in helping people re-establish control over their daily lives by managing the personal, social, and vocational effects of their disabilities.

Recognizing the importance of multiple sources of support, rehabilitation counselors work both with individuals and their families to plan and implement rehabilitation programs that fit their needs. Counselors often make arrangements for medical care, job training, and job placement services with the aim of achieving the best possible quality of life.

Mr. Speaker, physical disabilities do not discriminate and can affect anyone or any family. Many of us have family members or friends who suffer from disabilities that shape their everyday life. Chairman Skelton himself is a testament to the positive effect of rehabilitation counseling.

In fact, I was pleased to join Chairman Skelton a few years back in Warm Springs, Georgia--which at the time was part of the 11th Congressional District. We were there because in his youth, Chairman Skelton himself benefited from rehabilitation and therapy for his own disability. I know this Resolution has particular and personal importance for him as he remembers those doctors and counselors who were so helpful to him.

Mr. Speaker, in this life, we often face challenges that we cannot overcome alone. Accordingly, we have an obligation to recognize and celebrate those individuals who spend their lives making other lives better. I call on my colleagues to support this Resolution in gratitude for our nation's rehabilitation counselors. I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I certainly want to pay tribute to Chairman Waxman in regard to the work that he has done over these many years, 10, at least, in regard to trying to help our society rid themselves of, really, the scourge of smoking cigarettes and many health care problems that that leads to. I don't think that there's any question in anybody's mind about that. And certainly the Surgeon General's warning, very profound, clear warning on a package of cigarettes, should bring their attention to that every time they light up, whether we're talking about young adults or at any age group. And leading to lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, maybe better known as emphysema. So I commend Chairman Waxman very much. I think his heart is in the right place, and what he's trying to do is very credible.

But I do feel that Representative Buyer, from Indiana, and his substitute amendment, will be presented shortly. I really feel, Mr. Speaker, that this is very likely a better way. And so I do rise in strong support of the Buyer amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Despite decades of intense efforts to eradicate the practice, still more than 40 million American adults continue to smoke cigarettes, and that is likely to remain the case, unfortunately, for decades to come.

All tobacco products are harmful, but the health risks associated with cigarettes are significantly greater than those associated with the use of smoke-

free tobacco and nicotine-only products.

So, given these facts, an increasing number of public health experts advocate adopting a tobacco ``harm-reduction'' approach like that proposed in the Buyer amendment that will lower the health risks associated with using tobacco or nicotine.

A growing body of science shows that smokers who switch to smokeless tobacco products can significantly decrease their risk of tobacco- related illness and death.

A World Health Organization Study Group wrote last year that: ``Smokeless tobacco products do not cause the lung diseases causally associated with the use of combusted tobacco products such as cigarettes, pipes and cigars.''

Scientific studies show that even the risk for cancers of the mouth and the throat are higher for smokers than for those who use tobacco products that do not burn. Year after year, this body has considered tobacco regulation that fails to recognize the significant progress that can be achieved by adding this harm-reduction component to tobacco-control efforts.

An article last year, Mr. Speaker, in the Journal of Health Care Law and Policy correctly concluded that, and this is a quote, ``Ignoring harm reduction is simply not a viable option as there is no question that it is possible to provide massively less toxic alternative products.''

Mr. Speaker, a 2007 article in the International Journal of Drug Policy noted that ``A pragmatic, public health approach to tobacco control would recognize a continuum of risk and encourage nicotine users to move themselves down the risk spectrum by choosing safer alternatives to smoking, without demanding abstinence.''

The Buyer amendment presents us with the opportunity to institute that type of pragmatic approach. It offers a stringent regime under which harm-reduction strategies can augment and leverage continued efforts to prevent tobacco use, and to encourage current smokers to quit.

So, as a physician who deeply cares about the health and the welfare of our citizens, I urge you, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to adopt the amendment as our Nation's best option for fighting the disease and the death caused by tobacco in the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I'm a very proud supporter of H.R. 577, the Vision Care for Kids Act of 2009. I want to commend Representative Green from Texas and Representative Sullivan from Oklahoma for bringing forward this bill.

The reason why I'm here, Mr. Speaker, speaking on this issue as a physician Member of the House, is because it's very personal to me.

My granddaughters, my oldest grandchildren, are now 11 years old. They are identical twin girls, Ali and Hannah Manning. And, Mr. Speaker, they were born prematurely. In fact, they were born immaturely, so premature at 26 weeks, that each of them weighed 1 pound, 12 ounces. And I thank God, Mr. Speaker, for the blessing, the double miracles of life and health. And really, they've done fine, except they had problems with vision. And that's because these young, premature, immature infants, need, Mr. Speaker, to receive so much oxygen therapy in their first weeks of life that it can damage the retina, and, in fact, that's what happened with our twin granddaughters. And they had to have multiple surgeries, laser surgeries. In fact, little Ali learned how to put a contact lens in her eye when she was only 5 years old. She could put it in and take it out.

And again, we are so blessed. Their parents are blessed. My daughter and son-in-law, and the grandparents, the Mannings, and we Gingreys are so thankful.

But we think every day about other children who cannot afford the care, maybe cannot afford to have vision screening. And if they do, Mr. Speaker, and if they're found to have limited vision, Mr. Sullivan talked about all the difficulties in school, both emotionally and physically and educationally that they have. If they can't afford then to have something done about their visual problem, what a shame that is.

So, for us to have a bill, a program where Federal grants are given through the CDC, working with the States to make sure that each and every child, not just those privileged few that happen to have good coverage, could get the care that they need so they could become good, strong students and

healthy and happy adults. So this is a wonderful program.

Again, I commend the committee, Energy and Commerce Committee. I commend Mr. Green, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Deal.

I recommend that all my colleagues, of course, support H.R. 577.

Madam Speaker, with the NCAA Basketball Tournament now down to the Final Four, I want to recognize a very talented group of high school student athletes from Smyrna, Georgia, near my home in Cobb County. In this year's Georgia High School Association State final, the Whitefield Academy Boys Basketball team, or the Wolf Pack, upset number one ranked Turner County 69-53 to claim the class A State title.

The game was all tied up at the half, but Whitefield opened the second half with a 16-2 run, and they never looked back. Madam Speaker, in the end it was discipline and determination that allowed Coach Tyrone Johnson and the Whitefield Academy Wolf Pack to hand Turner County their very first loss of 2009 and claim the school's second class A boys' State Championship.

Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating Whitefield Academy on their State championship as well as all of the hard work that got them there.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Minnesota for yielding and also my colleague from New Jersey, my classmate, Representative Scott Garrett. This is the week that we take up the budget, Mr. Speaker, as all of our colleagues know, and we are going to have, we have the Obama version that came over from OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, which crunched the numbers for the President. And it is a budget that calls for, well, I have the numbers right here, Mr. Speaker. And it sort of has a side-by-side comparison of the Obama budget, the House version, which we will take up in this Chamber, and the Senate version.

I just noticed, I can't help but just be absolutely astounded, Mr. Speaker, by these numbers. But in the President's budget, he calls for spending $3.67 trillion, $3.67 trillion. That's the 2010 Fiscal Year budget.

Now, when the Congressional Budget Office, the bipartisan number crunchers for the Congress, for the House and the Senate, when they looked at the Obama budget, they said, you know, instead of creating something like $7 trillion worth of debt over 10 years, it's going to be $9 trillion worth of debt over 10 years.

And we heard on television, Mr. Speaker, immediately, the concern expressed by the Democratic chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Kent Conrad from North Dakota and also the concern, even, you could see it in his face, the concerned expression on the face of the chairman of the House Budget Committee, John Spratt, our friend from South Carolina, that, goodness gracious, based on these Congressional Budget Office estimates, nonpartisan, that this presidential budget of $3.67 trillion was not sustainable.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that's what the Congressional Budget Office said. This level of spending is not sustainable.

So I really expected some significant cuts in the budget proposed by the House and proposed by the Senate. And yet, when you look at these side by side, as I said at the outset, the President Obama budget $3.67 trillion, the House budget which Mr. Spratt will present to us in the next couple of 3 days, $3.55 trillion, the Senate version, $3.53 trillion. Well, to my surprise, there is not much cutting here. 3.67 trillion versus 3.55, the House version, or 3.53, the Senate version, my colleagues, that is a lot of spending and very little cut.

I have to do the quick math, and I would say that we're talking about one one-hundredth of a percent, or maybe it's close to one one- thousandth of a percent of cut. So you can posture, you can use a lot of rhetoric about what you're doing in regard to being fiscally responsible. But you'd have to say, and hearing those numbers, well, gee, I guess what the Democratic Congress, who enjoys the majority, the majority party, basically makes some tweaking around the edges posturing, I think, to some extent, but there's no significant difference in the President's budget and what we're going to have to vote on here in the House and also over in the Senate.

So I think, to suggest is very, very misleading to suggest that this body, or this Congress, both chambers, is exercising fiscal responsibility. I think these budgets are not sustainable, just as the President's budget is not sustainable.

And if my colleague from Minnesota will continue to yield, I've got a slide or two that I want to show, because, Mr. Speaker, I hear so much, and I watched some of the Sunday morning cable programs and network news, where most of the time it's the Senators that are getting interviewed, or the administration. Of course, Geithner was on this weekend, as he's been on a lot with this, what he's doing with the Treasury Department and the recommendations for getting us back on the road to fiscal recovery.

But I heard him say, the Treasury Secretary, ``well, you know, we inherited a bad situation.''

Mr. Speaker, I know you've heard it. My colleagues, Mrs. Bachmann, I know you've heard it, you know, this creating a straw man and saying, you know, well, we inherited this mess, talking about the budget or indeed talking about the situation in Afghanistan or Iraq. We inherited this bad policy.

But, in regard to the budget, that's where I really wanted to focus my attention. They keep saying that this deficit for the Fiscal Year 2009, which now is approaching 1.8, 1.7, $1.8 trillion, I mean, that's four times as large as any deficit under the Bush administration. Go back and look at 2004 or 2005, 2006. Our deficits were coming down.

And the Democrats have been in control, Mr. Speaker, since January of 2007. So you know, when you say that you inherited, well, what party was it that refused to pass nine spending bills in the Fiscal Year 2009? Which party was that? Well, it was the majority party. And the reason that they did not want to pass those bills is because the President, the former President simply said, this is too much spending, and if you send those to my desk, I will veto them.

So the Democratic majority, Mr. Speaker, just held back on those spending bills, and we had these continuing resolutions to fund the government because they knew when they got the presidency, which most polls suggested at that point, that they would, and they did, and then brought forward, in the first part of this year, those nine bills that increased spending by 8 percent.

If you add the money that was put in the so-called economic recovery spendulus package to the 8 percent, it turns out that on those nine bills we increased the spending by 80 percent. Eighty percent. And so, you can't blame the previous administration for a $1.7 trillion deficit. You know, you can say, well, some of that we voted on in regard to the TARP money, the $700 billion, that vote occurring in October/November time frame of 2008. And you say, well, yes, that added to this deficit.

But who was it that voted for that and approved that in the House and the Senate? The Democratic majority. They're the ones that voted for it. A few Republicans, sure. But it was the Democrats that--they could have stopped it. They could have stopped every dime of that $700 billion TARP, Toxic Asset Relief Program which, as it turned out, was never even spent for that.

So as we look at what's going on in the future, just as the Congressional Budget Office did, over the next 10 years, you see what we're talking about, these deficits that go out into the future as far as the eye can see. And so at the end of 10 years, our debt is increased--well, real quickly, just another slide to show that. In 2019, that 10-year budget window, we're going from something like almost $6 trillion of debt to 14, almost $15 trillion of public debt by the year 2019. Man, if anything is unsustainable, that is unsustainable.

And to show it in a pictorial form, and I think we can bring this home to our colleagues so much with this next

poster, Mr. Speaker. President Obama would more than double the Federal debt to $14.5 trillion, with a T. It took 43 presidents, here's their pictures, 43 presidents, 232 years to build up $5.8 trillion in publicly held Federal debt. Under President Obama's proposed budget, over the next 6 years, we're going to add $8.7 trillion to that.

These are staggering numbers and, as the CBO says, Mr. Speaker, unsustainable. I just wanted to make sure my colleagues understood what we're talking about here and the magnitude and the significance of this.

I'm going to yield back to the gentlelady from Minnesota who controls the time. I know we have other colleagues here that want to speak. And I will enjoy continuing the colloquy during this hour.

I thank my colleague for yielding. She brings up such a good point.

Mr. Speaker, I don't stand here and say that President Obama is deliberately trying to destroy markets, but as my colleague points out, this, in effect, is exactly what is happening. What will be the result? I hasten to say that what we are talking about here in regard to General Motors and Chrysler and the speech that the President made in regard to what he is doing sounds so much like what was done in this body

last week in regard to these bonuses that were paid legally and legitimately. Although, public outrage suggests that the recipients of those bonuses from AIG--because we, the taxpayers, had bailed them out to the tune of $170 trillion--clearly, should voluntarily give those bonuses back.

It isn't for us to trample all over the Constitution and to have a trial by legislation of these recipients of the bonuses. A bill of attainment is what article I of the Constitution calls it, or violating the takings clause of the fifth amendment, and we knew that. Every Member of this body, I think, knew exactly that they were voting for something that was unconstitutional, just to sort of show, oh, gosh, you know, we are the fiscally responsible ones. The bonuses amounted to 1/1,000th of the amount of money that this Democratic majority and that even the previous administration had bestowed on this company like it was the only insurance company that existed in the United States of America.

I don't get my life insurance from AIG, and here we come along with this plan of telling the CEO of General Motors that he has got to step down. Do you know what I fear, Mr. Speaker? I fear that, once again, this is just posturing to set us up for another bailout. They want more money. General Motors wants more money. I am sure Chrysler does, too. So we hear this plan of, Oh, we're going to really crack the whip and crack down on these egregious folks, like the chairman and CEO of General Motors, and make him step down. I would really like to know-- and hopefully, some good investigative reporter, Mr. Speaker, will find out--what kind of golden parachute he gets as he steps down.

Well, the gentlelady from Minnesota, I think, put it so well, and I think you and my colleagues would almost have to agree that this sounds so socialistic.

There are worse terms you could apply to it, and the gentlelady may have one that she wants to express.

You know, as to this Government Motors business of, look, we have to do this so that people will be confident in the company and will buy these automobiles because now they feel secure in their 3- to 5-year warranty, listen, I would feel so much better with the chapter 11 option and if General Motors had to restructure under the bankruptcy code. Then nobody would lose their jobs. Maybe there would have to be a little cut in pay, and the vendors would take a little haircut, but this company would continue to be viable.

I want to just very quickly tell my colleagues about a company that is very important in my district, the 11th Congressional District of Georgia. We have a lot of poultry industry in northwest Georgia, and the big name that you hear about when you think about poultry processing--across the country, in fact, certainly not just in Georgia--is a company called Pilgrim's Pride. People know about Pilgrim's Pride. Well, they're financially struggling, and had to lay off literally thousands of workers and temporarily shut down for about 3 months until they made the tough decision to go into a bankruptcy reorganization under chapter 11.

I talked to some of the company executives within the last week when

Well, if the gentlelady will yield, she kind of perked my interest a little bit there as she was starting to talk about health care.

Mr. Speaker, you know I am one of the physician Members of this body, and have practiced a long time--delivering babies in Marietta and in surrounding counties--and I am so glad that health care has been brought up tonight because the President just feels like government-run programs work better than the free market. We are on the verge of seeing Hillarycare all over again. I don't want to totally shift gears here on this subject, but it is such an important point, Mr. Speaker.

We don't necessarily try to say that the free market system of health care is perfect or that we don't need to do some things to try to get the 47 million or so who are uninsured in this country health care that is accessible and affordable and portable, that they own, where they can control their own destiny and where we can encourage them to adopt wellness policies regarding their own health.

That is a subject maybe for another hour, and I will yield back to the gentlelady from Minnesota.

But clearly, we Republicans, the minority party, feel that the marketplace is the best place to solve these problems. And I don't want, Representative Bachmann doesn't want, and nobody in this Chamber should want government motors.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for yielding.

As she was pointing out, next week, the budget--the House version of our budget for fiscal year 2010--will be on this floor, and I think there is the full intention for that budget to be voted on and passed this coming week. Those of us who do not sit on the Budget Committee are not sure of all of the fine details in that budget, but we do know what our President has proffered to the Congress and to the American people as to what he would like to see as the Office of Management and Budget develops this $3.6 trillion budget. I think this is the highest amount of spending that we have had in this country since we originated our country way back in 1776 and 1779.

The bottom line in regard to it is really simple as we look at it, as we, the loyal minority--the Republican party--look at that budget. There is no question but that it does three things: It spends enormously; it taxes painfully, and it borrows dangerously. Said another way, President Obama's budget spends too much; it taxes too much, and it borrows too much. We feel that that is wrong. As I talk today with my colleague Virginia Foxx, I think it is important that people understand that there is a better way.

According to Republican philosophy, it has always been our feeling-- and I think this is a major difference between the Republicans and the Democrats--that we think ``less government.'' We think people have an opportunity to hold onto more of their hard-earned dollars and to pay less taxes to the Federal Government and to limit spending. That is the best recipe to get us out of this economic ditch that we are in. You have heard, and I have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle many times say, ``The first rule of a ditch is that, when you're in one, you need to stop digging.'' Well, without question, this budget that the President has submitted to us is just digging a deeper and deeper hole in regard to the amount of debt--well, deficit spending, red ink--from year to year. In the aggregate, of course, you accumulate more and more debt, and you have to pay interest on that debt. It is just something that we, in our lifetimes, will never pay back. Our grandchildren will never pay it back, but our great grandchildren-- maybe they will pay it back, but what a burden, what a legacy to leave to the next generations.

So I thank the gentlewoman. I am really happy to be sharing the time with her and with my other colleagues.

I will yield back to Ms. Foxx, and we will continue to discuss some of the finer points of this budget that we are going to be voting on next week.

Will the gentleman yield for just a second?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me because I had some interesting statistics that follow right in with what Representative Thompson was talking about.

And in regard to those small businesses in his district, I think he described his district is very much like mine in northwest Georgia.

But just before we started this hour with Ms. Foxx controlling the time on discussing this budget, I had met with a good friend from the American Chemistry Council, and we sat down. He talked to me about this budget, this $3.6 trillion budget that borrows too much, spends too much, it taxes too much.

And he said, Phil, let me just tell you what this does to jobs that are--business are part of the American Chemistry Council membership. But in your district, the 11th of Georgia, we're talking about 1,500 direct jobs and 95,000 indirect employees of the chemical industry in the 11th District. And he was talking about the same thing Representative Thompson was talking about in regard to that energy tax, that hidden energy tax. And this business in chemicals and plastics, they are very energy dependent.

And then on top of all of that, this cap-and-tax where the President is trying to get $600 billion to spend on education and a single-payer health care system and green energy, it's really hurting these small businesses that depend on electricity. And there is a Superfund tax of $2.8 billion over 2 years. They do a lot of things with accounting that hurts small businesses.

But I just wanted to--because it's so important. It goes along right with what is going on in western Pennsylvania.

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding, and I will yield back to him.

Once again, Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina, my good friend, Virginia Foxx, and thank her for bringing this information to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle because here it is, late Thursday afternoon, but we will be right back here on Monday and probably be in session next week until maybe even Friday or Saturday--I think it's possible we'll be here until Saturday--to try to pass this House version of the budget.

I'm very hopeful that there will be some significant cuts, as Mr. Spratt, the chairman of the Budget Committee, brings that budget to the floor for a vote, and I hope there will be an opportunity for a Republican alternative. Certainly, we have a very good Republican alternative. I think there was a press conference on that today led by John Boehner and Paul Ryan the ranking member on the Budget Committee.

We need to make sure that all people are represented in this people's House, and, hopefully, we will have a good debate next week and come up with a budget that's more reasonable than what the President has sent over here that was drawn up by his economic advisers, Christina Roemer and Larry Summers and, of course, Peter Orszag, the OMB, Office of Management and Budget, director. Our Congressional Budget Office, bipartisan to the core, said that his predictions of the amount of deficit were $2.3 trillion short.

And before I yield back to Ms. Foxx, I want to just talk about some of the things in that budget that almost are incredulous.

You know, Madam Speaker, this weekend I guess starting what, tonight, we go right back to pick up, as we go home--and I'm sure lots of folks across the country will be enjoying March Madness as the Sweet Sixteen gets down to the Final Four late Sunday afternoon. So this March Madness is wonderful for sports fans, and I know that President Obama is a big sports fan, in fact a big basketball fan; but I have had people in my district say there is no place in Washington for March Madness, but that's exactly what we're looking at in regard to this budget. I mean, it's unbelievable.

Listen to this, Madam Speaker, in regard to increasing taxes during a recession, preposterous. Total tax increases during this recession over the next 10 years, $1.4 trillion; taxes on small businesses--which by the way we all know, nobody disputes the fact that they create about 75, 80 percent of the jobs in this country--this cap-and-tax, or cap- and-trade as President Obama calls it, this is a hidden tax of $646 billion on every man, woman, and child in this country. It causes the energy costs, electricity, natural gas, it just goes up, and it's a hidden tax.

But every month, the middle class, the small working people, the small businesses are paying that tax so that we can take that money, put it in a reserve fund and pay for national, government-run health care, which I quite honestly think that the people of this country spoke loud and clear, Madam Speaker, back in 1993-94 when they totally rejected HillaryCare.

So, you know, we do need to reform health care, and we need to have our market-driven system improved. And we're all for that on this side of the aisle and reduce the number of uninsured, and we can do that without giving a blank check to the Federal Government.

But I could go on about some of these taxes, but I know Representative Foxx, who's leading the hour, has a number of things that she wants to talk about in the final 15 minutes or so. So I just want to thank the gentlelady for letting me join her, and I look forward to seeing her back next week as we try to bring some sense into the budget process.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much my good friend John Carter for yielding time. I know I came in kind of late in the discussion, but I had a couple of things that I wanted to offer as suggestions.

As we look at the budget and what President Obama and the Democratic majority want to do in regard to spending, it's based on some projections. I was watching television this weekend and I think the chairperson of the Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, was saying over and over how confident she was that this budget and this plan of stimulating and restoring the vigor in the economy would work and that the President would be able to afford to cut taxes, let the Bush tax cuts expire, and that the GDP would grow and be robust.

Her projections that I recall were 4 percent GDP growth for a number of consecutive quarters. Of course, at this high unemployment rate that we're facing right now, my colleagues, it would come back down to the 6 percent range.

Well, here's a suggestion. Why don't we put some triggers on this budget and say that you can't let those tax cuts expire until you've had two or three consecutive 4 percent or more growth in the GDP and until the unemployment rate comes back down to 6 percent. If you're that confident in your program, put those triggers in there.

If my colleague will continue to yield, I've got one other suggestion, and that's based on this new program that we heard from Secretary Geithner and the Federal Reserve in regard to buying those toxic assets or troubled assets. They want the government to go--we, the taxpayers, Mr. Speaker--to go into partnership with the private sector. But who they mean by the private sector is these Wall Street Fat Cats--maybe some of them who got us in trouble in the first place. They've got cash on the sidelines. So they go into this partnership with the Federal Government but they get the best end of the deal and we, the taxpayer--my colleagues may have already gone over this, Mr. Speaker--but it's like the private sector has everything to gain, very little to lose, and the public sector--we, the taxpayer--has very little to gain and quite a lot to potentially lose.

Here's what I would suggest. If it's so good a program, why don't we just simply do this: To every person in this country who has an IRA or 401(k), maybe they're retired, to be able then for a one-time deal to put up to 10,000 extra dollars in their IRA and put that into a government fund and let them have the opportunity to invest in these troubled assets. Let the public invest and not just give this sweetheart deal to all these Wall Street Fat Cats and we, the taxpayer, who don't want to be involved in that, we would not be on the hook at all.

Honestly, I think a lot of people who have sat here and watched over the last year and a half, particularly the last 6 months, Mr. Speaker, their IRA value, their 401(k)s drop by 40 percent, the value of their home drop by 40 percent, this would give them an opportunity--praise God, hopefully--to recoup some of their money.

I just wanted to make those suggestions. It was brought to me by one of my constituents and a good friend in my district.

If the gentleman would yield for just 15 more seconds. I want to pay attribution to my colleague, a financial wizard, really, and a good friend, Tom Garr from Marietta, Georgia in the 11th Congressional District. Because it is, Mr. Speaker, our constituents a lot of times that bring us these great ideas. And we think we know everything up here in the halls of Congress, and sometimes we don't, or a lot of times we don't and it gets to be bizarro world, I call it. Even though the President is a great basketball fan, there is no place in this Congress or over down there on Pennsylvania Avenue for March Madness. It seems like that is what we have had here for the last couple or 3 weeks, and we need to get over that and move on. And I yield back to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I was recently privileged to become one of the co-chairs of the House Taiwan Caucus, and I look forward to working to strengthen our country's relationship with Taiwan through the efforts of the Caucus.

Just this week, I was also pleased to have met Ambassador Yuan and Director General Tseng down at the Georgia Capitol where the Ambassador was being honored by the Georgia General Assembly.

I rise today in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 55, which commemorates the 30th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act. As stated in this resolution, the Taiwan Relations Act has served as the cornerstone of America's relationship with Taiwan since its enactment in 1979.

This resolution recognizes ``Taiwan's evolution into a free society and a full-fledged, multi-party democracy.'' As the 9th largest trading partner of the United States in 2007, Taiwan has demonstrated its commitment to work with the United States and to collaborate on a range of issues--especially in regards to combating global terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, Taiwan has also made clear its commitment to give back to the global community through humanitarian relief an other contributions to help stabilize global financial markets.

Mr. Speaker, in recognition of this milestone anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in reaffirming our support for Taiwan's democratic institutions and commitment to our strong friendship with Taiwan.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you. And I thank our side of the aisle for having the opportunity to speak to our colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats tonight, about a very, very important issue. The team that just spoke, Mr. Speaker, on the floor of this House about much of the spending and the plans and the too much spending, too much taxing, too much borrowing theme, which is absolutely what the American public, Mr. Speaker, needs to know about, including the plans and the spending and to have a comprehensive health care reform plan that we would vote on, we literally, Mr. Speaker, would vote on before this body and the other body goes on the traditional August recess. That is what, just barely a little more than 4 months away. And the big question is not do we need health care reform? I think my colleagues, and particularly my colleagues on this side of the aisle, who are doctor Members of this body, who are with me tonight to discuss this, the issue of health care reform, we do not disagree, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues, that this needs to be done.

Nobody, whether Republican or Democrat, whether majority or minority, would want to see 47 million people in this country to have no health insurance whatsoever, and maybe another 25 million that are underinsured. And, yes, indeed, it could happen to one of my adult children and their young families. They all have decent jobs, but one major illness away from being under-insured and possibly ending up in a bankruptcy court, facing foreclosure on their homes and these kind of crises that we all agree we need to avoid.

So the reform of the health care system is not really a question of whether or not this side of the aisle agrees. We do agree. It is a matter, though, of how we do it and when we do it, and what we can afford to do. And I think that what the President has proposed so far is, just as we hear about his overall budget in a 10-year projection, and the numbers that we received over the weekend from the Congressional nonpartisan budget office, of unsustainable debt, deficits that will lead to possibly doubling of the national debt within 10 years. It is something that really has to be addressed.

Well, Mr. Speaker, tonight, we are here with, I am leading the hour, but I am very pleased that some of my colleagues on the GOP Republican Doctors Caucus have joined with me. And I wanted to set the tone for what we will talk about during this hour, and that is about physician work force; and will we have the manpower, when those 47 million hopefully do have health insurance, and the under-insured are fully insured, where are we going to come up with the doctors, the health care providers, to be able to provide that care?

Having a plastic card, Mr. Speaker, that says you are covered and you have access doesn't guarantee any individual that they are going to be able to have a provider who is going to see them.

And my fear is that they will not be able to have that access, particularly if the majority is successful in their plans to have a government default option to go along with, let's say, Medicare and Medicaid and TRICARE and veterans' health care benefits and the CHIP program. It is just adding one more responsibility of the Federal Government to control all of health care, and that is really what we are going to talk about tonight.

As I walked over here, Mr. Speaker--I was walking in the building, into this great Capitol House Chamber, the people's House--there was an emergency, and I saw physicians from the office of the House physician--paramedics, nurses--sprinting to the ambulance that is parked right outside this building for just such an emergency. I thought to myself, you know, thank God for the health care system that we already have. We definitely can improve upon that, and we will talk about that tonight, but thank God that we have that ability to respond in that manner.

It makes me think, Mr. Speaker, of the tragedy that occurred up in Canada in regard to this famous actress--and I will not mention her name--the tragic death of that actress after what seemed like a fairly routine, snow-skiing fall in which she got up, dusted herself off and said: I am fine. I do not need any medical care. Let me just go back to my resort hotel room. I am fine. Of course, that is what she did, and we all know now that 2 hours later, when she began to get into trouble and, maybe, passed out and a 911 call was made, it was 4 hours later that she was finally seen at a major medical center that could respond to this subdural hematoma that she obviously had developed. By that time, she was brain dead, and a life was lost, not just a life of a famous person and a prominent person but a mother of young children and of a devastated family.

So when we, Mr. Speaker, hear this talk about a single-payor system, of a government-run system not unlike the Canadian system--I am not necessarily picking on Canada. They are our good friends and neighbors to the north, but the same thing could be said, I think, about the system in the U.K. or in Taiwan or in any of the other countries that have a national health insurance, government-run program. If this accident had occurred, I think, out in Colorado in the United States, that young mother and famous actress would be alive today.

So these are some of my thoughts as we begin to discuss. I call on my colleagues, the doctor colleagues, who are with me tonight. I want to ask my colleagues to focus their attention on this first poster. It is titled ``A Second Opinion,'' and then, of course, it is subtitled ``Strengthen the Doctor-Patient Relationship.'' That is what we want to do, and that is what we will talk about.

With this second opinion theme, I think, most people associate a second opinion with a medical opinion, and understand that, when they go to the doctor, sometimes a second opinion is very, very valuable. In fact, I think almost always it is very valuable. So it is important when the other side of the aisle--when the majority party--says or some of their news media, coconspirators, if you will, who support a

national health insurance program or any major issue that the majority party is promoting says, well, the Republicans, all they are is a party of ``no,'' they do not have another alternative. They are just saying, well, we are going to stand in the way of something that we do not like because the majority party has presented it, and this is all political.

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth, and that is certainly true in regard to the health care of this Nation. This second opinion theme could apply to energy; it could apply to what the previous team was talking about in regard to the budget and spending. We do have a plan on the Republican side on all of these issues and, if you will, a second opinion Republican plan on health care.

So, with that sort of setting the theme, I want to go ahead and recognize my colleagues. I am going to first call on the gentleman from Pennsylvania, my classmate who has been with me here in the House--and we are now serving our fourth term--and that is Dr. Tim Murphy from the great State of Pennsylvania.

Dr. Murphy, I would like to give you an opportunity to talk about some of the issues that you have been focusing on, not just as part of the Republican Doctors Caucus but since you came to Congress some 6\1/ 2\ years ago. I will yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

I thank my colleague, my co-chairman of the GOP Doctors Caucus and of all of the important points, Mr. Speaker, that Dr. Murphy brought to us. That point he made about the doctor- patient relationship being paramount I think is the most important. And that is our concern that if we go to a government-run, totally government-run system, that that will be sacrificed and that will be sacrificed badly.

Before I yield to my colleague, Dr. Fleming from Louisiana, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to draw my colleagues' attention to this next slide in regard to the supply/demand crisis.

Even if nothing changed under the current system, we already have a shortage. And it will only get worse as we approach the year 2025. There are a lot of reasons that. Growth in an aging population. There is an immense physician shortage on the horizon. It is expected by 2025 to be a shortage by 125,000 physicians, and the demand for care by that time will increase by 26 percent.

Now, the bulk of the shortage--and these are statistics from the Association of the American Medical College; this was a center for workforce studies back in 2008, so just a year ago--but the bulk of that shortage, in fact, 37 percent of the projected shortage, is in primary care physicians. And I don't disagree with President Obama and the majority party in regard to the need to get more primary care physicians, to have these medical homes that we talk about, to stress wellness. And that is so important.

So it couldn't be more timely for me to call on Dr. Fleming, who--he specializes in family practice, and has for a number of years, in south Louisiana.

And it is indeed a pleasure to yield time now to Dr. John Fleming.

I thank the gentleman from Louisiana, the good doctor.

And, you know, again, stressing this theme of going forward, the shortage of manpower, it has a lot to do with physician satisfaction in their chosen profession. And I think that is basically what we want to make sure, Mr. Speaker, that everybody, all of our colleagues understand on both sides of the aisle, that as Dr. Fleming was saying, if you have access to an affordable health insurance policy, as we all hope and pray for those 47 million, if it's a system that is run by the government and we crowd out the private market completely--and that is one of my big fears and I think that of my colleagues--then these young men and women that normally would--our best and brightest who would normally want to go to medical school and maybe become a family practitioner and provide this care, they are not going to do it. They are going to choose another profession. They are going to maybe become lawyers, but not doctors. And I think that is a big concern.

And I don't think anybody knows more about this than the next person that I will yield to, Dr. Phil Roe, a fellow OB-GYN physician, who has provided women's care and delivered lots of babies in the Tri-City area of Tennessee--Kingsport, Bristol, Johnson City--and he knows of what he speaks. And I think he's going to talk to us a little bit about what probably everybody in this Chamber is aware of, and that is something called TIN care in Tennessee, and I am happy to yield to my colleague, a freshman representative doing a wonderful job, Dr. Phil Roe.

Well, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee and the words of the wisdom that he brought us to.

Before I yield to my colleague from Georgia, I want to just make a few comments, Mr. Speaker, about some of the statistics in regard to physician workforce shortage. Any my State, my home State of Georgia, it's ranked 40th in the Nation with respect to active physicians per 100,000 people. In Georgia, there are 204 per 100,000. National average is 250.

Georgia also has the dubious ranking of 44th in the Nation with respect to active primary care physicians. You just heard that from Dr. Fleming, and you will hear it in just a minute from Dr. Paul Broun, a family practitioner in Georgia.

Seventy-three primary care physicians per 100,000 in Georgia; the national average, 88.1. Eighty-nine percent of job seekers graduating from Georgia medical residency programs received and accepted job offers in 2004 but only 54 percent of them stayed in my great State of Georgia.

So just kind of bringing home some of the statistics from where we live and represent.

At this time, I'm proud to yield to Dr. Paul Broun, the gentleman who represents my hometown of Augusta, Georgia, and Athens, Georgia, the home of the University of Georgia, the great bulldog nation and many, many wonderful counties in between.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Paul Broun.

I thank my colleague, Dr. Broun, for joining with us in this hour, talking about the issue of strengthening the doctor-patient relationship and not destroying it.

And as Dr. Broun pointed out in some of his statistics, those shortages that he was talking about in the State of Georgia--and this is applicable to 49 other States as well--we're talking about under the current system. But once we cover the 47 million uninsured, and these numbers just get that much more difficult, and actually the shortage increases by 4 percent, and these statistics are frightening.

And before I introduce the next speaker, my colleague from Texas, my fellow OB/GYN colleague, I wanted my colleagues to see this next slide. And part of the reason of this physician shortage--and as I say, it will only get worse in the future--is declining reimbursement ranked as the number one impediment to the delivery of patient care.

Sixty-five percent of physicians surveyed said that Medicaid pays less than the cost of providing that care, and 35 percent of the physicians surveyed said Medicare pays less than cost of providing that care. Nobody in this House of Representatives has worked harder than my classmate, the good OB/GYN doctor from Plano, Dallas-Fort Worth. He has worked so hard to try to provide a reimbursement based on a reasonable formula and not this current sustainable growth rate.

Nobody can really understand how that's ever figured, but doctors know that every year it's figured in a cut in their reimbursement, and that indeed, Mr. Speaker, is not sustainable.

And with that, I yield to my colleague from Texas, Dr. Burgess.

I thank my colleague on the Energy and Commerce Committee, Dr. Burgess.

I want to yield to another of my physician colleagues from Georgia, Dr. Tom Price, an orthopedic surgeon who represents the district adjacent to mine, the Sixth District of Georgia.

Dr. Price is going to tell us a little bit about these 47 million uninsured, many of whom are employed and simply cannot afford what is offered by their employer, their portion of the premium, and many of them of course work for very small employers that can't afford to offer coverage at all.

At this point, I am proud to yield to my colleague, the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, Dr. Tom Price.

Dr. Price, thank you so much.

Mr. Speaker, I realize that we are running very close to that witching hour. Maybe I saved the best until last. He probably thinks that I'm shorting him on time because his LSU Tigers whipped up pretty badly on my Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets in the Bowl game. That's is not the case at all.

I'm proud to yield to the internist and gastroenterologist from Baton Rouge, Dr. Patrick.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Patrick. And I thank all of my colleagues. You can see the level of interest of the GOP Doctors Caucus. But we want to work with the physicians, the medical providers, the nurses on the other side of the aisle, and work in a bipartisan way.

In this area of a second opinion, we will continue to bring other issues forward as we continue in the 111th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, with that I yield back.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 56 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, March 24, 2009, at 10:30 a.m., for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this majority

mendacity bill, or maybe unrighteous indignation bill. You just heard it from the other side.

They want to say to the American people that we are going to make everything all right by getting back with a 90 percent tax this $175 million. But what they don't say, Mr. Speaker, is how they are going to get back the $170 billion that was given to AIG in the first place, 1,000 times these bonuses.

Yes, we are outraged over the bonuses; but on our side of the aisle, we are outraged over these bailouts and these giveaways, and there is nothing in this bill about getting the $170 billion back.

Mr. Speaker, this is the Lenten season, so let me make a little analogy for my non-Catholic friends. This is like asking forgiveness for a mortal sin by saying one Hail Mary, one Hail Mary, this little bill to pass under suspension to get those bonuses back, when the real sin is the $170 billion that was thrown away on AIG.