Floor Statements

You're very kind, Mr. Akin. I wish I believed what you said about me.

You know, I was intrigued by the original chart that you had up there when government does too much. Sometimes we tend to overlook that.

I have always contended that the issue of health care we saw was foretold by our Founding Fathers over 200 years ago when they instituted a system of federalism, because they knew back in that time even though there were only 13 States in the original country--actually 11 when we started, eventually 13--that the Federal Government would always be too big to take--to do anything other than a one-size-fits- all approach. And that if indeed you wanted to have justice, take in the circumstances, creativity or perhaps a program if it failed, it didn't destroy an entire country. You had to have it done by State and local government. That is the value of it.

You know, they didn't limit the power of the Federal Government just for the fun of it. There was a reason and a purpose to it.

One of our great Justices on the Supreme Court once said, The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions. It divides power precisely so that we will resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day.

Now, he was not writing, obviously, about the health care bill that passed this House, but it applies. And what we did was simply lose sight of the structure the Founding Fathers put in place to create balance and creativity and empowerment of individuals.

I'd like to talk simply about one of the things the States are doing, specifically in my State, because my State recognizes we have a unique demographic.

That is part of the issue.

Massachusetts has a program that is expensive. They appear to like it, but

it's very expensive. It would not work in Utah. Our program would not fly back in Boston.

Utah has unique demographics. We're a very young State. We have a lot of kids, whereas most small businesses, 42 percent of the Nation, provide insurance. In Utah it's only 32 percent. That's a unique demographic challenge that we have to face.

What would happen, though, if we simply go along with the PelosiCare that we passed is that every one of the small businesses in Utah rather than getting help to solve the problem would be hit with a 5 percent tax that would attack 5,500 small businesses already nickled and dimed. What they really want is for us to get off their backs with mandates and out of their pockets with taxes so they can solve problems.

So what the State legislature in Utah provided is a way of solving those problems by recognizing that small business has a great concern once they get into health care because they don't know what their costs will be over the period of time, and it's very marginal.

So what they have tried to do is come up with a concept which empowers individuals to choose. Small businesses now can give a pot of money they would be giving to an employee as a defined contribution, they could then go and buy the health care service that they want.

It's dangerous, isn't it? It's almost scary as we think about it.

But the goal is to have a clear, transparent index in which all of the options that are legal in the State of Utah--and right now there are 66 options from which people can choose. They are easily adaptable, easily accessible, easily understandable. If you change jobs, you're still in the insurance. So there's a portability.

Costs are stabilized for the business; employers now have options from which to choose. And this is only in the first year. It has had a phenomenal response, and we are just beginning.

If the Federal Government were then to try and help that out by doing simple things like allowing--removing barriers for cross-state purchases, doing tort reforms which would bring down the costs, the number of people who are truly uninsurable because of preexisting conditions can be shrunk to an area that is possible for States to easily handle and maybe even the Federal Government could give grants to that.

And by controlling your own money with your own choices.

When I go into a grocery store to pick up cereal, there's an entire wall of choices. I pick the kind I like. You would go in with me and you'd go over and pick another one. Why isn't the role of government to allow people to have choices?

I have one of my fellow teachers who was upset because in his plan the district only allowed him two options. If you actually go to a single-payer system by the Federal Government, you get one.

The State of Utah is saying there are 66 options, which is a comparative advantage of that. It also means one of the situations that we have in large business provides insurance for its workers. The owner or the manager picks what company it is and everybody has to follow along. In this program, the large business already providing insurance could do the same thing by providing the amount of money to an individual who could then go on the State index and pick what he or she wants to do.

Here is the kicker: this is a great idea.

You just took the words out of my mouth because that is the kicker. States have the ability of becoming creative. They are, as you were earlier quoting Louis Brandeis, becoming laboratories of democracy. They have the idea of making a system that meets the demographic needs of that particular State. What we should be doing is encouraging that kind of creativity, encouraging those kinds of options. But you are exactly right, with the bill that we passed the other week, that stops that concept dead in its tracks.

We may be comfortable today with what is defined as qualified. Unfortunately, and this is what the Supreme Court Justice was saying, the Constitution protects us from our own instincts of doing this, that by creating a commission that in the future will tell what the private sector will do when it is in competition with the Federal Government. What may be qualified in the future is not necessarily what is qualified today.

As you stated very convincingly earlier, if you have a specific need, what is your need may not be what some distant bureaucrat in Washington determines to be qualified. And, in fact, one of the biggest problems we have when people talk about health care, no one has ever really defined what health care actually is. Is cosmetic surgery part of it? Is mental health part of it? Nursing homes, are they part of it? What is the goal or purpose of it? We have yet to do that. See, that is what we are allowing a bureaucrat in the future to do as opposed to what some of the States wish to do in allowing citizens, employees, to have options and choices so they have control over their own lives.

If I can add one thing here, because I notice that we have been joined by two other colleagues who have given their entire professional career in this area. They know what they are talking about. I would add our Founding Fathers, sitting over there with their knee britches and their powdered wigs, knew exactly what we needed today because their highest goal was to provide individual liberty for the citizens so that people could make choices for themselves. They realized it is not the role of government to tell people what is best for them. That is a risk-aversive system of nanny government where we tell people what to do because we know what is best, and it is cheaper as we see it.

Our goal should be to provide people with choices and options that ennoble their souls and allow them to control their own destinies. The only way of doing that is allowing States to move forward on their own, as Utah is trying to do, and not be stopped by this Pelosi care bill which will stop the States' progress and all of the innovations that are taking place out there.

Some time we have to realize that you don't solve problems by putting a lot of experts in a room in Washington, D.C. There is a font of knowledge out there that is waiting to blossom and provide new solutions. Our salvation as a Nation is to go back to the Constitution and believe in federalism. That is how we move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to illustrate how this bill will stop health care reform already instituted by the States.

This may seem hard to believe, but over 200 years ago the Founding Fathers foresaw the health care problems we have today and they proposed a solution. We call it federalism. See, if something has to be done the same way, at the same time by everybody, only the federal government can do it. The feds are good at one-size-fits all solutions. But if you want creativity, innovation or justice, and consideration for unique circumstances, states are, as Louis Brandeis once called them, the true laboratories of democracy.

The Founding Fathers understood the Federal Government should be limited, not just for the fun of it, but the federal government has limitations to its effectiveness. In Federalist Number 45 James Madison said, ``Powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those to the State governments are numerous and indefinite.'' Why? Because states can be more effective than a large national government. The federal government can't and shouldn't try to solve all our problems, even when the intention may be good. A Supreme Court Justice wrote: ``The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions. It divides power . . . precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crises of the day.''

He wasn't speaking about health reform specifically, but if there ever was a bill that sought to concentrate power as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day, it's Speaker Pelosi's health care bill.

If we were to pass it, we would be losing sight of the structure the Founders put in place to ensure reforms were done at the most appropriate and helpful level, and power wasn't concentrated.

Balance is key, and the Pelosi bill would be a permanent shift of power to the federal government to control our daily lives and our health care decisions. You see, that as why the Constitution was designed with this balance in mind. James Madison said, ``Parchment barriers, a few luminous words on paper, would not keep ambitious men from exercising undue power--freedom can be preserved not by glowing statements but by the balance of real forces.''

Our health care system needs reform and costs need to be lowered. Hey, in 2000, 54% of all firms (in Utah?) offered health benefits, today only about 44% of them do. But the reforms needed for the state of California are not the reforms needed for the state of Massachusetts or the state of Utah. Massachusetts has their program; it's expensive, but they appear to like it; but it won't work in Utah. What Utah is trying to do wouldn't fly in Boston. Like every state, Utah's demographics are unique.

We have a very young population that predominately works for smaller firms. In Utah, 32 percent of small businesses offer insurance, but that is 10 percent less than the national averages--a unique challenge to Utah. Utah needs reform that will take the burden off small business and give competitive, affordable pricing to consumers.

That is why I'm so encouraged about the reforms taking place in Utah. The changes taking place right now in our state are based on consumer choice and options, businesses have stable costs, workers have affordable, portable options, and it's tailored for our demographics. If the Pelosi bill were to pass, though, that state innovation is stopped. That would be the true health care tragedy.

You know, we can't solve every issue by getting all the experts in a room in DC. All the creativity and intelligence is not just here in this city. Creative solutions can happen throughout the country when the federal government gets off the backs of individuals and businesses with their mandates and regulations, and out of their pockets with their taxes and then allows real people the ability to find real solutions.

The Pelosi bill seeks to dramatically alter the healthcare landscape for the U.S. and Utah forever. For example, prohibits the sale of private individual health insurance policies, beginning in 2013, forcing individuals and businesses to purchase coverage through the federal government.

PG 49--provides a huge liability loophole for (large) insurance companies, and I bet not more than 10 people know about it.

Small business will be hit with a mandate to provide insurance, with penalties for not providing insurance . . . and a surtax of 5.4% on small business owners. It is estimated that fifty five hundred (5,500) businesses in Utah will be hit with this additional tax. This is devastating for small business owners, already sick and tired of being nickel and dimed by the federal government.

Tort reform, allowing interstate insurance competition and block grants to states for high risk pooling are things the federal government can reform to drive down costs. These are common sense changes that won't damage the work states are doing to provide what their citizens need.

Individual merits of the bill notwithstanding, the biggest problem is the idea that health care decisions can be dictated by Washington, DC bureaucrats--a health care czar.

To paraphrase PJ O'Rourke, the Pelosi bill would have the same effect as giving alcohol and keys to the car to a teenage boy.

The federal government can play a role, but real health reform must happen on the state level. We . . . you and I, know what our unique healthcare needs are, and frankly what types of treatment or access we require to live the healthiest possible life. Despite the fanciful rhetoric coming from both sides of the aisle, our ability to choose will be lost if we fail to allow individual states to address their unique and diverse needs.

A Supreme Court Justice once wrote; ``The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions. It divides power precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day.'' Now, he wasn't talking specifically about the health care bill, but there has never been an effort to try and concentrate power as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day as the Pelosi health care bill.

We are not the only ones working on this issue; States are as well. Massachusetts has a system, it's pricey, but they seem to enjoy it, but it wouldn't meet the needs of Utah. Utah has a reformed system that's based on our demographics. It wouldn't fly in Boston. The problem is, if the Pelosi bill were to pass, all of these State efforts would be stopped.

There are things we can do to help the costs come down: Tort reform, allowing interstate competition and block grants to States for high- risk pooling. Those things would be good if indeed we were allowed to do them, but they're not part of the Pelosi bill. All this does is concentrate power in Washington and would, to paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke, have the same effect as giving alcohol and the keys to the car to a teenage boy.

I thank the gentleman from Idaho.

Madam Speaker, Homeland Security and our Border Patrol have done a marvelous job in the urban areas of our southern border, which is why the bulk of illegal immigration now coming across our southern border comes through rural lands which are owned by the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service.

According to two uncirculated public reports by the Department of the Interior, we have areas now in the southern part of this country that are public lands which are controlled by the drug cartel from Mexico. We have areas where citizens of America cannot enter those lands without an armed escort, where the land has been devastated, where military training missions have been curtailed, and where citizens of America have simply been attacked and mugged by foreigners on our own soil.

The House recognized this when it passed a motion to recommit by an overwhelming majority on the floor. The Senate also recognized this by including an amendment by Senator Coburn on the floor. Yet the conference committee, behind closed doors, has taken this amendment that dealt with the entire southern border, and they limited it only to the 340 miles where fencing actually exists. In essence, they have eviscerated the amendment and have denied the spirit and the sentiment that was expressed on the House floor as well as on the Senate floor.

Secretary Napolitano has simply said it is a major difficulty when there are multiple public organizations with various interpretations on land policy. More graphically, she said it is difficult for border security when they have to stop hot pursuit and have to wait until the arrival of horses to continue on.

This is a problem we should be facing directly, not glossing over and ignoring in a conference report. We should recognize that our inactivity by Congress has helped cause this problem, and our further inactivity on this issue cannot solve this problem. It is one of those areas that is a glowing and great error within this particular conference report. Congress should be doing better.

Over 200 years ago, the Founding Fathers foresaw the health care problems that we have today and they proposed a solution. We call it federalism. See, if something has to be done the same way at the same time by everybody, only the government can do it. But if you want creativity or to take into account different circumstances for justice, then States are, as Louis Brandeis said, the ``laboratory of democracy.''

My State of Utah has instituted a health care reform the right way based on consumer choice and options where business has stable cost, workers have affordable portable options, and it's designed for the demographics of Utah. But if the Pelosi bill or the Baucus bill were to be passed the way they are written today, that State innovation is destroyed.

All solutions and intellect are not here in this city. Creative solutions can happen when the Federal Government gets off the backs of individuals with their mandates and regulations and out of their pockets with their taxes; then real people have the ability to find truly creative solutions if we, the Congress, let them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I also thank the gentleman from Puerto Rico for the kind words he said about one of the premier institutions in the top of Utah, which is Weber State University.

Today I rise in support of House Resolution 854, recognizing Weber State University on the 120th anniversary of the founding of that institution. It started, obviously, as a religious stake academy, the Weber Academy, in 1889. Then it has had several changes, going into, first of all, a 2-year college as Weber College, then a 4-year institution, Weber State College, and then eventually as Weber State University.

The first president or principal of that Weber Academy was Louis Moench, who was a German immigrant, a great educator as well as administrator and truly a Renaissance man, because he is also the author of one of my favorite religious hymns.

The second principal was David O. McKay, who went on to become the president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and one of the most revered religious figures in the Nation in his time.

The present president, President Milner, is the first female president of a 4-year college or university in the State of Utah, and she does a magnificent job in leading the 23,000 students that comprise the campus in Ogden, as well as 3,500 students in the satellite campus in Davis County, as well as outreach programs that take place in Box Elder, Morgan, Davis and other counties throughout the State of Utah.

This is an institution which has set its goal on education excellence--does this well--as well as competitive excellence. It is a member of the Big Sky Conference, where last year it won the titles in the conference in both football, basketball and, I believe, women's soccer. At the same time, it is still ranked number 14 in its division in football this particular year.

It also has one of the State's largest nursing programs, the State's only dental hygiene program, the State's only police academy. Its proximity to Hill Air Force Base makes it a premier educational institution, not only for those continuing its education, for those who are working at Hill Air Force Base, but also for the servicemen who attend there and participate in part of their program.

Indeed, the theatrical production that the gentleman from Puerto Rico mentioned that was held here at the Kennedy Center was a student production of Macbeth, which I had the opportunity of watching--one of those light-hearted musical comedies coming at the end of a long day-- but it was a spectacular production of which those students at Weber State University should be proud.

Like every institution that takes place, it is a community asset. It provides educational excellence for the people in that area, provides economic incentives for the people of that particular area, it is a source of community enlightenment and activities through its academic and art programs. With all of us, there is always some kind of interface that goes along with it.

One time, the president of Weber State University--at that time it was Weber State College--was Joseph Bishop, who I wish I could claim was a relative because he was intelligent, but I can't. During its great growth spurt, right after World War II, Weber State was led by Dr. Miller, an excellent president who I feel very close to because I was able to mow his mother's lawn because she was a neighbor of mine in Kaysville.

At the same time, my father-in-law played football at Weber State. My wife graduated from Weber State. Perhaps one of our greatest acknowledged alumna from Weber State is a Member of the House of Representatives today. Representative Lynn Jenkins from Kansas is a graduate of Weber State, which I didn't know until today. Now I know who to hit up for in the future.

I have a daughter that wants to attend the dental program at Weber State, a daughter-in-law that wants to go to the nursing program at Weber State. We have very close ties to this particular institution. It's an institution that has received many honors. It is the recipient of the President's Higher Education Community Service Honor Roll for the third consecutive year, was listed in Forbes magazine, ranked 43rd among public colleges, selected to host the Council on Undergraduate Research in 2010 and the National Conferences on Undergraduate Research in 2012, numerous faculty teaching excellence awards.

In the Big Sky Conference in 2009 it won the Presidents' Cup, which recognizes not only accomplishments on the field of athletic endeavor but also in the field of classroom work. This was the fourth time in 7 years it received that particular honor.

I am very proud of Weber State University, in the top of Utah. I am proud what it does for students that I used to teach, what it does for the community, the standards that it sets as a standard of excellence in education, as well as what it does to add to community life for all of us who actually live in northern Utah.

I am appreciative of having this resolution here. I am appreciative of the recognition that the gentleman from Puerto Rico has given to this particular institution.

Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire if the gentleman from Puerto Rico has any other speakers.

I don't have any other speakers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Once again, the gentleman from Puerto Rico, I appreciate you bringing this resolution to the floor and rise today to support House Resolution 368 to congratulate the University of Iowa Hawkeyes on winning the 2009 NCAA Division I National Wrestling Championship. This is, indeed, an honor for all those who are working in that system, for all those who are associated with the University of Iowa, as well as the residents of the State of Iowa.

The University of Iowa was founded in 1847 as Iowa's first public institution of higher learning and, since that time, has gained international recognition for its academic, artistic and scientific accomplishments as a public university. It established the first law school and was the first U.S. public university to admit men and women on an equal basis. The University of Iowa's academic and athletic accomplishments have earned the University of Iowa Hawkeyes an international reputation for excellence.

This last school year, in 2009, the university's reputation was furthered by the accomplishments of this wrestling team. The University of Iowa wrestling team began in 1911 and has recently been named one of the top sports dynasties of the 20th century by Sports Illustrated.

Since its founding, the Hawkeye wrestling team has won 22 national championships, as was mentioned by the gentleman from Puerto Rico. The Hawkeyes competed in the first Big Ten meet clear back in 1926, won their first NCAA title in 1975. They won a streak of nine consecutive NCAA team championships from 1978 to 1986. In the 23 wrestling seasons since that time, the Hawkeyes have claimed 11 national championships. The University of Iowa Hawkeye wrestling team undoubtedly has a long and rich history of excellence.

At the head of the outstanding team sits Head Coach Tom Brands, who was

named the Big Ten Coach of the Year and the National Wrestling Coaches Association's Coach of the Year in 2008. Coach Brands is a former gold medalist and made four straight U.S. World or Olympic teams.

He started as head coach with the University of Iowa's wrestling team in 2006 and has been leading the team to excellence since then. The 2009 wrestling season marked the Hawkeye wrestling team's most recent series of achievements. After a successful season, the Hawkeye team was proud to have nine of their athletes qualify for the Division I championships, and with a final score of 96.5, the Hawkeyes were in first place as the national champions.

I am honored to stand in this House today to congratulate and recognize the significant achievements of the players, coaches, and students whose dedication and hard work have led to the success of the University of Iowa Hawkeye wrestling program, as well as the 2009 Division I National Wrestling Championship.

As usual, there is always some kind of personal tie that comes to these types of resolutions. Again, I have people I have known from Utah who have specifically gone to this school, to this program, not just for the quality of the wrestling program it has, but for the quality of the education the institution provides. The State of Iowa should indeed be very proud of this particular institution.

I ask my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers for this particular resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentlemen both from Pennsylvania and our good friends from Colorado, all over the place here from Colorado. If I am going to take you off on a stretch that you don't want to go into, I will stop and you can come back to me later.

I do want to try and hit this particular issue, because there are other options out there which we have not explored. There are those who are saying we have got to do something now, because if we don't do something now, we will lose the opportunity. It doesn't matter what it is, as long as we are doing something. That's not necessarily, I think, true.

If you look at the history and organization of this country, what the Founding Fathers wanted to do, and look at federalism, you will see why that is not necessarily true. The federalism system that we have is in line so that if something has to be uniform throughout this entire country, everyone has to be doing the exact same thing at the exact same moment. We are the only level that can do that.

But if you allow States to become involved in this particular system, these laboratories of democracy, you can have creativity, you can have justice because they are attuned to the demographics of each individual area. What's more important is, if you mess up, you don't destroy the entire country.

On this floor, we have heard of States that have tried to get involved in health care reform who have messed up. We aren't paying for that. There are States who are doing it the right way. I am proud that one of them is my State, because the President admitted and praised Utah in its efforts to do it, and it is going in the exact opposite direction of what we are talking about on the national level.

It is going to a system that is based on consumers getting individuals empowered to make choices in a system that comes up with, first of all, allowing three goals, of allowing real information so that you can allow consumers to prepare and choose and then provide an easy way of enrollment. It's not just about insurance, which I am afraid we end up talking about here in Washington. It's about the cost of health care. Because, let's face it, if we don't control the cost of health care, even with insurance, you still can't afford to do it.

Let me try to tell you exactly what they are doing right there, which is another avenue, which is essential to understanding as to what our opportunities are and what could happen if we go further with what is proposed with many of the leaders of this particular Congress.

Utah is establishing a health exchange, which means any licensed company in Utah can place their programs online. The entire amount of bureaucracy to run this is two State employees. So far, there are 66 individual plans that are out there. This is its first year, and the pilot program already has 136 small businesses with over 2,000 employees. They average 17 employees in each company going online to use this system. Now, that's important because you have already mentioned the cost that's implied by small business.

Only 43 percent of the small businesses in America provide insurance for their employees because they can't afford it any other way. Utah is even worse--only 32 percent. This is an effort to get around that problem.

What you allow is the workers to choose, not a one-size-fits-all that's chosen by the employer, but a program that fits the workers' needs. They can use that option with pretax dollars. The responsibility is with the consumer who gets an annual choice. With that, there is a pressure to keep prices down and to get quality up because everyone now is a consumer in the system.

Businesses in Utah like this because their overhead of mandatory insurance increases now cease, small businesses especially. The reason they are not giving insurance is they can't handle the insurance price increases. In this process, the worker gets money that the company would be paying and any money they want to use. Then they go into this plan, and from the 66 programs, they get to choose what is there.

Businesses now have a predictable cost of doing business, not arbitrary. Employees, if they don't like the one-size-fits-all, can have the opportunity of finding what they want to do.

It's easy to navigate. You go into a computer system, put age, family size. One thing we don't have today are agents of insurance companies who now work with the employer to try to sell a plan. Now they work with individuals to try and service plans because they have freedom to go after any employee in the entire State.

It's also portable. If you change jobs and the insurance is still in the system, you take your insurance coverage with you. Even if you don't have a job, you can keep that same insurance coverage with you.

There are fewer uninsured, and those that are uninsured, the State of Utah now has a plan to handle this.

This is like when I go to the grocery store and I want to pick cereal. I go down the aisle and there is all these different choices of cereal for me to pick. I always pick the one with almonds because I like almonds, but there are a whole lot of people that don't like almonds. They get the chance to pick their cereal.

It is not the situation in which the government should be telling me what kind of program is right for me. Not even should the business be telling me what kind of program is right for me. I should be able to pick my own program. If you do that, you expand the consumer into the system, which puts pressure to lower the actual cost of health care. That's the real solution.

Now, the problem is we have some plans being presented both in the Senate and in the House. Those plans crush these State initiatives. Those plans not only cost hundreds of billions of dollars, they decrease choices. They have the potential of raising taxes. They destroy State initiatives. Utah and other States have found a better way.

What we need to do is make sure we have a system that empowers States to be creative to help consumers become involved, and that's not what is being proposed on the floor of this House and in the Senate. What is being proposed would destroy this initiative. It would take it off the table. That's the exact wrong direction.

We need to look at what the Founding Fathers had when they envisioned the concept of federalism and recognize that in federalism, in choice and in options is our salvation. It is the future. We need to embrace that, not a one-size-fits-all government mandate which has enormous impact, as the gentleman has been saying, especially on the small businesses of this country.

I think you have gone to what I think is the crux of the two paths that are offered to the American people in this session. The one path is about a government option. But the only part about options is the title itself. It actually would be a government program that would then be given the power, by a small group of people, to establish what its competition would be. So what you're doing is having the heavy hand of government establishing what the options will be and giving them to all people whether they want them or not. That is indeed the very problem that small businesses are facing. There are options right now that do not take their needs into account.

What I think we are hearing, and what the gentleman from Pennsylvania talked about in House bill 3400, what Congressman Shadegg has in his bill and what Congressman Ryan has in his bill is the idea that if you really want to solve this problem, you've got to attack what causes the price of health care to go up, and that is the lack of competition. Having a government option superimposed does not necessarily equate to more competition. In fact, it will lessen that competition; and that's what we are hearing from those who really understand the industry.

Even Margaret Thatcher in 1989 recognized that the health care system of Britain, which is, once again, a one-size-fits-all government mandate, even though there is a private option, does not necessarily help her people. She said it simply meant that once you put the heavy hand of the British Government on them, that it produced fewer

doctors, fewer nurses and that patients, when they wanted to see a doctor, in some cases had to wait a few weeks, in other cases wait a few years, depending on the area in which they were.

Now, what we really need to do is look at other options that are out there that transform the debate so that what we're talking about is empowering individuals to make choices that meet their particular needs. That's what the State of Utah is doing. That's what the Price bill is doing. That's what the Shadegg bill is doing.

And the sad part about our debate is we are not allowed to discuss those on the floor in any form other than in a Special Order in the evening. Look, we weren't here in session on Monday. We only did a few suspensions on Tuesday. We adjourned very early on Wednesday. It was a wonderful day. I was happy to go outside. But we adjourned early.

Those are times in which the Price bill and the Shadegg bill should be brought to the floor and allowed to be debated, discussed and voted on to see if indeed these other kinds of options that we have, these other kind of programs that inspire and empower individuals to make choices for themselves have some merit. That's what we should be doing here. Instead, the entire debate has been moved off the floor, out of committees, behind closed doors. That does not help.

Indeed, you have hit the objective. If we choose the wrong choice and have one Federal program that's going to be superimposed on everyone, we have the chance of doing great harm to our small business, which is the backbone of the American economy with 5 to 6 million people losing their jobs. That's what the danger is. We should have an open and honest debate about these other options which try to look uniquely outside the box, creatively. That's what Congress should be doing. And we're not doing any of that.

I yield back to the gentleman.

I appreciate that, and I think the conversation you have had so far with Congressman Thompson is fascinating, because he has explained some of the problem you have when the government steps in to run the system.

If we look back at the history of the Medicaid portion, it does not give us a whole lot of confidence for moving forward and allowing the government to take a larger role in this area. Since Medicaid was founded in 1965, costs have escalated at 2.3 percent higher than the rate of inflation. Today, Medicare costs 37 times what it cost back then after being adjusted for inflation.

So when Congress first established Medicare, they thought it would cost $238 million a year. That first year it was closer to $17 billion. They projected by 1990 it would cost $12 billion. The actual number was more like $90 billion. And if as the gentleman suggests the government therefore has taken over those particular options and you no longer have this cost-shifting that you can go to the private sector, the only other option you have in the health care system to try and deal with those real costs--well, you can go bankrupt--but the only other option you have is cutting services that are given, which is why this debate is so significant and why these other bills we are talking about are so important that they be debated here on the floor.

So people can realize that rather than having the government explain what you can and cannot do, if you simply open up the option so individuals have a choice and become part of the system, there is a responsibility of the consumer as part of the system, then these changes can happen.

In every other kind of insurance, you can buy insurance across State lines, for auto, for housing. Why not for medicine? A simple change in the Federal restrictions would allow that to take place. You can pool for almost everything, except in this area. Why not change those restrictions, which is what we are talking about.

Why not allow people to buy their own insurance with pre-tax dollars, not post-tax dollars? Why not simply allow a benefit to the small businesses the way big businesses have for HSAs? These are portable, so when a person leaves the employ of that company they still have a pot of money, and they still have some kind of security with them to go on.

These are the kind of ideas that are going to change the dynamic of the system, because, as has clearly been stated is, all we are talking about so far with leadership's plans they have been presenting is how to assure that everyone has insurance, not how to make health care affordable for all Americans, and the only way you can do that is by allowing the consumers to take responsibility, to have choices, to do the comparison shopping.

That is the entire program in Utah. It is a defined contribution approach. So the employer gives money to the employee, and that employee can then go online and look at everything out there and pick what is important for them, not necessarily what the company is offering. A small business that can't afford to do that can now give the employee money, they can add with their money if they want to, to go out and pick what is available from what are the options out there. And we can even expand that wider. That is the only way you get competition that will have the effect of adding pressure on the system to lower the price and to increase the quality.

We do that all the time. It is cheaper today to get your nose fixed than ever before because it is not covered by insurance. Individuals negotiate with doctors for medical services and the costs have come down. Laser eye surgery is cheaper today than ever before because employees negotiate with doctors and the prices are coming down.

Why don't we allow that system to work in other ways? That is what these other programs are talking about, allowing people to be empowered to

make choices for themselves that they are competent and capable of doing, and with those kind of market forces now in the system, the cost will come down.

But it has never happened when the government has decided to step in and force those costs to come down. It didn't work with Medicare. It hasn't worked in foreign countries. And the real fear is if you are not destroying jobs, you are destroying the quality of health care, because the only other option you are left with is minimizing what can be given to an individual, denying services. That is not where we want to go.

Unfortunately, if we only have this one bill that the leadership wants to put forward here, that is the end result of that bill. We need to beg leadership to allow other debates and other options to be fully vetted on this particular floor.

I may have gone too far off from what your initial question was, but that is still the bottom line. It is we should be empowering people with options and choices. That is not what the leadership of this House is trying to do with their particular bill, and that is why we need to bring these other bills to the floor for open discussion and open debate and an open vote.

I yield back to the gentleman from Colorado.

Madam Speaker, consistent with the Republican Leadership's policy on earmarks, I am submitting the following earmark disclosure information regarding project funding I had requested and which was not originally included in the House reported version, but which was included within the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 2892. To the best of my knowledge, funding for this project: (1) is not directed to an entity or program that will be named after a sitting Member of Congress; (2) is not intended to be used by an entity to secure funds for other entities unless the use of funding is consistent with the specified purpose of the earmark; and (3) meets or exceeds all statutory requirements for matching funds. I further certify that neither my spouse, nor I, have any personal financial interests in this request.

Project Title: Distributed Environment for Critical Infrastructure Decision-making Exercises (DECIDE)

Amount: $3 million

Requesting Member: Rob Bishop (UT)

Bill Number: H.R. 2892

Account: DHS Science & Technology -

Address of Requesting Entity: Utah State University

Location: Old Main Hill, Logan, Utah 84322-1400.

Matching Funds: Not applicable

Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable.

Description and Justification of Funding: Funding is needed to continue efforts begun last year to develop digital and informational technology tools to help private financial institutions and other private sector institutions vital to the U.S. economy to coordinate defenses against increasingly sophisticated and growing cyber attack threats that, if not defended against, could have devastating implications for our economy as well as homeland security interests. Utah State University is a participant in a consortium of higher educational research institutions called the ``Cyber Conflict Research Consortium (CCRC) which also includes Miami University (Ohio); Norwich University Applied Research Institutes; Potomac Institute for Policy Studies; and the University of Nevada Reno.

I think I do tonight the end of what is a trilogy. I have been here on three nights talking about a family in my community. Two nights ago, I introduced this body to the Mackay family; a doctor, respected, board-certified orthopedic surgeon of 30 years in the community, who has been alleged by the Drug Enforcement Administration of having given improper prescriptions to his patients.

Last night, I explained what happened to this family, as 20 members, armed, in uniform, came in and held him at bay for 4 hours as they searched his home and office and took all his records, his books, his car, his truck, all his cash, his savings, and even his retirement account.

I told how his family had nothing and lived on their food storage for a while until 5 months later they finally went to court and had some of their property returned. But the Federal Government still has the truck and all his books, as well as his savings and checking account, and has yet to make a charge or arrest this individual. It is now 15 months later.

Today I finish the story. The Drug Enforcement Agency did offer a deal to this good doctor saying they would drop everything and it would all go away if he would simply surrender his license to practice medicine. Thinking he has done nothing wrong, he refused that offer. In March, the DEA started the procedures to remove his license from him.

The administrative law judge, a judge of the executive branch, hired by and working for the Drug Enforcement Agency to make quasi-judicial decisions on the actions of that agency, decided to hold a hearing on his license and insisted that everyone had to come from Utah back here to Washington, D.C. A local court said that was silly and ordered the hearing to take place in Utah. The judge, somewhat piqued at that, should have, to make sure there was no element of antagonism or question about it, recused himself as he was requested. Nonetheless, he did preside over that hearing.

The doctor, because he still has the chance of judicial action hanging over his head, was advised by his attorney to answer all questions by taking the Fifth Amendment. Now I don't want to say what I think should be the case on his license. That is still being reviewed and is yet to be officially decided by the DEA. Nor do I think I have the competence to make a lot of these decisions. What I do know is that, in my opinion, this doctor is no threat to the community. That opinion is backed up by the majority of the physicians in the community whose sworn depositions say the same thing.

I do know that this family, since June of 2008, has been terrorized, his profession destroyed, reputation besmirched and his property confiscated. Yes, he went back to court to get some of it back, but why did he have to do that? Yes, if the DEA decides to take his license, he can go to court to have that overturned as well, but why should he have to do that? Justice, if it is to be there, should be a justice that works quickly so that he is charged, he goes before a jury of his peers and a conviction or an acquittal takes place. This nightmare of delay is nothing more than that for this poor family.

Now the good part of this message is this is an isolated case. This is not the way most things happen. The bad part of this message is this is not a unique case. Other times this same thing has happened. Citizens should not be treated in this way. It's simply the wrong way to do it. The Mackay family deserves all of his resources returned to him until such time as a conviction does take place. He also deserves some kind of an apology, neither of which I have the power to do. But I do have the power to at least express my sympathies for one of my constituents whom I do not think has been treated well. And if as a representative of my constituents I cannot at least do that, I have no more value in this particular body.

This ends the trilogy of this particular family. It does not end the nightmare of this family. I hope it can end soon for their benefit.

Yesterday I came on the floor, and I introduced this body to the Mackay family, a doctor of 30 years, a certified orthopedic surgeon in our community. Dr. Mackay, as has been alleged by the Drug Enforcement Administration, has been giving improper prescriptions to patients in a way that has caused addiction within our community.

Now, the investigation had taken apparently about a year, starting in 2007; but I wanted to pick up the story of this family on June 6 of 2008.

It was on that day that a hard knock came on the door of Dr. Mackay's home. He said it was so loud he thought that had he not answered the door quickly they would have broken the door in, but he did answer the door.

In a rush, 20 agents in full riot gear and armed, they handcuffed Dr. Mackay, took him to the front room, sat him on a chair, and then stuck a gun in his stomach. His wife was also escorted into the front room and held at gunpoint for 4 hours. DEA did not have a search warrant at this time. They said one was coming as they were going through his office at the same time. And sure enough, after the 4-hour ransacking of his home, they finally did show Dr. Mackay and his wife the one-page search warrant.

I suppose he could have objected earlier to that, but usually when a gun is pointed at your stomach, you have a tendency not to be too talkative in those situations.

What they did in his office is take almost two-thirds of his files, hundreds of patients' files. In his personal home, they confiscated all of his personal records, his tax records, his children's personal records. They downloaded his computer, his cell phones; they took his textbooks and medical journals. They also confiscated his savings and checking account and put a hold on his retirement fund. They also took both his car and his truck.

They did not at any of this time charge him with any crime. They didn't arrest him for anything. In fact, if the issue is prescribing improperly prescription drugs, they did not take away his license to be a doctor. He could still function as a doctor, I suppose, if he could walk to work. And he did. The State of Utah never did go after his particular license.

However, with all of his money confiscated, he is relegated to a position of no money for food, which is okay because he has no vehicles to drive to the store if he needed to. For several months his family survived on the food storage that they had put away as a family for an emergency situation. And during this time, once again, there have been no charges, no arrests; but his property has been confiscated.

He was finally able to get enough money together to hire an attorney; and in November of 2008, 5 months after the initial raid, he went to court. And the courts did demand that some of his property be returned to him. He was given his pension fund back. He was allowed his car but not his truck, nor was he allowed access to his personal savings account or to his personal checking account. Nor was he allowed access to his files or to his textbooks. I have a hard time wondering why DEA, the Drug Enforcement Administration, wants his textbooks and his truck; but they kept them.

Everything he has done up until this time is in trying to meagerly pay off defense bills that he is now accumulating to try and clear his name.

Now, I don't want to give an opinion as to the element of what may or may not have been the legal situation here. I can say from my understanding of this family and the situation that is involved that I do not find Dr. Mackay or his family to be a threat to our community. In fact, if one looks at the sworn statements from almost all of the physicians in our area, they do not find Dr. Mackay a threat to our community. If I read the letters to the editor in our local paper, the constituents' mail that I have read, no one still considers his family a threat to the community.

Nevertheless, this family, since June of 2008, has been terrorized, a profession has been destroyed, a reputation has been besmirched, property has been confiscated; and still there are no charges, there are no arrests.

Justice, as I always understood it, is supposed to work in a way in which the bad guys are accused and charged and then go before a judge and a jury of their peers. That has not been the situation.

And with that, Madam Speaker, I appreciate the time here. And what I would like to do is once again come in for installment number three, because this story of the Mackay story is not over, and tell you what has still continued to happen to this family in contradiction of what could be or should be the rule of law.

I thank the gentleman from Missouri very much.

The gentlelady from North Carolina may be by her degree and education a good doctor. I at least directed and starred in the play a couple of times, if that helps. That is as close to ``The Good Doctor'' as I can get. And the way I did Neil Simon's play is not a pretty sight.

Mr. Akin, I just want to add a couple of elements to this. I had a constituent who came into my office today talking about how the Senate intends to pay for this new health care plan to try to reduce it: by adding a fee on medical devices to try and raise $4 billion.

Now I hate to say this, we all know that companies don't pay taxes. They pass on the fees. And I find this somewhat incredible that we are in a situation here, to pay for the Senate health care plan, we are going to add to the cost of those who will be using the Senate health care plan and somehow say that is not an additional cost to anybody.

I find it difficult to figure out how this system has evolved into the way it is, but it seems very clear that we do not have a handle on what this will cost. We now are stretching and scratching and clinging for any kind of straw to try and give some reason to say this can work, when in reality we don't have a system involved that makes it work.

Part of the reason it doesn't work is I think we have missed the focus of the problem and the issue. The issue is not insurance. The issue is the cost of health care. What we should be looking at, which is not allowed to be debated on this floor or in the Senate committees, is how to bring down cost of health care as opposed to how to make sure everyone has some kind of health care coverage.

If you have insurance, the cost is still too much. We should be looking at a different approach than what we are doing, because we are playing game after game after game on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity of being here today. Hopefully I'll be here again tomorrow and the next day as well. And I do want to address an issue that is close to me as well as somewhat difficult. I admit that I have a romantic view of the world. Much of it is shaped by a lifetime having grown up watching television shows and movies. I like British mysteries and have enjoyed the fact that in Utah we have more of them available on PBS than they have back here in Washington. I think I've seen every episode of Law and Order and NCIS, and I grew up on Perry Mason which, once again, back home in Utah, there was a rerun every night on television at 10:30.

And I like those because in every sense of the word, each of these shows a good guy and a bad guy, and eventually the good guys were able to prevail against the bad guys. But I have to admit, much of that was the spin of Hollywood. So as I have looked in my life I try and see the world in maybe this dichotomy that's unfortunate, of good versus bad. To me the Drug Enforcement Agency, a part of the judicial system, Judiciary Department of the United States, were always the good guys. Their job was to try and take drug traffickers off the street, for indeed, those illegal drugs coming into our society harmed society. They harmed kids.

I had students I taught in school who I saw the byproduct of having them on illegal drugs. And I have seen the court system and been able to talk to those who work in the court system that recognize that even though the court case may be one of assault or one of burglary or vandalism, in each case there is often the core problem being illegal drugs.

Now, with that as a background, I want to introduce you to, today and tomorrow, a family in my hometown of Brigham City, the McKay family. I know this family primarily because of the four kids of the McKay family. I taught them all in school. Two boys and two girls, varying stages of academic ability, but in each case, I recognized within each of those kids there was a core quality. These were good, decent and honest kids. And I think my attitude towards the McKay family was shaped by the respect I have for the kids that came from that family.

Dr. McKay, in our community, has had a 30-year career as a respected board certified orthopedic surgeon. I guess the best compliment I can give is that when my own kid broke his arm, we went to Dr. McKay to have it set and fixed. Dr. McKay is an Army veteran, serving 10 years in the military, retiring with the position of a lieutenant colonel. For 20 years he's been part of the Boxelder Search and Rescue Team. He was part of the Boxelder Medical Examiners team. The Boy Scouts of America have awarded him the Silver Beaver Award. When I was announcing football games at the local high school he was down on the field assisting with medical needs on a volunteer basis. He plays the organ in church.

I know that this family has supported me politically when I first ran. I hope it was because they saw something in me. My fear is that I was the first person from Brigham City city running for federal office, and therefore they were supportive. I also have worked with his wife in charities. This family has a criminal record that has nothing higher than parking tickets, and I have never thought of this family as a threat to my kids. But on June 5, 2008, there was a raid by the DEA on the home of the McKay family. Two weeks later, after this first 4-hour raid, there was another raid to find a copy of their will which, if they asked, they could have simply got. And in the fall of that same year another raid on his office with six armed agents asking for charts that they would have provided had they simply asked.

I was surprised when the first raid took place. But I decided I'll have to wait for a judgment because after all, the DEA are part of the good guys. Obviously, there has to be some kind of a reason. And in our system of justice, we are insured by the Constitution of a speedy trial and then a jury of the peers deciding guilt or innocence. At least that's what I used to teach my kids in civic classes. We are now in October 2009, 14 months later. I still do not know whether there is guilt or innocence in this situation because, in that entire period of time, there has not been a single charge filed against this family. However, the personal property of this family has been confiscated and not returned in that period of time.

At that June occurrence in 2008, there was a hard knock at the door. Dr. McKay said he was fearful at some particular time that had he not answered it quickly they may have kicked in the door. At that time he did open the door, and what happens in that, Mr. Speaker, is quite simply this: It is my intention of returning tomorrow and explaining what took place at that time and at that place, and to try and go on what has happened on this particular family, because it breaks my vision and my image of what the future should be. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time, and I hope to return tomorrow as I continue the saga of the McKay family.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2265, the Magna Water District Water Reuse and Groundwater Recharge Act, 2009.

Requesting Member: Rob Bishop

Bill number: H.R. 2265

Account: Title XVI of Public Law 102-575, the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act

Legal name and address of requesting entity: Magna Water District, located at 8600 W. 2711 S., PO Box 303 1, Magna, Utah 84044

Description of project: $12,000,000.00 to allow for the planning, design and construction of the Magna Water District water reuse and groundwater recharge project.

Well, I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio for giving me this opportunity.

I am pleased to be with the gentleman from Ohio and with the gentleman from Arizona, who will be speaking, I believe, in just a moment. They have really turned out to be experts on our missile defense system, as well as the gentleman from Missouri, who clearly understands the technical nature of what we can do both on the sea as well as on the land.

I am deeply concerned about what we have been talking about in this area. It is very clear that this decision, based on what will happen in Europe, has significant long-term implications to our relationship with those European allies. The gentleman from Ohio and I have been, on several occasions, meeting with German officials as part of the study group on Germany. Is there really an opportunity, once this country has reversed course this way, to expect them to trust us in long-term decisions and in long-term commitments?

I hate to say this, but the idea of our developing a stronger bond with Europe based on this decision, the idea that the current Iranian regime will become nice in its relationships with the rest of the world--I mean I'm sorry. My beloved Cubs, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Parliamentarian, my Cubs have a better chance of making it to the World Series than the Iranians have of becoming nice all of a sudden unilaterally, or the fact that our European ties will be built stronger because of this particular decision.

If I could, I'll expand this slightly and take us a little bit afield because this does deal with the impact to our European defense; it does deal with the impact of the defense of the eastern coast, and it also deals with the impact of the defense of this entire country. We right now have 30 ground-based missiles to defend the entire country, and they're all situated in Alaska--in one spot.

We talked earlier with other administrations about extending that to other areas, which makes sense, about growing that number, which makes sense, about taking not just a ground-based system but also a kinetic energy interceptor system to try to spread out our defense, which, to me, makes sense.

This administration, much of these decisions being made under a unique gag order by the Secretary of Defense, simply took the process of halting our growth so that, once our 30 missiles are

gone, there is no replacement. Halting the kinetic intercept system, even though we were ready for the first test-fire and everything had run smoothly up to that time, simply putting a stop-work order and halting it. Halting the increase in production of our ICBM defense system. All at the same time.

I want to put out one other element that has an impact, because I see these people every day. Look, I grew up watching ``Bewitched.'' If there's one thing I noticed from that TV show it's that Samantha wasn't real. Nobody can wiggle his nose and create a new solution.

Once we decide to unilaterally stop the production of these missiles, if at some point in the future we decide maybe we made a mistake, you don't easily and quickly fix that mistake because, once the industrial base is gone on these elements, you don't bring it back. You cannot simply turn the spigot on and off and, all of a sudden, have the engineers who know the problems and who have worked through them, come back to work for the government.

As one of the generals who was talking to me off the record simply said, Look, first of all, when the work base is gone, it is gone, and we don't bring it back. Most significantly, the first people who leave are the ones we really want. It's not the worst employees who leave first; it's the best employees who leave our industrial base first. Those are the ones we want.

If at some time we decide we were wrong and we have got to fix this problem, that there maybe is a greater threat than we're anticipating. It will cost this government significantly more to restart that work base. It's not just a matter of we're throwing people out of a job. It's not just a matter of boom-and-bust economies. It's the fact that we will have to spend more to recreate what we already have if, indeed, the threat is more significant. Some people in the military currently see that.

I always yield. Every time I take a breath, I'm ready to yield. I just breathed.

Well, we were talking about cutting back on all of these missile defense programs, not in Europe, but also with our ground-based kinetic energy to save $1.8 billion. If we look at what we have been throwing around for stimulus money, for other types of programs, even Cash for Clunkers, it kind of is very small in relationship to the impact it is having on research and development. What does it actually cost to try to defend this country?

I appreciate the historical context some of you have been putting into it. The fact that the decision in Europe was announced 70 years to the day, let's face it, if you want to go to some other irony, the time that Secretary Gates was saying that he was going to stop the production of more than 30 ground-based missiles in the KEI was the exact same day the North Koreans were shooting a missile that was threatening Japan going over it.

He was holding a press conference, reassuring the State of Hawaii that we had enough missile defense system to protect everybody on the date of their second shot. I think one of the things we need to do in America is quit holding press conferences about our missile defense and making decisions, because something bad always happens on those particular days.

But it is undisputable, the fact that every program that is started has glitches in them that have to be worked out. That's why you want an experienced work base to try to be there who have gone through that program, who have worked through it, who know what works and know what doesn't work so you don't have to keep reinventing the wheel. As you said, even if we were going to save $1.8 billion by not doing this, if at some point we realize along the line that 30 missiles is not enough to defend this entire country, it is going to cost significantly more than that to rebuild it.

We, for example, on the ICBM rocket motor program wanted to keep a warm line in the industrial base so that we could churn out a minimum number of missile motors so that we could refurbish those ICBMs that we are going to keep. Well, we didn't put enough money in the budget to do that.

What it meant was that there were people who were laid off because the private sector could not keep that warm line functioning. Even though the military knew they insisted they were going to have to have a warm line, what it meant in the long term was instead of putting about $10 million or $20 million in the line, they are going to have to put four times that much money to start the warm line project again.

What I am trying to say is here--and we are throwing around a lot of numbers, let me try to make this easier--it is cheaper for us in the long run to keep an industrial base of experts so that we can maintain what we have and try to find the research and development to improve what we have.

If we start and stop, it is expensive to restart, to reboot that program. It does not save us money in the long run.

It does not give us better defense in the long run. It does not help with research, and it doesn't help people who lose their jobs, gain their jobs and lose their jobs and uproot their families when we don't benefit from it in the long run.

I appreciate you bringing that particular issue up.

Well, if sometimes you put a spin on it to try and allow talking not just necessarily about the numbers that we're throwing out there but the human face of what this means, about the individuals who actually are working in these programs to try and make this country more secure, they're the ones who are losing their jobs, which is okay if there's a long-term purpose. But I think you actually put it very well, brilliantly well, in saying so simply that the decision in Europe, instead of being prepared 2 years before the threat is viable, we're now going to change that to be prepared 5 years after the threat is viable. That makes no sense.

In that term, saving a billion dollars is not necessarily in the best interest of this country. Not only do you hurt individuals who are working in that area, but you hurt the entire Nation, who is depending upon their results to provide us with some modicum of protection.

Not only does it not make much sense to say, okay, we already have the holes dug, we're ready to put the missiles in there, and now we stop, even though all the parts are there; not only does it not make sense to say even though the missile is already at Vandenberg Air Base in California, we won't go ahead and finish the test to see if it would have worked or not or how effective it would be; those are not productive approaches. And it illustrates that we, as a country, are now in the position where we seem to be vacillating with not a clear and precise idea of where we want to be in the future and what we will use to defend ourselves in the future.

As the gentleman from Ohio correctly said, even if your assumption is we'll take money and we'll shift it to some other place, to announce shortly after that you're going to flatline military spending and still want to find $60 billion in some kind of savings within the system doesn't mean we're actually going to move forward in any particular area. It puts us into a world that is very, very dangerous.

In the 1930s, we decided to cut our fighter plane program because we wanted to save some money, and when World War II broke out, we found that our bombing runs were having over a 20 percent casualty rate, which was unconscionable. We stopped our bombing runs until we could build up the fighter program to accompany them.

We no longer have that luxury of time. We live in a world where we no longer have the luxury of time, which Abraham Lincoln understood was part of the strategy you have in warfare. We don't have that anymore.

We must be prepared now, not to find out we made structural and strategic mistakes sometime down in the future when we don't have the ability to repair that situation.