Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it seems there are those who still fail to realize that we cannot continue down this road of fiscal insanity. It isn't politics; it's math. Our spending is simply unsustainable, yet we have not seen a serious proposal from the White House to address our trillion-dollar deficits.

The President thinks the answer is more taxes. But while the tax increases President Obama is calling for would hurt small businesses, they would have little effect in reducing our deficits. That is because our debt is being driven by spending, plain and simple. Therefore, to solve our problem, we must implement serious spending cuts and reforms.

The good news is this isn't hard to do; we just have to look at the amount of revenue coming in and not spend more than that. Rather than spending more than we can afford, we must prioritize our spending. Hundreds of millions of Americans do this every day. If my constituents in Tennessee can balance their budgets, so can Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Governor Bill Haslam of my home State of Tennessee for his decision not to set up a State- run health care exchange. Governor Haslam was exactly right when he said this was a business decision, not a political one.

After 2 years, the Obama administration has failed to provide States with sufficient guidance as to how State exchanges would function, yet President Obama expects States to make that decision this week. That's like asking a business to sign a contract that is still being written.

Further, there is evidence that the Federal Government will ultimately control exchanges no matter who creates them. The only difference is if a State sets up an exchange, it will pay for it. No business would take a deal like that.

Finally, Tennessee has seen what experimental health care reform looks like in TennCare. This program almost collapsed and bankrupted our State. What business would risk its finances on a proposal modeled after a failed plan?

I applaud Governor Haslam and thank him for his business-like approach.

The American people have voiced their demands for an end to the partisan gridlock that has for far too long plagued Washington. They expect their elected officials to work across party lines and across the branches of government to solve the challenges facing our Nation.

Unless we act now, we run the risk of allowing this country to go off a fiscal cliff in January. This would have both severe economic and security ramifications. Defense Secretary Panetta says it would be devastating to our national defense.

The accounting firm Ernst & Young said it would cost us nearly 700,000 jobs. Almost every American would fall victim to a tax increase. This would be an unacceptable blow to our economy that is still struggling to get back on its feet.

House Republicans have already passed legislation to address these issues and stand ready to build upon them to avert this crisis.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I want to take a few moments to thank Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and Ways and Means Chairman David Camp for their help in bringing this worthwhile piece of legislation to the House floor. In addition, I want to say a special thanks to Congressman Sam Johnson for his work and guidance through the process.

I also want to recognize and thank the family of Lance Corporal Andrew P. Carpenter for bringing this matter to my attention. I am truly humbled to have had the honor of introducing the Andrew P. Carpenter Tax Act.

We are all familiar with the verse in John that says: ``Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.'' On February 19, 2011, due to wounds suffered while on a combat mission in the Helmand province of Afghanistan, Lance Corporal Andrew Carpenter did indeed lay down his life for his friends and country.

A graduate of Columbia Central High School in 2002, Andrew enlisted in the United States Marine Corps in 2007 and was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force out of Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. He was serving his second tour in Afghanistan.

Leaving behind a wife, Crissie, and soon to be born son, Landon, Andrew gave his life in defense of our Nation and the cause of freedom. In a fitting tribute to his and his family's sacrifice, the city of Columbia, Tennessee, held a memorial service that sent a clear message that his valor would not be forgotten. Unfortunately, the aftermath of this outpouring of support was soon tarnished by the grim hand of the Internal Revenue Service. As hard as it is to believe, Mr. Speaker, the pain and anguish of his parents and wife were compounded by a tax bill from the Internal Revenue Service for over $1,000 due to the fact that an educational loan from a private institution was forgiven. Imagine the dismay of having to bury a son, daughter, husband, or wife that had paid the ultimate sacrifice only to have the IRS say you haven't paid enough.

Three years prior, Andrew had taken out a private educational loan. After

learning that Andrew had been killed in action, the company administering the loan agreed to completely forgive the debt. However, the IRS did not. Upon forgiveness of the debt, the family, who had cosigned the loan, received a 1099C form informing them that the debt discharged would be factored into their gross taxable income for that year. Not knowing what the tax bill was for, the family paid the tax and then contacted my office and brought this matter to my attention. As a newly elected Congressman, this was a rude introduction to just how broken our Federal system was.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today attempts to shield American families from ever having the IRS add to their loss by callously presenting them with a tax bill. Simply, my bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to exempt private student loan forgiveness from being categorized as gross taxable income for families of veterans who have lost their lives while serving in active duty in the United States Armed Forces. It is important to note that this bill would not make it mandatory for private lenders to forgive educational loans. Private loan companies would still have the option of whether or not to forgive a loan.

Having lost their son in Afghanistan, the Carpenter family is comforted by the knowledge that Andrew died a hero. His memory lives on in his son, Landon. It is for them and all those who may have or may face similar hardships that I urge that the House suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5044.

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

Mr. Speaker, due to impending weather affecting flight schedules, my arrival into Washington was delayed this evening. I was unable to cast a vote on rollcall votes No. 537 (S. 679), No. 538 (H.R. 828), and No. 539 (H.R. 3803). Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the first vote and ``aye'' on the following two votes.

I thank the gentleman.

Earlier this year, the Department of Labor issued a misguided rule that would effectively ban children from working on family-owned farms. While I'm sure there were some kids in rural areas across our Nation who were overjoyed by this news, I think it would be horribly unfair to deprive our youth of the same valuable work experience many of us were afforded.

Growing up in a rural community, I spent a lot of time doing work on farms, and I will be the first to admit that it wasn't always fun. But the values and appreciation for hard work that it instilled in me played an important role in shaping me as a person.

That is why I was proud to support Preserving America's Family Farms Act. This legislation will prevent the Department of Labor from issuing this rule or any similar rule, preventing children from working on their parents' farm.

If this proposal from the Department of Labor were actually implemented, not only would it rob our young farmers of important educational opportunities, but it would erode part of our Nation's rural culture. These actions by the Department of Labor serve as yet another reminder of the troubling pattern of government overreach and intrusion we have seen from this administration.

I thank the Tennessee Farm Bureau for their efforts in speaking out against this misguided notion and working with me to ensure that farming decisions are left to farmers, not bureaucrats in Washington.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

And you're absolutely right. I moved to start my practice in Tennessee in the fall of '93, and our program, TennCare, was implemented somewhat as an experiment in '94, January '94. So I witnessed it from its inception through what I would call its continuous failure.

The program continued to grow and expand, continued, as I think you referenced earlier, as substantiated by Senator Lamar Alexander, has drained our State's educational resources. And it got so bad that, in 2007, Governor Bredesen actually had to remove about 270,000 people from the program just to keep the State from going bankrupt.

So clearly, it was an example of how the program and the system does not work and did not work. And that's maybe a glimpse of what we can expect to see moving forward with the President's health care law. So it failed to accomplish its objectives, and just as we would have suspected, the costs grew exponentially. And so we have a great example in Tennessee of how the system does not work. So clearly, we need alternative reforms.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Broun.

Thank you for yielding.

I just want to expound on your comments and on, actually, what the gentlelady from Wyoming talked about in terms of the efficiency in her study, where they could actually buy a policy for those cheaper than what the Federal Government has implemented.

We were promised better access to care at a lower cost with the Affordable Care Act, and the TennCare program in Tennessee really was an experiment of nationalized health care confined to one State. What we found was that more and more physicians, as you stated, were dropping out of the TennCare program because of reimbursement issues and also because of the bureaucracy and the frustration with trying to find specialists.

I had a primary care practice, and I actually had to hire an extra staff member, which drove up my costs, to sit after hours to try to find specialists to take care of these patients. It was very frustrating for us. It was very frustrating for them. Yet the reimbursement, compared to a privately paid patient versus a Medicare patient versus a TennCare patient, continually was less money.

Right, which is exactly what we're going to see under the President's plan. You're going to see people who allegedly now have access to care, but they really don't because the reimbursement rates are so low that physicians really aren't even able to keep their doors open. The reimbursement rate for a TennCare patient in Tennessee was almost half of that from a private patient. It's not that physicians don't want to help and take care of these people. They do. It's just financially unfeasible, especially in solo practices, which are common in rural areas.

I have heard of that study as well. Again, I think it is an access to care issue, and that's certainly a problem that has not been addressed.

The ObamaCare law does nothing to address access to care, and it does nothing to address the cost of health care. Frankly, we all know that the cost of health care is driving our national debt, so we need to look at solutions that have been offered by the Republican caucus and the Doctors Caucus that will make real reforms to health care: that will make it more affordable and involve a greater attempt to get government out of the way. Just like in small businesses, the number one complaint is that government bureaucracy is driving down the profitability. It remains the same in health care as well, and we need to look at more free market options in health care if we're going to actually reduce costs.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the House Floor today to call attention to yet another problem in this poorly drafted, 2,700-page job-killing bill.

We all remember former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi's famous statement that they needed to pass the bill so we could find out what was in it. Today I stand here perplexed by not only what is in the bill but also what is not in the bill.

When drafting ObamaCare, Democrats only gave authority for the IRS to offer premium tax credits to State exchanges. Well, many States are refusing to set up these exchanges, making it necessary for the Federal Government to create them. That is permissible within the law.

Here is what is not: nowhere in the law does it give permission for those credits to be offered in federally-run exchanges. Mr. Obama, having recognized this grave mistake, has circumvented Congress by having the IRS unilaterally change his bill to fix this error.

Last time I checked, it was Congress that made laws, not the executive branch. The legislative process should still have meaning in this country, which is why my colleague and fellow Tennessee physician Dr. Phil Roe and I recently introduced legislation which prevents the administration from rewriting the law. Even my colleagues who support the President's law will surely agree that his administration's actions lead us down a dangerous constitutional path.

My opposition to ObamaCare is clear. That aside, having a President act without Congress to change law sets a dangerous precedent, one that violates the principles of our Constitution and the separation of power, principles that are the pillars of our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, due to airplane maintenance issues affecting flight schedules, my arrival into Washington was delayed this evening. I was unable to cast a vote on rollcall votes No. 1452 (H.R. 4155), No. (H.R. 4367), and No. 454 (H.R. 5892). Had I been present, I would have voted aye on each of those votes.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to cast a vote on rollcall vote No. 411, the McKinley Motion to Instruct on H.R. 4348. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, in today's society, we throw around terms like ``legendary'' or ``iconic'' to describe individuals or events that quite often are not worthy of such praise. But in talking about Pat Summitt, even lofty words like these fail to fully do justice to the extraordinary career that Coach Summitt has had at the University of Tennessee.

Throughout her 38 years of coaching the Lady Volunteers, she has built a list of achievements both on and off the court that would rival those of any other coach in the history of college basketball. These include 1,098 wins--more than anyone in NCAA basketball history--16 Southern Conference Championships, 16 SEC Tournament Championships, 18 Final Four appearances, eight national championships, and two Olympic medals.

Without a doubt, Coach Summitt is a monumental figure in the world of college sports. Her leadership and sportsmanship, along with her sheer talent as a coach, are universally admired by her competitors, colleagues, and fellow coaches.

She brought an unmatched level of pride and notoriety to both the sport of basketball and the University of Tennessee. But most importantly, she has been a guiding force in the lives of so many young people. Time and time again, she has led her players to victory both on the court and in the classroom. Under her guidance, every Lady Volunteer player who has finished her eligibility at Tennessee has graduated.

Coach Summitt's life should serve as a model for anyone to strive toward. She is a fierce competitor, a selfless mentor, and a dedicated advocate of women's athletics. I was glad to hear that she will still remain an important part of the program, and I know that all Lady Vol fans will look forward to her continued presence. I think we would all agree that if a Mount Rushmore of college coaches existed, her image would be etched upon it. There will never be another Pat Summitt.

Now, as she moves towards a new chapter in her life, I wish her and her family all the best.

Mr. Speaker, because the President cannot stand by his record of failed policies and broken promises, he has resorted to the policies of envy and division--all in the name of ``fairness.'' However, is it ``fair'' that, to pay for his health care bill, President Obama cut $500 billion from Medicare, thereby threatening seniors and their access to health care?

As a doctor for over 20 years, I know how important Medicare is to our seniors. That's why I'm proud to join House Republicans this week in introducing a bill to eliminate the new Medicare rationing board created in ObamaCare.

While President Obama thinks 15 unelected Washington bureaucrats should decide the value of medical services, my fellow physicians and I believe that power should remain between the Nation's doctors and their patients. Fifteen unelected bureaucrats. That's one crowded exam room.

Let us pass this bill and get rid of this health care law that we didn't ask for, we can't afford, and we just plain don't want.

I thank the gentleman, and I think it's great that we're taking time tonight to discuss such an important issue that is so near and dear to all of our seniors because this last year, quite frankly, has been a very confusing time as we try to reform and fix the problems that face Medicare today.

We have, without a doubt, a number of seniors who are having trouble finding access to care right now for all the reasons my colleagues have stated, that we have a flawed payment formula in the SGR, sustained growth rate formula, and we've made attempts to correct that this year. But, again, as they so often have done now for the past 13, 14 years, they've just pushed the problem down the road rather than deal with it. I don't think it hurts to review

for a minute what problems are facing Medicare.

We can't deny for a second, Mr. Speaker, that Medicare is going broke. You can talk to any number of agencies. Whether it is the CBO, AARP, we all know that Medicare is on an unsustainable course. Medicare is quite simply going to be broke in about 10 years. That's not a Republican problem. That's not a Democrat problem. That's a people problem. What we're here about tonight is to make sure that our seniors don't have to worry where their health care is going to come from.

We must get together and take steps to make sure that their access to care is preserved and protected. We did this earlier last year with the Paul Ryan budget. We put forth a sensible reform that would put Medicare on a path to sustainability. If you're 55 or older, you don't have to worry about any changes to your health care. That was grossly distorted in the press and the media. We were accused of--literally, there were TV ads made of pushing an elderly person off a cliff. This is just plain and simple wrong to create that kind of uncertainty for our seniors.

The bottom line is we have 10,000 new Medicare recipients entering the Medicare pool every day. We have a situation where when Medicare was first formed in 1965, the average life expectancy of a male was 68. Thanks to advances in medicine, men and women both are living at least 10 years longer. However, this was not managed in the budgeting for Medicare and hence we've gone deeper and deeper into debt. Now our average couple that pays about $109,000 into the Medicare system over a lifetime extracts about $340,000. That's about a dollar in for $3 out. Again, there's no denying that we have a problem and this is going broke.

Well, the Republicans did offer a solution, as my colleagues and I have said. However, right now, the IPAB is the only solution we've seen in President Obama's plan to cut costs, but it is going to gut $500 billion from our seniors; and that's the fact they need to know about. They need to call their Representatives.

Yes, sir.

My friend is absolutely correct. What we need to do here, if nothing else, is we need to agree on the facts; and the facts, as you just stated, are that Medicare is going broke. It is on an unsustainable course. So Medicare must be changed as we know it, as you said.

You mentioned your mother. My mother happens to be having her 73rd birthday today. It's a happy birthday for my mother today, but I hope that she has many more happy birthdays to come. We all have those stories. We all have parents, grandparents, people on Medicare who are counting on us. They are looking at the arguments going on in this Chamber and they are confused. They don't know what to believe.

So I think if we can agree, as you said, to the facts and then sit down and have a meaningful discussion of how we can preserve and protect this program for future generations, then that's half the battle.

I agree with what you are saying; and I guarantee you, any of the seniors watching tonight, listening to this debate, they don't care whether the Republicans win this debate or whether the Democrats win this debate. That's irrelevant. What they want to know is that they are going to have access to care. And I think it's so essential that we repeal this IPAB.

The gentleman was with me earlier today at a press conference when they asked about all the rhetoric last year about these being called death panels. That may sound a little bit theatrical, but I can tell you, as a physician, that if I'm treating a patient who is 78 or 88 and they've got some form of cancer and this IPAB board decides in the government one-size-fits-all mentality to throw a blanket over seniors of a certain age who have a certain disease--and cancer is probably one to pick--that they don't necessarily need to spend that expensive money on chemotherapy or experimental drugs or perhaps they don't even want me to order the MRI to detect the cancer, now if you are 78 or 88--that may sound so old to some people, but I know a lot of people that age that are very active. They have got 15 or 20 grandchildren, and those grandchildren enjoy their company. So if they make a decision that these people shouldn't get that treatment, and that's very well what could

happen with this board, then you decide what kind of panel or what kind of name you want to put on it.

I'll just add one more point. I can tell you that there's not a senior I've talked to that wants a bureaucrat in the exam room with us making their decisions. We build relationships with those patients. There's a trust between the patient and their doctor, and I'll guarantee you the patients don't want bureaucrats overseeing that exam room making those decisions for them. So when we move forward with these reforms, we certainly need to keep that in mind.

I would like to thank the gentleman for leading this hour on such an important topic.

I thank my colleague. I'll be brief tonight.

I just wanted to point out the fact that I'm proud to stand here with my physician, nursing, dental colleagues, all of the members of the Doctors Caucus, because I can say I think for all of us that none of us chose Congress as our career path in life. Our first passion in life was to help people.

We know that we have a problem facing us. Nobody can deny on either side

of the aisle that Medicare is going broke. As Dr. Roe said, we can't afford to wait to solve this problem. It's there. It's not a partisan issue. It's a people issue. It's about my parents and your parents and our grandparents. We just can't afford to let partisan bickering get in the way of solving this problem.

So what I guess I would ask people to do if you're a Member of AARP, if you've not contacted your Congressman or your representative or your senator, pick up the phone and make sure you know where they stand because they can't answer you that Medicare is not going broke in the next 10 years. We've offered up a lot of solutions to try to stave this off. But we want to make sure that we help you save Medicare, and we're going to do all we can from our end, but we can only do so much.

So if you're a Member of AARP, call AARP, tell them to get on board. The GOP Doctors Caucus will help lead the way. I can say that all of us in this caucus, as we treated patients over the years, we never looked at them as Democrats or Republicans. We just looked at them as patients and people. That's what we're here to do tonight. We're here to help save Medicare, but we need your help, so pick up the phone tomorrow, call your Member of Congress, and make sure you know where they stand, and they need to get on board, and they can't deny that this problem is coming.

Madam Speaker, our Nation is over $15 trillion in debt. But what does 15 trillion in debt really mean?

Well, it means that every American's share of the debt is roughly $48,000. It means that our debt is more than our Nation's yearly Gross Domestic Product. It means we must borrow 40 cents on every dollar we spend. And it means that China can purchase a new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter every 2 days with the interest we pay them.

While these facts alone should cause concern, the truly frightening part is that there is no plan in place to prevent our debt from continuing to grow. Increasing the debt limit by another $1.2 trillion will mean by the end of 2012 our national debt will be in excess of $16 trillion. But worse than that, raising the debt limit sends the message to job creators that we are still not serious about making the necessary spending cuts and reforms to pay down this unsustainable debt.

My constituents have given me a clear message: Make the Federal Government live within its means. That will require us to prioritize our spending and make tough spending decisions. But there's no other choice. It is simply impossible to continue to run yearly trillion dollar deficits, yet that is exactly what some in Washington want to continue to do.

There is absolutely no doubt that if we don't change this course, this reckless spending binge will ruin our economy and bankrupt our Nation. That is not fair to our future generations.

We have an opportunity here today to say, enough is enough. We can be the Congress that acts to put this great Nation back on the right track.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this disapproval resolution.