Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues in strong support of H.R. 1017, the Chiropractic Care Available to All Veterans Act. This legislation ensures that chiropractic care and services will be offered to all veterans through Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) medical centers and clinics by the end of 2012.

The benefits of chiropractic care are widely-known, and make a tremendous difference in the quality of life for so many Americans. As a regular chiropractic patient, I can attest to the benefits of this valuable service.

Veterans deserve a wide-range of services to meet their individual needs. As chiropractic care has grown in popularity, it is only logical to offer this service to our veterans. I am pleased, therefore, that this legislation will ensure access to chiropractic care for Kansas veterans.

I urge all my colleagues to join with me in support of H.R. 1017.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a man who has honorably served his country in the United States Navy and his community of the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County, Kansas.

After 53 years of involvement in the local criminal justice system, Mr. Bobby Stout will be retiring from his position as the Wichita Crime Commission's Executive Director, effective June 30th, 2010.

This remarkable achievement is the culmination of an extraordinary career. After completing his military obligation in the United

States Navy, he joined the Wichita Police Department as an officer in 1957. He served there for 23 years, retiring in 1980 as Deputy Police Chief to accept his current position.

In the 30 years Mr. Stout has served on the Wichita Crime Commission, he is personally credited with developing advanced and specialty training programs for officers. This year, under his direction, the Crime Commission is conducting its 16th Annual Midwest Law Enforcement Conference on Gangs and Drugs. This annual program has provided training for more than 2500 law enforcement officers state-wide.

His involvement in the ``Making Good Choices'' program has directly impacted Wichita's youth by highlighting the consequences of poor decisions before they are faced with them. Mr. Stout was also the face of the weekly ``Crime Stoppers'' segment on local television, where his work earned him the distinction of Kansas ``Crime Stopper'' of the Year in 1993.

While tirelessly devoting his efforts to improving the lives of his fellow citizens, Bobby is first and foremost a devoted husband to his wife, Jerry, and a proud father and grandfather.

Madam Speaker, when parents in Wichita, or anywhere in our country, search for role models in their community that their children can aspire to, they need look no further than Bobby Stout. It is my distinct privilege to honor him today in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Chairman, every day it becomes more and more difficult to create and keep jobs here in America. We've got the best aerospace workers in the world. But over the last few years, 65,000 aerospace jobs have left America and migrated to France.

The European Government has subsidized building jets, and finally the World Trade Organization ruled that those start-up subsidies are illegal.

And now our own Pentagon is buying a new air refueling tanker a new jet, and they have decided to turn their backs on the American aerospace workers by ignoring these illegal start-up subsidies and putting another 65,000 jobs at risk.

This amendment is about fairness to the American aerospace workers. It simply says, in spite of all the lobbying efforts that have occurred by the French, Mr. Secretary, if you insist on receiving a bid from the French, then you have to take into consideration the dollar impact of the illegal subsidies. Support this amendment, and it's a matter of fairness to the American aerospace workers.

Mr. Chairman, for the purposes of a colloquy, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. Inslee, is it your intention and your understanding that the language in the amendment regarding the unfair competitive advantage describes illegal subsidies such as illegal launch aid provided by EADS and Airbus by the European governments as ruled by the World Trade Organization?

Thank you. That's also my intent and understanding of this language.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 302 and 303, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on both votes.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H. Res 1292, and to offer my heartfelt congratulations to the Emporia State University Lady Hornets for winning the 2010 NCAA Division II National

Championship, their first national championship. They continue the proud tradition of Kansas basketball, going all the way back to James Naismith.

The Lady Hornets had a difficult road to the championship, defeating Tarleton State and West Texas A&M to reach the Sweet Sixteen. Their solid defense helped them advance with an impressive 76-45 win over Northeastern State. They reached the Final Four with a win over Michigan Tech. The very next day they faced top-ranked and undefeated Gannon University. The game went into overtime, but Emporia State prevailed, 97-94. The Lady Hornets earned the national championship with their 65-53 win over Fort Lewis College. We were impressed with all of the Hornets, and especially with junior Alli Volkens, who led the team with 16 points, 15 rebounds, 5 blocked shots, and earned the title of Most Outstanding Player of the tournament.

I want to recognize head coach Brandon Schneider, assistant coaches Jory Collins and Kiel Unruh, and the entire Lady Hornets team-- Cassondra Boston, Jessen Tucker, Rachel Hanf, Jocelyn Cummings, Jamie Augustyn, Lacy Corker, Kelsey Newman, Brittney Miller, Sophia Leonard, Ashley Ferrell, Negesti Taylor, Kayla Kruger, Dava Logsdon, and Alli Volkens. Their championship is a testament to their hard work throughout their season, their effective coaching, and their dedication to teamwork. Congratulations, Lady Hornets.

First of all, Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Dennis Moore for his leadership in this legislation. He has always sought during his

career in Congress to find bipartisan legislation that we could work together on. I appreciate and also want to thank Congresswoman Jenkins for her participation and leadership in this issue as well as her time here on the floor and in Kansas.

This is a unique bill. It's unique legislation that not only recognizes the service and sacrifice of five United States 5-star generals but also supports important work at the Command and General Staff College Foundation at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

During this brief history of World War II, we had great leadership in America. Following that time, from 1944 to 1950, we had five heroic men who were promoted to 5-star status as generals, 5-star generals. These men all exemplified leadership. And when faced with difficult times, they chose to do the right thing and pursued strong goals to keep this world safe. And leadership matters. I think that's why this bill is important and why it matters.

In times that are challenging, whether it's a time of war or a time of peace, we still are confronted with difficult situations, whether it's the economy or the safety of this country, and leadership is an important facet of finding our way through these difficult times. These five men exemplified that kind of leadership.

I am also very pleased with how this bill was designed by Congressman Moore to allow the revenues to go to the United States Army Command and General Staff College Foundation. The Command and General Staff Foundation is dedicated to supporting the mission and the people of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College.

At the Command and General Staff College we not only educate men and women in the United States armed services, but we also have fellows who come from other countries and learn about this country and learn about how we protect freedom. I think it's valuable information.

But one of the side benefits from the school I experienced personally is something I think goes on around the world. In 2001, we had two Kansas missionaries that were taken hostage by Philippine Muslim terrorists. At that time I went to our National Security Adviser and requested that we have our troops rescue these missionaries, our military go out and rescued Martin and Gracia Burnham. At that time we had no plans to do that in this government, so I bought a commercial airline ticket and flew to the Philippines.

The liaison office was kind enough to send with me then a Marine colonel, Col. Regner, who is now Maj. Gen. Regner, and together we went to the Philippines. On the day before New Year's, in 2001, we flew over Basilan Island in the Philippines, where Martin and Gracia Burnham, the two Kansas missionaries, were held hostage.

The next day, on New Year's Day 2002, Col. Regner and I met with President Arroyo at the Presidential Palace. I was greeted by a cold shoulder, if I can use that term, and it was because they really didn't have much, I think, to expect from what they could do on behalf of these missionaries.

But when I walked in the room, Col. Regner recognized a colonel in the Philippine Army that he had attended school with at Fort Leavenworth at the Command and General Staff College. They greeted each other warmly, and the ice in the room melted. We were able to then negotiate several things for our military to help assist the rescue attempts for the Burnhams. And we were able to get, for example, training for the Philippine Army, and we were able to get advisers to travel along with the platoons that had completed their training, and also some assets overhead to find out where they were being held hostage.

Long story short is that Gracia Burnham is home in Rose Hill, Kansas, safely today. Her husband Martin was killed in the rescue attempt. And it was because our advisers were not able to be with that platoon at the time they ran into the Philippine terrorists.

But the good news about the Command and General Staff College is that they open doors all around the globe. This foundation is going to support that organization. So I also want to thank Bob Ulin, the CEO of the CGSC Foundation, for his dedication to the men and women of the United States Army.

And again, thank you, Congressman Moore, for your leadership here. And I want to thank the gentlewoman, Congressman Lynn Jenkins, from Kansas for the time.

Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act. I believe that H.R. 2499 will lead to a situation where the government of Puerto Rico could demand recognition as the 51st state in the Union despite the will of the Puerto Rican people. This bill represents the fourth time since 1991 that Puerto Ricans have been asked to vote on their status, and all four times they have rejected statehood as their desired political status. The two-step voting process contained in this bill will skew the results in favor of a minority of the people who support statehood, and drown out the voices of the majority who do not.

I am also deeply troubled by the provision in the bill that would allow anyone born in Puerto Rico, but not currently residing there, to vote in this plebiscite. With hundreds of thousands of people born in Puerto Rico, but not residing there, I believe this aspect of the bill dilutes the voices of Puerto Rican residents and again sets the stage for a skewed result supporting statehood.

Finally, I believe that as a condition of possible statehood, Puerto Rico must officially adopt English as its primary language. It is currently officially a bilingual territory, where only 1 in 5 people speak English fluently. The last states admitted to the Union, Alaska and Hawaii, both adopted English as their official language and, although they respect the culture and language of their native population, the vast majority of their populations are fluent in English.

For these reasons, I cannot vote to support H.R. 2499 or the Burton/ Young Amendment, which does not adequately ensure that English would be the official language of Puerto Rico.

Madam Speaker, ``Excessive taxation . . . will carry reason and reflection to every man's door, and particularly in the hour of election.'' Thomas Jefferson spoke these words in 1798. These words will ring true once again this November, 212 years later. Why? This Congress and the Obama administration refuse to recognize the burden they are placing on Americans with constant tax and spend schemes. Since President Obama took office he has enacted nearly $700 billion in new taxes. This amounts to more than $2,100 for every man, woman and child in the United States.

Not only are the taxes in this country outrageous, the balance of those who pay taxes are also becoming more and more out of balance. But not all people believe this is the case. A recent CBS News poll showed 50 percent of Americans think the amount they pay in taxes is fair. Yet according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, 47 percent of American households will not owe any federal income tax for tax year 2009. Coincidence? I think not. Almost half of Americans do not pay taxes and believe that to be fair?

Our current tax code is ridiculously complicated, horribly unfair, and bad for the economy. It inhibits saving, investment and job creation, and imposes a heavy burden on families.

Americans know when spending and taxation is out of control. In fact, back in December 1773, a group of American colonists called the Sons of Liberty boarded a ship docked in Boston harbor that was filled with boxes of tea from the East India Company. What were they protesting? The ``Tea Act''. The act was designed to prop up the East India Company, which was floundering financially and burdened with 18 million pounds of unsold tea. It was a 17th century bailout. Colonists boarded the ship and tossed the tea into the harbor, in protest of the Tea Act, which had recently been enacted by the British government. This tea party led to the realization that America must be freed from Great Britain in order to become a true democracy.

Today, over 200 years after the great tea party, I stand with Kansans and patriotic tea partiers nationwide who are outraged by Washington's untamed penchant for taxing, borrowing and spending our hard-earned dollars. We've had enough. This runaway spending and taxing must stop. Yet, the Democrat Congress and the Obama Administration continue to propose and pass legislation that increase taxes and spending and jeopardize our future.

We need across-the-board spending cuts throughout the federal government and tax relief for American families and businesses. This is one of many steps we should be taking to create high-quality jobs and spark long-term economic growth without a new government spending program.

Just this week, I introduced a congressional resolution condemning a massive value added tax (VAT) system being considered by the Obama administration. Americans have already been subjected to one of the highest tax increases in our nation's history as part of recently passed healthcare reform. American families and the American economy cannot flourish under this level of taxation.

Despite this trajectory, our country could be on a 10-month recovery plan. First, the federal government must end the bailouts, reduce spending and lower taxes for all Americans.

The private sector, not government bureaucrats, knows how money should be spent, what resources are needed, and what type of training workers will require. Unfortunately too many government roadblocks stand in the way of business development--and deter investment by those here and abroad. Steps we can and will take to restore our nation's competitiveness and ensure that America remains the Land of Opportunity: Tax Relief and Simplification, Liability Reform, Regulatory Reform, Healthcare Security, Energy Independence.

On this day, as Americans unite to demand that our government stop spending into bankruptcy, I pledge to continue the fight to return money and power back to American families as our founding fathers intended.

Madam Speaker, on March 23, I missed six rollcall votes numbered 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, and 177.

Rollcall No. 172 was a vote on Ordering the Previous Question. Had I been present I would have voted ``no.''

Rollcall No. 173 was a vote on Agreeing to the Resolution, H. Res. 1205. Had I been present I would have voted ``no.''

Rollcall No. 174 was a vote On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.J. Res. 80. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

Rollcall No. 175 was a vote On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H. Res. 1186. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

Rollcall No. 176 was a vote On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 3976. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

Rollcall No. 177 was a vote On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 4592. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

Parliamentary inquiry.

Madam Speaker, this rule is to amend a reconciliation bill that is amending a bill that no longer exists. The bill has been signed into law. Therefore, the references in the reconciliation bill are no longer accurate. Is it possible for us to wait until the bill that has been signed into law has been codified so we can have accurate references in the reconciliation bill? Otherwise wouldn't the House be voting on an inaccurate piece of legislation?

Madam Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Madam Speaker, I believe this bill will be inaccurate. The reconciliation bill is inaccurate in its current form, and the rule should be withdrawn until proper references can be made because an inaccurate bill will be voted upon.

Madam Speaker, once again, doesn't it require that the legislation presented to the floor of the House has to be accurate in order for us to vote on it?

Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. Is it not true that when a bill becomes law it is no longer a bill; therefore, when we amend a nonexisting bill, we cannot vote on an accurate piece of legislation? Is it not in the rules of the House that we have to vote on accurate legislation?

I'm not trying to debate; I'm simply trying to understand the rules. My question was not answered on the parliamentary inquiry.

Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Madam Speaker, is it within the rules for the majority manager to withdraw a rule at this stage in the debate?

Is it also true that since the legislation that will be amended is inaccurate and does not have correct references to existing law, that we should not have a vote on it, that the rule should be withdrawn?

Madam Speaker, since the bill that is being amended no longer exists, the references are inaccurate. How can we possibly have a vote on an inaccurate bill?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this rule should be withdrawn. The Senate bill is now law, and it's the greatest intrusion into our private lives that we have seen under this Congress. It's going to hurt our economy, it's going to cost us jobs. Plus, there are special provisions within the bill that's been signed into law that should have been corrected in the reconciliation bill, but this rule fails to address those corrections that need to be taken.

The Louisiana purchase is still law today. It should have been corrected. The University of Connecticut hospital that received the earmark should have been corrected by this underlying legislation. The Hawaiian disproportionate share hospital program is exempt from cuts. Other States aren't.

Tennessee is also exempt from the DSH. The frontier funding in counties in some rural areas is exempt and

other rural areas are not. Montana received special benefits for asbestos, those workers who were exposed to asbestos. What about the other 49 States?

Connecticut and Michigan have got a handful of hospitals that are going to get higher Medicare payments because of the legislation, and this rule fails to address it and change the underlying bill so that we can correct these improper measures.

So I would request that we withdraw the rule and get a proper bill before us.

Mr. Speaker, there's no doubt that unemployment remains a problem; but the majority, for some reason, thinks we need to borrow another $600 million to subsidize summer jobs for kids. But, you know, there's a lot of money already available. Out of the $1.2 billion provided for youth jobs in the so-called Recovery Act, $366 million is still unspent. There's another $924 million in annual appropriations that will be available in about 1 week from now.

Additionally, for each of the last two program years, there's approximately $250 million appropriated for youth employment that has not been spent and been carried forward. So when you add all that up, it's $1.5 billion that's available today already for youth programs in the summer.

Why on God's green Earth would we borrow another $600 million from the Chinese?

I have limited time, Mr. Chairman. If you'll be brief.

I would welcome to have your question, Mr. Chairman.

Well, Mr. Chairman, we overspent so far this year $655 billion.

I thank the Chairman. And I would argue that of the $655 billion that we've already had to borrow, you're taking some of that money and applying it to this program so, again, borrowing money from the Chinese.

Well, I guess I'm entitled to my new math today.

I would like to make the point that these summer jobs, or these temporary youth jobs that are paid for by tax dollars don't create permanent jobs. Wichita State University did a study of what we received with the stimulus money; and of the $6.2 million that was received, 600 employers temporarily hired 1,593 youth for summer jobs. Out of that, only 62 jobs were permanent, or 3.8 percent.

So if you look at what's happened through the stimulus, since the stimulus business was passed, we've lost 3.9 million private sector jobs. We have created jobs in the Federal Government, 63,000 jobs, another 230,000 jobs at the State and local level. How are we going to pay for those jobs in the future?

We've created permanent government jobs and lost private sector jobs. A little math--that's not new math, but proven math--says that for every government employee, it takes 10 private sector jobs to pay enough Federal taxes to cover the cost of that employee.

So what we should be talking about is not temporary jobs in the summer for youth, but permanent jobs, real jobs. And in fact, we need 3 million jobs just to cover the new government jobs that we've created. We can create those jobs through tax relief for employers. We can do it by freezing regulations and forcing the existing regulations through a simple formula where the benefit exceeds the cost. And we need tort reform, and we need to become energy independent.

The point I want to make about creating a strong economy to pay for these new government jobs at the Federal and State level, we have to do things to provide opportunity in our economy. The way you do that is you enhance the process of hiring people.

Capital is always a coward and only goes where it's welcome. Lowering taxes for people who invest in jobs will attract capital into our economy.

Second, we need to freeze our current regulations and force all the regulations that we have on the books today through a simple formula: B has to be greater than C. That means that the benefit has to exceed the cost of implementation. If we would do that, we would lower the cost of creating things in America, of making things in America, and we have to make things.

The third thing I would argue is we need to have tort reform. I favor a loser-pay system like they have in the United Kingdom.

And, fourth, I would like to say if we became energy independent, we would solve our unemployment problem. Only one State in the entire United States last year had increased employment. That State was North Dakota, and it was because they found oil under private property. Had it been under public lands, we could not have extracted the oil. But because it was private lands, we created jobs.

I recommend we oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that the chairwoman of the Rules Committee just said that if the language in the Senate bill that was referred to by the gentleman from California is going to be changed, would that not mean that the Senate bill would have to go back to the Senate for further action in that body?

Mr. Speaker, in order to keep the American public informed, let me restate this so that you can understand.

Is it true that if the actions to overcome the Cornhusker compromise, the Louisiana purchase and those special provisions that have been designated in the Senate bill are changed, as was assured by the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, then would not that bill have to go back to the Senate for further action?

Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking a question that if a bill is changed, does it not have to go back to the other body for further action, because the gentlewoman from New York has assured the gentleman from California that his concerns about specific sections that were used to get specific votes is going to be changed by the manager's amendment. Would that not then change the underlying Senate bill, which would then have to go back to the other body for further action? Is that not true?

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused, then. Perhaps you could, in a parliamentary inquiry, explain to me that if a bill is changed once it comes from the other body, does it not have to return to that body for further action?

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Was not the gentleman from California yielded another 10 seconds, and he did not get to use it?

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, it was the assumption of the body here that all the earmarks that were contained in the Senate bill would be taken care of in the reconciliation bill. If it is true that they are not all taken into consideration for, do the earmark rules then apply to the rest of the bill?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to.

It was the impression given the Members and the people of the United States that the reconciliation bill would take care of all the earmarks in the Senate bill. However, we now know that there are earmarks in the Senate bill that are not being taken care of. So do not the House rules on earmarks apply to the remainder of the Senate bill?

Mr. Speaker, I am asking for an inquiry on the House rules. Do the House rules apply or not?

Mr. Speaker, is it not the purpose of your role to make sure that the rules of the House are incorporated into our discussions?

Mr. Speaker, clarification of the point of order.

Is it my understanding that you said that the rules will apply to the Senate bill on earmarks that

were not covered by the reconciliation bill?

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health care bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of not only the people of the great State of Kansas but also on behalf of the millions of Americans whose wishes are not being represented by their own Representatives. Kansans, over two-thirds of Americans, and I are strongly opposed to the Senate bill and the Reconciliation bill, both of which represent a massive government takeover of health care. I cannot and will not support this government takeover of our health care system that will restrict choice, ration care, increase the cost of health care, greatly increase government spending, cut Medicare spending, bankrupt States, lead to the destruction of the world's best medical care, and kill jobs during one of the worst economic periods in our Nation's history.

In order to get to the Capitol today, everyone in this body had to pass the tens of thousands of Americans from all walks of life who came by plane, train and automobile, at their own expense, to petition their government not to impose government run health care on them.

I spent the weekend speaking with many of these patriotic Americans, many of whom were turned away by their own Representatives on the other side of the aisle. I was struck not only by their personal stories (from the great-grandmother with a bad knee who came from Pennsylvania and navigated the Metro for the first time to the small business owner from Wisconsin who has never gotten involved in politics but bought a ticket to come out here because he felt this was so important) but also by their determination. The media may have made the prospects for killing the bill look grim, but they were not going to let that happen without a fight.

The group was diverse but almost everyone with whom I spoke mentioned the same concerns with the bill: government power grab, deficit spending, increased taxes, rationing of care, taxpayer funded abortions, and especially the restriction of freedom. If government can take over one-sixth of the Nation's economy over the will of the people, they asked,

what separates us from Venezuela and socialized nations?

Power grab

We have a one party town; the Democrats control the House, the Senate and the White House. They are taking advantage of this situation to centralize power in their hands so that they may control every aspect of our lives including what cars we can drive, how we educate our children, now our health care options. Believe me, the American people are opposed to this, as indicated in rock bottom approval ratings for Congress and even the President, who less than a year ago had the highest approval ratings seen in a long time.

Patients benefit when their doctors make the decisions as to their health care needs, not bureaucrats sitting in an office building in Washington, DC. The federal government should not intrude in this sacred relationship. The most famous line of the physician's Hippocratic Oath is ``I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.'' Under government-run health care, Washington will override their judgment and it will be government bureaucrats, not doctors, who prescribe regimens.

It's not just the bureaucrats at HHS that Americans will have to worry about, this bill also greatly expands the power of the IRS and hands them the authority to harass and even fine American families and job creators for their health care choice. Despite repeated inquiries, no one has been able to tell me just how many new bureaucrats will be added to the federal payroll to implement government-run health care.

The unfunded mandates on the States to provide health insurance options and oversee the private sector, at a time when they are in dire financial straits, are confounding.

Access

Today over 20 percent of physicians in Kansas already no longer accept new Medicare patients because they will be forced into bankruptcy trying to care for them with the grossly inadequate government reimbursements. Now the new administration wants to compound this loss of accessible health care professionals with a loss of access to health care treatment. In response, 46 percent of family physicians indicated that they would leave the medical profession due to a government takeover of health care.

Cost

This bill will cost well over the $1.2 trillion that CBO has scored. That score conveniently does not include the cost of the ``doc fix,'' the Medicare prescription drug donut hole fix, the Pell Grant expansion inexplicably included in the bill, or many other provisions of the bill.

As if the health provisions weren't enough, the Democrats have used this bill as a vehicle to pass education and energy provisions that will increase deficit spending by billions and kill even more jobs.

How are they paying for this? By cutting other areas of our bloated federal government? No, they are paying for this on the backs of American families and job creators. There is $569.2 billion in new taxes included in this bill. Much of that burden will be shouldered by the middle class and small businesses.

Rationed Care

My biggest concern with the Democrat proposals is the intended rationing of health care. The Obama administration has already begun to set the framework for rationed care with comparative effectiveness research. This is a very dangerous road to travel down.

Freedom

We pride ourselves on being the home of the free but this bill will reduce the United States to the level of every socialized nation in the world. If this bill is signed into law, Americans will not have the freedom to choose their doctor, their course of treatment, or their health plan.

The federal government has no authority to force Americans to buy health insurance or to mandate what benefits employers can and cannot provide employees. In addition this bill begins to destroy Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). HSAs are what we should be promoting as a way to expand choice, give patients more control over their medical spending, and reduce health care costs.

Prevent innovation

Just this week I met with NTH Director Francis Collins. We spent the better part of an hour talking about all of the exciting advances in medicine, especially in the area of individualized medicine. It was not lost on me that the treatments and cures we were discussing will never come to fruition under a government-run health care system that rations care and stifles innovation.

Seniors

This bill is a bad deal for our seniors. It expressly cuts $523 billion from Medicare and doesn't even fix the Medicare prescription drug donut hole until 2020. The rationing of care will also disproportionately affect seniors who, for obvious reasons, are the largest consumers of health care.

Pro-Life Concerns

Finally, the bills before us include abortions paid for with federal dollars and do not include conscience protection for medical providers. This is in blatant disregard of the House vote just 4 months ago. More importantly, it is in blatant disregard of the whopping two-thirds of Americans who oppose using federal dollars to pay for abortions. Even those individuals and organizations who strongly support government-run health care, such as the Catholic Church, do not want such programs to pay for abortions or euthanasia.

I want health care reform and am saddened that this process has become so political that we won't see the much needed modernization that will ensure Americans have access to the best health care for decades to come. I am saddened that states like my home state of Kansas are forced to take drastic action to try to protect their citizens from being affected by Washington's takeover of health care.

Republicans have offered better solutions and principles that should be included in any health care reform. Those principles should: let Americans who like their health coverage keep it, give all Americans the freedom to choose the health plan that best meets their needs; ensure that medical decisions are made by patients and their doctors, not government bureaucrats; and improve Americans' lives through effective prevention, wellness, and disease management programs, while developing new treatments and cures for life-threatening diseases. CBO has declared that the Republican health care plan would lower health care costs by at least 10 percent. This is the approach the American people want to see passed by Congress, not the destructive bill that is instead before us.

Our constituents have spoken loudly and clearly and it is our duty as their representatives to listen to them, not ignore them and use the sacred Speaker's gavel to impose personal political goals upon them. Therefore, with every breath in my body, on behalf of my constituents, I scream ``heck no'' and vote ``nay.''

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker,

Is it true that in the course of comfortable debate that we not question another Member's motives?

Is it against the House rules to question another Member's motives?

I thank the Speaker.

Will the gentleman yield?

The concern was for veterans that were under the age of 65 and have 20 years of service or more, that the health care bill statutes that were determining what was acceptable as the stand-alone insurance committee----

I thank the gentleman.

It was that the folks who were on TRICARE under the age of 65 and retired would get moved out of TRICARE into the government-determined plan.

I thank the gentleman from Colorado.

Madam Speaker, I was just on the steps of the Capitol speaking to a Cold War veteran who served this country admirably and then went to serve the Fire Department in the State of Mississippi. He has driven all the way from Mississippi to Washington, D.C., because he is concerned that the health care bill that's going to be passed is going to increase the debt for his grandchildren and his children. He had other lists of concerns that he had, but primarily he was concerned about the debt.

We know for a fact that since October 1, the beginning of this fiscal year, we have overspent by $655 billion. This is money we do not have that we've gone ahead and spent. We've borrowed this money and applied it to programs that I don't believe we needed. So he's concerned that, looking at this health care bill and the current projections, the total cost outlays over the next 10 years is $1.2 trillion, money, again, that we don't have, and so we're going to have to borrow from somewhere. And that takes into consideration that there's only 6 years of health care benefits that are going to be applied in the first 10 years and 10 years of higher taxes. So he's very concerned about the direction. If you go on to the next 10 years, it's going to be over $1.5 trillion that we will have to borrow for the health care bill that we are about to vote on tomorrow. He's concerned about that as well. Where's the money going to come from?

The gentleman from New Jersey was very concerned about us overlooking something that may have been or may not have been in the bill. The concern that the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee had is that under the way the bill is currently written, that people who are on TRICARE would be forced into the government exchange, and so he corrected that earlier today. Now it wasn't me that came up with that solution. I was aware of the problem, but even the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, the Democrat Chairman Ike Skelton from Missouri, was concerned, so we had the legislative change. What else is hidden in this bill?

Now we have the bill, and yet we're not going to know the entire contents as far as what the American public is concerned about or what they will know. So if you look at the Senate bill that's going to be passed, fortunately, it's not going to be deemed to be passed with a rule. And I think that's a tremendous victory for the American people.

Yesterday the American people were very upset that we were going to deem the Senate bill passed. Today 50,000 people showed up to protest it. Calls came in. You couldn't even call into our switchboard, 202- 224-3121 was blocked because of all the calls coming in, and their voices were heard. So tomorrow we're going to get a separate vote on the Senate bill. The people of America spoke out. They didn't want it to be deemed to be law. They wanted a separate vote. Now they want us to vote against it.

There is a whole bunch of people standing out here on the east side of the Capitol near the steps. They are protesting the health care bill. What they're saying is, Kill the bill. They're chanting it over and over and over again. Are we going to listen to their voices? Are we going to listen to what they're saying? What they know of what's in the Senate bill and the reconciliation bill they don't like. So tomorrow we hope that we can explain to them what's in the bill. Then they'll make an informed decision, and hopefully they will encourage their Members of Congress to vote against the bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is National Ag Week, and I want to express my support and appreciation for our Nation's farmers and ranchers, especially those from my home State of Kansas.

Kansas farmers produce more than 350 million bushels of wheat, 200 million bushels of sorghum, and nearly 500 million bushels of corn, generating more than $5 billion annually for our economy. Our ranchers produced more than 6.3 billion head of cattle this year. Each farmer feeds more than 130 people. It is their hard work that has ensured America a safe, low-cost feed supply.

Now, I learned about agriculture on the seat of a tractor, not a committee, and I know firsthand just how hard farmers work. Too many people here in Washington have no clue how the policies they pass affect farm life, often making things more difficult for farmers and ranchers.

Congress and bureaucracies need to freeze regulations and let the agricultural community do their job of feeding the world. We need to have the EPA step back from the regulations of everything from dust to cow gas. We need to eliminate the death tax so family farms can stay in the family. And please, let us restore the focus of the farm bill on the family farm and not on the cities.

So tonight, Mr. Speaker, as you sit down to dinner, remember to thank a farmer for making your meal possible.