Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in opposition to H. Con. Res. 248, The Afghanistan War Powers Resolution. This resolution calls for a premature withdrawal of our forces from Afghanistan, putting our service men and women and our Nation at risk. Make no mistake, we are in the midst of a very important war. We did not seek the Global War on Terror, but it is one we cannot abandon.

On September 11, 2001, we were attacked in the most horrifying way. 2,973 innocent people were killed. Nine buildings were destroyed. The Pentagon was hit and but for the bravery of the passengers of United Flight #93, our Capitol would have been destroyed as well.

This war, however, did not begin or end on that fateful day. Muslim extremists have been at war with America for years, but few people took notice until 2001.

In 1983, terrorists launched a suicide truck-bomb attack against the U.S. Marine Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 242 Americans.

In 1993, Islamic terrorists attacked the World Trade Center building in New York City, killing six people and injuring 1,000 more.

In 1998, Al-Qaeda bombed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, leaving 300 dead and injuring over 5,000 people.

In 2000, the U.S. Navy Destroyer USS Cole was attacked by followers of Usama bin Laden, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39.

In May 2001, just over three months before the attacks of September 11, the Muslim terrorist group Abu Sayyaf kidnapped 16 people including Kansas missionaries Martin and Gracia Burnham. While some escaped, four hostages were killed including Martin. Fortunately, Gracia survived this terrifying ordeal and is now living in Rose Hill, Kansas.

On September 11, Americans awoke to the reality that we could no longer ignore the growing threat of Muslim extremists. We had a choice: either wait for the next attack, or take the fight to the terrorists. The American people and Congress were unified in answering that we would fight terrorists before they reach American soil.

Today, the United States remains engaged in a global war against Muslim extremists. In order to protect our country, we must ensure that terrorists are not given safe haven in any nation. Most of the planning of training for the September 11, 2001 attacks took place in Afghanistan and terrorists continue to exploit vulnerabilities in Afghanistan today. Our troops have made tremendous progress in securing Afghanistan, but there is much more to do. Afghanistan needs our help to root out terrorists and ensure that terrorists no longer use their country to launch terrorist attacks around the world.

We are not naive as to the cost of this war. Over 1,000 brave Americans have been killed in Afghanistan over the past eight years, and we mourn each one. Billions of dollars have been spent on this protracted effort. This has been a long and costly war, but it is not in vain.

The cost of this war does not negate the importance of this war. Afghanistan is the central front in the war against terror. Walking away from Afghanistan will not bring peace and security to our people. We have seen firsthand what happens when Afghanistan is a safe haven for terrorists. The consequences are too great for us to simply wait for the enemy to strike.

The question is not does this war exist? Though some are in denial, we are at war even if we do not want to be. Rather, the question is where will the battle be fought? In opposing this resolution, I vote to have that battle where every American carries a gun and wears body armor, not on the streets of Wichita.

We can not leave Afghanistan until the job is done. We owe it to the Marines killed in Lebanon, the sailors of the USS Cole, those murdered at the east African embassies, Martin and Gracia Burnham, all those who lost their lives on September 11, and to the troops who have died defending our freedom and security on the battlefields of the Global War on Terror. We must stay strong and finish the task at hand.

I look forward to the day when our troops come home in victory, and when our people can live in peace and security--free from the fear of a terrorist attack. But today is not that day. Today we must redouble our efforts to bring security to Afghanistan, which, in turn, will bring us one step closer to that day. I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.

Madam Speaker, the Democrat claims that the Obama health care bill will reduce the debt and help balance the budget, but reviewing those calculations shows that they're going to collect higher taxes for 10 years and provide health care for only 6 years. Imagine that.

Isn't that a little misleading? Four years of health care taxes with no health care.

Imagine if you wanted to buy a house and you had to make 4 years of payments before you could move in, and then finally when you moved in, you found out you had rationed use of the property. You couldn't choose where to park your car, like in the garage. You had to drive blocks away down to a public parking lot and then wait in line for a stall.

Ten years of taxes, 6 years of benefits, followed by rationed care. You wouldn't buy a house under those terms, and Congress shouldn't pass a health care bill under those terms either.

We can do better. We can have health care reform that lowers costs by addressing preexisting conditions, by lowering defensive medicine costs, by having commonsense tort reform.

The Republican alternative lowers the price of health care by 10 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That's what this Congress ought to pass.

I deem back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to make the vote on H.R. 2847 due to the untimely death and funeral of one of my staffers' father.

Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``Nay.'' If there is one thing the American people agree upon it's that major changes are necessary in order to dig ourselves out of this spending quagmire. The American people want us to reform our spending practices so that our economy can be prosperous once again.

The irony of this ``Jobs'' bill is that it includes a net tax revenue increase of $14.3 billion, which will force employers to cut jobs in order to pay more money to the federal government. Strangely, the Democrats attempt to give a tax break to small businesses on one hand but then take away with the other.

This legislation also includes another short-term extension of the highway authorization. Instead of continuing with short-term extensions of transportation funding, Congress needs to enact a meaningful, 6-year surface transportation funding bill.

Today, I introduced the Keeping American Businesses Competitive Act. This legislation would lower the top business tax rate from 35 percent to 22 percent. The United States currently has the second highest corporate tax rate of any industrialized nation, putting American workers and businesses at a huge competitive disadvantage. Rather than the Democrat ``solution'' of increasing taxes to address job loss, lowering the corporate tax rate will actually put people back to work. According to the Milken Institute, lowering the rate to 22 percent would ``create an additional 350,000 manufacturing jobs and increase total employment by 2.13 million.''

If this Congress is serious about getting Americans back to work, it should focus its efforts on proven, free-market principles that will level the playing field for our businesses to compete and keep capital and jobs here in the U.S.

For the above reasons, I oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to wholeheartedly support the naming of the United States Post Office Building located at 9727 Antioch Road in Overland Park, Kansas, as the ``Congresswoman Jan Meyers Post Office Building.'' Congresswoman Meyers represented the 3rd District of Kansas in the United States House of Representatives from January 3, 1985 until January 3, 1997. I had the honor of serving with Mrs. Meyers in the 104th Congress, her last two years in Congress. It truly was an honor to learn from her. The state of Kansas is a better place for her tireless service.

Born Janice Lenore Crilly on July 20, 1928 in Lincoln, Nebraska, Mrs. Meyers was raised in Superior, Nebraska. She attended William Woods College in Missouri and the University of Nebraska, earning an Associate Fine Arts degree and a B.A. in communications, respectively. She then married Louis ``Dutch'' Meyers in 1953, eventually having two children, Valerie and Philip.

Jan Meyers became active in politics in 1966 on the campaign of Edward Lawrence ``Larry'' Winn, Jr. for the U.S. House of Representatives. She later went on to become a district co-chairwoman for Senator Bob Dole's first U.S. Senate campaign. Mrs. Meyers went into public service herself as a city councilwoman in the city of Overland Park, from 1967-1972. She left the city council in 1972 when she was elected to the State Senate. Congresswoman Meyers then served in the State Senate until her election to the United States House of Representatives in 1984.

Congresswoman Meyers became the Chairwoman of the House Committee on Small Business in the 104th Congress, becoming just the 4th Republican woman to become the chair of a full committee. As a staunch fiscal conservative, she was dedicated to empowering the small business owners of America by introducing legislation to protect their interests and lower taxes to help them expand. Kansas is strong because of our small businesses and Congresswoman Meyers made them stronger. She believed that government works best when it facilitates, rather than restricts private business, as I do.

Congresswoman Meyers did not run for reelection to the 105th Congress in order to spend more time with her family. She said ``There are other things in life I want to do, and being a Member of Congress, if you take the job seriously, simply does not leave time.''

During her time in Congress, the Congresswoman was fond of saying ``Listen to your conscience and your constituents--both. Most of the time they'll agree.'' This is truly the best way to represent your constituents and has been my goal during my time in this body.

I would like to thank Jan Meyers for acting as a mentor to me in my freshman year and for her dedicated service to Kansas. This legislation is a fitting tribute to an honorable woman and a respected member of this distinguished body. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Madam Speaker, on January 19, I missed three rollcall votes numbered 6, 7, and 8 due to being unavoidably detained.

Rollcall No. 6 was a vote on congratulating the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine for its 150 years of commitment to advancing science. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

Rollcall No. 7 was a vote on congratulating the Penn State women's volleyball team on winning the 2009 NCAA Division I National Championship. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

Rollcall No. 8 was a vote on commending the University of Virginia men's soccer team for winning the 2009 Division I NCAA National Championship. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, the base bill of H.R. 3326, the FY2010 Defense Appropriations bill, effectively meets the needs of our men and women in uniform. Although not perfect, H.R. 3326 takes important steps to invest in the people and equipment of the United States Armed Forces. Sadly, Democrat leadership has once again decided to use this vital and non-partisan piece of legislation to enact controversial measures, such as bringing terrorists to U.S. soil.

The United States military is the strongest in the world due to our people, training and equipment. I am happy to say that each of those is strongly supported in this legislation.

Our military men and women are patriots and the world's finest soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. Congress has a moral obligation to offer them our thanks and unwavering support. Although we can never fully repay their sacrifice and commitment, H.R. 3326 at least provides a pay raise. The bill provides a 3.4 percent pay raise for all servicemembers, which is 0.5% higher than that proposed by the Obama administration.

Our military and their families deserve the world's finest medical care. H.R. 3326 makes a $30 billion investment to care for sick and wounded servicemembers and their families. This includes $370 million for medical research and $120 million for Traumatic Brain Injury and psychological health research.

The legislation also provides $500 million for family advocacy programs that support military families. With so many servicemen and women deployed overseas, our military families are under particular strain. Whether at Fort Riley or McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas families need this extra assistance when their loved ones are deployed. The bill makes the right investments to ensure they are protected and supported.

Given the diverse roles our military performs--from safeguarding nuclear weapons to fighting terrorists in the jungles of the Philippines--rigorous training is essential to ensure our troops are ready for action and come home safely when the job is done. To achieve this objective, H.R. 3326 provides $154 billion for operations and maintenance accounts. During the 1990s, our nation had a ``hollow military''--filled with people and equipment, but lacking the necessary training and readiness to be successful. We must never allow this to occur again.

Ensuring that our military has the finest equipment available is essential, and H.R. 3326 makes some necessary investments. With funding for the Next Generation Aerial Refueling Aircraft replacement, the Navy's Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft, and additional C-17 aircraft, among many other programs, our troops will have the most advanced equipment to effectively carry out the will of this nation and return home safely. These programs also create high-paying Kansas jobs that we so desperately need.

While this legislation makes the right investments in our fighting men and women and their families, it also includes a dangerous provision for our nation: allowing terrorists detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay to be brought to the United States.

Terrorists do not belong in the streets or prisons of America. Following the dangerous decision to house unrepentant terrorists in the Midwest, this legislation does nothing to restrict the president's obsession with closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and bringing terrorists to the United States. We have the most secure, state-of-the-art detention and interrogation facility in the world at Guantanamo Bay. That is where the terrorists should remain. They should never be brought to the United States.

Although Democrats continue to play politics with this spending bill, I cannot do the same. Our men and women in uniform deserve the resources to carry out the will of this nation, and this bill provides those. Therefore, I intend to vote for H.R. 3326 and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

I thank the gentleman from California.

Madam Speaker, 10 months ago we stood here and told you the stimulus bill would not help the economy recover. We told you it would not work because the $787 billion plus interest would only grow the size of government. You can't grow the economy from the government down. You have to grow it from the ground up.

By any standard, we were right. Now we have news accounts of how the money was spent, mostly on government workers writing more government regulations. Then there was the news about the pay raises for Head

Start teachers and the buyouts for university professors and unemployment is double digits. It's 10 percent.

Today on the floor we have the ``son of the stimulus'' bill. It's another $154 billion of failed economic policies that will only prolong the economic pain.

This bill includes another $750 million for green jobs on top of the previous bill's $750 million. So far, no green jobs have been created.

The ``son of the stimulus'' adds $23 billion to State and local governments on top of the $53 billion in the stimulus bill.

You can't isolate State and local governments from the recession. If you do, they will do nothing to help with the recovery. History tells us what works. When we have the opportunity in America, new ideas come into the marketplace and the economy will grow. When the economy grows, the Federal revenue grows without raising taxes.

Here is how you create opportunity: stop spending, stop borrowing. You can't grow the economy from the government down. Freeze regulations, audit every one of them and only keep the ones where the benefit exceeds the cost.

Keep taxes low. When you do, people save. They invest; they spend. All of that's good for the economy. Lower health care costs, not by taking over with the government, but by addressing defensive medicine, by addressing tort reform and by incorporating free market principles and then become energy independent. That alone would solve your unemployment problem.

Now, it's true that providing the opportunity for the economy to grow does not pay back the government unions for all they have done for you in the last election. Government unions should be pleased with this bill, but the American taxpayers should not. They should be angry.

For those that are unemployed workers, well, we are sorry, because this bill will not do anything for the unemployment rate. It's a failed economic policy that only pays back those who invested in the last election for the majority party.

Madam Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation and, instead, do something that will help the economy recover by providing opportunity for the unemployed workers.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 976 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, earlier last week, the EPA announced that carbon dioxide is a health hazard and a pollutant that should be regulated under the Clean Air Act. That means that you and I are polluting simply by breathing.

Make no mistake about it, the timing of this announcement was intentional. By issuing the ruling last week, the EPA is attempting to gloss over the inconvenient truth of thousands of emails by climate researchers revealing ways they manipulated or hid evidence that disproves their theories of climate change. Furthermore, the ruling is an attempt to avoid the fact that the American people are opposed to this job-killing cap-and-tax bill that has been stalled in the Senate. Inconveniently, that leaves negotiators in Copenhagen unable to broker a binding agreement.

The EPA is destroying the democratic process and rushing in to legislate where Congress refuses to tread. Will the American people support the administration's latest effort to regulate even more private companies out of business? I wouldn't hold my breath.

Madam Speaker, over the past several months, Airbus and their congressional allies have been pushing the Pentagon to change the requirements for the air refueling tanker so that the French company will win the contract. Just last month, the Airbus team sent the Department of Defense a clear ultimatum: If you don't change your requirements, we won't bid. The Air Force needs an air refueling tanker that meets the needs of the warfighter, not the needs of the French.

Airbus is gambling that the threat of not having a competition will force the Air Force to change their requirements, the very same requirements that were determined by the Air Force to meet the needs of the warfighter. To change them to meet the needs of the competition does not serve the interests of our fighting men and women or the Nation.

If Airbus chooses not to offer the tanker in a bid that the Air Force needs, then that's their choice, and then the decision will be an easy one for the Pentagon. After 7 years of trying to recapitalize the KC- 135 tanker fleet, we know what it takes to ensure that the warfighter gets the tanker they need and the taxpayer gets the protections we need, even in a sole-source award.

Our military and American workers shouldn't have to wait any longer for the tanker they both deserve: an American tanker built by American workers at an American company.

Madam Chair, on June 30, 2009, the Obama Administration released details of its proposal to establish a Consumer Financial Protection Agency as an independent agency in the executive branch to regulate the provision of financial products and services to consumers. Five months later, Congressman Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has turned this proposal into a 1,300-page bill that further extends the federal government's hands into more aspects of our economy.

I oppose this legislation for several reasons. One, it will permanently extend the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP)--something that I've been actively trying to end. I recently introduced legislation that will effectively end TARP by eliminating the Treasury Secretary's authority to utilize this program. This bill also creates another czar--a Credit Czar. This unelected official is granted the authority to restrict access to credit and impose taxes on consumers and small businesses.

These reforms will continue to perpetuate the bailout mentality that has plagued our Nation and eliminate access to credit for many small businesses and families at a time when they need it most.

One of the most troubling aspects of this bill is the vague, subjective standards that nonfinancial companies must meet. One such example of the bill's vagueness is found in the definition of businesses that engage in ``financial activities'' and those that pose a ``systematic risk'' to the stability of the financial market.

A business that engages in ``financial activities,'' is now subject to increased regulations and fees. Exactly who comes under this definition, however, is not that clear. Maybe this will fall under the new ``Credit Czar's'' job description. Nonetheless, this bill will drastically affect businesses, specifically non-financial businesses that had no part in the irresponsible decisions that lead to the market collapse in 2008.

Vague definitions expose non-financial businesses that utilize the commodity and derivatives markets to manage risk and plan for the future. These markets, which date from the 1980s, involve hedgers. Hedgers, producers or commercial users of commodities, trade in futures to offset price risk. They use the markets to lock in today's price for transactions that will occur in the future, shielding their businesses from unfavorable price changes.

This bill restricts the use of these practical business tools. These practical tools encourage job creation and provide customized hedges to help businesses like farmers, grocery stores and energy companies to manage price volatility, so that retail prices can remain low and stable. Yet H.R. 4173 authorizes government regulators to arbitrarily impose capital and margin requirements for ``over the counter'' (OTC) derivatives, and impose new capital requirements for cleared swaps, which would lead to increased retail prices and make it less likely that corporations could engage in responsible risk management.

Companies that utilize these markets to shield themselves from future risk and uncertainty in the energy markets should not be penalized for planning ahead. Unless the definition of ``financial activities'' and others like it are changed, companies who have not contributed to the market collapse will be required to shell out large sums of money as security for increased regulations. This will no doubt drive up operational costs and increase the price of energy.

In the midst of continuing economic turmoil, this bill increases the size of government, expands its reach in the marketplace, jeopardizes the safety and soundness of many of America's financial companies and non-financial companies, and significantly increases the cost of credit for all consumers at a time when consumers can least afford it.

For the above reasons, I am opposed to this bill. I encourage my colleagues to vote no.

I thank the gentleman from Iowa. I also want to thank Chairman Obey for working with me on Labor, Health and Human Services. But Mr. Speaker, this bill is a classic example of a dysfunctional appropriation process.

My principal opposition to this bill is the excessive amount of spending. We are spending more and more money each year and we don't know where we are going to get it. The American people don't have it; in fact, this past fiscal year, fiscal year 2009, we overspent by $1.4 trillion. That's $5,000 per person, approximately that we didn't have. And for those of us that pay Federal taxes, that's about $14,000 per taxpayer overspent last year. This year, we have already overspent $259 billion and we're on course to overspend by $1.6 trillion. That will be an increase in the deficit of about $16,000 per taxpayer, money we don't have that we have to go out and borrow.

So where is the money going to come from? We're going to borrow it from the Chinese. Well, maybe the Chinese don't want to loan it to us. Then we'll just have to print it. Well, if we print it, that drives inflation. If the Chinese don't loan it to us, we're in trouble. We will be headed for a round of inflation based on the current projections.

The excuse that we get for borrowing and spending all this money is we've got to get the economy to recover. Borrowing money to fund big government doesn't grow our economy, it only grows big government. But we go out and hire all these people in big government. They've got to do something, so they write regulations. Regulations slow down our economy. If you want to speed up the economy, freeze the regulations; put them on a benefit-cost analysis. We forget that for every one of these government workers, it takes five private sector employees to pay for that one Federal Government job. So we have the idea of how we are going to create private sector jobs instead of growing the size of government.

This bill spends so much money they have had trouble finding out where to spend more money. They decided that they were going to fund free needles to dope addicts and junkies--I'm just glad that we're not buying kegs for Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. They pay for abortions in the District of Columbia and they can't prove that it's not Federal tax dollars by their Federal funds provision because it all gets commingled. And then we're borrowing about $350 million we think, from the Chinese to give to the World Bank so that we can give it to some third-world countries to fight global warming. So we have a questionable source of funds sent to questionable countries to fight a program based on questionable science.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is out of the question. I would ask all my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, throughout our history, Americans have worked vigorously to achieve great success despite extraordinary hardships. Farmers have tilled the earth, inventors have exercised their ingenuity, builders have constructed, entrepreneurs have established businesses, and all made our nation even greater than the founding fathers envisioned. In the process of becoming successful, wealth is created. When a person successfully pursues a dream and wisely manages resources over a lifetime, the Federal Government should not punish those accomplishments by seizing a significant portion of what was intended to be passed along to family members upon death.

Due to burdensome death taxes, there are countless examples of families who have been forced to sell their business or purchase it back from the government. A business that has been in a family for generations can be lost overnight because of the death tax. And when a business leaves its family roots, there is a loss of pride in the fundamental traditions that helped make the business a success. This is not the legacy parents want to leave their children and grandchildren.

Growing up on a family farm, I understand the impending doom the death tax imposes. Instead of proudly teaching one's children and grandchildren how to work the land of their forefathers, farming families are instead focused on whether they can save enough to pay the death tax or literally, ``lose the farm.''

I am pleased to have worked with my colleagues in the House of Representatives to eliminate this tax. I strongly supported the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, EGTRRA. Under EGTRRA, the death tax and generation-skipping transfer tax are scheduled to be repealed effective January 1, 2010. However, the death tax will come back in full force on January 1, 2011, unless Congress takes action to extend or permanently repeal the tax.

Mr. Speaker, we don't need a reform to the Death Tax, we need full repeal. Under this legislation, the 0 percent tax death tax rate in 2010 will be raised by 45 percent. This is not the direction we should be moving in.

In both the 107th and 108th Congresses, the House passed legislation making the repeal permanent, but the Senate did not. In the 109th Congress, the House passed H.R. 8 that would have permanently repealed the estate tax. On June 8, 2006, the Senate held a cloture vote on a motion to proceed to consider H.R. 8. However, the vote of 57-41 fell three votes short of the 60 needed to consider the bill.

Instead of fully repealing the Death Tax, this Democrat majority deems it necessary to still tax almost half of an individual's estate upon their death.

The legislation before us today will keep the estate tax at its 2009 level, meaning the government gets 45 percent of a deceased person's estate valued over $3.5 million dollars instead of 0 percent as under the 2001 act.

Additionally, the $3.5 million exemption is not indexed for inflation. Similar to the Alternative Minimum Tax, the Death Tax will gradually affect more and more families and businesses than originally intended.

I have been a strong supporter of permanently ending the death tax throughout my career and will vigorously oppose this tax increase in the President's budget and the underlying bill before the House today.

This is not the legacy parents want to leave their children and grandchildren. This is not the legacy that this Congress wants to leave to its constituents. I unequivocally urge my colleagues to vote against this unjust tax scheme.

Mr. Speaker, we need an American air refueling tanker built by an American company with American workers. And we need it now more than ever. With unemployment at over 10.2, it's unbelievable that the Pentagon would consider outsourcing this key national security asset to the French. But not only is the Department of Defense considering this; they are bending over backwards to ensure that EADS, the French company, can compete.

The Department of Defense is turning a blind eye to the World Trade Organization's ruling that found EADS guilty--guilty of receiving billions of

dollars in illegal subsidies. This distorts the marketplace and gives EADS a clearly unfair advantage in the competition. The Department of Defense is also waiving five expensive regulations for the French company, but not for the American workers. This makes the American tanker more expensive and less competitive.

The Pentagon should develop a fair level playing field for the air refueling tanker competition, and this can only happen when these illegal subsidies are considered and all regulations are equally applied to both competitors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant opposition to H.R. 3961. I say reluctant because we desperately need a real physician reimbursement rate fix. The future of medicine and the health of Americans, especially seniors, depends on a cost-based formula to reimburse providers for medical expenses. This bill, however, is not a real fix but yet another political and budget gimmick.

The issue known as the ``doctor fix'' is familiar to us all, but I don't think that the majority fully understands who suffers under inadequate physician pay--the American people. CMS reimbursement rates to providers is anywhere from 30-70 percent of actual cost, based on the specific procedure. Even the highest CMS reimbursement is still loss to providers. It isn't just the doctors who suffer but also the patients. Many doctors have to close their door to new Medicare and Medicaid patients or face bankruptcy. This is especially troubling in rural areas where there are limited providers and seniors face a serious medical accessibility problem. In Kansas, between 20-30 percent of physicians say they will no longer accept new Medicare patients. These doctors, especially in rural areas, go into their profession to help people and having to turn away patients is a measure of absolute last resort.

The current formula for physician reimbursement is known as the sustainable growth rate, SGR, and has little if anything to do with actual costs. That is why year after year Congress passes adjustments to prevent cuts in reimbursement rate. These adjustments are the bare minimum that we can do, even staving off cuts for one year does not allow for certainty in the system.

For that reason, for years several of us have been trying to get CMS to get rid of the SGR and instead base reimbursement rates on actual medical costs. I brought data to

then-Chairman Bill Thomas showing that more and more Kansas doctors were refusing new Medicare patients. Due to the overwhelming evidence that this is a real problem, the House version of the Medicare Modernization Act, the prescription drug bill, included language directing CMS to scrap the SGR and come up with a real reimbursement rate formula. Unfortunately, the Senate stripped that provision and subsequent efforts to enact real SGR reform have failed.

H.R. 3961 is not real SGR reform, but rather putting lipstick on a pig. As the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons asserts, ``It just trades one complicated federal formula for another, and still leaves physician pay subject to Congressional whim in the future.'' The Democrat proposal uses GDP and other factors instead of actual cost to calculate reimbursement rates and does nothing to prevent the need for further congressional 1-year adjustments to the rate.

The Democrat health care proposals, including H.R. 3961, do nothing to address the rising cost of health care, and indeed will cause costs to rise faster than they do today. There are several things we need to do to improve access to and quality of health care, including addressing physician reimbursement rates. Real health reform requires addressing the cost centers that are driving insurance costs up, reducing provider services, and discouraging professionals from entering medicine. For this reason, a recent IB/TIPP Poll revealed that two-thirds of physicians oppose the Democrat bills, and furthermore warn of dire consequences should they be enacted. In addition, 45 percent of physicians said that they would consider leaving their practice or take early retirement.

I am hopeful that the Democrat leadership will abandon this political gimmick and work with us to address physician reimbursement rates. This is no ``Chicken Little'' story. Without congressional action, the sky will fall in, doctors will be unable to participate in Medicare and our seniors will be left without care--regardless of Obamacare reforms.