Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 51 and 66 I was unable to be present to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

I thank my friend from New Jersey for his leadership on this issue and trying to bring focus to really the underlying nature of this bill, which is the underlying nature of this amendment as well, and that is that government knows best how to define what the market ought to look like and not the market. Madam Chair, as you well know, that's one of the things that got us into these significant problems in the first place.

I know that there is one group that supports this. There are all sorts of folks who don't support this, the people who know about the issue of trading in this area. The ABA Securities Association, one of the largest securities associations, opposes this amendment because they believe that it would significantly limit competition and undermine the ultimate goal that all of us ought to have, and that is to make certain that the market is, in fact, able to work for more individuals across this land. More choices, not fewer choices.

New York Stock Exchange, Euronext, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, on and on and on, folks who, in fact, oppose this amendment because they believe strongly that it will decrease the choices available to the American people.

Over-the-counter trades, hundreds of trillions of dollars literally in trades, will be markedly limited again, decreasing the ability of the American people to have the choices available to them.

What this amendment does, Madam Chair, is what really what the underlying bill does. It says government knows best, that we ought to limit the ability of creative thinking and jobs to be formed out there across this land, because government knows best. We are going to limit the choices available to the American people.

Vote ``no'' on the Lynch amendment.

Madam Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

I believe the Chair stated that amendment No. 13 was in order. Is the majority party skipping number 13?

I thank the Chair.

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. McCarthy of California

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for his leadership on this issue and so many other things. Here we go again, Mr. Speaker. Here it is. We got the bill right here. Another late night, another thousand-plus-page bill that virtually nobody in this House has read, and another government takeover.

This ought to be called the ``unending bailout authority, credit- restricting, and permanent job loss act,'' Mr. Speaker. It not only doesn't solve the problem of government bailouts, it codifies them. It writes them into law. It makes them permanent, putting us into a permanent political economy, politicians picking winners and losers.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very dangerous time. The American people are concerned about jobs and the stagnant economy, and the majority party comes to this floor with this bill that will destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and further harm the economy.

Why? Well, Mr. Speaker, as a physician, I'm here to tell you, I think they got the wrong diagnosis, just like in health care. Their prescription for health care was a government takeover, and now they want a government takeover of our economy and our financial services area because their prescription is wrong.

If we conclude as a society that we are here because of a failure of free-market capitalism and a failure of deregulation, then our kids and our grandkids will lose, because all of the solutions will harm free- market capitalism, depress the economy, and increase regulation, which will destroy jobs and destroy our economy.

We're not here because of a failure of free-market capitalism, Mr. Speaker. We're here because of a failure of the government distorting the market, because of politicians getting involved. We're not here because of a failure of deregulation. We're here because of foolish and inflexible regulation and because of government edicts that made it so people couldn't do their jobs.

The Democrat prescription for this, then, is to take over and control the entire economy, thereby destroying jobs and destroying our economy. The shame of all of that, Mr. Speaker, is that there are wonderful solutions. We believe that there ought not be any more bailouts.

I thank the gentleman.

We believe there ought not be any more bailouts. No more bailouts. Like the American people, we know what the American people know, and that is if there is no risk, there can be no reward.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that government ought to get out of the business of picking winners and losers. This bill doesn't create jobs; it destroys them, absolutely destroys them. We know that markets must be allowed to function and to innovate in order to be profitable. And the economy cannot and will not recover without these things.

In so many ways, this bill kills jobs and harms the economy. The American people want to end the bailouts, the Wall Street bailouts that the majority party so desires to have that they wrote it into this law, and they want to make certain we get back to the business of freeing up the economy to increase jobs and allow free-market capitalism to work. That's what will restore the confidence of the American people.

I thank the gentleman from California for this time.

Thank you. As a physician, I know that the SGR, the sustainable growth rate, is neither sustainable nor growing. It is, however, truly destroying the ability of doctors to provide the needed care for patients across our land. And though the underlying bill is an acknowledgement that there is a huge problem and may be a step in the right direction, it exacerbates the phenomenal fiscal recklessness of this administration and the majority party.

As a physician, I know with every fiber of my being that the doctors of this land are sick and tired of being played for fools, duped into support of another nonsolution because there is not a commitment to a responsible revenue stream with a recognition of the care that they provide.

With this trick, the majority demeans our Nation's caring and compassionate physicians. So let's commit to solve this challenge together, positively, with a plan that respects those who have dedicated their lives to our health.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation is at a fiscal tipping point. We can continue to march further and further to the liberal left and bankrupt our Nation's future, or we can restore fiscal sanity to an overgrown and unrestrained Federal budget. Our motion to recommit is a

step in the right direction, not another plan that further adds to our Nation's debt and contributes to the financial ruin of future generations.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are demanding a stop to runaway debt. They reject this spending and they reject this trick. Let's stand up for fiscal responsibility and vote for the responsible Republican solution.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering if this was a stalling tactic by the majority party on delaying the vote on this important bill which will kill 5.5 million jobs today?

Mr. Speaker, continuing to reserve the right to object.

I understand that this may be a train that is rolling, but it appears that the majority side is interested in stalling this bill. Would it be appropriate to ask unanimous consent that all extension and revision of remarks could be done en bloc.

Mr. Speaker, continuing to observe the right to object, how about increasing the debate time? It appears that the majority party is attempting to expand their debate time.

I would ask unanimous consent that each side be added 1 hour of debate time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the right to object.

Again, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the majority party appears to be continuing to delay the process here. It would be appropriate, if the majority party is interested in fairness in this process, to provide for increasing debate time on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. Speaker, continuing to reserve then, if you are not interested in obtaining my objection, continuing to reserve, again it appears that this is a process by which the majority party is interested once again in trying to subvert the rules and expand the debate time on the majority side.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Is it not appropriate for a Member of the House to be able to reserve a right to object on a unanimous consent request?

Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

I object.

I object.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

At the time that a unanimous consent request is made, the Speaker has apparently determined that the statement, as soon as it is completed, does not allow for a reservation. Is it not, under the rules of the House, appropriate for a Member of the House to reserve a right to object based upon a unanimous consent request?

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Does the rule not provide on a unanimous consent request that there be no significant embellishment of remarks, and in fact the majority party has continued to embellish their remarks upon their UC request?

Madam Speaker, health care at its very core is a compassionate and a moral human endeavor. As a physician, I can tell you that I never saw a Democrat or a Republican disease. The medical decisions that each American makes for themselves and for their families are some of the most important and personal decisions ever made, and there are principles of health care that we should follow. Think about those principles of accessibility and affordability and quality and responsiveness and innovation and choices. Think about those principles. None of those principles are improved by the further intervention of the Federal Government, which is why we should adopt and concentrate on positive, patient-centered health care reform.

It is so very important that principles be in place that will ensure that patients and their families and their doctors are able to make those personal medical decisions unencumbered by a stifling and oppressive Federal Government. But sadly, this bill will not allow those independent decisions and is wrong in so many ways.

This bill, on page 94, will make it illegal for any American to obtain health care not approved by Washington. This bill, on page 301, will force Americans to purchase health coverage that Washington picks, not that you select for yourselves. This bill, on pages 297 and 313, places job-killing taxes on virtually every single business. This bill, on page 211, will force millions of Americans to lose their current personal private health coverage.

This bills comes with a price tag of $1.3 trillion, which will be borne by our children and our grandchildren. This bill, on page 520, slashes billions of dollars from Medicare that will necessitate health care rationing for seniors. And this bill, on page 733, empowers the Washington bureaucracy to deny lifesaving patient care if it costs too much.

This bill is not a health care bill. This bill is an affront on the morality of the provision of American health care.

As a physician, when patients and their families and their doctors are not allowed to independently decide what care should be provided, we lose more than our health care system; we lose our morality and we lose our freedom.

This bill, whether known or not, is an oppressive affront to every single American. The positive vote, the bipartisan vote on this bill is ``no.''

Madam Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 835, 836, 837, 838, 839 and 840 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned an interesting thing: the Senate health care bill will include a fig leaf opt-out of the government-run health care plan. Now, that brings up some interesting points and questions: Will Americans also be allowed to opt out of the rest of the government takeover of health care? Will they be able to opt out of the $800 billion in tax increases? Will they be able to opt out of the $500 billion in slashes to Medicare? Will they be able to opt out of forcing millions of Americans onto government-run medicine? Will they be able to opt out of a government bureaucrat getting between doctors and patients? The truth is, Mr. Speaker, anyone who seriously thinks an opt-out is the answer to all of these harmful provisions has already opted out of reality.

What the American people know is that there are positive solutions like H.R. 3400 and the others included from the Republican Study Committee and the Republican Conference. The American people want patients empowered and they want positive reforms. That's what we should be working on.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 790, 791, 792, 793, 794, 795, 796, 797, I was unable to record my vote due to a family illness.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on all.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 801. I was unexpectedly delayed due to constituent business. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Kaptur

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against

Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XXII that states that nongermane items may not be included in conference reports and that this bill contains a nongermane item in the hate crimes legislation that was included in it, I raise a point of order against

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, many Members have grave concerns about the thought-crimes legislation that's included in H.R. 2647. Is there any way for any Member to gain a separate vote on the thought- crimes legislation included in H.R. 2647 under the rule?

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, because thought-crimes legislation is included in H.R. 2647, is there any remedy that a Member of the House has for gaining access to have a separate vote on the thought- crimes legislation?

I thank the Speaker.

Mr. Akin, I appreciate your leadership on this and always bringing truth to these issues on the floor of the House.

As you mentioned, before I came to Congress, I practiced medicine. I was an orthopedic surgeon and took care of patients for over 20 years. One of the things that I recognize and certainly my patients recognize is that when the government gets involved in the practice of medicine, which is what they do when they stick their fingers in the pot, it confounds things.

You had a chart up earlier on the machinations, the diagram of the plan. There it is. This chart is astounding to me. I have shared this with my town halls back home, any number of them, and what I ask folks to look for on that chart is not whether they can figure out all of the lines and boxes and squares and triangles, but I ask them to concentrate on the colors on the chart, because every single configuration on the chart is a new bureaucrat or new bureaucratic program.

When they recognize that they say, Oh, my goodness, that is not what I want for my health care, because they know that already in place, either through the government or through the insurance companies, the bureaucrats make it incredibly difficult to get the kind of care that they desire.

The good news is we don't have to move in that direction, and I know that we are going to talk about that some tonight, the solutions. There are positive solutions that put patients in charge. I appreciate you bringing that chart because it points out the increase in bureaucracy which will increase cost and decrease the quality of care, just that diagram right there.

I appreciate that point because we do. We get calls from our constituents all the time to help people work through the morass of government bureaucracy in whatever arena. I get calls about the passport office or the post office or the IRS when they have a challenge with them. We may talk about that in a moment. If you think about just the calls that you get on Medicare and Medicaid and the VA health system itself, and some of our colleagues on the Indian Health Services, it is astounding the challenges people have just to get through, the ability to be able to be seen by a doctor and get the kind of care that they want.

What this administration apparently wants and the Speaker wants is to turn all of us over to a bureaucracy that would increase certainly the number of folks calling our offices and trying to work through that bureaucracy because they will never figure it out because that is not the role of government to help them figure that out.

Wait a minute. Are you telling me that the Senate is about to vote on a health care bill and they don't even have a bill?

So the Congressional Budget Office is trying to figure out how much this is going to cost, and they don't even have the text of the bill before them to figure it out; is that correct?

Will the gentleman yield?

Now, this is, again, a very interesting point. So the President is saying that none of the monies in this health care bill will go to cover medical treatment on a non-emergency basis for folks that are here illegally. That's what the President says, right?

And then we have an amendment proposed by Mr. Heller from Nevada in committee that outlines the process that you'd go through to be able to make certain that that wasn't the case, and the amendment failed. And as I see on your chart there, the vote was taken on July 16. Fifteen Republicans voted in favor of it; 26 Democrats voted no. So 26-15, it failed because the Democrats apparently don't believe that you need to have any process in place to determine whether somebody's here legally. That's the only conclusion I can draw.

If the gentleman will yield, there is a spot where folks can go to look at the amendments that were offered in committee. In fact, I think there were 57 or 58 of them that failed virtually along party lines. It's at the Republican Study Committee Web site if folks were interested in doing that, colleagues were interested in going to the Republican Study Committee Web site and looking up, and there's a document there that has all of the amendments that were offered on the Republican side of the aisle in the three committees of jurisdiction, and the vote that was taken, and in fact what it shows time after time after time, as the gentleman from Missouri so well knows, is that the statements that are made by the President and by Members of the folks in charge here, the Democrat party in charge, so oftentimes are at odds with the policy that they're putting in place.

So they know what they want to tell their constituents, but in fact the policy that they put in place doesn't match what they're saying. And that's why I believe the American people have been so incredibly outraged over the past couple of months, because they don't see Congress doing what they say they're going to do or what they want them to do.

Does the gentleman yield?

This is a remarkably important amendment that was offered in committee because, as a physician, my patients would literally bristle at the knowledge that somebody was affecting what I could do for and with them. But this amendment, which was offered in committee, this is not conjecture. This actually happened. Was offered in committee. And it said that nothing in the bill would allow any Federal employee or political appointee, these are nonmedical people, to dictate, that's the language, to dictate how a medical provider practices medicine. And the vote, as I see there, was 23 Republican and one Democrat supported it, so that was 24. And 32 Democrats voted no, which tells me, the only conclusion I can reach from that is that the Democrats want Federal employees and bureaucrats to dictate to doctors how to practice medicine. That's the only conclusion I can draw.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate you bringing that up because I was so astounded as well by this incredible outpouring by the American people of their concern and fear about what their government was about to do to them. And then the President seemed to just dismiss it, didn't even recognize that it had happened, and the Members of Congress, including the Speaker of the House and others, seemed to be saying, don't pay any attention to that man behind the curtain. You know, it was like they didn't even acknowledge that, in fact, the American people were concerned, which is--I appreciate you saying that because it's one of the things that has further angered my constituents and the folks that I talk to across this land, who say, is anybody listening there? Is anybody paying attention?

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Mr. Ben Moore, who this weekend will receive a Lifetime Service and Achievement Award from the Johnson Ferry Baptist Church in my district.

Mr. Moore was born in Texarkana, Arkansas on October 24, 1913. In 1920, his family fled the Dust Bowl and made their way to Atlanta, Georgia. At the age of 14, a young Ben Moore took a job as an office boy at the First National Bank of Atlanta, beginning what would become a long and distinguished career at First National.

Mr. Moore served his country with valor during World War II, joining the Army Air Corps on Oct. 1, 1942 and seeing service in Italy. He returned to Atlanta after the war and was admitted to the State Bar of Georgia in 1949. He has been a member of the bar for 60 years and continues to practice law to this very day.

In 1953 Mr. Moore was named as one of ``Atlanta's 100 Leaders of Tomorrow'' by Time Magazine. He served on the Atlanta Board of Aldermen, the precursor to today's City Council, during Mayor Ivan Allen's first term. During this period, the City of Atlanta saw numerous changes including the arrival of the Atlanta Braves, the opening of construction on Interstate 285, and the beginning of the transformation of Zoo Atlanta and Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport into the institutions we recognize today.

Mr. Moore became a Baptist in 1957 when he and his two daughters were Baptized by Dr. Monroe Swilley, then pastor of Second Ponce de Leon Baptist Church. He is a graduate of Tech High, the Woodrow Wilson College of Law, and the American Institute of Banking.

Mr. Moore will celebrate his 96th birthday next month. When he isn't practicing law, he enjoys the company of his two daughters, three grandsons, and one great grandson in the Atlanta area.

Throughout his life, Ben Moore has answered the call to serve his family, his community, and his country. I'm proud to honor him today in the United States House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Mr. Ben Moore, who this weekend will receive a Lifetime Service and Achievement Award from the Johnson Ferry Baptist Church in my district.

Mr. Moore was born in Texarkana, Arkansas on October 24, 1913. In 1920, his family fled the Dust Bowl and made their way to Atlanta, Georgia. At the age of 14, a young Ben Moore took a job as an office boy at the First National Bank of Atlanta, beginning what would become a long and distinguished career at First National.

Mr. Moore served his country with valor during World War II, joining the Army Air Corps on Oct. 1, 1942 and seeing service in Italy. He returned to Atlanta after the war and was admitted to the State Bar of Georgia in 1949. He has been a member of the bar for 60 years and continues to practice law to this very day.

In 1953 Mr. Moore was named as one of ``Atlanta's 100 Leaders of Tomorrow'' by Time Magazine. He served on the Atlanta Board of Aldermen, the precursor to today's City Council, during Mayor Ivan Allen's first term. During this period, the City of Atlanta saw numerous changes including the arrival of the Atlanta Braves, the opening of construction on Interstate 285, and the beginning of the transformation of Zoo Atlanta and Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport into the institutions we recognize today.

Mr. Moore became a Baptist in 1957 when he and his two daughters were Baptized by Dr. Monroe Swilley, then pastor of Second Ponce de Leon Baptist Church. He is a graduate of Tech High, the Woodrow Wilson College of Law, and the American Institute of Banking.

Mr. Moore will celebrate his 96th birthday next month. When he isn't practicing law, he enjoys the company of his two daughters, three grandsons, and one great grandson in the Atlanta area.

Throughout his life, Ben Moore has answered the call to serve his family, his community, and his country. I'm proud to honor him today in the United States House of Representatives.

I thank my friend from California for leading on the issue of health care and for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, as a physician, I have passionately worked, since the moment I began in public service and even before then, for positive solutions in the area of health care, solutions that allow patients to have the highest quality of care. And in debate here on the floor of the House especially in the area of health care, Americans are anxious for open and honest deliberation and discussion, which is why what occurred on the floor last night was so very, very troubling.

Mr. Speaker, as you may know, Representative Grayson from Florida came to the floor for a speech and said that the Republican plan for health care is for Americans to, and I quote, ``die quickly.'' In fact, he concluded his remarks by saying, ``Remember, the Republican plan: Don't get sick. And if you do get sick, die quickly.''

Mr. Speaker, it's that type of presentation that debases and denigrates our proceedings here in the House and it does a disservice to all Americans.

I have a privileged resolution that I'm not going to introduce today, but it's a resolution that parallels the previous resolution that was handled here in the House, that calls on the House to recognize that that kind of behavior is disapproved of by the House of Representatives. But in an effort to try to give the Representative from Florida, Mr. Grayson, an opportunity to recognize that his comments were, in fact, a breach of decorum, we respectfully request that he apologize to our leader. And I call on all Democrat Members of the House and all Democrat leaders to demand that he apologize, just as one of our Members did earlier.

Mr. Speaker, the American people want open and honest discussion, yes, but they want respectful discussion. We call on Mr. Grayson to apologize. Mr. Speaker, it's the right thing to do.