Floor Statements

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to commend you and all of my colleagues for their tremendous work that has been done on this budget. It's a bold vision for our country and a remarkable accomplishment. It's inspiring to have the opportunity to participate in this reform.

As we have heard many times over the past couple of weeks, to govern is to choose. Last year, as the Nation well knows, the choice by our friends across the aisle was to do no budget at all. The Democrats failed in perhaps their most basic responsibility.

Now continuing in this line of inaction, the President gave a speech yesterday with much preceding hype, but again the defining aspect of the speech was no plan. Our rudderless President decided to take the two biggest drivers of our national debt, Medicare and Social Security, and take them off the table. His solution to addressing health care costs is further empowering the Independent Payment Advisory Board to ration health care instead of dealing with structural reforms.

What this all means is that we have a stark choice, a choice of two futures. One future is the President's plan, the one in red here, Mr. Chairman, the plan by the House Democrats that's a path to national bankruptcy. The other choice is a Path to Prosperity, the green, that gets us on a path to a balanced budget.

It's time to address the American people in an honest and a factual manner. Let's face it. The American people are sick and tired of Washington's gimmicks and empty promises, and the Path to Prosperity is a bold vision for the future which relies upon facts, not dishonesty.

As a physician, I could tell you that ObamaCare is a threat to the affordability and accessibility and quality of health care, all the principles that we hold dear in American medicine.

The facts are that ObamaCare is a violation of these principles, and it takes away choices from patients and doctors while saddling workers and job creators and taxpayers with trillions of dollars in costs.

So, we completely repeal and defund ObamaCare. Further, we will save and preserve Medicare for future generations by providing commonsense solutions so that folks have essentially the same kinds of health care choices that Members of Congress have. It's imperative that people recognize that no changes are made that would affect those in or near retirement.

Now many folks on the other side of the aisle would rather bury their heads in the sand and ignore the reforms that need to be made to Medicare. The President has even decided to take it off the table, but the facts are that the current Medicare spending is growing at a rate twice as fast as the Nation's economy.

Ten thousand baby boomers are reaching retirement age every single day. As a physician, when I talk to Medicare patients in my district back home, they tell me that they can't even find a doctor who is taking new Medicare patients.

The system is broken and unsustainable. The status quo is unacceptable. By completely repealing and defunding ObamaCare and by saving Medicare, we advance this Nation in a positive direction, a Path to Prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order at any time on Wednesday, March 9, 2011, for the Speaker to declare a recess, subject to the call of the Chair, for the purpose of receiving in joint meeting the Honorable Julia Gillard, Prime Minister of Australia.

I thank my friend, and I appreciate him for his remarkable leadership on this. Many of us tried to figure out how we could bring this issue to the floor under this bill, and you have done that.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about jobs, that this won't create any jobs. Well, I'll tell you some jobs that this will save if we pass this amendment and that's the physicians in this land.

As a physician--and if folks in this body talk to their doctors back home, they will understand the remarkable challenges and the number of physicians who are throwing up their hands and saying, I can't handle the hassles anymore; I can't believe the intrusion of the Federal Government into my ability to take care of my patients in the way that I deem best.

And so what are they saying? They're saying, well, there isn't any way for me to uphold and live by the oath that I took, to do what was best for my patients, and therefore I'm left in a remarkable moral quandary. And for many of them it is to say, I'm sorry, I'm no longer able to practice under this oppressive government.

The deficit. That's right, we ought to be talking about the deficit. Here's the track right here of the folks who have been in charge for the last 4 years. In 2006, they came in, and this is what the Federal Government was spending down here, a little over $2.6 trillion. The last year of their reign they're up in the $3.7 trillion, $3.8 trillion range. The deficit is about a third of that, this year coming up, $1.6 trillion. So Mr. Chair, to have our friends on the other side of the aisle tell us about deficit is a bit curious.

I'm reminded by my friend from Texas, a fellow physician who gave a remarkable recitation of the history of the law that we have in place now, the non-health care reform law that was enacted, and I'm reminded of the jubilation on the other side of the aisle when they passed this piece of legislation last March. At the time I had some serious conversations with friends on the other side because we weren't allowed to have this kind of robust debate. That wasn't allowed, it wasn't allowed in committee, it wasn't allowed on the floor of the House. The decisions had been made beforehand and the bill was shoved down the throat of the House of Representatives and the American people.

But I remember talking with them and I remember saying, It's puzzling to me why you're so enthusiastic and excited about this. There's no way that this law can go forward because it is clearly unconstitutional. And in fact now we've seen a Federal court in Virginia and a Federal court in Florida agree that the individual mandate--that the notion that the Federal Government can say to the American people, by virtue of being a citizen you must purchase this product and this is exactly what it must be. And that's what the law has done.

And so I believe that before we will hold another election in this country this law will be determined to be unconstitutional, which really is a shame because we will have missed a great opportunity.

My friend from Michigan who talked about bipartisan cooperation--of which there was none over the last 4 years in this arena--but we have missed a great opportunity, and hopefully we'll be able to enhance the opportunities that we have over the coming 2 years to be able to work together in a bipartisan way to address the challenges in health care. Because the status quo, as a physician and as a Member of Congress, the status quo is clearly unacceptable.

But when you look at the principles of health care--accessibility, making certain that people have accessibility to health care, which they don't right now and which this law actually harms; affordability, which is becoming more and more of a challenge to the American people and which this law actually harms--if you don't believe it, just ask the employees in businesses across this land who are having to pay higher premiums because of this law; the quality issues, all of the quality sorts of things that we all believe in so strongly and which this law actually harms because the only person who knows what's quality health care for you and your family is you and your family and your physician.

What this law does is remove this decisionmaking power from you and your family and your physician, and it replaces it with folks here in town who believe they know best what kind of health care you ought to receive. Then there is the responsiveness of the system and innovation in the system and choices, Mr. Chairman--choices that have been remarkably limited and will continue to be limited by this law.

So what Mr. Rehberg has done here is said that the only way that we can begin to dismantle this, which is what the American people desire in significant majority numbers, is to say you can't use resources that you have in your department to implement the law, itself. If the States and the Federal Government would listen to Judge Vinson in Florida, then they would realize that it, in fact, is their responsibility, that it is their responsibility not to implement this law.

So I urge adoption of the amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to get to work on the principles of health care, which this law absolutely ignored.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I think that we've made some significant progress in the area of improving health care in this country, the laws related to health care in this country today in this Chamber. This is another portion of an amendment that would address the issue of health care.

As a physician and dad, I care greatly about the issue of health care and came to Congress, frankly, as one of the major reasons was to try to fix the health care system and to make it more patient-centered.

Over the last 2 years, we've seen a significant affront to our health care system with costs increasing, destroying jobs, violating principles to a significant degree as it relates to health care.

Last year, this Congress made a lot of decisions that gave Washington control over our health care system. And a perfect example of that control is that ObamaCare mandates to the companies that provide the health coverage for individuals, helping individuals, how to run their business. Essentially, the Federal Government is in the business of dictating to private companies what they should do to run their business, what kind of coverage they can provide, what kind of prices they can charge, what kind of definition of quality care, and what meets the definition of essential services for individuals. It really is central planning at its finest, and it is certainly not the government's role in a free market system.

The government has already proven that it's not well qualified for mandating and defining what will be counted as quality improvement activity for the purposes of calculating, in this instance, the medical loss ratio. For instance, many of the fraud provisions that are required are excluded from being included in the medical loss ratio. The coding system that is required for health insurers to utilize is not able to be included in the medical loss ratio.

So what it does is compromise the opportunity for brokers to provide the best advice to citizens. It makes it so that these folks who are actually--they're actually the exchanges, Mr. Chairman, if you think about it, but these folks are going to be pinched and pushed out of their jobs, the ones that are actually helping our citizens to weave their way through the morass of health coverage in this country.

The President said famously during this whole debate, ``If you like what you have, you can keep it.'' The fact of the matter is, as you know, Mr. Chairman, and so many others know, that that simply is not true. These medical loss ratio requirements will in fact break that promise to a further degree.

So the amendment is very simple. It makes it so that no moneys in this bill can be utilized for the provision of enforcing the medical loss ratio, destructive provisions in the area of health care. I urge my colleagues to back the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to an excellent member of our conference, a new Member, a member of the healing profession, a nurse from North Carolina, Renee Ellmers.

How much time remains, Mr. Chairman?

I yield myself the remaining time.

We've heard this is about ``whose side are you on?'' and that it's about greed. It really is about who decides, Mr. Chairman. In health care, who decides?

The folks on the other side of the aisle want the government to decide. They want the government to decide what qualifies as health care and what kind of health care you can get for yourself and for your family and for everybody across this land. On this side of the aisle, we want patients to decide, patients and families and doctors.

That's what this amendment is all about. Support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado's leadership on this. If you notice the common theme, Mr. Chairman, it's that these folks want the government to be in charge of our health care, these folks over here want patients to be in charge of our health care, and it kind of runs throughout all of the issues as they relate to health care.

Now, the exchanges may seem like a great idea, but there's a big problem with the way that they are set up. They don't work. You don't have to believe us. Goodness gracious. Twenty-one Governors have sent a letter to Secretary Sebelius, and what did they say? They need complete flexibility on operating so that they have the freedom to decide which insurers offer the products in their State. If that weren't true, it would mean that the government, the Federal Government is offering it.

What they are asking for: waiving the costly mandates, which means, Mr. Chairman, that the mandates are crushing the States across this great land. They have asked for waiving the provisions that discriminate against all sorts of plans.

Remember, Mr. Chairman, that you won't be able to keep what you like. You won't be able to keep what you like.

So this is pretty simple. These folks want the government to be in charge of our health care. These folks want patients to be in charge of our health

care. We come down on the side of patients.

Support the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, let's be clear about what is going on here. I think it is crystal clear, frankly.

This side tends to believe in more government. This side tends to believe in less government.

This side tends to believe in more control. This side tends to believe in less control.

This side tends to believe in more spending. This side tends to believe in less spending.

This side tends to believe in more regulation and more oppression. This side tends to believe in less regulation and less oppression.

This side believes in Big Government solutions. We believe in people.

It is pretty simple. And if you believe in Big Government solutions, you have to ask the question, how is it going? And the fact of the matter is, it is not going real well. Another 410,000 new individuals applying for unemployment today.

This is a chart here that shows, Madam Chair, back before the Big Government folks got involved the amount of spending at the Federal level, down here in 2006, about $2.6 trillion. Here is where we are now, Madam Chair, way over on the other side. That is what Big Government does for you. It spends money that you don't have. Deficits, annual deficits, $1.4 trillion, $1.4 trillion, and $1.6 trillion in the last three fiscal years. So it is Big Government, the government picking winners and losers, and that is where we are right now.

Well, how is it going? The free market, frankly, can't function when the government is picking winners and losers, and that is exactly what the American people have gotten over the last 2 years and 4 years, and certainly last year what it got last year when Congress passed the new Dodd-Frank bill and formalized their new political economy.

Now, the administration's Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, what we are talking about right here right now, charges bureaucrats to produce more red tape, regulations, none of which, none of which truly helps the consumer. They make for bigger government, that is right. But much like the new health care plan which prevents the American people from picking a health care plan that works for them, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection would simply tell American families which financial product is right for them, which credit card is right for them, which bank account is right for them, which mortgage is right for them, directing people in very, very specific ways.

Now, there are real challenges within our financial system. There is no doubt about it. Absolutely not. But the failure of the regulators to do their job, as my friend from Texas said, doesn't mean that you need more regulators. You need the regulators to do their job, and that is not what the CFPB does. The CFPB has been given the authority to write the rules, to enforce the rules, to conduct examinations, to approve disclosures, and on and on and on and on. Is there anything that this Federal agency is not allowed to do?

Now, the underlying bill appropriately limits the use of the funds to carry out and implement the CFPB. This amendment, the amendment that we are discussing right now, expands the mandates, expands regulation, expands the economic tinkering that has been handed down from this administration and from Democrats in Congress. So if you like this track, if you like Big Government and you like more spending, if you like a government that borrows more and spends more and taxes more and destroys jobs, then side with the folks who are specialists in that area.

If, however, you believe that we ought to spend less at the Federal level, that we ought to spend within our means, that we ought to work as diligently as we can to create jobs and that we ought to allow more freedom for more Americans, more choices for more Americans, then I would suggest and recommend that you vote down this amendment and support the underlying bill.

I yield back.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk made in order by the rule.

I think it's important to put this discussion tonight in a little context.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle are fond of saying that we want to dismantle this and slash that and cut that. And the truth of the matter, Madam Chair, is that what we want to do is save. We want to save the American taxpayer and, yes, save the country. Because what is happening, and the American people know it, is that this Federal Government has for year after year after year and more over the last 4 years borrowed too much and spent too much and taxed too much, and it's destroying jobs. It is destroying jobs.

If you don't believe the words, all you have to do is look at the picture. The pictures show very clearly that's what is happening. This is 2006 down here when Speaker Pelosi came into power, and the amount of spending at the Federal level. And this is where we are right now, about one-third more under this administration, and this is where it is going. And the American people are sick and tired of it. And what they sent folks here to Washington to do is to decrease spending, to decrease borrowing, and to decrease taxes so that we can put the American people back to work.

That's what this is all about. It's not about some small program here or some large program there. It's about putting American people back to work and making the government the right size.

So I rise on my amendment, which identifies an agency that can only be described as anti-worker and anti-business and anti-jobs. You know what it is, Madam Chair. It is the National Labor Relations Board. It's a New Deal relic charged with conducting elections for labor union representation and investigating unfair labor practices. However, what has happened is that the board has gotten beyond any claims that it's a neutral arbiter of labor relations. And this starts with Craig Becker, the recess appointment, which means no Senate confirmation by the Obama administration, to lead the board. He has got huge ties to SEIU and AFL-CIO, and has proven to be very adept at carrying the water for Big Labor while siding against American employers and the American taxpayer. He could hardly be characterized as an impartial voice.

The out-of-control NLRB now is seeking to expand the board's role beyond current law. American businesses are under constant threat from the NLRB. They tried to push for card check, which is actually the ``Secret Ballot Destruction Act.'' You will recall, Madam Chair, that this was a bill that the Democrats, when they were in charge of this whole place, couldn't get through Congress so now they want to do it by rule. They want to enact it by rule through the NLRB. A remarkable, remarkable overreach. They try to rig the deck over and over again.

But the rigging of the deck is just what Big Labor needs at this point, because the private sector unionization is only about 7 percent in this country of our workforce. So a new influx of dues-paying members is needed for their contributions and for their political campaigns.

So my amendment is very simple. At a time of crippling national debt that destroys jobs, my amendment would defund the NLRB and save the American taxpayer $283 million. It makes sense, since this agency really has seen its role remarkably diminish. The NLRB's caseload has shrunk dramatically, by some estimates, a 40 percent drop in elections and petitions since 2001. And yet, while its role has been diminishing, its reach into America's workplaces and into America's pocketbooks has only expanded.

So a vote for this amendment would be a vote for America's job creators, and we would work to defund an agency whose time has really, really passed. So I urge the adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 409: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 410: Page 303, line 19, after the dollar

amount insert ``(reduced by $233,400,000)''.

Page 359, line 15, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $233,400,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 411: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 412: Page 228, line 12, strike

``$80,000,000'' and insert ``$0''.

Page 228, line 18, strike ``$80,000,000'' and insert

``$0''.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 554: At the end of the bill before the short

title, insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 577: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 578: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, over the past 4 years the previous majority took every opportunity to expand the reach and the scope of the Federal Government. You see, they believe in government solutions. We believe in people.

We believe in solutions that embrace people and individuals. Now, as a physician with countless personal stories, those solutions in health care mean patient-centered solutions, not government-centered solutions.

It's important to repeal this bill for many reasons, but two very specific reasons. First, it's exactly what we said we were going to do. If given the privilege of leading once again, we would vote to repeal this bill. And, second, it's the principled thing to do. If you think about it, all of the principles that we hold dear in health care, whether it's accessibility or affordability or quality, or responsiveness of the system, or innovation of the system so that we have the highest quality, or choices, choices for patients--none of them, none of them are improved by the current law or the bill. Premiums are increasing, jobs are being lost because of the bill. Quality is being defined by bureaucrats, not by patients or families or doctors.

The good news is that there are positive solutions that embrace fundamental American principles that allow us to solve these challenges without putting the government in charge, and that's exactly where we will lead over the coming months and, yes, over the coming years.

Madam Speaker, the status quo in health care is unacceptable. The bill that was passed is destructive to both principle and to patients. The work we will begin tomorrow, after we vote to repeal today, will be focused on patients, on people, and not the government.

Mr. Speaker, tragedy is always accompanied by so many thoughts and emotions. The irrational violence visited upon our Nation last Saturday in Tucson brought a new wave, shock at learning the news of the carnage; incredulity at even the possibility of such a senseless act; sadness for those injured or killed and for their families; confusion by this inexplicable violence; anger at the lunatic responsible for this; inadequacy to comprehend the mind that conceives such an act; respect for those expert hands and minds working to heal the casualties; honor for those who sacrificed and helped in a moment of real crisis; hope for a full recovery for Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and all battling their injuries; recognition that life and liberty are precious and fleeting; love of our country and the blessing of liberty that we all enjoy; steadfast in our commitment to preserving our great Nation; humbled by our mutual responsibility as citizens charged with that preservation; reverence for our Lord, the only one who knows the answer to the why, and strength from His grace and His love and His mercy.

So we resolve to use this unspeakable and senseless tragedy as an opportunity to better ourselves as a people, to recommit ourselves to the tireless preservation of our Republic and to reaffirm those fundamental principles of liberty and American representative government.

May God place his healing hand on all affected by this heinous event, and may God bless the United States of America.