Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for her leadership on issues of the utmost importance to the American people.

My friend says we are not here to talk about the debt that has been created in this Nation; we are here to talk about money. We are here to talk about the taxpayers' money. And this bill, this underlying bill that is being discussed right now spends another $33 billion. That is right, Mr. Speaker, another $33 billion of hard-earned money from the American taxpayer. But it can't come from the American taxpayer, because we have so much deficit right now. So it needs to come from where, China or Japan.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are sick and tired of what is going on here in Washington. Just this week the American people said in a survey that the greatest threat to this Nation, which they believe had been terrorism, is now debt. Debt. What they are saying to us is stop the madness. So what the Republicans have done, in an attempt to be fiscally responsible and try to encourage our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stop the madness, is to institute the YouCut program.

It is at republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut, and this week's winner, these are the American people going to this Web site saying stop the madness, cut in this area, this week's winner will save $15 billion by selling excess Federal property, property that is not being used right now, sell it for $15 billion.

Every single week we try to identify those programs, those areas of the Federal Government that are recklessly spending the hard-earned taxpayers' money. And this week, there are five more new nominees that will be announced.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to go to the Web site, republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut, and vote for whether or not they want to prohibit hiring of new IRS agents to enforce the new health care law, saving $10 billion, whether they want to terminate exchanges in the Whaling and Trading Partners program, another $90 million in savings.

Or you vote to terminate taxpayer-subsidized political party conventions. That is right, Mr. Speaker, we spend tens of millions of dollars paying for Democrat and Republican party conventions. That is crazy.

Or you could vote to require collection of unpaid taxes from Federal employees, a billion dollars we could save there; or to terminate the funding for the NDIC, $440 million.

Mr. Speaker, this debate is not just about whether or not we are acting responsibly here. It is what we are doing with the hard-earned taxpayer money. We are talking about money here, and this bill that you are talking about spends an extra $33 billion that we do not have. In fact, there is money appropriated already through the TARP program, over $500 billion of money available. You could use some of that if you wanted to be fiscally responsible. But, Mr. Speaker, we have seen that kind of leadership out of the majority party.

Mr. Speaker, the YouCut program allows the American people to assist in those things that they believe are wasteful in our Federal Government. This bill is an opportunity through the PC to be able to cut the excess Federal property.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Madam Chair, I want to thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for working with me on this amendment. And although, as they know, I am opposed to the underlying bill, this amendment is extremely important to highlight the serious problem of mixed messages that financial regulators are sending to our community banks. And I appreciate the support of the chairman on this amendment.

Banks in Georgia employ almost 50,000 people and hold $276 billion in assets. Most of these banks are community institutions, which were mere bystanders to the financial and liquidity crisis of the last 2 years.

Late last week, the Treasury Department reported that TARP will cost less than they originally estimated. In fact, Treasury expects to spend less than the $550 billion of the $700 billion authorized. Regrettably, this figure does not factor in the bailouts for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG.

But even so, this is a revolving taxpayer bailout fund, meaning that there is $550 billion that the administration and leadership could put towards small business lending. However, the administration chose not to do this and, instead, wants Congress to appropriate another $33 billion of taxpayer money. That's right, another $33 billion.

Certainly, small business lending is a priority for banks and businesses. However, this bill doesn't address the underlying causes of contraction in lending but invests much more in a failed regulatory agency.

Unfortunately, the mixed messages being sent by failed bank regulators will not be fixed. Instead of making the FDIC and the other regulators send a clear, consistent message to our Nation's banks, this Congress feels that throwing more money at the problem will fix it.

In February, bank regulators, both State and Federal, issued a joint statement providing guidance to banks and to credit unions, encouraging them to make loans to credit-worthy small business borrowers. The regulators described the guidance as intended to ``emphasize that financial institutions engaging in prudent small business lending after performing a comprehensive review of a borrower's financial condition will not be subject to supervisory criticism for small business loans made on that basis.''

However, reports from the field show a much different picture. I hear from bankers in my district and across our State that there is capital to lend. However, I also hear from those same banks that they're nervous and anxious about the unpredictable regulators' response and scrutiny of their regulatory capital ratios and loan requirements. For many banks, it's easier and better just to ride out the storm by hoarding their cash than to justify every penny that they lend to the regulators, possibly risking their capitalized standing.

Banks cannot hold capital for regulatory compliance and comply with regulators' instructions to lend at the same time. They're mutually exclusive. My amendment states that these mixed messages sent by the regulators are a very serious problem and a cause of the contraction in small business lending and are destructive to communities.

In order to highlight this, I urge adoption of the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlelady for her support of the amendment and would just point out, once again, the mixed messages that are being received by our community banks.

I would also like to point out that the amount of money left available in TARP right now could easily cover the intent of this bill. However, this bill has in it an extra $33 billion, $33 billion, Madam Chair, that, frankly, we do not have as a Nation. We put it on backs of our kids and grandkids and borrow it from some other nation when we could be utilizing money that has already been appropriated for the same positive purpose.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise to submit to the Congressional Record the following opinion piece by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Nancy Desmond, CEO at the Center for Health Transformation. Their piece focuses on the Obama administration's latest attempt to sell the recently enacted health care reform law to senior citizens. The administration has embarked on its public relations tour after numerous reports detailing that the new health care law will reduce quality, raise costs, and limit choices for America's seniors.

In the run-up to passing their government takeover of health care, Congressional Democrats and the Obama administration blatantly ignored the voices of the American people and rammed through a hyper-partisan piece of legislation that will have a disastrous effect on our nation's health care system. That they are now choosing to mount a propaganda campaign at taxpayer expense to convince Americans that they should embrace these new, unwelcome disruptions and government intrusions, the Democrats show how out-of-touch they continue to be with the majority of Americans.

I encourage my colleagues to read the following fact check on the administration's claims. Our senior citizens deserve to know the truth about the effects of ObamaCare.

[From the Investors Business Daily, June 8, 2010]

Seniors Must Scrutinize Medicare Mailer

(By Newt Gingrich and Nancy Desmond)

As weeks turned to months during the Great Debate over what

to do about health care this past year, President Obama made

one solemn pledge to the nation and its seniors:

He said health care would not add one dime to the deficit.

And if all of us liked our doctor, we would get to keep our

doctor.

Fast-forward almost 90 days after the passage of ObamaCare

and the attitude of most Americans to that pledge is: ``Prove

it.''

In the past two weeks, the Obama administration has been

trying to stem the tide of skepticism toward its health care

law with a new mailer sent directly to the nation's seniors,

titled ``Medicare and the New Health Care Law--What it Means

for You.''

Problem is, for anyone who has paid attention during the

past 12 months, the message about the biggest government

expansion into health care in our lifetime just doesn't add

up.

Let's contrast fact from fiction and the language used in

the new flier:

``The Affordable Care Act passed by Congress and signed by

President Obama this year will provide you and your family

greater savings and increased quality of care.''

Fact: Most Americans will pay higher insurance premiums,

according to the Congressional Budget Office. And more than

10 million seniors will see reduced benefits under their

private Medicare Advantage plans. Overall quality will

decline as fewer doctors take on Medicare patients.

``Your guaranteed Medicare benefits won't change--whether

you get them through Original Medicare or a Medicare

Advantage plan.''

Fact: Medicare Advantage, a private option in Medicare,

will be cut by $136 billion. On April 22, the chief actuary

for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reported

that half of all seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage would

lose their coverage under the new health care bill by 2017.

The guarantee that benefits won't change isn't a guarantee at

all for millions of seniors who prefer using private

insurance companies that provide their Medicare coverage.

``Your choice of doctors will be preserved.''

Fact: Cuts to Medicare will total nearly $500 billion,

hitting hospitals, home health providers, physicians and

more. Doctors throughout the country have seen their Medicare

payments reduced in recent years and expect more cuts in the

future because of ObamaCare.

A February survey by three national neurosurgeon groups,

for example, showed that 50% of neurosurgeons were reducing

the number of Medicare patients they were accepting into

their practice. The Mayo Clinic in Arizona has also started

turning away Medicare patients. Other physicians are

following suit. How is this preserving a senior's choice of

doctors?

``If you're hospitalized, the new law also helps you return

home successfully and avoid going back--by helping to

coordinate your care and connecting you to services and

supports in your community.''

Fact: This is traditionally known as ``home health care''--

a program that helps treat patients at home for a short

period. But in the ObamaCare plan, home health care will be

cut by $40 billion. Another contradiction in terms.

Last fall, the federal government launched an investigation

into Humana for sending letters to seniors who were customers

of the Medicare Advantage program during the health care

debate.

It urged them to contact their congressman or senator

because of the then-proposed cuts to the program. Under

threat of shutting down the insurance company's contract with

Medicare, Humana was told to stop sending such information

out to its customers.

Yet today, we have the federal government offering its spin

and fabrication on ObamaCare with no one holding it

accountable. It is trying to convince seniors that despite

almost half a trillion dollars in cuts, the new law

``preserves and strengthens Medicare.'' Precious tax dollars

are being spent on a public relations campaign to try to

convince seniors that ObamaCare will keep ``Medicare strong

and solvent.''

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Record numbers of baby boomers will start retiring this

year and draw Social Security benefits and sign up for

Medicare. They are smart enough to understand that ObamaCare

is not a good deal for their golden years. A four-page

brochure will not change their minds either. It will take

more for this administration to ``prove it'' than a glossy,

four-page pamphlet.

Gingrich, former speaker of the House, is founder of the

Center for Health Transformation. Desmond is the center's

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

I want to commend the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for moving this particular piece of legislation. I particularly want to commend the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) for her great work in this area. She has been a dynamic and an excellent leader in this area and, indeed, she is to be commended.

Mr. Chairman, this bill incorporates some very positive moves. Clearly, the housing market has had significant challenges, and the question that we ought to be asking ourselves is how best to recover. Most experts would agree that, in order to move forward, we need to move toward less market distortion.

It might be helpful if we focus on the FHA's mission and the focus and the requirements that they have on them. We all support the FHA mission. The mission is to serve first-time homebuyers in underserved communities, but the FHA didn't get to a 30 percent market share, Mr. Chairman, by lending to first-time homebuyers and by serving underserved communities.

In terms of the requirements of the FHA, the requirements of the FHA are 3.5 percent downpayment. The private sector requires at least 10 percent. The FHA is required to hold a 2 percent capital reserve ratio, but it's actual ratio is 0.53 percent. A bank is required to hold 10 percent capital reserve ratio.

A recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal said, According to Mortgage Bankers Association data, more than one in eight FHA loans is now delinquent, nearly triple the rate on conventional nonsubprime loan portfolios. Another 7.5 percent agreed that FHA loans are in serious delinquency, which means at least 3 months overdue. The FHA is almost certainly going to need a taxpayer bailout in the months ahead. The only debate will be about how much it will cost.

A former chief credit officer of Fannie and Freddie Mae, Edward Pinto, notes that ``FHA's high-risk lending practices negatively impact the housing finance marketplace.'' Mr. Chairman, you can translate that into being increasing taxpayer exposure.

So if we are honest with ourselves, when appropriately sized, the FHA does indeed do a wonderful job and is very helpful. But at this point, this is just another government program that is distorting the market. FHA's huge market share is a hindrance to regaining equity in the housing market. In addition, Fannie and Freddie's unlimited government lifeline is also a hindrance to the housing recovery.

My amendment would ensure that the FHA no longer crowds out the private market for home loans. The amendment is a modest first step to cap FHA new origination market share to no more than 10 percent of the private-market home loans each year, beginning in 2010 so there is significant time to adjust, so the American people are not further exposed to the next bailout. Mr. Chairman, that means the taxpayer is not exposed to greater liability.

The American people are sick and tired of bailouts. They see another one on the horizon. It is time for us to act. No more bailouts. What they are telling us across this country is to stop the madness. This amendment begins the process of stopping that madness.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from California's comments. There is no doubt we are indeed in a fragile housing market, which is precisely why this policy would not take effect until 2012. It gives the Secretary significant flexibility in defining what that 10 percent is, but what it tries to do is to right- size the number of mortgages, the percent of the mortgages that the FHA insures.

I want to point out to all that 30 percent is a huge portion, historically, as it relates to what the FHA single-family insurance activity has comprised. From 2001 to 2007, the numbers were under 10 percent every single year for all FHA family insurance activity. So the amount of 10 percent is a responsible, a reasonable number.

What it tries to do, again, is to decrease the effect of intervention into the market that distorts the market. Remember, Mr. Chairman, that when the government distorts the market it makes it much more difficult for the market to recover and for us to make certain that we move in the direction of economic activity that we need.

Again, the taxpayers of this country are sick and tired of bailouts. This is another bailout in the making if we allow the process that is currently in place to continue. We should limit the FHA exposure to 10 percent. We do it in a responsible way, by saying that it would begin in 2012. We provide significant flexibility for the Secretary so that the program will work well.

I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman.

We all are strongly sympathetic and unanimously support the underlying resolution, and our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and the families of all mine disasters.

We should take this as an opportunity, however, Mr. Speaker, to unanimously decrease spending. Everybody across this land knows that Washington spends too much and it borrows too much and it taxes too much. Washington has grown fat on bloated, wasteful spending for far too long. It's collapsing our fiscal house; it's jeopardizing our kids' and our grandkids' future; and it is undermining our economy. And it's high time that we put the Federal Government on a diet, and that can begin today.

With the YouCut program, Republicans are partnering with the American people to restore fiscal sanity. This is a unique initiative where we are asking the American people to help prioritize which special- interest handouts and other wasteful spending they want to target for elimination. This YouCut initiative combines two crucial components of commonsense governing: listening to the people and cutting waste from government spending.

So I'm grateful for the huge participation that we have already seen, over 281,000 votes cast, of which less than 1 percent are from the District of Columbia. So Americans all across this land are participating.

The spending reduction that Representative Jordan and I proposed received more than 81,000 votes. We identified, and America supported the repeal, of a $2.5 billion-per-year program that has gutted the positive bipartisan welfare reforms of the 1990s.

As part of their failed stimulus package, Democrats added a new program to incentivize States to increase, yes increase, Mr. Speaker, their welfare caseloads without requiring work from those able to work or get job training or make other efforts to move off taxpayer assistance. Welfare reform was one of the most important bipartisan achievements of the last two decades, and it's been terribly undermined by this little-noticed provision.

So rather than take our Nation backwards, we need to vote today to restore welfare reform by refocusing temporary assistance on people getting back on their feet as quickly as possible. So I hope that our Democrat colleagues will follow our lead and, yes, the lead of the American people in working together to put Washington's fiscal house back in order.

Mr. Speaker, we have tried to partner with our Democrat colleagues to rein in wasteful spending; but their help in this matter has not, frankly, been forthcoming. In fact, they have chosen to explode the annual deficits to over a trillion dollars and add costly new government mandates and tax hikes that stand in the way of job creation.

So let's start today, together, to begin the job of getting our Nation back on track. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Vote for fiscal responsibility.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to take a moment to commend the remarkable effort and dedication of everyone involved in making the Cherokee County Airport in Georgia the shining jewel of this county's economic development.

Tomorrow's ribbon-cutting ceremony for the new terminal building will be a celebration of twenty plus years of perseverance and unselfish teamwork. This project is a wonderful example of what can be accomplished when governments at the state, local, and federal level work together with the people of a community to build a stronger economic foundation.

Due to the hard work of so many, our business community will instantly become more competitive. This new terminal and longer runway will attract corporate travel that will spur new business development and create quality jobs for the good people of Cherokee County.

But none of this would be possible without the tremendous efforts of the Cherokee County Airport Authority under the leadership of Chairman Don Stevens. The tireless work of Don and all the current and past members of the Airport Authority is the reason this dream has become a reality.

The assistance of many others was also essential to seeing this long process through to completion. I'd especially like to acknowledge the immense support from the Cherokee County Board of Commissioners, led by current Chairman Buzz Ahrens and past Chairman Mike Byrd. And of course, we have to mention Scott Seritt and the fine folks at the FAA whose contributions from the federal level made the financing for this project possible.

This wonderful new airport is a clear example of what can happen when we work together to better our community, and the businesses and the people of Cherokee County will surely benefit from this new economic engine. It has been a great privilege to work with the men and women who made this project come to life, and I look forward to our continued efforts to bring greater prosperity to Cherokee County.

I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this and all issues, and especially for highlighting the challenges Americans face all across this land.

But pointing out, as this chart so aptly does, that the ``solution'' which has been put in place by this administration has, I would argue and I know you would, has in fact made things worse. So here we are with the Nation being promised a little over a year ago that if we spent hundreds of billions of dollars in an effort to try to get the Nation back moving from an economic standpoint, that we wouldn't see an unemployment rate of 8 percent.

That was going to be the high point. And here we are at 9.7 percent, and it has been higher than that. And the take- home message on that is what they are doing doesn't work.

I told a fellow the other day, I said, They are thinking about doing a new stimulus bill, a new jobs bill. You know, they tried millions and then they tried billions, and I guess we are going to move to gazillions next.

And as you well know, it is money we don't have. It is money that we don't have, and that is the troubling thing for the American people all across this land because they know the policies that have been put in place not only haven't worked, they have been destructive to job creation, which is what is frustrating to those of us on our side of the aisle who know that fundamental American principles, if you follow them, actually can allow you to create jobs.

So what does that mean? It means spending less. You've got a great chart right there, and people rail on the amount of spending that was done at the end of the last administration, and we did as well. But if you might share with folks the numbers that have happened since Speaker Pelosi and her crowd have taken over.

It really is astounding. And the picture--they say a picture is worth a thousand words. That picture is worth over a trillion words, and that is because that is money we don't have. It is money that puts greater deficits and debt on the backs of our kids and our grandkids. It is mortgaging the future.

Right now we are seeing the consequences of reckless and irresponsible spending at a national level in another nation--Greece. And if you look at the trajectory, the spending path we are on, and the debt and the deficit path we are on, we are not far behind the incredible irresponsibility that is now being addressed in the nation of Greece.

Well, the American people know that is wrong. They know they can't go to the garage and print money, and that is what the Federal Government does. That is what the Obama administration has done. Those red columns there, those red lines there, demonstrate clearly that the deficits and the debt that are being run up by the Obama administration and Speaker Pelosi and the majority party right now are unparalleled in our history.

You mentioned how our good friends on the other side of the aisle look to government as the solution to everything, and they do. They believe that Washington and government has a better answer. We sometimes get criticized for

saying government can't do anything. There are some things that government ought to be doing, but they ought not be owning banks, they ought not be owning automobile companies, they ought not be running our health care system, they ought not be deciding whether or not there is any risk at all in the market.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle believe that the government ought to control all of those things. And when they control all of those things, what happens is that you decrease all of the ingenuity and entrepreneurship and genius of the American people.

So what I like to say is, when you have big government, you have small citizens. When you have small government, you have big citizens. And we believe in big citizens as opposed to big government.

Checks and balances are what is necessary. You wouldn't have these kinds of crazy things going on up here in Washington if there were checks and balances here in the Federal Government. And the people across this land know that. They know that runaway government on either side, frankly, is not what they desire. So they look to Washington and say, My goodness, what the heck are they doing? We have to put some checks and balances in place.

In the area of health care, which I know a little about, having practiced medicine for over 20 years, what we have seen is the intrusion of the Federal Government into the practice of medicine, into health care, is only destructive to all of the principles that we hold dear for health care.

So whether it is affordability, or accessibility, or quality, or the responsiveness of a system, or innovation, or choices, all of those kinds of things that we as Americans hold dear in health care, they all get destroyed with the Federal Government. You know that. That is what results in that kind of economic uncertainty for the businesses of health care.

I can't tell you how many letters I have received that have told me, from my colleagues, my former medical colleagues who, since the bill has been passed and signed into law--these are people in the prime of their career, those who are taking care of literally thousands of patients across this land--who have said, Look, with the oppression of the Federal Government at this point, I'm going to do one of three things. Either I am going to close my practice, I'm leaving, and that challenges the accessibility problem. Or I am going to limit the number of patients I see that have some type of government health care because of the intrusion. In fact, virtually all of us will have government health care when this crowd gets done with their plan. Or third, and something that you've touched on, which is the alternative for business-minded individuals in an economy like this where the politicians are picking the winners and losers: They are heading elsewhere. They are going offshore.

There are actually hospitals being built in the Caribbean right now.

It is very concerning. And I think that is exactly the picture that is being painted for folks all across this land and why they have the kind of frustration and anger and angst and anxiety about the future of their country. It is why they are saying, look, to Washington, are you not listening to us? Can you not hear us?

They know. They know that the government ought not to be owning banks. They know that the government ought not to be owning automobile companies. They know that the government ought not to be running health care.

And they know that not because it is just not right; they know it because it doesn't result in the highest quality of opportunities and choices and dreams realized for individuals.

Remember, big government, small citizen. Big government, small patient. Big government, small consumer. You've got small government, you've got big patients, you've got big citizens, you've got big consumers, and more dreams realized.

And unlimited amounts of money is what that means.

You are absolutely right. I think that is so important because when people look to the items that need to be fixed from a financial standpoint, they look and they see that Washington has had its hand in some things that have been very destructive.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for example, are really at the epicenter of the challenges that we have had in the economy. And the bill that is being proposed and the bill that came through the House earlier to assist in ``fixing'' things, their solution doesn't address Fannie and Freddie at all, which is so frustrating because the American people know that there are positive solutions. And you with the Republican Study Committee, we have been working diligently on putting forward those positive solutions to all of the challenges that we face that embrace those fundamental American principles.

So whether it is health care, whether it is energy, whether it is the economy, whether it is jobs, all of those things have fundamental principal solutions that don't require putting the government in charge.

Madam Speaker, on April 19, 1897 a group of osteopathic medical students at the American School of Osteopathy in Kirksville, Missouri founded what is today the American Osteopathic Association. Today I along with Dr. Broun, Dr. Burgess, Dr. Cassidy, Dr. Fleming, Dr. Gingrey, Dr. Kagen, Dr. Paul, and Dr. Roe, rise to honor the anniversary of the American Osteopathic Association and recognize the more than 67,000 osteopathic physicians (D.O.s) for their contributions to the American healthcare system.

Over the past 113 years, osteopathic physicians have provided high quality care to millions of patients and contributed to the advancement of medical science. The osteopathic profession's commitment to primary care and caring for underserved communities are commendable and are essential to the success of our health care system.

Over the past 20 years the profession has experienced tremendous growth. Today, one out of every five medical schools students are enrolled in a college of osteopathic medicine and total enrollment in the nation's colleges of osteopathic medicine exceeds 16,000 students. The profession is well positioned to play an important role in alleviating the physician workforce shortage over the next decade.

Osteopathic physicians practice in every specialty and subspecialty of medicine. They practice in the most elite academic institutions and successful group practices. However, a majority of osteopathic physicians continue the profession's long-standing tradition by focusing their careers on primary care specialties, general surgery, emergency medicine, and obstetrics.

These dedicated professionals provide an invaluable service to our nation, and we applaud their history and their ongoing efforts to improve the health of our nation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Arthur E. Katz, a 1963 graduate of the United States Coast Guard Academy and a longtime resident of Sandy Springs, Georgia. As I'll explain in a moment, tomorrow, April 23, 2010, is a very special day for Arthur. But first, allow me to tell you a bit more about this man who has lived a quintessentially American life.

After his graduation from the Academy, Arthur Katz served with distinction in the United States Coast Guard, eventually rising to the rank of Lieutenant, Junior Grade. In 1965 and 1966, he was stationed in Vietnam as the Commanding Officer of the USCGC Point Cypress. While some here today may not know it, the duties of the Coast Guard often take its men and women far from American shores.

For his leadership at the helm of the Point Cypress, Arthur received the Bronze Star, one of our nation's highest military honors. Arthur's Bronze Star was accompanied by the Combat Distinguishing Device in particular recognition of his masterful handling of the Point Cypress in a vicious firefight with several Viet Cong junks in June of 1966. His quick thinking and well executed strategy led to the destruction or disabling of all enemy craft in that action without a single American casualty.

Arthur later returned to civilian life, earning an MBA from Rutgers University and running his own small business. He has volunteered countless hours for the local community over the years, including his time on the Board of the Marcus Jewish Community Center of Atlanta and as the President of Emanu-El synagogue in Sandy Springs. Today, he and his wife of forty-six years are the proud forebears of three children and seven grandchildren.

And tomorrow, on April 23, 2010, Arthur will be inducted into the Wall of Gallantry at the United States Coast Guard Academy. According to the Academy's own description, the Wall of Gallantry provides ``a regular reminder to Cadets and the public of the scope of responsibilities and sacrifice demanded of Coast Guard officers throughout history.''

So even as he is recognized for his distinguished service in the Coast Guard, Arthur Katz will continue to serve as an inspiration to future generations of Coast Guard officers. This is a fitting and much deserved honor for a man to whom we all owe an enormous debt of gratitude that can never be fully repaid.

Arthur Katz has exemplified the American spirit in service to his country, his community, his family, and his faith. Such a life carries an honor all its own, and it is my distinct privilege to recognize him here today.

Yesterday was an historic day in this Nation. The problem for our citizens is that it was historically dark. Madam Speaker, it's raining in Washington today. It's raining because our Founders are weeping. Our Founders are weeping over the incredible vote taken yesterday that was an affront to federalism, an affront to individual liberty, and an affront to freedom. And it's distressing--so very distressing--to so many citizens across this land because they know there were positive solutions--there are positive solutions--to put in place as it relates to the challenges that we face in health care.

As a physician, I know that when you put government in between patients and families and doctors, it is destructive--destructive to the trust that we hold dear in order to bring about the greatest amount of quality health care in our land. It was distressing on another avenue as well, and that is it was so hyper partisan--the hyper- partisan way in which this vote passed. Madam Speaker, the bipartisan vote on this bill was a ``no'' vote. The vote was 219-212--all Republicans, joined by 34 Democrats, opposing the bill.

In much of the debate yesterday, we heard about how it was being compared to Social Security in 1935 and Medicare in 1965 and the momentous aspects of those votes. Madam Speaker, it's curious to note that on those votes, the House approved the Medicare bill in 1965 by a vote of 313-115, with nearly half of the House Republicans voting for it at that time. In the Senate, it was approved 68-21, with half of the Republicans supporting it. A major difference between that vote and this vote. Social Security passed the House in 1935 by a vote of 372- 77, with four-to-one, or 80 percent of the Republicans supporting it in the House, and 75 percent of the Republicans in the Senate supporting it.

So, Madam Speaker, it is so distressing that this bill had to be so divisive--not just for this Chamber, but for our land. The American people are angry. And they're angry because they don't believe that the bill that was passed yesterday includes any of the fundamental American principles that we hold dear for health care--affordability, accessibility, quality, responsiveness, innovation, choices. All of those are things that we believe ought to be in place for health care in our Nation. All of them are violated by the bill that was passed yesterday and reportedly will be signed into law tomorrow by the President.

Mr. Speaker, health care decisions that we make for ourselves and for our families are some of the most important and personal in our lives. As a physician, early in my career of caring for tens of thousands of patients, I recognized that there were more folks in Washington who affected what I could do for and with my patients than anybody I ever met in residency or in medical school and that that was wrong.

Health care, taking care of people, is a moral endeavor and should be grounded in principle. And if the principles that we hold dear for health care are applied to this debate and to this bill, the picture is not pretty: accessibility, being able to receive care; affordability, being able to afford care; quality, receiving the best care available; responsiveness, having a system that works for patients; and innovation, being certain that we have the newest and the best treatments and choices, patients being able to choose their physicians and how and where they are treated.

All of these are harmed by this bill. All of these principles are violated. None of these principles are improved by the further intervention of the Federal Government.

So you see, Mr. Speaker, mostly this is bad for patients, for all Americans. The trust that is necessary between caregiver and care receiver, between patients and their doctors, to believe that your health is not being undermined by the system will be permanently eroded, permanently damaged; and it is that trust that is the foundation of the morality of health care.

So this is a sad day, yes, because there are so many wonderful and positive and patient-centered solutions

that we could have enacted. You see, we trust patients and families. They trust government.

As a physician, I know that when patients and their families and their doctors are not allowed to decide what they receive, we lose more than our health care system. We lose our morality. We lose our freedom.

The positive vote, the patient-centered vote, the bipartisan vote on this bill is a ``no.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Benjamin Ryan Hooper of Boy Scout Troop 317 in Johns Creek, Georgia.

By reaching the rank of Eagle Scout, Benjamin has done something that fewer than two percent of all who participate in Scouting ever achieve. This accomplishment is worthy of honor and recognition in its own right, but it is not why I speak to you today. Instead, I rise to commend Benjamin for the heroism he displayed, with the help of his brother Graham.

As residents of the Sixth District of Georgia, the Hoopers are constituents of mine. And like thousands of Georgians, they faced off against the devastating floodwaters that ravaged our State last September. This historic flood resulted in the deaths of at least ten Georgians. Fourteen Georgia counties were declared federal disaster areas, and the cost of the damage has been estimated at $500 million. It was a difficult time, to say the least. But thanks to the actions of Benjamin Hooper, his family was able to avoid an even greater tragedy.

On September 21, 2009, Benjamin and his brother Graham arrived home from school to learn that two of their younger brothers had been playing in a flooded area and got caught in the rising waters and strengthening current. They had each managed to grab hold of a tree but were unable to get away from the rushing waters. These two young boys were now in grave danger of being swept away.

Upon hearing this, Benjamin jumped back in his car and raced to the scene. He quickly jumped into the water in an attempt to reach his stranded brothers, but the debris-filled creek was moving too quickly. Graham and Mrs. Hooper soon arrived with a length of garden hose which they passed to the two struggling boys so they could be pulled to safety. One of the boys made it, but the youngest brother Cole lost his grip and disappeared beneath the swiftly moving water.

Ignoring the danger to themselves, both Benjamin and Graham immediately jumped in after Cole. The current soon pulled Graham too far downstream, but once Cole surfaced, Benjamin was able to swim to his younger brother and hold his head above the water. The raging current then carried the boys downstream where they passed through a tunnel beneath a nearby road. By this point, the water level had risen to only a few feet below the top of this tunnel.

After successfully navigating this danger, Benjamin passed Cole off to Graham, who was now stationed by a nearby tree. Graham was then able to pull Cole out of the creek, but Benjamin was forced to continue swimming until he reached an area where the current had subsided. After exiting the creek himself, Benjamin walked back to his now reunited family, checked everyone for injuries, took steps to prevent the onset of hypothermia, and helped to calm his understandably upset mother. Miraculously, none of the Hooper boys had suffered serious injuries despite the life threatening peril they endured.

For his courageous and quick action, the Boy Scouts of America awarded Benjamin Hooper the Medal of Honor with Crossed Palms. Only 231 of these medals have been awarded since its inception in 1938. In the humble fashion always exhibited by true heroes, Benjamin said after receiving the award that, ``I was just there at the right time.''

So it is with great admiration that I pay tribute to Benjamin Hooper here in the U.S. House of Representatives today. May our entire Nation take heed of both his immeasurable courage and tremendous humility.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the members of Cherokee Patrol in Boy Scout Troop 1011 for their achievements in Scouting.

Sponsored by Mount Bethel United Methodist Church in Marietta, Georgia, Troop 1011 has helped shape the lives of young men since its founding in 1972. Over the years, more than 200 members of Troop 1011 have attained the coveted rank of Eagle Scout. On March 21, they will add seven high school seniors to that list: Connor Reed Crank; Preston William Ehlers; Kirkland Douglas Malcolm; George Capron Merriam; C. Joseph Privateer; James Benjamin Stamberger; and Alexander Conrad Walgren.

In Scouting, troops typically are subdivided into smaller groups known as patrols. And the seven young men just mentioned represent the complete membership of Troop 1011's Cherokee Patrol. Fewer than two percent of all young men who begin Scouting ever become Eagle Scouts, so it is exceedingly rare for each member of a single patrol to reach this pinnacle.

In fact, Madam Speaker, it is downright extraordinary for an entire patrol to be awarded the rank of Eagle on the exact same day.

For meeting certain measures in addition to this rare achievement, Cherokee Patrol has also received the Honor Patrol Award. This award is only bestowed upon patrols whose membership makes the extra effort to be exemplary Scouts. Clearly these seven new Eagle Scouts pass that test with flying colors.

I wish every one of these fine young men the very best in their future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, how bad is this health bill? Oh, my goodness. Let me count the ways. It's bad on policy, raises taxes $500 billion, decreases quality of care, decreases choices for Americans, slashes Medicare by $500 billion. It's bad on process, with backroom, secret, shady deals made that Americans abhor.

But as a physician, I know that mostly it's bad for patients. They know it will destroy quality care. They know it will dictate to them what doctor they have to see and where they have to see him or her, and they know it will result in more money being paid by them for less care--which is all the more troubling because there are so many more positive solutions like H.R. 3400, which would get Americans covered with insurance they want, not what the government wants for them. It would solve preexisting and portability problems with insurance that they want,

not what the government wants for them, and address the lawsuit abuse that is so badly needed and is not addressed in the Senate bill.

How bad is this health care bill? Madam Speaker, it's bad enough that the American people are saying, ``Just say no.''

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 67, and 68 I was unable to be present to vote.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on these.