Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the Speaker for the recognition. I almost feel like now that I have got equal time for a reply from the last 45-minute segment, I would remind my friends on the majority that they are in the majority. This is the House of Representatives of the United States. Any bill can pass on the floor of this House with 218 votes. As I recall the last numbers, we have 177 Members on the Republican side, you have 258 members on the Democratic side. That means you can pass pretty much whatever you want whenever you want as long as you keep only 40 Members of your party from straying, and you can only lose 40 Members from your side and you can pass whatever you want. Now we read some articles in the paper today where there are 23 Democrats who say no way are they voting for this health care bill after they have been through the summer that they have had. Okay, you still have a comfortable margin of 20 votes to pass whatever bill you want. So, please, don't set this up as a straw man Republican versus Democratic argument. The Republican Party in the House of Representatives in this Congress cannot stop you from passing anything that you want to pass. We do not have the numbers. We do not have the organization. Some might argue we don't have the leadership to block anything that you want to pass. So your argument is an internal argument. It is Democrat versus Democrat. Bring the bill to the floor of the House that you want to bring. Bring it to the Rules Committee. You certainly have done it plenty of times. Bring it to the floor of the House. We will have our obligatory 2 hours of debate. We will have the vote, win the vote, and send it over to the Senate. You have 60 votes on the Senate side. This should not be a challenge for you. Send it down to the White House. You have a President who will sign virtually anything you send down to him. This is not an argument that you are having with Republicans. This is an argument you are having internally within your own caucus. And why are you having that argument internally within your own caucus? Because you have not sold this proposal to the American people. And you felt that acutely during the August recess. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. BURGESS. Absolutely. I will refer to the Chair. Madam Speaker, this is because the other side did not make the sale to the American people. They did not engage the American people from the bottom up, from the grass-roots up, which is the way you have to do tough legislative proposals, transformative legislative proposals. You don't start at the top and work down. That's the Soviet style of doing things, Madam Speaker. This is America. We go from the grass-roots up. Our friends on the Democratic side chose not to do it that way. Instead, they would rather vilify Republicans because, after all, that's what helps them raise money and win votes. And after all, isn't it all about just winning votes and maintaining your majority? You're not really held to account by the American people as to whether or not you pass your agenda or not, apparently, if we are to believe the poll numbers. But, Madam Speaker, I do not believe this can be done from the top down. I do believe this has to come from the grass-roots up. We saw a Member of Congress, a Democrat in one of the midwestern States, plaintively ask her audience on YouTube during the month of August during one of the August town halls, don't you trust me? And the response she got back from her audience was, well, apparently not. The audience didn't trust her. All across this country, Members of Congress have heard the voices of August. The question is, the real question for this House is, was anyone listening to those voices as they were speaking to us? Right now, this Congress has historic low credibility ratings. We have some of the lowest credibility ratings in the last 26 years. Two years ago, 2\1/2\ years ago, when the Senate tried to pass massive immigration reform, they found because of the very low credibility levels that they had that no one trusted the United States Senate to pass this type of immigration reform. As a consequence, despite the backing of two very powerful Senators, one on the Republican side and one on the Democratic side, despite that very powerful backing, they were unable to pass sweeping immigration reform in 2007. The American people recoiled in horror when they saw what was happening, flooded the Senate switchboard, shut down the Senate servers, and the Senate got the message and very quickly went on to other things that might occupy their time for the rest of that summer. Well, this summer has been no different. Switchboards have been shut down. Servers have been overwhelmed. The American people have weighed in on this issue, and it is overwhelmingly opposed to what the Speaker of the House has pushed through the three committees here on the House side. Now, if we do not have the credibility to do a sweeping proposal, a sweeping legislative proposal such as has been before us, to essentially allow the government to claim one-seventh of the Nation's economy, if we don't have the credibility to do that, should we just do nothing? Or should we, in fact, try to achieve some deliverables for the American people? I think every one of us heard that the American people are interested in us effecting some reforms. We heard some of them mentioned just in the last hour on the Democratic side. There are things on which we do agree. There are things on which we can work. And there are deliverables we can accomplish for the American people. But the fact of the matter is the American people do not trust us, do not trust us to undertake this type of sweeping reform and transform the way health care is delivered in this country such that many people may not even recognize it. Now, I do take some exception to some of the comments that I heard in the last hour. I was a physician. For 25 years, I practiced medicine. There are plenty of times I got up in the middle of the night, and I knew that delivery I was going to do or that operation I was going to perform was something for which I would never be compensated. That's just part of the job. American physicians, men and women, show up all hours of the day and night to render this type of care, and they don't ask where the payment is coming from. People get taken care of in this country in a timely and respectful manner, and it happens every day of the week. And quite honestly, I am very tired of hearing the type of rhetoric we just heard on this House floor where America's physicians are seemingly indifferent to the plights of people who happen to be ill and uninsured. Patients are taken care of all the time across this country in clinics, in hospitals and in emergency rooms by caring physicians, caring nurses and caring hospital staff without regard for that patient's ability to pay. It happens every day of the week. It is so frustrating to hear people talk about the only way to pay for health care in this country is either through a private insurance or a government program. There is plenty of care that is just donated by the generosity of America's physicians, America's nurses and America's hospitals. In fact, the only thing standing in the way of this sweeping health care reform that the President is going to come talk to us about tomorrow night is, again, an internal conflict on the Democratic side. If we had done this bill in July, as had been proposed, if, in fact, we had voted on this bill on July 31, which was what the chairman of the three committees desired, which is what the President at the White House desired, had we voted on this bill by the 31st of July, we would have gone home to face our town halls; but it would have been a different equation because the bill would have already been passed and would be off to the Senate. But we didn't do that. A funny thing happened on the way to ramming this thing through, and many Members on the Democratic side began to hear from their constituents and began to hear that this was not perhaps such a good idea after all. Do bear in mind, Madam Speaker, 218 votes are what are required to pass any bill out of the floor of this House under a rule. The Rules Committee is the Speaker's Committee. The Speaker has a 9-4 advantage in that committee. The Speaker could get any rule pushed through the Rules Committee that she wishes. She could bring any bill to the floor that she wishes. We have seen it time and time and time again; 218 votes are what is required. Do not tell me, do not continue to perpetuate the fantasy that somehow 177 Republicans are able to prevent this bill from coming to the floor. And again, I would reiterate, you have the magic 60 votes in the Senate. You don't need reconciliation; you don't need a fancy procedural maneuver, you have the votes, 60 votes in the Senate, to pass whatever you care to pass. And of course you have a President who has already committed to signing this bill. One of the things that I heard a lot back home was a concern about the cost. And this is something that is going to continue to come up and continue to be problematic for anyone who wants to undertake a bill that is as sweeping as the one that we had before our committees last month. The bill itself had very little in the way of cost containment contained within the bill. Oh, sure, there were some physician cuts--we always rely on those--there were some cuts to home health care, there were some cuts to our radiologists and imaging, but in general there was very little in the way of cost containment in the bill. Now, we do hear a lot of talk and there is a lot of rhetoric on the issue of preventive care. Preventive care, preventive medicine, you bet, I'm for that. The cost savings from preventive care, though, are much less certain and the timeline to achieving those cost savings is also uncertain. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office in its report to our committee in July delineated the very low rate of return on those savings and the fact that it might be years before those cost containments were achieved. That doesn't mean that it's not worthwhile, it doesn't mean that it's not worth doing, but to go to the American people with the statement that we're going to do all of these things and we're going to be able to pay for all this additional care by not cutting anyone's services, but because we're going to do things better, faster, cheaper, smarter just, in fact, does not square with the facts and the American people have seen through that. Now, many of the studies have shown that in fact in the early years, by increasing the preventive regimen, the cost may in fact increase. And you would expect this to be the case because there is going to be more spent on the infrastructure necessary, more spent on the clinics, the exam rooms, professional personnel, nurse practitioners, paramedics, the physician extenders that are going to be necessary to see the increased numbers of patients who will be coming through those clinics as we increase the throughput through those clinics. So it is going to cost more money up front. I think there is broad recognition of that. Now, we did hear some concern about the Medicare part D program. I would just simply remind people that Medicare part D, when it was passed in this House of Representatives back in 2003, Medicare part D was a prevention-based strategy. It only made sense, if you were going to cover the doctor's expense, if you were going to cover the hospitalization as was covered under Medicare's part A and B at the time and you did not allow for the coverage of a prescription drug benefit, that it was going to be much harder to deliver on the promise of preventative care without the medicines available to prevent the illnesses that you wish to prevent. It seemed relatively simple and straight forward in 2003, it seems relatively simple and straightforward now. I think this Congress, I think the people who have written this bill would have done well to look at some of the things from the Medicare part D program that actually have worked very well. And true enough, there were some problems with Medicare part D as it was passed. There were some problems with implementation, I don't think anyone would deny that. But the fact of the matter is that under the Medicare part D program, remember, there was no mandate. There was never a mandate that said a senior had to take a certain type of prescription drug coverage. Different levels of coverage were available to every senior. Every senior was encouraged to have some type of credible coverage for prescription drugs. There was a cut-off date beyond which there would be an increased cost for buying into the insurance program if someone did not enroll during the open enrollment period, but it did not come to us under the mantle of a mandate. There was no requirement that every senior buy coverage. There was simply the recommendation that every senior have credible coverage under the plan. In fact, there were some benefits for people if they went ahead and established that credible coverage by a certain cut-off date. And what that meant was that the companies that were involved in providing the coverage then were competitive on the basis of trying to create programs that people actually wanted rather than saying we know you've got to buy this, so we're just going to put one or two programs out there and you can pick or choose from one or two and take it or leave it. Dr. McClellan, Mark McClellan, who at the time was head of Medicare and Medicaid Services, said there were going to be six protected classes of drugs within the program. Within each of those six classes there have to be at least two different choices. And with those relatively simple parameters, the companies were allowed to go out and construct programs and go out there and compete in the marketplace. Now, we were told early on when we talked about this type of change in the Medicare part D program that in fact you will never get companies showing up to provide these products; you would have to mandate something, otherwise people just simply won't have any program at all from which to choose. But Dr. McClellan stuck to plan, and as a consequence, in some States we have well over 40 different plans that were there making available different types of Medicare part D coverage. In fact, we were criticized a year into the plan that there were too many choices, people couldn't possibly decide what to buy because there was too much choice out there. Well, in fact, it was a good problem to have. And as a consequence, now we have the Medicare part D program where the coverage rate is in excess of 90 percent, the satisfaction rate is in excessive 90 percent. And it rivals any insurance program with a mandatory or coverage mandate, whether it be an individual or employer mandate. By creating the type of program that people actually want, that is actually useful, that actually matters to them in their lives, we have been able to provide more coverage to more people at lower costs than anyone thought possible back in 2003 when the legislation was passed. Now, we heard very many compelling anecdotes in the past 45 minutes about people with difficult problems in tough medical situations. And no one would argue that those are not compelling stories. I would just remind people that are studying this issue that the bill that we had before us that came out of the three committees, the bill that will likely come to the floor sometime this month, while it does provide for a public option and it does provide for a public option for coverage, those methods of coverage do not become generally available to the general population until 2013, 3 years after the enactment of the bill. So those are not going to be immediate benefits that are going to be accessible by any of the tough situations that you've heard described here in the last hour. In fact, those programs are going to lag significantly behind the start-up time of that bill. Well, what can we expect in January when the bill starts if the bill is passed and signed as is planned? What can we count on in January? Well, you can count on the taxes occurring. Those certainly will. The taxes will begin January 1 of 2010. An 8 percent payroll tax on small business in this country. An 8 percent payroll tax may will be the largest single employment tax that has ever been passed in this country. This may be the largest single job-killing event to occur in this young century. This is something that we need to be very, very careful about as we go about enacting this legislation because we are in the midst of a recession. We are hopeful that the recession is ending, but one of the difficult things about ending a recession, as we found in my early years here in 2003 and 2004, that as a recession ends, job growth does not necessarily follow immediately. What is the major engine of job growth in this country? Well, it's small business. So if we don't do anything to encourage small business and in fact we go so far as to hurt small business, it will be very, very difficult to grow those jobs that are actually going to be what ultimately lifts us out of this recession. None of us likes to look forward to a jobless recovery, and yet that seems to be what's in the cards for us right now. This is a very serious situation and something to which this Congress should best place some heed because the absence of job growth in this economy will lead to that double dip or W-shaped recession that many economists talk about. I did have several meetings with small business owners in my district. I conducted forums with small business owners just to hear their concerns about what Congress was doing. And yes, we heard some on the energy bill that was passed earlier this year and how that would be a job killing piece of legislation, but a lot of concern over what is happening in health care. And even more to the point, there is so much uncertainty out there in the country right now. No one knows what we're going to do, Madam Speaker. Are we going to pass this bill? Are we going to put an 8 percent payroll tax on top of the taxes that small businesses already pay? Many employers with whom I spoke told me, Yeah, the recession may be ending. We see some signs. Things seem to be easing up a little bit. Well, are you going to expand your business? Are you going to be adding jobs? Are you going to be bringing back some of those jobs that you outsourced or laid off? Well, I'm not so sure about that because the environment out there is kind of unsettled right now. We don't know what you're going to do with this health care bill. We don't know what you're going to do with that energy bill. As a consequence, we're going to put our expansion plans on hold for right now. I heard this over and over and over again. Now, to be sure, every business that I talked to was, perhaps, talking about adding one or two or three jobs, and they put those plans on hold, but when small businesses across the country are putting on hold plans of adding one, two or three jobs, spread over the entire country and over the entire economy, that's a significant number of jobs that are right now being held in limbo because, again, employers are not certain about what Congress is going to do next. Well, I think one of the things that came through loud and clear for me in listening to my constituents during the month of August was that Congress fundamentally lacks the trust of the American people to do something this large, and it is very, very difficult to do this in a top-down centralized fashion. We really do need to recruit, to encourage and to educate the American people as to what we are trying to do and as to where the value for them is in it on what we are trying to do rather than to just simply superimpose this large government program on the American people. You've heard it over and over again: Have you read the bill? Who can read the bill? It's too big. It's too complex. No one can understand it. This is a valid complaint, and it's reflective of the fact that this legislation is large, that it is sweeping and that people do not trust the Congress to make those kinds of changes on a portion of their lives that is that important to them. People do not trust the Congress to be able to do the right thing. We've heard over and over again from our constituents: Hey, if this is not even good enough for Members of Congress, why should we sign up for it? Why should we accept what you won't even take yourselves? Now, to be sure, during the debates in the committees, there were a number of amendments that were offered. Some suggested that whatever the public option is and whatever it turns out to be should be the type of insurance that Members of Congress and that members of the administration and their staffs are required to take. That is, if it is good enough for the American people, it ought to be good enough for the governing class as well. I don't disagree with that. That amendment was knocked out on a technicality in our committee, and we never had the chance to vote for it. That ruling was appealed, and the appeal of the motion of the Chair was upheld on a party-line vote. So, essentially, every Democrat said, Hey, we don't want this coverage for ourselves. Every Republican said that we should at least have the debate, that we should at least hear the amendment and that we should hear from both sides on this issue, but we weren't allowed to do it. It was shut down in committee on a party-line vote. I had an amendment that would have made Medicaid available to every Member of Congress. Congress could be a mandatory population under Medicaid, so every Member of Congress would be covered under the Medicaid system, and every Member of Congress would then understand what it is like to try to find a physician--doctor--for themselves or for a family member in the Medicaid system. It can be very difficult to do that. Why is that? Because reimbursement rates under Medicaid are so low that members of the medical profession simply cannot afford to take large numbers of Medicaid patients into their practices for fear that they won't be able to cover their overhead and for fear that they will not be able to keep their practices open. Again, on a technicality, this was prevented from a vote, and it just underscores the hubris of the United States Congress when it will consider doing things to the American people, those things it would never consider doing to Members of Congress. People see that and they resent that. They can feel that it is not right that a Member of Congress would vote on a type of bill that would require Americans to take a certain type of insurance when that Member of Congress would have no intention of taking that insurance himself. We heard it in some of the townhalls that were conducted by the White House: Is this insurance something that will be good enough for members in the White House and for members of their staffs? No, not necessarily. We want something good for members of the White House. It is exactly that type of hubris that has gotten people so upset. We could deal with that. We could deal with that by requiring that any public option or that even Medicaid is something that is not just made available but required of Members of Congress, but we won't have that discussion. We won't have that debate. It somehow seems to be demeaning or beneath us to have that debate, but certainly that's a problem we could fix and that we could fix pronto. There was nothing in this bill that dealt with liability reform. As a physician, I will tell you that that is one of the single largest issues that faces physicians in this country. It is the constant threat of medical litigation, the expense of medical liability insurance and the cost of defensive medicine that drives the cost of the practice of medicine literally through the roof. A study back in 1996 by Dr. McClellan from Stanford University at that time estimated a cost of nearly $30 billion for two diagnoses in the Medicare system because of defensive medicine. Well, that was in dollars of 12 or 13 years ago. Imagine what those dollars have grown to today in our current liability climate. This is something that the American people understand needs to be fixed, and they simply do not understand why Congress will not at least consider entertaining the debate. What they see is that this is something that is being blocked by special interests and that this is something that is being blocked by a certain lobbyist group that is being prevented from even being discussed in a congressional committee. The American people look at that and say, Well, that's not right. We cannot possibly believe anything else that's in that bill, because we don't trust you to have a rational discussion about this. I dare say, if liability reform and fairness in the physician compensation system had been on the table at the very beginning, you might well have had some Republicans on board for this bill right from the start. What I do know is that you never tried. Never did any of the committee chairmen, Madam Speaker, and never did the President or the White House seriously try to achieve any type of bipartisan balance in this bill. It simply was of no interest to them because--and I'll go back to my early remarks about the arithmetic in the House--they can lose 40 votes in the House and still pass a bill. They have 60 votes in the Senate. They can cut off debate at any time and pass a bill and send it down to the White House and get it signed into law. We heard over and over again in our townhalls this summer about the problems with preexisting conditions and about the problems with insurance recision. We're talking about insurance reform. That is something that we could accomplish. Yes, there are some thorny issues to be addressed, but it's certainly no more difficult than anything else we've taken on. We could have solved that problem. We could have debated that problem. We could have voted on that problem before we went home for the August recess, and we could have shown the American people that, in fact, we were serious about taking care of a very serious problem that affects 8 to 10 million people in this country, a problem that prevents them from getting the health care coverage they would like to have. Yes, there are going to be some difficult arguments to have over rating bans. Yes, there are going to be some difficult arguments as to whether or not there is a premium cap or whether or not there is a premium to be paid for someone's not having had insurance before someone got a tough diagnosis. We can have those arguments. There perhaps could be new moneys made available in State and Federal subsidies for people who can't afford the cost of a State high-risk pool. Nevertheless, we could have those debates. We could have those arguments. We could look at those figures and decide what a correct number would be. Again, that is something that is easily within our level of achievement, and this House could have done it before we went home for August, but for some reason, we chose not to. On the issue of portability, we could have dealt with that before we went home for the August recess. One of the biggest problems that people are having right now is job loss because of the recession. Yes, if someone loses his job and he has employer-sponsored insurance, it becomes tough to continue that insurance. Under COBRA, employer- sponsored insurance has to be offered for the next 18 months, but it's extremely expensive. For someone who has just lost his job, to be able to cover his portion and the employer's portion and an administrative fee becomes terribly difficult, but we could have dealt with that. The fact of the matter is we chose not to. We chose to go home for the August recess with our work being undone, and the American people saw right through that. That's why they were so frustrated with us in the month of August. Now, we heard on one of the Sunday shows this weekend that the President's main adviser said, In some States, why, there is no competition. There's only one insurer. Well, how do you deal with that if there is only one insurer in some States? Do you really make the situation measurably better by adding a second insurer? Well, maybe. If it's a government-run program, then maybe that's a good thing. Maybe it's a bad thing. Maybe you run out the one insurer who was there already, and you're back to one insurer which is now the public option. There are 1,300 different insurance companies out there. If we would simply relax some of the restrictions against selling across State lines, we could open those markets up, not to one other insurer, not to ten other insurers, but to hundreds of other insurers. That's real competition in the marketplace. The same type of competition you see today for car insurance and for life insurance and with the power of the Internet, those costs have come down significantly for those two products. We could have achieved the same type of success in the health insurance market if we were just clever enough to have the discussion and begin to negotiate how we would go about putting the protections in place so that people weren't taken advantage of in that situation, and that's well within our power to do that, Madam Speaker. I again come back to the concept that Members of Congress were not willing to take the very insurance that they were requiring the American people to take. When you talk about hubris, that's one of the things I heard over and over again. The bill is too big; nobody knows what's in it. You haven't even read the darn thing and why won't; if it's so darn good, why won't a Member of Congress sign up for it? We heard those same comments over and over and over again. And what did they tell us? It's a big bill. People are frightened of Congress' ability to actually deliver on a bill like this or ability to deliver on a promise like this. And if it is so darn good, then why aren't you willing to step up and take it yourself? And that really distills the arguments that we heard during the month of August. Now, unfortunately, coupled with all of this--and we heard some of the comments in the last hour when the Democrats had the floor--you heard the comment made, Madam Speaker, that it's the right- wing talk radio crowd that's causing the objections to this health care bill, otherwise it would be done. I submit to you the right-wing talk radio crowd is my crowd. They talk to Republicans. But it's only 177 Republicans in the House of Representatives. You have got 258 Democrats. The right-wing talk radio crowd doesn't talk to the 258 Democrats, and you can still lose 39 Democrats and pass almost any bill that you want out of the House. So, please, it is not a Republican that is preventing you from doing this. Recognize what's happening here. It is the fact that you have not sold this bill to the American people. That's what's preventing this from being done. Now, the other unfortunate thing this summer was the Speaker of the House took it upon herself and the majority leader took it upon himself to write a joint op-ed piece for USA Today where they vilified the American people. Well, you know, if you are trying to build a grass- roots consensus for what you are trying to do, for something as big as transforming the delivery of health care in this country, is it really a smart idea to vilify the very people whom you are trying to recruit to help you to do this project? I don't think so. I mean, that's Politics 101. That's one of the first tenets. You don't, you don't, you don't irritate the very people that you are going to be asking to help you pass a bill of this magnitude. I do believe it is possible, that it is reasonable for us to get down and work on some of these things that I have outlined tonight. I suspect there are others out there that people on both sides of the aisle might like to see. These are just mine that came up during my town halls. I would like to see us have some serious discussions on this. I think the American people really do want to see this done in a bipartisan fashion. Now, tomorrow night we are going to have a big speech here in the House. The President will come down; all of our friends from the Senate will be here. We may well have members of the Cabinet here as well to hear what the President is going to say. Will there be something new brought up tomorrow night? I don't know. Will we simply see, hear a rehash of the same things? Will we hear criticisms of Republicans for not working with Democrats on this issue? We might. I would just simply again offer that we don't have the numbers to stop anything; and when I made overtures to the other side early this year, in fact, even during the transition period before the President was sworn in on inauguration day, completely rebuffed by the chairman of my committee, by the President's transition team. No one seemed interested in any Republican input at that point. We have got the votes, we won the election, we can do it all and so we shall. Well, it's August. It was a hot month; things got a little heated at home. And now that we are back here in the fall working on this, perhaps it is time to rethink this. I saw it on one of the Web sites the other day: maybe it's time for the President to hit the reset button. Maybe that's not a bad idea. This is a big, big change in the way things are being handled in America in regards to health care. The benefits in this bill don't go into effect for 3 years' time. There is no rush to do this thing this month. There is time for us to get this right. And, you know, like the old saying goes, if you don't have time to do it right when are you going to find time to do it over? Or as one of my surgery professors used to tell me years ago, this is so important, let's go slowly. We don't have time to be in a hurry. Well, I think those are words that might serve us well as we continue to work on this legislation. We are going to hear from the President tomorrow night. I, for one, am looking forward to what he is going to say. I would welcome the fact that perhaps we can all get back together and work on some of these things. My concept would be on let's keep it a little bit simpler so that we do build some trust back with the American people. Certainly the President enjoys a much higher popularity figure, much higher poll numbers than any of us in the United States House of Representatives have. But, on the other hand, that popularity is waning as well. I think it's important that the American people see that we can work together on this, that we can produce deliverables for the country. And I, for one, would be happy to get on with that work. With that, Madam Speaker, I am going to yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the U.S. House of Representatives Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding one earmark I received as part H.R. 3326, The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010: (1) Institute for Science and Engineering Simulation (ISES), University of North Texas--$6 million--Account: 0602102F Materials-- $4,500,000. ISES at the University of North Texas is currently working closely with the U.S. Air Force to remedy a critical requirement. Due to increased operations as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan during the past 5 yrs, Air Force aircraft are often pushed to perform beyond their intended design criteria: this has created serious concerns for safety of both the aircraft and personnel. The Air Force requires modeling and simulation research of the performance and lifecycles of materials in aircraft in order to extend the life of current military aircraft and to perform testing on future aircraft structures and material. Utilizing state-of-the-art facilities and equipment at the University of North Texas, the research conducted at ISES will be used to predict/identify and reduce the risk of catastrophic failure in aircraft structural components, extend the life of current aircraft and increase the safety of pilots and personnel. University of North Texas is located at Hurley Administration Building 175, Denton, TX 76203-2979.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the U.S. House of Representatives Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding four earmarks I received as part H.R. 3293--Labor--HHS--Education Appropriations Act, 2010: Doctorate in Nurse Anesthesia Practice Initiative, Texas Wesleyan University, Fort Worth, Texas--Department of Health & Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)--Health Facilities and Services--$650,000 This project will support TWU's new doctorate program of nurse anesthesia practice--the second doctoral program of its kind in the United States, and the only program to be offered 100 percent online-- originating from the main campus of Texas Wesleyan University. The objective is to develop a distance learning program that will provide extended education to full-time employed Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists who are located in rural or metropolitan areas of the United States. This project provides education via new technologies, including distance learning methodologies, and addresses the Health People 2010 goal set by HHS to eliminate health disparities. Texas Wesleyan University is located at 1201 Wesleyan Street, Fort Worth, TX 76105. AB Christian Learning Center, Stop Six Community Go Center, Fort Worth ISD and Fort Worth Metropolitan Black Chamber of Commerce-- Department of Education Higher Education (FIPSE)--$175,000 The Stop Six Community Go Center provides a safe environment in which students can explore higher education and career options, financial aid resources, apply for scholarships and receive counseling services to assist in facilitating a seamless transition from high school to college. This funding will help the Go Center hire another academic advisor and a security guard. AB Christian Learning Center is located at 5009 Brentwood Stair Road #101, Fort Worth, TX 76112. City of Fort Worth, Early Childhood Development Program--Department of Health & Human Services Administration for Children and Families (ACF)--Social Services, Early Childhood Matters Initiative--$425,000 The city of Fort Worth, Texas seeks funds to support key projects that will significantly advance the Early Childhood Matters Initiative. Early Childhood Matters, a community initiative led by the city that impacts the entire region, will help coordinate resources and programs to benefit children up to 5 years of age. Training and materials from early childhood resource centers will be used by parents and child care providers. The funds will be used to continue two existing early childhood resource centers and start up two new locations in facilities in high need neighborhoods. Each neighborhood resource center provides training, support, educational materials and leadership development for parents, children, and child care staff. Together, the 4 resource centers will reach 500 parents, 280 child care staff, and 1,200 children under five years old. Each $1 expended for early childhood training will result in savings of $7 per child due to children not being retained a year at school, taking special education classes, or dropping out of school. City of Fort Worth is located at 1000 Throckmorton Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102. Parkland Health and Hospital System (PHHS), Parkland Center for Clinical Innovation, Parkland Hospital, Dallas, Texas--Department of Health & Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)--Health Facilities and Services--$100,000 PHHS proposes to use electronically derived variables to create a model that measures clinical, social, and economic factors that predict patients at-risk for hospitalization, readmission or death in real- time, which would create ``e-coordinated'' clinical and care management interventions for the highest risk patients and serves lives while improving patient services, increasing productivity, and reducing costs. PHHS request will cover the cost of one Data Analyst, one Technical EPIC programmer, and server technology. Parkland Hospital is located at 5201 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas, TX 75235.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the U.S. House of Representatives Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding four earmarks I received as part H.R. 3288, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of FY 2010: Project Name: Alliance Airport, Runway Extension Project--Federal Aviation Administration, Airport Improvement Program, Alliance Airport Runway Extension Program, TX--$750,000 The Runway Extension Project at Alliance Airport in Denton County will lengthen the runways to 11,000 feet and will allow for greater utilization of the airfield and provide greater capacity as a reliever for DFW International Airport. It will also allow for the cargo carriers to safely maximize their loads and not have to compromise fuel, cargo or both. The increased growth of the airfield will provide many jobs and economic activity. The runway extension project has local, regional and national significance and impacts the infrastructure around the airport. In addition to the runway extension the project will open up the west side of the airport for more airside development and improve access to the Alliance Intermodal facility, which has already proven economic growth benefits to the entire North Texas area. With the advantages of a longer runway at Alliance the nation benefits from this premier intermodal industrial facility that can serve the world. Alliance Air Services is located at 2221 Alliance Boulevard, Suite 100, Fort Worth, TX 761774300. Project Name: Grade Separated Railroad Crossing, Town of Northlake, TX--Federal Railroad Administration, Rail line Relocation and Improvement Program--$500,000 The Town of Northlake, TX is requesting these funds to provide grade separation for an east-west crossing of the BNSF railroad for public safety, emergency response and regional mobility. Currently the only grade separated crossings are at SH 114 and US 380, a distance of fifteen miles. The proposed crossing would be approximately halfway between these crossings. The communities of Fort Worth, Justin, DISH and Northlake need an east-west thoroughfare that is not prone to flood and not impeded by the steady flow of freight trains. Trains on this line can block at-grade crossing for up to an hour; crucial minutes when emergency services are needed. Town of Northlake, TX is located at 1301 FM 407 Northlake, TX 76247. Project Name: The Fort Worth Transportation Authority, Southwest-to- Northeast Rail Corridor--Federal Transit Administration, Program, Capital Improvement Grants--$4,000,000 The Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T) is seeking $4,000,000 in federal funding to develop plans for a rail line in the Southwest- to-Northeast Rail Corridor across Tarrant County. Federal funding of this project will continue the advancement of affordable mobility for transit users while continuing to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality. Federal support is crucial to public transit and allows transit authorities across the nation to continue to provide quality public transportation services to meet changing needs of transit passengers. The Fort Worth Transportation Authority is located at 1600 E. Lancaster Avenue, Fort Worth, TX 76102. Project Name: Texas Wesleyan University, Rosedale Avenue Redevelopment Initiative Building Renovations--Department of Housing and Urban Development, Economic Development Initiatives--$250,000 The purpose of this initiative is to fully renovate and revitalize a three-block area in an extremely economically devastated area that surrounds Texas Wesleyan University. Texas Wesleyan University has developed a comprehensive revitalization plan that includes replacing the current buildings on Rosedale Avenue in Fort Worth with attractive commercial buildings and open spaces that will enhance the appearance and improve the safety of this three-block and the Texas Wesleyan community. The City of Fort Worth has designated this area of the city as a Neighborhood Empowerment Zone (NEZ) that signifies the city's desire to encourage rehabilitation and economic growth. This request is the second phase of the Rosedale Plan which calls for renovation and reconstruction of the historic Dillow House, long a part of Texas Wesleyan life through its history as classrooms, housing, offices, and an alumni center. The University will use this facility as the permanent house for its Business Incubation Center sponsored and supported by its School of Business, and also as a meeting place for alumni and community. Additional funding will be used for student housing to be built along Rosedale, which will provide much needed housing for students and their families. Funding will also be used to create green spaces that will provide parks for the community and the University. Texas Wesleyan University (TWU) is located at 1201 Wesleyan Street, Fort Worth, TX 76105.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to speak in support of the Ryan substitute and against the underlying bill, the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2009. The actual name of the underlying bill should be ``how to give cover for spending like a teenager with an unlimited credit card.'' Now, Congress receives a lot of criticism for not reading the bills before we vote on them. This isn't a very heavy list. This bill is 23 pages. You can print it off and have a read through it. In fact, the first two pages are just a list of cosponsors and the table of contents. Then, in the underlying bill, you've got about eight pages of actual regulation. Then the last half of the bill, over 10 pages, are exceptions to this statutory law that the Speaker just described to us--yes, a statutory law. In the statutory law are statutory exceptions. The long list of exceptions in the underlying bill gives the Democrats a talking point of saying they're going to address the wild spending of Congress without actually having to make any choices, not just the hard choices. They don't have to make any choices at all. Now, some of the exceptions are necessary. Some of them are acceptable. We should be concerned about our veterans; we should be concerned about our seniors; we should be concerned about our children. There are exceptions to PAYGO to ensure that our veterans get the health care they need, that the seniors get the long-term care they have earned, that our children are healthy and educated and are not going hungry should be protected and should not be subject to politics. For those Members who grew tired of reading the bill, on the last page of those exceptions, the second to the last third of the sentence are exceptions to PAYGO for TARP. Now, we all remember TARP. It failed last September, and it passed last October under a Democratic Congress, I might add. We're going to validate that vote for TARP today by now elevating TARP to the same level of protection as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, veterans, and child hunger.

Mr. BURGESS. Yesterday, Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General of TARP, testified before a committee that TARP could ultimately cost the American taxpayer $23 trillion. Most of us can't even begin to fathom that number. TARP was authorized by Congress for $700 million. As of yesterday, the cost to the American taxpayer from TARP was $2 trillion, $2 trillion that we don't have and which we borrowed from China and from foreign countries that don't have America's best interests at heart. We gave it to banks that have recently recorded record profits. Goldman Sachs is going to take out $2 billion in bonuses this quarter after taking nearly $10 billion of the TARP money. Mr. Speaker, they don't need to be protected in this PAYGO statute. In the past few weeks, I've been involved in the greatest debate of my elected career. I've been working on a commonsense approach to health care to lower costs and to reform medical liability laws in this country. We've spent exactly 1\1/2\ days marking that bill up in my committee. The health care bill has been scored to cost $2.3 trillion, and that's about what we've given TARP, $2 trillion.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, this weekend, I received a communication from a constituent at home who brought to my attention a political cartoon that ran in the Chicago Tribune 75 years ago in 1934. It is often said that history doesn't repeat itself, but if you listen closely enough, it will rhyme. Or said another way, those who do not recall their history are doomed to repeat it. The constituent who sent this to me is a retired FBI agent. He wrote in his e-mail, ``change the names and the situation looks very familiar.'' Saul Alinsky, the leader of community organizers in Chicago, would be pleased with the current situation. When you look at the caption, spend, spend, spend under the guise of recovery, bust the budget, blame the capitalists for failure, junk the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, this was apropos 75 years ago. It may well be apropos again today.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the U.S. House of Representatives Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding two earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3183--Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010: The Richland Hills, Texas Flood Control Project. Big Fossil Creek Watershed Study, Project Management Plan of the Upper Trinity River Feasibility Study. Richland Hills, Texas--$500,000--Investigations. The purpose of this project is to review the numerous flooding, drainage, erosion and sedimentation problems that exist within the City of Richland Hills, TX, and formulate specific alternatives to address and remedy these, and related water-resources problems. The Corps of Engineers published initial findings and baseline conditions in August 2007. The Richland Hills project would be prepared within the context of the referenced Corps of Engineers/North Central Texas Council of Governments Big Fossil Creek Watershed Study and Upper Trinity River Feasibility Study, to include the impacts from upstream watershed development and erosion. The purpose of this project is to reduce the flooding potential for the 361 properties in the City of Richland Hills that are within the FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain; reduce sedimentation, enhance the environment and potential recreational benefits to the area, and reduce potential loss of life from floods. The total project cost is projected to be $1,500,000. The City of Richland Hills and eight other communities have committed additional funds. The City of Richland Hills is located at 3200 Diana Drive, Richland Hills, TX 76118. Center for Advanced Scientific Modeling (CASCaM)--$700,000-- University of North Texas. The funds will be used for computing and modeling to conduct and predict advanced scientific laboratory outcomes at reduced cost and increased safety. CASCaM uses computing and modeling to conduct and predict advanced scientific laboratory outcomes at reduced cost (chemicals, time) and increased safety (reduces need to expose workers to toxic chemicals, radioactive materials). This scientific computing allows determination of the probability of whether or not two chemicals will explode, become a viable pharmaceutical, the next new nanomaterial, or tomorrow's new alternate fuel source. University of North Texas is located at Hurley Administration Building 175, Denton, TX 76203-0979.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Children's Advocacy Center for Denton County on the completion and ribbon cutting of its new facility in Lewisville, Texas. After providing justice and healing for abused children in North Texas for over 10 years, the CACDC will now be able to open its doors to more families and children in need. What began in 1994 as a task force is now a symbol of hope for abused children and their families in Denton County. The brand new 14,000 square foot facility will allow the CACDC to better serve a growing community. Prior to the formation of the CACDC, there was no adequate facility to care for the victims of child abuse cases. Children often underwent questioning in frightening environments by investigators who were not trained to work with child abuse victims. Today, the CACDC provides resources to child abuse victims and their families, hosts a comfortable environment to counsel abused children, and fights to ensure that abusers are prosecuted. The Center works hard to give children the care and encouragement they need to move past the trauma of abuse. I am proud of the noble and devoted community leaders, such as the CACDC volunteer board of directors, Executive Director Dan Leal, and countless others who have helped grow the Center into the safe haven it is today. I am honored to represent the people of the Children's Advocacy Center for Denton County in the 26th District of Texas, and I offer them my congratulations, and endless appreciation.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, you know we have a problem today in that many patients who are enrolled in Medicaid really face a tough time finding a doctor who will accept their coverage. A recent article in my hometown paper, The Dallas Morning News, highlighted the troubles of a young girl in north Texas covered by Medicaid. She couldn't find a doctor to treat her, stating that because of the lack of Medicaid doctors, ``Medicaid patients often grow sicker while hunting for a doctor.'' We have an obligation to ensure that Americans covered under Medicaid, who also happen to be some of our poorest and neediest patients, children and American pregnant women, can see the doctor they need to see when they need to see them. Expanding the number of Americans who qualify for Medicaid without first making certain that there are enough doctors to see those Medicaid patients is irresponsible and is a disservice to these individuals. To avoid this crisis, I propose that the Federal Government undertake the changes necessary to address the barriers of access to a doctor for any government program. Throwing more Americans onto the rolls of government-run health care without first ensuring that there will be a doctor to see them is wrong. Coverage should equal access to a doctor and must be part of the national health care debate. I encourage the people to go to my Web site, www.healthcaucus.org.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, ``Are we running out of doctors'' was a question posed by the Texas Medical Association last year. The United States population continues to grow and there is concern that there may not be enough physicians to care for Americans. If we do nothing to assist the training of new physicians, waiting lines will grow longer, lapses in treatment will occur, and many of our smaller and rural communities will be at risk of not having physicians. What is the prescription? Helping doctors as they enter training in medical school and continuing assistance throughout their residency in high-need specialties and medically-underserved areas to make certain that when you need help, your doctor is in. Two bills, H.R. 914 and H.R. 916, bipartisan bills to help offer incentives for physicians to practice in rural and underserved areas of the country, will help to ensure that health care coverage actually equals access to a doctor for all Americans. All of the recent discussion on health care reform has been on cost and coverage, but it matters not if there are not enough doctors for America's patients. Ensuring that our Nation has a strong physician workforce is critical and must be part of this national health care debate. For more information, please visit my Website, healthcaucus.org.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Let me reclaim the time briefly. I appreciate the ranking member taking the time out of his evening and spending some time with us. There are a number of Web sites where people can go and sign online petitions. Americasolutions.com has a petition, galen.org has a petition, another group called Let Freedom Ring actually has a downloadable responsible health care pledge where you ask your Member of Congress or Senator to have at least read the bill in its entirety and have the bill available for 72 hours on a Web site so the public can view this bill prior to a vote being taken in the House of Representatives. He has been very patient. He is a new Member. And he is probably more patient than I deserve him to be, but Dr. Fleming is from my neighboring State of Louisiana. He is one of two new Louisiana doctors who have joined the Republican Caucus. I want to thank him for his time tonight. He has a very interesting proposition that he wanted to share with us. So I yield whatever time he may consume, bearing in mind we have 15 minutes left of the hour.

Mr. BURGESS. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. BURGESS. I also would thank the gentleman from Louisiana. I would also point out that in the last Congress I introduced a bill that would remove Members of Congress from the Federal employee health benefit plan and give them a $3,000 voucher to go out into the individual market and purchase insurance, figuring that if we became uninsured it would make us more creative about seeking solutions for people who seek this problem. I did not get any cosponsors. I did offer it to then-Senator Obama through his surrogates at several points, but I never got any takers. I also prepared an amendment, when we do get our bill in committee, and I have hesitated on this, because I don't want my more conservative friends getting angry at me for expanding an entitlement, but I have prepared an amendment that would make Medicaid available to every Member of Congress. In fact, to make Congress a mandatory population to be covered under Medicaid, so that again we could experience for ourselves firsthand the frustration that patients find when they go to find a Medicaid provider, because in many States, my home State of Texas, Medicare reimburses poorly, Medicaid reimburses abysmally. And it's very, very difficult to find a provider on Medicaid. But I think the gentleman is on the right track, and I thank them for bringing that to us this evening. I would like to take a few minutes. We have two doctors from Georgia, two from Louisiana. I was only able to attract one doctor from Texas, which is me, but I do have a Texas judge. I yield to him if he has a few comments to make on the subject of the evening.

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman from Texas for his valuable insight. It brings up a valid point, Mr. Speaker, and the American people are going to be asked to undergo significant change in the way they receive their health care. Yes, it may be change they voted for in November. Yes, it may be change they can believe in, but I don't know that it's necessarily going to be change they like. So I do, Mr. Speaker, if I could, I know I must address my comments to the Chair and not to the public at large, but, Mr. Speaker, if I could address the public at large, I would tell them they need to be very, very skeptical of what this body is doing, typically in the middle of the night, without much scrutiny and without much study of these bills and processes as they go through. The individual Members of Congress do need to hear from their constituents on this issue. It's too important, too important for the American people to remain silent. There are Web sites out there where there are petitions that may be signed, AmericanSolutions.com, galen.org are two that I know have petitions up. This one that I was recently made aware of, Let Freedom Ring, which has a responsible health care pledge that they have posted online. These are very worthwhile efforts that the American people can undertake and make certain that their representatives know how they want it to be, how they want to be represented. And it is, I think, people got the message on cap-and-trade but they got the message a little late. We may, in fact, have been able to turn that vote had we been able to have one additional half day of debate on that topic. Let me now turn to the doctor from Georgia, who we heard from briefly earlier. He may have some wrap-up comments that he wants to offer the body.

Mr. BURGESS. We had, of course, a meeting of our committee this afternoon where we talked about amendments. We thought we had 3 or 4 days, which, in fact, seemed pitifully short in that context. I know our office had submitted 50 amendments. I think I saw a list of almost 200 amendments that was being discussed. There is no way in the 10 to 12 hours that will be available to us to debate that bill to allow Members on our side, let alone if any Members on the majority have ideas about how the bill might be improved. It is a virtual guarantee that only a very limited number of voices are going to be heard, if any, to try to improve that bill in the time that we have allotted to us. I will yield back to the ranking member.

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for his quick summation of that. We've also been joined this evening, very fortunately, by the ranking Republican on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, one of the true leaders on our side on this issue who as I started this hour, I said, Here we are on the literal eve of the markup of this bill without a bill; and apparently the ranking member has some new information about when we might expect that bill and what we might find contained therein. So I'll yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Barton from Texas.

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the doctor for coming down and participating. It may be late on the East coast but it's early on the West Coast, and he has a perfect point to make--that your voices must be heard. Again, the Webcast of the Doctors Caucus meeting over at George Washington earlier this week. The open forum that was held on health care, The Web site www.healthcaucus.org has an archive of that. Additionally, there are many, many interviews with other thought leaders and headline-makers in health care that have been accumulated on this site in the last 6 months. I do encourage, Mr. Speaker, people to consider going. Americansolutions.com has a petition, galen.org has a petition; and there is the Let Freedom Ring group that is available on your search engine that also has a petition. I would encourage people to weigh in with that. Don't discount calling the Speaker's office. You can find that at www.speaker.gov, hit the ``Contact Us'' button and find the number to call into the Speaker's office to weigh in on this important issue. And finally your calls and faxes, Mr. Speaker, that constituents will make to their individual Member's office are going to be extremely important in this endeavor. I hear all the time from people back home, What can we do to help you? Now is the time. You need to make your voices heard on this very important issue. Whichever side you may reside, wherever your feelings lie on this, you need to make your feelings known to your Member of Congress. The time for that action is now. The markup starts next week. We will vote this out of the House of Representatives by the end of the month. Don't ask me why we have that arbitrary, condensed timeline, but that's what we've been given by the Speaker of the House. So now is the time to make your voices heard on this very, very important matter. As the ranking member of the committee said, this is the ``one-if-by-land, two-if-by-sea'' moment. The American people need to make their voices heard on this very critical matter, which will affect not only their future, their children's future and their grandchildren's future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the time.

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for his insight. I thank him for the passion that he has brought to this. I wonder if, just very briefly, I could go back to the gentleman from Arizona on the issue that he brought up in an earlier speech he gave on the House floor which wasn't part of this hour. I want to be certain that we have it for the DVD that's prepared, Mr. Speaker, if we were to prepare a DVD of this transaction. But you have talked about an advisory panel or an advisory board. Health care czar is a term we've heard, commissioner or commissar of health care, putting someone in there to make a decision for us. I wonder if you would briefly expound upon that again so we could have that as part of the Congressional Record of this discussion.

Mr. BURGESS. That is a very valid point brought up by the gentleman. I want to now go to our other doctor from Georgia, a fellow obstetrician, Dr. Gingrey, who was actually the leader in bringing the Doctors Caucus together for that rather spirited and insightful afternoon down at George Washington earlier this week. I will yield him the floor for whatever time he will consume.

Mr. BURGESS. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. BURGESS. Reclaiming my time briefly, for a mandate to work, there has to be a broad recognition that the mandate exists and there has to be a broad understanding of the penalty involved, and the penalty administered must be significant. If we look at the number of the rate of insured in this country, it's about 85 percent of people voluntarily carrying health insurance and 15 percent do not. Well, where is a model for that broad recognition that there is a requirement that you do something and a very swift and severe penalty if you don't? Certainly the IRS fits that bill. Everyone knows in this country you must pay your income taxes, that you must file on time or face a swift and sure penalty. And I'm not even entirely sure what the penalties are, but I do know I don't ever want to experience those penalties. And what do we see with compliance rates with the IRS in this country? We see 85 percent comply and 15 percent do not. In other words, it is unchanged from the voluntary compliance that we have under health insurance. Mandates are an anathema in a free society. Rather than trying to create the mandates and requiring people to do something that they are disinclined to do, what if we tried to build programs that would attract people just as we did with the part D part of Medicare where Dr. McClellan, to his credit, created the protected classes of drugs, created the programs that people actually wanted, and what do we have now? We have 92 percent of seniors with credible drug coverage, satisfaction rates in excess of 90 percent. So that's a success story from a government program that actually worked because the emphasis was put on delivering value to the customer, value to the patient in this case, value to the Medicare recipient in this case, rather than just simply you do what we tell you to do because we can. We are a free society, after all.

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the Speaker. I also want to thank the minority leader and the leadership on the minority side for providing this hour for us to talk in some detail about health care and what is pending before this Congress over the next 3 weeks. Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that as we sit here on the literal eve of the markup of this bill in the Committees of Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and the Workforce, all beginning next week when we return from our districts, as we sit here on the eve of that markup, there is no House bill. And it makes it very, very difficult. We're told, if you have amendments, let's get them all together because we want to have a good look at them before we start the markup. How do you amend a bill that you haven't seen yet? Well, that's the task that's before many of us on the committee and that's where we have been placing our efforts during this past week, but it is a task made much more difficult. Mr. Speaker, I will just tell you, as someone who was involved in the campaigns last fall, I was a surrogate for Senator McCain. It meant that I went all over the country debating health care with surrogates for President Obama. It seemed a virtual lock that there would be a presidential directive for a health care bill that would come shortly after the election, and certainly by Inauguration Day. In fact, Senator Baucus convened a great group over at the Library of Congress at the end of last October and produced a white paper that for all the world looked like a blueprint for a plan for a health care bill. Election Day came and went, President Obama won, no health care bill. We had the holidays, Christmas, New Years, no health care bill. The Inauguration, all the festivities that took over Washington, but no health care bill. And here we are, the week after the July 4 recess, still waiting for that bill. What happened to the promises on the campaign trail last fall? Were they really that ephemeral that they could not be condensed into legislative language and produced for the House floor? Well, that's where we find ourselves. Now, in March of this year, the President did convene a group of us down at the White House. He spoke very eloquently. He said the words you've already heard spoken on the floor of this House tonight, If you like what you have, you can keep it. Let me emphasize that, he repeated it, If you like what you have, you can keep it. And of course he says if you like what you have you can keep it because polls show anywhere between 60 to 80 percent of Americans like what they have and want to keep it; 160 million Americans receive their health care through employer-sponsored insurance, another 10-15 million through individual insurance policies, and they like what they have and they want to keep it. In fact, their greatest fear is that something will happen to their employment or their ability to make those premium payments, and they will lose what they have because they like what they have and they want to keep it. But the second thing the President said was, The only thing I will not accept out of this Congress is the status quo. But wait a minute. If you like what you have, you can keep it would imply if you like what you have, you can keep it. How do you do that? How do you keep what you have and not accept the status quo? And therein is the quandary that has been presented to the other side, and that is what has taken the incredible length of time. Now, coupled with that are the beginnings of some bills began to leak out of the Senate side at the end of June. We got into the issue of cost and coverage. And the initial reports that came out of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions was a price tag of $1 trillion. That wasn't the whole bill because we hadn't quite figured out all the Medicaid parts, but $1 trillion for the opening salvo, and it would cover about a third of the reported uninsured. Well, that's not a great bargain. That's not great value for your dollar. The Senate Finance Committee came up with another bill. Another score was given to that bill, and the cost was over $1.5 trillion. And they immediately went back and started to rework the bill to bring that price down to at least $1 trillion. That appears to be now the new high-water mark for health care legislation. The House bill, as scored through the Committee on Ways and Means just this week, also scored at $1.5 trillion. No word, no word on the number of people that would be covered. If you like what you have, you can keep it right up until the time we tell you that you can't. And that apparently is the game plan, is the mission statement for the health care bill that will be brought to us from the Democratic majority. Mr. Speaker, I'm joined by a number of other people who wish to speak on this very important topic, and I do want to give everyone the appropriate amount of time. Just one housekeeping detail, the Congressional Doctors Caucus had an open forum during this past week down at George Washington University. Different from the White House infomercial on health care, this was an open forum. It was open to anyone who could come in and question Members of Congress who also happened to be physicians. It turned out all of us who were Republicans who showed up, but they could come and question the Republican House physicians on the issues related to what is going on with changes in the health care system. And we had a very lively hour and 45 minutes, a number of questions that were delivered by the staff and faculty there at George Washington and a number of questions that just came from the audience. But it was a lively hour. The event was Webcast live at the time that it was carried out, and that Webcast has been archived and is available on the Congressional Health Care Caucus Web site. That's www.healthcaucus.org. Go to the appropriate tab for archived events, and the George Washington health care event has been archived on that Web site. Well, again, we are joined by many Members of Congress. People are eager to speak about this. Goodness knows we're not going to get a chance to have a legislative hearing in our committee. But let us begin this evening, and we are going to hear from one of the doctors who was there at the forum at George Washington, an orthopedist from the great State of Georgia, a member of G-7, Dr. Tom Price.