Paul Broun

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Well, you're exactly right, Dr. Gingrey. Thanks for bringing that up. With ObamaCare, the States are going to have to cut more. In fact, we already see first responders--fire departments, police departments-- being cut in their funding. In State after State, there are educational funding cuts across the board. In our own home State of Georgia, they have had to markedly cut the educational budget because of all of these mandates that are put on them by the Federal Government and because of the requirement by the State constitutionally to have a balanced budget. I introduced a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution here in Congress; and, hopefully, we are going to do that, too. It has been part of our pledge to America, and I will continue to fight for a balanced budget. I think the Federal Government also needs to live within its own means. Just on the Medicaid expansion, we should just do block grants back to the States and let them be the laboratory of public policy, as our Founding Fathers talked about and believed in very firmly--and I believe in those same things--for Medicaid as well as for SCHIP. In Georgia, we call it PeachCare. If we send those dollars back to the States, don't tie any strings to them and let the States utilize those funds in whatever way best suits their State budgets and their State needs, we will be a whole lot better off. The States will be better off. The Federal Government will be better off. The taxpayers will be better off. The Medicaid recipients will be better off. We will actually be able to cover more patients. So, back again, the Republican Party is the party of K-N-O-W. We know how to solve these problems and we're going to try to do that the next time. I yield back.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Thank you, Dr. Gingrey. I just wanted to mention the employer mandate. An employer is mandated to provide coverage for their employees. They have a lot of mandates. And those employer mandates are going to mean that people are going to lose their jobs. Dr. Fleming and I talked a little bit ago about how employers are scared. I've got a lady who runs a small business. She has eight employees. She desperately needs to hire another one or two, but because of the employer mandates of ObamaCare, she's not going to hire anybody. She's just going to try to struggle along herself and is not going to expand her business. She could hire two new people, and the employer mandate is going to prevent these two people who need jobs today from going to work for this small business. I already mentioned the guy who wants to do a $31 million expansion. He's not going to do that, not going to hire the 100 or so new employees that he would hire because he's afraid of ObamaCare and the employer mandates. One other thing--and then I will yield back to Dr. Gingrey--is that, to kind of go along with these cuts to Medicare, in the stimulus bill a lot of Americans don't realize that they put in something called ``comparative effectiveness research.'' In medicine, we compare the effectiveness of one treatment versus another. Breast cancer, is it just taking a tumor out? Is it giving chemotherapy? Is it radiation therapy? Is it a combination of all this? That's not what this is all about. It's to compare the effectiveness of spending a dollar. And it's age related, which means that those people on Medicare, comparative effectiveness is just going to mean that they're just not going to get the care. And I yield back.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Thank you, Dr. Gingrey. Let's go ahead and jump into some of the key components and some of the things that we can do. What I would like to focus on is your No. 3 bullet point on your chart there: Medicaid expansion. The Medicaid expansion of ObamaCare is going to break the budgets of States, which are already suffering, because it is going to drastically increase the people in this country who are going to qualify for Medicaid. Again, the Republican Party is the party of ``know,'' K-N-O-W, because we know how to deal with this in a better manner. In fact, as the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, knows, I've been trying to get on the Energy and Commerce Committee. One thing that I will do--and I know that there are others who are on the committee today who will--is push for dealing with Medicaid in a block grant to the States. Let's just send the Medicaid money, with no strings attached, to the States. Let the States, which is what our Founding Fathers believed to be the best laboratory of public policy, figure out the best way to deal with people who desperately need Medicaid or State Child Health Insurance Programs. Let's send those back to the States, as they should be. Even under the Constitution, those functions should be dealt with by the States, not by the Federal Government. Let's let the States have the money so that they can deal with this and find the best solution instead of our generating all the policy, the regulations and all the things that drive up the cost. The Medicaid expansion that ObamaCare has put in place is literally going to break the bank in State, after State, after State.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Absolutely. In fact, I was going to do that. I appreciate my colleague, Dr. Gingrey, for reminding me. I have a poster here with these four commonsense solutions. And actually I introduced the bill when my Democratic colleagues wouldn't take up my offer to introduce it after ObamaCare was actually passed into law. I introduced the bill that does actually five things. It repeals ObamaCare and puts in place these four commonsense solutions. It's not a comprehensive bill because it doesn't really deal with Medicare and the problems that we have with that or Medicaid, and we'll mention that in a minute or two. But the four things are to allow all individuals to deduct 100 percent of their health care costs--including the cost of the insurance--off the income taxes. This in itself would change the dynamics of health care for everybody in this country. In fact, this eventually would take care of the problems that we as physicians have with managed care because it would put patients in control of their health care decisions but allow everybody to deduct all their health care costs. Second thing it would do is it would strengthen and expand new avenues for affordable health care for sick Americans through high-risk pools that are set up on a Statewide basis. There are several States like Colorado that have already done this very successfully. Multiple States have already done so. We would stimulate that. The third thing it would do, as the chart right here says, it would expand choice and competition by allowing consumers to shop for health care insurance across State lines. Now, I'm an original intent Constitutionalist. The Commerce Clause is one of the clauses that's been perverted so much to allow the great expansion of the size and scope of government. The Commerce Clause is actually supposed to expand commerce, not to control it. And it is to allow people to shop for all goods and services across State lines. So by the original intent of the Commerce Clause, we're just doing exactly the opposite. And when States lock up the insurance pools just within their State borders, they're actually doing an unconstitutional control of commerce. And the fourth thing: Just create association pools so anybody in this country could join a huge pool. And this would allow people to buy insurance at a much lower cost than they have today. And it would actually allow people who not only cannot afford to buy health insurance but those people who have preexisting conditions to be in association pools so that they actually could buy health insurance at an affordable rate. And these four commonsense solutions have been introduced--I introduced the bill--to repeal ObamaCare and to do these four things. And I'll be introducing this same bill in the next Congress. The bottom line is the Republicans are the party of k-n-o-w. We know how to lower the costs of health care. We, as physicians, have been dealing with all of these problems like our patients--particularly us, like Dr. Fleming and I in family medicine, we deal with the insurance company. We try to find our patients good, quality care at the lowest price, which includes trying to find them insurance, medicines, all health care products at the lowest prices--it's what we do as family doctors. And it's something I've been dealing with for almost four decades of practicing medicine. And it's something that the American people desperately need. ObamaCare is going to--the experts tell us--is going to put 5\1/2\ million people out of work. Dr. Fleming talked about the uncertainty it creates in employers. I hear that all the time. I've got a small businessman that wants to do a $31 million expansion of his business in my district, but he's scared to and he's not going to because, Dr. Fleming--he doesn't have the problem with the banks because he has $31 million in the bank right now, cash money. So he doesn't have to go to the bank to get the money. But he's scared of those taxes. He's scared of the energy tax, particularly. That scares the willies out of small businessmen and women in my district. He's very frightened about ObamaCare. So we must repeal ObamaCare and replace it with some commonsense solutions.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Thank you, Dr. Gingrey for yielding. In fact, this first bullet about 100 percent deductibility will solve the problem with portability. Right now, 85 percent of America gets their health insurance through their employer. It is because employers can deduct the cost of their health insurance that they provide to their employees as a regular business expense, and the employee can get that money as a nontaxable benefit. But if we make it 100 percent deductible for everybody, then the employer can give that money in increased wages to the employee. It is still a deductible amount. It won't cost the employer any more money out of their bottom line, but they can give it to the employee, and then the employee can take those dollars and instead of having to be saddled with whatever insurance policy that the employer provides for them, the employee can go buy the insurance wherever they want with whatever kind of coverage that they want. In fact, Dr. Gingrey brought up something about the mandates that the States have put on. My friend, Neal Boortz, who has a radio program that is syndicated all over this country, keeps talking about him and his wife, who are beyond the age of having any babies, have to buy maternity coverage. There are insurance policies that mandate that people have to pay for sex change operations or hair transplants and a whole lot of other things. Everybody in that pool has to pay, whether they want a sex change operation or hair transplant or maternity benefits, and that drives the cost up for everybody. The across-State- lines purchasing and the association pools will help stop that. We have managed care today because the employers want to have some finite amount of money for their own budgeting process so they know what they are dealing with in their business so they go and buy managed care policies for their employees so they have some finite number, and it is not just a blank check. That makes sense from a business perspective, but it doesn't make sense for a lot of the employees who want to be able to choose their doctor and they want to be able to go to the hospital that they desire. They don't want to be dictated to about what kind of coverage that they can have. And the first point where everybody has 100 percent deductibility of all expenses will take care of the portability problems. It will empower the patient and the doctor to be able to make the best decisions for their patient. Those things are just commonsense solutions.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I greatly appreciate you yielding, and I appreciate you doing this tonight so that we can inform the American public about how bad this bill is and what the Republicans are going to try to do in this next Congress. We heard all during the discussion on ObamaCare as well as through the last two Congresses since I've been here--I'm finishing up my second term--that Republicans are the party of ``no.'' We are the party of k-n-o-w because we know how to lower the costs of health care. And we can do it in a bipartisan manner. And in fact, during the discussions about ObamaCare, I challenged individual Democrats to introduce a bill, that I would give them the legislative language, all they had to do was write their name in a blank, introduce it, and it would be a Democratic bill. They could call it ObamaCare. And I was told by Democrats over and over again that this makes a whole lot more sense, Paul, what you're proposing here than this ObamaCare bill that we dealt with here in the House, the Pelosi original bill, and the one we finally passed that came from the Senate. And in fact, two colleagues on our side, Republicans John Shadegg from Arizona and Congressman Charlie Dent from Pennsylvania, and I wrote an op-ed that was published in The Washington Times newspaper challenging Democrats to introduce the bill. And it would do four things, commonsense solutions, that I told the Democrats individually if they would introduce the bill, it could be their bill, a Democratic bill; they could take credit for it. I'm concerned about policy, not whose name's on the bill. And they could take credit for it.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Yes, I will. If you would call attention to that poster because I think that our colleagues need to focus in on that.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support S. 3987, the Red Flag Program Clarification Act of 2010, which will remove a regulatory burden that our nation's small businesses are facing. I would like to thank Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus for bringing this bill to the floor, and I thank the Committee staff for their hard work. In November of 2007, the Federal Trade Commission issued a regulation, known as the ``Red Flags'' rule, as required by section 114 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act of 2003. Red Flags required financial regulatory agencies, including the FTC, to craft rules requiring financial institutions and creditors to implement programs to detect and respond to patterns, practices, or specific activities--in other words, ``Red Flags''--that could lead to potential identity theft. The FTC broadly interpreted ``creditors'' to include any business that allows clients to establish a payment plan in exchange for their services rendered, sweeping in many businesses that do not operate as a creditor in the general understanding of the term, such as dentists, doctors, veterinarians, lawyers, accountants, and many other health care providers that offer their clients payment plans. Congress did not intend to have the Red Flags rule cover these types of small businesses when it passed the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act of 2003. Because of the uncertainty as to the definition of a creditor and subsequent law suits filed against the FTC, the FTC delayed enforcement of the Red Flags Rule multiple times since its original implementation date of January 1, 2008. The Rule is now scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2011, and if it does, it could require small businesses to undertake costly and burdensome measures to prevent identity theft in industries that pose little threat. This legislation will eliminate the need to request another enforcement delay. It also clarifies who must comply with the Red Flags Rule as those creditors that use consumer reports, furnish information to consumer reporting agencies, and other creditors that loan money. Should it become apparent that there are industries that present a reasonably foreseeable risk of identity theft, the FTC will have the authority to issue a rule open for public comment that shows the industry should comply with the Reds Flag rule. This legislation has broad bipartisan support. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent last week, and similar legislation I cosponsored passed the House last fall on the Suspension calendar with a 400-0 vote. It is supported by over 30 medical associations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In its initial regulatory analysis, the FTC estimated that the proposed Red Flags regulation would cover approximately 11.1 million entities ``across almost every industry,'' ninety percent of which were expected to qualify as small businesses. At a time when we are experiencing record high unemployment, Congress needs to provide our nation's job creators relief from unnecessary regulations. This legislation will do just that. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, so that we can ease the regulatory burden on those industries that were not supposed to be covered by the Red Flags rule.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'm a medical doctor, and I have spent almost four decades of practicing medicine concerned about child nutrition and about the health of my patients. Doctors do that as family practitioners and pediatricians all over this country, all over the world. But this act is not about child nutrition. It's not about healthy kids. It's really about an expansion of the Federal Government. And it's an interference in the school system, so much so that the American Association of School Administrators, the Council of Great City Schools, and the National School Boards Association all oppose this act. This is not about child nutrition. This is about more government control. This is not about healthy children. It's about borrowing more money and putting our children in greater debt. It's not about creating a better environment for children in the schools. It's about more and more control from Washington, DC. And we have just got to stop that. The American people are acting very strongly against the agenda that this Congress and this President has shown them in the last 2 years. We saw that on November 2. We have got to stop the spending. This is a $4.5 billion bill, and the pay-for that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have put into place is a farce. It's a lie, and it is borrowing more from our children. This kind of idiocy has to stop. It includes a lot of Federal mandates. It is going to be extremely costly. And it does things such as create new programs like an organic food plot. Now, I eat organic food. I like the taste of free range chicken and free range beef and organic foods, but we don't need the Federal Government to promote this kind of stuff. It's crazy. It also spends taxpayer dollars to federalize nutrition standards. I am one who believes in proper nutrition. I have talked to my patients for years and years about proper nutrition, eating properly, taking care of their diabetes and their hypertension and their hyperlipidemias and things like that through nutritional means above even prescribing medication. But the Federal Government has no business setting nutritional standards and telling families what they should and shouldn't eat. This bill contains a lot of hidden costs, hidden costs that are going to wind up being billions of dollars of more Federal spending. And it contains mandates on the States.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. It does give extra mandates on the States, and the States are already overburdened and suffering financially. Republicans have an alternative to support child nutrition without growing government, but we are not able to bring those things to the floor. Hopefully in the next Congress, we will be able to. We are extremely concerned about the nutrition of our children, and of adults. I, as a physician, have been spending most of my adult life talking about nutrition and health, but this bill is not that. This bill is a nutrition bill for a bigger government, greater spending, and it must stop. I encourage my colleagues to vote against this bill. It is disastrous.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the exceptional partnership that has thrived for 57 years between the community of Athens-Clarke County, Georgia, and the Navy Supply Corps School (NSCS). For more than half a century, America's Supply Corps officers have viewed Athens as the birthplace of their careers. Before the school cast anchor in the southern college town of Athens, the institution resided in numerous locations, including Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, and Harvard University. On June 4, 1953, the United States Navy purchased 58 acres of land in the Oglethorpe Historic District of Athens. The beautiful property held a rich history of education. Dating back to the 1860's, the property served as campus to Georgia University High School, the Confederate Military School, the School for Disabled Confederate Veterans, the University of Georgia's College of Agriculture and Mechanical Arts, the State Normal School, and Coordinate College. Its legacy of education continued with the commissioning of the Navy Supply Corps School on January 15, 1954. The Athens community had established a rapport with the U.S. Navy prior to the school's arrival. During World War II, Athens was home to one of only five naval preflight schools in the nation. For the past 57 years, the residents of Athens-Clarke County have enjoyed a wonderful relationship with NSCS. They have also benefitted from the quality of students who studied there and retired officers who have settled in the Athens area. Since 1954, NSCS has launched more than 89,000 officers into successful careers, and on October 29, 2010, approximately 81 more officers will graduate, the final class to complete their studies in Athens. This storied institution has remained in ``The Classic City'' longer than any other location, making Athens truly the ``Cradle of the Supply Corps.'' As the Navy Supply Corps School prepares to set sail for a new facility in Newport, Rhode Island, the Athens campus will continue in its heritage of higher learning by serving as home to the University of Georgia and Georgia Health Sciences University's new medical school. Madam Speaker, I honor the Navy Supply Corps School for the tremendous service it has provided, not only to the community, but for the entire nation. I applaud the exceptional partnership that has existed over the last 57 years among the Navy school and Athens-Clarke County, Georgia.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 553, as amended by the Senate. This bill was agreed to by voice vote in the House on February 3, 2009, and on September 27, 2010, the bill passed the Senate with an amendment by unanimous consent. The 9/11 Commission concluded that security requirements nurtured overclassification and excessive compartmentalization of information among government agencies. This stovepiping, so-to-speak, interferes with accurate, accountable, and timely information sharing, not only among Federal agencies, but also with State and local law enforcement. H.R. 553 focuses on reducing the overclassification of information at the Department of Homeland Security and enhances understanding of the classification system by State, local, tribal, and private-sector partners. The bill directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, DHS, operating through the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, to identify and designate a classified information advisory officer. The advisory officer will assist State, local, tribal, and private-sector partners who have responsibility for the security of critical infrastructure in matters related to classified materials. Additionally, the office is charged with developing educational materials and training programs to assist these authorities in developing policies to respond to requests related to classified information. The bill also requires the head of each Federal department or agency with classification authority to share intelligence products with interagency threat assessment and coordination groups and allows them in turn to recommend to the DHS Under Secretary For Intelligence and Analysis to disseminate that product to the appropriate State, local, or tribal entities. This will be critical in directing actionable intelligence into the hands of those who need it the most. H.R. 553 also aims at strengthening the responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence with respect to information sharing government-wide and reinforces the authority of DNI to have maximum access to all information within the intelligence community. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I congratulate Ms. Harman on this great bill that I wholeheartedly support, and I look forward to seeing it signed into law by the President, I hope very soon, just like Ms. Harman does. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to congratulate Ms. Harman. She and I worked together. We both have a strong interest in having a strong intelligence community, and I think both of us will agree that our intelligence community needs some help. But we have seen this overclassification of documents that has gotten to be a tremendous problem. Ms. Harman has brought forth this piece of legislation that is going to help simplify the process and help our Federal Government to share information with the State, local, and tribal entities, as well as the private sector, so that they can have this information that they desperately need to be able to ensure security. As an original-intent Constitutionalist, I believe that the major function of the Federal Government should be national security, national defense. We in Congress I think have overlooked that duty in many regards. I applaud Ms. Harman, Mr. Speaker, for her diligence in the area of intelligence and national security, and I greatly applaud her for this much-needed bill. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3980 as amended by the Senate. This bill was passed by the House on December 2, 2009, by a vote of 414-0. On September 22, 2010, the bill passed the Senate, with an amendment, by unanimous consent. H.R. 3980 requires the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, to identify and eliminate any redundant requirements that place an undue burden on State and local governments to receive grant funds under the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Urban Area Security Initiative, and other programs as determined by the FEMA administrator. This bill will help address the issue of grant recipients oftentimes having to report similar information under numerous grant programs. In addition, H.R. 3980 builds on the requirements in the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 and the 9/11 Act of 2007 by requiring FEMA to develop and implement performance measures for these vital programs and to report to Congress every 2 years on the status of these efforts. The Post-Katrina Reform Act and the 9/11 Act both required FEMA to develop metrics to identify and close gaps in preparedness. Unfortunately, several years later, FEMA continues to struggle with integrating these requirements to produce meaningful results. This bill also calls on FEMA to conduct an overall assessment of the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Urban Area Security Initiatives, and other grants specified by the administrator. Together, these requirements will help ensure that Congress is kept informed of FEMA's progress in effectively administering these grants and addressing any deficiencies that may exist. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I congratulate my good friend and colleague from Texas for the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. King. I appreciate your leading, and I appreciate your leadership not only on this issue but on many others. The American people just say where are the jobs, and these illegal aliens here in this country must go home. We must secure the border first and foremost. We must make English the official language of America. We must enforce the laws on the books, but we cannot put it on the back of the employers or the States. We must put it on the back of the Federal Government. I congratulate you on a great job, not only on this issue, but all that you are doing. And we will continue to fight to secure the borders, make English the official language, and do things that the American people are just crying out for to create jobs here in America. I congratulate you.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Speaker, shortly before Congress recessed for its August break, the Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, Congressman Tom Price, offered a privileged resolution calling on Congress not to hold a lame duck session after Election Day 2010 for the purpose of passing unpopular legislation like a national energy tax, additional deficit spending bills, ``Card Check'' legislation for union formation, or any type of amnesty for undocumented aliens. I applaud Chairman Price's efforts to let Americans see for themselves where each Congressman stands on whether or not important legislation should be considered by an outgoing Congress after the November 2010 elections. Had I not had a previously scheduled commitment that prevented me from returning to Washington, DC, on August 10, 2010, I would have voted against the motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair, rollcall No. 515. This Privileged Resolution makes it immediately clear whether Members plan to govern in accordance to the concerns of hard-working Americans or continue after the November elections on the path they have paved that further increases uncertainty, government regulations, higher taxes, and federal deficit spending. Americans deserve to know now about the Democrats' plans for after the November elections. Chairman Price's Privileged Resolution is the right vehicle to encourage transparency in our federal government, and it deserves all Members' support.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Speaker, due to a previously scheduled commitment, I was unable to return to Washington, DC, on August 10, 2010, to cast my vote in opposition to rollcall No. 518, the ``Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act,'' incorporated as a Senate Amendment to H.R. 1589. This bill is nothing more than another state bailout that prevents states from making responsible budgetary decisions while increasing federal deficit spending. It provides $26.1 billion in temporary state education and Medicaid assistance paid for through a combination of permanent federal tax increases, spending rescissions from the Stimulus Act, and questionable accounting methods from the Food Stamp Program. As a condition of receiving the federal education funds, states are forbidden from reducing educational expenditures below 2009 levels and must use the funds to pay for teacher salaries. This assistance is similar to the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund created in the first stimulus that has already distributed $53 billion to states' education budgets and, in many cases, was used for teacher salary raises--not to meet funding gaps. Providing more federal funding to states' education budgets will further delay the states from making sensible reforms to ease their budgetary pressures. Similarly, this bill will extend the federal Medicaid matching rate--also created in the stimulus--until June 2011, creating more state dependency on the federal government. The American people are witnessing the results of this administration's extraordinary deficit spending, and it is not yielding the promised low unemployment and increased job growth. With the national unemployment rate still at 9.5 percent and existing historic deficits, it is time for the federal government to rein in its spending and allow the states to take responsibility for their own budgets.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I, along with Congressman Jack Kingston rise today to congratulate the Majorettes from our Alma Mater, the University of Georgia on winning the 2010 National Collegiate Championship. It is often stated in Athens that ``there is nothing finer in the land, than the Georgia Redcoat Marching Band'' and the fact that our Majorettes have brought home yet another championship make that statement all the more true. At every football game, whether home or away, these thirteen young women perform alongside the band, contributing to the pride and spirit of everyone who wears the Red and Black. They can also be seen at community events, pep rallies, and various sporting venues. Their commitment to excellence and success is indicative of what the University as a whole strives for, to provide an avenue for young people to reach their fullest potential. We, along with the rest of the BullDawg Nation, commend these young ladies on their achievement and wish them well in all their future endeavors. Go Dawgs!

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Scalise, I appreciate that. And not only is it killing jobs, but it's going to make everybody's gasoline go up. It's going to make electricity prices go up. I said here on the floor in a speech that the President's energy tax, cap and tax--or cap and trade, as they call it, some call it cap-and- tax, I call it tax and trade because it's all about taxes--is going to hurt the most vulnerable people here in America. It's going to hurt the poor people. It's going to hurt the seniors who are on limited income more than anybody else. And it seems to me that this disastrous economic as well as environmental disaster that has happened in the gulf is being utilized by this President to try to force his energy policy, his tax and trade bill. I've been criticized by the liberals around the country because I've said it's going to hurt the poorest people in this country, and it will. In fact, the President himself said, ``It will necessarily make electricity prices skyrocket,'' make electricity prices skyrocket, necessarily, that's what the President said about the energy tax. It would necessarily make electricity prices skyrocket. Who's going to have the hardest time paying their electric bill? The poor folks in America, those people on limited income, the senior citizens, who can least afford to have their gasoline go up, to have their electricity go up. It's going to be disastrous. And it's going to kill jobs. In fact, the President talks about all the green jobs that are going to be produced. Spain put in a similar type of tax, a similar kind of policy in Spain, and it did produce green jobs. But Mr. Speaker, for every green job produced I think it was 2.3 jobs were lost, a net loss of 2.3 jobs for every job that was created. For every green job that was created, every green job created they lost 2.3 jobs. And that's what our President wants to force on the American public. I'm wondering whether he's closing down exploration in the gulf just to try to force through his energy tax. I don't know. But I've had people, as I've listened at my America Speaking Out town hall meetings I've had people across my district say that they wonder about that. I was doing an America Speaking Out town hall meeting in Athens, Georgia and a lady got up and she said she wanted to see all new energy exploration stopped, all new drilling for energy and gas to stop in this country. We had about 100 people there. I said, okay, let's find out what everybody else thinks. Now, mind you this is the most liberal county in my district, very Democratic. I didn't carry it as a Republican in any of my elections when there was a Democrat and Republican on the ballot. I did carry it in the special election when I was first elected, but not since. And I asked the public, we invited the general public, I said, how many of you in this audience want to see us stop any new exploration of oil and gas? Eight people held up their hands. Then I said, how many of you want to see us lift the moratorium and start back to exploring and tapping into our own resources here in America and continue drilling for oil and gas and continue developing our own natural resources our own energy sources? Everybody else. I think we had a total of 98 folks, so 90 people held up their hands that they wanted to see it continue, eight people said they wanted to see it stopped. Over and over again I've talked during this special hour about how the leadership--Ms. Pelosi and company--have gone against what the American people want. They want to see jobs created. We asked them, where are the jobs? They want to see their economy stimulated, not government. We asked them that. Mr. Scalise, I know that you've seen the disaster of the moratorium on the jobs in Louisiana, but it affects all the Gulf Coast States certainly, not only directly, but indirectly. In just the few minutes we have left, could you give us some examples of some of those non- directly affected people, the fishermen, the people on the platforms, et cetera, could you give us some examples of those people who have been affected by this moratorium?