John Fleming

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. I don't have a number on that, but I think it's a handful.

Mr. FLEMING. If you take a private organization, let's say a health maintenance organization, Mayo Clinic, which has been in the headlines lately, or Kaiser, they track their providers very closely. And if they're going off the scale, it doesn't matter whether they are doing something illegal or not. If they're just simply overusing--or in some cases underusing or inappropriately using--or doing things that are not within what we consider a good standard of care, then they're going to be reeducated or they're going to be terminated. You don't have to go through all of the expense to get very few people and really get very poor results.

Mr. FLEMING. Correct. The reason why it's so tremendous is because only a scratch of it is ever detected.

Mr. FLEMING. I thank my friend, Mr. Akin. And as you know, I have been a family physician for 33 years, and I've also been in the private business segment apart from my medical practice for over 30 years. And I've come to learn both inside and outside of health care, looking from the outside in and the inside out, that government does just what you suggest; it tends to bloat things. It has difficulty dealing with the inefficiencies in the system. And I will just give you one quick example that I deal with every day in my medical practice, and I do still practice, and that is take Medicare, for instance. In a government system like that, if there is fraud or abuse or waste going on, the government has to throw out a wide net, a very expensive net. It has to put a lot of resources in to catch a few people doing very egregious things and maybe doing a little bit to them, maybe a few months or a couple of years in jail.

Mr. FLEMING. That's correct.

Mr. FLEMING. Exactly.

Mr. FLEMING. Yes, approximately 10 million illegal immigrants are in the United States today, and they, of course, are here working, many of them, most of them, but there's nothing that the government derives to pay for the social services, education, health care for them. And of course that's 10 million people that either should be here legally and then paying into the system and paying their way or they should go back home because they're here illegally to begin with, and that would not be a cost or a burden.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. I just wanted to mention that I know you gentlemen and lady know that the President spoke on this very subject tonight while we were actually talking ourselves, and I just got some input, some interesting things he said here. Number one, he acknowledges that the people of America are becoming skeptical because there haven't been any laws lately that have positively affected them. I think that's an understatement from our President. Also, he makes the claim that there is no bureaucracy. There will be no gap between the patient and the doctor, the sacred doctor- patient relationship. Well, we've seen slide after slide of these--if the camera can show here with what Mr. Akin has that there are so many steps between the doctor and the patient. There are many now. But now it really goes crazy when we get into this system. And then finally he was asked--you may recall that we submitted House Resolution 615 that says if you vote for government takeover of health care that you are willing to sign up for it and forego a waiver which is built into these bills that doesn't put you into this automatically, that you can stay with your private health plans, and the President was asked this question tonight. And he basically gave no answer to the question. He dodged the question altogether, which we know he's so skillful to do. So it's pretty obvious that if this gets passed, that we're looking at a situation where the average American out there, the average working American, will be subject to all of the bureaucracy of a government-run system just like in England and in Canada. And the only ones who will be exempt, as Mr. Hoekstra mentioned a moment ago, will be the ruling elite: Congress, Senate and the President, and perhaps some wealthy, the Rockefellers and the Bill Gates and families such as that. I just thought these were some interesting comments that were going on while we were holding this session tonight.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, the more details Americans learn about the government takeover of health care proposed by the President and the liberal leadership of Congress, the less support there is for this insane idea. A Washington Post-ABC poll shows more than half of this country is opposed to this plan. Yes, support for this crazy deep dive into socialism is fading fast. The nonpartisan CBO says this plan won't reduce the cost as the President suggested; it will accelerate it. And we know that will kill jobs. This liberal Congress rammed the stimulus and cap-and-trade, which nobody could read before voting, down the throats of the American people. But they are now fed up and on to their strategy. We don't want DMV, Department of Motor Vehicles, style medicine with long waiting lines, delayed care and skyrocketing cancer death rates as in Canada and the UK. We don't want a system that will bankrupt this country and ignore the elderly, and we sure don't want our tax money paying for abortions. Simply put, we want commonsense health care reform, not nonsense health care reform as now proposed.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Pitts.

Mr. FLEMING. I appreciate that. We're going to be running out of time and I'm going to give you a brief response to that. When I was in the Navy, I had a friend who was an OB-GYN who specifically refused to do abortions. He said it was against his conscience. He retired and went into the local town nearby to go into practice and his practice began a little slow and soon within months he became the most prolific abortionist in town. So in answer to your question, the reason why so many people, or those who have done it in the past have done it, it's obvious. It's money. It's a very lucrative trade. But on the other hand in the medical communities, in the communities at large, there's been tremendous social pressure against that. As a result, I think many have decided it isn't worth the money. This has been a wonderful hour. I do thank my colleagues for visiting and adding so many wonderful comments. We could spend another couple of hours on this. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLEMING. I thank the gentlelady for yielding back, and I apologize, from Ohio instead of New Jersey. I'm getting my Schmidts and my Smiths mixed up this evening. Briefly in the final moments, I want to pitch back to Mr. Smith from New Jersey.

Mr. FLEMING. Well, thank you to the gentleman, Mr. Smith, from New Jersey, for your truly passionate, eloquent statements. It is obvious, Congressman, that you have a deep passion that sits on your heart very heavily. And it is one of the things that is deeply distressing for you and for many of us here in this body. Just to reframe, again, what our discussion is and what we are really talking about, we are not really debating abortion. That has been debated endlessly, and everyone knows where we are. What we are debating is a tremendous Federal expansion of abortions that will occur with this bill. Why? Not because there is a single word, no language at all that says there must be, but simply from an absence of language. And what that means is, and it is because of the courts and the administration, it is just the way the law works around here, but just suffice it to say if it doesn't exclude it, it includes it. And that means that you, the taxpayer, and those paying premiums, will be paying for the abortions of others, whether you like it or not. We are also represented tonight by another New Jersey Congressperson, Congresslady Schmidt, who has probably run more marathons than the rest of the body put together. And obviously her physique reflects that fact. So she has a lot to bring to us when it comes to the discussion of health, and we are really anxious to hear about that. So with that, I would like to yield to the gentlelady.

Mr. FLEMING. If I might reclaim just for a moment, if the gentleman will yield. In the late-term abortions--I've never seen one, but my understanding is that a trocar is inserted into the womb, into the skull of the baby, and the brains are sucked out, among many other things. Here we are concerned about waterboarding, and yet these kinds of techniques are done on our innocent children.

Mr. FLEMING. I thank the gentlelady for those comments. Of course very adroit, to the point, essential and important; and it also speaks to the process that we're going through in which these really weighty debates, weighty issues are being ignored and much more trivial issues are focused on here in this body. Again, we're talking this evening about the pro-life issues and the potential, if this bill passes, the ObamaCare, the single-payer health care reform plan that's coming out of the House and the Senate as well and the fact that just simply by not addressing the issue of taxpayer-funded abortions is actually allowing for them and providing for them through what is really a de facto mandate process. With that, I want to recognize my friend Chris Smith from New Jersey. Congressman Smith has taken a point on pro-life issues so often. We have so much, of course, to thank him for in this respect. And with that, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. FLEMING. Reclaiming my time, before I go to the gentlelady, I wanted to follow up on that, on the perspective of having unique fingerprints, for instance. You know, at the moment of conception, that baby has a DNA pattern that is unique unto history. No one has ever had the same DNA pattern. No one ever will have the same DNA pattern, and that does make that a unique human being, but here is something else to ponder, I think: Why is it that we think so differently about the born child versus the unborn child when there may only be a few-days' difference? I've thought about this and have pondered this. It is a unique capability that human beings have, which is to dehumanize. We have the ability to dehumanize other human beings. I can give you some great examples. Look at Nazi Germany. Millions of Jews and Poles and others were exterminated because they were not thought to be truly human, but a human cannot do this to his own species unless he thinks one is a subhuman or a nonhuman. Look, of course, at the days of slavery. How could we have the Founding Fathers of our country think in terms of freedom for all and yet enslave our fellow man? The only way to do it is to think of those people as not being human. That is the reason that people today can abort children, even to the point of partial late-term abortion, which is to think of them as nonhumans, and I think that's something that we really have to reassess in our lives--certainly our religious values. My values as a Christian suggest that a life is a life. Think of all the George Washingtons and the Abraham Lincolns and the Einsteins who are being aborted every day, people who could add so much to our future. Anyway, we have a lot to cover, and I want to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina, Virginia Foxx. She is about the most hardworking Con- gressperson I know up here, and I always like to turn to her for valuable advice on things, so I yield to the gentlelady.

Mr. FLEMING. Well, I thank the gentleman for his comments and certainly will be happy to discuss this further as we go along this evening. Again, I want to underscore and emphasize the comments here that, as the gentleman says, abortion is not health care. In fact, I would say the taking of innocent life is not health care. In fact, as a physician I have a sworn honor not to take life, of course unnecessarily, and certainly innocent life; only to do so if it of course protects other life, such as in the case of perhaps an ectopic pregnancy, if you will, or a mother who's bleeding to death. When there's no viability of the fetus or the embryo to begin with, that's a lifesaving measure. But elective abortion--that is what this is. That is not health care. That is taking innocent life. And there is no way--in as many ways as we have tried to debate this, no one has ever been able to come up with a solid response to that argument that killing the unborn baby at any stage in life beyond conception is and always will be the taking of innocent life. Well, this is an extremely interesting debate. I want to turn to my friend from the Corn State of Iowa, Steve King, Congressman King. I know he is itching to add some very important comments, so I yield to my friend.

Mr. FLEMING. If the gentleman would allow, I'd like to ask a question. Congressman Pitts, are you saying then that perhaps the other side of the aisle, the pro-choice or the pro-abortion folks, are really piggybacking onto a bill that has nothing to do with abortion in order to reach their goals, their aims that they perhaps have been trying to attempt for many years?

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, we're going to be spending the next hour, I and my colleagues are going to be talking about issues that are really on the forefront right now of debate. We've been talking for weeks and will continue to talk about health care reform; but as these bills are rolling out of committee, we're learning new facts that are, I think, disconcerting to many of us, particularly those of us who are of the pro-life persuasion. So we're going to be talking this evening about the subject of life. We're going to be talking about abortions, preventing abortions, the up and down and the frequency of abortions. We may even get into end-of-life issues because all of these are relevant, of course, to what's going on with the health care debate today in Washington. I want to start out with the first slide and notice it says from 1973 until the Hyde amendment was passed in 1976, Federal taxpayers were paying for 300,000 abortions per year, even though abortion was never mentioned in the original Medicaid statute. Think about that. There was no provision for abortions to be paid for under the Medicaid statutes, and yet 300,000 abortions per year were being provided, all at taxpayers' expense. How can this happen? How can this happen in America where something is being paid for, something that is unconscionable for, at least today, over 50 percent of Americans, and yet it's paid for by taxpayers? You know, it's interesting in the abortion debate, some of us are definitely against abortions. We call ourselves pro-lifers. There are those who are in favor of abortions. They, of course, call themselves pro-choice. But the interesting thing about this matter, many of those who call themselves pro-choice actually say that they would like to see fewer abortions, perhaps even no abortions if it could be done, even though they would prefer that there not be a law against that. In fact, a recent study showed that 69 percent of Americans are against taxpayer-funded abortions. So you have many different issues here. You have whether or not there should be abortions in the first place. You have the issue of those who even want to leave it to the mother would rather not see abortions, and then many Americans who really see no problem with the taking of life, don't want to have to pay for it, at least not through their taxes, of course. But you know, it's very interesting that, again, from 1973 until the Hyde amendment was passed, there were 300,000 abortions per year. In 1976, something very interesting happened. The Hyde amendment was attached to an appropriations bill, and it prevented any further taxpayer funding of abortions except in the unusual case such as rape, incest, the health of the mother, of course; and we've seen a tremendous dip in the number of abortions. And, again, this slide illustrates the fact I mentioned a moment ago, 69 percent of Americans oppose taxpayer funding for abortions. That's a vast, vast majority of Americans. We go to slide three. Abortion advocates are using health care reform to advance a hidden agenda. And here's a quote from Wendy Chavkin, who's former board chair of Physicians for Reproductive Health and Choice, obviously a pro-abortion advocate. She says, Public option--and that's referring to the current bills that are before us today, that is, the option of choosing a public plan, a government-run health care system--public option is key to the health reform, and using medical standard of care in language, instead of listing reproductive services that will siphon off votes, is key to this. And what is she referring to? Well, if we talk about reproductive care, that of course implies reproductive services, including abortions. Well, if we just leave it to the medical standard of care and let someone else define that standard of care, then what we really end up with is a standard of care out there that can be dictated to all that means, of course, abortion services. So, really, what are we getting to in this entire debate and discussion? We're going to be getting into the weeds here in just a moment with my colleagues. But the bottom line is that if, according to the courts and according to the rules that can be provided by the administration, if abortion is not explicitly excluded under taxpayer funding, under Medicaid, any kind of single-payer, government-run health plan, if it is not specifically excluded, then it is included. Let me repeat that. If it is not explicitly excluded, it is included. What does that mean? It means that it is a de facto mandate. The courts over and over have judged that if Congress does not say it's not to be paid for, it is considered a standard of care and therefore will be covered. Again, I want to give you another quote here from the National Abortion Federation, which, ``supports health care reform as a way to increase access to comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion care for all women.'' So, you see, the pro-abortion people are using this to advance their own goals, and that is to get the number of abortions back up again. I don't understand how that is in any way a desirable goal, but it's obvious they're doing that. So what we're seeing here is a history that the more accessible abortions are--that is the easier they can be provided, and certainly for free without any costs--the fewer barriers there are, the more abortions there are going to be. Now I have a quote from Barack Obama, our President. He says, Well, look, in my mind, reproductive care is essential care, basic care. So it is at the center, the heart of the plan that I propose. Insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care that's going to be absolutely vital. It's very clear where our President is going with this. Again, between the judicial branch and the executive branch--the judicial branch, of course, in courts--again and again saying if Congress does not exclude it, it is included, and then a President who feels very strongly that it should be included, then it's going to be there unless we do our job and we amend this bill and exclude it. It has been attempted on the Senate side and failed. And certainly we're going to try. This bill, of course, equals the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded abortion in history. In fact, I would say that it stands to increase the number of abortions greater than any time in history since Roe v. Wade. So we're really on the edge of another giant leap in terms of abortions. I'm going to end my originating comments here with this, and that is many of you may recall when our President was asked, When does life begin? And what was his response to that? He said, as a candidate for the President of the United States, he said, Well, that's above my pay grade. Well, I ask rhetorically, What is a higher pay grade than being the President of the United States? If he can't decide when life begins, then who do we go to? And that's going to be perhaps a matter of debate tonight. I'm a physician. I can say very clearly and without hesitation that life begins at conception. It's a biological truth. It's biological fact. There's no way to argue around that. Many have tried. Some say that, Well, it's at the point of viability. But that, of course, is a moving target. Babies are surviving younger and younger in gestation. So, as we go forward in the debate tonight, we certainly want to include all these issues relative to abortion. My colleague Joe Pitts, Congressman Pitts, who has been at the forefront of the abortion debate for many years, really brings a lot of experience to us tonight. I want to recognize the gentleman and certainly give him the opportunity to use as much time as he may desire.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3183, the ``Fiscal Year 2010 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.'' I have requested funding for the following projects in Fiscal Year 2010: JBJ Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, LA (CG). Recipient: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Vicksburg Civil Works District. Refinements to the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway channel alignment are necessary to improve the safety and reliability of the navigation channel as well as to reduce maintenance dredging costs, and include reinforcing or capping out existing revetments as well as adding additional contraction structures (dikes) to improve navigation conditions. JBJ Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, LA. (O&M). Recipient: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Vicksburg Civil Works District. FY10 request would provide for basic operations and maintenance and maintenance dredging along the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway in northwest Louisiana. Any remaining funds will be used to address backlog maintenance projects along the waterway. Red River Below Denison Dam, AR, LA & TX, (CG). Recipient: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Vicksburg Civil Works District. The levees in Louisiana associated with the Red River Waterway project have been incorporated into the Federal System; however, they are old and do not meet current construction standards. FY10 funding would be used to continue design and construction of the Red River Below Denison Dam project (LA, AR & TX), which includes the rehabilitation of levees and revetment reinforcements that threaten the integrity of the levee system. The overall project provides flood protection to about 1.7 million acres, half of which are located behind levees. Red River Emergency Bank Protection, AR, LA, OK & TX, (CG). Recipient: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Vicksburg Civil Works District. This U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project is located in northwest Louisiana, southwest Arkansas, southeast Oklahoma, and northeast Texas. FY10 funds would provide for revetment, dikes, or cutoffs for protection of critical infrastructure and land along the Red and Old Rivers between the mouth of Old River at its juncture with the Mississippi River and Denison Dam, Texas. Bossier Parish Flood Protection Study. Recipient: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Vicksburg Civil Works District. Federal funds would be used to conduct a reconnaissance study investigating alternatives to address water resource problems and needs in Bossier Parish, LA. Funds would be used to complete the reconnaissance phase and prepare and negotiate the Project Management Plan and Feasibility Cost-Sharing Agreement. Project requires 50 percent local match. Local sponsors include; Bossier Levee District, Bossier Parish and Bossier City. Cross Lake, LA, Water Supply Improvements. Recipient: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Vicksburg Civil Works District. Federal funds will be used to conduct a feasibility study that will evaluate options including additional pumping capacity on Cross Lake at lower elevations as well as new pumping stations and water treatment facilities on the Red River. The holding capacity of the already shallow lake (8.5 ft) is decreasing due to siltation, contributing to increasing difficulty in managing it as a water supply source. This study has been expanded into a regional water resource study to include all of Bossier and Caddo Parishes. Red River Navigation, Southwest Arkansas, AR (GI). Recipient: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Vicksburg Civil Works District. Federal funds would be used to conduct a reconnaissance study along the Red River in northwest Louisiana, southwest Arkansas, northeast Texas and southeast Oklahoma to investigate the federal interest and possible alternatives for a project to extend navigation from Shreveport, LA, to Index, AR. Consistent with the Republican Leadership's policy on earmarks, I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge, this request: 1) is not directed to an entity or program that will be named after a sitting Member of Congress, 2) is not intended to be used by an entity to secure funds for other entities unless the use of funding is consistent with the specified purpose of the earmark, and 3) meets or exceeds all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable. I also hereby certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, as it stands now, the Democrat health plan equals taxpayer-funded abortions. Let me repeat that. As it stands now, the Democrat health plan equals taxpayer-funded abortions. If unamended, the Obama health plan restructuring will be the most massive abortion expansion since Roe v. Wade and every insurance premium payer and every taxpayer will be forced to pay for every abortion. The taking of innocent life is not health care. I know; I'm a physician. Yet, without an abortion exclusion, this reform bill will be the platform for thrusting abortion into every aspect of health care in this country. The Secretary of HHS and the so-called Benefits Advisory Committee will determine the specific mandated services. Abortion will be included in the minimum benefits unless it is excluded, and the Democrats refuse to do that. This bill does an end run on current abortion funding restrictions by containing language that both authorizes and appropriates.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, last week I offered House Resolution 615 which, paraphrased, says, Members of Congress who vote for a government-run health care option agree to opt out of the current congressional exchange of private insurance choices and accept the same government-run program for themselves. The people are tired of this body making laws and crafting programs without having to face the consequences of the votes cast for them. So I challenge Members to cosponsor my resolution and publicly pledge that they will use the same government-run plan they vote for to care for themselves and their families. If it is good enough for American families, it should be good enough for families of Members of Congress. Furthermore, I challenge the American people to hold their Representatives responsible for their actions in this regard by urging their Representatives to support this resolution. The American people deserve health care that is affordable but does not allow the government to interfere with the sacred doctor- patient relationship.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Madam Speaker, I think one of the things that Dr. Broun brings out so eloquently is that it is a true privilege to do what we have done, to practice medicine and try to heal the sick and take care of those folks. That is what we want to do, to be able to continue to provide those services where patients and doctors make those decisions, not the government. I yield back.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3082, the ``Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010.'' I have requested funding for the Multi-Purpose Machine Gun Range project in Fiscal Year 2010. The entity to receive the funding for this project is the United States Army, located at Fort Polk/Joint Readiness Training Center, Louisiana. FY10 funds would provide for the construction of a standard design Multi-Purpose Machine Gun Range, required to train and test soldiers on the skills necessary to detect, identify, engage and defeat targets in a tactical environment. Fort Polk does not currently have a suitable training area that meets the requirements needed for machine gunnery. Without this facility, the soldiers of Fort Polk, Reserve, and National Guard units will not be able to maintain efficiency for live fire training for machine gun engagements. Consistent with the Republican Leadership's policy on earmarks, I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge, this request: (1) is not directed to an entity or program that will be named after a sitting Member of Congress, (2) is not intended to be used by an entity to secure funds for other entities unless the use of funding is consistent with the specified purpose of the earmark, and (3) meets or exceeds all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable. I also hereby certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, gradually the details of the Democrat health plan are leaking out to the American people. Call it whatever you like, this proposal is nothing more than a government-run health care plan if it has a government-run option. Interestingly, it exempts Members of Congress from having to join a government-run health care system. As a physician for many years, I am amazed at the number of Congressmen who have enjoined high-quality, personalized health care in this country but are now willing to force post office-style medicine on our people. In response to this, I have offered a resolution that will give Members of Congress an opportunity to finally be accountable for the decisions we make and how they affect the lives of ordinary Americans. Most Americans feel that Congressmen who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan should lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan. I agree with them. As a result, I have introduced House Resolution 615 with a number of cosponsors that simply says that if you vote for a government-run health care option, you agree to choose government-run health care for yourself and your family. I ask Members of both parties to vote for my resolution.