John Fleming

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Madam Speaker, I would like to submit the following request: Bill Number: H.R. 915, ``FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009''. Provision: Section 811 ``Pollock Municipal Airport, Louisiana''. Address of requesting entity: Town of Pollock, Louisiana. Description of request: Requires the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to approve a request from the Town of Pollock, Louisiana, to close the airport as a public airport; and release the town from any term, condition, reservation, or restriction contained in a surplus property conveyance or transfer document, and from any order or finding by the Department of Transportation on the use and repayment of airport revenue applicable to the airport, that would otherwise prevent the closure of the airport and redevelopment of the facilities to non-aeronautical uses. Upon the approval of the request to close the airport. the town of Pollock shall obtain fair market value for the sale of the airport property and shall immediately upon receipt transfer all such proceeds from the sale of the airport property to the sponsor of a public airport designated by the Administrator to be used for the development or improvement of such airport.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, the crazy cap-and-tax idea advanced by my liberal colleagues would create $640 billion in new taxes on American businesses and raise electrical bills by $3,100 per household per year. This cap-and-tax proposal creates an artificial market to find revenue to pay for various social programs that this administration plans to enact, such as government takeover of our health care. This boondoggle will cap our growth and trade our jobs. Companies looking to invest in our economy will simply move overseas to escape this enormous tax increase. You don't believe me? Look in the crystal ball at Spain, which has been on this plan for 10 years. After losing a number of companies, seeing utility prices skyrocket and suffering a 17.5 percent unemployment rate, we can see our future clearly. Even worse, experts tell us that cap-and-tax will do nothing to cap greenhouse gases, but it will put the United States at a global economic disadvantage because China and India will ignore this scheme. In fact, it will also serve as an economic stimulus for all developing countries which will be happy to accept our jobs. Why not use common sense for a change and develop true renewable resources as well as nuclear power, which has a zero carbon footprint?

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor a very special group from Northwest Louisiana. On May 16, 2009 a group of 104 veterans and their guardians flew to Washington with a very special program. Louisiana HonorAir is providing the opportunity for these Louisiana veterans to visit Washington, DC on a chartered flight, free of charge. For many, this will be the first and only opportunity to visit the memorials created in their honor. These brave men and women, from my home state of Louisiana, deserve the thanks of a grateful nation for everything they have sacrificed for our freedom. Today I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring these great Americans and thank them for their unselfish service. Robert M. Acosta, Edward E. Allen, William J. Archambeau, Francis W. Artley, Carl A. Barr, Clifford A. Birchfield, Joe E. Bizet, Richard E. Blake, Dudley H. Boddie, Roy Timon Buckner, Robert L. Bufkin, Jesse E. Burkheart, Adolph B. Campbell, Williard E. Charrier, James A. Clark, George Cockerham, Claude M. Corbett, Joe R. Crain, Alonza Crawford, Joe H. Curtis, Willie V. Dark, R. Debusk, Sammuel D. Doles, Thomas B. Erwin, Jack B. Evans, James E. Evans, Frank H. Falkenberry, Daniel W. Fallin, James, L. Fallin, James H. Fisher, Frank H. Ford, John C. Foster, Paul D. Gandy, Jesus Garcia, James C. Gardner, Leo J. Garner, Leon C. Green, Claude Gulley, Joseph Warren Harris, Tom N. Havard, James W. Helton, Charles M. Henley, Edward J. Heuer, John N. Holman, John L. lles, Joe M. Ivey, Loin Jacob, James Prentice Johnson, Alvin B. Kessler, Oscar C. Laborde, Charles A. Lammons, Joseph H. LeBeau, Gus D. Levy, Clayton E. Manning, W.C. Mayfield, Mary E. McMahon, Leonard S. Micinski, Charles E. Monson, McLuther Monzingo, Donald R. Moreau, Lucien L. Oldham, Elmore C. Owens, Lester L. Pace, Frederick E. Parker, Robert A. Peiser, J.L. Pennington, Carlos B. Perez, Wallace P. Perryman, James Ferrell Reeder, James E. Rigal, Kenneth Roberts, Richard Roy, James G. Sandifer, Ira R. Schulling, Luther E. Self, Geroge E. Shanks, Whilman G. Sheets, James L. Shelton, Cecil O. Simmons, Shirley R. Simmons, Richard D. Smart, Shurman C. Smith, Robert A. Stacy, Roy E. Stickman, Fletcher Thorne-Thomsen, Maurice S. Thrasher, Carroll E. Timmons, Bobby G. Turrentine, Howard V. Walker, Clomer Walton, Ray M. Ward, William B. Wardlaw, Carl J. Waters, Billy J. Wells, Claude O. West, G.F. White, James Wilson, Allen J. Wiltz, Marcus D. Wren.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of the special veterans in my district. William Cooksey is a World War II veteran who just celebrated his 100th birthday. Later this month we will welcome Mr. Cooksey to Washington as part of an Honor Air Trip, which flies World War II veterans to our Nation's capital free of charge to visit the World War II Memorial and Arlington Cemetery. Mr. Cooksey began his service to our country as a member of an infantry unit. He then moved to the Air Corps and served as a chaplain's assistant from October 1943 to December 1945. When he left the military, he did so having received four Bronze Stars, a Purple Heart, the World War I Victory Medal and a Good Conduct Medal. At 100 years old, Mr. Cooksey still serves as the senior choir director at his church. On behalf of this Congress, I thank Mr. Cooksey for his dedicated service. May God continue to bless this special man and all of our veterans who so bravely and selflessly served our country.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Well, thanks to my colleague and the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe. Dr. Roe certainly has a lot to bring to the table being a physician for many years and also having quite a political background being mayor of a city and actually having balanced a budget and even having a surplus, something we don't see very often these days. And so I thank the gentleman for that. Yes, I wanted to make a few comments, as well, regarding this health care debate that is coming to a head here very soon. Patients are very simple in what they want from health care. Certainly they want choice. They want affordability. They want control. And they want good results. And I think that that is quite reasonable. And certainly on the other side of the aisle where there is a debate about a single-payer system, really a government-run system, I think that there is not any disagreement about the fact that we want everyone to have access to health care, and we want everyone to have access to good health care. I think where the debate begins to fall down is that in our opinion on this side of the aisle, we feel that a government-run system is not a well run system. It is an inefficient system. It is a wasteful system. We have many, many examples of why that is true. We don't have to even turn to health care. We can look at any system that has been run by government, and not just the United States Government. Cities and States all reveal considerable waste because it is the nature of the system itself. On the other hand, in the private system, there is the administrative ability to remove fraud, waste and abuse. I will give you an example. Today with Medicare and Medicaid, we recognize that there is fraud, waste and abuse. Everyone knows it. Many politicians get up and clamor that they will be able to remove it, but none has been able to do that. The reason is because of the nature of government itself. Government cannot remove fraud, waste and abuse. In order to attempt to do so, it has to build, first of all, a large bureaucracy. It has to catch the offenders. With that, there has to be prosecution of the offenders. And when you get down to it, you only find the very most egregious small percentage of those who are actually committing fraud, waste and abuse. So you get really a small tip of the iceberg. So much more is underneath that a government can never get to. On the other hand, if you look at a private business, private business has all sorts of ways of finding fraud, waste and abuse and removing it administratively. For instance, a physician who is practicing inefficient medicine in an organization, in a private organization, he can be reeducated, or she can be re-educated, or just simply removed entirely from employment. But government is unable to micromanage individual behavior. And every time we attempt, we simply run cost up. And I will give you another good example of that. If you look at the post office and compare it to FedEx or UPS, you will see these private companies run so efficiently and so profitably. And yet, of course, the post office does not run efficiently. There are long lines. And that is just one way to control cost, and then, of course, ultimately we have to pay higher rates. So I think that we really have to look at the endemic problems within a private system versus a public system when we see that really there are only two ways to control cost in a public system. And we are attempting one of them and have been doing so for the last 20 or 30 years, and that is price controls, price controls on the providers, the hospitals and the doctors. And that would be a wonderful thing perhaps, at least for consumers, if it worked. But what goes up faster than health care every year? Nothing that I'm aware of. It is the one part of the economy where we have price controls, the only one, and yet it goes up faster than anything else. Well, what is the only other way we can control costs? That is rationing. And you say, well, we are not rationing care today. Look at Medicare and Medicaid, still a reasonably smaller percentage of the total health care system here, and it is able to provide good service to recipients, even though they are government-run programs, only because you have a much larger private system that is able to keep it supported. Now if we expand that to a large, government-run health care system, it is going to make up 17 percent of our entire economy. Where are we going to get the money to prop that system up? Where is it going to come from? And so what we are going to end up with is the same place where Canada, the U.K. and all the other countries that have gone to a single-payer, government-takeover-run system, and that is that there is going to have to be cuts. When we get up to a point where budgets have to be evaluated, we are going to have to make cuts. And when you make cuts, that equals rationing.

Mr. FLEMING. Yes

Mr. FLEMING. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe, for his excellent comments. What you're pointing out is that rationing is not just about inconvenience, although there is a lot of inconvenience where someone has to wait 6 months to get a surgery, elective surgery or something like that. But it also means accepted death rates and accepted morbidity rates so that people go unable to work because they need a hip replacement or someone dies waiting for needed surgery for a disease disorder. They go delayed diagnosis for a tumor which is going to end up in much more cost down the line because it wasn't prevented or diagnosed earlier. So rationed care I think is unacceptable to the American mind. And I would just say that if we go towards a government- run system, we have to be willing to accept the fact that we will have rationed care. I don't see any way around that. I do want to just sum up before I yield, and that is that I think that in evaluating the American psyche today when it comes to health care, we find that 83 percent of Americans like the health care the way it is. They like their insurance coverage. They like the doctor that they see. They are happy. The problem that we are talking about today is the 47 million uninsured. And who are these people? Well, statistics tell us that probably 10 million or so of those are illegal aliens. And, of course, that is a whole other debate. We need immigration reform. There is also probably half that number who are young adults who are healthy who elect not to get any health care insurance coverage. And so we have a real challenge before us to entice or to incentivize them to join, because if they join into the plan, we can work through preventive health care and early diagnostic care to prevent them from disease down the road, and also their dollars up front will help fund the last 10 million, which is the most critical 10 million, and that is older adults who are not Medicare age who do not have affordable accessibility to health care coverage, and therein lies a problem. They are not the poor. They are not the elderly. And they are not people that work for corporations. They are small business owners and their employees, a critical 10 million population that are finding their ways into the emergency rooms late in their illness with outcomes poor, far more cost required. And of course we physicians and hospitals have a mandate to provide care to them regardless of their ability to pay, which is a noble American concept. But the problem is, that cost has to be passed on to others, taxpayers, those who are paying their insurance subscription rates. And I'm sure we, as Americans, are willing to do that to an extent. But if you take those same dollars and you allow these people to get insurance and early preventive care, have a medical home, a family doctor, those costs will collapse. They don't have to be the high-price, low-yield kind of care that they get through the emergency room. And lastly, I think it is important that we look at reforming health care laws where we can allow physicians and hospitals and other providers to come together to begin to work together and to compete to lower the overall cost of health care rather than having it being dictated from Washington, which as I pointed out, is really a very poor way to try to cut costs. And then finally, that we do away, remove from the lexicon, the idea and even the verbiage that says ``preexisting illness.'' There should never be that term used ever again. In conclusion, I just want to emphasize the need to remove the term ``preexisting illness'' from the lexicon and that we make it easy and affordable for all Americans to access the health care system; but as I say, I think we all tonight would agree that that is done much better through a private plan rather than through a government plan. I know that we hear some rhetoric about, well, let's have both a private plan and a public plan--and I'm sure that my colleagues tonight will expand on this--but if you have one plan that's controlled and subsidized by the government, whose responsibility it is to be sure that there's an even playing field in the competitive arena, we know that the public plan will always receive advantages and benefits, and the private plan will then atrophy. I think it's far better to work through the private arena and to let the government do what it does best, and that is to protect its citizens and to ensure an even playing field. With that, I yield back to my friend from Tennessee.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute a sheriff's department veteran from Beauregard Parish in my Louisiana district who was recently killed in the line of duty. Detective Robbie Beane had dedicated 14 years of his life protecting and serving the good people of Beauregard Parish. On May 5, he died in an accident while on duty with three of his fellow officers. During his 14 years as a member of the Beauregard Parish Sheriff's Department, Robbie Beane worked his way up to detective and had become a volunteer member of the SWAT team and the SWAT diving team. Detective Beane was an active member of his church and volunteered in civic organizations. He was slated to be the next president of the Deridder Lion's Club. Detective Beane is the first member of the Beauregard Sheriff's Department to be killed in the line of duty. He leaves behind his wife, Nikki, and their daughter, Joslynn. This is a tragic loss, and I want to express my sincere condolences to his family and thank Robbie Beane for his service to our State.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLEMING. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. FLEMING. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 377, which recognizes Armed Forces Day, May 16, and the exemplary service of the members of the armed services. I want to commend my colleagues, Congressmen Ken Calvert and Neil Abercrombie, for sponsoring it. Today we are a Nation at war, with more than 2,750,000 men and women in uniform and more than 270,000 deployed worldwide. The men and women of today's armed services are all volunteers and have willingly, professionally, competently and unselfishly met every challenge this Nation has presented to them. In meeting those challenges, many have died and more have been wounded and injured. These magnificent men and women come not only from the active components of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Coast Guard, but also from our hometown communities as members of the National Guard and the other Reserve components. Their commitment to this Nation and to their services can be measured in many ways. But I believe there is no better evidence of their patriotism and commitment to the defense of America than their astounding willingness to re-enlist and continue serving. Today, such re-enlistment decisions are made with the knowledge that it will mean repeat tours of duty in war zones where death and injury are potential outcomes. Nevertheless, the most re-enlistment data continues a trend that has existed since September 11, 2001. For example, as of the end of March this year, Army re-enlistments for this year ranged from 111 percent to 114 percent of goal. Marine Corps and re-enlistments range from 197 percent to 204 percent of goal. When Armed Forces Day was created in 1949, its purpose was to establish a time when all Americans could reflect on and honor the service of the men and women of the Armed Forces. This week, Armed Forces Day will be celebrated on May 16. On that day, I would urge my colleagues to reflect on the extraordinary service rendered not only by those who have previously served, but also of those who now are committed to making this Nation safe. On that day and every day, I would also urge my colleagues to take the time to individually thank every previous and current member of the armed services they encounter for their service. I heartily recommended that all my colleagues vote ``yes'' on this resolution.

Mr. FLEMING. Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize Mr. Calvert of California for such time as he may consume.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Madam Speaker, I thank Ranking Member McHugh and also Chairman Skelton. I rise to speak about and to support H.R. 2101. We must continue providing a strong national defense while reining in out-of-control cost growth in the development of major weapons systems. Taxpayers deserve to get the most bang for their buck, especially when national security matters are involved. Cost overruns in major defense weapons systems are a huge drain on the defense budget. This bill accomplishes this in three ways, number one, by ensuring accuracy of information for performance assessment; number two, providing intensive care to sick programs, sometimes they need just a little nudge to get back on track; and, number three, tracking cost growth in the early stages of development. By the time a program reaches milestone B, 75 percent of its costs are already locked in. Currently, there is no process to review alternative solutions when cost or schedule growth occurs during this period. Now, there is a companion bill in the Senate we have already discussed, the Levin-McCain legislation. And members on the House Armed Services Committee share the concerns addressed in the Senate bill. By comparison, about 25 percent of the two bills are the same, about 50 percent of the provisions are overlapping, and about 25 percent of our solutions on the House side are in addition. H.R. 2101 takes a different approach from the Levin-McCain legislation bill in how it addresses issues of systems engineering and other matters. In summary, Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 2101, and I ask that my fellow Members support it as well.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of the House Armed Services Committee. I am concerned that the Department of Defense has become less open and less accountable. Recent actions taken by the Pentagon has limited transparency and congressional oversight. First, for the first time ever, nondisclosure agreements have been required of senior defense officials working on the budget. Second, for the first time, routing ship readiness reports are being classified. This hampers Congress in its important oversight function of the military. The Army was even a no-show at the House Armed Services Committee hearing on its top acquisition project. Do we want to wait until war to discover we have a hollow fleet or inadequate equipment? Congress has the constitutional duty to raise and support armies and navies. This responsibility requires candid answers from our senior military leaders about the FY 2010 budget approval. To quote our President, ``A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency.'' Where is this promised transparency?

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. For the first time in more than 30 years, Social Security recipients will not get a cost of living adjustment in 2010 or in 2011, yet most will pay increasing premiums for part B and D of Medicare. This is the first Social Security check cut since 1975! So let me get this straight--no raise for seniors on a fixed income, but an automatic pay raise for Congress. What's wrong with this picture? We're telling our seniors to make it on less while we are shelling out millions to protect animals such as the Brolga crane and the Iberian lynx--species not even found in the United States. We're forcing our seniors to choose between food and medicine, but we are approving $3 trillion in spending and budgets that will double the national deficit in 5 years and triple it in 10 years. On top of this Social Security pay cut, we are raising utility costs to seniors by an average of $250 a month through cap-and-trade. Where are the priorities among the liberals in this country? Certainly not with the elderly and disabled on fixed incomes.

Mr FLEMING

Mr FLEMING. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor a very special group from Northwest Louisiana. On April 11, 2009 a group of 104 veterans and their guardians flew to Washington with a very special program. Louisiana HonorAir is providing the opportunity for these Louisiana veterans to visit Washington, DC on a chartered flight, free of charge. For many, this will be the first and only opportunity to visit the memorials created in their honor. These brave men and women, from my home state of Louisiana, deserve the thanks of a grateful nation for everything they have sacrificed for our freedom. Today I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring these great Americans and thank them for their unselfish service. James L. Adams, William P. Atkins, Joe B. Aulds, Fred Winston Baily, Charles Baird, Howard G. Barnett, Ed J. Barras, John E. Blanchard, Charles E. Brister, Joseph J. Brocato, Chester C. Bums, Billy G. Cantrell, J. C. Carlin, C. C. Carpenter, Edmond H. Chandler, Jr., LaVon E. Chandler, Waylon H. Chandler, Fred L. Cheek, Steve K. Cheek, Ralph J. Cooper, Luther R. Couch, William R. Cutler, Golan A. Davis, Heuy G. Davis, William E. Davis; and George W. Davison, Lee Day, Ellison DeMoss, Donald R. Downs, Herschel M. Downs, George Forrest Dunn, Herman H. Edwards, Ray C. Ellerd, John M. Farrar, Theodor Finkbeiner, Noble E. Flenniken, James M. Gatner, Clyde E. Gilber, Challie Bruce Griggs, August E. Hayden, Raymond L. Heck, Clem V. Henderson, Sr., Marvin Higginbotham, Eugene L. Hill, Harry J. Hilman, Fahy E. Hodge, Howard Holder, Joseph F. Hood, John L. Horton, Gordon M. Hughes; and James M. Hunter, William F. Hunter, W.E. Jacobs, Robert Johnson, Emmett F. Jones, Gaston V. Jones, Dudley J. Kemper, Raymond Kleeman, William T. Knowles, Douglas E. Lane, Vernon Y. Leach, S.E. Lee, Elmer C. Lolley, C.W. Loyd, Hilton Lytle, Elzie R. Mains, Horace H. Maxwell, Harold L. McBeth, William McElroy, Dan B. McKay, James H. McQuiller, Jesse L. Means, Floyd S. Mercer, Anthony John Miciotto, Roy A. Miciotto; and Ollie Mitchell, Charles B. Moore, Danny R. Moore, Howard E. Morris, Calvin E. Morrison, Miles G. Murphy, James M. Newsom, George G. Nolan, Charles F. North, Raymond L. Odom, John S. Palmer, John Parker, Billy B. Parks, George M. Pearce, Felix P. Pinnix, Francis A. Plauche, Eileen Rahm, Wallace T. Rascoe, James 0. Rawls, James L. Revells, John M. Rust, Gerald D. Sanderson, Frank P. Sartori, Paul Sartori, Orvis U. Sigler; and Joe D. Simpson, Lonell L. Smith, William H. Smith, Leroy Solice, James C. Spencer, Jackson W. Stine, James H. Stronger, Garrard M. Stump, Terry B. Trammell, Henry G. Ward, Billy R. Weeks, Thomas R. Wells, Arvis L. Wiley, Otis Wilkerson, Roger C. Wilkinson, Kenneth C. Wood, Neil A. Yarborough.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Madam Speaker, as a physician, I am the first to say we need affordable health care access for all. A new national health plan has been created by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They claim this plan will compete alongside private insurance to ensure that patients are getting the best deal. This sounds great on the surface. However, this idea makes as much sense as Microsoft setting the rules for all technology companies, then competing with them. Make no mistake about it: the net result of a national or public plan option will be the death of the private insurance in this country. This crazy government versus private strategy is a first step toward a government-run health care for everyone, creating two levels of care, rationing of resources, and exploding government budgets. Americans don't want Washington telling them what benefits they need and how much health care they deserve. But they do need access to affordable, high-quality health care that only private insurance competing honestly for business can provide, whether it is paid for by our government for the poor or paid for by the working citizens.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Well, I thank the gentleman from Illinois. I also thank the gentlelady from Tennessee for her remarks. I certainly agree with everything she has said this evening. And perhaps I have a couple more things to add. Mr. Speaker, there are no two ways about it: this is a revenue- boosting or a net tax system by any way you look at it. The experts have looked at it, economists and energy people. I guess you could call it cap-and-trade with a little C for the ``cap'' and a big T for ``tax.'' What do I mean by that? Well, what is the cap-and-trade or what we call the ``cap-and-tax?'' Basically, it says that there are factories out there that can burn coal or emit CO2 into the atmosphere as long as they can find somebody else by way of allotments who are perhaps under the threshold by taking that burden from them. And in the process, there is some sort of exchange of currency. Now what kind of currency are we talking about? Well, it is estimated, at least at this point, and we don't have details as often we don't get on these things, of $646 billion of net taxation to our economy. So again, let there be no mistake about it. This is a tax. Now, what effect will it have on us Americans? Well, first of all, we know it is going to increase unemployment because as the tax burden is put on the factories and as it is put on power plants, there will have to be a movement of factories and other things offshore or to other countries who are not part of this program. We also know that it hits the poor. And it is also going to lower the overall standard of living. Well, here is just a couple of facts that I would like to share with you, Mr. Speaker. A recent MIT study shows that cap-and-tax will cost the average American household $3,100 a year. Now, I know there has been some controversy about this. And it is my understanding that the MIT people went back and said, we were wrong on that; it is more than $3,100. Another study shows that we are likely to lose three to four million American jobs if this is enacted. Companies who are looking to invest in our economy will simply move overseas, as I said. There is also a debate about whether it will create a stimulus. For the last few months, we have been talking about how important stimulus is to our economy. Well, this will definitely stimulate an economy. It will stimulate other countries' economies while hurting our economy. Now all of this perhaps would be a theoretical and perhaps a hypothetical discussion except for the fact that cap-and-trade is not really a new concept. They have had it in Europe for years. This morning I heard Dr. Gabriel Calzada talk about this. This gentleman is from Spain and an expert in this area. So what is the Spanish experience in this, Mr. Speaker? What Spain found was that for every green job that was added, and again, I'm not exactly sure what a ``green job'' is, but for every green job, there was a loss of 2.2 jobs. In the so-called ``green jobs'' it was found that 90 percent of these jobs were in the implementation or construction. And these jobs were quickly dissipated as soon as the construction was ended. So what is the current unemployment rate of Spain? Seventeen and a half percent. Now there was also a discussion by a very interesting expert in microeconomics. Aparna Mathur is her name. And I would like to read some very interesting facts into the Record: ``These higher costs of production by cap-and-trade will translate to higher energy and product prices. In a paper that I co-authored with my colleagues at the American Enterprise Institute, we estimate that a cap-and-trade system, with a $15 permit price, will increase the cost of everything, from food, clothing, shoes and home furnishings by 1 percent, of gasoline 7.7 percent, electricity 12.5 percent, and natural gas 12.3 percent. Of course, as previous experience with cap-and-trade programs has shown, permit prices are likely to be extremely volatile and rising over time, and our $15 price estimate is likely to be conservative. Other studies suggest that the price could be above $50 in 2015, close to $100 in 2030 and $200 in 2050. We can safely project that our estimates will be some multiple of these higher prices.'' Now, also she points out something else, and that is this: as a percent of the total home budget for poor people, electricity is 4 percent, whereas for richer, more wealthy people, upper middle class perhaps, it is only 1 percent. Therefore, the burden to a low-income person is going to be four times that of someone of higher income. So what does this do in net effect? What it does is it hits the poor first and worst. How else does it hit the poor and how else does it hit everyone else? Well, we know that all the costs have to be passed along to the consumer. So as Dr. Mathur pointed out, we are going to see inflation in the cost of everything we do because everything we have today in terms of products, and even services to some extent, are dependent upon energy cost. And certainly it is going to create unemployment, because if this system were implemented worldwide, perhaps it would be an even playing field. But that is not the case. We know that for everything we do, we have China and India that is reversing that tremendously in terms of the impact on the environment. And while their economies are growing rapidly, ours will be diminishing related to this. So the net effect of that, Mr. Speaker, is that if we move forward with this crazy plan, we are going to see both middle class and lower- income people hurt the worst. We are going to see an overall lowering of life styles. We are going to see ourselves less productive and less competitive around the world. And that is going to relegate to actually a net loss in jobs. So I call upon my colleagues in our discussion this evening--and hopefully this bill won't even come to the floor. But if it does, I ask my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to vote ``no'' on this wasteful bill that is really, in my opinion, just another Trojan horse, a way of generating revenue to pay for new social programs and perhaps even newer social programs that are yet to be determined. And with that, I thank you, Mr. Shimkus, and I yield back to you.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate three outstanding students from my district. Randi Layne Adams of South Beauregard Elementary in Beauregard Parish was named student of the year. She is actively involved in 4-H and community service projects, including efforts targeted at recycling and gardening. Henri Lin, an eighth grader at Caddo Middle Magnet, was named student of the year. Henri is on the staff of his school newspaper, serves on the student council, is a member of the Builders Club, takes advanced piano and competed with the 2009 U.S. Junior Olympics fencing team. Nicholas Allen Taylor, a senior at Byrd Math and Science Magnet High School, was named student of the year also. Nicholas is captain of Byrd's Quiz Bowl team, a member of the Mu Alpha Theta math honor society, and a member of the lacrosse team. All three demonstrated outstanding academic leadership and communication skills and have bright futures ahead of them. Congratulations to all of them on this outstanding accomplishment.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, it has been almost 8 years since the tragedy of 9/11, and America has not experienced another catastrophic terrorist attack on our home soil, not due to blind luck but due to hard work. Homeland Security during this period thwarted attacks through enhanced interrogation of suspected terrorists. This is a fact. For this, we should thank them, not mire them in millions of legal fees. But in recent days, more sympathy has been shown to current and potential attackers than to the men and women hired to prevent their deadly acts from coming to fruition. Memos detailing American interrogation methods were selectively released by the administration for political reasons, when other memos showing their life-saving results have not. Most Americans believe releasing this important information has endangered many innocent Americans in the future and subjects us to future terrorist attacks. Shouldn't we remember it was the self- paralysis of our intelligence systems that led to 9/11 in the first place? Why should we go back?

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor a very special group from Northwest Louisiana. On April 11, 2009 a group of 104 veterans and their guardians flew to Washington with a very special program. Louisiana HonorAir is providing the opportunity for these Louisiana veterans to visit Washington, DC on a chartered flight, free of charge. For many, this will be the first and only opportunity to visit the memorials created in their honor. These brave men and women, from my home state of Louisiana, deserve the thanks of a grateful nation for everything they have sacrificed for our freedom. Today I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring these great Americans and thank them for their unselfish service. Dan D. Adcock, John R. Alexander, Bennie R. Alley, John T. Anderson, Dempsey D. Bankus, Charles R. Bedgood, Henry J. Bird, Edd J. Bordelon, Arnold L. Braddock, Robert I. Brown, Cecil H. Brumley, Charles L. Bryant, James Buggs, Aubra T. Bunn, Curtis E. Chaffin, James Eugene Chowns, Jack Coursey, Jack Creighton, Howard A. Curtis, Edward D. Dark, John Duco, Albert J. Dunn, Merrille D. Dunn, Robert M. Duvall, Orlando A. Easterling, Kenneth B. Eaves, Guy M. Farley, John P. Fields, Edward R. Franks, William D. Franks, Dellon K. Fulton, William M. Gaston, Frank A. Genova, Ethan Allen Gillispie, Oben D. Greer, Garland D. Gregory, Walter H. Harbour, Eugene Harvey, James M. Henderson, Roy Gene Hicks, William V. Hines, John L. Hinton, Robert E. Holladay, Loin F. Jacob, Orville H. Jensen, Alton B. Kay, William B. Kinman, Anton Koloc, Andrew J. LeBlanc, Thomas B. Ledford, Ottis Littlejohn, Marshall H. Lyles, Rudolph E. Lyon, Paul H. Madden, Norman L. Mauroner, Lucius D. McGehee, Edgar C. Morris, Raymond L. Owens, Raymond K. Pecanty, Danny L. Phillips, Joe A. Phillips, Arthur R. Pietsch, Alfred B. Potter, Aubie L. Powell, James A. Powell, Melvin A. Powell, Kindred C. Priest, Robert C. Rinehart, Robert D. Roach, Robert G. Robertson, Floyd Cecil Robinson, Carol Wilson Rogers, Rollins B. Rosenzweig, Frank A. Serio, Melvin L. Shirey, Donald C. Sidak, Orvis U. Sigler, James C. Smith, Ernest L. St. John, Edward E. Stevenson, Clyde T. Stovall, Otis L. Strong, Jack F. Taylor, Tiny A. Temple, William M. Temple, Oscar Thornton, Dewey C. Thurmon, Floyd R. Turley, Coy E. Upshaw, Ray U. Urban, Thomas H. Vincent, Emmitt W. Walker, Dillon D. Wallace, Thomas A. Watson, Jack L. Whitfield, William C. Wilkins, Kenneth C. Wood, and Neill A. Yarborough.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Madam Speaker, I was very disturbed to read about the administration's request to cover up a monogram symbolizing the name of Jesus at a recent speech given by President Obama at Georgetown University. The White House justified this by saying they asked for all symbols to be covered up at the lecture hall; however, this was the only one clearly visible near him during the speech. The covered monogram ``IHS'' comes from the Greek for Jesus and was covered with a black triangle of plywood. I join my fellow Christians in expressing my outrage at this request. This administration has no problem spending money imprinted with the phrase ``In God We Trust''--and parenthetically, above us here is the words ``In God We Trust''--but won't have our President speak with any symbol of Christ in public view. We begin each day in this Chamber with a prayer, and clearly visible in the House is the same phrase I mentioned before. With our country having such problems, people turn to faith for help in this time of uncertainty, as they should. This country was founded on the solid principles of Judeo-Christian ethics. Why should our President cover this important symbol of our heritage and values?

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Before I get to that, I want to contrast with you what I understand the Democrat offering is on this subject, and that is a, more or less, expanding Medicare, which we have today for the elderly and for the disabled to everyone. I think there are a lot of satisfied recipients of Medicare out there. However, I would remind everyone that Medicare exists only because it's propped up by taxpayers and by private insurance. So, if we expand Medicare to everyone, who is going to prop that large system up, perhaps as much as 17 percent of our total economy? I really think that we can have our cake and eat it, too. I think, Mr. Speaker, that we can have excellent insurance coverage and that we can actually cut costs in the process. So here is point 1: Despite the need for Federal and State governments to pay many of the health care insurance bills, the government, itself, should get out of the administration programs. Why is that? Any politician who tells you that when he is elected or that when she is elected that he is going to do away with all fraud and abuse in government is either lying to you or really has no idea what he's talking about. The reason for that, as we apply that to health care, is: If you take, for instance, two physicians who are treating the same pneumonia, physician 1 treats it with an office visit, with maybe a follow-up office visit and with, perhaps, a prescription for antibiotics. The other physician admits a patient to the hospital, costing upwards of $7,000 to $10,000. The question is: Who is right? The answer is they're both right, but one costs many times more than the other. We really, currently, don't have a way of saying, Well, what is the best and most efficient cost in every case for every patient? I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Federal Government does not have the ability to micromanage care to its most efficient point. However, we can--if we are allowed to provide health care through administrative means, that is--pay the money to certain organizations of providers and allow them to make those decisions as to where they can cut the waste out, and to do so through competition, I think we could actually save money and see improvement in care and certainly in customer service. Second and as part of that is: physicians and other health care providers should be allowed to come together in both vertical and horizontal integration so that, instead of having a reimbursement rate that's dictated by the Federal Government--it's the only part of the economy, incidentally, in which the Federal Government determines the actual price that anyone is paid, the so-called ``price regulation.'' If we move from that into price competition where you have groups of providers who come together and who group together and who compete for covered lives and, in doing so, work efficiencies into the system of lowering the cost and improving the quality, I think we would see much more for our money, and certainly our patients would. Third, we need to provide basic health care insurance for every American, at least make it affordable. In doing that, remember that today, through the EMTALA laws passed in the 1980s, someone with or without insurance can appear to the emergency room, simply request care and will be provided care despite that person's ability to pay. Well, that's all well and good, but what often happens is it's a person arriving to the emergency room who's receiving the highest cost of care and oftentimes the lowest quality of care because it's provided at the wrong time during the illness. Ultimately, someone else, such as other subscribers and taxpayers, end up paying the cost. If we had private insurance for those individuals who were uninsured, oftentimes they wouldn't need to come to the emergency room. They could simply receive early treatment, diagnostic treatment or even prevention therapy, before ever having the need to come to the emergency room. Fourth, we should allow the public to be informed consumers with simple and transparent systems so that they can make wise choices. Fifth, we should reform antiquated insurance laws and give incentives to the young and healthy to opt into private insurance so that we have large risk pools and so that we do away with the term ``preexisting illness.'' Sixth, we need to move forward on incentives for providers to move into the digital age with electronic health records. That will greatly enhance communication. At least in my own experience, I've had electronic health records in my clinic now for over 10 years. It has actually lowered our cost and has improved our efficiency. Seventh, we should make family physicians the linchpin of our health care system. Supported by midlevels, they can have a tremendous effect on lowering the cost while improving care. Finally, we need to provide strong incentives for patients to function as consumers and to behave in every way possible to prevent disease rather than enter the system at the worst possible time when cost is the highest and outcomes are the poorest. So, you see, Mr. Speaker, while we are not hearing about these solutions from the other side of the aisle even though there's a placeholder for over $600 billion as a down payment towards health care reform, on our side, we're being very specific about what can be done and about what should be done. Many private and connected governmental agencies agree with these major points that I've discussed today. So, with that, I thank the gentleman, Mr. Scalise, for allowing me this time, and certainly, I yield back my time.

Mr. FLEMING. Well, first of all, I want to thank my friend from Louisiana, Mr. Scalise, or should I say Dr. Scalise. We have made him an honorary doctor tonight. Also I want to thank Doctors Murphy and Gingrey for their comments. I do want to follow up on some of these comments. I think they all fit together nicely. You know, first of all, I would like to say that the United States delivers the best health care in the world, or at least among the best, arguably the best, but the financing of it is a basket case. You heard, Mr. Speaker, Dr. Gingrey talk about the 47 million uninsured, which is a very fluid number. But, you know, I have often said through my experience that these 47 million are not the people you think they are. They are not the poor, because we do have programs for the poor. They are not the elderly. We have Medicare for the elderly. And they are not those in stable employment in corporate America. They are, for the most part, small business owners and their employees. There are really several reasons why insurance is difficult to obtain or to afford for these people, and I won't go into all of that in detail, but I do want to hit eight points that I recommend in terms of health care reform.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for a closing statement. Madam Speaker, this, as I said, is a remarkable event in history, and, quite frankly, until recently I was unaware of it, and I, among many others, am a Civil War buff. And it happened between my two home States, Louisiana and Mississippi. So I appreciate very much that this has been brought to light and that we can learn more about it and certainly recognize it for the future. I do want to point out, however, that this turned out to be an example to some extent of unfettered greed; that is, that there was no control over the captain of the ship as well as Army officers. They were in it for profit, and I think they took advantage of the poor Union soldiers who were coming out of desperate situations and so desperately wanted to go home. So I think that's a lesson we can learn for the future, that we need to put our own individual interests at hand and look out for the better good of all. With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.