Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the truth has now come out, and the fact is that you can go to jail if you do not buy into the Speaker Pelosi health care bill. One of the most onerous provisions of the Pelosi health care bill is the so-called ``individual mandate.'' This is a provision that will force every single American to buy into their health care plans whether they want to or not. Back when Bill Clinton was President back in 1994, the CBO said, ``A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase insurance like this would be an unprecedented form of Federal action.'' And how does the government force this mandate? If you don't buy their insurance plan, they will fine you 2.5 percent of your entire income. And what happens, you may ask, if you don't pay that fine to them? Now we know the answer: You could be sent to jail, literally. Section 201 of the code says that. That's right. The Joint Committee of Taxation has declared that you will be eligible to be fined up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to 5 years if you do not comply with this new plan. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill. It will hurt consumers. It will hurt families. It will hurt everyone else. And it may send Americans to jail.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. When they added the 300 or 400 pages to the bill, and you had Members on the other side of the aisle say, well, they had read the bill. There again, you have to remember the somewhat disingenuous statements, because there again, looking at a 1,000 page bill, and you indicated it was 3 o'clock at night, and the Rules Committee was doing what they are doing right now, and then slipping the bill basically in the dead of night to us, 300-some odd pages, and then having us vote on that bill, when you know that no one had actually read and understood the bill. Just like that 1,000 page bill before, now we are looking at a 1,990 page bill. Even if you are one of those speed readers that can actually get through 1,990 pages, you know you will not understand the bill. And I will close on this and yield back, that that 2,000 pages also cross- references to a whole series of other pieces of standing legislation you have to understand as well. So no one who is about to vote on this bill tomorrow, if we do vote on it tomorrow, will have read and understood the bill, and that is a travesty to the American public.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona yielding, and I will be listening on the edge of my seat to hear your written comments momentarily. But I wish to join in with the discussion. I commend your work. I have been watching for the last 45 minutes your discussion, and I know you have begun to make the shift over in the comparison with regard to No Child Left Behind. In reality, of course, maybe you have already said this, with the huge burden, intergenerational burden that this bill will create, of course, what we are really talking about is no child will be left a dime.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. You raise another interesting point. Again, we have to start from the premise with what is in the bill right now, what the CBO has told us and what the bill will do, if they do pass it tomorrow or Monday, what it will do is raise our premiums for insurance, it will reduce our health choices, it will delay or deny care, it will take away half a trillion dollars from our seniors in Medicare, and it will raise taxes by $729 billion. We know those are the facts. That will happen if this bill passes. But you were saying with regard to the delegates, the doctors out there, the real doctors that you and I have are fighting back and saying that they may take back the endorsement from the AMA. But it may be too late; which raises this question, then: What is the rush? What is the rush to judgment? Why are we doing this on a Saturday or maybe a Sunday? We have only ever voted on a weekend when it's an emergency situation, like for a war resolution or things dealing with the military or what have you. Is there any reason why this bill could not lay over for a week while the Members go back to their districts for Veterans Day and meet with veterans, meet with seniors, meet with doctors, meet with the other real folks? I cannot think of one reason why Speaker Pelosi would not allow us. I would ask, I am sure she is up at this hour--and we have a few minutes left--I would appreciate it if Speaker Pelosi could come down here right now and explain to us why we can't have a week when the veterans and everybody else gets to comment on this.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the Democrats' plans to ``reform'' our health care system. You know, many promises have been made by the other side of the aisle about what these reforms would actually do, but now we actually have a definitive analysis, performed by the chief government actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, to look at the consequences of these reforms. Well, Mr. Speaker, the diagnosis is not that good. Both the President and his economic advisors have said that whatever bill the President signs he wants to make sure that he bends the cost curve. Well, how does the Democrat health care stack up to that pledge? According to that chief actuary whom I just mentioned, total spending on health care would actually increase by $750 billion more than if we did nothing at all. That's right. The Democrats' plan would bend the cost curve all right, but it would bend it in the wrong direction. You see, the real overall cost of this bill would be $1.2 trillion. That's with a T. By 2019, the annual cost of the entitlement expansion would be $236 billion, and that would be rising at an annual rate of 9 percent every year. After all of this spending, there would still be around 20-some-odd million uninsured Americans. So, for those folks who are trying to keep score of all of this, that comes out to be about $35,000 per uninsured person out there. Now, another promise that the President made was that he said, ``if you like your current coverage, you keep it.'' Well, again, look back to that government actuary whom we talked about before. According to that chief actuary, that's not true if you're a senior on Medicare, because 8.5 million seniors on Medicare today would lose their current coverage, and they would be forced into some different coverage. Also contained in the bill are what we call arbitrary, across-the- board payment cuts to hospitals, to nursing homes and to home health agencies. Again, let's see what the chief actuary says. The chief actuary says the cuts could force such organizations, such as nursing homes and home health agencies, to leave the Medicare program and, thus, ``possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries.'' That doesn't really sound like keeping the coverage you want, does it? So maybe now, finally, the Democrat leadership in Congress will start to listen to at least a few of the ideas put forward by the Republicans. What we want to do is try to increase the access to health care coverage, to increase access to the health care delivery system and to make insurance more portable and affordable. What we want to do is try to reduce those long-term spending plans and to reduce the curve downward in order to bring down the cost of medical liability and to create a sustainable health care system. Finally, at the end of the day, Republicans stand today, as we have always in the past, ready to work with the Democrats to enact real reform to our health care delivery system as soon as they are ready to work with us.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from Alaska for recognizing what a fine piece of legislation it is and appreciate his support of this legislation as well. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3476. It is a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area Citizens Advisory Commission through the year 2018. And both Representative Carney and I believe that this citizen action group serves as an important liaison between the National Park Service, their officials, and the neighbors in the area. Many of my constituents have asked me to extend this commission, and I am pleased to have worked with Representative Carney on this legislation to do just that. Communication is the key to addressing and resolving citizens' concerns, and it's clear that the residents and the park users value the opportunity to respond to the park decisions as well as propose alternatives when they come up with those. The Delaware Water Gap region has a turbulent history, if you know of it. One was marked by improper government interference and Federal invasion of rights of private property owners. Back in the mid-1950s, the Federal Government proposed a plan to build a dam across the Delaware River. This was the Tocks Island Dam Project, and it required the use of eminent domain, and the government seized many properties. Well, the project fell through and the property that was taken away is now known as the Delaware Water Gap Recreational Area. And residents in the area were upset by the creation of this recreation area. As a result, Congress passed legislation that established a citizens advisory commission, and that was back in 1988. Now, this advisory commission was reauthorized for an additional decade back in 1998; and it's basically served as a forum, if you will, for the public to interact with park officials. Due to the combined efforts of the various commission members and park officials, the recreation area has now increased in popularity over the years, and we see literally millions of visitors each year. In fact, out of nearly 400 parks in the National Park system, the Delaware Water Gap was just named one of the top 10 most photogenic parks for fall foliage. And I am confident that the Citizens Advisory Commission will continue to play a valuable role in preserving its splendor in this area and others for future generations. It's the ability of local residents to communicate with Federal agencies that has been one of my main focuses here in Congress; and I call upon my colleagues--and I am glad that the gentleman from Alaska joins me in this effort--to join with Representative Carney and me to support this legislation.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Robert Tillsley of Franklin Lakes, New Jersey for his dedicated support to the Boy Scouts of Northern New Jersey as well as Ramapo College and the members of the community of Bergen County. Tonight, Mr. Tillsley is being honored by the Iaoapogh Mountains District of the Northern New Jersey Council of the Boy Scouts for his commitment to improving the local community. This district serves more than 3,000 youth, guided by 1,000 adult volunteers through 32 Cub Packs, 26 Boy Scout Troops and 6 Venture Crews. Robert T. Tillsley has been a member and friend of scouting for his entire life. He started as a member of Troop 55 in Paterson, New Jersey, and worked his way up from Patrol Leader to become Junior Assistant Scoutmaster. In November of 1960, he achieved the honor of Eagle Scout and has consistently held true to its creeds--``once an Eagle Scout, always an Eagle Scout.'' Mr. Tillsley also supports a variety of commendable organizations outside of the Boy Scouts. He serves as the chairman of the Foundation Board of Governors at Ramapo College and has chaired several board committees over the years. He has worked with McBride Corporate Real Estate since 1988 where he started as a Senior Vice President responsible for the marketing of multi-tenant office buildings and then moved on to McBride's National Services division to serve as President in 1994. His responsibilities include the oversight of national services, customer service, database implementation, maintaining relationships, and implementation of marketing services for the division. He is an active member of the Society of Industrial & Office Realtors, the Industrial & Office Real Estate Brokers Association of Metropolitan New York, and CORFAC International--a worldwide commercial real estate network through which he has spoken at numerous global conferences and serves as an Executive Committee member. As Boy Scouting founder Lord Baden Powel once said, ``It is the spirit within, not the veneer without, which makes a man.'' Robert Tillsley's spirit can be seen in his laudable educational and business pursuits on behalf of the Boy Scouts of America throughout the 5th district of New Jersey; I join with his family, friends, and community in celebrating this momentous occasion.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I also yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking several people who played a significant role in getting us to where we are today, starting, of course, with the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), who is the sponsor of the bill. He has exhibited tremendous leadership and persistence as well, as he indicated, in moving this legislation to the floor today, and so he should be commended for his hard work. I would also like to congratulate the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown-Waite), for she was the Republican lead sponsor on this bill in the last two Congresses, and she has worked tirelessly on this very important issue. So I am pleased now to have the opportunity to take up the mantle from Ms. Brown-Waite and to move this legislation forward. Finally, I would like to thank the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and specifically Dr. Theresa Vaughan for their efforts in working closely with all of the interested parties. Now, I believe that the inclusive and deliberative process that this legislation has undergone should serve, really, as a model as we continue to work on revamping and modernizing other aspects of our financial regulatory framework. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2571, the Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act of 2009, will reform and will streamline the regulation of the nonadmitted--that's surplus lines--insurance market as well as the reinsurance market. Title I, which addresses the surplus lines market, will reduce regulatory overlap, and will clarify where the appropriate taxing authority really should lie with each market transaction. It also will establish the NAIC's eligibility requirements as a standard for the participation in the surplus lines marketplace. These provisions will basically increase efficiency. They will work to reduce transaction costs, and they will work to improve access to the entire market for our consumers. Now, if we go into Title II legislation, that section addresses several important areas within the reinsurance market. What the bill will do is create a procedure to establish a single solvency regulator for each reinsurer, eliminate the extraterritorial application of State law with regards to reinsurance, and it also will provide for a more meaningful and really a simplified process in determining the credit for reinsurance that the companies will receive. So both the surplus lines and the reinsurance titles are vital to promoting further harmonization for transactions occurring across State lines and eliminating unnecessary redtape, which basically will help to reduce costs for consumers. So in this increasingly complex world, it is essential that consumers and businesses be able to purchase insurance from risks outside of their traditional realm. And I believe this legislation will further increase efficiency and reduce costs for these very important transactions. Similar variations of this legislation, as Mr. Moore indicated, have passed the House in the last two Congresses by unanimous votes, and it is my hope that this bipartisan legislation will once again pass today unanimously. So I ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I would just close then by thanking the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) for taking the lead role as the Republican sponsor of this legislation and also for his work in the past with regard and on behalf of credit unions as well and also for making the significant point that he just did, which is, with regard to this time of financial crisis, that the American public could look to the resounding, strong support of the credit unions. So I thank Mr. Royce for his lead role, and I appreciate the role Mr. Himes as well has played in bringing this legislation to the floor.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of the legislation, and I commend my colleague on the other side of the aisle as well for his work on this piece as well and his support. If you look to the legislation, page 2, I think this is an interesting portion and it really cuts to the quick of what we're talking about with regard to credit unions. It says: whereas credit unions operate with the credo, not for profit, not for charity, but for service and have consistently reflected this philosophical tradition and the cooperative spirit of people helping people that gave birth to the Federal Credit Union Act. Well, when you think about it, that is exactly what the credit union industry is in this country: not for profit, not for charity but for service. And when I think of my district back in the great State of New Jersey in the Fifth Congressional District and the credit unions that are in that area, whether it was the very first credit union that I ever joined when I worked for Selective Insurance Company many years ago and the services that they provided to the employees of that company or other credit unions that have grown up over time in the various counties in northwest New Jersey and across the State of New Jersey, working to fill a particular niche for their members that perhaps were not being met by the rest of the industries for these individuals, they were doing so in a manner that was not for profit, the people coming together and saying that there is a need to be fulfilled and that they were going to make sure that they served it. Now, it's interesting as I come to the floor here to speak to the benefits of credit unions that our country has seen over the last several decades. I just returned from meeting with officials from the European Union and also from Great Britain where they, right now, in light of all the financial difficulties they are experiencing in their financial markets, are looking across the Atlantic to see whether they can learn some things from us to see what they can do to provide, A, some services and, B, some stability to their markets as well. And you know what the number one thing that the Conservative Party, the folks who I met with over there, said that they wanted to do and that was in Great Britain was to provide credit unions for the people of that country. So they have a problem that's a little bit different from our country and that is that we have the traditional entrepreneurial spirit in the banking industry, that we have so many banks across the country, which is a good thing that provides services from the small individual right up to the large. They don't have it quite as extensively as we do in this country, and so they have a need even greater than we do to provide that niche marketplace for the individual. So they will be looking to the United States to take the lead in this area and probably emulate much of what we have already learned and instituted with regard to the solvency issues and the prudential regulation issues and the like in that industry. So it's good to come back to the United States and say that in this area we have been a leader on this matter, and I stand in support of this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I now yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Royce.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, this evening, the Franklin School in Bergenfield will celebrate 100 years of exceptional education offered in New Jersey's 5th District. Erected in 1908, Franklin School arose to meet the need for a notable educational facility within this expanding community in Bergen County. Its humble beginnings were made up of a $15,000 budget and only 10 students grades K-12. Since then, Franklin School has grown to a diverse group of 365 students from grades K-5 that captures the excellence of what Bergen County students have to offer. With a dedicated teaching staff, Franklin School has found new and exciting strategies for enabling its students to excel in all areas of their instruction. Their mission is to put children first and this directive has given incentive to provide the student body with the necessary tools and guidance to obtain success. With laptop labs to teach communication skills, learning centers to further judge and improve performance, and performance measures put in place to continually improve all educational offerings delivered to those who attend, Franklin School has established the gold standard in educational offerings. The Franklin School is an exceptional educational facility that has nurtured and sent forth successful students for the past 100 years. I am proud of its accomplishments and expect great things from those who have been offered invaluable guidance from this notable school. Because of committed administrators and selfless teachers who have put their time and effort into the educational program offered to their students, Franklin School has made this community in my district a better place. I wish all the very best to the Franklin School and all its staff and students in their next 100 years to come.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. In a few moments I'll be submitting an amendment to this bill, but before I do that, I just want to talk about someone else's comment on this bill. This is Nell Minow of the Corporate Library, someone who has been influential and involved in this issue for some period of time, as you may know, someone who no one would consider a conservative on this issue. And she just did a blog on this recently where she says, The House Financial Services Committee has recently approved this legislation. She recognizes why this is coming up, and she says, The impulse is understandable, but the standard is unworkable. What does inappropriate mean? What, while we're at it, does risk-taking mean? And the most terrifying question is, who gets to decide what they mean? Chairman Barney Frank warned earlier this month, she reminds us, and he did so again just recently, that recent news of compensation of Wall Street shows that some financial leaders yearn for the stirring years of yesteryear, and demonstrates a need to adopt legislation on executive pay. But it's a question of empowering the shareholder to decide the question of appropriate level of pay and not by the regulators. She concludes by saying, Who is in the best position to evaluate and respond to badly designed pay packages? As someone who is very proud of 8 years of serving in government, she says she has the most utmost respect for politicians and bureaucrats, but she also recognizes their limits. The government, therefore, should not be micromanaging pay. Instead, and this is what Republicans suggest, remove the obstacles that currently prevent oversight from those who are best qualified and motivated to manage the risk, the shareholders.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield myself 4 minutes at this time. Mr. Speaker, the American public truly should be outraged when they read the front page headlines nowadays with regard to bonuses and pay. In The Wall Street Journal today, it's a bank bonus tab of $33 billion. You have to read the second headline, though, to realize that the $33 billion is going to the banks that received, basically, the taxpayer bailouts. The bottom line on all of this is that there is nothing in this legislation that would have prohibited this from going forward. Now, the other side of the aisle on the floor today repeatedly says, Well, the Republican side simply has no alternative; it is just the party of ``no.'' Well, we know that that's not true. On the legislation before us today, with regard to executive compensation, both in committees and through Rules, the Republicans have proposed a number of substantive proposals, which I'll go through right now, which would address the underlying problems that we're trying to address here. So, if you will permit me, I will now address the three or four main points in this substitute which would get at these points that, I think, outrage America with regard to compensation but which do so in a fair and just manner. Firstly, in the underlying bill, it allows for a non-binding shareholder vote on executive compensation every year. We propose instead that such vote should occur every 3 years. Why is that? All the expert testimony we've heard so far says that Wall Street focuses too much on the short term--on the year, on the 6 months, on the three-quarters or on the end of the quarter. Why then when compensation packages usually go longer than 1 year, usually go for 3 years, would we be requiring a vote that would once again refocus the attention on 1 year, a short period of time, as opposed to being in line with the 3-year longer time frame? So we suggest that a 3-year vote would be much more appropriate than a 1-year. Secondly, as to the shareholders and whom we trust with these decisions, we suggest, if we are going to trust the shareholders to be making these decisions, should we not also trust them to make the decision as to whether or not to have such votes on executive compensation in the future? So our amendment would suggest that a substitute would allow for a two-thirds vote of shareholders to opt out of the shareholder triennial advisory vote if they are so inclined. We know that this has been a position taken by a number of institutions and companies in the past because they've said that we do not want to have such power, that we do not want to involve ourselves in such decision-making. We know that it is right now as well because we have a letter from the United Brotherhood of Carpenters which points out the very real reason of why this is. You know, they hold something like 3,603 different companies in their portfolio. They said if they were going to have to make this decision either every 1 year or every 3 years--and considering the due diligence that they would have to engage in--this commitment would be a severe challenge to their fiduciary responsibilities. So, if they want to opt out of this, shouldn't we give them that ability if two-thirds of the voters decide to do so? Thirdly, State law. The other side of the aisle speaks about State law and about hypocrisy on this issue. Should we be preempting State law in this situation or, as to those States that have already engaged in this area, should they not be able to speak up and have their voices heard and not be preempted by the Federal Government? Fourthly, and most importantly, is section 4. This section goes well beyond what the administration has already talked about. The administration says they do not really like what this section is in the bill and that they did not propose this section. So our substitute says that we should be deleting section 4 of the bill, which would allow government bureaucrats rather than shareholders. The bottom line on this one is: Who is it that the other side really trusts to make these decisions? Is it the shareholders, as we saw in the first three sections of this bill, who would make the decisions, and that we would suggest they should be in the position to make the decisions, or is it the bureaucrats whom they think should be able to make these decisions? Is it the same bureaucrats, in the past, over at the SEC, who totally missed the whole Madoff situation, who should be making decisions as opposed to the stockholders? Is it the same bureaucrats who were the regulators for AIG and who totally missed that situation? Is that who they trust instead? So we would suggest all four points are substantive amendments to this, and we would appreciate their consideration. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Yes.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. As far as the procedure for determining who closes, is it not the author of the amendment?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield myself the remaining 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the final question, I guess, is who do we trust. Who do we trust to deal with the situation of pay? The gentleman just spoke on the floor with regard to protecting the interests of his constituents. You know, it doesn't really matter who your constituents are, whether they are the CEO at the top of the ladder, someone in between, the receptionist, anywhere along the line as far as pay scale, this bill will affect them and will affect their ability as far as what their compensation is. It will affect the ability of the Federal Government to dictate what their compensation will be. Government bureaucrats will be making those decisions in the future as opposed to the people involved with the company. Large income or small, bureaucrats will be the ones at hand to make those final decisions. The odd thing about this legislation, as we read through it and as you look at our amendment to try to address this problem, is that the underlying bill gives with one hand and takes with the other. As has been previously indicated, it gives with one hand in a tacit approach to say that the shareholders should be able to make these decisions, but then it takes that right back again when it says, then, When the government decides that those shareholders made an incorrect decision, some bureaucrat at the SEC or the Federal Reserve or someplace else will overrule that decision and take that power away from them. It says in the committee, on the one hand, that States should have some say in some aspects of financial service regulation matters, such as with the VFPA, where they do not want to preempt State rights, but here they want to step in and preempt those States, States that may have had a long history of dealing with such situations as executive pay compensation, or States that may want to address it in the future, but the underlying bill says that they will preempt that. That is why we have come up with an alternative. We have come up with a solution. We are not the ``party of no,'' we are the party of reform, a party that says we should address this on a longer period of time, a party that says that we should allow the shareholders to be able to decide these issues, a party that says that when it comes to compensation, the Federal Government should not be intermeddling. Now, there was an article in The New York Times recently. It quoted from Alan Blinder, a Princeton economist and former Vice Chairman of the Fed who wrote recently for the Wall Street Journal with regard to this. He said, The executives, lawyers, and accountants who design compensation systems are imaginative, skilled, and definitely not disinterested. Congress and government bureaucrats won't beat them at their own game. Congress has tried to do this in the past when they set the issue with regard to deductibility for executive compensation at $1 million. It had the unintended consequence of setting $1 million as the floor, and Wall Street then went from compensation packages greatly exceeding this. We may well see the same thing with this underlying legislation as well. In the headlines that I started the hour out with, Bank Bonuses $33 Billion, money that is actually coming from the very taxpayers who are watching us here right now, this underlying legislation will not change that. Despite the fact that the gentleman from Texas tried to limit this legislation to try to address this legislation to situations as TARP companies, this legislation will not solve this. Our substitute will. Our substitute will return the power to the individual. It will return the power to the corporation and, most importantly, return the power to the shareholder and take it from the government bureaucrat.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining and who will be closing?

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss one aspect of health care reform that, unfortunately, has not received a lot of attention by the Democrat majority. That is the issue of medical liability reform. Recently, I spent a couple of days in my district in New Jersey touring hospitals, physician group practices, and long-term care facilities. When talking to the physicians at these facilities, I asked them, ``What issue would you most like to see addressed in health care reform legislation?'' In every single facility I visited, medical liability reform was either at or near the top of the list. We know that the surge in malpractice lawsuits over the past 30 years has had a profoundly negative impact on the practice of medicine. And while, obviously, I feel that patients should be compensated for gross negligence by physicians, there is little doubt that our current tort system is broken. More than 60 percent of liability claims against physicians are dropped, withdrawn, or dismissed without payment. In 2007, the average cost of defending these claims was $18,000 per case. This has pushed the cost of liability insurance through the roof. The American Medical Association (AMA) has listed my home state of New Jersey as a ``crisis state'' for medical liability. Doctors face liability insurance premium increases that far outpace the already high rate of medical inflation. Some high-risk specialties, such as obstetrics or emergency, face annual premiums of over $100,000 per year. According to a survey conducted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the lack of affordable liability insurance forced 70 percent of OB/GYNs to make changes to their practice. Liability concerns also forced between seven to eight percent of OB/GYNs to stop practicing obstetrics. But more important than the direct costs of our tort system are the indirect costs. One pediatrician I spoke to said that he would ``just like to practice medicine without feeling like a lawyer was looking over my shoulder all the time.'' The anxiety that our physicians face from confronting potential lawsuits seriously affects the doctor- patient relationship. Additionally, it drives up the cost of health care by encouraging the practice of ``defensive medicine.'' The AMA estimates that defensive medicine adds somewhere between $84--$151 Billion per year in health care costs to our system. As another doctor I met with said, ``I can waste money like you've never seen. When someone comes into my hospital and needs treatment, I can order every test, every procedure known to man, simply to protect myself from a lawsuit.'' Even President Obama, in his recent address to the AMA has admitted that medical liability is a serious issue. But despite the support of the President, the medical establishment, and the overwhelming majority of Americans, of the 1,018 pages of H.R. 3200, the America's Affordable Health Choices Act, there is not a single page on medical liability reform. Madam Speaker, this issue is simply too important for us not to address. Any serious attempt to reform our health care system must reform medical liability.