Andy Harris

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, the White House Web site claims: If you like your plan, you can keep it, and you don't have to change a thing due to the health care law. Well, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Maryland said that 76,000 customers in Maryland will lose their current plans because of ObamaCare; in New Jersey, 800,000; in Florida, 300,000; and in California, at least 119,000 will see their policies terminated. It is happening everywhere. Dana from Denton called my office to tell me she will not be able to keep her Blue Cross & Blue Shield plan because of ObamaCare. The new plan she is required to get will increase her premiums by $350 a month. Alex from Manchester told me his letter from Blue Cross & Blue Shield said: The ACA requires you to pick a new plan to maintain coverage because your current plan will cease to exist at the time of your renewal. Alex's family will have to pay $300 more per month for the new plan. Mr. Speaker, the President made a promise to the American people that they would be able to keep their plans. We now know that this is just not true.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to be removed as a cosponsor of H.J. Res. 62.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, the train wreck of ObamaCare continues. In 2007, before he was elected President, the President said that family policy prices would go down $2,500 per family. That was the promise. In 2009, the President promised that, if you liked your policy, you would get to keep it. Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the President is going to say to Charles from northern Baltimore Country, who wrote me yesterday and said: I just received my cancellation letter from Blue Cross regarding my family's insurance policy. My $697-a-month Health Savings Account qualifiable policy is no longer compliant. To have a similar product in an ObamaCare- compliant plan, my premium will increase nearly 40 percent and will have a $7,000 deductible. Yikes. So much for, ``if you like your policy, you will get to keep it.'' Charles and his family are not getting a $2,500 cut in their premium. They are getting a $3,300 increase in their premium. Their deductible is going up to $7,000 a year. Mr. Speaker, they like their plan, but they don't get to keep it. The train wreck continues.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, the President's health care plan is broken. Let me read from some of the letters and communications my office is getting from around my district. Mike and Pat in Queen Anne's County write: Mr. Harris, my daughter's health care premium just rose $648 a year thanks to the Affordable Care Act. Don't you or other Republicans give up the fight. Cindy from Talbot County writes: I have just discovered that I can't keep the medical insurance I have had for many years as it no longer exists thanks to ObamaCare. Even though I am 58 years old, I must pay for maternity benefits and pediatric dentistry when I have no child under 19. I get an increased deductible and a premium increase of $143 a month. What a mess that needs to be fixed and in a hurry. Finally, Lorraine from Queen Anne's County writes that, in tears, she called our office. She was told by her insurer that her premium was just increased $256 a month. Her total payment that she and her husband now are going to pay is $956 a month, and her insurer told her that it went up because of ObamaCare. Mr. Speaker, the President's health care plan is broken.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, America simply has a spending problem. That much is clear. Our national debt stands at nearly $17 trillion; $17 trillion. Let that number sink in for a moment. Is it that kind of legacy that we want to pass on to our children and grandchildren? This year alone our national deficit is projected to be around $700 billion, and that is despite the President's $600 billion tax increase this year. In fact, the government is going to collect more revenue this year than it has ever taken in before. How much sense does that make? What is being done to address the real driver of our debt--runaway Washington spending? House Republicans want commonsense spending cuts and reforms. We want everyone treated fairly under ObamaCare, no special treatment, especially for big corporations or for Members of Congress. We want a secure economic future for all Americans. It is time to act. It is time for real solutions.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I've been wondering exactly why on Tuesday morning the Senate and the President let the government shut down, started barricading monuments from our World War II veterans, and stopped the treatment of children of cancer at the NIH, all because they rejected our offer to fund the government and end the special congressional exemption under ObamaCare. Mr. Speaker, late yesterday afternoon, I got the answer. We all got an email about the President's decision on how this exemption is going to work. Mr. Speaker, we all have to go and get the gold policy. Yes, Mr. Speaker. Not the bronze, not the silver, but the gold policy from the exchange. That's the only one we can get. You see, bronze and silver is only good enough for everyone else in the country. For Members of Congress and Members of the Senate and their staff, it's gold or nothing. That's why this fight has been for a clean CR. No one wants to remove that exemption. Mr. Speaker, remove the exemption for Congress and their staff.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, when the President and Senate shut down the government yesterday, I don't think they realized what was going to happen at the NIH with pediatric cancer patients. I want to thank the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee for bringing it to the attention of the House yesterday in her comments, because we get to solve the problem today. You see, Mr. Speaker, during a temporary lapse in funding, the Department of Justice guidance for continuing government operations includes activities that protect ``the safety of human lives.'' So although over 40 percent of the Office of the Secretary were exempt in this furlough, strangely enough, some lawyer in the executive branch decided that pediatric cancer patients seeking to enroll in research at NIH don't merit those services necessary to protect ``the safety of human life.'' Now, look, I hope everybody here disagrees with that interpretation. Having taken care of many pediatric cancer patients in my medical career and being a parent, I know that pediatric cancer deals with the safety of human life. Mr. Speaker, interestingly enough, to their credit, the Indian Health Service stayed opened. So if you have a common cold, you get treated, but if you have pediatric cancer, you don't. The lab animals at NIH are being taken care of, but if you have pediatric cancer, you aren't. I would hope we could agree that they should be. This bill solves the problem. This bill protects children seeking to enroll in cancer programs at the NIH. The President and the Senate have already accepted a step-by-step approach when they accepted legislation over the weekend to fund our men and women in uniform during this lapse in funding. That bill was signed into law with bipartisan support. And this bill should be signed into law with bipartisan support so that we can help those cancer patients, especially those 30 children or so a week. Now, look, I admit because of what the Senate majority leader said today that we may have a tough hill to climb with this bill in the Senate, but the House has to do what is right, even if for only one child with cancer whose life rests with the NIH.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, tonight, all we did is we asked the Senate to negotiate with the House. Mr. Speaker, interestingly enough, the Majority Leader in the Senate doesn't even want to talk to the House about as fundamental an issue as funding the government starting an hour and 20 minutes ago, and whether or not there should be no special treatment for anyone under the Affordable Care Act--no special treatment for big corporations at the expense of the average American, and no special treatment for Members of Congress and their staff and the President and the Cabinet and their staff. Mr. Speaker, the Majority Leader should negotiate on those, and I hope he changes his mind tomorrow morning.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, the food stamp bill today is a chance to reform the food stamp program, to decrease the waste, fraud, and abuse, and make sure people who need help get it. This week, 10 Baltimore businesses were indicted for stealing $7 million in food stamps. That's a travesty. One store, like the one pictured right here, defrauded the American taxpayer for $2 million. In fact, the Department of Agriculture found that over 10 percent of stores participating in the program are committing food stamp fraud. This bill reforms food stamps by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse by just 5 percent, cutting back on fraud like the ``Second Obama Express'' store, and by making sure able-bodied adults are working, seeking work, or getting job training. Mr. Speaker, Republicans aren't trying to take food out of babies' mouths or make our seniors go hungry. Don't believe the scare tactics from my colleagues who oppose the bill. This is a commonsense reform that cuts waste, fraud, and abuse, leaving more money for the Americans who truly need help in time of need.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, the bad news on ObamaCare just keeps rolling in. As if it's not bad enough that the IRS will be helping run ObamaCare, Maryland announced last Friday that health insurance premiums will go up 25 percent next year under ObamaCare. Whatever happened to the President's promise that premiums would go down, not up? Just another empty promise? Maryland's middle class families, already struggling to pay their health insurance premiums, will see their policies cost over $1,000 more next year under ObamaCare. Many will just drop their insurance, and that will just increase the long lines we already see in our crowded emergency rooms. Mr. Speaker, ObamaCare is a disaster. We should repeal it before it does more damage to our hardworking middle class taxpayers and before it destroys even more jobs.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Speaker, the President said today that it is time for the House to lay out our ideas to give the middle class a better shot. He said it is time to move past stale debates. Madam Speaker, the only reason these debates are stale is because the House bills that have been passed to create jobs in America are stalled in the Senate and by the President. This isn't difficult. We need to cut burdensome regulations that stop job creation. The President needs to agree to build the Keystone pipeline. The President needs to agree to explore for American energy to lower the price of gas and diesel. The President needs to agree to permanently delay all of ObamaCare. America deserves an economic recovery.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the doctor is absolutely right. That employer mandate will increase the costs for employers, which means we're going to get less job creation and less job growth in an economy that can't do with any less job creation. In fact, as the doctor probably knows, since January, virtually all of the jobs created in this country because of this mandate have been part-time jobs. We are rapidly converting to a part-time economy. That's not what Americans expect--that's not what Americans deserve--and that problem won't be solved until that mandate goes away, not just delayed but goes away. The doctor talked about the costs per employee when the employee pays. What the doctor hadn't mentioned is the cost if you go on the individual market, because that's the other market created under the President's Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare. You've also heard much in the past week because the President has gone around, pointing to New York and saying, Do you see, premiums are going to go down 50 percent-- the wonders of ObamaCare. Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the President can only talk about New York because, in virtually every other State, there will be huge increases. So we have to examine why the decrease in New York is 50 percent. It's because they start with such a high premium that, even at half the cost, they're still multiples of the premiums of those in the other States. For instance, let's take a look at what the average premium in New York right now is for a healthy 30-year-old nonsmoker who is buying a policy, because the President and the Secretary of HHS and everyone who has screened this plan has said, unless you get healthy young people to buy insurance, the whole plan falls apart. So let's look at what it will cost for that 30-year-old nonsmoking male--the people who are among the highest of the uninsured, the highest in number. This is the average plan. The median-priced plan in New York is $5,750 a year, or about $500 a month right now. Now, that median-priced plan in the President's home State of Illinois is $1,450, or about $1,300 a month--about one-fourth the price of the New York policies, because New York has ObamaCare-type regulations in place. That's why their costs are so high right now. In fact, ObamaCare is not quite as regulated as is the New York market, so the prices can come down a little bit, but do you know, if it comes down from $500 to $250, it's still twice the cost of that policy in Illinois right now. Maybe we should look at the Vice President's State of Delaware where the average 30-year-old male's policy price is about $1,380, or let's round to $1,200 a month. That's about one-fourth the price of the current policy in New York, and even with those tremendous ObamaCare savings, it will be half the price of the policy in New York, the ObamaCare policy. Let's look at what has happened in some other States other than New York. I'll talk about my home State of Maryland, which is the largest nonprofit insurer. Yes, Mr. Speaker. I said the ``nonprofit'' insurer, because you can't blame profit as the reason for a high cost. The largest nonprofit insurer said that the average price increase is 25 percent; and for a young healthy person, exactly the ones who have to be signed up for the ObamaCare scheme to work, it's as high as a 150 percent increase. Mr. Speaker, if we can't get healthy young people to buy insurance now, how in the world are we going to convince them to buy insurance in Maryland when it costs almost twice as much? We can run all the taxpayer-financed ads, because that's what it's going to be. All of the people watching who have televisions will see what happens this fall as we spend millions and millions of taxpayer dollars to try to convince healthy young people to buy a plan that's way too overpriced. Let's look at California. Maybe the big States are different. New York is expensive. Maybe California is different. In California, the average cost of that plan for a healthy young person is $2,200, or about $200 a month. Why, it's less than half of the cost in New York. Sure enough, in figures released last month in California, the costs of the ObamaCare individual plan will increase by 64 to 146 percent. So that $200-a-month premium is now going to be $400 a month. Mr. Speaker, young people who are entering the job market are entering at relatively low levels of pay. Where in the world are they going to find $400 to pay for an overpriced plan that they've seen advertised on their local NBA game--and, of course, with the ads paid for with taxpayer dollars? This is why this house of cards will collapse. We are in for a rough time this fall. People in America who depend on their health care insurance are in for a really rough time. The costs are going to go up, and the confusion will be immense. Mr. Speaker, Americans deserve better, so that's why we have called on the President. Forget the 1- year delay of the mandate on employers only. We need a permanent delay on the entire plan, and the time for it is now. The President today made a big deal on his pivot to jobs. Mr. President, I would suggest stopping the $100 million trips to Africa and go talk to some of our small business employers and ask them what are their concerns. How will they create jobs? This is what they would tell the President, Mr. Speaker. They would tell the President to get rid of that ObamaCare. That's a weight hanging over my business's head that I can't afford, that I can't predict, and that is stopping me from hiring people; and for the people I have now, it's making me shift them to part-time jobs. So we've come full circle, Mr. Speaker. If what we want is a part- time economy, let's barrel ahead with ObamaCare. America deserves much better than part-time jobs. We deserve to create full-time, good paying jobs by the small businesses and large businesses in this country that are just waiting to show economic growth. We have got to remove this lead weight from around their neck. I thank the doctor from Georgia for yielding the time.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for organizing this because we come to Washington to make tough decisions. That's what the country expects of us. Mr. Speaker, I will offer the fact that one of the most difficult decisions we have to come to grips with is when do we begin to protect human life. The gentleman from Arizona was absolutely right. We have to answer the question: Does abortion take the life of a human child? If we all agree that it does, then we have to ask ourselves and come to an agreement on at what point do we begin to protect that life; at what point are we as a Nation going to say that human life is worthy of protection. Now, as a physician, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you I am always puzzled by the question because, scientifically, everyone who has taken a genetics course knows that, from the moment of conception, it is a unique human life. The one-cell embryo is a unique human life, different from every other one in the world--ever. Every cell in each and every one of our bodies has the exact DNA that we had when we were one cell big. The only difference is the number of cells we had. One would argue, certainly, as the illustration here shows, that this is not a one-celled fetus, or baby--it's a human being that given time will grow, that will grow to be your size or my size. I'm 6-foot-4. I'm a little bigger than normal. Some people are shorter than average, but we're all human beings, so size doesn't make the difference. Again, from a scientific point of view, to me, it's clear: it is a human life from conception and should be protected. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I understand the country doesn't agree. Some people don't agree it should be protected. So the question is: At what point do you protect it? A lot of people would say at this point it probably is worth protecting that human life. Certainly, the jury in Pennsylvania said that you couldn't kill that baby right after it was born. Strangely enough, Federal law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, says that it can be legal to kill that child 5 minutes before that birth. I think most Americans find that repulsive--that with a baby at almost 9- months' gestation, in many States, it is legal to kill that child 5 minutes before birth, but in Pennsylvania it resulted in three murder sentences because it was 5 minutes after birth. So what this bill says is let's come together, and let's agree on a time when human life is going to be protected. It's not going to be a perfect agreement. It's going to be arbitrary because, again, that human life started when it was one cell large. At conception, that human life started. We all agree that, Mr. Speaker, you and I are human life and worthy of protection, so the only question is: Where do we draw the line? Again, the gentleman from Arizona suggested correctly that we need to draw that line. This bill attempts to draw the line. The Supreme Court attempted to draw a very clumsy drawing of the line in the Roe v. Wade decision because it said it is viability, but the problem is that viability, over the 30-plus years I've practiced medicine, has changed. It's a moving target. Viability then was 25 weeks. Now it's 23\1/4\. It's a moving line. And what does viability mean? Viability means it can survive without the support of that mother. That's a little arbitrary, Mr. Speaker. If that mother had an elderly mother or grandmother at home, perhaps disabled with Alzheimer's disease, totally dependent on that mother--now, it's not their mother, but it's the mother of a child, a fetus. That grownup could be totally dependent on that other human being, that other human adult; and yet that human adult doesn't have the option of saying, Well, since that individual is dependent upon me, I can make a life-and-death decision for that individual. No, that would be wrong. We'd all say that's wrong. So we're going to have to draw the line somewhere. This bill says, Let's do it when we believe that baby begins to feel pain, that, in fact, a D&E procedure will be exceedingly painful. Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what happens in a D&E procedure. The fetus, the baby is literally torn apart. Literally. This is what happens with it. So we're all going to have to agree that, first of all, this is certainly not pleasant to look at. The medical illustrations when I was studying, of course, which was around the time of Roe v. Wade, didn't have this kind of illustration; but abortion policy in this country in the past 30 years forces us to actually illustrate what it looks like. This is it. So this bill says--again, in the context of the Gosnell trial showing all America that--and I think almost all America agrees that what happened in Pennsylvania, knowingly killing by snipping the spinal cord of an alive, awake baby right after an abortion procedure that resulted in a live birth is, in fact, murder. It's the taking of a human life subject to punishment. But most people would say, How are we going to protect this child? I offer that this is a compromise that maybe we all can work around and say that if that child during that procedure feels pain, then it probably should be protected under our law. The question again is not clear cut. There will be some disagreement among people when that pain can be felt. There's a lot of indication scientifically and chemically and with neurodevelopment that that child feels pain at 20 weeks. It's certainly a little more subject to discussion whether it's earlier. I will tell you later shouldn't be subject to discussion because, Mr. Speaker, you know that if you do a procedure on a premature infant born and brought to the neonatal intensive care unit, you actually administer pain relievers when you do the procedure. So the medical community has already decided that by 23 weeks it already feels pain; and believe me, Mr. Speaker, it didn't magically occur with birth, the ability to feel pain. Again, we can know by the development of the nervous system, by things we can see and measure. We believe that at 20 weeks that fetus, that baby, can feel pain and therefore deserves protection. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that's a compromise we all ought to be able to work with. Again, it is a compromise because, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that human life does begin at conception. The discussion here is not going to be when human life begins. It's when should this body, this Congress, this government protect the most innocent of human life. I'm going to agree that I think it's very reasonable to say when this fetus, this baby, can feel the pain of that procedure, it ought to be protected in some ways. Is it the perfect way? Maybe not. But we ought to begin that discussion because right now, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law allows a State to allow an abortion that kills a baby right up to the moment of birth, and that's just not right. We need to set some line in law. Again, I'll agree with the gentleman from Arizona that it may not be a perfect line, but we all have to agree we need to draw it to begin thinking about it; and I would suggest this is a reasonable one. When are we no longer going to subject that baby to the pain of a procedure and begin to protect that baby's life? I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey again. He's brought the issue before this body. If we believe that this is just some abstract thought about when we protect human life, as I've spoken about on the floor and the gentleman from New Jersey has--Mr. Speaker, I suggest if you want some very interesting reading tonight, go home and Google the Journal of Medical Ethics and look for the article published last November where academics from Australia and Italy wrote an article suggesting that it should be all right to kill a human baby up to some certain amount of time after birth if that human baby is inconvenient to the mother and the family to which it belongs. I would offer, Mr. Speaker, I hope that never happens in this country, that that suggestion never takes root here. I think we would find that horrendous. But it does bring up the question that if we find it so horrendous 1 minute after birth, shouldn't it be horrendous 1 minute before birth? And if it's 1 minute before birth, how about 1 week? How about 1 month? How about 2 months? We can go all the way back. Should it be when the heartbeat appears at 7 weeks? At 7 weeks' gestation, the heartbeat appears. Even earlier. Should it be when the baby moves, when quickening is felt? That's the medical term: quickening. This bill sets a reasonable point of discussion. Let's do it when we think a baby would feel the pain of that abortion. Chinese Human Rights

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Richard E. ``Dick'' Hug, who passed away on May 4, 2013. Dick was a friend of mine and was determined to make a difference in the State of Maryland and in the country through his civic involvement. I know he will be greatly missed by his family and those who knew him. Dick was born January 11, 1935 in Paterson, New Jersey. After graduating from Duke University in 1956, Dick began his business career with Koppers Company, Inc. In 1973, Dick was named Corporate Vice President of Koppers. Dick went on to serve as President, Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer of Environmental Elements Corporation, a company specializing in air pollution control systems for the utility and industrial markets listed on the New York Stock Exchange in 1991. In 1995, Dick retired and remained a Director and Chairman Emeritus until the company's sale in 2005. Dick was very active and well-known in the Maryland community serving as Chairman of the Maryland Chamber of Commerce, Maryland Business for Responsive Government, Leadership Maryland, the National Aquarium of Baltimore, the Kennedy Krieger Institute, the United Way of Central Maryland, and Duke University School of the Environment. Dick also served as Regent on the University of Maryland Board. In addition, Dick served on the Boards of the University System of Maryland Foundation, Loyola University of Maryland, AAA Maryland, the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra, and Bank of Annapolis. His philanthropy was well- known throughout the State. Dick is survived by his wife of 56 years, Lois-ann Hug, a son Donald R. Hug and his wife Deborah H. Hug, and daughter Cynthia H. Marino and her husband Mark D. Marino, four grandchildren, David, Scott, and Stephanie Marino, and Leanne Hug. He is also survived by his sister, Barbara H. Overstreet and her husband Ronald N. Overstreet. Dick's absence will be felt throughout the community, but his service will not be forgotten. I ask those here today to join me in honoring Richard E. ``Dick'' Hug.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. I want to thank my colleague from Tennessee. I've practiced for 28 years before coming to the body here 2 years ago. Part of the reason is because of what the gentleman from Georgia mentions, the train wreck, to use the Senator's term, the train wreck that's coming upon us. Mr. Speaker, the people in Maryland got a little rude awakening last week when BlueCross Blue Shield CareFirst, which is our nonprofit provider in Maryland, announced their new rates in the individual market on these exchanges that the gentleman from Georgia mentioned. Now, in Maryland we're going to have an exchange October 1. You're just not going to be able to afford to buy the insurance on the exchange because that nonprofit insurer announced that their average increase was 25 percent--25 percent increase in the already high cost of health insurance. And it ranged from a small savings in a small number of people to--and I want you to hear this number--150 percent increase for healthy young people, a 150 percent increase in the premium to the people who are supposed to make that decision to do the right thing and buy insurance. So this is the decision someone's going to be faced with coming out of high school or college, getting that first job, is: Should I buy health insurance? Maybe my employer no longer offers it because of the penalties that are in this bill and the mandates, so their employer may not offer it. Their choice is going to be: Should I do the right thing and get it? And now they're faced with a 150 percent increase in that cost. And that was supposed to be--as the gentleman from Georgia said, and the gentleman from Tennessee, we were promised more affordable, and it was, you could keep it if you have it. Well, let me tell you something. For that employee who's going to lose it because their employer can no longer afford it, they're not going to have it; and in Maryland, they're not going to be able to afford it. So I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee for keeping this issue in front of the American people because there are going to be many more surprises like we got in Maryland coming out across the United States in the next few months as this train wreck comes upon us.

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much for yielding. And the gentleman has hit the nail on the head on this one. We want to encourage young folks to do the right thing and buy insurance. And in Maryland, our insurance was affordable for the young because we did allow appropriate risk to be priced. But the Federal Government--and by the way, we also had high-risk pools. Anyone with a preexisting condition in Maryland could not be turned away by the high-risk pool that was actually run by the State of Maryland. So we didn't have a problem with someone not being able to get insurance in the State of Maryland. But the Federal Government came in and fixed our problem in Maryland. Now, we didn't have one, but the result is going to be that all that risk that used to be in the high-risk pool which everybody paid a little bit for is now all on the backs of the person, the individual now going into that exchange to buy insurance. Again, Mr. Speaker, a 150 percent increase in the cost of that policy for those young people just entering the workforce. These are the people who have big student loans if they've gone to college. They've got other costs. They've got the costs of raising a young family. And now, thanks to the Federal Government and to the President's Affordable Care Act, a 150 percent increase in the cost of their insurance.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. This week the House is going to take action on a bill that's going to give the American workers in the private sector the exact same rights that Federal Government workers have, and that is that if you're going to choose to work extra, you get a choice whether to take overtime pay or to get time off to go to your child's school. In my district we have Patriot Days during the school day at elementary schools where parents would love to have the time to go and spend that time with their child. This bill will get the parent the choice, not a Federal law. This will allow the parent to take that time off as comp time instead of getting overtime. It just gives everyone more choice.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the President on finally sending up a budget, though it was 65 days late with no real explanation for why it was late. Of course, the House passed its budget on time. The Senate, to their credit, for the first time in 4 years passed a budget on time. And the amazing thing, Mr. Speaker, is that in the face of an almost $1 trillion deficit and a $17 trillion debt, the President sent up a budget that increases spending, increases taxes, increases the deficit, cuts Social Security and Medicare, and still never balances. That's quite a feat. Mr. Speaker, America knows our debt and our deficit are strangling our economy. Let's roll up our sleeves, work with the Senate, and solve the fiscal mess this Nation is in.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for bringing this subject to the attention of the American people because this is a subject that's not going away. What we're talking about today, of course, is a trial going on in Pennsylvania, little heard about in the press, but one that's very significant. Because when it's coupled with what the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentleman from Louisiana spoke about, the overarching medical ethics question, it's something that we have to come to deal with. Because, Mr. Speaker, it is true that apparently in Dr. Gosnell's mind there was little difference between a late-term abortion and killing a baby after birth. And make no mistake about it, these children were killed. Because the trial right now is for seven cases of murder on those newborns. Interestingly, it was only discovered because of the death of the mother. And to show how flippantly many States have dealt with the issue of regulating clinics like that, we would never have known unless this mother died. In my home State of Maryland, two deaths have recently occurred; and only as a result of those deaths has the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene decided that, yes, maybe we actually should regulate clinics where this kind of surgery is done. And, in fact, they have closed four of those clinics until they can bring them up to standards that we would consider modern medical practice. But let's pay attention--because my specialty is anesthesiology--to what was going on in that clinic in Pennsylvania. Dr. Gosnell hired a surgical technician. This is someone he hired to clean instruments. He had that person administer anesthesia to those poor women going to that clinic thinking they were going to get good medical care. This is someone whose training was in how to clean a metal instrument and now administering life-threatening drugs. And, Mr. Speaker, we know they're life threatening because the misuse of those drugs resulted in that woman's death. In fact, three drugs administered--Demerol, a powerful narcotic; Valium, a powerful sedative; and promethazine, another sedative--administered by someone whose training was to clean medical instruments. And that is what's considered acceptable practice in many States in the country because many States choose not to regulate clinics where these abortion procedures are done. But let's make no mistake about it. It wasn't just the killing of the mother that's at issue here. It's the grotesque procedure that was done in that clinic by the doctor and the people he trained to end the lives of those babies who were born alive. We might think this is a terrible thing. In fact, that grand jury thought it was a terrible thing. They, in fact, indicted on seven counts of murder. They called it ``murder.'' But the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentleman from Louisiana bring up an article published just last year in the Journal of Medical Ethics by professors from Italy and Australia. These are fairly civilized countries. The title of the article is fascinating. If the gentleman doesn't mind, I'm going to go through some of this because America has to understand what this moral discussion going on worldwide is. I will tell you I'm shocked because 10 years ago--I'm shocked now that this article is published, and 10 years ago, it wouldn't even be thinkable. The title is, ``After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?'' And it's about committing what this author calls after-birth abortion, which is currently called euthanasia or murder, or infanticide in our current speech. But these authors propose a new term: after-birth abortion. We're going to make this sound better because we know abortion is legal so we're just going to call this after-birth abortion. What it is is justification for killing a child after birth when no abortion was intended. Mr. Speaker, this is just the next step to what Dr. Gosnell did. Dr. Gosnell killed a child after an abortion was intended. We think that's bad. A grand jury thought it was bad. There's seven indictments for murder in Pennsylvania. These medical ethicists propose that even if it wasn't an intentional abortion, that mother went and had her baby and decided that her daughter just wasn't going to fit in with the family, literally, and that it was okay to kill that baby. And if you don't believe me, ladies and gentlemen, just go and Google it. Read the article yourself. It's chilling. Some people say, Well, maybe the child is born disabled or born with some terrible illness or something that's very painful and maybe we're just doing a good thing for the child. But the authors say these include cases where the newborn is not disabled. And I'm going to read from these word-for-word because I want to get this right and, Mr. Speaker, I want America to understand what's at stake here. They make the argument that the fact that a fetus or a newborn has the potential to become a person who will have an acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting an abortion, or in this case, killing that child after birth. They argue that--and I'm going to quote: When circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. Mr. Speaker, let me remind you that in the United States, sex- selection abortion is legal in many States, in China. And if we don't think this is a slippery slope, remember what's happened in China over the past decade. They've decided under their one-child policy that if you have a live birth of a second child, it's legal to kill that child for the sole purpose of it being a second child. And, Mr. Speaker, as we know, occasionally the girls were killed, if they were the first child, knowing that you can only have one child and the family wanted a boy. So in China it's gone past sex-selection abortion to sex-selection infanticide. But that's exactly what this article speaks about. This article, again, was written by professors from Italy and Australia, published in a prestigious journal that ethically justifies killing a child after birth because, well, Mr. Speaker, for any reason. Because they argue that child has no right to grow up. And if you don't believe me, they go on to say that this is not an actual person. It's a potential person. It's not an actual person. So they say if a potential person like a fetus or a newborn does not become an actual person because you don't allow it to grow up like you or I, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed--I'm not sure I understand that--which means there is no harm at all. So killing the fetus or the child, there's no harm at all. But they go on to say this, which is amazing and this is why people have to understand how foreign a thought this is to many of us, ``So if you ask one of us if we would have been harmed had our parents decided to kill us when we were fetuses or newborns, our answer is no.'' What, Mr. Speaker? They're suggesting that if someone came up to me and said, would I have been harmed if my parents had decided to kill me when I was a newborn, my answer should be no? How many people do they really think you can go up to and ask, if your parents had killed you as a newborn, would you have been harmed? Do they really think people are ready to say, no, no harm, no foul; I wasn't a person, that's all right, that's totally ethical. They create an ethical framework completely consistent with abortion policy throughout most of the United States, and that is, that a late- term, third-trimester fetus has no rights as a person, and only merely extend that logic to the period after birth. That's all they're doing. So although this may sound grotesque and shocking that they suggest that there is no moral problem with killing a newborn, it's merely an ethical, logical extension of the way we have been treating fetuses since 1973. It gets worse. Because the gentleman from Pennsylvania suggested, well, there are plenty of people who would adopt this child. They go on to say that it's actually better in many cases to kill the child than to put it up for adoption. This is stunning. The reason they say that is that we need to consider the interests of the mother, who might suffer psychological distress for giving her child up for adoption. They suggest there would be no psychological distress for that woman to have carried that child for 9 months, given birth to a normal baby, decided they don't want it, and agree to have someone kill it? It's stunning. It's striking. Let me tell you, and I'll close on this, because we're shocked by this. But let me tell you something, we can't argue with nature. We can't argue with what nature tells us. It answers the question: Why in the world is the younger generation more pro-life than my generation? It comes up in poll after poll after poll. How in the world can that be? We have an enlightened younger generation? Isn't it enlightened to think about this ethical framework? How can this be? Mr. Speaker, let me suggest how this can be. This is the first generation where two things hold true: They fully understand what makes a human a human because they learned genetics and chromosomes, and they know that every single person is unique from every other person ever, based on science. There's one other thing they know, Mr. Speaker. This is the first generation where they know that they could have been aborted legally. The first generation where they actually answer those ethicist questions: Would harm have been done to me if I would have been killed as a fetus? Their answer, resoundingly--because that's why the polling shows this--is they know the answer is yes. We are harming a human in the decision to take its life. That is true whether it is at 3 months, 6 months, 8 months. Because they know that was them as an embryo and a fetus at 3 months, and that was them at 6 months, and that was them at 9 months. And if they were in Philadelphia, in Dr. Gosnell's clinics, that would have been them 1 minute after birth or 5 minutes after birth. They know that under that construct of ethics by those professors in Italy and Australia, published in Journal of Medical Ethics, they're proposing that could have been them at 1 day, 1 week. Because those professors actually go on to say we can't really set what the deadline is for how long it's ethical. Mr. Speaker, that younger generation is smarter than my generation on this issue. I want to thank again the gentleman from New Jersey for bringing this issue up. This is something that is so troubling, we have to come to grips with this. We have to understand the slope we are on when we neglect to treat every human being as one worthy of protection. I thank the organizer of this Special Order.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much, and I appreciate you yielding some time to me on this important occasion. As the doctor from Texas has said, Mr. Speaker, we are going to ``celebrate''--and I put that in quotes--the third anniversary of the passage of the Affordable Care Act. I will tell you a lot of things haven't changed in the past 3 years unfortunately, even though we were promised that things would. For instance, as many Americans know, we were promised that premiums were going to go down magically. What did we find? Premiums went up. They continued to rise. The Affordable Care Act was the wrong solution if the problem was rising health care premiums. Now, other things have happened in the past 3 years that really haven't changed much. One is that the American people still don't like the Affordable Care Act. We know that in poll after poll after poll, a clear majority of Americans wish this bill just simply didn't exist, yet it still does. More seriously than even that, over the past 3 years we've had a jobless recovery, and a large part of the blame has to be on some of the policies that were put in place 3 years ago, the cornerstone of which was the Affordable Care Act. We know, for instance, that there's a new term in the United States now. We thought the 49ers were a team that played in the Super Bowl. No. Now the 49ers are those small businesses that don't have 50 employees yet, created by people who want to grow businesses, who want to employ people, but they know if they hire that 50th employee, a whole lot of the Affordable Care Act and its mandates and regulations and costs and taxes kick in. So they're going to be stuck at 49 employees. As some of them say, instead of hiring that 50th or 51st or 60th employee, they'll buy a piece of equipment, they'll find some other way, they'll stop growing that business rather than bring upon themselves the effect of the Affordable Care Act. Now, we know that it doesn't stop there. America is the land of opportunity. This is why people strive to come to this country. There is a ladder of opportunity. You get on that bottom rung and you keep on climbing in this country, and the sky is the limit. Mr. Speaker, one problem with the Affordable Care Act is it's knocking people off the bottom rung. They're trying to get on, and they're on that bottom rung and they're getting knocked off. What do I mean by that? Last year, the President, for instance, bragged on 230,000 new jobs. What the President didn't mention is there were actually over 300,000 part-time jobs created and about 100,000 full-time jobs lost. We created jobs. We created part-time jobs. I don't know about you, Mr. Speaker, but, for me, that's not economic recovery. That's not economic growth. That's not the job creation this country deserves. We have to ask ourselves: Why would employers stop hiring full time and now hire part time? It's a simple answer. The Affordable Care Act makes it unaffordable for those employers to hire a full-time employee because they know, if they hire a full-time employee, they bring all the rules and regulations and mandates and taxes of the Affordable Care Act into their businesses. So what's their solution? They don't hire the 50th employee, and the employees they hire are part time. Now, I would offer that's not the way to get out of this economic mess we're in and that we ought to be for job creation. We all know that the problem with the Affordable Care Act is that it has destroyed and it is continuing to destroy jobs. Honestly, the jobs that it destroys the most are the jobs for the people who need them the most-- for the people who are on that bottom rung or who are starting to get on that second rung of the ladder and are getting knocked off. This isn't the kind of recovery America deserves, but it's a logical conclusion from a bill that was poorly thought-out. We remember what the passage of that bill looked like--the deals that had to be made in order to make it a single-party bill. Remember, this was not a bipartisan effort. This was not getting everybody together--all Americans of all political parties and all ideas--and saying, How do we solve this problem in the best way that can unite us? This was a bill to advance a political agenda; and, unfortunately, it caught up the American economy in that agenda. As the doctor from Texas, I'm sure, is going to talk about, it didn't have to be this way. There are many other ways to solve the problems that we have. Mr. Speaker, we have problems with health care in this country. We know that it costs more than other countries. We know, for instance, that someone who has a preexisting condition does have difficulty finding insurance coverage. Yet we also know that the majority of States solve that problem at the State level. They don't need the big hand of Washington reaching into the States and imposing a solution in their States that simply may not work--in this case, imposing a solution on these States and the businessmen and -women in the States that is strangling job creation in the United States, and we know the figures. What has been unique about the last 3 years--and I'll put it in quotes--of our ``recovery'' is that, for the first time in my life and for the first time in many Americans' lives, it is a jobless recovery. Sure, the stock market continues to rise, and businesses continue to do well; but that doesn't trickle down to the people who need those jobs, because the Affordable Care Act destroyed jobs and is continuing to destroy jobs in this country. I am a physician. I won't even get into the effect it's having on our health care delivery system, because I could talk for hours on that and on what physicians tell me and hospitals tell me. Mr. Speaker, most people don't realize that the changes that are going to come with the Medicare cuts in this Affordable Care Act may shut down one in seven hospitals in the United States. Now, think of that. In Maryland, that's five or six hospitals. What neighborhoods are going to be willing to say, Yeah, take my hospital? This is unaffordable. It's unaffordable to our health care system; it's unaffordable to the way we deliver the best medical care in the world to our citizens; and it's certainly unaffordable to our economy, because jobs ought to be ``job one'' of this legislature. And if we really felt that, we would either stop the Affordable Care Act right now or at least delay its implementation way into the future when we can have a discussion about how to do this right.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, the American people saw today that their House of Representatives is serious in dealing with our crushing debt and deficit. We took some big steps toward that today. Just minutes ago, we passed a budget that balances within 10 years and yesterday rejected plans that were offered that would never balance a budget. Just minutes ago, we approved a spending plan for the rest of the year that puts us on a path toward balancing that budget. Mr. Speaker, American families for the past few years had to tighten their belts. Since the beginning of the year, they had to tighten their belts an extra 2 percent with that payroll tax increase in January, and it's about time we did the same belt-tightening in Washington. That's what we did today.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, in January, the President asked hardworking taxpayers to contribute 2 percent more of their hard-earned paychecks to the Federal Government in the form of a payroll tax increase. They had to cut their household budgets by 2 percent. The President's sequester that went into effect last Friday called for a less-than-2- percent decrease in government spending, but the President now thinks that 2 percent is too much to cut from each Federal dollar. We all know the President's sequester is probably not the right way to control spending because it cuts programs across the board without any prioritization. But we all know this country has a spending problem, and we need to get it under control. I can't help but think if the American people had to just cut 2 percent from their budgets, why can't the Federal Government? If hardworking taxpayers had to figure out how to manage with 2 percent less, can't the Federal Government figure out how to spend two less pennies out of every Federal dollar?

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding. The gentleman is absolutely correct. We made a promise to our seniors. To the people who've worked all their lives, we made a promise that we're going to take care of you, but we have to be honest with how long we can do that. What are we going to do for my children? for people who are in their twenties or thirties? How are we going to preserve that system and preserve their ability to choose their physicians and allow their physicians to choose what's best for them? Because that's really what's critical, that we preserve that in the system. The gentleman is right. For the seniors who are watching this afternoon, they know that, in many parts of this country, if their primary care providers, their internists, their family doctors retire or move to other States, it's going to be hard to find someone, not because doctors don't want to take care of Medicare patients. We all do--we've taken care of thousands of them in our lives, in our professional careers--but the fact of the matter is that, every year, the government threatens to cut the reimbursement, the payment for services, by 25 percent, and it hasn't had an increase for inflation in 10 years. This kind of uncertainty means that we may end up looking like the other program the Federal Government runs, Medicaid, where the statistics are dire and where fewer than one-half of specialists can afford to see a Medicaid patient because the government simply has decided we're just not going to pay. It's where fewer than half of the primary care providers don't see Medicaid patients because the government has said we just can't pay, and we're not going to. It's where hospitals now are wondering how they're going to staff and how they're going to keep up with the best medical equipment and the best medical delivery because they're afraid the government is not going to pay. Who can blame them? Every year, the government threatens to cut the pay to our seniors' doctors 25 percent, and, every year, the government threatens to cut the pay to our hospitals that are taking care of our seniors. Every year, this goes on. It has to stop. I hope the Speaker and the gentleman from Tennessee will agree that we have to address this seriously, honestly, with a view to two things: preserving the benefit for people who are in retirement and keeping the system going for every American. An American born today, February 14--a child born today--should have a system that he knows is going to be there, not bankrupt, but a system that's there when he reaches those golden years, and we can do it if we all work together. I was hoping I'd hear more from the President. I didn't. The President is still not willing to come and talk about preserving Medicare, because, Mr. Speaker, you know that the trustees have said it goes bankrupt in 10 years. The current system will not be there for everyone retiring. The 10,000 people retiring today, February 14, enter Medicare. That system will not be there in 10 years. It will be bankrupt. So the current system doesn't even protect our current seniors, much less a baby born today. We have to deal with it. Mr. Speaker, I urge the President to step up to the plate, be serious. Our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol, step up to the plate. This program is too important to let go bankrupt within 10 years.

Mr. HARRIS. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding. To follow up on his point, Mr. Speaker, I don't know if Americans realize, the gentleman is absolutely right. If you have a case litigated, a birth injury claim, and it goes to a jury and there's an award, let's say, of $6 million--not an unusual award--40 percent of that award, $2.4 million plus expenses, goes just to the attorney. Is that fair? You have an injured baby--and we're not going to decide what the injury is. But is it fair that when the court renders a decision that half the money doesn't go to take care of that baby? It doesn't seem fair. I want to briefly go back to some of the issues in the Affordable Care Act. One that really struck me is the medical device tax. Now, I know the President likes taxes. There are 21 in the Affordable Care Act. He stood up there 2 days ago and talked about taxes, increasing taxes as a solution to our problems. But let me tell you what the problem with that medical device tax is. And I'm going to hearken back to my experience, again, over 28 years. I remember training in the early eighties. Some of the people watching, Mr. Speaker, might know if they had a kidney stone 30 years ago and had to have an operation for that kidney stone just how serious that was. And I remember, I did anesthesia for many of them. There were big incisions on your back, on your side, a week in the hospital, and you could get infections from it. It was a terrible experience if you needed an operation to remove a kidney stone. So 2 years ago, I had the opportunity to work in one of the urology operating rooms. It was a kidney stone removal. And here I'm going, wow, I haven't seen one in a while, I'm going to give the anesthesia for it, I'm going to prepare for a big operation. The surgeon said, no, no, no, no. We're doing this with a laser. I said, a laser? That kidney stone is deep inside. It's inside your body. He said, no, you've got to see what we got. They brought a laser machine in, and I apologize I didn't bring a sample of these catheters. It's a catheter, a wire that's about a yard long, and it's fiber optic. Oh, my gosh, it's thinner than the lead in a pencil, and it's flexible. They thread this up--and I won't go through the exact anatomy--they thread it up to where that kidney stone is. They fire a laser through this, and they break the kidney stone up into tiny little pieces, or evaporate it, and it just comes out. There's no incision. These patients go home the same day. Why? Because of medical innovation, because some company took a risk to develop that laser product. I tell you, it's not cheap. I'll also tell you it's a whole lot cheaper than several days in the hospital. The President stood there and said, We don't want to pay by the hospital day; we want to pay by the quality. Let me tell you something: if I have a kidney stone, my hand is going up for that newest method because it's the quality method. What does the Affordable Care Act do? It taxes it. If that person had the old operation, there's no taxes involved; but if they have that new device, there's a tax on it. I learned in the legislatures that there's a saying that if you want to discourage something, tax it. We have these arguments over tobacco. You want to discourage tobacco? Let's tax it. Most States have taxed it, the Federal Government taxed it, and sure enough we have less. I don't understand. Is that the same thinking we have about innovative medical devices? Are they all of the sudden not a good idea? That's exactly what this bill does, it taxes them. One of two things is going to happen: either that tax is going to be passed on--because that's what businesses do: when you tax businesses, they pass them on--or we won't innovate as much. That would be a disaster because the key to improving our health care quality, going into the future, especially with American ingenuity and innovation and expertise, is innovating. We're taxing innovation. It makes no sense, Mr. Speaker. I hope we move a bill through this Chamber to remove that taxation. It's a very bad idea for the quality of health care in the United States because some of these new products, whether it's for treating diabetes or whether it's for treating kidney stones, are amazing new technology.

Mr. HARRIS. I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee and the gentleman from Georgia. Following up on what the gentleman from Georgia said, Mr. Speaker, the President stood there and told America that health care costs have gone down. Now, I don't know if the President has been in a pharmacy lately or been to the doctor or bought a health care insurance policy lately, but the fact of the matter is the price has gone up--in some cases, dramatically--and it's going to go up more, especially for the young, who actually are the highest percent of the uninsured of any age group. Look, it's just the facts. Folks, when they're 18, 19, 20, 25, they don't think anything is ever going to happen to them, so they don't buy a policy. And the policies now, I sat down with someone whose daughter was insured, and she had one of the HSA accounts, those health savings accounts, and $2,500 goes into the health savings account. The first $2,500 she would pay, and above that, the insurance would kick in. It was an affordable policy. It used to be less than $100 a month. Imagine that, $100 a month, guaranteeing that young person, God forbid they get into a bad accident, God forbid they develop a tumor at an early age, they have coverage for the really expensive things that you may need. That was affordable. I think most people would say $80 a month is affordable. That policy went up to $110, and this time the renewal was 22 percent more than that. And it's going to get worse because the President now, in the Affordable Care Act--ObamaCare, as he prefers it to be called-- actually reduces the amount that those health savings accounts can hold. It's now limited to $2,500. You can't get your premium lower by saying, Okay, I'll take a little more risk, increase my health savings account. So those costs are going to skyrocket. And when they skyrocket, the gentleman from Georgia is absolutely correct, a young person is going to say, I'll pay the penalty. So a young person who may have had insurance before because it was only $80 a month--and it protected us from having to pay for those medical costs, God forbid that young person had a catastrophic illness or injury. That person is going to make what looks like a logical choice now and say, You know what; I'll pay the penalty and drop my insurance. It's going to have exactly the opposite effect of what was intended, and predictably so, when you force those premiums up. Again, the President stood here and said that health care costs went down. I've got to tell you, I still have yet to run into someone at one of my town hall meetings that says, Good job, Andy; my health care costs or my insurance is going down. It's not, it's going up. Let me address, because the gentleman from Tennessee touched on it, one of the problems that the President didn't consider--tort reform. You have three physicians here, two of whom spent their professional lives in the labor and delivery suite delivering babies, practicing obstetrics. I practiced obstetric anesthesiology, do those epidurals, those spinals, relieve women of their pain in childbirth. Over my career, my generation--I finished my training in 1984, 28 years ago. At that time, to show you what the effect of not having tort reform is, the cesarean section rate for American women having a baby was 15 to 17 percent. One in six to one in seven women would have to have a cesarean section. Now, 28 years has passed. I don't know if the Speaker is aware, but the cesarean section rate is now 33, 35 percent, in some hospitals 40, up to as high as 70 percent in some hospitals. That's in one generation. I will tell you, as a physician, not much has changed to patients in one generation. What has changed is that you don't find an obstetrician who's willing to take the risk of doing a delivery in a high-risk patient, a normal delivery, because of the medical malpractice exposure--not that they would commit it, but they would be charged with it, that a baby doesn't come out perfect, because that's the way the world is. Yet they would be charged, brought into a court of law, and lose millions of dollars in a settlement. So what do they do? They choose, when there is any question, to do a cesarean section, and who can blame them to do it. Mr. Speaker, those women who are watching, they know exactly what I'm talking about, because they know if it was their daughter or granddaughter or a friend of theirs, they all know someone who has had a cesarean section. If the women who are in the audience now think back to one generation ago, it was much more rare. So what's happened? We haven't had tort reform. But that's not all. By the way, the cost to the system is billions of dollars a year for those extra cesarean sections, billions of dollars direct cost to the health care system. If that was all, we'd say maybe we can tolerate that, a doubling of the rate of cesarean sections, but that's not all. When those women go to see their obstetrician now, one generation ago when I started, when I had my first child, my wife went to an obstetrician. It was a solo practice. And that obstetrician apologized to my wife and said, You know what, I'm sorry, but every other weekend someone may have to cover my practice, so I may not be able to guarantee you that I'm there with you at your delivery. Let's fast-forward one generation, 28 years. You can hardly find an obstetrician in solo practice anymore. They simply cannot afford the medical malpractice premium. They may never have been sued in their life, and they may have to pay over $100,000 a year just for the medical malpractice premium, never having been sued in their life. So what happens? They're all forced into large groups. Now, that same conversation, if my daughter now goes in to see an obstetrician, that conversation would run like, You know, ma'am, you're going to have to see everyone in the group during your pregnancy, and we have seven or eight people in the group. So every time you're going to have to see someone else so that everyone gets to see you because we don't know who's going to be there the day you deliver. Now, is that good care? Is that a good relationship that woman develops with her obstetrician when she doesn't even know who's going to be there to deliver her? In fact, she doesn't even know who might see her the next time she's in the office, one of the most important times in her life. We have completely changed the doctor-patient relationship because we don't have tort reform in this country. If it was just the rate of cesarean section doubling or just the fact that you have to see seven or eight people and you don't really know who's going to deliver you on a given day, we might accept that, but it goes beyond that, Mr. Speaker. Because what's happened now, a good, highly trained obstetrician stops delivering babies in their forties or fifties because they have developed their practice, they have seen those patients. They just take care of their gynecology problems and they spend the last 20 years in their career not delivering a baby. Having delivered them for 20 years, gaining all that experience, the most experienced obstetricians don't deliver our babies anymore. And why don't they? Because if they stop delivering babies and promise their insurance company they will not deliver a baby, all of a sudden that $100,000 premium becomes $20,000. If you were in your forties and fifties and could afford to do that in your practice, you might say, You know what; it makes sense for me to stop doing this. So when you add up all the things that have happened because the President, in his Affordable Care Act, refused to have real tort reform--and it's possible, because it happened in California. I mean, there are areas in the country that have it. But nationally, he refused to have it--and the gentleman from Georgia is very familiar with this because his bill deals with this. Because of that, we have a cesarean section rate that's twice as high as it ought to be, and some people will tell you it might be three or four times as high as it ought to be. We have women who never develop a close doctor-patient relationship with their obstetrician because you really can't. I mean, you're seeing a group of seven or eight purely because the malpractice premiums are now spread out. Frequently, somebody else even pays. They may be part of a hospital group, for instance. Finally, our most experienced physicians for women in a time--you know, you talk about taking care of children. You've got to start right at the beginning. You've got to have the most experienced person there. See, I've been at thousands of deliveries. Ninety-nine percent of the time they go all right. But when they don't go all right, you want the most experienced person there. And, Mr. Speaker, our lack of tort reform means we no longer have it. We have entirely changed the way we deliver obstetric care. So if you even said, look, we're not even going to worry about costs, let's not talk about costs, let's talk about access to experienced, personalized care for our women having babies, it's virtually gone because the President and our counterparts across the Capitol in the Senate refuse to take up the issue of tort reform and restore some commonsense, good medical care to Americans. Obstetrics is an example. We could go into neurosurgery and many other examples, and I'll leave it with that. We have so many opportunities to reduce the costs and improve the quality and access to medical care, and it was lacking in the State of the Union Address.