Mark Kirk

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. KIRK. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), a distinguished member of the subcommittee.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. I thank our ranking member, Mr. McKeon, and especially our chairman, Ike Skelton, for approving one of the amendments in the en bloc. In December, I became the first Member of this House to serve in an imminent danger area in Afghanistan in uniform. During my time, I learned that most NATO soldiers with our command only deployed for 6 months and Americans deployed for 12. Only State and USAID personnel served for years in Afghanistan. Major General Flynn, our former J-2 of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, now head of all intelligence for the African command under General McChrystal, convinced me that we need a core of experts in uniform who can deliver on years of commitment to the Afghan deployment, who can build especially an expertise in the Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtu. This amendment, the Larsen-Kirk amendment, allows a for-the- duration incentive for members of the military wishing to make a deployment to Afghanistan. It's for-the-duration deployments that helped us win World War II. DOD and senior commanders feel that this language that will build a dedicated long-term Afghan core of enlisted officers will quickly become the leaders of our Afghan NATO effort. Based on our bipartisan bill that Congressman Larsen and I introduced, our bill would lay out a $250,000 payment for a soldier willing to make a for-the-duration commitment and another $250,000 for a 4.0 or better score in Pashtu or Dari. In my discussions with the troops currently in the field in Kandahar, they are pumped up about the opportunity that this commitment would be. I feel that only a small number of soldiers would sign up, but each one of them, if strategically placed in key Afghan provinces, would become vital assets to our effort and the success of President Obama's campaign in Afghanistan. And I really applaud the chairman and the ranking minority member for putting this in the bill.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, our Government will attempt to borrow $104 billion just this week, a world record. As Congress accelerates spending, Treasury has borrowed $560 billion in January, $707 billion in February, $750 billion in March, $665 billion in April, and $773 billion in May. To cover increased borrowing, the Fed is now electronically printing money to cover our debts. Their records show they have printed $152.7 billion to cover our mounting debts. We are quickly running out of other people's money. Printing dollars electronically will accelerate inflation next year. Remember, inflation is the enemy of senior citizens on a fixed income. President Obama was right when he said, ``We are out of money.'' Our policies here in the Congress should reflect that sober assessment.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, today I introduced legislation along with my colleague from Washington, Mr. Larsen, to enhance the ability of General McChrystal to bring our mission in Afghanistan to a successful completion. One of the key problems facing our mission in Afghanistan is the limitation on service for nearly all military and most civilians deployed there. Nearly all Americans serve no longer than 12 months, costing the overall U.S. effort critical military, language and personal relationship experience needed to sustain momentum in the war effort. General McChrystal intends to implement a ``classic counterinsurgency campaign'' designed to win the support of the Afghan people and drive a wedge between them and the Taliban. In a tribal culture like Afghanistan, it will be essential for General McChrystal to have people with established, personal relationships with local leaders in order for his strategy to succeed. Our legislation authorizes a $250,000 incentive bonus for servicemembers to agree to serve in Afghanistan for the duration of the mission, up to six years. This bonus would be paid at the end of their service in Afghanistan. The bill authorizes an additional $250,000 incentive bonus for a servicemember who volunteers for the duration who scores a 4.0 on the Foreign Service Institute test for the dominant languages of Pashto and Dari. These soldiers would receive a payment of $500,000 at the completion of their service in Afghanistan. These ``for the duration'' volunteers would quickly become the elite of our effort, bringing the most skills to bear for senior commanders and troops in contact with the enemy. The knowledge they would bring cannot be taught in the U.S., it can only be gained through experience in the field. Just a handful of these soldiers in each Afghan province will make a world of difference.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. I thank my colleague and rise in very strong support for this bipartisan legislation. I particularly want to thank Mr. Aderholt and our Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, for putting together this legislation. I have worked on this legislation in the past, particularly to build a staff gym, which is now one of the great successes of this institution. But lately was particularly concerned with the decision quietly made that gave the Architect of the Capitol Red Coats apparently the exclusive power to control Capitol tours in the Capitol. It's clear now that they abused this power. They blocked staff-led tours of the Capitol and on Facebook set a record for poor customer service in condemning congressional staffs--politically naively enough majority and minority staffs--and saying what a bad piece of work that they did. Many Members came together under the leadership of Chairman Wasserman Schultz, concerned about this power grab in the people's House. While the CVC attempted changes, they maintained that they still wanted to control access to the Capitol, turning away one of our Members who had four mayors visiting here, but they only had three tickets. What this legislation now does, as written by the chairwoman, is that we have fired the Red Coats' ability to control access to the Capitol by Members of Congress and their staff, that if constituents come in from whatever district, that Members should now know that your staff can get your constituents into the Capitol to see it. We have also removed the restraints so that you can see all provisions of the Capitol, especially, for example, my constituents and many others who have seen this institution on C-SPAN and want to look at it. Now we can get them in here. I particularly want to thank the leadership for this legislation because we have returned a sense of order and control in making sure that the people who were elected to represent them actually can bring them into the Capitol. As I said in full committee, this institution can be quite frustrating--like yesterday; and the one thing that we can guarantee that was under our control is that we could guarantee that our constituents have a good experience in the Capitol. That had been denied by the Red Coats. This legislation returns that control. I want to particularly thank Jenny Desia and Liz Dawson on our side; and Ian Rader in Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz's staff for helping out; and Brette Davis of my staff who helped bring this together. I also want to thank Congressmen Dave Loebsack and Jim Moran who helped me out so much. We see ourselves as institutionalists here. I started working here as a staffer in 1984. And while the CVC is quite impressive, its restrictions were beginning to deny a number of Members of Congress the opportunity to show it to their constituents. This legislation restores that access.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, centrists in the House have put forward a health care reform bill that defends your relationship with your doctor, lowers the cost of insurance, and extends coverage to Americans who don't have it. It is a better bill than the Senate bill, which has $1 trillion in cost. CBO says that bill will cover 31 million Americans, but another 15 million will lose coverage under the legislation, giving a net of just 16 million Americans getting coverage. At a cost of $1 trillion, that means it costs $62,500 per patient over 10 years. Our centrist plan covers more people at much less cost while finally guaranteeing the rights of your medical treatment against any government restriction. This House is suffering trillion-dollar sticker shock from the Senate bill. Our centrist health care reform bill is more responsible and will not break the Treasury.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, popular culture often romanticizes casual marijuana use, and those who warn that marijuana is a ``gateway drug'' that can lead to use of other, harder drugs are ridiculed as being out of the mainstream. The reality is that marijuana today is vastly different than the marijuana that was prevalent in the '60s. According to the National Drug Intelligence Center, the average THC content of seized marijuana was less than 4 percent in the early 1990s. By 2007 that level rose to nearly 10 percent. Local police in my district are now reporting a new threat from ``Kush,'' street slang for a strain of highly potent marijuana with a THC content of at least 20 percent. The rise of Kush mirrors the increasing trend of high-THC marijuana, which has become more accessible with the rise of hydroponics. Drug growers are able to strictly control light, temperature and humidity and can cross-breed to maximize THC content. According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Kush has been known to sell for as high as $600 per ounce--creating the same profit potential as crack cocaine. Today I am introducing legislation to bring federal penalties for trafficking high-potency marijuana in line with penalties for cocaine, heroin, and hashish, all of which have similar retail prices on the street. The gangs and cartels trafficking Kush are the same trafficking cocaine and heroin, and the profits they realize represent an equal danger to the public. In my view, the penalties for trafficking this dangerous drug should also be equalized.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Wilmette Police Chief George Carpenter, one of the finest public servants in my congressional district. Next month, Chief Carpenter will retire after 35 years of service to the people of Wilmette, serving as Chief of Police for the last 18 years. The police chiefs of the 10th District work closely together to address their shared concerns. I've had the good fortune to work with them and their departments to help combat gangs, drugs and weapons that make their way into the suburbs, and the respect that Chief Carpenter has among his peers is testament to what kind of a leader he is. As chief, he spearheaded education reforms in the Wilmette Police Department and leaves a legacy of forward-thinking, well-trained officers who will continue to serve the Village. He steadily increased recruitment of women, minorities, and those with foreign-language ability to diversify and bring new skills to law enforcement. These policies have resulted in increased approval ratings of the performance of the Wilmette Police Department, reflecting a high level of public trust. He helped form task forces to counteract the growing sophistication of criminals in our area which created a more united regional police force. His dedication to quality and service has been a great example for other communities in the 10th District. This is particularly crucial as Illinois now has the most gang members per capita in the nation. I know we are better prepared to meet this emerging threat because of Chief Carpenter's service. On behalf of the people of the 10th Congressional District, I thank Wilmette Police Chief George Carpenter for his outstanding public service and wish him the best in his future endeavors. Our community is safer and stronger because of his leadership.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. I thank the gentleman, and we will be outlining a positive set of reforms that we think can attract tremendous bipartisan support this Tuesday, from the centrists.

Mr. KIRK. If the gentleman would yield. What you heard tonight is focusing on positive outcomes, making sure we reform health care, less defensive medicine, deploy health information technology, health individual savings accounts. We have spent far less time criticizing the President and far more time outlining a new positive agenda. But to close tonight, I'd like to turn to Dr. Murphy, who's been more in the health care system than all of us, to finish us out.

Mr. KIRK. If the gentleman will yield, we also not only see other examples of the government poorly running the bureaucracies that it already has taken over, but recently the government took over the largest bond dealer, Bear Stearns. The government has taken over the largest insurance company, the American International Group, and the government has taken over the largest car manufacturer, GM. And I don't think that any us of would argue that the government is running it better in their current states.

Mr. KIRK. That's what we worry about. They're talking about maybe a $1 trillion cost of a government plan. And so the most obvious response with such a cost is a huge income tax increase, but we know most Americans oppose that. Some, including Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the heads of the President's advisory committee, has talked about a national sales tax on top of the other tax, but I think there's significant opposition to that. So they've talked about cutting back on the tax benefit that employers get when they provide health care to their employees, but by this estimate, it could cost over 100 million Americans their health insurance. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. KIRK. I want to emphasize the point the gentleman raises. Not only, if we create a government health care program, will it compete and may be the lowest cost option because it has a taxpayer subsidy, but that taxpayer subsidy may be paid for by ending some of the tax break that employers have in providing health care to their employees.

Mr. KIRK. And here's what we've been working on. We want to equalize the benefit so that if you buy your own insurance, you get the same tax benefit that an employer gets when it buys for employees. But here's what I'm concerned about. There are ideas building in strength now, in the Congress and downtown, that talk about cutting the tax benefit that employers get for providing health insurance to their employees. One study by the Llewellyn Group says that if that tax break that employers get for providing care to their employees is cut, 100 million Americans will lose their health insurance. And so a health reform bill, ironically, will cut the number of Americans who have their own insurance from 170 million to 70 million. Our bill, our positive alternative, goes in exactly the opposite direction. We're enhancing employer-provided coverage and making sure that it's more available. But I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. KIRK. Let me just follow up. I want to talk about some of the solutions we are going to put forward, because what is lost sometimes in this debate is we agree with the President that we should lower costs. We agree with the President that we should expand health care. But we think we have a better way. Many times in partisan debate people can say that we have no alternative. So we have spent about 90 percent of our time coming up with that alternative. We want to make sure that we guarantee the rights of each patient in the doctor-patient relationship so that you or a loved one in your family is allowed to carry out the decisions made by you and your doctor and not be interfered with by a government bureaucracy. Also though we are focusing in our legislation coming up on lowering the cost of insurance through alliances, through equalizing the tax benefit for individuals so they get the same benefit that employers get when they buy health insurance, and obviously what we have talked about here, lawsuit reform.

Mr. KIRK. I am going to keep this on the positive side because what we're doing is we're putting together a positive alternative. And one of the other reforms that we will be outlining is to dramatically expand the number of Americans who can have a health savings account, very much like an IRA, so that they can save, especially in their younger, more healthy years, in a tax deferred account that they will use to make up for their deductible expenses and their health insurance. Over time, as with our IRAs, an account balance will build up. And then, if each of us reaches the age of Medicare, at 65, with a balance in that account, that account either can become part of our retirement plan or eventually a part of our estate to our children. This is a much more flexible way of providing health care and, more importantly, it's owned by you, not by a government bureaucracy. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. KIRK. By the way, the gentleman points out Canada, a country that has basically a two-tier health care system, the Canadian health care system, and then when you are denied care, which is especially prevalent in any care needing advanced imagery or new oncology medicines to fight cancer, the relief valve is they come to the United States. Some Canadian doctors call it ``Fargo-ing a patient,'' meaning when a patient is denied care or care is going to be tremendously delayed under the Canadian system, they will then refer that patient to Fargo, North Dakota, where they will immediately get care under the U.S. system. The concern I have though is if we have the government take over health care, where will we be able to drive? Where will we be able to go? That is why in our legislation that we will be outlining on Tuesday, it includes the Medical Rights Act, and the Medical Rights Act says this: We guarantee the right of patients to carry out the decisions of their doctors without delay or denial of care by the government. The legislation protects the right of each American to receive medical services as deemed appropriate by their doctor.

Mr. KIRK. Right. And so, employers seeing that they don't get a tax break anymore for giving health care to their employees will simply cancel your health insurance program, and then the government will be your only option.

Mr. KIRK. I want to just point out, and I do want to go on to expanding health care insurance, we find for many small businesses they lack health insurance for their employees, and we ought to allow small businesses to join together. For example, the Libertyville Chamber of Commerce Association Health Plan is right now prohibited under Federal law. We should allow small businesses to band together to create large insurance pools on their own, because we know half of all Americans work for small businesses, and many don't have a plan through their employer, and that will be included in our legislation.

Mr. KIRK. One of the things that you have put forward, Congressman Murphy, is the need for public health clinics, et cetera. I think that puts forward a critical point right now missing in the debate. We know that of the uninsured, by this estimate 44.7 million, of the uninsured, currently 14.7 million are already eligible for public coverage.

Mr. KIRK. The bill that we are going to be putting forward by the centrists on Tuesday has a number of liability reform provisions authored by Congressman Dent, and community health center and volunteer liability provisions authored by Congressman Murphy. One of the things we talk about is access to care. A critical issue coming up is the uninsured. Now, the Census Bureau indicates that there are about 45.7 million, about 46 million people in the country who are lacking insurance. Of those, about 9.5 million are non-citizens, and the question we have to ask is, should we provide taxpayer-funded care to those people who are not legally present in the United States? About 12 million of the currently uninsured are already eligible for public programs. Because of lifestyle or because of their choice, they haven't even signed up for the health care that the government already will provide them. About 7.3 million have higher incomes than most Americans. They make over $84,000 a year. And about 9 million are only temporarily uninsured. As you can see here from an older chart showing 49 million uninsured, a large number of the uninsured were uninsured temporarily, only 5 months, and another 25 percent were uninsured for only 6 months, leaving about 53 percent of this cohort uninsured for a long time, a group we all agree should be addressed. When you take 45.7 million people uninsured, remove the noncitizens, remove the people who haven't signed up for the government programs they have already been eligible for, remove people who have higher incomes than most Americans and should buy it anyway, and remove the temporarily uninsured, you get down to a number of only 7.8 million. But this might not be a big enough number for a government takeover.

Mr. KIRK. But does it mean though that doctors in Connecticut were 300 percent worse 2 years later?

Mr. KIRK. So 71 percent are dropped, but a payment is still made because it's a settlement, and that's going to drive up insurance rates anyway.