Tom Price

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate you bringing that up because I was so astounded as well by this incredible outpouring by the American people of their concern and fear about what their government was about to do to them. And then the President seemed to just dismiss it, didn't even recognize that it had happened, and the Members of Congress, including the Speaker of the House and others, seemed to be saying, don't pay any attention to that man behind the curtain. You know, it was like they didn't even acknowledge that, in fact, the American people were concerned, which is--I appreciate you saying that because it's one of the things that has further angered my constituents and the folks that I talk to across this land, who say, is anybody listening there? Is anybody paying attention?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Mr. Ben Moore, who this weekend will receive a Lifetime Service and Achievement Award from the Johnson Ferry Baptist Church in my district. Mr. Moore was born in Texarkana, Arkansas on October 24, 1913. In 1920, his family fled the Dust Bowl and made their way to Atlanta, Georgia. At the age of 14, a young Ben Moore took a job as an office boy at the First National Bank of Atlanta, beginning what would become a long and distinguished career at First National. Mr. Moore served his country with valor during World War II, joining the Army Air Corps on Oct. 1, 1942 and seeing service in Italy. He returned to Atlanta after the war and was admitted to the State Bar of Georgia in 1949. He has been a member of the bar for 60 years and continues to practice law to this very day. In 1953 Mr. Moore was named as one of ``Atlanta's 100 Leaders of Tomorrow'' by Time Magazine. He served on the Atlanta Board of Aldermen, the precursor to today's City Council, during Mayor Ivan Allen's first term. During this period, the City of Atlanta saw numerous changes including the arrival of the Atlanta Braves, the opening of construction on Interstate 285, and the beginning of the transformation of Zoo Atlanta and Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport into the institutions we recognize today. Mr. Moore became a Baptist in 1957 when he and his two daughters were Baptized by Dr. Monroe Swilley, then pastor of Second Ponce de Leon Baptist Church. He is a graduate of Tech High, the Woodrow Wilson College of Law, and the American Institute of Banking. Mr. Moore will celebrate his 96th birthday next month. When he isn't practicing law, he enjoys the company of his two daughters, three grandsons, and one great grandson in the Atlanta area. Throughout his life, Ben Moore has answered the call to serve his family, his community, and his country. I'm proud to honor him today in the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Mr. Ben Moore, who this weekend will receive a Lifetime Service and Achievement Award from the Johnson Ferry Baptist Church in my district. Mr. Moore was born in Texarkana, Arkansas on October 24, 1913. In 1920, his family fled the Dust Bowl and made their way to Atlanta, Georgia. At the age of 14, a young Ben Moore took a job as an office boy at the First National Bank of Atlanta, beginning what would become a long and distinguished career at First National. Mr. Moore served his country with valor during World War II, joining the Army Air Corps on Oct. 1, 1942 and seeing service in Italy. He returned to Atlanta after the war and was admitted to the State Bar of Georgia in 1949. He has been a member of the bar for 60 years and continues to practice law to this very day. In 1953 Mr. Moore was named as one of ``Atlanta's 100 Leaders of Tomorrow'' by Time Magazine. He served on the Atlanta Board of Aldermen, the precursor to today's City Council, during Mayor Ivan Allen's first term. During this period, the City of Atlanta saw numerous changes including the arrival of the Atlanta Braves, the opening of construction on Interstate 285, and the beginning of the transformation of Zoo Atlanta and Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport into the institutions we recognize today. Mr. Moore became a Baptist in 1957 when he and his two daughters were Baptized by Dr. Monroe Swilley, then pastor of Second Ponce de Leon Baptist Church. He is a graduate of Tech High, the Woodrow Wilson College of Law, and the American Institute of Banking. Mr. Moore will celebrate his 96th birthday next month. When he isn't practicing law, he enjoys the company of his two daughters, three grandsons, and one great grandson in the Atlanta area. Throughout his life, Ben Moore has answered the call to serve his family, his community, and his country. I'm proud to honor him today in the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my friend from California for leading on the issue of health care and for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, as a physician, I have passionately worked, since the moment I began in public service and even before then, for positive solutions in the area of health care, solutions that allow patients to have the highest quality of care. And in debate here on the floor of the House especially in the area of health care, Americans are anxious for open and honest deliberation and discussion, which is why what occurred on the floor last night was so very, very troubling. Mr. Speaker, as you may know, Representative Grayson from Florida came to the floor for a speech and said that the Republican plan for health care is for Americans to, and I quote, ``die quickly.'' In fact, he concluded his remarks by saying, ``Remember, the Republican plan: Don't get sick. And if you do get sick, die quickly.'' Mr. Speaker, it's that type of presentation that debases and denigrates our proceedings here in the House and it does a disservice to all Americans. I have a privileged resolution that I'm not going to introduce today, but it's a resolution that parallels the previous resolution that was handled here in the House, that calls on the House to recognize that that kind of behavior is disapproved of by the House of Representatives. But in an effort to try to give the Representative from Florida, Mr. Grayson, an opportunity to recognize that his comments were, in fact, a breach of decorum, we respectfully request that he apologize to our leader. And I call on all Democrat Members of the House and all Democrat leaders to demand that he apologize, just as one of our Members did earlier. Mr. Speaker, the American people want open and honest discussion, yes, but they want respectful discussion. We call on Mr. Grayson to apologize. Mr. Speaker, it's the right thing to do.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Grayson, is still on the floor. He could have an opportunity to come down and apologize to the House right now for denigrating this discussion, this debate, for debasing Members of not just the House of Representatives, but this entire Nation. It's shameful what's been done. Mr. Grayson, how about apologizing? Mr. Grayson? Mr. Grayson, how about apologizing?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, what a glorious evening it is to come to the floor to remind my colleagues about a little fact and about a little truth. I have heard so many things over the last 15 or 30 minutes, Mr. Speaker, I am not quite certain where to begin. But I guess I would begin by imploring my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to talk to the Speaker. Goodness gracious, talk to the Speaker. When they talk about expand drilling, oh, they could talk to the President as well, expand drilling. You betcha, Mr. Speaker, you betcha that that's what we want to do is expand drilling. When they talk about clean coal technology and advancing clean coal technology, you betcha, Mr. Speaker. The problem is, the Speaker of the House and the President of the United States don't support it. That's the problem. I would encourage them to talk to their own leadership because the principles and the policies that they have just espoused over the last 15 to 30 minutes are as strong as we have on our side of the aisle, the Republican side of the aisle, espoused over the last number of years. I would encourage them to talk to their leadership. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that one of the things that was said is absolutely correct, and these aren't Democrat problems and these aren't Republican problems. They are American problems. To that end, I want to talk about what America has been concerned about. Mr. Speaker, if you think about what happened in August in this Nation, all across this Nation, it was a remarkable outpouring, a remarkable outpouring of concern, yes, and of fear, yes, and of anger about the direction in which the American people see their Nation headed. What they said, I believe, in town hall after town hall and meeting after meeting after meeting was, Washington, you are not listening. You are just not listening. We thought that we were electing change in November of 2008, and, in fact, we have elected change as a Nation. The problem is the change that's being instituted by my friends on the other side of the aisle and the Speaker and the President are not the change that the American people wanted. That's the problem. So they come out to these meetings and they come out to talk to their Representatives, if even they will meet with them. So many of my friends on the other side of the aisle refused to hold town hall meetings. But they come out to these meetings and they say, Please, please listen to us. Listen to what we're telling you. Your policies are killing us. They're killing us from an economic standpoint, too many taxes. You're spending our children and our grandchildren's money. You just can't do that. We can't do that at home. You can't do that at the Federal level. And so what they want are solutions. And my friend on the other side of the aisle earlier talked about solutions. And I'm going to talk a lot--a lot--about solutions this evening, because even this evening my two grand colleagues from Ohio reiterated this fabrication, this falsehood. Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker, something that isn't absolutely the truth when they say that Republicans have no solutions; they don't bring any solutions to the table. Well, we're going to talk about tonight a couple of solutions just in the area of energy and health policy. And if you, Mr. Speaker, would like to go look at our solutions, they're on our Web site. I'm privileged to chair the Republican Study Committee, the largest caucus in the House of Representatives, that puts solutions on the table for every single American challenge that we face, solutions that embrace fundamental American principles that are optimistic and forward thinking and upbeat and realize that the reason we're the greatest Nation in the history of the world is because we have followed fundamental American principles. So you can Google Republican Study Committee or go to RSC.price. house.gov--RSC.price.house.gov--and look at our solutions. Look at our solutions for an economy that we've seen a nonstimulus bill that is driving more individuals into unemployment, that is losing 4 million jobs just in this year alone. Look at our solutions, which is the contrast to a budget that was passed by this House of Representatives that spends money that we don't have, borrowed from the Chinese Government; money that makes us $1 trillion in debt year after year after year after year. And the American people are fed up with it, Mr. Speaker. Look at our solutions that say that the way to be able to utilize American resources responsibly so that we solve the energy challenges that we have, there's a way to do that that makes it so that the government isn't put in charge and also so that we aren't taxing the American people to death. Mr. Speaker, look at the solutions at RSC.price.house.gov for the health care challenges that we face that we will be talking about a little more this evening. I want to start with the health care issues because one of the things that drove me into public service after 20 years of practicing medicine--Mr. Speaker, I took care of folks who had broken bones and battered bodies as an orthopedic surgeon for over 20 years. I took care of them the best way I knew how and the best training that I was able to avail myself of, and I took care of them in a way that oftentimes led me to believe that the State government and the Federal Government were impacting the ability of myself and my staff in an adverse way--in an adverse way, not a positive way--in an adverse way to be able to care for those patients. So my friends on the other side of the aisle, the presentation that we just saw, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman had six Ps. I only caught five of them. But they were: People, portability, preexisting conditions, physicians, and prevention. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that none of those--none of those challenges that the gentleman from Ohio described--none of them are improved by the intervention of the Federal Government. Not one. Not one. So when I talk about principles in the area of health care, which is what I think we need to be talking about here in the United States House of Representatives and the Congress of the United States and by the President, we ought to be talking about principles of health care so that we create a system that is responsive to patients. That's the goal. Correct, Mr. Speaker? Responsive to patients. When we talk about principles, most of us have the top three. Most Americans have the top three principles. They're affordability. You ought to be able to afford the system that we create. Accessibility. You ought to be able to get into the system if you're a patient. And quality. You want the highest quality of care in the world, which is in fact what we have right now. I add three more principles to those: affordability, accessibility and quality. I add three. One is responsiveness. You have got to be able to have a system that's responding to people, which is so often not the case in other nations where they have systems that are taken over by the government. The second is innovation. We are a Nation that has allowed for the greatest amount of innovation in the world--in the world--in the area of health care. That has resulted in the highest quality of care for all of our citizens, for every single American. So we want a system that creates and incentivizes innovation. Third and finally, choices. The American people want choices when it comes to health care. They want to be able to choose their doctor; they want to be able to choose where they're treated. They want to able to choose when they're treated and how they're treated. And that ought to be their right. That ought to be their right. So principles of health care--affordability, accessibility, quality, responsiveness, innovation, choices. Those six principles, Mr. Speaker. And you may have some others, the people listening may have some others. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that those six principles, and the ones that were outlined by my friend from Ohio just a little bit earlier this evening, that none of those principles are improved by the intervention of the Federal Government. Think about it. Accessibility to the system. The Federal Government runs basically four specific medical programs: Medicare, Medicaid, the VA Health Service, and the Indian Health Service. Accessibility. All of those systems have some kind of rationing of care. You don't have to take my word for it. Talk to anybody who works in those systems. When I worked in the VA Medical Center in Atlanta, we would get to a point every single quarter when they would say, I'm sorry, you can't perform any more total joint surgeries this quarter. And it wasn't because we'd run out of total joints; it wasn't because we'd run out of prostheses. It wasn't because we'd run out of patients for whom the indication was to provide them with a total joint. No, Mr. Speaker, it was because we had run out of money. And that's because when you get a government-run system, what happens is that the decisions are controlled by money; they're not controlled by patients and by quality. Accessibility is limited in every one of those. For example, the Mayo Clinic, one of the finest health care providers in the Nation, in Jacksonville, Florida, is limiting the number of Medicare patients that it sees. Limiting the number of Medicare patients that it sees. Why? Not because they forgot how to take care of seniors. No, it's because the system is broken and flawed. That's what happens with a government system, is that it limits accessibility. When veterans in our veterans health care system call up for an appointment, are they given the appointment in the way that happens in a personal or a private setting? No, because accessibility is limited in a government health care system, not just in the United States, but in every other system in the world that is run by the government. It's limited. Accessibility is limited. So affordability is compromised; accessibility is compromised. Quality is compromised because of those first two. Responsiveness and innovation, certainly not consistent with anything that the Federal Government does with responsiveness and innovation. No, we know that responsiveness is in the private personal sector. We know that innovation is in the private personal sector, not in the governmental sector. Certainly, the government tries to catch up. And sometimes it does with relative efficiency. But it doesn't do so initially because there's nothing, nothing in the Federal Government that demands that you have responsiveness and innovation. And then the final principle of choices. The Federal Government and choices are inconsistent with each other because the Federal Government defines what individuals ought to do, defines what individuals must do, and determines basically what is available to people. And if it's available in something that doesn't mean anything to folks by and large, it doesn't really make a whole lot of difference. But in the area of health care, in the area of medicine, in the area of personal decisions that make it so that you are able to care for you and your family in the most personal and effective way, the government has no place in those decisions. The government has no place in those decisions, Mr. Speaker, none. And they ought not. So our friends on the other side of the aisle say, Oh, no, the government is the only entity that can provide the balance to this equation. Mr. Speaker, you know that the balance in this equation in the area of health care means that individuals will not receive the kind of care that they desire, not receive the kind of care that they and their families choose for themselves. They'll receive the kind of care that the government chooses for them, but they won't receive the kind of care that they and their families desire. In the fall of 2009, nothing could be more important here in Washington and here in the United States Congress as we try to talk productively about this issue that is of such incredible importance to the American people. One of the greatest concerns that I have is that at least half, and maybe more--at least half of the Members of Congress have been shut out of this debate. I mentioned that I'm privileged to Chair the Republican Study Committee, the largest caucus in the House of Representatives. We have attempted to solicit and take the President at his word when he said, If you have an idea, if you'd like to discuss the issues that we have before us in the area of health care, come on down to the White House. My door's open. Right, Mr. Speaker? That's what he said. My door's open. Come on down, and we'll go over the bill line by line. Well, Mr. Speaker, this may come as a surprise to some folks, but we, the Republican Study Committee, have been asking for a meeting with the President of the United States since the week he was sworn into office. And the response every single week has been, Well, thank you very much. This is an incredibly important issue. There are nine Members of our conference who are physicians, like I am, who have significant passion about the issue of health care and the reason that we ought not put the government in charge. Our friends on the other side of the aisle say cavalierly, Well, you just ought to let the government compete for this. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, if the government competes for it, it drives over 100 million individuals, over 100 million Americans from personal, private health insurance that they choose, that they select for themselves and their families. It drives them, it shoves them, it forces them into the government program. Mr. Speaker, that's not what you want, or at least that's not what you say you want. That's not what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they want, by and large. But that's the system that we're going to have if, in fact, the Speaker of the House and the President have their way. So we've got some incredibly important issues to discuss here in the United States House of Representatives. I'm joined this evening by a great friend and colleague, the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) who has been front and center on the health care issue and on the energy issue. I know that she has been frustrated by much of the information we have heard this evening, especially in the area of energy policy, because we have been fighting tooth-and-nail to make certain that we could put forward an all-of-the-above energy strategy. My friends on the other side of the aisle earlier this evening talked about the lack of solutions that we have. So I'm pleased to yield to my friend from North Carolina, Virginia Foxx, for her comments on energy or whatever else she would like to chat about this evening.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate those comments because I was stunned as I was sitting here, listening to the gentleman from Ohio say--and I wrote it down just because I was so astounded--say that we ought to increase our use of ``coal, nuclear and oil shale.'' He said that, and in fact, that is exactly the opposite thing that his party has done; isn't that the truth?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Thank you ever so much, my dear friend from North Carolina, Ms. Foxx, who outlines very specific and clear and cogent discussion points in the area both of energy policy and in health care policy. I think one of the important takeaways that I would offer in the area of energy policy is that we have been talking about and desirous of what we call an all-of-the-above energy solution that our friends on the other side talk about but, in fact, they have never voted for or introduced policy legislation that would accomplish that. And by ``all of the above,'' we mean sincerely that America has been blessed with incredible resources, remarkable resources, and that we ought to be able to utilize them in a very environmentally responsible and sound way. What does that mean? That means that offshore from the United States, there are resources that we can utilize. Onshore there are oil resources that we ought to be able to utilize: oil shale technology that allows us to gain the fossil fuels from oil shale; shale out west, to be able to use that and supply the American people with appropriate resources in the area of oil; clean coal technology, which my friend from North Carolina discussed and our friends on the other side talk about but, in fact, they vote against every time it comes up; and then nuclear technology. We ought to be able to use increasing nuclear resources to be able to provide energy for the American people. And we ought to be able to do so not just because it's the right thing to do for our Nation, not just because it's available to us and the good Lord has blessed us with this remarkable knowledge and expertise and resource base, but because in so doing, we make it so that we're not helping people across the world who don't like us. There are people that we are supporting to a huge degree, the Government of Venezuela, which is headed by an individual that has absolute animosity for the United States. There are governments in the Middle East that we are sending literally hundreds of billions of dollars to that are not fond of the United States or our government or our people. We ought not be utilizing American resources, American tax money, American labor, and ingenuity to fund folks who don't care for us. That is just wrong. If it were the only option available, that would be one thing, but it is not. There are wonderful resources that we have, but we are blocked by the Democrats in charge and the majority party. And that is wrong. The President has said over and over again that he doesn't believe that we ought to utilize our resources in this way. As the gentlelady from North Carolina says, he wants to double wind and solar energy. That is fine. That is great. But it will be ultimately 6 to 8 percent of the energy utilization of this Nation. That is not going to get us over the hurdle. It is not going to get us where we need to be. So on the one hand, we need to conserve more. Absolutely. We need to utilize American resources for Americans. That is a responsible thing to do. That is a common sense thing to do. One would think if one was elected to the United States House of Representatives or the Senate that one would have that as a responsible feature of their policy, to utilize American resources for Americans. And we ought to be able to incentivize the creation of the new form of energy without the government picking winners and losers. That is a responsible energy policy. That is an all-of-the-above energy policy. That is an energy policy that we have been clamoring for for years, literally, and have been blocked at every single turn by our friends on the other side of the aisle in their beholden nature to folks who would not allow us to use American resources. I want to talk a little more about the issue of health care because it is driving the entire debate here in Washington today. I have talked about principles in health care: accessibility, affordability, quality, responsiveness, innovation, and choices, and that none of those principles are improved by the intervention of the Federal Government. I don't think there is a single American who sincerely believes that they are improved by more imposition of rules from Washington. So if you believe that, if we believe that, then the President would have us believe there are only two alternatives, that it is either the government in charge or it is the insurance companies in charge. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is a false choice. That is a false premise. In fact, it is not just the government in charge or the insurance companies in charge; in fact there is a better way. There is the right way. There is the correct way, and that is to put patients and their families in charge. How do you do that, to put patients and their families in charge so that accessibility, affordability, quality, responsiveness, innovation, and choices are all improved? In fact, all of the principles in health care are improved if the patients are in charge. In fact, the system moves in the direction that it ought to move, and the direction that our health care system ought to move isn't the direction I, as a physician or Member of Congress believe it ought to move; it isn't the direction that you believe it ought to move; it isn't the direction in which our collective intelligence here in the House believes it ought to move. The direction that it ought to move in is the direction that patients want it to move. The only way to do that is to allow patients to control the system. Mr. Speaker, the bill that will do that is H.R. 3400. You can go to the Web site for the Republican Study Committee, rsc.price.house.gov. Look it up. It is right there. There is a side-by-side with H.R. 3200, which is Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats in charge here in the House, their monstrosity, a 1,000-plus-page bill. Or there is a responsible way to do it, H.R. 3400. Now what does H.R. 3400 do? Well, it does five big things very specifically, in addition to a lot of other things, but five big things. One is that it gets Americans insured. It is imperative that we make certain that those individuals who are unable or appear to have the lack of resources to be able to finance health coverage for themselves or their family have the wherewithal to do that. How do you do that as a good conservative? Well, you make it so for every single American it makes financial sense to be insured. Americans are bright people. They are making financial decisions right now not to be insured. So we devise a system, create the rules of a system that will respond to patients that will make it so each and every American citizen sits down at the end of the day and when they are doing their budget, they realize that it makes more sense for them financially to be insured than not. You do that through a series of tax deductions, tax credits, refundable tax credits, advanceable refundable tax credits, tax equity for the purchase of insurance so that individuals are able to purchase insurance with pretax dollars, just like businesses, instead of post- tax dollars. So you get folks insured. Secondly, you have to solve the challenges of the health insurance system right now. There are wonderful things about our health care system, but there also some things that are flawed. Those flawed things we ought to solve, and they are relatively easy to solve. For example, the two main issues, portability, you ought not lose your insurance if you change your job or you lose your job. It ought not be the case. Preexisting injury or illness. If you happen to have a diagnosis that results in a major calamitous event for you or your family from a medical standpoint, or you have an injury that results in a major expenditure, you ought not be priced out of the market. You ought not lose your insurance. That is wrong. So how do you solve that? Well, you make it so that individuals own and control their insurance policy so they can take it with them if they lose their job or they change their job. In addition to that, you make it so Americans can pool together with millions of other people for the purchase of insurance. So you get the purchasing power of millions even if you are one individual or a small group or small business or small employer in that market to purchase health insurance. So you solve those challenges. You get people insured, and you solve the insurance challenge. Third is to make absolute certain that it is patients and their families and doctors who are making medical decisions. Not government bureaucrats, not insurance bureaucrats, not anybody else. Medical decisions are some of the most personal decisions we ever make in our lives for ourselves and for our family. We ought to have the right, we do have the right, but we ought to be able to exercise the right of making those decisions ourselves. It is a sad commentary, Mr. Speaker, right now in America that in order to get that accomplished you have to write that into law. That is a sad commentary, but it is where we find ourselves right now. So H.R. 3400 says that, that nobody else in the Federal Government or the insurance industry will be able to make decisions as it relates to the provision of medical services and care for individuals or members of their family. Fourth, we solve the issue of lawsuit abuse. Lawsuit abuse, the lottery mentality that we have created in our society that makes it so that individuals believe if they just hit the right note, if they just are able to find the right cause of action against a physician or hospital, they might make millions. That results in the practice of defensive medicine. And the practice of defensive medicine are those tests and examinations that your doctor performs or orders in order to make certain, make absolute certain to as much scientific certainty as one can that the diagnosis or procedure he or she proposes for a patient and then carries out is backed up by all of the knowledge and evidence that is available to them so that if they find themselves in a court of law at some point they can look at the judge and jury and say look, I did every one of these things to make certain what I proposed to do and what I did was appropriate for this patient. And the judge and the jury nod their head and say, yes, he or she did. It doesn't make any difference whether the first two of those things were what was necessary to perform the diagnosis or cure the patient, the next 15 or 16 were redundant; but that is the practice of defensive medicine. Hundreds of billions of dollars each year, and it is not necessarily that it harms the patient, because it doesn't; but it makes it so that the system spends so much more money than it has to in order to provide the care that it currently provides because of the lawsuit abuse that we have. Mr. Speaker, so we can have everybody insured. We can solve the insurance challenges. We can make certain that medical decisions are made in their rightful place, that is, between patients and families and doctors; and we can solve the whole issue of lawsuit abuse. And the fifth item in H.R. 3400 is that we can do all of those things that would solve 99 percent-plus of the challenges that we face in health care, all of those things we can solve without raising taxes one penny. Not one penny. So, Mr. Speaker, when we look at 3400 and when we compare it to the bill that has been passed through three committees here in the House of Representatives by the Democrats in charge, a $1.3 trillion monstrosity, a 1,000-plus-page monstrosity that results in an $800 billion tax increase and a $500 billion slash to Medicare programs-- when you look at that, that's why the American people are confounded, they're confused. They don't understand what's going on because they know that that's not the solution. They know that the majority party-- the Democrats in charge, the Democrats in power--are taking us down a path that is not consistent with what they believe. They cry out, clamor, and have said over August and earlier this month, Why aren't you listening to us? Why aren't you listening to us? So that is why the opportunity that we have in this Chamber and in the Senate, right down the hall here in the Capitol, to solve the challenges that we face in positive ways that make fundamental American principles come to the table is so wonderful. We've got a great opportunity. In fact, we're ignoring that right now because of the leadership that we have--because of the lack of leadership from this Speaker and from this Congress to allow to be put in place the positive solutions that are available to us as a Nation. My friend from North Carolina is kind enough to stick around and to remain here for these discussions. I'm happy to yield to her.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Thank you so much, my friend from North Carolina, Congresswoman Foxx, for your wonderful expertise and comments. You alluded to significant misinformation on this issue, and there is a lot of misinformation out there. It's no wonder that the American people find themselves somewhat confused. One of the problems that I have found is that one of the greatest purveyors of misinformation happens to be the President of the United States, himself. Again, you don't have to just believe me. I have a letter from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, responding to President Obama's remarks about amputations, remarks which some of you may recall. The President has insisted on saying that physicians make financial decisions, and that's why they do things in treating patients, which is abhorrent to members of the medical profession. The oath that they take, as you said, Ms. Foxx, is, first, to do no harm. The President, as you recall, Mr. Speaker, said sometime about 6 to 8 weeks ago that we have a system that doesn't allow or doesn't incentivize the treatment of a diabetic limb disease and then rewards by providing 30 or 40 or $50,000 in compensation for surgeons to take off a limb, amputate a limb. Mr. Speaker, I was struck by that, because when I first heard it I was astounded. In fact, what it showed me was that the President has no clue about what it means to take care of patients and the incentives that go into caring for patients, not a clue. I was so heartened when I read a letter from Dr. Joseph D. Zuckerman, who is the president of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, that I would submit for the Record, dated August 13, 2009, in which he said to the President: ``Dear Mr. President: ``On behalf of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), I am writing to express our profound disappointment with your recent comments regarding the value of surgery and blurring the realities of physician reimbursements. The AAOS represents more than 17,000 U.S. board-certified orthopaedic surgeons who provide essential services to patients every day. As you yourself have said, `Where we do disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that's actually been proposed.' In that spirit, we would like to bring some clarity to your comments and underscore the value that orthopaedic surgeons bring to Americans every day of every year. ``First, surgeons are not reimbursed by Medicare, nor by any provider for that matter, for foot amputations at rates anywhere close to $50,000, $40,000 or even $30,000. Medicare reimbursements to physicians for foot amputations range from approximately $700 to $1,200, which includes the follow-up care the surgeon provides the patient [for] up to 90 days after the operation. Moreover, orthopaedic surgeons are actively involved in the preventive care that you mentioned. We are a specialty that focuses on limb preservation whenever possible and when it is in the best interests of the patient. Our approach to amputation follows the same careful, thoughtful approach, always with the patient's best interest as the primary focus. ``It is also a mischaracterization to suggest that physicians are reimbursed `immediately.' The AAOS itself, along with numerous other organizations, has testified in congressional hearings investigating the delays in reimbursement by Medicare and other payers that create additional administrative burdens making it more difficult to provide access to care for patients. ``As you continue to pursue your health care reform agenda, we implore you to disengage from hyperbole,'' and it goes on. [From AAOS Now, Sept. 2009] August 13, 2009. AAOS Responds to Obama's Amputation Remarks President Barack Obama, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: On behalf of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), I am writing to express our profound disappointment with your recent comments regarding the value of surgery and blurring the realities of physician reimbursements. The AAOS represents more than 17,000 U.S. board-certified orthopaedic surgeons who provide essential services to patients every day. As you yourself have said, ``Where we do disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that's actually been proposed.'' In that spirit, we would like to bring some clarity to your comments and underscore the value that orthopaedic surgeons bring to Americans every day of every year. First, surgeons are not reimbursed by Medicare, nor by any provider for that matter, for foot amputations at rates anywhere close to $50,000, $40,000, or even $30,000. Medicare reimbursements to physicians for foot amputations range from approximately $700 to $1,200, which includes the follow-up care the surgeon provides to the patient [for] up to 90 days after the operation. Moreover, orthopaedic surgeons are actively involved in the preventive care you mention. We are a specialty that focuses on limb preservation whenever possible and when it is in the best interests of the patient. Our approach to amputation follows the same careful, thoughtful approach, always with the patient's best interest as the primary focus. It is also a mischaracterization to suggest that physicians are reimbursed ``immediately.'' The AAOS itself, along with numerous other organizations, has testified in Congressional hearings investigating the delays in reimbursement by Medicare and other payers that create additional administrative burdens making it more difficult to provide access to care for patients. As you continue to pursue your health care reform agenda, we implore you to disengage from hyperbole and acknowledge that health care delivery can only be improved by recognizing that health care is a system in which orthopaedic surgeons play a crucial role. With $849 billion of our national economy impacted by musculoskeletal conditions, orthopaedic surgeons provide care that improves lives and puts peoplg back to work. Pediatric orthopaedic surgeons provide life- altering care to our nation's children and play an invaluable role in ensuring Medicaid patients have access to needed services. Military and civilian orthopaedic surgeons provide care to our service women and men, which preserves limbs and has improved survival rates over past conflicts. Orthopaedic trauma surgeons perform limb- and life-saving procedures and help to ensure that our communities have the medical services that we all deserve. Total hip and knee replacement surgeries are now two of the most successful operations in medicine through a predictable reduction in pain, restoration of function, and return of patients to both work and activities of daily living. And we are working every day to ensure that medicine provides Americans with disabilities the quality of life to which they are entitled. The AAOS is committed to improving the American health care delivery system and increasing health care coverage. The most expedient way to accomplish your goal is to ensure that the debate is based in fact and reflects the value of the services that all physicians, including orthopaedic surgeons, provide. We request a meeting with you and your staff at your earliest convenience to discuss these important issues. Sincerely, Joseph D. Zuckerman, MD, President, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Mr. Speaker, it is remarkable that the leader of this Nation continues to suggest, as do our friends on the other side of the aisle and the majority party, that the quality of health care that's provided in this Nation is not of the highest quality in the world. In fact, it is. If you look at disease-specific criteria, whether it's cancer or heart disease or diabetes or trauma or virtually any disease you can think of, Americans have the highest quality of care related to that specific diagnosis than anywhere in the world. It's why my friend from North Carolina said that when people are injured or have a disease from somewhere else in the world, they come, they flock to the United States by the hundreds of thousands to get care. And in this whole discussion about health care, to denigrate the care that's provided by compassionate and caring physicians and other providers around this Nation does a disservice to the debate and it makes it so that we are not talking about real things, about real things that affect real people. So I implore the President, I call on the President, I call on the Speaker, I call on my friends on the other side of the aisle to know of which you speak when you are talking about health care, to make certain that when you are talking about issues that relate to accessibility for patients and affordability for patients and quality of care and responsiveness of a system and innovation in a system and choices that patients must have in order to gain the highest quality of care and the care that's most appropriate for them and their families. Because, Mr. Speaker, as you may know, and as I hope the President now recognizes, that a given diagnosis in one patient doesn't necessarily mean that the same diagnosis in another patient is followed up with the same treatment, because no two people are the same. It's what this whole debate ignores. No two American citizens, no two individuals in this world, given the same diagnosis, regardless of that diagnosis, are absolutely the same, and the treatment that those individuals ought to receive ought to be determined by patients, those patients, and their families and caring and compassionate physicians. This notion by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, by the President of the United States, by the Speaker of this House and by members of the majority party that somehow you could come up with some algorithm that if you just answer the questions correctly and march through the maze that the American people will be better served, Mr. Speaker, you know that's not true and I know that's not true. When we come to this House, when we come to the United States Senate and we recognize that there are challenges that we face in the health care arena, we ought to come together as Americans and solve this challenge in a way that respects those principles of health care and respects the fundamental American principles that have allowed us to become the greatest nation in the history of mankind. I look forward to that debate. I look forward to that discussion, and I look forward to being able to vote and have all Members of this body vote on a bill that will reform our health care system in a positive and productive way.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chairman, here we are again--growing government. The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, an Orwellian title to say the least, marks the culmination of a 44-year journey to finally end the private student lending system, but is doing so in the midst of the worst economic downturn in generations. Now, perhaps my friends on the other side didn't notice this fact, but they must be ignoring that there are more than 14 million Americans unemployed on their watch. This legislation has real consequences for the economy, specifically in regard to job losses. Based on an employment survey of private lending loan participants, conducted jointly by the Consumer Bankers Association, the Education Finance Council and the National Council of Higher Education Loan Programs, this plan targets and may eliminate up to 30,000 private- sector jobs. So nearly every State could expect to see job losses when the Democrats ``invest in education.'' Remember, this is in the midst of the worst economic downturn in generations. It really has reached a point where the question has got to be asked: Is there any sector of the economy that the Democrats aren't planning to have the government control and dominate? Taking over the entire student lending system is just the latest example after health care, the national energy tax, financial institutions, and auto bailouts. Madam Chair, you could go on and on and on. The other side is clearly more committed to creating more bureaucracy than in preserving jobs, and more bureaucracy is exactly what happens when you have a public option in this or in any other arena. The finances, as my friend from Wisconsin talked about, would be laughable if they weren't so serious. Ten new entitlement programs convert the Perkins Loan Program from a discretionary program to a mandatory program. They create a new college access and completion fund with four new programs, costing $3 billion.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. It creates a new $4.9 billion mandatory fund program to modernize, renovate, and repair public elementary and secondary schools. That's right, Madam Chair. It's Federal money for building local schools. They create the 70th--get that, Madam Chair-- the 70th program for early learning programs in this Nation at a cost of $8 billion. You'd think we could have relied on the previous 69. It's a bad idea, even after 44 years, whose time has not come.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my friend from Alabama for yielding me time and for leading on this issue. What we hear from the other side of the aisle is this famous old phrase ``trust us,'' right? Now we know that folks on the other side don't have any real reluctance to have the government run things. We've seen it over and over and over again. In fact, we've just heard it from one of the speakers who said, We don't want to run private companies, and then he followed that up and said, But this is only part of what we need to do. Mr. Speaker, the bill has language in it that would, in effect, allow the Federal Government to determine pay, compensation for employees; and that might be all right if it was just companies that were receiving tax money. That might be okay. But in fact, it's not. It is so many other companies. Covered financial institutions, the definition in the bill would expose companies like CVS Caremark--that's right, drugstores--WellCare Health Plans, Value Line, Textron, McGraw-Hill Companies, Medco Health Solutions, Lowe's Corporation. Mr. Speaker, this is another far reach by the Democrats in charge who believe that the government knows best, not just about automobile companies, not just about energy companies, not just about how to spend your money, not just about your health care--they're working on that government-run health care plan--but also private companies across this land. They believe that they ought to be able to come in and say, Okay, this is what you can make, and this is what you can't make. If you don't believe it, just read the bill. Nobody is concerned about having shareholders give their opinions, have a say about what executives make when shareholders own part of that company. That makes a whole lot of sense. But what we do have concerns about, grave concerns, is the intervention of the Federal Government into one business after another after another. This is just another example of that. It's a terrible idea. It strikes at the very core of the free market principles that have made us the greatest Nation in the history of the world. Bad idea, Mr. Speaker. Vote ``no''.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the debate on this amendment is very appropriate and germane to the actions of this entire Congress. The amendment that was offered in committee in good faith, to try to make certain that there weren't any changes that could be made retroactively to compensation packages and incentive pay, was very specific. It said that no compensation of any executive having been approved by a majority of the shareholders may be subject to any callback, which is the retroactivity, unless it was part of the contract or unless there had been fraud committed. And that's what was accepted by committee, Mr. Speaker, accepted by committee. The amendment was put into the bill with the caveat that the chairman wanted, potentially, a few changes. And I would quote from the chairman, who said, The impulse to retroactivity is not one of our finest and ought to be constrained. And he said, We could work together to make sure this does not derogate from the SEC prospectively to say that you can't do this kind of thing. Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm here to tell you that there weren't any discussions before the Rules Committee met. There weren't any discussions before the amendment that we now have before us was offered as the apparently good-faith effort to the amendment that was offered and adopted in a bipartisan manner majority in the committee. And what does the new amendment say? It says, No regulation promulgated pursuant to this section shall require the recovery of incentive-based compensation under compensation arrangements in effect as of the date of the enactment of this act. Now, what does that mean? Well, it means that the SEC, that is the Federal Government, Mr. Speaker, will be able to dictate pay, dictate pay because of the language of this amendment, to publicly held companies. Now, that may be okay if they take tax money, Federal tax money, but this would be publicly traded companies that don't take a dime of tax money. Mr. Speaker, this is a huge step in the wrong direction. Section 4 is the area of this bill that we have great concerns about. It puts the Federal Government, it puts the SEC into the agreements for compensation for executives in publicly traded companies. It cuts at the very core of our free market system. I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Given the agreement that you and I have reached on language, what is the posture about changing the language on this amendment? Is that a unanimous consent?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, until that language has been introduced, I will reserve the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Has the language that has been offered at the desk been introduced as business allows?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the chairman, for his desire and willingness to work together on this. That being said, the challenges with section 4 are huge. The far reach of the SEC and the ability of the Federal Government now to get into the executive compensation packages for businesses for which there is no Federal money involved is remarkable in its extent. As we know, the Democrat majority has a great desire to have the government everywhere in our lives, whether it's in financial institutions, whether it's in energy companies or whether it's that the American people have to pay to turn on and off their light switches. I just picked up the paper this morning, Mr. Speaker, and saw that there is an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal which talks about health reform and cancer and about how, if the Federal Government is allowed to control health care, it may result in decreasing innovation in the area of cancer. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if the Federal Government is allowed in this arena that what we will see is a huge, depressing effect on the ability of businesses all across this land to be able to create the most vibrant, entrepreneurial and active businesses that inure to the benefit of the American people, that create jobs and that allow us to remain the greatest Nation in the history of the world. It's just little bits that chip away at the fabric of our Nation that make it so that it is impossible to continue to compete on an international basis. So, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the chairman was willing to clarify the amendment. However, it still gets to the heart of whether or not we are going to allow the Federal Government into decisions that ought to be left in a free market and in a private-sector arrangement, so I urge the defeat of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.