C. Young

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, four and a half months ago when the House first considered health care reform legislation I voted against it saying that it did not represent good public policy. Nothing in the package of legislation we will consider today and tonight changes my mind. It is still not good public policy, it was not considered under an open process envisioned by the drafters of our Constitution, and it will drive up--not down--the cost of health insurance and medical care for individuals. This bill cuts Medicare by $523.5 billion. This cannot do anything but compromise the quality and availability of care for older Americans who depend upon the program for their medical care. The Chief Actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services confirmed that in December when he advised Congress that ``providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries).'' A large percentage of my constituents in the 10th Congressional District rely on Medicare for their health care coverage and a large number of medical providers in my area care for a high percentage of Medicare patients. In a survey I sent to every registered voter last fall in my Congressional District, and to which more than 31,500 responded, 83 percent of the respondents said they were opposed to paying for health care reform by cutting billions from the Medicare program. They are concerned about the cuts in this legislation for inpatient and outpatient hospital services, inpatient rehabilitation services, long term care facilities, skilled nursing programs, hospice services, kidney dialysis facilities, and medical laboratory services. If this is not of concern enough to our nation's seniors, the legislation we consider today cuts $200 billion from the Medicare Advantage program, through which an estimated 47,000 residents of the 10th Congressional District receive their medical care. The Chief Actuary for Medicare has said that cuts of this magnitude would force more than 60 percent of these Medicare Advantage beneficiaries from the program. Nationally, that totals 4.8 million Americans who would lose their current coverage. Despite the fact that this legislation makes draconian cuts in Medicare, it will increase, not decrease, overall federal spending on health care. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that overall federal spending on health care will increase by $390 billion over 10 years. This is at a time when proponents of this legislation say it will save money. Supporters of this legislation also tout the expansion in health insurance coverage they claim it will bring about. However, this expansion is due in large part to increasing the Medicaid rolls. In fact, the CBO estimates that of the 32 million newly insured Americans under this legislation, half, or 16 million, will receive their insurance through the federally and state sponsored Medicaid program. At the same time, millions of people will be enrolled in subsidized plans on the government run health insurance exchanges and millions will lose their employer sponsored health insurance. Mr. Speaker, the majority of people I represent like the health care coverage they currently have and do not believe this legislation will improve the quality of their coverage. In my Town Hall by mail survey last fall, 73 percent of those who responded said they are satisfied with their current coverage and 70 percent say this legislation would not improve the quality of their coverage. Furthermore, 75 percent say Congress should not raise taxes to pay for this legislation and 74 percent say individuals should not be required to purchase health insurance. Many constituents have also expressed their grave concerns about the insertion of the federal government into the precious patient-doctor relationship. A perfect example of this is the creation of 159 new boards, bureaucracies, and programs created in the 2,733 page health care bill. For example, in an effort to keep Medicare spending below targeted levels the legislation creates the Independent Medicare Advisory Board. This new entity will be required to submit recommendations to Congress to keep Medicare spending below targeted levels. This could result in additional coverage decisions being made by unelected bureaucrats largely or exclusively on cost grounds. Few issues have divided the American people as much as this health care debate and given the interest and passion they have shown on this matter demands that we give it serious consideration with a lot less politics. Many of us have suggested that we start with legislation in areas that we all agree we can fix now. That includes lowering health insurance costs by allowing small businesses and individuals to pool together in lower priced plans, requiring the coverage of individuals with serious pre-existing medical conditions, prohibiting insurance companies from canceling policies for those who become sick, prohibiting insurance companies from imposing arbitrary spending caps for policyholders, allowing families to purchase health insurance policies across state lines, closing the Medicare Part D doughnut hole, and providing for medical liability tort reform which the Congressional Budget Office says would save $54 billion over 10 years in large part due to lower medical malpractice premiums and the reduction of defensive medicine practices. In addition to Medicare cuts, the authors of this legislation pay for new big government programs by raising federal taxes by $569 billion over a ten year period. Many of those taxes will impact middle class families. These are families who will pay a penalty if they choose not to carry health insurance, the owners of small businesses who will pay a penalty if they do not provide health insurance for their employees, a sales tax on medical devices, a tax on prescription drugs, and a tax on health insurance premiums. This bill also violates the President's promise that if you like your insurance you can keep it. In addition to the 4.8 million seniors who will lose their coverage under the Medicare Advantage program, the CBO estimates that another 8 to 9 million people would lose their employer based coverage when their employers choose to drop their coverage or shift their coverage to the new subsidized policies on the health care exchange. This legislation would also contradict the President's promise that the cost of health care coverage would go down. Instead, the CBO estimates that the enactment of this legislation will raise private health insurance premiums from 10 to 13 percent. Mr. Speaker, most Presidents make it a practice of trying to bring the country together in the face of difficult issues. We did this in bipartisan fashion when it came to ensuring the financial solvency of the Social Security system, reforming our nation's welfare programs, and in engaging in an international war on terrorism. Yet this administration has sought to do it their way whether the country agreed or not. Tonight we are faced with legislation that affects every American, every American family, and every American business. The decision we make tonight could be irreversible and the changes to the Senate passed bill that are promised tonight may never take place. This is no way to conduct our nation's business. It engenders no level of confidence in the people who elected us to serve them.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 1048 which honors the work of the men and women of the USNS Comfort and the United States Navy in the immediate response to those affected by the devastating earthquake that struck Haiti on January 12, 2010. The Navy's support is ongoing and to date, the Comfort has treated more than 900 Haitians and has performed more than 750 life saving surgeries. Together with her sister ship, the USNS Mercy, these vessels serve as ambassadors of good-will during periods of desperation all around the world. Their mission is always a benevolent one and their commitment to areas of strife and devastation highlight the best qualities of what it means to be an American--that we stand by always ready to assist and will never forsake those who are in need. The earthquake that hit Haiti was the most devastating it has seen in 200 years. Words cannot adequately describe the destruction that took the lives of more than 200,000 people, leveled the capital city, and left thousands of survivors with an uncertain future coupled with worries about hunger, disease, and injuries. Into that morass of suffering we stepped in as a nation to assist the good Haitian people with the USNS Comfort and the Navy as part of the vanguard. The USNS Comfort has a storied history. Among its most notable deployments were: --In 2007 when it embarked on a four month humanitarian assistance mission throughout Latin America and the Caribbean that treated more than 98,000 people in 12 countries. This type of mission highlights the diplomatic role our military plays as it works in concert with the State Department in being ambassadors of good-will. --In 2005 when Comfort responded on our own shores after the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, providing treatment to thousands in the Gulf Coast region. Despite regional devastation, the USNS Comfort was able to provide critical emergency hospital services for residents and first-responders before regular service was restored. --In 2003, when Comfort deployed to war and served as an afloat trauma center for two months during the initial stages of Operation Iraqi Freedom. --In 2001, immediately in the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks, when Comfort deployed in support of Operation Noble Eagle and provided meals, housing, medical and psychological services to volunteer and relief workers at New York's ground zero. This is just a sampling of the ship and crew's operational history since Comfort was delivered to the Navy in 1987. Untold thousands have benefited from these missions. Madam Speaker, while many know of Comfort and Mercy's life-saving work, few realize that these ships almost did not come into the Navy's fleet. USNS Comfort and USNS Mercy began their lives as oil-tankers a decade before being delivered to the Navy as hospital ships. In fact, they were destined for the scrap yard, if not for the intervention of Congress and specifically the Appropriations Committee. It was a Congressional Initiative that was the catalyst for the birth of the Mercy Class Hospital Ships. My colleagues and I on the Appropriations Committee saw a need for this life-saving capability when others sought to scrap these ships. We saw the value in these Mercy Class Hospital Ships, to provide a unique capability of being some of the largest U.S. trauma centers with the distinction of having world-wide mobility. Even in the face of airfield closures, destroyed infrastructure, and interrupted communications, as long as the sea is navigable, the USNS Comfort and USNS Mercy can get there. Once on the scene, a fully crewed ship brings 1,000 medical professionals, a hospital with a full spectrum of surgical and medical services including four X-rays, a CAT scan unit, a dental suite, two oxygen-producing plants, and 5,000 units of blood. The ships have 12 operating rooms and a total bed capacity of up to 1,000. In short, they are fully functional floating hospitals able to give first-rate care where otherwise there would be no treatment options. Madam Speaker, As we take the time today to honor the men and women who proudly serve this country aboard the USNS Comfort, let us also remember the broad scope of compassionate contributions that our servicemen and women are providing around the world in both non-hostile and hostile environments. Often times we forget that our military performs many humanitarian functions that other agencies and nations depend upon, be it logistical support or whole-scale nation-building. Their efforts and their sacrifice go beyond expressions of remorse and tangibly demonstrate our level of commitment to peace and prosperity for all.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to the memory of one of my close friends, one of my colleagues, my partner, and a man with whom I have spent so many hours, so many days and for so many years as we've worked together on the National Defense Appropriations bill, and I'm speaking of the late Chairman Jack Murtha. In keeping with his legislative management style, I'll be brief because, as we presented our Defense Appropriations bills, the last meeting that we would have somewhere in the Chamber here would be, Hey, look, this is a good bill. It's not controversial. Let's pass it quick. We ought to be able to get it done in 8 or 10 minutes, which we normally did. Jack was a good leader, a good chairman. When we had discussions on the hundreds and hundreds of issues in that bill, his concern always was what is best to keep America safe, what is best to keep Americans safe, and what is best to give our soldiers the tools that they need, the technology that they need to do their job, to carry out their mission, and to protect themselves while they're doing that. I expressed my condolences and my sadness to his wife, Joyce, and their children. I know of the sadness that they experienced here a couple of weeks ago as Jack left the Congress, left the family, and left this life. I really was saddened and regretted and felt extremely bad that I was not able to attend his funeral, but Beverly and I had a tragic event of our own during that same period. But I wanted to mention that Beverly, my wife, knew Jack Murtha very well because we would oftentimes be at the same military hospital with him visiting troops, wounded troops and their families. And I remember the first day that my wife ever ran into Jack Murtha at Walter Reed Hospital, and she had been talking with the wife of a soldier who had serious physical problems, but the family had financial problems. She said, Hey, Mr. Murtha, give me your wallet. And Jack Murtha took out his wallet and handed it to her, and she took out all of the money and handed it to the soldier's wife and then gave Jack back his empty wallet. And so she also had a special relationship. But we were not able to attend Jack's funeral. During that same period of time, my son Billy and his wife, Ashley, had become pregnant some time ago, and everybody was excited about that. And then one day, they picked us up at the airport coming back from Washington, and we had lunch together. And they announced that they had just been to the doctor, and we were going to have twin granddaughters. You talk about being excited and cheers and tears. But that was not to be. Twenty weeks into the pregnancy, something happened. Things went wrong. The two little girls, Taylor Ann and Riley Grace, were born alive and lived only a couple of hours until their little hearts quit beating. And so we were going through that same grief at about the same time that Joyce and her family were going through the grief of losing Jack Murtha. I lost a friend. Congress lost a powerful legislator. He didn't speak on the floor very often. He was never boisterous. You never saw him-- well, seldom--shouting and waving his arms, but he knew what was going on. And he affected what was happening in the legislation. Some of our colleagues used to joke that he would sit back in this corner while I sat back in that corner so that between the two of us, we could watch everything that was happening in the House Chamber at any given time. Well, there might have been something to that, but it was a good relationship. So I, again, I express my condolences. My own sadness of losing this friend, of losing this great American. And Mr. Speaker, I think Jack has left an emptiness that probably will not be filled for a long time, if ever. And I think those on the House floor, as we proceed with appropriations bills in the future, will recognize that without Jack Murtha here, things are a lot different. So God bless the family.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, Our nation is faced with more major issues, and is more divided over how we should handle those issues, than at any time I have served in Congress. These issues include matters of national security, financial security, economic security, and the future of our health care system. Last November, I asked residents of the 10th Congressional District I have the privilege to represent to share their thoughts with me on these and many other pressing issues. To date, more than 31,500 have responded to my survey which included 26 questions on a wide range of legislative matters. In addition, almost half of those who responded provided some very helpful additional comments about other matters of interest to them. In order to certify the accuracy of the results, I had an outside firm tabulate the surveys before returning them to me to review the comments. Madam Speaker, following my remarks, I will include for the benefit of my colleagues the complete results of my Town Hall by Mail survey. As we return for the Second Session of this 111th Congress and begin debate on these many difficult issues, I think they will find these results of special interest. Congressman Bill Young Town Hall by Mail 1. Which of the following do you feel to be the most pressing federal issue? Federal Deficit, 17.33% Job Creation, 16.02% A Growing Federal Government, 15.14% Health Care, 14.52% National Security, 11.21% Energy Independence, 8.83% Immigration, 7.79% Other, 3.61% No Response, 2.86% Housing, 2.69% 2. Are you satisfied with your current health care coverage? Yes, 73.09% No, 20.40% Not currently covered, 4.77% No Response, 1.73% 3. From what you have read about the pending health care legislation before Congress, do you believe this legislation would improve the quality of your health care coverage? Yes, 15.85% No, 70.71% Unsure, 11.72% No Response, 1.71% 4. From what you know about the health care reform legislation pending before Congress, would you support or oppose this legislation? Support, 22.42% Oppose, 65.81% Unsure, 10.22% No Response, 1.55% 5. Should health care reform include a government-run public option? Yes, 28.49% No, 60.44% Unsure, 8.88% No Response, 2.19% 6. Do you believe that any health care reform legislation should specifically prohibit federal funding for illegal immigrants to receive health care coverage? Yes, 81.17% No, 11.12% Unsure, 5.99% No Response, 1.71% 7. Should Congress raise taxes to pay for health care reform legislation? Yes, 16.47% No, 74.73% Unsure, 7.04% No Response, 1.76% 8. Should Congress pay for health care reform legislation by cutting Medicare by $500 billion as proposed in the House bills? Yes, 7.48% No, 83.32% Unsure, 7.44% No Response, 1.76% 9. Should Congress require individuals to purchase health care insurance or face a tax penalty? Yes, 17.02% No, 73.54% Unsure, 7.77% No Response, 1.68% 10. Do you believe that the $787 billion economic stimulus spending bill approved by Congress earlier this year has created jobs? Yes, 15.32% No, 73.67% Unsure, 9.48% No Response, 1.53% 11. Given the continued increase in unemployment, should Congress enact a second stimulus spending bill this year? Yes, 13.31% No, 72.66% Unsure, 12.36% No Response, 1.67% 12. Should the President approve the recommendation of General Stanley McChrystal to deploy some 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan? Yes, 49.60% No, 32.53% Unsure, 16.04% No Response, 1.83% 13. Would you be willing to pay higher fuel and energy prices to reduce the production of greenhouse gases? Yes, 23.59% No, 64.03% Unsure, 10.52% No Response, 1.86% 14. Should Congress be required to post major legislation online at least 72 hours before it's voted on in the House or Senate? Yes, 85.08% No, 5.90% Unsure, 7.16% No Response, 1.86% 15. Should Congress extend the $8,000 federal first-time homebuyer's tax credit (the credit is set to expire on November 30, 2009)? Yes, 48.66% No, 41.21% Unsure, 8.34% No Response, 1.79% 16. Should Congress consider passage of a second Cash for Clunkers program? Yes, 13.43% No, 78.75% Unsure, 6.27% No Response, 1.56% 17. Should Congress provide additional bailout funds for U.S. automakers and financial institutions? Yes, 2.88% No, 90.71% Unsure, 4.82% No Response, 1.58% 18. The federal National Debt is currently over $11.9 trillion and is projected to increase by more than $9 trillion over the next ten years. To balance our account, Congress should: Reduce government spending and eliminate programs, 83.30% Increase taxes to pay for existing government programs, 13.43% No Response, 3.27% 19. Should the federal government be required by law to have a balanced budget, as the Florida state government and most other states are required to do? Yes, 79.64% No, 9.18% Unsure, 9.38% No Response, 1.81% 20. Which do you believe would do more to create jobs and stimulate the American economy? Increased government spending and new government programs, 13.21% Reducing taxes on private business (the U.S. business tax rate is the 29th highest of the world's 30 largest economies), 81.37% No Response, 5.43% 21. The Federal Reserve had refused to disclose to the Congress which companies have been given trillions of dollars in bailout money. Should the Fed be subject to a full and complete audit of its actions? Yes, 94.54% No, 1.71% Unsure, 2.24% No Response, 1.51% 22. Should suspected terrorists be transferred from the prisons at Guantanamo Bay to federal prisons in the United States? Yes, 20.62% No, 67.22% Unsure, 8.21% No Response, 3.95% 23. Should amnesty for those here illegally be included in immigration reform? Yes, 12.23% No, 74.12% Unsure, 9.69% No Response, 3.96% 24. The measure of the cost-of-living for Social Security recipients is predicted to increase from 2010 to 2011, yet recipients are not likely to receive a cost-of-living adjustment the next year. Should Social Security recipients receive an increase in their benefits for 2012? Yes, 74.86% No, 10.60% Unsure, 10.70% No Response, 3.84% 25. Should the U.S. continue pursuing a missile defense shield in Europe? Yes, 51.27% No, 27.68% Unsure, 17.19% No Response, 3.86% 26. Should economic sanctions continue against Iran? Yes, 78.87% No, 7.27% Unsure, 10.07% No Response, 3.78%

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. I wanted to rise in support of the position taken by my friend, Mr. Obey. He didn't say what that position was exactly; so I am assuming that we are going to vote ``no,'' that we are going to support the President's veto. And I think, on our side, we fully support this issue. I find it a bit ironic that here we are having to defend the constitutional prerogatives of the Congress on a joint resolution that was originally sent to the President to respect his constitutional prerogatives. Under Article I, section 7 of the Constitution, the President has up to 10 days to review legislation before deciding whether to sign it into law. However, when a continuing resolution is to keep the government functioning if the appropriations bill is set to expire, the continuing resolution is sent to the President to give him the opportunity to review the appropriations bill. As a matter of courtesy to the President, Congress, on a bipartisan basis, traditionally submits a short-term ``signing'' CR to preserve the President's ability. That is exactly what the situation here is today. Basically, it is a moot question other than the constitutional requirements. And so we are here to say to my friend Mr. Obey and to you, Madam Speaker, that assuming that Mr. Obey is going to recommend a ``no'' vote, we are going to also vote ``no.'' I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate all of the members of the subcommittee for having worked so hard all year long to get this product to where we finally have final passage on the issue. The House passed this bill 4\1/2\ months ago. The Senate passed it in September. It has been a bit of a painful process along the way because a lot of suggestions and a lot of ideas were raised of which we could agree to some and could not agree to others. Anyway, we have produced what I think is a good package. I may not be as enthusiastic about this one as I have been for many others in the past, but it is a good bill. It does provide what our soldiers, what our sailors, what our marines, and what our airmen need in order to do their jobs and to protect themselves while they're at it. I would have said ``Coast Guard,'' but we don't have the jurisdiction in this subcommittee for the Coast Guard. Yet we recognize the importance of the United States Coast Guard as well. The bill is not too much different from the House bill that we passed 4\1/2\ months ago. There has had to be some negotiation, obviously, but I think we provided what our soldiers need and what our country needs. There is a 3.4 percent pay raise for the members of our military. It wasn't quite that big when it came to us, but we increased it to give a little more of a substantial pay raise to the members of our military. There is one point that I was questioned about which I need to make clear: There is no money in this bill to move detainees from Guantanamo or to buy or build new facilities in the United States for detaining Guantanamo detainees. So there is no money in this bill for that purpose. All in all, it's a good bill and one that I can support enthusiastically. As I think most of the Members know, Madam Speaker, a number of other temporary issues have been added to this bill at the leadership level, and we do not object to that. We think that that is perfectly acceptable. In fact, I think it's a good idea in some of the cases. I yield to the ranking member on the full committee, who chaired this subcommittee for quite a few years, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), who has been a major player in our Defense appropriations for years.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill, H.R. 3962, does not represent good public policy. I rise to express my concerns about H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act. This legislation is misnamed, as even the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says it will not be affordable for the American people and our nation as a whole. The Congressional Budget Office says this legislation will cost $1.055 trillion over the next 10 years, raising taxes on American taxpayers and businesses by $729.5 billion. Of great concern to me, and the 138,647 Medicare beneficiaries I represent, is that it will also cut Medicare payments by $500 billion. There is no possible way you can cut such a significant amount of funding out of a program that is so vital to senior citizens without compromising the availability or quality of their care and without disrupting the relationship they have with their current doctors and medical providers. Within the Medicare program, H.R. 3962 also cuts the reimbursement rate for seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage programs. In the 10th Congressional District of Florida which I represent, more than one- third of the Medicare beneficiaries, or 47,729 seniors, are currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. The Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimates that if enacted, the legislation we consider today would cut enrollment in Medicare Advantage by 64 percent over 4 years. This means that more than 30,500 of the seniors I represent will lose or have to give up the health care coverage they currently have and like. This violates the number one promise made by the sponsors of this legislation, who say that if you like your current health care coverage, you can keep it. The Congressional Budget Office also notes that changes in this legislation to the Medicare Part D program will, in the end, drive up Part D premiums by as much as 20 percent. These are additional premiums that seniors living on fixed incomes will have to pay to keep their prescription drug coverage. Finally, with regard to Medicare, this legislation does nothing to correct a 21 percent cut in physician reimbursement rates that is scheduled to take effect January 1st for doctors who provide care to our seniors. Having met with doctors I represent throughout the past year, I know that one of their major concerns about health care reform is that they will be asked to take larger and larger cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates. These cuts, they say, will make it more and more difficult for them to care for Medicare patients. In the end, many seniors could be forced to find new doctors. In addition to the impact this legislation would have on senior citizens, I am concerned about the economic impact this legislation will have on those seniors, their children, their grandchildren, and their great grandchildren. H.R. 3962 creates a brand new federal entitlement program at a time when our nation is struggling to sustain those entitlement programs already on the books. While the Congressional Budget Office says that under a best case scenario the $500 billion in Medicare cuts and $729.5 billion in tax increases will pay for this legislation over its first 10 years if there are no unexpected costs, it is doubtful that this will keep the program from running up federal deficits after that and leaves no margin for error. In fact, despite one of the goals of this legislation to make health insurance more available and affordable for uninsured Americans, we simply move an estimated 18 million people into the government Medicaid program. This is more than half of the 34 million uninsured Americans who the Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says will receive coverage under this legislation. Of the 13 million uninsured Americans who will receive coverage under the Health Insurance Exchange program created in this legislation, the Chief Actuary estimates that 40 percent, or 5.2 million, will take advantage of the government subsidized public option created by H.R. 3962. The creation of a government subsidized public option is another major concern of the large majority of my constituents who have called and written me in opposition to this legislation. We are concerned about the insertion of the federal government into the precious patient-doctor relationship. At last count, this 1,990 page bill creates more than 100 new boards, bureaucracies, commissions and programs. Among those created by the bill is the ``Health Benefits Advisory Committee,'' that would be chaired by the U.S. Surgeon General, to make recommendations on cost and coverage issues. This 27-member government committee of unelected administrators will be in charge of advising other bureaucrats, who will then decide what procedures American citizens are allowed to have and what doctors you are allowed to see under your healthcare plan. This places another layer of bureaucracy between you and your doctor. This committee is in addition to another newly created federal organization called the ``Health Choices Administration,'' which will be governed by a new Commissioner who will distribute billions of dollars of taxpayer-funded subsidies. Additionally, the Commissioner will have complete control over all insurance plans offered through the newly created Health Insurance Exchange. Perhaps the toughest of the mandates handed down by the federal government under this legislation is that businesses must provide health care for their employees or pay an 8 percent payroll tax and that individuals must purchase health insurance or pay a 2.5 percent tax on their adjusted gross income. This is not the federal government providing incentives to individuals or employers. This is the federal government imposing its will on individuals and businesses, and penalizing those who do not comply. This legislation further penalizes small businesses by imposing a 5.4 percent surtax on individuals earning more than $500,000. Half of these so-called ``high earners'' are small business owners. Just imagine how small business owners all across our nation will react to this $544 billion in new federal taxes they will pay over the next 10 years. With the unemployment rate nationally at 10.2 percent and 11.4 percent in Florida, Congress should not be making it harder for business owners to create new jobs. Finally, at a time when we are trying to lower health care costs, this legislation imposes a new 2.5 percent excise tax on the cost of wheelchairs, portable oxygen systems, diabetes testing equipment, and a whole range of other medical devices. This tax will be paid by our constituents who have no choice but to purchase this medical equipment and who may already be stretched thin by other medical costs. Mr. Speaker, I have discussed here some of my concerns about provisions in this bill; however there are glaring omissions to this legislation as well. The most significant provision that has been left out is medical liability reform. This is a top issue for doctors, hospitals and all medical providers, as it is one of the major drivers increasing the cost of health care. Tort reform would help reduce the filing of unwarranted lawsuits, decrease the number of duplicative tests that are a part of defensive medicine, and lower the cost of medical malpractice insurance rates, which would translate in lower medical costs. Tort reform is one of the many areas that we can and should be able to agree upon to increase the availability and decrease the cost of health care. There are others I support, some in this bill, including requiring coverage for individuals with pre-existing conditions, preventing insurance companies from cancelling the policies of individuals when they become sick, providing for the availability of health insurance across state lines, ensuring that employees can retain access to health insurance when they change or lose their jobs, creating health insurance pools that small business owners and self- employed individuals can join to provide lower cost health insurance for their employees and themselves, and closing the so-called doughnut hole in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that our nation can and should do better to provide quality and affordable health care for the American people. Throughout my service in Congress, I have done all I could to expand health care opportunities nationally and throughout the 10th Congressional District, which I represent. By establishing the National Marrow Donor Program in 1986, I sought to provide life-saving medical options to terminally ill patients suffering from leukemia and more than 60 otherwise fatal blood disorders. Today the national registry has more than 7 million volunteers available to donate the life-saving bone marrow. During the time that I worked to establish the national registry and as we began to find matched marrow donors for patients, I met with family after family who needed help convincing health insurance companies to cover the marrow transplant procedure. From this experience, I witnessed first-hand the tragedy of families losing their health insurance coverage at their time of greatest need and of being denied coverage for a life-saving procedure. In a similar manner, I have identified other national and local health care needs and have done something to solve the problems that include increasing the vaccination rates for our nation's children; ensuring the availability of specialized services, facilities and equipment at our nation's hospital emergency rooms to meet the needs of children; expanding the funding for graduate medical education programs to increase the number of doctors who receive the next step of their training; increasing the Inspector General force at federal agencies to uncover waste, fraud and abuse which threaten the safety of seniors and veterans, and divert limited federal health care resources; improving the quality of health care through our investment in biomedical research by doubling the budget for the National Institutes of Health during my 6 years as Chairman of the Appropriations Committee; expanding other research opportunities through the Department of Defense in the areas of breast cancer, prostate cancer, Parkinson's Disease, ALS, multiple sclerosis and diabetes; and expanding the number of community health centers throughout Florida and Pinellas County. Mr. Speaker, I take a back seat to no one when it comes to my work to improve and expand the quality and availability of health care for the American people and the people I represent. I supported the creation and expansion of the State Children's Insurance Program, which increases access to health care for our nation's youth, and likewise the Family and Medical Leave Act, allowing employees to take time off from work to care for a sick and recovering family member. However, I cannot support legislation that would threaten the sanctity of the patient-doctor relationship, that would establish new federal bureaucracies that would insert themselves into the health care programs of individuals and employers, that creates a new and financially unsustainable federal entitlement program, that threatens the availability of health care for our nation's seniors, that raises taxes substantially and threatens the viability of many small businesses at a time when we are trying to get our nation's economy back on track, and that ultimately will not make health care insurance more affordable for the American people. We have all heard from the American people we represent over the past few months that this legislation has been under consideration. We have heard that they are closely following its progress. We have heard that they have many concerns about this legislation before us. And we have heard that they want us to work together in a bipartisan manner to bring down the cost and expand the availability of health care coverage. Today, we have a historic opportunity to tell the American people we hear their voices. We can commit to them that, on this issue which will affect every single household and business in our nation, we will go back to our respective committees and work together--as Republicans and Democrats; conservatives, moderates and liberals; Blue Dogs and Progressives--to come up with a solution that the American people can support and, most importantly, have confidence knowing it will do the job without bankrupting our nation, jeopardizing our economic recovery and violating the free market principles upon which our nation was founded.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, our guest chaplain today is Rabbi Jacob Luski of Congregation B'Nai Israel in St. Petersburg, Florida. Rabbi Luski is a longtime friend and constituent and one of our community's most respected religious leaders. He has served his congregation faithfully for 32 years and is an important leader in a number of community organizations, including serving as a Jewish chaplain ministering to our veterans for the last 20 years at the Veterans Medical Center at Bay Pines. Madam Speaker, Rabbi Luski is a 1971 graduate of Georgia Tech with a bachelor of science degree in industrial management. He went on to the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City and was ordained there in 1977, and he earned his doctorate of divinity degree there in 2003. Something very interesting about Rabbi Luski: He was born in Havana, Cuba, on November 2, 1949, which makes him, in just a couple of days, 60 years old. But he left Cuba 50 years ago at the age of 10 and came to the United States with his family. Rabbi Luski has with him this morning his mother, his father, and his sister. Madam Speaker, it is an honor for me to welcome Rabbi Luski to the House this morning, along with his wife, Joanne, and one of his four children, Rachel. Thank you for your inspiring life story, Rabbi, and for your devotion to your synagogue and to the people of our community and for your friendship of many, many years.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, the Department of Veterans Affairs Hospital at Bay Pines, Florida, which I have the great honor to represent, will be honored Friday with the prestigious Robert W. Carey Trophy Award for Performance Excellence. The hospital and its hundreds of dedicated employees and volunteers are being recognized with this, the Department's highest recognition across all its departments, including the Veterans Health Administration, the Veterans Benefits Administration, and the National Cemetery Administration. Bay Pines was recognized by the VA last year as ``A Top Quality Achiever'' for organizational excellence in seven key areas: leadership; strategic planning; customer and market focus; measurement, analysis, and knowledge management; human resources; process management; and results. With this award, Bay Pines is not just one of the best hospitals and VA organizations, it is the very best anywhere in the nation. This just confirms what veterans in the Tampa Bay area already know. Hospital Director Wallace Hopkins and the entire team at Bay Pines work hard to provide veterans with the highest quality care they deserve and have earned from a grateful nation. And Bay Pines does not rest on its laurels. The hospital and its staff continue to find ways to improve the delivery of care and services. The hospital has opened a new and larger Emergency Room that doubles the capacity for emergency care services including emergency mental healthcare. Bay Pines has under construction a Radiation Oncology Center to provide veterans with state of the art cancer treatment. The design is being completed and the ground will be broken soon on a new Mental Health Center of Excellence that will bring together under one room and improve the delivery of specialized inpatient, outpatient, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder programs. And planning is underway for a new and larger Eye Care Clinic and Ambulatory Surgery Center. The 2009 Carey Trophy Award is a great honor for all Bay Pines employees and is a signal that their dedication and hard work is recognized and appreciated. And it is appreciated the most by those who are the recipients of their professional and compassionate care--our nation's veterans and their families. Madam Speaker, it is my hope that my colleagues will join me in saying well done to Wallace Hopkins and all the employees and volunteers at Bay Pines who work so hard and take such pride in honoring America's heroes everyday with the best health care services available anywhere in our great nation.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition that September 27, 2009, was designated as ``Gold Star Mother's Day.'' It is fitting that we recognize the American Gold Star Mothers, whose sons and daughters have died in defense of the ideals of individual liberty. They should be honored and offered respect and gratitude for their personal sacrifice. Gold Star Mother's Day is intended to honor women who deserve special recognition and gratitude for their tremendous personal loss on behalf of our country. During the early days of World War I, a Blue Star was used to represent each Soldier in military service of the United States, and as the war progressed and Soldiers were killed or wounded in combat or died from wounds or disease, a Gold Star superimposed over the Blue Star designated the loss of these individuals. This tradition recognized Soldiers for their ultimate sacrifice to our country and the Gold Star offered families an outward symbol by which to honor the loss of a loved one. In 1928, the Gold Star tradition was formalized in Washington, D.C., by a group of mothers who had lost sons and daughters in service to their country and met to form the American Gold Star Mothers organization. This organization is a nondenominational, non-profitable and nonpolitical organization that is dedicated in supporting veterans, military families, and Service Members returning from our present day battlefields. In 1936, President Franklin Roosevelt issued a proclamation which recognized Gold Star Mothers for their strength and inspiration to this country. Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to appreciate the services rendered to the United States by the mothers of America who have strengthened and inspired our Nation throughout history and that we honor the Gold Star Mothers of America for their courage and their strength.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, the Town of Indian Shores, Florida, which I not only have the privilege to represent but also call my home, this week celebrates the 60th anniversary of the signing of its town charter. Although I was not be able to be there today as the House is in session, my friends and neighbors gathered at The Pub Restaurant to celebrate their 60 years of progress, development and success. Indian Shores, first known as Indian Rocks Beach South Shore, is a small but beautiful island on the Gulf Coast of Florida. Its sandy white beaches and crystal clear water made it a favorite summer retreat dating back to the late 1800s. It was on September 16, 1949 that 42 registered voters and freeholders met at the Beach Park Restaurant, where The Pub is now located, to incorporate the Town of Indian Rocks Beach South Shore. At that meeting, the residents of the newly established town elected their first town leaders: Edward Fitch Taylor as Mayor, Bernice Pitt as Town Clerk, Emory Boyd as Town Marshall, and as Aldermen: Mrs. E. Boyd, Harry Gooding, Russel West, H. Tinman, James Roesler, Hubert Tipton, Estelle Harper, Pearl Cook, and Arthur Goble. The town held a special referendum in July 1973 and voted to rename itself the Town of Indian Shores, as it is known today. From the early leadership that established this beautiful beach haven, new leadership has led Indian Shores into this new century and into a thriving community. Mayor Jim Lawrence, Vice Mayor Joan Herndon, Councilor Steve Sutch, Councilor Bill Smith, and Councilor Carole Irelan are the town's elected leaders. They oversee a staff headed by Town Administrator Chief E. D. Williams, Town Clerk Marcia Grantham, Deputy Clerk Elaine Jackson, Building Official Larry Nayman, Administrative Assistant Joyce Ciccarello, Director of Finance Mary Karayianes, Public Service Supervisor Jim Jeeter, and Assistant to the Town Manager Bonnie Dhonau. They govern a town of 1,800 permanent residents and 2,600 homes that swells to a town of 6,000 during the peak winter months. Although only 2.6 miles long, this town remains one of Florida's most beautiful beach communities. From its early history when legend has it that an elderly Indian Chief was brought to its shores to be healed by its special water, to its time as an Indian campsite, Indian Shores has grown and prospered yet retained its small town charm. Madam Speaker, the Town's motto says it all--``Indian Shores--A Great Place to Live.'' I am proud to call Indian Shores my home and I join in celebrating its rich history and its bright and sunny future along Florida's most beautiful beaches.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, The city of Dunedin, Florida, that I have the privilege to represent has been honored with a ``Communities for a Lifetime Award'' by the Florida Department of Elder Affairs. The award is given to communities that demonstrate successful best practices that foster community initiatives to address the benefits and challenges of an increasing elder population. A total of 105 Florida towns and cities participate in the Communities for a Lifetime Initiative and Dunedin was the very first city to sign up for the program. One of the major initiatives for which Dunedin was honored was a 2008 project between the city and Mease Hospital to turn a vacant building into an adult day care center where family caregivers can receive valuable respite care so they can continue caring for their aging loved ones. This is the second time Dunedin has been honored by the program. Two years ago, the city received a Continual Progress Award for creating a Lifetime Bureau. Madam Speaker, Dunedin is an outstanding place to live, to work, to play, and to retire. This latest recognition is not only a reflection of the work of the Mayor and City Commissioners, but of the entire community which makes Dunedin such a welcoming place for residents of all ages.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, Russ Kimball, the General Manager of the Sheraton Sand Key Resort in Clearwater, Florida, since its opening more than 30 years ago, was inducted into the Florida Tourism Hall of Fame last month. Russ is not only a constituent and good friend, but he is one of our community's most respected business leaders and experts in the tourism industry. He is the longest serving member on the Pinellas Tourist Development Council, which oversees an industry in Pinellas County that welcomes 13.5 million visitors to our community annually and generates almost $7.0 billion for our local economy. Russ is an outstanding businessman but he runs his business as if his employees are his family. That explains why his hotel has one of the longest serving staffs of any establishment in Florida and our nation. Madam Speaker, please join me in congratulating Russ Kimball on this great honor for all his work and his leadership in Florida tourism. He joins some of the greats of this industry including Walt Disney in being honored by his peers for his hard-work and vision in making Florida not only a national but an international tourist destination.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, Bob Barker is a household name who is known nationally and internationally as the beloved host of the Price is Right. While he has retired from his career in television, he has redoubled his lifelong efforts to protect animals around the world. I first met Bob Barker a number of years ago when he was here in the Capitol in support of legislation to stop the inhumane treatment of animals. We quickly became good friends and my wife Beverly and I have come to respect not only his commitment to animals but also his unwavering support for our men and women who serve in uniform. Bob Barker is a great American with a very unique background. He grew up on the Rosebud Indian Reservation in South Dakota and was a Navy fighter pilot at the end of World War II. Yesterday Beverly joined Bob Barker for a press conference about another case of the mistreatment of animals that was brought to his attention and which he has in turn called to the attention of our nation. Following my remarks, I would like to include for the benefit of my colleagues an Associated Press report about that event. While I wish I could have been there with Bob to show my support for his work and lifelong passion, I had to be here in the House as we debated the rule and began consideration of the Defense Appropriations Bill. However, Madam Speaker, I wanted to commend Bob Barker for once again crisscrossing our nation in his continuing commitment to protect innocent animals that cannot protect themselves. Bob Barker Asks Cherokees to End North Carolina Bear Pit Attractions (From The Canadian Press, July 29, 2007) Asheville, N.C.--Former game show host and longtime animal rights activist Bob Barker has made a personal appeal to the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in North Carolina to stop exhibiting bears in pit-like enclosures at three local zoos. The Asheville Citizen-Times reported that Barker met Tuesday with Principal Chief Michell Hicks and five members of the Tribal Council. He called the bears' conditions inhumane and asked that they be turned over to a sanctuary in California. ``To think that with as advanced as our civilization is now that there is any place in the United States were bears are kept in pits is just unbelievable,'' said Barker, who is part American Indian and grew up on the Rosebud Indian Reservation in South Dakota. ``Just picture yourself, if your life, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, month after month, was in a pit.'' The bears are displayed in walled enclosures set into the ground at three local attractions that bill themselves as zoos and theme parks. Barker will discuss the meeting at a news conference Wednesday morning in Asheville. Hicks told the Asheville Citizen-Times that the tribe follows federal regulations in caring for the bears. Collette Coggins, who owns one of the attractions, the Cherokee Bear Zoo, with her husband, Barry, said the bears don't stay in the pits all day, every day. ``We love our animals,'' she said. ``They are like our pets.''

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as Chairman Murtha suggested, we basically support this manager's amendment. We have no opposition, and in fact, support it except for the one item that has to do with the air superiority aircraft, the F-22. We support the original position that Chairman Murtha offered to the subcommittee and the subcommittee agreed to, and that was to be able to keep the production line open for the F-22. We're just really concerned that 187 aircraft cannot guarantee that we will control the air over the battlefield if that situation develops. I now include a chart that I discussed yesterday in general debate on the number of aircraft, fighter aircraft, that we have bought over the years, and how many of them we have lost through attrition, through accidents, and through actual combat. Aircraft History F-4: Production: 1958 to 1979 by McDonnell Douglas; Built: 4,138 (2,874 USAF; 1,264 Navy and MC); Lost: 71 combat losses plus 54 lost in accidents (3%). F-14: Production: 1970 to 1992 by Northrop Grumman; Built: 679; Lost: 121 (18%); Retired in 2007. F-15: Production: 1974 to 1985 by McDonnell Douglas/Boeing; Built: 1,118; Destroyed: 117 (10%); Active Today: 618. F-16: Production: 1978 by General Dynamics/Lockheed Martin; Built: 2,230; Destroyed: 334 (15%) includes 25 destroyed due to battle damage; Active Today: 1,167. F-18: Production: 1983 by McDonnell Douglas/Boeing; Built: 1,048; Lost in accidents: 170 (includes 2 shot down in Gulf War); Stricken for maintenance and exceeding life limits: 246 (40%); Active Today: 632. F-22: Production: 2001 to 2009 by Lockheed Martin; Building: 187; Projected losses: 6, leaving only 181 (3% like the F-4); 19, leaving only 168 (10% like the F-15); 28, leaving only 159 (15% like the F-16); 34, leaving only 153 (18% like the F14); 75, leaving only 112 (40% like the F-18). 187 just doesn't really, in my opinion, doesn't guarantee that we will have what we need. Hopefully, we'll never need them, but we just don't know that we might not need them. And if we need them and don't have them, where are we and where is the soldier on the ground? If we need them and don't have them, somebody else's airplane may be over that battlefield. So it would have been better if we could have had a straight up-or- down vote on the F-22 issue, and I requested of the Rules Committee to make such an amendment in order, and they chose not to do so. So I will vote against this manager's amendment--again, not because we're opposed to the manager's amendment, but we think that we are threatening the future security of air control and air superiority over the battlefield. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield now to a very distinguished member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) for 3 minutes.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the manager's amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. I want to say and to make sure that Members understand that I know that Mr. Murtha is not opposed to the F-22 and that he supports it because it was in his original mark that he presented to the subcommittee. And I understand the change in political mode that we have experienced. But you know, from the time that I came here, we were fighting about the F-14. There were those who didn't want to do the F- 14, which was a very important aircraft for our fleet protection. Most of our new aircraft have been opposed by certain quarters in the country. The M1 tank, which is by far the world's best tank, was opposed by certain groups of people. Well, we cannot afford to allow an enemy to control the air over our troops. It's as simple as that. We have never sent our soldiers into battle with only 187 fighter aircraft in our inventory that have the capability to control the air over the battlefield. So yes, it's expensive. Freedom doesn't come free. I'm not really opposed to this amendment, but I'm going to vote against it because of the F-22 issue. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to talk about the amendment because the gentleman has conceded that the program it would fund is essential to force protection, and that is the case. But I think the point that I want to make is there has been a lot of misleading information suggested here, not necessarily intentionally and I don't think with any attempt to besmirch anyone's character. We have heard on the cap-and-trade bill ``read the bill.'' We have heard on the health bill, if we ever see one, ``read the bill.'' And I agree with all of that. We ought to be reading the bills. I don't think my friend from Arizona has read this bill, and it is not nearly as big as the cap-and-trade bill was or the health bill will be. But had he read the bill, he would have found on page 113, section 8115(a) that it says: ``Those which are considered congressional earmarks for purposes of rule XXI of the House of Representatives, when awarded to a for-profit entity, shall be awarded under full and open competition.'' Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I will claim the time in opposition.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?