Yesterday, as the House Energy and Commerce Committee marked-up the Democrat's proposed health care reform legislation, Democrats made it clear that they are more than willing to put a Washington bureaucrat between you and your doctor.

Congressman Phil Gingrey (R-GA), a former ob-gyn who practiced for 26 years before being elected to Congress and a member of the Committee, offered an amendment that would prevent government bureaucrats at the proposed Center for Quality Improvement from dictating to physicians what treatments they can or can't offer.

As Committee Republicans have noted, "in the Democrat's legislation, the Center is tasked with determining what treatments and procedures are most cost effective. This manner of government sponsored research, in conjunction with the new Federal crowd-out health plan would represent the first step towards implementing a policy of bureaucrat health care rationing."

Rep. Gingrey's commonsense amendment was defeated by an almost straight party-line vote, with only one Democrat voting with all the Republicans.

Democrats also rejected another amendment that would have allowed state governments to decide what kind of insurance coverage to offer public employees.  So Minnesotans don’t want their state to pay for abortion services for state or local employees?  Republicans can respect that.  Democrats, on the other hand, want DC to dictate the very specifics of all these health care plans – and if states refuse, they’d have their funding withheld. 

As Congressman Henry Waxman, Chairman of the Committee, stated, ““We can’t tell states what to do directly.  We have to use whatever leverage we have over them.”

This is the point to their health care proposal?  Putting government right in the middle of the health decisions that should be made by you and your doctor? This is wrong, and not the path our nation should be following.

Looks like the Obama Administration is also going to great lengths to oppose H.R. 2743, the "Automobile Dealer Economic Rights Restoration Act of 2009."

I've talked extensively about how on July 6th GM dealers received a letter from the General Motors National Dealer Council urging them to sign a sort of petition to Congress immediately; no later than 5:00 p.m. the very next day, saying that they opposed passage of the bill.

I am a co-sponsor of H.R. 2743 along with 241 other Members of Congress.  If passed, it would essentially reinstate the economic and contract rights of dealers who were arbitrarily dropped by Chrysler and General Motors during their respective restructurings. In essence, H.R. 2473 makes these dealers whole instead of allowing their livelihoods to be taken from them with no legal recourse and no financial compensation.

According to TradingMarkets.com, the Obama Administration is urging opposition to this bill, too.  The White House has said that reversing the closings would set a "dangerous precedent, potentially raising legal concerns, to intervene into a closed judicial bankruptcy proceeding on behalf of one particular group at this point."

With all due respect:  Tell that to the retired teachers and police officers in Indiana whose pension funds were decimated when the Obama car czar leapfrogged the unsecured debts of the United Auto Workers ahead of the secured debts of these legitimate bondholders.

The deal crafted by the Obama White House to quickly move along the restructing of Chrysler and GM trampled on the rights of pension fund creditors by giving a bigger share of the pie to more junior, non-secured parties - like the UAW.  Now, that’s a very ugly precedent for future investors.
 
Apparently, the Administration observes legal precedents only if doing so moves forward their priorities and agenda.

In April of this year, I introduced H.Res.373, a resolution expressing support for the designation of the month of September as "National Hydrocephalus Awareness Month."

Hydrocephalus is a very serious but all too often overlooked medical condition that affects approximately 1 in every 500 births, yet very few people are even aware of it.  Hydrocephalus is the excessive collection of fluid in the ventricles or cavities of the brain, and at any time, a ventricle could collapse and in a matter of hours, enough fluid could build up and put harmful pressure on the tissues of the brain resulting in irreversible damage, even death.

Sadly, the prognosis for individuals afflicted with hydrocephalus is difficult to predict and often fatal.  The most common form of treatment for hydrocephalus involves the insertion of a shunt in order to maintain the flow of fluid from the brain, but this practice is sorely outdated and often results in complications that can jeopardize the life of often very young patients. It’s my hope that through increased awareness and education, we can take the steps needed to modernize the treatment of hydrocephalus and move toward a cure.

Below is a letter from Michelle Janson, whose 9 year old daughter, Ally, developed hydrocephalus at 1 year of age. She sent this letter to my office in hopes that sharing it will create greater awareness of the disease among the general public. With greater research, she’s confident that it can be diagnosed more accurately, and treated more efficiently. I encourage you to take a minute and give it a read:

My name is Michelle Janson.  We have a 9 year old daughter, Ally, who developed hydrocephalus at 1 year of age.  The cause of her congenital hydrocephalus allowed her to be eligible for a fairly new procedure called a Third Ventriculostomy.  Although there was a lot of information at the time about shunts, very little was known about the Third Ventriculostomy.  After we researched our options and interviewed several neurosurgeons, Ally underwent a Third Ventriculostomy on July 9th, 2001.

This year Ally has reached 8 years as one of the lucky few who have not encountered infections, revisions or malfunctions as frequently seen with shunts.  Although she does have other rare medical conditions to complicate things, she is leading a fairly normal childhood.  She was the only one in her 3rd grade class to be chosen to participate in the Young Authors Club and maintained straight A’s throughout the school year.

Several years ago we searched for a support group, close to home, that would provide our family with support and education about the condition.  We became involved with a group which is currently based out of JFK; know as the Pediatric Hydrocephalus Foundation.  The visions of those involved have encouraged us to actively participate in educating, providing support and to raise funds for local communities and families in need.   The founders Michael and Kim Illions have also been active with government officials such as you, to initiate a resolution known as HR 373 to declare September National Hydrocephalus Awareness Month.

I am writing to thank you for your incredible dedication and support to make this resolution known.  Since you have sponsored our Foundations request, you have gone above and beyond the call of duty.  Your perseverance has obtained the signatures that were needed to move the resolution to the next level.  Compared with similar public health issues (i.e. autism) hydrocephalus receives minimal government funding and assistance.  Should the HRES bill pass, we hope that the future will provide opportunities for public awareness and education, as well as funding for research and treatment advancements.

Thank you again for your active role in providing the public with a Heads Up on Hydrocephalus.  This is a big step for our children’s future, and may God bless you for your stoic endeavor.

Please take a moment to learn more about hydrocephalus by visiting www.HydrocephalusKids.org, the website for the Pediatric Hydrocephalus Foundation.

In just the past few months, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed some of the most unprecedented pieces of legislation in our nation’s history – changing the course of our nation’s policy dramatically. June brought us the cap-and-trade national energy tax, and July may very well bring a dangerous overhaul to our nation’s health care system in the form of the so-called “government option.”

With issues of this magnitude, it is not only prudent, but incumbent upon each Member of Congress to know precisely what is in a piece of legislation before it’s voted on. This seems elementary and Congress 101 – but believe me – it doesn’t always happen. That’s why I have signed the Let Freedom Ring Health Care Reform Pledge that obligates the signee to oppose any health care proposal a Member has not read and that has not been publicly available for at least 72 hours before it is voted on by Congress.

With an issue as big as the government take-over of our health care system, every single Member of Congress better know what they’re voting on. They say the devil is usually in the details; and a 1000-page bill has a lot of details.  Americans can not afford to let a crushing, big government proposal pass the House without proper oversight and review.

Here’s the harsh reality of what’s facing our nation. Since the recession began, 6,000,000 jobs have been lost.  Yet the Democrats’ health care plan includes hundreds of billions of dollars in new tax hikes on small businesses – our country’s job creation engine. And, despite claims their reform will reduce health care costs, CBO Director Elmendorf told Congress that the Democrats’ proposed reform will only INCREASE future federal spending on health care. Furthermore, an independent analysis by the non-partisan Lewin Group found that 114 million Americans would lose their current health insurance.

Earlier this year I reintroduced the Health Care Freedom of Choice Act, a bill that would improve America’s flawed health care model by increasing patient choice, lowering costs and breaking down barriers that restrict access to care. Under current law, businesses are allowed to deduct the cost of employee health care from their taxes, while individuals and families who purchase health care cannot take the same deductions. This bias against individual choice leads to higher health care costs and reduces accessibility to care. My legislation would erase this bias and extend the same tax incentives to businesses and individuals alike. This would not only make health care more affordable for those who purchase it themselves, but by injecting choice and competition into the health care market it would lower prices for all Americans.

Republicans want to expand access to affordable health care and give families the freedom to choose the health care that fits their needs – without imposing a job-killing tax hike on small businesses and working families. From what we’ve seen from the Democrats – they want to take those choices away.

Since January, the Democrats’ budget has increased spending by $2.6 trillion over the next ten years. Two million jobs have been lost since the Democrats passed their so-called “stimulus” package in February. Unemployment sits at 9.5% with 14.7 million Americans out of work and numbers on the rise, and our nation’s deficit is over $1 trillion, the highest it has ever been in our nation’s history.

Yet, the Democrats find it prudent to bring to the floor a bill that would spend $700 million on wild horses. I find it highly unlikely that the majority of Americans would say that wild horses takes precedence over issues like our rising unemployment rates or skyrocketing deficit and debt. 

Furthermore, the House voted on a similar bill last Congress.  This year’s bill is 20 pages long instead of the 13 lines of last year’s bill.  And, those extra pages will cost you 28,000% more.  Those must be some horses.

Yesterday, I came across a great piece in Investor's Business Daily about how the House Democrats' Health Care Reform bill released earlier this week would mark the end of individual private medical insurance if signed into law.

I've posted a part of it for you below, and I encourage you to read the entire piece. The bill as it's written would kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the government option becomes law.

As I've mentioned in previous posts, Republicans want to expand access to affordable health care and give families the freedom to choose the health care that fits their needs – without imposing a job-killing tax hike on small businesses and working families. From what we’ve seen from the Democrats – they want to take those choices away.

It's Not An Option

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Congress: It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.

When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

Read More

On July 6, GM auto dealers received an interesting letter from the General Motors National Dealer Council.  The letter informed them that the Council strongly opposes H.R. 2743, the Automobile Dealer Economic Rights Restoration Act of 2009.  This is the legislation that would protect the rights of the dealerships that had been arbitrarily closed or forced to discard portions of the business they worked so hard to build.

This letter urged the dealers to sign a sort of petition to Congress immediately; no later than 5:00 p.m. the very next day, Tuesday, July 7, saying that they, too, do not support passage of the bill.
 
I am a co-sponsor of H.R. 2473, along with 241 other Members of Congress.  If passed, it would essentially reinstate the economic and contract rights of dealers who were arbitrarily dropped by Chrysler and General Motors during their respective restructurings. If dealers were financially sound to stand on their own, they could continue to remain in business. And those that don’t would at least have legal grounds to recoup a portion of the value of their taken assets.  In essence, H.R. 2473 makes these dealers whole instead of allowing their livelihoods to be taken from them with no legal recourse and no financial compensation.

It is reprehensible for this company to ask their dealers to cannibalize one another under what can only be considered a veiled threat.  After all, if they don’t sign, what will happen to their dealership?  Will they suddenly get a pink slip, too?  Senator Chuck Grassley put it best in a letter to GM when he called this “strong-arming,” and asked GM to assure him “and hundreds of dealers who employ thousands of workers that you will not retaliate against them if they do not sign this letter or do not lobby against the bill on behalf of GM executives.”

Given that the federal government now owns 61% of GM, the moniker that many have given GM – Government Motors – seems apropos.   And, that makes this “strong-arming” even more reprehensible.   With government running GM and Chrysler, politics will control their decision-making, not sound business principles. This letter is proof-positive that politics is prevailing.

Here are a couple of recent clips addressing the GM closures on the House Floor:

 

As Americans hit the road for their family vacations this summer, they're undoubtedly noticing the money they leave at the gas pump.  AAA's Fuel Gauge Report has the national average at $2.58 for regular gas.  That's a far cry from the $4.11 we were paying a year ago.  But, the need for an all-of-the-above strategy for energy independence remains just as great now as it did then.

So, it's puzzling that the Obama Administration is trying to restrict our ability to tap into American oil and natural gas resources.

Robert Bryce, Managing Editor for Energy Tribune, wrote in the Wall Street Journal on July 7, 2009 that President Obama is calling for the elimination of two tax incentives that encourage oil and natural gas exploration.  President Obama calls them "unjustifiable loopholes" for big, bad oil and gas.  The facts show that these two tax provisions more than pay their way all the while opening up American supplies that make us more energy independent.

One allows for the expensing of "intangible drilling costs," which are things like wages, fuel, and pipe.  The other provides an allowance for percentage depletion, so well owners can deduct a portion of the value of the production of their wells.  Together, these two provisions make up the bulk of the total $1.92 billion in federal oil and gas subsidies.  An investment banking firm, Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co., analyzed the impact of eliminating the intangible drilling cost tax incentive and found that it alone could lead to an increase in the cost of U.S. natural gas by 50 cents per thousand cubic feet. 

But, together, these tax provisions helped us to make advances in energy technology and to tap into natural gas reserves in Texas and Pennsylvania that were previously thought to be too expensive to reach.  A report by the Department of Energy this April found that these newly available resources total 649 trillion cubic feet of gas.  That is the equivalent of 118.3 billion barrels of oil, which is more than the proven oil reserves of Iraq. 

As Bryce points out, "Simple arithmetic shows that eliminating the drilling subsidies that cost taxpayers less than $2 billion per year could result in an increased cost to consumers of $11.5 billion per year in the form of higher natural gas prices."

When you're gassing up the car for your next family outing, think about what it will take to make energy more affordable and energy independence more attainable.  It's got to be an all-of-the-above strategy.

You would think that any health care bill brought forth in Congress would actually be focused on reforming health care. Alas, it seems that both House and Senate proposals are packed with pork as well.

As the Boston Globe has reported, tucked into bills in both chambers are provisions funding what Senator Ted Kennedy’s staff calls “Community Transformation Grants.”  Essentially, we’re talking about federal funding for bike paths, lighting, jungle gyms, and even farmers markets.

In the House bill, at least the spending is capped -- $1.6 billion per year.  The Senate bill leaves the sky the limit – leaving the amount of spending up to the Obama Administration.

While these projects may have merit, they certainly don't belong in a health care reform package.  With priorities like this running amok on Capitol Hill, is there any doubt that health care costs will only continue to skyrocket under government-run health care?

This morning I came across a great piece by Ron Christie on the Hill's Pundits Blog commenting on President Obama's speech this past Tuesday to the graduates of the New Economic School in Moscow.

As Mr. Christie notes, President Obama provides quite the revisionist take on the Cold War and how communism met its ultimate demise.

According to the President:

"And then, within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Now, make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful."

Sounds great, but too bad it didn't happen that way. First off, communism's reign was not a short and sanguine one, and its end did not come arbitrarily. As Mr. Christie notes:

"The ignorance of American and world history, evinced in just two short sentences, is shockingly revealing. First, Mr. President, I daresay the people of Russia and Eastern Europe hardly decided to stand up and decide that the Cold War's conclusion would be peaceful. You might ask the citizens of Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria to name a few countries if their polite request for the Soviet Empire to withdraw from their borders was met with a peaceful response."

Second, there was one nation that can be credited above others for the fall of communism, and that's the United States:

"The United States held the Russians at bay while supporting the Solidarity movement led by Lech Walesa in Poland and others who dared to rise up against the Soviet Union in their quest for freedom and democracy."

I don't understand why the President can not give our nation the credit it's due when he travels abroad. There's nothing to be embarrassed about, Mr. President; we live in the greatest country in the world.
 

With the federal government about to take majority ownership of GM by the end of the week, it's imperative that we as a nation examine the unprecedented role our government is taking in private industry.

The Washington Times sums it up like this:

The takeover, which is the most extensive federal intervention into the operations of a major industrial company, follows in quick succession a government-assisted bankruptcy reorganization of Chrysler LLC, the assumption of partial ownership of two of the nation's biggest banks -- Citigroup and Bank of America -- and the seizure of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as insurance goliath American International Group Inc.

That's quite a portfolio.

According to William Boyes, an economics professor at the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University, "the government now owns or controls businesses that generate about one-third of U.S. economic activity."

It's shocking to see the ever-expanding role that government is taking over the private sector under the guise of crisis. The White House says it wishes it didn't have to do what it did, and that it is acting to save the economy from total collapse.  Time will tell how genuine that “duress” was. 

But in the mean time, the private economy as we once knew it has radically changed.

As Mr. Boyes notes: "I didn't think I would ever see the United States move to a primarily government-controlled economy, and its happened in just a few months."

We need to assess whether the actions of the government are working now and whether they are really in the best interest of our nation and future generations of Americans.

Today, the House of Representatives returns to work after a week of district work – outside of the beltway – and the next challenge facing the body will be making crucial reforms to our health care system. As the American people struggle to make ends meet, too many also live with the challenge of affording basic health care for themselves and their families.  Any time a child or a parent goes without the care they need, it is a personal crisis for that family. However, there are two very different views emerging from the Democrats and Republicans as to the appropriate and most effective course to take in making these essential reforms.

Democrats are pushing for a government takeover of health care that sounds nice but would have devastating consequences for families and small businesses.  A government takeover of health care will raise taxes, ration care, and let government bureaucrats make decisions that should be made by families and their doctors.

Republicans want to make quality health care coverage affordable and accessible for every American, and let those who like their current health care coverage keep it. Republicans support health care reform that puts patients and their health first, and protects the important doctor-patient relationship.

The Democrats' government-takeover of health care will deny access to medical care and life-saving treatments. An estimated 100-million-plus Americans would lose their current health care under the Democrats' government-run plan. Government mandates in health care already encourage waste, fraud and abuse that result in higher costs and more families without care.  We cannot allow politicians and special interests to stand between patients and the care they need. The American people deserve the freedom to choose the health care that is best for their families.

Last month when speaking to the American Medical Association, President Obama praised countries that "spend less" than the U.S. on health care. For instance, the British system is often touted as spending half as much per capita on health care as here in the U.S. But as the Wall Street Journal explained today, you get what you pay for. The very real consequence in the U.K. is the rationing of specific drugs, tests, and treatments dictated by a government-regulatory body known as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).

As the WSJ notes:

"Mr. Obama and Democrats claim they can expand subsidies for tens of millions of Americans, while saving money and improving the quality of care. It can't possibly be done. The inevitable result of their plan will be some version of a NICE board that will tell millions of Americans that they are too young, or too old, or too sick to be worth paying to care for."

Clearly, this isn't the path to effective reform we should be choosing.

Last week, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate change bill, also referred to as cap-and-trade, or cap-and-tax, or the national energy tax, on the premise that if we don't act now to cut carbon emissions, our planet's environment will incur irreversible damage.

Now, we know that cap-and-trade is an absolutely disastrous economic policy, resulting in higher costs for every single American on energy and all manufactured goods. It is an economic time bomb for our nation's already struggling economy that will serve merely as a huge revenue booster for the federal government. We know that.

So supporters of this legislation claimed that we had to pursue this disastrous public policy because science says we must do it to save the environment. Enter the EPA, and its new administrator Lisa Jackson.  You’ll recall that the EPA made a similar announcement not long ago, making an endangerment finding and stating that it would have to regulate carbon dioxide if Congress didn’t.

Last week, CBS News reported that "the Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government." 

CBS states that "the EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an email message to a staff researcher on March 17: 'The administrator [Jackson] and the administration has decided to move forward... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.'"  The report's author, a 38 year employee of the EPA, was diverted to other work.

In other words, two weeks before the EPA submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, the EPA center director suppressed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."

But, wait, there’s more.

If we go back to January of this year, it was the EPA's Lisa Jackson who said, " I will ensure EPA's efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency."

It seems to me that Jackson substituted ideology in place of scientific integrity in this case. If Jackson really meant what she said, this report should not have been quashed but instead given ample consideration and debate. But in rushing through a major policy initiative of this White House and Congress, I guess you can't let the facts and the truth get in the way of action.  

Moving forward, it's vital that we make the necessary reforms to our financial regulatory framework, but the President's proposals miss the mark.  

First of all, he proposes expanding the role of the Federal Reserve – the big spender that has pumped about $8 trillion of your money into Wall Street’s bailout with just about no accountability, oversight, or transparency.  Turning the Fed into a super-regulator is not the answer.

But, he also proposes a new agency that will give government bureaucrats the task of deciding which financial products are suitable for consumers.  This proposal raises more questions than it answers.  

Is it really in the best interest of consumers to have a DC bureaucracy dictate what financial products can be sold in our nation?  And, should we expect it to operate with the efficiency that the FDA has demonstrated in approving new medical and health products?  Will this result in long delays before consumers can access different sources of financing?  All the while, consumers would be forced to wait anxiously for the government to approve that mortgage or small business loan that could best suit their needs.  How can we be sure that the agency will not become a slow, bureaucratic behemoth – something that regrettably has characterized many a government agency?

Furthermore, I have serious misgivings that the President’s proposal disconnects the mission of consumer protection from that of safety and soundness within the framework of this agency.  If the agency’s sole focus is on consumer protection without consideration for broader issues of safety and soundness, that could result in new consumer protection mandates that simultaneously weaken larger financial protections.  The last thing we need is another government agency with tunnel-vision – that is already one of the problems within the existing financial regulatory framework.

Republicans have an alternative solution.  Our plan requires regulators to streamline disclosures, and provides them with more investigative and enforcement tools. This includes increasing both civil and criminal money penalties in government enforcement actions; maximizing restitution to victims of fraud; improving surveillance of bad actors who exploit gaps in the current regulatory regime to continue preying upon innocent consumers; and allowing regulators to share information with foreign regulators and law enforcement agencies engaged in the investigation and prosecution of financial frauds without waiving privileges.

In recent weeks, there's been much attention paid to the content of the 2010 decennial census and the American Community Survey (previously, the “long form”). I encourage everyone to read them through and decide for yourself what you think of the questions. I've provided links to both of them below.