Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, we voted on memorializing the tragic events that took place 40 years and 1 day ago at Kent State University.

Most Americans today are too young to remember what happened then, but I think that those of us who lived through that time and the many others who thought about it or who saw afterwards what happened have this picture in their minds.

This is Mary Vecchio, kneeling over the body of Jeffrey Miller, at Kent State, on that terrible day when four students were shot by American soldiers. I think we would honor them by remembering how and why they died, and that is what I propose to do now.

In 1968, Richard Nixon ran for President. He said he had a secret plan to end the war. That plan was so secret that, apparently, even Nixon, himself, didn't know what it was because, when he was elected, he simply expanded the war.

In November of 1969, the My Lai Massacre exposed to the whole world-- not just to Americans but to the whole world--the sheer brutality of the war in Vietnam.

The following month, in December of 1969, the draft was instituted. American college students and others--everyone of a certain age--knew that they would have to serve in Vietnam unless the war was ended.

Then on April 30 of 1970, the first war ever announced on TV, President Nixon announced the invasion of Cambodia by U.S. forces. Almost immediately there were protests at universities all around the country, including at Kent State, and those protests grew and grew day by day. And the right wing immediately mobilized against these protests. In Ohio the Governor, Governor Rhodes, said, ``They're the worst type of people that we harbor in America,'' these students protesting against the war. ``I think that we're up against the strongest, well-trained, militant, revolutionary group that's ever been assembled in America.'' And President Nixon chimed in by saying that the antiwar protestors were pawns of foreign communists.

So it was that 4 days after the announcement of the invasion of Cambodia, there was a protest that took place at Kent State University in Ohio, 20,000 students collected, assembled peaceably to protest, and the National Guard was called in to drive them away.

First, the National Guard attacked them with tear gas. The students took the tear gas canisters and threw them back at the National Guard. The National Guard drew its bayonets and charged the students and forced them to a different location, but they still didn't disperse. So at that point they shot them. Four Americans died that day, including Jeffrey Miller.

The protests continued. In fact, they grew. Almost a thousand universities were shut down all across the country. For the only time in American history, we had a national student strike everywhere in the country. At Jackson State 10 days later, two more students were shot by the National Guard, shot dead.

And the thing that I remember most at that time is this sign, written on a bed sheet and dropped from a dormitory window outside of New York University in New York, this noble sign: ``They can't kill us all.''

Let's take a closer look. ``They can't kill us all.''

Then, as now, together, both times, there are people all around the world and especially people in America who want to live in peace, who think that no war is better than two wars, who think that we voted to end war, not to continue it. And for all those people, we know in our hearts they can't kill us all.

There are people who think that we should be concentrating on education and not war, and we know they can't kill us all. There are people who think that we should be concentrating on our health, our own bodies, improving our living standards, rebuilding America, instead of war. And they can't kill us all. There are people who believe, not only in America but all over the world, that we should be striving every day toward peace, toward peace, not toward war. And they can't kill us all.

Madam Speaker, I rise in honor of National Teacher Day. Today, I would like to recognize an extraordinary teacher from Central Florida who is making a significant impact in the field of education in my district and in the State of Florida, Patti MacLeish Gordon. Mrs. Gordon was one of five finalists for the Orange County Public Schools 2011 Teacher of the Year and was selected earlier this year by Lifestyle Magazine as one of Central Florida's ``Top Teachers.''

Mrs. Gordon was born in Orlando, Florida where she attended Lake Silver Elementary, Lee Middle School, and graduated from Lake Highland Preparatory School. Being born into a family of teachers (her aunt, mother, and older sister are also teachers), it is no surprise that Patti graduated from Clemson University with honors where she majored in Elementary Education and Graphic Design. Mrs. Gordon received her Master's degree in elementary school counseling from the University of Central Florida. She is a National Board-Certified teacher, who has taught pre-school, 1st grade, 3rd grade, 5th grade, and was the elementary school guidance counselor at Lake Highland Preparatory School for 3 years. For the past seven years, Mrs. Gordon has worked at Princeton Elementary school as a gifted education teacher.

Patti has gone above and beyond a traditional role of a teacher. She believes in teaching through hands-on activities, service learning projects, and uses modern technology whenever she can in her instruction. She not only founded a Science Club in her school, she also coordinates and teaches in the program. Through her leadership and enthusiasm, over 125 students volunteer to participate in the Science Club after school. The environment is a passion for Patti and can be seen through her ``Green Team'' initiative, which has led to a complete ecological change for her school.

Madam Speaker, Mrs. Gordon is a remarkable example to educators all over our country. It is an honor to pay tribute to her accomplishments. I know the crucial impact teachers can and do have on their students. Mrs. Gordon's passion and dedication for teaching is not only seen through her many awards, but through the success of her students. Central Florida is lucky, and grateful, to have an educator like Patti MacLeish Gordon.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important matter. This legislation is about what is right and what is fair.

Since 1898 residents of Puerto Rico have been deprived of full and equal political representation. Though its residents are American citizens, the island is not a State and its residents have no equal voting representation in Congress. Given a choice, Puerto Ricans might opt to change this situation. Some in Puerto Rico might opt for a statehood for the island, some might opt for independence, and some might opt for sovereign association. But Puerto Ricans have never been invited by Congress to make that choice. They are American citizens, but they are deprived of equal voting rights.

If Puerto Rico were a State, it would have six or seven representatives in Congress instead of one who cannot vote on the floor of the House. If Puerto Rico were a State, it would have two Senators instead of none. If Puerto Rico were a State, the people there would help to choose our President. Puerto Rico is, in fact, one of the largest populations in the entire world that has no say in choosing the leadership of its country, a democratic country. Now they cannot do anything like that. A host of policy decisions are made in Puerto Rico's name by us, by Congress and by the President, on behalf of Puerto Rico's people without their full or equal input or consent, and that is deeply, deeply unfair.

Whether Puerto Ricans decide in favor of statehood or not, there is an existing inequality that needs to be addressed. The people of Puerto Rico could have more representatives in Congress than they have today with or without statehood.

While I do not represent Puerto Rico, there is a very large Puerto Rican population in central Florida. But I am also here because people on the island of Puerto Rico have the right to full and equal representation. Under this legislation, voters will be asked by Congress whether they wish to maintain Puerto Rico's present form. If the majority of voters cast their ballots in favor of a different political status, the Government of Puerto Rico will be authorized to conduct a second vote among three options: independence, statehood, or sovereignty in association with the United States.

Residents of Puerto Rico have laid down their lives in defense of American democratic values for more than nine decades. In that time, they have never been given a chance to express their views about their political relationship with the United States by means of a fair, neutral, and democratic process. This must change. Therefore, I support this act.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I want to also express my thanks to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the members of the committee and the staff, and specifically and especially to Congressman Andrews and Congressman Conaway, who brought this bill to the floor today and allowed this to be considered for amendments. I also want to express my thanks to the members of the Rules Committee and their staff for finding this amendment in order for consideration today.

This is an amendment, in short, that gives guidance to contracting officers that they never had before in DOD concerning the question of to what extent cost or price should be considered in procurement. I ask for the support of the Grayson amendment to the IMPROVE Act to give legislative guidance to the Defense Department concerning the need to emphasize price or cost in defense procurement.

Under current law, the DOD contracting officer--could be a GS-8, GS- 9--has no authority, no guidance from this institution to determine how much should be considered for cost or price. Rather, the contracting officer on his or her own volition establishes an evaluation scheme before each procurement, telling the offerers how their proposal will be evaluated. Current law permits DOD to announce an evaluation scheme that would consider price or cost as only 1 percent of the evaluation and other more subjective factors as 99 percent of the evaluation scheme. In practice, price or cost frequently is weighed as only 25 percent or 33 percent of the evaluation scheme; and other, more subjective, factors remain in the balance.

The resulting waste is twofold. First, DOD frequently rejects the low-cost proposal because its own evaluation scheme dictates that it does so. This alone costs the taxpayers untold billions of dollars. Secondly, defense contractors who know how to build a better mousetrap that could actually save DOD substantial amounts of money don't even bother to frame their proposals that way because they know that the evaluation will not turn on cost, but rather will turn on factors other than cost. So they don't even submit such a proposal.

Our amendment solves these problems by mandating that DOD procurements weigh cost or price at 50 percent of the evaluation scheme, or more, unless the head of the agency decides otherwise. For large purchases of standard commodities like fuels, hammers, et cetera, there's no reason not to do this. And for items that are mission critical, the head of the agency, under our amendment, has the discretion to weigh cost or price at less than 50 percent, in fact, to weigh it any amount the head of the agency deems appropriate.

In my 20 years in government contracts procurement before I was elected to serve in Congress, including my time spent fighting war profiteers in Iraq, I saw substantial overuse of subjective factors in DOD contractor awards at taxpayer expense. Our amendment is a commonsense solution to that problem, which will allow all us of to say at the end of the day that we fought hard to fight against waste, fraud, and abuse in defense procurement.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time, and I thank my colleague for making these points. I'd like to respond to them briefly.

With regard to the first point, I want to make it clear that within the literal wording of this amendment no agency is ever required to choose the least-cost product. All that this amendment says is that in the evaluation scheme, in order to encourage people who are offerers to think about how to save money for DOD, we make the commitment in general, overall, that cost or price will be considered at least as much as all the other factors combined.

In addition to that, we allow the head of the agency to suspend the rule at will, without any condition or limitation in the statute. The head of the agency can determine that for any item, including mission- critical items, cost or price can be 40 percent, 30 percent, 10 percent, even 5 percent of the evaluation factors.

So I think that although the gentleman's point is well taken, that we should not ever bind the hands of the DOD when DOD needs to get items that may not be the low cost item, this is an amendment that does not do that. This amendment simply says that, in general, under ordinary circumstances, particularly in buying volume commodities that are identical to each other, we should in fact make 50 percent of the consideration cost or price.

Now, I've seen procurements where, for instance, a commodity like gasoline is being bought by DOD and somehow they determine that two- thirds of the evaluation factor should be something other than cost or price. Sometimes we waste billions of dollars on account of decisions like that.

So I think that this is a rule that really needs to take place. I understand the gentleman's point concerning the study that's ongoing; but, frankly, I think that if we do this now, we'll save money now. If we do this later, we'll save less money. I'd rather see the money saved now, particularly when we have such great needs abroad and our defense budget is so great. I think that this simple rule, this commonsense rule, will help to save billions almost immediately as soon as it's implemented. I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 62nd Anniversary of Israel's Independence. Yom Ha'atzmaut, as it is called in Hebrew, allows us in the American Jewish Community to pay tribute to Israel by reflecting on its past achievements, while simultaneously realizing its capacity to contribute further to the global community and the advancement of human knowledge. As a member of the House Science and Technology Committee, I would like to pay tribute to Israel's Independence by highlighting some of its many accomplishments in the fields of science and technology.

The aspiration of Israeli pioneers to transform a country, which is 60 percent desert and lacks an abundance of natural resources, into a modern state, led to strategic investments in the fields of science and technology, which are now among Israel's most developed sectors. Today, Israeli scientists have contributed to advancements in the fields of agriculture, computer sciences, electronics, genetics, medicine, optics, solar energy, health sciences, and various fields of engineering. Israel is also home to many groundbreaking companies in the high-tech industry, such as Symantec and Allot. Symantec helped develop cloud computing which secures and manages information on the internet, and Allot produces the broadband pipes needed for smart phones.

Israel has over 3,850 start-ups that have been established in Israel, and has the largest number of NASDAQ-listed companies outside of North America. Most NASDAQ Israeli firms are high-tech companies, and over a dozen have market capitalizations of over $500 million.

Proportionally to its size, Israel's contributions to science and technology over the past decades have been significant. Israel has made important contributions in a number of areas in space research, including laser communication, research into embryo development, and osteoporosis, pollution monitoring, mapping geology, and soil and vegetation in semi-arid environments. Israel's lack of conventional energy sources has propelled extensive research and development of alternative energy sources--specifically innovative technologies in the solar energy field. For example, Israel has become the world's largest per capita user of solar water heaters in the home. A new, high- efficiency receiver to collect concentrated sunlight has been developed, which will enhance the use of solar energy in industry as well.

One of the major problems confronting the global water supply today is pipe leakage. For Israel, which is two-thirds desert, water-saving technologies are of critical importance. The International Water Association has cited Israel as one of the leaders in innovative methods to reduce non-revenue water, which is water lost in the system before reaching the customer. Additionally, Israel has surpassed many countries in the fields of computer engineering and computer science. Israel's Weizmann Institute of Science and the Technion, Israel Institute of Technology are ranked among the top 20 academic institutions in the world in computer science.

Israel began research and development in space exploration after establishing the Israel Space Agency to coordinate and supervise a national space program. Israel launched its first satellite, Ofeq-1, in 1998, and has since made major contributions in space research, including in areas of laser communication and pollution monitoring. Ilan Ramon became the first Israeli astronaut in space when he was chosen as a Payload Specialist on the Space Shuttle Columbia.

Israeli companies have excelled in computer security technologies, semiconductors and communications. Intel and Microsoft both built their first overseas research and development centers in Israel, and other high-tech multi-national corporations, such as IBM, Cisco Systems, and Motorola, have opened facilities in the country. An Israeli, CEO and president of M-Systems, Dov Moran, invented the first flash drive in 1998.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I celebrate the accomplishments of the State of Israel on the 62nd anniversary of her founding. Israel's successes are a reflection of their commitment to education and innovation, and a tribute to the future of the Jewish State and its people. Our shared dedication to these matters only further strengthens the bond between our two countries. For these and many other reasons, I join with my colleagues in celebration of Israel's anniversary--and as an ally for the protection and advancement of Israel's future.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day. On this day, we remember and memorialize the 6 million Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust. In honor of this day, I would like to recognize the Holocaust Memorial Resource and Education Center of Florida, which includes a staff and board of community activists who work tirelessly to combat anti-Semitism, racism, and prejudice through education and cultural programming.

The Center was founded in June of 1980, when Valencia Community College and the Jewish Federation of Greater Orlando came together to sponsor a series of community-wide events on the Holocaust and relevant human rights issues. The focus was on the social, historical, moral, ethical and economic implications of the Holocaust for today. Subsequently, a conference, co-sponsored by the newly created Holocaust Center, Florida Humanities Council, Valencia Community College and the Jewish Federation of Greater Orlando, was held in March 1981. The same coalition sponsored a Conference on Terrorism the following year, and in 1986 a Holocaust Center facility was constructed, a professional museum exhibit was installed, and a library with documentary and archival collections was developed. The Center received national and international recognition for its unique facility--the only one of its kind in the Southeast until 1996--as well as for its dedication to world-class, innovative programming.

The Holocaust Memorial Resource and Education Center is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to use the lessons of the Holocaust as a tool to teach the principles of good citizenship to thousands of people of all ages, religions and backgrounds each year. The Center hosts numerous educational and cultural events to promote their organization's mission. They've hosted events and activities ranging from conferences, speakers, and days of recognition, to marches, museum exhibits and the construction of a center on the Holocaust. This work has made a tremendous impact in Central Florida by engaging, educating and inspiring all of its citizens. The Holocaust Memorial Resource and Education Center is ensuring we never forget and never repeat the tragedy of the past.

Madam Speaker, it is a tremendous honor to recognize the accomplishments of the Holocaust Memorial Resource and Education Center in promoting acceptance and tolerance in the Central Florida community. As we all know, an organization can only be as good as the impressive staff and board that help run it. I applaud the Holocaust Center's board, which is represented by Central Florida's interfaith, multicultural community and the Center's staff, which is comprised of dedicated community activists. It is crucial we learn from our past to help better our future. Eva London Ritt, who many consider the cornerstone of the Center's staff and good works, said it best, ``Be aware of what is written and spoken. Be aware of the first hint of hate or bias against any individual or group and then act. One person can make a difference. Be a kind person. Kindness rubs off. With kindness, you can improve the world around you.''

Madam Speaker, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is a triumph for American consumers of health insurance and health care. When fully implemented, it will extend health care insurance to 32 million uninsured Americans, covering 95 percent of American citizens and legal residents. It will extend premium affordability tax credits to 20 million Americans and help 4 million small businesses provide health insurance for their workers. By the end of this year it will end some of the worst insurance company abuses such as post-claims underwriting or lifetime limits on coverage. When fully implemented it will ban even more, including health status underwriting and exclusions of pre-existing conditions. This legislation will ``bend the curve'' in the unsustainable growth in health care costs while improving the quality of American health care. It encourages wellness and prevention and will help Americans become among the best informed health insurance consumers in the world.

Such sweeping legislation cannot explicitly address every issue that will arise under its provisions. In the near term, the legislation must be implemented through regulations promulgated by the federal executive agencies--in particular Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury--and by the states. Ultimately, the courts may need to interpret some of the provisions of the statute.

It is important, therefore, to set down the intention of Congress as to the principles of construction that should be applied in implementing and interpreting the law. The first and foremost of these is captured in the title of the bill. This legislation should always be construed to protect patients and to make health insurance and health care more affordable for consumers. Whenever the bill is silent or ambiguous on a particular issue it should be construed by a federal or state agency or court to accomplish this goal.

Many of the provisions of this bill, including the premium tax credits and cost-sharing assistance, the individual and employer responsibility provisions, and the Medicare and Medicaid reforms and expansions, must be implemented by the federal agencies. In drafting regulations, the agencies must first and foremost attend to the interests of patients, consumers, and beneficiaries. Many other provisions will ultimately be implemented by the states. The general interpretive principle of the insurance reform legislation in relation to the states is found in section 1321(d), which states ``Nothing in this title shall be construed to preempt any State law that does not prevent the application of the provisions of this title.'' In other words, state laws more protective of consumers are preserved; state laws less protective of consumers are preempted.

Several issues raised by the legislation illustrate the application of these principles. First, nowhere does section 2719, which prescribes internal and external review procedures that insurance plans must follow when consumers appeal coverage determinations, explicitly state that all state and federal judicial remedies remain available if an appeal is denied both internally and externally. Every state, however, provides for judicial review of insurance claims denials in the nongroup market and 29 U.S.C. sec. 1132 offers judicial review of group health claims. These remedies are not expressly displaced by the law, and it is the intention of Congress that they continue to be available to aggrieved consumers.

Second, grandfathering of insurance plans that pre-date the legislation is not forever. A principle announced repeatedly by the President throughout the debate was that ``if you like the insurance coverage you have, you can keep it.'' Congress never intended, however, that if you had insurance coverage you did not like, you would be stuck with it forever. Section 1251 of the PPACA, therefore, should not be interpreted to mean that an insured who is enrolled in a group health plan will never be extended the consumer protections found in the legislation. If coverage under the plan changes significantly, for example through increased cost-sharing for members, the plan's grandfathered status should be lost and the full protections of the legislation apply.

Third, the ban on pre-existing condition exclusions for children under sec. 10103(e) does not merely mean that plans cannot exclude pre- existing conditions from coverage, but also that they cannot exclude children with pre-existing conditions from coverage. The law must be interpreted broadly to achieve its purposes, not narrowly to encourage evasion.

Fourth, the provisions of sec. 2714 of the Public Health Services Act added by sec. 1001 of the PPACA extending coverage to adult children up to age 26 should be interpreted to require the extension of family coverage to cover adult children, not to permit insurers to separately underwrite such children or to require them to pay the full cost of adult coverage.

Fifth, the provisions of sec. 1332 of the PPACA allowing state waivers for innovation are intended to provide maximum flexibility for the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Health and Human Services so long as the state plan is at least as comprehensive and affordable, and so long as it covers at least as many people as the law would provide otherwise.

Finally, the provisions of sec. 715 of ERISA added by 1562 of the PPACA should be understood to fully extend all of the protections of the PPACA that apply to group health plans to all employment-related health plans, including self-insured plans. The law should also be understood to intend that the full authority of

the Departments of Labor and Treasury in regulating and enforcing the law against ERISA plans is available to enforce the terms of the PPACA.

These are only a few examples of many issues that will no doubt arise in implementing and interpreting the law. The general principles that they illustrate, however, must be applied throughout by the federal agencies, by the states, and by the courts. This law is intended to protect patients and consumers, and whenever it is silent or unclear, it must be construed toward these ends.

I rise in support of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of Women's History Month. This month, I would like to recognize a few of the phenomenal women from Central Florida who are making a distinguished contribution to my district, the great State of Florida, and to our nation as a whole. This month I would like to recognize Barbara Weinreich. Ms. Weinreich has greatly given back to our Orlando community, which has been her home for the last 49 years.

Ms. Weinreich earned both her Bachelor of Arts degree in English and a Masters of Education degree In Elementary Education from Cornell University. A teacher for 25 years at Eastbrook Elementary School, she is now retired from the Seminole County Public School System. Her service to the community supersedes teaching our children; she is also a leader and advocate for the Central Florida Jewish community and for inter-faith understanding and activism.

Currently, Ms. Weinreich serves on the Board of Directors and Chairs the Community Relations Committee, CRC, of the Jewish Federation. She is a member of the Holocaust Center's Board of Directors, Friends of the Jewish Pavilion's Board of Directors, Beit Hamidrash, and a member of the Advisory Committee for the Judaic Studies Department at the University of Central Florida.

Madam Speaker, during Women's History Month, it is my honor to recognize Barbara's dedication to public education, as well as her devotion to the Florida Jewish community. Barbara's activism with our Florida community is something I admire and respect.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of Women's History Month. This month, I would like to recognize a few of the phenomenal women from central Florida who are making a distinguished contribution to my district, the great State of Florida, and to our nation as a whole. Today, I honor Dr. Rita Bornstein. Dr. Bornstein's commitment to education and her service as the first female president of Rollins College from 1990 to 2004 was trailblazing. Her distinguished leadership throughout her time at Rollins serves as a model to her unwavering dedication to her students, the university and her overall educational ideals.

Under President Bornstein's leadership, Rollins focused on strengthening its commitment to excellence, innovation, and community. Standards were raised for faculty evaluation, student selectivity, and all aspects of administration. Average SAT scores for entering arts and sciences students rose more than 65 points, and Rollins' place in U.S. News & World Report's annual rankings of ``America's Best Colleges'' climbed from No. 6 regional university in the South to No. 2, and No. 1 in Florida. That trajectory has continued--Rollins is currently No. 1 in the South. Innovation was encouraged and rewarded, and programs were added in film studies, international business, and sustainable development, as well as the signature Rollins College Conference for first-year students. The college's commitment to building strong communities was enhanced through programs of intellectual discourse, civic engagement, international study, and service learning.

In addition to raising the education standards and national acclaim of Rollins College, President Bornstein also oversaw Rollins' most ambitious fundraising effort. Widely considered to have transformed the college, The Campaign For Rollins secured $160.2 million, providing support for academic programs, scholarships, faculty chairs, and facilities, and significantly strengthening the college's financial health. Thanks to the generosity of donors, including the largest gift in Rollins' history--alumnus George Cornell's $93.3-million bequest-- and astute financial management, the college's endowment more than quintupled during Bornstein's presidency.

In 2001, she was named to the George D. and Harriet W. Cornell Chair of Distinguished Presidential Leadership when Rollins received a $10- million gift for the first endowment of a college presidency in the nation. At the conclusion of her 14-year presidency, she was named president emerita and appointed to the George D. and Harriet W. Cornell Chair of Philanthropy and Leadership Development. As a recognized leader in higher education, Dr. Rita Bornstein regularly consults on issues of leadership, governance, and fundraising in the nonprofit sector. She is also the author of numerous journal articles and book chapters and two books, including Legitimacy in the Academic Presidency: From Entrance to Exit, published in 2003.

Madam Speaker, during Women's History Month, it is my honor to recognize this remarkable woman whose enthusiasm for education and commitment to excellence can be shown through her great achievements during her time at Rollins College and after. I applaud her accomplishments to our central Florida community, our great State and our Nation.

Madam Speaker, I have good news.

The good news is this: We won the war in Afghanistan. Now, it happened a while ago; so I may be the only person who actually remembers this, but after the 9/11 attack, within 3 months, we had expelled the Taliban government, and we did so with the use of only 1,000 U.S. Special Forces troops. Within 4 months, we had expelled al Qaeda from Afghanistan. If you don't believe me about that, you can listen to General Petraeus, who said a year ago that al Qaeda wasn't in Afghanistan anymore.

I have more good news about Iraq. The news is: We won. We won the war in Iraq years and years ago. Facing the fourth largest army in the entire world, we swept through Iraq, and within 3 weeks, we had deposed the Saddam Hussein government.

We won. Now we can go home. In fact, we could have gone home a long time ago.

What is happening now in Afghanistan and what is happening now in Iraq you can't even call a war. It is a foreign occupation. You could read the Constitution from beginning to end, and you would find nothing in the Constitution that permits or that authorizes a foreign occupation, much less one that goes on for almost a decade. Both in the price of money and in the price of blood, we simply can't afford these wars anymore.

I would like to call your attention to a report in the New England Journal of Medicine, a report dated January 31, 2008. This report reads that 15 percent of all the troops who have served in Iraq return with permanent brain damage. That's right. Permanent brain damage. Here are some of the symptoms described: a loss of consciousness, general poor health, missed workdays, medical visits, and a high number of somatic and postconcussive symptoms.

Later on in the report, on page 459, this report reads that, in this study, nearly 15 percent of soldiers reported an injury during deployment that involves a loss of consciousness or altered mental state. These soldiers, defined as having what is euphemistically referred to as mild traumatic brain injury, were significantly more likely to report high combat exposure in a blast mechanism of injury than were the 17 percent of soldiers who reported other injuries.

So, Mr. President, when you say that you are sending 50,000 more troops to Afghanistan, what you are really saying is that you are condemning 7,500 young Americans to live for the rest of their lives with brain damage. That's what you are really saying.

Beyond that, we have spent over $3 trillion on the war in Iraq. That's over $10,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country. It's over $70,000 for my family of seven. For what? What have we accomplished in 2010 that we could not have accomplished in 2009 or in 2008 or in 2007 or in 2006?

In fact, what have you heard from the other side today that they couldn't have said back then and that they will want to say next year and the year after that?

Now think about this: Our total national wealth is only $50 trillion. We have spent $3 trillion, 6 percent of that, on the war in Iraq. That kind of economic damage is something that could not have possibly been accomplished by al Qaeda itself. Osama bin Laden, on his best day, couldn't have done anything like that. He would have had to have vaporized all of New England to have come close.

Listen, we are the most powerful nation on Earth. Nobody can force us out of Iraq. Nobody can force us out of Afghanistan. We have to make that decision ourselves. Remember, we need not only strength; we need wisdom. We need to know that the worst things that happen to us as a country are the things that we do to ourselves, including these two wars.

Mr. Speaker, I have just introduced a simple 4-page bill that allows any American to buy into Medicare at cost. Let me explain why I have done that. I have five children. When one of my children was born, I found out from the insurance company that the insurance company would not pay for the birth of my child. I had what I thought was excellent health care coverage from this insurance company, but it turned out otherwise. As a result of that, I had to pay $10,000 for the birth of my child.

You know, it could have been worse. Maybe I wouldn't have that $10,000. A lot of Americans face that situation when they have health care bills that their health insurance company won't cover. It could have been worse. I had twins who were born afterwards, who were born a month premature, spent weeks in the hospital. God only knows what those bills would have looked like. I probably would have been broke.

But the fact is that I felt, like many Americans feel, that I had an adversarial relationship with my insurance company and that every penny they spent on my care was a penny less for their profits. And that is a fundamentally unfair situation that causes untold health care needs around this country that go unmet and, frankly, untold death.

That's why we need another option. We need a public option. We're going to be seeing a Senate bill that doesn't have a public option. We're going to be seeing reconciliation that doesn't have a public option. But America needs a public option. That's why I've introduced this bill.

There are other reasons as well. Another reason is that all across this country there are areas, including areas in Florida, where one or two private insurance companies dominate the market to the extent that they have 80 percent of all the insured in the area. There is no competition. It's a monopoly in the case of one. It's an oligopoly in the case of two. Either way, these insurance companies pretty much do whatever they want. They can offer you care or they deny you care. They can cut you off when you already have care. And they can charge you pretty much anything they want.

Well, a public option would change that. In an area where one company had 80 percent of the market, suddenly there would be an alternative. Where two companies have 80 percent of the market, suddenly there would be an alternative. That alternative is an alternative that is already used by one-eighth of our population. That alternative is Medicare.

This simple bill would allow anybody--any American, any permanent resident--to buy into Medicare at cost. And what it does is it takes this enormously valuable public resource called the Medicare Provider Network and makes it available to all Americans. We've spent billions putting together a Medicare Provider Network that stretches from Nome, Alaska, all the way to Key West, Florida. We've spent billions doing that, and yet only one-eighth of the population can use it.

The most expensive part of preparing a health care plan for any American in any location is to set up the provider network, hundreds and hundreds of contracts with hospitals, with specialists, with nurses, with testing companies. All these things have to be done before you actually serve the first patient.

Well, we have a system like that called Medicare, and yet it's open to only one-eighth of the population. It's as if we're saying that only one-eighth of the population, senior citizens, can drive on Federal highways. That's how important the Medicare provider network is, and that's why we have to open it to everybody.

This is not a plan for subsidies. Everyone would have to pay their own cost. This is not a plan that's meant to help anybody, except for the people who cannot otherwise get insurance, or people like me, who simply don't trust the insurance companies anymore because of the raw treatment that we've received.

Let's face it, it's never going to be any different. The insurance companies are always going to look for ways to chintz you. They're always going to look for ways to charge you more and give you less, and the difference is what they call profit. And that's a system that a lot of people just can't accept anymore. They just don't want it anymore.

And for those people who have it in their mind that there will be some kind of government death panels, what about the real death panels that exist in this company--the insurance company death panels; the ones that look for rescission when you get sick, the

ones that top you out at some small amount of benefits when you have some terminally ill condition. These are the real death panels in this country. And that's why we need a public option.

So I'm asking the Speaker and the leadership, if we have to vote on this Senate bill that doesn't have a public option in it, if we have to vote on this reconciliation amendment that doesn't have a public option, isn't it time that we finally did something good for America? Isn't it time that we gave all Americans the right to buy into a public plan like this? Isn't it in fact past time that we did something like that? And what's the harm?

I say to those people on the other side of the aisle, if you don't want to buy into the public option, that's fine. But don't prevent me and my family and the ones who I love from doing the same. Let us have our alternative. And remember what you said so many times before: you say the government can't do anything right. Well, let's see. Let's see right now. Let's let people buy into the public option through this bill, H.R. 4789, and we'll give it a shot.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the judicial and civic contributions of the Honorable Anne Conway. The Honorable Anne C. Conway is a United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida. She was appointed by President George H. W. Bush in 1991, and is presently the Chief Judge of the Middle District of Florida. She presides over the Orlando Division. Judge Conway has an impressive record of serving the Florida Judicial system and its people.

Judge Conway attended the University of Florida's College of Law, graduating with honors in 1975. She served as an executive editor of the law review. As a result of her work for the Center for Governmental Responsibility, she received the McIntosh Foundation Award. In addition, Judge Conway served as a Legal Aid Student Intern.

Judge Conway began her legal career with a federal clerkship with the Honorable John A. Reed, Jr. in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. After completing her clerkship, Judge Conway joined the firm of Young, Turnbull & Linscott, P.A. as an associate. In June 1978, she began practicing with the firm of Wells, Gattis & Hallowes, P.A., where she became a partner and shareholder of the firm in March 1981. In July 1982 Judge Conway joined the firm of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A. She also became a shareholder of the firm in February 1985. While in private practice as a member of The Florida Bar, Judge Conway was admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States District Courts for the Middle, Northern and Southern Districts of Florida.

Judge Conway currently serves on the Judicial Conference Committee on Defender Services and served on the Case Management/Electronic Case Filing Working Advisory Group. Prior to becoming Chief Judge she chaired the Middle District of Florida Budget Committee and participated in several other court committees including Security, Space and Facilities, Case Management, and Automation. Judge Conway served on the Board of Directors of the Federal Judges Association from 2001-2004 and was Eleventh Circuit membership chair from 2003-2007.

Judge Conway serves on multiple boards and has represented the United States speaking out on issues ranging from national security to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment. She presently serves on the University of Florida Law Center Association Board of Trustees and the Board of Advisors for the Center for Governmental Responsibility. She participated in the Centers Annual Conferences on Legal & Policy Issues in the Americas in Lima, Peru in May 2006 and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in May 2008 speaking on Judicial Education and Professionalism. She also served as a panelist for the Center for Governmental Responsibility's inaugural symposium.

Madam Speaker, as Women's History Month begins, it is with great honor that I recognize the Honorable Anne C. Conway for her judicial leadership and commitment to social justice. Her impressive record and contributions to the Central Florida community must and should be praised. Judge Conway is an outstanding role model for young women who want to positively impact their communities through the legal system.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 85 and 86, H. Res. 1086, H. Res. 1111, I missed these votes to attend a bill signing with the President at the White House. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 75, 76, and 77; H. Res. 1072, H.R. 3820, H. Res. 1097, I missed these votes because car trouble caused me to miss my flight. On the next flight, because of heavy traffic, I missed these votes.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on all.