Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, all day we have been hearing a lot of talk about job-killing regulations, but, Mr. Chairman, section 1746 is a job-killing statute that would block implementation of the Renewable Fuel

Standard that was established just 4 years ago. The Braley amendment would allow the Renewable Fuel Standard to move forward and allow this burgeoning industry, which is reducing our dependence on foreign oil and creating thousands of jobs all over the country, to move forward.

The continuing resolution prevents the Renewable Fuel Standard from promoting clean, renewable home-grown fuel that reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

Prior to the RFS, my State of Iowa produced less than 1 billion gallons of ethanol annually, and in large part because of its implementation, we now produce more than 4.5 billion gallons per year. Ethanol and biodiesel support nearly 49,000 jobs throughout the Iowa economy. This accounts for nearly $550 million in State tax revenue. Without the Renewable Fuel Standard, we would take a huge step backwards, potentially having a devastating impact on rural economies across the country in every congressional district.

The RFS promotes biofuels by ensuring that transportation fuel sold in the United States contains certain volumes of renewable fuels, including advanced biofuels, cellulosic biofuels, and biomass-based diesel. That includes advanced biofuels, including ethanol from waste material, from crop residue, vegetative waste, animal waste, food waste, yard waste, biomass-based diesel, bio-gas, and butanol.

The RFS promotes biofuels and is supported by the American Coalition For Ethanol, Growth Energy, the National Corn Growers Association, and the Renewable Fuels Association, and this particular legislation was described by the American Advanced Ethanol Council as language that would defund efforts to implement the RFS.

The required volume of each type of fuel is established annually by the EPA, and this summer EPA needs to propose the volume requirements for calendar year 2012. But the Republican provision in this section would prevent EPA from doing so. If EPA can't set the volume requirement, then RFS won't function next year, and renewable fuel producers all across country are counting on these requirements.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, in your area, there are two plants, White Plains Energy in Plainview and Hereford Renewable Energy and White Energy in Hereford that will be affected if this provision becomes law.

In fact, the gentleman from Idaho has Pacific Ethanol in Burley, a 50 million gallon producer, and Idaho Sustainable Energy, which is on the front edge of biofuels with algal biodiesel, in Glenns Ferry, Idaho, which will be impacted if this provision becomes law.

So instead of investing in certainty that allows these producers to move forward, this provision would pull the rug from farmers and refiners all across the country. That is why I urge my colleagues to oppose this flawed funding language and support my amendment to ensure the Renewable Fuel Standard is allowed to move forward. It is a bad policy to have job-killing statutory provisions that are going to increase our dependence on foreign oil and move us backward, not forward, in the important area of bioenergy.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The problem with the language as drafted, Mr. Chairman, is that it is so broad and poorly drafted that it does threaten the renewable fuel standard, which is why all of those renewable energy advocate groups that I mentioned in my remarks are in support of the amendment that I have offered. The RFS promotes biofuels by ensuring that transportation fuels sold in the United States contain the requisite number of volume for each type of fuel that's established annually.

This summer, the EPA has to make sure that those standards are identified for each one of the various categories; but if they don't have the required guidance available to them because of the confusing language that's currently in this provision, it's going to create confusion and those same industries that waited and waited and waited for the tax extenders package to be passed at the end of the last Congress are going to have the same type of uncertainty governing their investment decisions moving forward, which is why those groups that I mentioned earlier are so concerned about this matter and are in support of the Braley amendment.

They are Growth Energy, the National Corn Growers Association, the American Coalition for Ethanol, the Renewable Fuels Association, and the Advanced Ethanol Council. If the Advanced Ethanol Council believes that this language is so vague that it would de-fund efforts to implement the RFS, that's not me speaking. That's the very groups that would be subject of regulation by the EPA, and that's why this amendment is important to clarify that that is not within the scope of EPA's powers.

Offered By: Mr. Braley of Iowa

Amendment No. 521: Page 276, line 11, after ``climate

change'' insert ``: Provided, That nothing in this section

shall prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental

Protection Agency from implementing or enforcing section

211(o) of the Clean Air Act (relating to the renewable fuel

program)''.

Offered By: Mr. Braley of Iowa

Amendment No. 140: At the end of the bill (before the short

title) insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, there are 435 Members of the House of Representatives. We come from all over the country, and every one of us encounters people from the towns and cities and rural parts of our district that inspire us through the heroic action that they exhibit every day of their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to talk about one of those heroic people that I've known for 35 years. Her name is Bev Rens, and I met her when I was working with her husband at a grain elevator in the small town of Hartwick, Iowa. I later got to know her better playing softball for a team called the Front Street Tap located in Brooklyn, Iowa, and Bev's voice was always the loudest voice on the field because that's the kind of person that she is. She is passionate, she is fierce in her dedication to her friends, and she has devoted her entire life to making her community, her State, and her country a better place for all Americans.

Bev recently had a curveball thrown at her when she was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as ALS--Lou Gehrig's Disease. Bev has always taken life head-on, and that's how she addressed this challenge, the same way she has lived her life every day that she has spent on this Earth. She didn't get into self-pity. She started thinking about what she could do to stay connected to her friends, her family, and the important issues that she has cared about all of her life.

Those of us who have known Bev have known her as a nurse, as a community volunteer, and a political activist. And, in fact, her start in politics began in 1988 in the Iowa caucuses when she went to caucus for a candidate named Jesse Jackson. And she participated in her last Iowa caucus for another political candidate named Barack Obama. Bev recently celebrated her birthday on February 3, and you can see her surrounded in this picture by friends and family, including a granddaughter that is the light of her life.

But one of the things that Bev's life teaches us is that we face challenges every day, and no challenge is too great for us to solve if we come together in a spirit of cooperation and a belief in the common good, that we can solve the problems that we face as a country. And that's why I am here talking about my friend Bev Rens, because she is an inspiration to all of us in terms of what we can do to fight for a better America.

She decided a long time ago that access to health care was an important priority being denied millions of Americans, and she knew that from her

work as a front-line care provider taking care of sick people and trying to take care of them in their end of life experiences, which is one of the most precious times that a family gets to spend together. So as a nurse, Bev fought for health care improvement that would improve quality of care to patients and expand access to care so that no American family could say that a loved one died because they didn't have access to the type of care that all Americans deserve.

It's important for those of us who are struggling with this issue of how we provide quality, affordable health care to Americans to think about inspirational people like Bev and what she has done her entire life to help people in need, whether as a community volunteer, as a nurse, as an activist. What is the legacy that we will leave to our children and grandchildren when they look back at this Congress and say, What did you do to help me in my time of need? Because Bev never worries about that question. She says, I'll be the first one in, and I will fight until I don't have any breath in me left to give. That's why you'll still find Bev on her computer every day, networked with friends around the country, talking about issues of vital public importance, trying to be part of the important discussion that Americans have every day about improving the quality of this country.

And predictably, in the wonderful small town where I grew up, Brooklyn, Iowa, Bev's story has inspired many others to pick up the cause, and they formed what has been called Bev's Brigade, an army of loyal volunteers who show up at her house every day to take care of her basic needs after a lifetime of helping others. It's one way we pay it forward in this country, through the example that others have given us, to think every day about what we can do to help each other. And that's why Bev is an example to all of us of what the American spirit is all about.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring the House's attention to the work and dedication of one of my constituents, Dr. Thomas M. Gellhaus.

Dr. Gellhaus is a longtime obstetrician-gynecologist in Davenport, Iowa, and earned his medical degree at the University of Iowa. He has delivered a generation of Iowans, cared for our daughters, wives, mothers, and grandmothers, and done everything he can to make sure their health is well-cared for.

For many years, Dr. Gellhaus has held a leadership position among ob- gyn members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. He leaves this position this year, but leaves physicians with a long legacy of advocacy and caring for their patients.

Dr. Gellhaus has been a key advocate for patient safety in ob-gyn care and care for underserved women throughout the world. He's been a member of ACOG's Executive Board, helping guide health care policy; in 1999, he was chosen for ACOG's prestigious McCain Fellow Advocacy Program, in which a practicing ob-gyn works with Congress and the Administration; and was a member of the 2002 Class of the Primary Health Care Fellowship sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dr. Gellhaus recently endowed a new program, the ACOG Gellhaus Resident Fellow Advocacy Award, which encourages 3rd and 4th year ob-gyn residents to work with Congress on behalf of women's health.

In addition to a very busy private practice, since 1996, Dr. Gellhaus has dedicated nearly a year of his life to the preparation for and participation in international health mission projects. These projects have taken him to Central America, South America, Africa and the Dominican Republic. He has been the project medical director for most of these missions; organizing, fundraising, securing medical supplies and recruiting medical personnel. During the missions, Dr. Gellhaus has worked with over 559 other mission participants. His medical teams have, over the years, had more than 18,520 patient encounters, dispensed 48,052 prescriptions and have performed more than 1,472 surgical procedures.

He has personally financed the cost of many participants' missionary project costs, without which they would not have been able to participate. Dr. Gellhaus' deep faith and compassion are lived through these medical missions. In 1999, Dr. Gellhaus was honored with the ACOG Award for International Service in recognition of his mission work in third world countries.

Dr. Gellhaus has a beautiful family, with his wife, Melanie, and their 3 daughters. He reminds us of what is right in America. It is my pleasure to honor Dr. Gellhaus' work and dedication.

I regret missing a floor vote on Wednesday, January 26, 2011 due to a ceremony honoring Staff Sergeant Salvatore Guinta. Had I registered my vote, I would have voted: ``nay'' on rollcall 25, on final passage of H.R. 359--To reduce Federal spending and the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns and party conventions.

Mr. Speaker, I regret missing floor votes on Monday, January 24, 2011 due to travel. If I were present, I would have voted: Nay on rollcall 17, on ordering the previous question, H. Res. 43--Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 38) to reduce spending through a transition to non-security spending at fiscal year 2008 levels; nay on rollcall 18, on agreeing to the resolution, H. Res. 43--Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 38) to reduce spending through a transition to non-security spending at fiscal year 2008 levels.

Madam Speaker, I regret missing a floor vote on Tuesday, January 25, 2011. Had I registered my vote, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 20, on agreeing to the resolution, H. Res. 38--To reduce spending through a transition to non-security spending at fiscal year 2008 levels.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I want to show the face of the repeal of health care. This is Tucker Wright from Malcom, Iowa. He is 4 years old. And 2 years ago, before the Affordable Care Act was passed, Tucker was diagnosed with liver cancer and had two-thirds of his liver removed. He faces a long and uncertain medical future. But on January 2 of this year, because we passed the Affordable Care Act, Tucker's father, Brett, was able to change jobs because he no longer had to worry about the stigma of preexisting conditions.

Now, when you talk about repealing this bill, I'll tell you why it is not a good deal for Tucker Wright. Because even though our friends talk about wanting to fix some of the problems that they now think are important, the first thing that's going to happen to Tucker Wright and his family as soon as this bill is repealed is his family will get a rescision letter from their insurance company because they will no longer be required to provide insurance for this young boy because he has preexisting conditions. That's why this bill is a bad idea, and that's why I urge you to vote ``no'' and think about Tucker Wright.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we've heard a lot today is talk about policy, but I want to spend some time tonight talking about the face of the efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. And the face could not be any clearer than this young man to my right.

This is Tucker Wright, a 4-year-old boy who lives in Malcom, Iowa, and January 2 of this year was an important day for Tucker and his family because 2 years ago this young boy was diagnosed with liver cancer before he reached his second birthday. And some amazing doctors and nurses took care of him after they removed two-thirds of his liver, and, miraculously, he is alive today.

And his parents had done everything they were supposed to do. They both had full-time jobs. They had the best health care coverage you could get in the State of Iowa at that time. Yet in spite of that, they ended up with tens of thousands of dollars of uninsured medical expenses. And this young boy faces an uncertain future filled with CT scans, tests, medical procedures over his lifetime--and he is just getting started in his life.

Now, before January 1 of this year, his father and mother couldn't change their jobs because if they had, their coverage would have been denied because of a preexisting condition--his liver cancer. But because of the Affordable Care Act passed in this Congress and signed into law by President Obama last year, as of January 2 his parents no longer were bound to their jobs, because they had the freedom to get a different job and not worry about having his health care benefits excluded under a policy called preexisting conditions.

Now, what our friends on the other side of the aisle don't want you to know about Tucker is that if they get what they want and they repeal this health care bill, the very first thing that's going to happen is his insurance company is going to send his parents a notice of rescission--that his coverage is terminated because he has a preexisting condition that would then be subject to excluding his coverage.

Now, they could do that because we banned the practice of preexisting conditions, and we banned the practice of rescission in the Affordable Care Act after hearing days of testimony from witnesses who had experienced those practices firsthand and talked about the devastating impact it had on their lives.

So when we're on the floor tomorrow talking about repealing the Affordable Care Act, I want you to think about Tucker Wright and what that means to him and the millions of other American children who would be discriminated against by insurance companies because of a disease they have no control over.

And our friends on the other side of the aisle are telling us, Don't worry, we're going to repeal this bill and then we're going to come back and we're going to fix these problems. Really.

You know, I came here in 2006, Mr. Speaker; and I was proud to be part of that class of 2006. But when I got here, the Republicans had been in power for 6 years. They had George Bush in the White House, they had a majority in the House and a majority in the Senate. And what did they do during that period to ban the practice of preexisting conditions? What did they do to ban the practice of rescissions? Nothing. Not one thing. Despite multiple health care bills that were presented in that 6-year period, none of the concerns they're talking about being committed to fixing now were addressed by them.

You hear a lot of talk about this unfair, unconstitutional burden of an employer mandate. Well, folks, if you go back to 1993, you will see that Republicans--including my Republican Senator from Iowa, Chuck Grassley--offered legislation in Congress to have an individual mandate because they knew the only way we were going to get costs under control was by bringing more people into insured plans, spreading the risk, and making health care more affordable for all Americans.

So why do we find ourselves where we are now? Well, we find ourselves here because of an unwillingness to face the reality that Democrats in the House, and the Senate, and President Obama faced a problem that had been plaguing this Nation for decades: millions upon millions of Americans without access to quality, affordable health care. And that was a stain on our national reputation. And we decided to do something about it. And we didn't make any bones about the fact that this was going to be a priority.

Some of my colleagues and I ran on this issue in 2006 because of the problem of 47 million Americans without access to health care coverage. We hear complaints about the burdens on small businesses. I was a small business owner in Iowa for 20 years. And at the end of my career, every year we would fill out five to seven applications for every one of our employees, trying to find insurance coverage that was affordable that would take care of their medical needs. Small businesses were being priced out of the insurance market, and nothing was being done about it. That's why I'm proud of the fact that Democrats took this challenge head on.

We were serious about the problem. We listened to days and days of testimony from people all across the health care spectrum, all across the health care economic spectrum. We held days of bipartisan markups to give people on both sides of the aisle the opportunity to offer amendments and improve this bill. And contrary to what you're hearing, we accepted amendments from our Republican colleagues. They were included in the bill. They made it a better bill when we brought it to the floor and voted on it. And yet now it's like we want to go back and eliminate everything good that happened during that period of time.

It's like the movie ``Men in Black,'' where they had that little pen- like device that they would hold in front of your head, and once it flashed you would forget everything you had just heard. Well, we cannot afford to let that happen. Too many people's lives, like Tucker Wright's life, are depending on what we do here. And that's why when we talk about these important issues, remember the faces of the people whose lives are benefiting from this important legislation.

One of the things that we don't hear much talk about is the enormous positive impact this bill has on the lives of young people. One other thing that has changed dramatically from when I graduated from college many years ago is that now many young college graduates are required to perform an unpaid internship in order to get a job. It may be an entry- level requirement before they can take a certification test, or it may be the only way for them to get access to that employment market. Well, what does that mean practically? It means that once those students graduate from college, if they're older than 22 they get kicked off their parents' insurance policies.

Okay. Well, in the past, people would go out and find work, and usually that work had insurance coverage with it. Not any more. We have generations of young people out there looking for work with no health insurance. And when they get sick and need medical care, if they don't have insurance, they still get the care; but somebody pays for it. And that somebody is us, the U.S. taxpayers and people who buy private insurance, who have their premiums increased or their taxes increased to take care of people who don't have health insurance.

So this bill does amazing things for young people. It prohibits discrimination of people like Tucker Wright. And it allows seniors access to care so that they know they're getting the wellness and preventive check-ups they need to make sure that they are getting the best care that they can.

There's a lot of talk on the floor in support of repealing this bill, about the imposition that this bill has on health care providers and the barriers it erects between them and their patients. And nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, what this bill does is promotes an atmosphere between physicians, health care providers, and patients that strengthens that bond, that relationship, that dependency by giving patients more access to their doctor and their health care providers at the time they need it most, when they are making decisions about chronic care, which is one of the biggest cost-drivers in health care today, managing their diseases, and in lowering the cost of health care for all of us. And yet you won't hear one word about that as a critical benefit of this bill.

And that's why, as the American people, Mr. Speaker, listen to the debate tomorrow leading up to this important vote, they need to ask themselves what's this all about, and whose lives really are going to be impacted if we repeal health care. It's time to talk reality. It's time to talk about the Tucker Wrights of this world and what this will do to them, because rather than seeing this as a Patients' Bill of Rights that finally preserves protection between patients and their insurance companies, we are talking about going back to the bad old days when those protections didn't exist, when patients were playing against a stacked deck

and were often cut out of the decision-making process.

The risk is too great. We need to think of who is going to benefit from this bill and who will be harmed if it is repealed. And I call upon all of my colleagues to search in their hearts and their souls for the real impact that this bill is going to have if repealed.

And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

I yield the gentlewoman 30 additional seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, another colleague from the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Reyes.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island and Providence Plantations (Mr. Cicilline).

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another fine gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).

I yield the gentlewoman 30 additional seconds.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this body is numb.

We forget that we are a family, a dysfunctional family at times, but that we are a family. We all get to know each other, and we all have a common passion for the values of this country, values that brought us here in the first place. That is a remarkable story that we have heard unfolding about our good friend Gabby Giffords since this horrible tragedy first took place.

All of us in this body share a unique sense of responsibility for what happened to our dear friend, to her courageous staff and to the incredible people who showed up to participate in democracy at that Safeway in Tucson on Saturday. I know that a lot of us had this shared experience of horror on Saturday as we watched these horrible images appear in front of our eyes.

I want to briefly talk about my good friend Gabby.

It is ironic that on this day when our President is in Tucson, honoring the memory of those who lost their lives and those struggling to put their lives back together, that my connection with Gabby and President Obama go back to the exact same day. It was September 29 of 2006. Gabby and I were both candidates for Congress. We met at an event, and there were things about her that leaped off the page immediately.

It was her passion for why she was running, it was her fearlessness, and it was that smile that you've heard people talking about that could light up a room.

We got to talking about each other and what we had in common; and I learned that her brother, Alex Giffords, had been a place kicker at Iowa State University, where I graduated from college and where I was an unknown walk-on under Earl Bruce. And we talked about that. And I have in my office this little print of Beardshear Hall at Iowa State University that my friend Gabby gave to me that she got from her brother Alex because she knew this was important to me. This little picture is an emblem of what an amazing human being Gabby Giffords is because she was always thinking more of her friends than she was of herself.

I got on a red eye after first meeting Gabby Giffords and flew back to my district and met an unknown Senator from Illinois who had just gotten elected named Barack Obama for the very first time. That's what is great about this country is these random meetings that we have with amazing people from all over the country who we meet on the House floor, many of whom came in in one of the largest classes in recent memory. You heard them come to the floor today and talk about someone they barely knew or may have met briefly or didn't know at all, because that is what binds us together is the spirit, the history of this Chamber and what it has meant as the people's House.

That is why it is incumbent on all of us to take away as a lesson from this tragedy a renewed sense of respect for each other and for the common purpose that brought us all here together in the first place.

I talked about how we are a family. Every Thanksgiving our family has a tradition of watching a movie called ``Home for the Holidays'' about a very dysfunctional family. The star of that movie is Holly Hunter. In one of the closing moments of this movie--which like all good movies makes you laugh, makes you cry and makes you think--Holly Hunter's father is down in the basement watching old home movies and he's talking to her about one moment in his life that took 5 seconds and made all the difference in the world in his relationship with his daughter. And he said, You were fearless, huh? Fearless.

That is my friend, Gabby Giffords. She is fearless in what makes this job worth having. That is why we have a responsibility--to her and all the people who lost their lives and who showed up at that town hall meeting because they care about this country--to make a difference going forward in how we talk to each other and how we care about each other.

As we look forward to next Monday, we should remember what Martin Luther King, Jr. taught us, that ``the moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice.'' We have a collective duty, all of us, to make sure that we bend that arc sooner and quicker so that the American people realize that we are all in this together and that this is the people's House for a reason.

I want to thank my Republican colleagues for their extreme sensitivity

and their devotion to this important resolution, and I thank my colleague from California for helping us put this resolution together today.

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

Madam Speaker, I regret missing floor votes on today, December 22, 2010 due to travel. If I was present, I would have voted: ``yea'' on rollcall 664, motion to concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 847--James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 3860, important legislation to ensure proper oversight of Arlington National Cemetery. I'm proud to have sponsored companion legislation to this bill in the House to see that we fulfill our oversight duties and properly honor our fallen heroes.

Arlington National Cemetery is the final resting place for Presidents, Senators, Representatives, Supreme Court Justices, Generals, Admirals and the countless soldiers, known and unknown, who've died in defense of freedom. It is home to memorials for Iowa heroes like the five Sullivan brothers who were lost at sea in 1942 with the sinking of the USS Juneau, but who are honored with tombstones among all of their fallen brothers. Arlington National Cemetery is a national institution that symbolizes the service and sacrifice by our citizens that makes the United States great, but most recently, it's been a sign of government incompetence.

The recent scandal of unmarked and inappropriately marked gravesites is an indignity to the Americans memorialized there, but it is also a stain on America. To date, Arlington Cemetery has spent over $5 million to computerize records to determine who is buried where, with nothing to show for it but continued problems in gravesite identification. The misuse of these funds disrespects our honored dead and is a breach in the trust of the American people.

As the son of a World War II veteran, I have the deepest respect for our Nation's veterans and I want nothing but the best treatment for them in life and in death. We owe them more than they've been given. I had the honor of attending the burial service of Specialist Ross McGinnis of Knox, PA at Arlington Cemetery as one of my first acts in Congress. Specialist McGinnis was killed in action near Adhamiyah, Iraq on December 4, 2006 when he threw himself on top of a grenade thrown into his HMMWV, saving the lives of at least four other soldiers, including one of my constituents. For his actions that day, Spc. McGinnis was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor.

My bill, and the bill we passed, asks for nothing more than the respect that our distinguished veterans like Spc. McGinnis deserve. I commend my colleagues for their support on this matter.

Mr. Chairman, today, the House will vote on a bill that will explode the deficit by $858 billion. While this package includes several programs I have proudly supported, I cannot support the underlying bill.

As recently as last week, I voted to give every American a tax cut by making the middle class tax cuts permanent for the millions of American families, consumers, and small business owners who drive our economy. I have consistently voted to extend unemployment insurance to assist the families struggling in this difficult time.

Those were some of the good things included in this deal. Unfortunately, the merits of these good things do not outweigh the bad things in this deal. I cannot justify mortgaging our children's futures to provide a Christmas bonanza to the privileged few. I refuse to support increasing the deficit by at least $81 billion to provide a tax break to the wealthiest people in this country. I refuse to support a bill that would balloon the deficit by $23 billion to provide an average tax break of more than $1.5 million to only 6,600 families a year.

That is why I am voting ``no,'' and I urge you to do the same.

Americans spoke clearly on November 2. Congress must get serious about reducing the deficit and become better stewards of their tax dollars. After endless talk throughout this session about fiscal responsibility, the looming threat of a growing deficit and forcing America's next generation into crushing debt to China--a so-called tax deal has been produced. Today, this House will vote on a bill that will explode the deficit by $858 billion dollars.

While this package includes several programs I have proudly supported, I cannot support the underlying bill. As recently as last week, I voted to give every American a tax cut by making the middle- class tax cuts permanent for the millions of American families, consumers and small business owners who drive our economy. I have consistently voted to extend unemployment insurance to assist the families struggling in this difficult recession. I have voted to extend the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit to assist our Nation's low-income families who have a difficult enough time making ends meet as it is. I have consistently voted for ethanol and biodiesel tax credits that sustain the growth of our Nation's renewable energy industry and support the jobs of thousands of my constituents in Iowa.

Those were some of the good things included in this deal. Unfortunately, the merits of these good things do not outweigh the bad things in this deal. I cannot justify mortgaging our children's futures to provide a Christmas bonanza to the privileged few. I refuse to support increasing the deficit by at least $81 billion to provide a tax break to the wealthiest persons in this country. I refuse to support a bill that would balloon the deficit by $23 billion to provide an average tax break of more than $1.5 million to only 6,600 families a year. And I unequivocally refuse to threaten the long-term viability of social security with a shell game to pay for diminished social security contributions.

I'm voting ``no'' on this bad deal because we cannot keep kicking the can down the road when it comes to difficult decisions about the deficit, especially with a package that threatens the financial stability of our Nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no.''

Mr. Chair, Americans spoke clearly on November second. Congress must get serious about reducing the deficit

and become better stewards of their tax dollars. After endless talk throughout this session about fiscal responsibility, the looming threat of a growing deficit and forcing America's next generation into crushing debt to China--a so-called tax deal has been produced. Today this House will vote on a bill that will explode the deficit by $858 billion dollars.

While this package includes several programs I have proudly supported, I cannot support the underlying bill. As recently as last week I voted to give every American a tax cut by making the middle class tax cuts permanent for the millions of American families, consumers and small business owners who drive our economy. I have consistently voted to extend unemployment insurance to assist the families struggling in this difficult recession. I have voted to extend the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit to assist our nation's low-income families who have a difficult enough time making ends meet as it is. I have consistently voted in for ethanol and biodiesel tax credits that sustain the growth of our nation's renewable energy industry and support the jobs of thousands of my constituents in Iowa.

Those were some of the good things included in this deal. Unfortunately, the merits of these good things do not outweigh the bad things in this deal. I cannot justify mortgaging our children's futures to provide a Christmas bonanza to the privileged few. I refuse to support increasing the deficit by at least $81 billion to provide a tax break to the wealthiest persons in this country. I refuse to support a bill that would balloon the deficit by $23 billion to provide an average tax break of more than $1.5 million to only 6,600 families a year. And I unequivocally refuse to threaten the long-term viability of social security with a shell game to pay for diminished social security contributions.

I'm voting ``no'' on this bad deal because we cannot keep kicking the can down the road when it comes to difficult decisions about the deficit, especially with a package that threatens the financial stability of our nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no.''

Madam Speaker, as the American middle class continues to endure tough economic challenges, the deadline looms for extending middle class tax cuts that will provide continued relief when it is needed the most.

Standing in our way are Republicans who are holding the middle class hostage in favor of giving added tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, even though these bonus tax breaks would add $700 billion to the national deficit.

So what is at stake? These middle class tax cuts will provide 98 percent of Americans who face a tax increase on January 1 the much needed relief that they deserve. For the typical middle class family, that means the loss of $2,000 next year. The Republican demands would mean that those making more than $1 million a year would receive an average of $100,000 annually, and the middle class would be saddled with $700 billion in new debt to pay for multimillion-dollar tax cuts for billionaires. In tough times like these, millionaires should be giving charity, not getting it, and that is the choice that the American people should be demanding that we make.