Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I come to the floor to commend my colleagues' attention to a resolution that I recently introduced honoring the work of pregnancy resource centers.

According to the nonprofit Guttmacher Institute, about half of American women will face an unplanned pregnancy, and at current rates more than one-third will have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old. Of the women who have had abortions, 90 percent indicate they would have preferred other options had they simply known about them.

The tragedy and irony in many situations is that most women are flooded with a pro-abortion message, but are rarely offered any other message of choice. Rather, unknowing clients are led to believe that abortion is the only solution to their problem.

Through costly advertising, young women go into abortion clinics and they are assured that help is only a few hundred dollars away. Harmful consequences of abortion are minimized or simply ignored. Alternatives, like parenting or adoption, are not encouraged; in fact, they are very rarely mentioned. Sadly, my colleagues, it is only later that they learn there are indeed alternatives.

Desperately trying to spread this message to young women are the 2,500 pregnancy resource centers across the United States. Through education and support, pregnancy resource centers meet women's emotional and physical needs. They provide one-on-one counseling regarding the facts about adoption, abortion and parenting so that the client may make a wise and informed decision about her pregnancy. Centers are dedicated to helping each woman resolve her situation in a way that equips her with better life skills for her future. Practical help, like parenting classes, support groups, education and job skill classes are offered through many pregnancy resource centers as well. Maternity clothes, baby needs and even temporary housing is also offered. Some pregnancy resource

centers have full medical services on their premises, and unlike abortion clinics, these centers offer support for women suffering from post-abortion syndrome.

For those women who have undergone an abortion, the devastation can be real and ongoing if she does not receive help. Most centers are committed to the healing, body and soul, of women who have suffered from an abortion. They offer medical and counseling services and stand alongside these women in the healing process.

Life-affirming pregnancy centers provide an example of love and compassion to women and their unborn babies. These centers have been upholding the values of all human life, born and unborn, for several decades. Women are increasingly turning to these centers for physical, psychological, emotional and of course spiritual help. They are always treated with the utmost dignity and respect and provided with accurate, up-to-date information in order to make informed decisions about their pregnancy, sexual health and relationships. Because everyone should have access to this information, all services are free of charge.

I am honored to represent one such center in my hometown of Ocala, Florida. The Women's Pregnancy Center has been serving the people faithfullly in Marion County for 22 years. This center serves nearly 1,500 women a year of all ages and backgrounds. They serve these women and men faithfully and discreetly.

My colleagues, in today's culture abortion is too often the first thought for women facing unplanned pregnancy, but there are alternatives, and pregnancy resource centers can provide them. These centers are not only the most strategic and effective, but often the most needed of the forces engaged in the defense of the unborn. It is fitting that we recognize these courageous and struggling agencies that seek to bring purpose to the surprises of life. Never are these needs greatest than in the smallest of family, a mother and her growing baby.

I invite my colleagues to join me in providing support for the more than 2,500 crisis pregnancy centers around the United States of America. The good work of these centers merits our recognition, and their compassionate staff deserve our admiration and praise.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this resolution and demonstrate their support for pregnancy resource centers and their tens of thousands of volunteer staff who are encouraging the protection and value of all human life in America.

Mr. Speaker, the recent reports of substandard conditions at the outpatient facility at Walter Reed Medical Center are deeply disturbing. The brave men and women who put their lives on the line every day to protect our country do not deserve the shoddy conditions, nor do they deserve to be trapped in the bureaucratic morass that has engulfed Walter Reed.

It is necessary to put into place a seamless program for our veterans from the time they are injured through rehabilitation and home care and work support. I urge Secretary Nicholson of Veterans Affairs to do just that.

The proper treatment of our wounded members of the Armed Forces is not a partisan issue. It is a moral issue. And Congress needs to ensure that our injured brave men and women receive the best, most advanced, and most timely medical care possible. Anything less would be immoral and a dereliction of our duty.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

My colleagues, here is a quote from a Newsweek article: ``There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically, and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production, with

serious political implications for about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.''

My colleagues, Newsweek published this dire warning in its April 28, 1975 issue, years before global warming began getting the headlines it does today.

Did Newsweek accurately forecast the coming of global warming more than 30 years ago? No. The article entitled ``The Cooling World'' warned that the Earth's climate seemed to be cooling to the point that populations around the world are in imminent danger because of the coming ice age.

Newsweek was not the only publication to warn about the supposed threat of global cooling during the 1970s. In an article entitled ``Another Ice Age?'' the June 24, 1974 issue of Time reported: ``When meteorologists take an average temperature around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades.'' And Time's article did not predict a break in this decade-long cooling trend.

The article continued to warn that ``telltale signs were everywhere, from the unexpected persistence and thickness of packed ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of warm-loving creatures like the armadillo from the Midwest.''

Fortune magazine also gave warning. A February 1974 article entitled ``Ominous Changes in the World's Weather'' claimed that ``there is a fair agreement among researchers that the earth is now heading very slowly into another major ice age, such as the one that brought the glaciers deep into North America before it retreated some 10,000 years ago.''

This article also pointed to the supposedly unusual weather patterns of the day as indication of much worse weather to come: ``Climatologists now blame those recurring droughts and floods on a global cooling trend. It could bring massive tragedies for mankind.''

These days, of course, we no longer hear much, if anything, about the possibility of runaway global cooling triggering another ice age. Instead, we hear a lot about the threat of catastrophic global warming. Now, what happened? Well, the temperature trend changed. After dropping for about 35 years, the temperature started to rise in the mid seventies, although the global temperature now is only slightly higher than it was in the 1940s when the cooling trend began.

Over the centuries and millennia, the weather has changed, at times radically. During the 10th century, the Vikings established prosperous colonies in Greenland, having named the island for its lush pastures. By the early 15th century, however, these were wiped out by cold and hunger, and now four-fifths of Greenland lies buried under hundreds of feet of ice cap. No one blamed human activity for this climate shift or the ice age.

But in the seventies, some experts argued that human impact on the environment had grown to the point where their atmospheric pollutants were contributing significantly to global cooling, just as some experts argue that CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming today.

Climatologists suggested that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and the burning of fossil fuels were blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the Earth. They projected that man's potential to pollute would increase six- to eightfold over the next 50 years. And as Reid Bryson stated in Fortune in February 1974, ``It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the Earth, like a billion people starving.''

Another of the concerned scientists was Dr. Stephen Schneider, the co-author of the Science report, who in the seventies was worried about the threat of global cooling. Now at Stanford University, Dr. Schneider not only sees things differently but is considered one of the leading experts now sounding the alarm about global warming. In a recent MSNBC report, Dr. Schneider argued that today's warming trend ``has been induced by humans using the atmosphere as a free place to dump our tailpipe waste.'' However, not everyone sounded the alarm about global cooling in the seventies, just like not everyone is sounding the alarm about global warming today.

Madam Speaker, the fact that so many experts were wrong about global cooling in the seventies does not necessarily mean that they are wrong about global warming today, but it does at least show that experts are sometimes incredibly, incredibly wrong.

Madam Chairman, today we vote on a bill that quite frankly hurts American workers. The derisively named ``Employee Free Choice Act'' removes employees' choice in choosing to organize by having them reveal their vote on an authorization card, under the watching eyes of union officials; not on a secret ballot.

This is wrong, not only in the workplace, but in any scenario where peer pressure can exert itself. In government elections, secret ballots are the foundation of democracy worldwide. We send election observers to developing nations to see that, among other elements, their ballots are cast in private.

The Fraternal Order of Police labor union wrote to our Speaker on Tuesday against this bill, saying: ``This ill-named legislation attacks the very meaning of free choice. Without federally supervised private ballot elections, our democratic process would be extremely susceptible to corruption, and the very foundation of our Republic could be undermined. This bill would do the same thing to our Nation's workers by robbing them of their privacy, power and voice in deciding who should represent and defend their rights as employees.''

Employees who just want to go about their business and peacefully do their jobs without fear of reprisal from either their employers or union bosses deserve the same secret ballot with which all of us were elected.

I thank my distinguished colleague, the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

And I want to have the opportunity to speak. I have spoken earlier on this debate, but I thought I would bring some simple common sense to my colleagues that perhaps was best brought forward by David Broder in the Washington Post. Now, David Broder obviously is more sympathetic to the Democratic point of view than they are to the Republicans, but I think he makes three points which I will also echo in my conversation today.

Basically, we are at the end of the debate, but we are all moving towards a decision most of us already have decided, but I have some simple common sense that I would bring to the attention of my colleagues.

When General Petraeus was unanimously supported by the Senate, it was with the idea that he would bring his new thoughts, his new strategy to this plan in Iraq. So don't you think, as members of this body, we should give General Petraeus an opportunity to implement his plan and not immediately come forward with a resolution that says that it is a disapproving of the decision to deploy more troops to Iraq?

When we deployed more troops for the Iraqi elections, why didn't you complain then? That happened twice before. We went up to almost 160,000. When we deployed more troops to ratify the Iraqi constitution, why didn't you complain back then? That went up to almost 160,000.

So now you are coming against a simple new strategy with the best we have in America who actually has written the manual on how to do it. You are not even willing to give him a chance. No breathing space. This nonbinding resolution shows your motives, which are to eventually reduce all funding for Iraq.

My third point is, you are so willing to do this, you are not even willing to look at what could happen with this new strategy. Let's say it works. Are you still going to offer these resolutions to cut off funds even though this strategy works and General Petraeus is successful? No matter what, you seem hell bent on reducing funds for Iraq. Yet we didn't hear any time before when we increased the surge for the Iraqi elections or for the ratification of the Iraqi constitution.

You know, in a way, Bush went to your retreat with a willingness to listen to your ideas. He is showing bipartisanship. In fact, he has a quote here which I think illustrates what the American people are saying. ``What really matters,'' quote, ``is what happens on the ground. I can talk all day long, but what really matters to the American people is to see progress.''

So he realizes also that he must show progress. And we are asking for this new strategy to have a chance, and we owe it to them.

Mr. Speaker, it is with sorrow, yet fondness, that I speak on the passing of our colleague and friend, Charlie Norwood. While in Congress, his dedication to Georgians, to patient advocacy, to business ownership and property rights, and to veterans are legendary.

Prior to his service in the House of Representatives, Charlie served his country as a Captain in the U.S. Army Dental Corps in Vietnam, and he contributed to his community as a dentist, business owner, and active worshipper in his Methodist Church.

I first learned about Charlie in 1994 when he was running for his Georgia district. Struck by his pluckiness and quiet steadfast determination even then, I decided to campaign for him in his district- to-be, and met his wife Gloria. And when he was elected, he immediately became a player in health care legislation, not waiting for reaching the echelons of seniority to make real contributions.

Through all his trials, Charlie Norwood had a sparkle, an ingenuity how to get things accomplished. His passion would at times translate into defiance at another Member. In particular, I recall such a moment at the Energy & Commerce markup on July 27, 2006 of H.R. 4157, the Better Health Information System Act of 2006, or ``Health IT'' bill. Another Member, Representative Markey, was offering some language that would have the effect of governing relations between health care providers and their patients. Well, Charlie took great exception to this, and rather angrily erupted to Representative Markey that his profession has engaged in the highest ethical standards of patient privacy since the inception of dentistry, and therefore ``I don't need you to legislate my professional ethics.''

In the past couple of years, Charlie would ride in his scooter to the Energy & Commerce Committee on which we served together, and to the Floor, for debate and hearings and votes. And notwithstanding his ailing health, I was always touched by his continued friendly, high spirits. Charlie, I am honored to have known you. Rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. What this debate is really all about is whether you wish to make a statement in support of our new strategy in Iraq or whether you oppose this new plan.

By simply supporting this resolution, you are saying you want to leave Iraq as soon as possible. I am not willing to do this. I am willing to support the administration and to give our military and our troops the benefit of the doubt, and I will vote against this resolution because I want to give this new strategy a chance, a simple chance to succeed.

My colleagues, let me repeat. If you vote for this resolution, then you are saying you do not wish to give the military and General Petraeus a chance to succeed. In fact, this resolution declares the new strategy in Iraq is a failure before it has even had a chance to be implemented.

This is inconsistent with the unanimous vote the Senate gave to the man selected to carry out this strategy, General Petraeus. Everyone agrees he is the best man. This resolution is undercutting the general and our troops at the very time they need our support.

Now, many will argue that there has been ample opportunity to succeed and that we have failed at this point. Certainly mistakes have been made and a change of strategy is long overdue. However, what should this strategy be? Should the U.S. immediately pull out of Iraq, leaving the terrorists emboldened and potentially put more Americans at risk?

The advocates for this resolution have no answer. In fact, they beg the very question, What happens when we leave? What happens in Iraq if we leave precipitously? And what do we do if it turns into a Middle East conflagration?

If Shiite Iran succeeds in exerting its influence through Shiite Iraq, it will threaten to spill over the sectarian violence across the Middle East and elsewhere. Now here is how the head of the Arab League views this potential conflict. This is what he said. ``If this happens we will enter hell itself.''

The supporters of the resolution keep talking about the past, but they do not talk about the future and how we are going to solve this problem without creating a more serious problem.

Edmund Burke, the great conservative leader from Britain, this is how he put it: It is not a question of how we got into this situation, but how do we get out. They have no answers, and by not answering this latter question they are begging the question.

Now, this is circular reasoning. It is one in which a premise presupposes the conclusion in some way. In a course of logic, this is called the core relative. So this resolution is faulty reasoning.

Any professor of logic would simply recognize the false choice. We need this new strategy that General Petraeus is implementing so that we can hand over this country to the constitutionally elected government. My colleagues, this can be done and will be done soon one way or the other.

Any new strategy must be accompanied by a set of strategic benchmarks designed to measure progress in Iraq and to hold the administration and the Iraqi Government accountable for their role in achieving this success.

Mr. Speaker, I ask to include in the Record a list of these benchmarks that I recommend be part of this new strategy to allow our troops to come home.

Why not consider a resolution that incorporates these benchmarks?

But I do offer a warning to the administration. We must have benchmarks that demonstrate our progress in Iraq. I, for one, and many others, cannot support continued funding without measurable benchmarks. And we need to know if we are making progress; and if we are not, then we can employ other tactics and different measures, all of which will lead to the Iraqi Government taking on the responsibility for their own country.

My colleagues, the political easy thing to do is to vote for this faulty resolution because you are not willing to give a final chance for success and you have no ideas on achieving success. The harder, political vote is ``no,'' and that is what I intend to do.

If I have a few more moments, I just want to bring to my colleagues' attention a quote that has been declassified from bin Laden's deputy. And if you will bear with me and follow this quote. ``It is my humble opinion that the jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals: The first stage, expel the Americans from Iraq; the second stage, establish Islamic authority, and then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate; the third stage, extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Iran; the fourth stage, it may coincide with what came before, the clash with Israel because Israel was established only to challenge a new Islamic entity.''

My colleagues, that is what is at stake. The war in Iraq is a central front in the global war on terrorism and a central battleground for Islamic militant extremists in this worldwide mission to simply destroy all Western democracy. And you don't have to take my word for it. You can see this declassified deputy to bin Laden, his opinion.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this resolution. While no proposal guarantees success, a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. support would guarantee failure. The stakes are too high to fail in Iraq. It remains in America's strategic interests to ensure regional stability in the Middle East and to deny terrorists a safe haven in Iraq.

Certainly mistakes have been made and a change of strategy is long overdue. However, what should this change of strategy be? Should the U.S. immediately pull out of Iraq, leave the terrorists emboldened and potentially put more Americans at risk? Or do we need a new strategy to win the war and finish the job? I think the latter.

Instead of a politically motivated resolution, my colleagues and I have developed a strategy for victory in Iraq. We need to establish measurable benchmarks for success in Iraq while expressing unwavering support for our troops.

Any new strategy must be accompanied by a set of strategic benchmarks designed to measure progress in Iraq and to hold the Bush administration and the Iraqi Government accountable for their role in achieving success. Threatening to reduce the future commitment of American troops and economic aid if they are not implemented, we must enforce these benchmarks. It is important to stress that an open-ended American military commitment is both unwise and dangerous. In the business world, no successful enterprise gives enormous sums of money without accountability, and nor should we.

The military benchmarks I would like to see utilized include:

Measuring the level of Iraqi government cooperation with the U.S. Military;

Iraqi progress in removing terrorists and others from its own security forces;

Identifying the level of combat experience for all Iraqi Army battalions; and

Tracking the expenditure of funds supporting Iraqi defense forces.

The political benchmarks include:

Advancing a strategy to promote tolerance and co-existence among Iraqis;

Providing fair access to all Iraqi resources;

Promoting the rule of law;

Reforming the judicial system to ensure equal application of the law; and

Measuring cooperation and coordination of neighboring countries in stabilizing Iraq.

Why not consider a resolution that incorporates these benchmarks?

This resolution sends an inappropriate message to our troops. This resolution declares the new strategy in Iraq a failure before it even has the chance to be implemented. This is inconsistent with the unanimous vote the other body gave to the man designated to carry the strategy out, General Petraeus. Congress is undercutting General Petraeus and our troops at the very time they need our support.

As cochair of the Congressional Air Force Caucus, I joined in leading a delegation of members to Iraq. This trip provided valuable insight into our operations and conditions on the ground. The situation in Iraq poses multiple problems--Sunni al Qaeda terrorists, committed Baathists who are largely Sunni, Shiite militias, and Shiite interference from Iran. This is truly an unholy brew.

The war in Iraq is a central front in the global war on terrorism and a central battleground for Islamist militant extremists in their worldwide mission to destroy democracy. But don't take my word for it. Take the words from a declassified letter from bin Laden's deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri.

It is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires

several incremental goals: The first stage: Expel the

Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic

authority . . . then develop it and support it until it

achieves the level of a caliphate . . . The third stage:

Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring

Iraq. The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came

before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established

only to challenge any new Islamic entity.

These Islamic extremists view victory in Iraq as paramount to their establishment of a worldwide Islamic kingdom. Here is what Osama bin Laden has to say about Iraq from a 2006 audiotape--``The epicenter of these wars is Baghdad, the seat of the caliphate rule. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars and a beginning to the receding of their Zionist-Crusader tide against us.''

Sectarian violence rages in Iraq, fanned by Iran and Syria, and this could well spill over throughout the region. Look at these charts. They show the sectarian divide in Iraq among Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds; and the other shows the regional divide between Sunnis and Shiites.

If Shiite Iran succeeds in exerting its influence through Shiite Iraq, it will threaten the spillover of sectarian violence throughout the Middle East and elsewhere. Here is how Amr Mousa, head of the Arab League, views this potential Iranian-backed Shiite conflict with the Sunni nations--``We will enter hell itself.''

The Islamist terrorist threat is real and directly connected to defeating the insurgents in Iraq. Democrat plans to abandon Iraq will not make this threat disappear.

America cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past by withdrawing from a direct confrontation with radical Islamist terrorists. They will continue to intensify their attacks against America, just as they did following other attacks such as in:

1979: 66 American diplomats taken hostage and held in Iran for 444 days.

1983: A truck bomb kills 241 marines at their barracks in Beirut.

1988: Pan Am 103 bombing kills 270, including 189 Americans, over Lockerbie, Scotland.

1993: Six killed in first World Trade Center bombing by militant Islamic terrorists.

1996: 19 U.S. service members are killed in Khobar Towers bombing.

1998: 225 people killed in bombings at the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.

2000: Al Qaeda's attack on the destroyer USS. Cole kills 17 American sailors.

2001: Al Qaeda hijackers fly planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, while passengers force a fourth to crash in Pennsylvania. Total number killed: 2,973.

It is vital that we succeed in Iraq for these reasons: A stable Iraq dedicated to the rule of law will weaken extremism in the Middle East; we cannot allow terrorists to gain a safe haven in that nation; and curbing Iran's regional ambitions.

But I do offer a warning. We must have benchmarks that demonstrate our progress in Iraq. I for one cannot support continued funding without measurable benchmarks and we need to know if we are making progress. If we are not, then we can take other tactics and different measures. All of which will lead to the Iraqi Government taking on the responsibility for their own country.

In conclusion Mr. Speaker, one thing is for certain: The men and women fighting in Iraq must never be used as a political tool. They deserve our unmitigated support. They do not deserve political posturing. We must continue to provide the troops with the support they need to be safe and successful. I urge all my colleagues to oppose this resolution and seek a real resolution that includes military, political, and social benchmarks for success.

Mr. Speaker, this weekend, a deadly tornado inflicted enormous damage in my Congressional district. Yet even in the darkest times, the victims of the storm were enveloped in the incredible generosity of its neighbors. By Saturday, over 1,400 volunteers provided 22,000 meals and snacks and distributed 1,000 health kits.

Tim Miller and his three sons helped the Suggs family gather their belongings after the storm left. Tim Miller said, ``I'm just doing what I can to help.''

Villages resident Al Seiden said, ``Despite our house being destroyed . . . if you look around, there are at least eight people, volunteers, friends and neighbors who have come in and helped us . . . The spirit of this community is unbelievable.''

Wendy Spencer, the COE of the Governor's Commission on Volunteerism adds, ``We are receiving so many offers to help, which is wonderful. Our goal is to maximize this generosity to be as effective as it can be for meeting the needs of the tornado survivors now and in the weeks and months to come.''

Congratulations to all these volunteers. Great job.

Mr. Speaker, this omnibus appropriations bill we consider on the floor today is not a typical Continuing Resolution, but changes funding levels and re-prioritizes projects from prior years. This CR is the longest in recent history. Most of them are 1-2 pages. This is 137 pages. Some of these changes are controversial as well as complicated, and I feel that the whole House would have benefited from a thorough appraisal of these proposals, a vigorous committee process, so that all Members would have been fully apprised of the nuances and we could pass a wellthought out, carefully crafted omnibus spending bill. However, I was pleased that the crafters of this bill saw fit to include funding levels for Veterans' Affairs that come close to what the House Republicans passed in the last Congress, and funding levels close to the Administration's request. However, they should be higher. I do lament that the priorities of the current leadership to continue funding ineffective and wasteful programs have limited the amount of available funds that could improve the quality of life for our brave veterans even more.

For example, this bill does not eliminate 28 earmarks totaling $70 million, including the famed $50 million Rainforest in Iowa project. That $50 million could instead have been allocated to improving adaptive housing for disabled veterans. This bill also funds assistance to Independent States of the former Soviet Union at a level that is $11 million above the Administration's request. Had this bill been considered in Committees, we may have been able to determine that this $11 million excess may be better spent on rehabilitation programs for blind veterans. Finally, instead of allocating $316 million for ``Corporation for National and Community Service, Domestic Volunteer Service Programs,'' which includes funds to pay people to volunteer in the Americorps program. We could have used some of that money to increase the medical care for spinal cord injured veterans, or increasing benefits for survivors of service members who have sacrificed and given their lives in this Global War on Terror, defending the safety and freedom enjoyed by all of us back here in the States. This CR also breaks the Nation's obligation to provide soldiers and families adequate quality of life--affects the all volunteer force and unravels the Army's synchronized stationing and BRAC plan.

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the House passed a bill to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate with drug companies on the prices of pharmaceuticals for the part D drug program, H.R. 4 was the bill.

In my district, I have heard overwhelmingly good news about the existing part D program. For a striking example, there was a letter to the editor from one of my constituents on September 21, 2006 in the Gainesville Sun. Mrs. Vernell James wrote this letter. She and her husband, both in their seventies, married for 58 years, wrote, quote, ``Medicare part D has been a great experience for our family. Health insurance is important because it helps us stay well and live a quality life. My husband is on three different medications, so good health insurance is something we need.

``The Medicare Web site made it simple enough to choose a plan and sign up. Now that the November 15th deadline is approaching, seniors need to be thinking about which plan is best for them. We save nearly $250 a month because of Medicare part D on our medications, and we are looking forward to continuing savings next year.''

I have met this lady, and she impressed upon me how this benefit has given them healthy coverage, and more importantly, peace of mind. But don't take my word for it or the word of this lady; I found no more convincing arguments than what was recently in the two editorials in the Washington Post. One appeared November 2, 2006, and one the day after the bill, H.R. 4, passed, January 13, 2007.

Because of the prominence of this newspaper to policymakers around this town, I would like to share these editorials with my colleagues.

On what grounds does the Post disagree with the Democrat bill, H.R. 4, which involves price fixing? First, the same point that many of us may have heard on the House floor during the debate, but unfortunately not in committee because the bill failed to go through regular Democratic order. On comparing Medicare to VA, Veterans Affairs, the VA ``can do this because it is free to deny coverage for drugs whose makers refuse to provide discounts. Fully 3,000 of the 4,300 medicines covered by Medicare are unavailable under the veterans' program. Restricting the list of coverage drugs saves money, but it also reduces the quality of the benefit; 1.5 million veterans are sufficiently unhappy with the result that they opt to buy the more inclusive Medicare coverage.''

Well, they are not the same creatures at all, these two programs. I have the background to know, I have been a member of the Veterans Committee for 15 years; I served on the Health Subcommittee on this Veterans Committee. In fact, I chaired the VA Health Subcommittee in the past.

Next: Why do this at all when the private insurance market is keeping premiums costs low for beneficiaries? As the Post went on to write, quote, ``the Congressional Budget Office estimated this week that savings from direct negotiations would be negligible, the average monthly premium has fallen since the program began a year ago. Private insurers can do this precisely because they are free to establish formularies, but market discipline ensures that these lists are not unappealing narrow. The insurers need to keep customers.'' Emphasis added.

Further, the Post wrote, quote, ``The Democrats' stance is troubling because it suggests an excessively government-led view of health care reform. The better approach is to let each insurer offer its own version of the right balance to see whether it attracts customers, and then adapt flexibly.''

I have been extolling the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program as a model for over a decade. FEHBP works well precisely because the Office of Personnel Management administering it does not micromanage the program, does not set prices. It simply sets the terms of allowable plans, and then offers Federal and Legislative branch employees, including Members of Congress and the Executive Branch, the cafeteria of options, and they go forth and they choose what is best for them.

On November 2, the Post echoed this endorsement of consumer freedom writing, ``Retirees have a choice of insurance plans with widely varying costs, and some are faced with decisions on how much to spend out of pocket. If they choose to pay top dollar for branded medicines, the incentive to invent new medicines will rise. If they prefer to save money, incentives for innovation will decline a bit. Either way, a balance will be struck that reflects broad social preferences.''

My colleagues, the Democrat bill, H.R. 4, that was passed, not through the democratic process here in Congress, but put on the floor without amendments, will not help the part D Medicare prescription drug program, it will hurt it. If you don't believe it, read these editorials of the Washington Post.

Mr. Speaker, this Saturday tens of thousands of protesters protested on the National Mall the war on Iraq, and in particular, the 21,500 troop surge. These Americans exercised their first amendment right, and indeed, I am grateful to live in a Nation where we can protest government policies. However, my colleagues, I read in The Hill newspaper one troubling incident that arose. It says, 300 self-described anarchists spray-painted symbols and slogans on the west front steps of the United States Capitol building.

More puzzling, the article says that helpless Capitol Police officers watched, reporting that they were ordered to avoid confronting the group. It seems U.S. Capitol Police Chief Phillip Morse defends that the graffiti was ``easily removed'' and, most significantly, the building was secure from the artists' entry.

I am not sure I agree with such dismissiveness. Protected free speech does not include vandalism. I ask the Speaker to investigate. Peacefully assembling to protest is permissible, defacing public property is unacceptable and it should not happen again.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday there was a pro-life rally here in Washington, DC. In fact, the 22nd annual rally. I thought I would take a moment and talk about some of the innovations involved with ultrasound equipment which is very beneficial for women who are pregnant who wish to look at the fetus.

Recently, my colleagues, National Geographic presented a 2-hour program charting the fetal development of several mammals with the use of new generation ultrasound imagery. Physicians created a stunning portrait of a mammal in utero, but just imagine the reaction of parents today when viewing a 3-D fetal snapshot of their unborn son or daughter smiling back at them.

Professor Stuart Campbell, one of the world's leading experts in obstetrics, believes that ever improving imagery, particularly moving from 3-D to 4-D scanning, which are inching closer and closer to actually displaying real-time movements, represents the tip of the iceberg for fetal behavior study.

As with these amazing images, ultrasound technology provides parents- to-be with a window into the womb which can result in a stronger parent-child bond, better prenatal treatment and also supply doctors with obviously an advanced understanding of fetal development and behavior.

Today's ultrasound equipment is better than ever and the technology will improve even better over time. Such images allow physicians to readily identify critical health problems such as spina bifida, heart complications, neural tube defects, and genetic syndromes. Ultrasound imagery brings many benefits to women, their unborn children and, of course, to our health care system in general. Continued research, breakthrough developments, and preventative care could save millions of dollars.

Public health advocates know that access to early, high-quality prenatal care is key to maternal and newborn health. Therefore, this prenatal care should include ultrasound equipment. Sonograms can diagnose serious complications that can be easily avoided if discovered early on during a pregnancy. Four-dimensional imaging shows objects in 3-D moving close to real time. Doctors have long known that fetuses move, but the physical behavior revealed by these scans is expanding upon their knowledge exponentially. The possibilities of improving the health of women and their unborn children are endless.

Mr. Speaker, these advanced ultrasound images can give women an opportunity for better prenatal health and decrease risks during pregnancy not only for themselves but obviously for their unborn child. Unfortunately, there are a lot of women today that cannot afford access to this critical medical service. These underprivileged

women do not have the option of safeguarding their health and prenatal well-being. Therefore, I have introduced the Informed Choice Act, H.R. 223. This legislation authorizes Health and Human Services to establish simple grants for not-for-profit and community-based health clinics to purchase ultrasound equipment. The centers that purchase these machines will be able to provide free examinations to women who are unable to obtain access to this critical care. That is, women that are poor. Each year, these pregnancy centers serve hundreds of thousands of women, ranging from girls barely in their teens to women in their mid to late thirties. Many of these women are among the poorest of the poor. For them, the free care that they receive is an essential lifeline. Access to ultrasound equipment is clearly one of the best things that this Congress can do to promote women's health and prenatal care.

Women understand the importance of ultrasound equipment. A recent poll confirms this. In order to provide women in crisis pregnancies with sufficient prenatal care and the full scope of information about their pregnancy, I urge my colleagues today to cosponsor my legislation. It is clear that these women view ultrasounds as an essential resource, a resource for women who are faced with unplanned pregnancies struggling with that prime decision. Additionally, the Focus on the Family organization found that an overwhelming 84 percent of women surveyed decide against abortion after viewing an ultrasound of their unborn baby.

Women have a right to know what is going on during their pregnancy. These ultrasound images, specifically with the 3-D and 4-D technology, depict fetuses beyond 24 weeks sucking their thumbs, sticking their tongues out and even making emotional faces.

So again, my colleagues, I urge you to join me in protecting the health of women and their unborn children by cosponsoring the Informed Choice Act, H.R. 223. This bill is about giving vulnerable women the information they need about their pregnancy and making this critical technology available to all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, recently the Speaker has indicated that she intends to appoint a special task force, a select committee, to investigate global warming. The committee I serve on, Energy and Commerce, has jurisdiction on this matter and, in fact, we have had a hearing on this subject on July 27, 2006 in our oversight subcommittee. We investigated the so-called hockey stick effect. The hearing showed that there is a lot of information on global warming and that this is a very serious issue. But I question the need for another committee when the Energy and Commerce has full legislative power to continue to investigate and legislate. The committee the Speaker has designated will duplicate what is already in place with the longstanding expertise on the Energy and Commerce. In fact, as the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee recently said, ``We are just empowering a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs to go around and make speeches and make commitments that will be very difficult to honor.''

Madam Speaker, affordable and reliable energy is an important component of continued economic growth. It heats and cools our homes, facilitates the means of production, and fuels our transportation system. However, politics, not sound energy policy is driving the legislation before us today.

The tax provisions targeted for repeal in H.R. 6 are designed to encourage new capital investment in U.S. energy projects, and they are fulfilling this goal. Their repeal will discourage new domestic oil and gas production and refinery capacity, threaten American jobs, and make it less economic to produce domestic energy resources--thereby increasing our dependence on imported crude oil and refined fuel products. A recent economic analysis by PricewaterhouseCoopers confirms:

``Higher taxes on the U.S. activities of the oil and natural gas industry, as would result under H.R. 6, would be expected to reduce U.S. exploration, production, and refining activities and increase U.S. dependence on foreign oil. This outcome is in sharp contrast to long- term energy goals for a Nation less reliant on imported energy sources.''

These results run directly counter to sound energy policy goals and, by diminishing energy supplies, would strike a blow to U.S. energy consumers.

Provisions in the bill affecting the deep water royalty relief program will set back the significant gains in oil and gas production that are attributable to the program and discourage new domestic production. This program has been one of the most successful policy stimulants for U.S. oil and natural gas exploration and production. It has contributed to a nearly 400 percent increase in natural gas production and more than 100 new discoveries.

The real impact of actions taken in this bill will be felt by our Nation's manufacturers and every day consumers of energy. The higher energy taxes will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher gasoline and home energy prices. Similarly, heavy users of oil and natural gas, such as manufacturers and their customers, will feel the pinch of these higher prices and the effects of higher gas prices will ripple throughout the economy.

This legislation would give an unfair competitive advantage to foreign energy firms by placing tax increases squarely on the shoulders of domestic energy producers. This will encourage domestic energy companies, which employ 1.8 million Americans to move those jobs overseas.

America's energy future is too important to risk a rush to judgment, and H.R. 6 represents a significant step backward for our Nation's energy security. Imposing new costs, whether in the form of taxes or fees is contrary to the goal of providing stable and affordable energy supplies for American consumers.

America's energy consumers deserve a sound energy policy that will not hit them with unnecessarily increased energy costs. This legislation is a poor substitute for a real energy policy. I urge my colleagues to reject this punitive energy legislation and to decrease our dependence on foreign oil.

Mr. Speaker, today Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Jose Compean turned themselves in to begin serving their 11- and 12-year prison terms. Now, what was their crime? Shooting a habitual drug smuggler after he evaded law enforcement, attacked one of the agents and threateningly turned to the agent with what appeared to be a gun, and was fleeing back across the border.

Now, how is this justice, Mr. Speaker?

Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof even went to Mexico to find this drug dealer, brought him to America, paid for his medical treatment in an El Paso hospital with taxpayers' dollars and gave him immunity to testify against the agents.

The unreasonable sentence of these agents undermines the morale and makes all of them question what they are doing, do they have the right to draw their firearm in the course of their duty.

This is an outrage. I urge President Bush to review this draconian prison sentence.