Floor Statements

I thank my distinguished colleague from Florida. My colleagues, I also rise to praise the University of Florida, the Gators, for not only winning their second football national title but on their many off-the-field accomplishments as well.

With their 41-14 victory over the Ohio State Buckeyes, as mentioned earlier, the Gators became the first Division I school to hold a national championship in men's basketball and football at the same time.

Coming into this game, many of the experts did not give the Gators any chance of defeating the previously undefeated Buckeyes. However, once they took the field, the Gators were not intimidated. In fact, the Gators held their own and held Ohio State to only 82 yards of total offense, the fewest number of yards in BCS history.

Notwithstanding this event, as my colleague on the other side mentioned, Ohio State had a very great season; and I congratulate and commend this wonderful football team and its coach

and all its players for a very successful season.

My colleagues, the Florida Gators are excellent representatives of both the university and I believe the great State of Florida in their tenacity, spirit, and their willingness to try to succeed. I take great pride in representing the University of Florida and congratulate Coach Urban Meyer and the entire university on this great accomplishment.

The university's accomplishments extend beyond the field or on the courts in the sports arena. UF boasts a 91 percent graduation rate among its athletes, including all of its sports, making it only one of four programs in the National All-Sports Top 10 to achieve a graduation success rates that is above 90 percent. Furthermore, in 2002-2003, UF placed a record 193 student athletes on the SEC academic honor roll, marking six consecutive years UF placed 100 or more UF student athletes on the SEC Honor Roll.

The University of Florida's accomplishments go well beyond athletics. It is ranked fifth among Kiplinger's Top 10 Public Colleges. UF's faculty are among the best and most decorated in the world, winning awards such as the Fields Medal, two Pulitzer Prizes, NASA's top award for research, and the Smithsonian Institution's conservation award.

University of Florida is also the first university in the world to be designated a Certified Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary for its agriculture faculty's commitment to environmental and wildlife management.

Enrolling almost 50,000 students annually, UF is home to 16 colleges and more than 150 research centers and institutes. During the 2005-2006 school year, UF was awarded $519 million in sponsored research. This research includes diverse areas such as health care and citrus production, including the world's largest citrus research center.

My colleagues, one example of this innovative research is veterinarian Julie Levy, who is one of the worldwide leaders of research into a revolutionary, humane drug option for spraying and neutering cats and dogs. As it is now, the only way to permanently sterilized these animals is surgically. What if this process were as simple as a vaccine? Dr. Levy, at the University of Florida, is working on this research project today.

On both the field and in the classroom, the students, faculty, and administration of the University of Florida are champions. I am honored that this world-class university is in my congressional district and I look forward to many great things in the future.

As they say at the university, Go Gators!

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Venezuelan president invoked Fidel Castro as the premier socialist model which, in his theory, is the economic model for not only Venezuela but the entire world.

Mr. Speaker, my observation about his speech is that it represents a defining illustration of the dichotomous philosophies of ownership and freedom that free markets versus state-owned markets present. For example, Chavez demonstrates this with his continued move to nationalize electrical and telecommunications companies.

Here in Congress with the new majority, they are starting to hammer with this heavy hand of the Federal Government down on small businesses, pharmaceutical companies, energy companies, health insurance and telecommunications industries. I hope that we will carefully examine the consequences of these decisions before repeating the mistakes of socialism. State-owned enterprises are never the solution

I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Dingell, has been here in Congress the longest, he is the dean of the House of Representatives, and I am sure that he remembers under the Clinton administration when they attempted to expand the discounts for a segment of the population using this same approach you are doing with H.R. 4. In fact, this occurred in 2000 in a hearing on the Veterans Administration. I would like to take you through this, Mr. Dingell, and perhaps even be willing to let you reply to some of the questions I have for you. Because if you think you can repeal the law of economics, you can't, because in 1990, Congress gave Medicaid access to the low prices that are achieved by the Veterans Administration and the results were not good for our veterans.

The drug manufacturers in turn reacted. What did they do? It ended up that the deep discounts that the veterans were getting were not provided. In some cases the VA saw the prices for the drugs for our veterans go up by 300 percent. That is why the American Legion has come out against this bill, H.R. 4. They feel it is going to impact veterans so significantly that the prices will go up, like they did in 1990, 300 percent.

Advocates of this bill claim that negotiations will lower drug prices for Medicare part D beneficiaries. When I look at my congressional district, almost 80 percent of the seniors on Medicare are covered with drug coverage from Part D and they are all satusfield. So I again can't understand in light of the fact it is going to perhaps see cost- shifting to the veterans in this country like the American Legion thinks, why would you want to change something that is working so fabulously after all the extensive work that the seniors have done to comply and get involved?

Various times during the Clinton administration, not the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, proposals were made to expand the discount veterans enjoy to a wider population, just like you want to do today.

One was a simple demonstration to add some Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan, FEHBP, participants to the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) Drug Pricing Program and later to extend the FSS to the Medicare population. Does this sound familiar to my colleagues? So back in 2000, July, the Clinton administration wanted to do precisely what we are doing today. The veterans had a hearing on this. Testimony was offered by the Clinton administration. The Clinton administration officials came out, and let me give you one of their quotes:

This is from the honorable Edward Powell, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Financial Management, Department of Veterans Affairs. He said: ``VA is concerned about any significant cost impact to its program resulting from this pilot . . . ''

I would just conclude that, Mr. Dingell, this has already been tried. It doesn't work.

Veterans' Drug Prices Go Up With H.R. 4 Passage

Advocates of H.R. 4 claim that negotiation will lower drug

prices for Medicare Part D beneficiaries. This is bad

legislation for several reasons. Of special concern to me is

the harm it would do to veterans who rely on Department of

Veterans Affairs (VA) health care for affordable medications.

Various times during the Clinton administration, proposals

were made to expand the discounts veterans enjoy to wider

populations. One was a demonstration to add some Federal

Employee Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP) participants to the

Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) Drug Pricing Program, and

later, to extend the FSS to the Medicare population (sound

familiar?). On the former, I chaired a hearing July 25, 2000.

Testimony, and later analysis, revealed that expanding the

discounts veterans get to OPM would have increased drug costs

to veterans. Ultimately, the SAMBA demonstration was not

carried through because of this objection.

Here is some testimony from that hearing:

``. . . VA is concerned about any significant cost impact

to its program resulting from the pilot . . .'' The Honorable

Edward A. Powell, Jr., Assistant Secretary For Financial

Management, Department Of Veterans Affairs.

``We are concerned that this pilot will increase the cost

of pharmaceuticals purchased by the VA and will result in

diminished health care for sick and disabled veterans.''

Richard A. Wannemacher, Jr., Assistant National Legislative

Director For Medical Affairs, Disabled American Veterans.

``Perhaps it should go without saying, but I must call your

attention to the fact that Congress already has spoken on the

issue of expanded access to FSS pricing on several previous

occasions. In fact, I am aware of at least four separate laws

over the past 10 years enacted purely to correct the

unintended adverse consequences on VA of changes in federal

pharmaceutical pricing laws. In each of these cases. the

unintended consequences were the result of a law passed by

Congress to achieve some other purpose, and VA was an injured

bystander.'' Robert B. Betz, Ph.D., Executive Director,

Department of Veterans' Affairs Pharmaceutical Procurement

initiative Adding Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan

Participants to the Federal Supply Schedule Drug Pricing

Program.

Following my hearing, an August 2000 GAO report,

Prescription Drugs: Expanding Access to Federal Prices Could

Cause Other Changes, stated, ``Drug manufacturers could

respond to a mandate that they extend federal prices to a

larger share of purchasers by adjusting their prices to

others. ``

Still further, former VA Acting Secretary during the

Clinton Administration, Hershel W. Gober, wrote in the Sept-

Oct 2004 issue of DAV Magazine ``Similarly, in 1999, when

attempts were made to extend the FSS pricing schedule to the

Medicare population we estimated that extending discounted

government prices for pharmaceuticals to the Medicare

population would increase the VA's annual pharmaceutical

costs by $500-600 million. Now, years later, the impact will

be even greater on the already constrained VA budget if FSS

special discount drug prices are extended to the Medicare

population and states.''

Why are Democrats proposing this harm to veterans again,

when Medicare Part D is working?

Medicare beneficiaries are already receiving substantial

drug discounts, through plan negotiation that works just as

FEHBP works for federal and legislative employees, including

Members of Congress. Do not increase costs for your veterans.

Oppose H.R. 4. H.R. 4 will endanger the health, lives and

budgets of veterans.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit will mean that under section 4, the Secretary's actions shall not result in drug price increases paid by veterans. This means, my colleagues, includes the Department of Veterans' Affairs or veterans themselves.

Certainly what both distinguished chairmen have mentioned is clear. I think that all Members should understand that. I support the motion to recommit.

H.R. 4 will most certainly increase VA drug prices. (1) This happened in 1990, Congress gave Medicaid access to VA, shooting up some VA drug prices 300 percent. (2) Next, when the Clinton Administration's Office of Personnel Management tried to expand VA's discounts to a group within FEHBP in 2000, Clinton's own VA balked, as did a witness from Disabled American Veterans. (3) Just recently former Clinton Administration VA Acting Secretary Hershel W. Gober, wrote in a 2004 issue of DAV Magazine that VA estimated in 1999 ``extending discounted government prices to Medicare would increase VA's annual drug costs by $500-$600 million''.

Please don't turn your back on the brave men and women who defend our Nation. Support this motion to recommit in order to ensure that H.R. 4 will not adversely affect drug prices for veterans.

Mr. Speaker, it is never, never, justifiable to deliberately end the life, especially when there are alternative sources of stem cells that do no harm.

Proponents of embryonic stem cells state the greatest advantage is the pluripotency of these cells, cells with the amazing ability to grow into any type of cell in the human body. It is this unique adaptability that they claim makes embryonic stem cells more promising, more promising, than adult stem cell treatment of human diseases.

But my colleagues, the truth, however, is that embryonic stem cells have not, have not, produced a single viable human treatment for any disease, whereas adult stem cells have produced numerous therapies that have been successfully administered. Treatments derived from adult stem cells have been successfully treating patients for years, with measurable improvement in their conditions, and that is the real story.

Mr. Speaker, whether you believe that life begins at conception or not, the mere potential for human life needs to be protected--not destroyed. It is never justifiable to deliberately end a life especially when there are alternative sources of stem cells that do no harm.

Proponents of embryonic stem cells state the greatest advantage is the ``pluripotency'' of these cells, cells with the amazing ability to grow into any type of cell in the human body. It is this unique adaptability that they claim makes embryonic stem cells more promising than adult stem cells for treatment of human diseases. The truth however, is that embryonic stem cells have not produced a single viable human treatment for any disease--whereas adult stem cells have produced numerous therapies that have been successfully administered.

Treatments derived from adult stem cells have been successfully treating patients for years with measurable improvement in their conditions. Over 600 Americans were treated last year with umbilical cord blood transplants. After transplant these cord blood cells move deeply into the patients' bones and produce new blood and immune cells for the remainder of their lives. These cord cells literally give patients a new lease on life.

For example, researchers at the Burnham Institute and the Rebecca and John Moores Cancer Centers in San Diego found that pancreatic cells could be altered into insulin producing stem cells, foreshadowing a possible cure for both type 1 and 2 diabetes.

Recently, researchers at Wake Forest University and Harvard University reported that stem cells drawn from amniotic fluid donated by pregnant women hold the same promise as embryonic stem cells without causing harm to the mother or the fetus.

These stem cells are able to differentiate into fully grown cells representing the three major kinds of tissue found in the human body. Researchers also discovered that amniotic stem cells do not form tumors, a problem that commonly plagues embryonic stem cells.

The findings contained in this study point to a promising avenue of research that sidesteps the hurdles facing embryonic stem cell research. Moral objections to the destruction of embryos occurring when cells are harvested are avoided because no embryos are destroyed.

The Washington Post recently stated, ``The new cells are adding credence to an emerging consensus among experts that the popular distinction between embryonic and adult stem cells is artificial.''

With more than 4 million U.S. births a year, it would not take long to collect the estimated 100,000 amniotic donations necessary to provide enough cells of sufficient genetic diversity to provide compatible tissue for virtually everyone in the United States.

I also want to remind my colleagues that the current ban on embryonic research does not prevent private funding for embryonic stem cell research. Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates and Newport Beach bond trader Bill Gross are among several private donors who have provided millions of dollars toward embryonic stem cell research.

In fact the Federal Government has spent over $161 million dollars on existing stem cell lines where the embryo had already been destroyed. The bill before us today advocates the further destruction of new life to expand human embryonic stem cell research. This research on NIH- approved embryonic stem cell lines accounts for 85 percent of all embryonic stem cell publications published.

Adult stem cells have provided human treatments, have a lower rate of immune rejection in patients, and show less likelihood of tumor formation. We should aggressively pursue this avenue of research. In seeking new treatments for the ills of humanity, let us also strive to protect the future of humanity, We too must uphold the first tenet of the Hippocratic oath--``First do no harm.''

It is unnecesary and morally offensive to force all taxpayers to pay to expand embryonic stem cell research. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the University of Florida Gators for their win Monday night to capture their second football national championship. With the Gators' 41-14 defeat of the Ohio State Buckeyes, they become the first Division I school to hold the national championship in men's basketball and football at the same time.

Coming into this game, many of the so-called experts did not give the Gators any chance of defeating the previously undefeated Buckeyes. However, once they took the field, the Gators were not intimidated. In fact, the Gators held Ohio State to only 82 yards of total offense, the fewest number of yards in BCS history.

The Florida Gators are an excellent example of both the university and the great State of Florida in their tenacity, spirit and, of course, their desire to succeed. I take great pride in representing the University of Florida and congratulate Coach Urban Meyer and the entire university on this great accomplishment.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1, the ``Fully Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act,'' does not achieve what it advertises. In fact, in many cases, it inhibits our Nation's ability to secure our citizens against attack. This bill neglects to address many recommendations, including classified oversight of the Homeland Security Department, declassification of the intelligence budget, and a shift of paramilitary operations from the CIA to the Defense Department. There are other provisions inserted in this bill, that do not appear anywhere in the 9/11 Commission Report, including unionization of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees, 100 percent screening of cargo containers, and several foreign policy initiatives, some of which have already been passed into law.

Incredibly, a provision in this bill would cede one of our Nation's most critical and effective national security initiatives to regulation by the United Nations. The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) is a 4-year-old program created and run by the United States to coordinate nonproliferation efforts by ourselves and our allies. This program's effectiveness was a key deterrent to Libya's nuclear program, and was directly responsible to uncovering the large Pakistani nuclear black market ring run by A.Q. Khan. Transferring this program to the United Nations would require participants in the program to seek the approval of these foreign governments prior to interdicting illicit WMD material, creating yet another hurdle that agencies would have to overcome prior to intercepting illegal WMD shipments.

This program relies heavily on shared intelligence, which is the primary reason it must not be handed over to the UN Security Council. This would jeopardize the intelligence, routes, methods and sources used by U.S. and allied forces to prevent proliferation of WMDs by rogue regimes and terrorist organizations. Allowing members of the United Nations Security Council, which in the past has counted Syria and Pakistan as members, will compromise operations, cripple the program's effectiveness and endanger our citizens.

In yet another disparity, the 9/11 Commission does not recommend 100 percent screening of cargo containers. However, the last Congress determined that greater security was a need, and therefore passed, with bipartisan support, the SAFE Ports Act. Under these expanded security measures, all cargo entering the country is assessed for risk long before it reaches our shores, and when designated as questionable, those shipments are thoroughly inspected. In fact, current best practices by the Customs and Border Patrol also includes random inspections both at dockside during loading and unloading, and of the trucks as they leave the port.

This 100 percent mandate is also incredibly burdensome financially. House Democrats expect industry, and possibly foreign governments, to cover the costs of ensuring 100 percent cargo screening of containers entering the United States by air or sea. The airlines would be expected to pay for air cargo inspections; while foreign port terminal operators would be expected to pay for scanning U.S. bound sea cargo. The bill does not estimate how much this will cost, but DHS is already spending $60 million a year to scan sea cargo at six foreign ports. According to DHS, there are more than 700 I seaports that ship to the U.S., raising estimates of the costs of this program into the tens of billions.

Funding for Homeland Security must be split to address a wide array of threats against the United States to minimize risk as best possible. To allocate funding on any program that has little likelihood of effectiveness is egregiously irresponsible. Container-screening technology is improving, but is not yet proficient enough to scan all of those containers in a useful, accurate, and speedy manner. That is why in the SAFE Ports Act, Congress included provisions to conduct feasibility studies of the 100% container-screening proposal and of emerging screening technology. The results of these studies have not even been reported, and yet the Democratic leadership insists on pushing through this incredibly ill advised mandate without the full information, without hearings and without mark-up sessions in committee. This illogical, ill-informed approach to our national security is being pursued with only one discernable purpose, political clout by achieving passage of the Democrats' ``100 hours agenda''.

There is also the extraordinarily troubling provision that would grant collective bargaining rights to TSA employees. On the surface, this may seem reasonable, but it poses a clear danger to our national security. Granting unionization rights to TSA employees would allow them to strike when negotiating their contracts. Imagine a strike of TSA screeners at airports across the nation at Thanksgiving, or the during the Fourth of July holiday. It would be a nightmare--airport operations would cease or the security of our flights would be threatened from lack of adequate passenger and luggage screening. That is one reason why federal employees in positions impacting National Security were purposely excluded from collective bargaining rights when Congress passed the Labor-Management Relations Act in 1947, and affirmed again when the TSA was re-established under the Department of Homeland Security in 2002.

DHS must have the flexibility to move and retrain employees at will in response to the changing nature of threats against the United States. Following last July's intelligence revelation that terrorists were plotting action against U.S. flights from the United Kingdom, one critical advantage that DHS cited was the ability to shift employees to respond to this new emerging threat. Should TSA employees unionize, DHS would no longer have this speed and flexibility, weakening our responses to terrorist threats.

This bill is touted by democrats to implement many of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, but not only does it not accomplish this, it fails to identify funding for the initiatives. In fact, only one provision in the entire bill contains a defined funding authorization: the checkpoint screening security fund, which would authorize $250 million for FY2008. Therefore, this legislation could end up only as an exercise in futility should appropriators not allocate funds for these programs. House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson conceded that he may have included more authorization levels had there been more time, ``But, in the spirit of `let's get it done,' we'll work it out.'' Ramming through legislation with the expectation that legitimate concerns and problems with legislation will be addressed at some later date is not the way to protect our citizens, and it is certainly a haphazard manner in which to pass laws.

National security is not an issue that should hinge on ``rough drafts'' of proposals awaiting future refinement. If there is a need to reform our nationals security procedures, which I believe there is, it is imperative that we thoroughly consider these issues in Committee with hearings and legislation mark-up sessions. We must always consider national security issues with due deference and the humbling knowledge that every initiative we pass here in Washington will directly impact the security of our constituents at home.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased on this first day of the 110th Congress to introduce several pieces of legislation that I have been pursuing over the years, and for which I will continue to advocate these next 2 years.

Ultrasound technology provides us with a fascinating ``womb with a view,'' allowing doctors to better treat their pregnant patients. But many underprivileged pregnant women cannot afford this important option. These women desperately need access to these free services to safeguard their health and prenatal well-being. That's why I am reintroducing the ``Informed Choice Act,'' which authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to

make grants to community-based, non-profit health clinics that do not charge for their services, for the purchase of ultrasound equipment. The centers that receive these grants will be better able to offer free examinations--under medical supervision--to women who might otherwise have no access to such critical care.

I respect our code of law and our society founded on religious freedom for all Americans. I believe the Ten Commandments are a concise set of values that represent the historic foundation of our nation's laws and our common view of what is right and wrong. Stories of murder, rape, drug abuse, and school violence dominate the media and reveal our society's need to be reminded of our moral compass. That is why I am reintroducing my legislation to have the Ten Commandments prominently posted in the Capitol building as a symbolic reminder of our heritage and the values we aspire to govern by.

I am reintroducing my Right to Carry Reciprocity bill that would allow for a person to carry in all 50 states if he possesses a valid permit in his home state. I believe that a person's right to self- defense should not be limited to within a state line. Today, 46 states have laws permitting concealed carry of firearms, and 38 states, accounting for two-thirds of the U.S. population, have Right To Carry laws, which dramatically reduces their incidence of violent crimes. In fact, the FBI statistics show 9 of the 10 states with the lowest violent crime rates are RTC states. It is important to note this bill would not create a federal licensing system, but merely requires states to recognize each others' carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. This bill has enjoyed bipartisan support in the past with 102 cosponsors, and I look forward to again working with my esteemed colleagues for its passage in the 110th Congress.

I am also reintroducing two bills pushing further reforms to the United Nations. On March 15, 2006, the U.N. replaced the discredited Human Rights Commission with a new Human Rights Council. Unfortunately, the new Council looks set to fail just as miserably as its predecessor. While making superficial structural changes, no reforms were implemented. The new elected membership includes such human rights violators as China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. My legislation would require the Secretary of State to withhold from the U.S. contribution to our U.N. dues an amount equal to the U.S. percentage of the cost of the Council (approximately $500,000 a year). The U.S. should not support the U.N. Human Rights Council until it upholds the ideals of the U.N. Charter and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and its membership is made up of free and democratic nations.

My other U.N. reform legislation deals with financial accounting for the renovation of the United Nations building in New York. There have been numerous reports of wasteful spending in this project, and my legislation would prevent U.S. federal funds from being used for this endeavor unless the President submits a report to Congress affirming the United Nations is abiding by internationally recognized best practices in contracting and resource management.

I am excited to again introduce legislation to help all American savers. My legislation, the Simple Savings Tax Relief Act of 2007, simply eliminates the taxation of interest earned in savings accounts, such as passbook savings accounts or bank certificates of deposit. I think at least some of this interest should be tax-free, as we have been working towards other forms of non-earned income. This legislation would end a punitive tax, especially assist low and middle-income earners, and ultimately contribute toward the goal of encouraging individual responsibility and taking charge of one's own financial destiny.

Because I believe that health care access for all begins with tax parity, I am pleased to again sponsor the Health Care Tax Deduction Act of 2007. This would allow deductions for amounts paid for health insurance premiums and unreimbursed prescription drugs. This would provide much needed relief to individuals struggling with the high cost of health insurance and prescription drugs through a tax deduction, and tax parity with those of us who have employer-provided tax-deductible health insurance. Expansively, this benefit extends to all IRS-defined health insurance premiums such as an HMO, PPO, a traditional indemnity plan, a new HSA, and also long-term care premiums. Right now, under the current tax code, in order to claim health care expenses individuals must file an itemized tax return. My bill would simplify and extend this tax preference for all filers.

Because Members of Congress should put our money where our mouths are, I am pleased to reoffer my Deficit Accountability Act of 2007. It would prevent any automatic pay adjustment for Members of Congress in the year following a fiscal year in which there is a Federal budget deficit. It is needed to hold Members accountable for the Federal budget, and any resulting deficits.

My last piece of legislation is one of inspiration, the Museum of Ideas Act of 2007. It would create a commission to develop a plan for establishing a Museum of Ideas. In our Nation's Capital, we are enriched with museums exhibiting arts, natural sciences, modes of transportation, musical instruments, tools of industry and production, live plants and live animals, and other such tangible artifacts of our universe, we lack a museum of the conceptual, of thoughts, concepts, and philosophies throughout the history of the world.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on all these important pieces of business for the Nation.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this chance to recognize a true hero, someone who put aside the natural reaction to remain safe and instead risked his life to save another.

Wesley Autrey recently demonstrated heroism at the subway station at 137th Street and Broadway. Mr. Autrey was waiting with his two children on the subway platform when he saw a young man suffer a seizure and fall onto the tracks.

Realizing that a train was approaching and with no chance of helping the young man off of the track, Mr. Autry jumped down onto the tracks and placed his body on top of the victim to protect him from the train. The train missed Mr. Autry by mere inches and both emerged unscathed.

In a world plagued by terrorism, indifference, and selfishness, Mr. Autrey's action demonstrated a commitment to preserving life and showed that we still have heroes among us. I commend a real American hero, Wesley Autrey.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of working with some great men and women over my years in Congress, and I rise today to pay my respect to two of my colleagues who will be leaving at the end of this year: Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Jim Ryun.

Anyone who has worked with J.D. Hayworth can readily testify that he is a charismatic man of many talents. His career in Congress has been highlighted by his leadership on immigration reform, advocacy for enhanced border security and prioritization of national security in these threatening times. In addition, he has received the ``Taxpayer Hero'' award from Citizens Against Government Waste 10 times, and was recently awarded the ``Lifetime Tax Fighter'' award from the National Tax Limitation Committee. He has also worked tirelessly for protection of children. His provisions for a centralized law enforcement database of child abusers strengthened the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which President Bush signed into law this July.

These are some of the many distinctive achievements of J.D. Hayworth as a public official, but many may not know some of the unique characteristics he possesses as an individual. I got to know J.D. better when I went and campaigned for him. I met his wonderful family and enjoyed their warm hospitality during my times in Arizona. He is a loving family man with a great sense of humor. Many may not be aware of one of his unique talents. He has an uncanny ability to mimic the speech of other Members. His impersonation of Representative Howard Coble in particular is one of the best I have ever heard.

I greatly respect J.D., will sorely miss him, and I hope he will consider returning to public office sometime in the near future.

I would also like to take a moment to honor Representative Jim Ryun. He has greatly impressed me with his leadership--both in his public office and in his personal life. He has fervently worked for traditional family values, fiscal responsibility, immigration reform, and improving the lives of our men and women in uniform. For several years now, he worked to pass the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act, which protects service members from coercive tactics employed by some credit institutions. This legislation overwhelmingly passed the House and paved the way for its companion legislation to be signed into law this past September. I was also impressed and touched by his eloquence during the debate on the Respect for Fallen Heroes Act when he stated, ``Our service members embody the exact opposite of hate by sacrificing their lives so that we can keep ours. I pay tribute to them . . .'' It is this selflessness and integrity that has made it a pleasure to work with him.

It is also an honor to know him as a friend. Jim is a committed family man. He and his wife Anne have worked as a ``dynamic duo'' to strengthen and promote family values through their work with the Statesmen Leaders Conference and the Congressional Wives' Club. He is most famously identified as the man who broke the 4-minute mile, an incredible feat of athleticism that many of us, myself included, wish we could replicate. But I would not identify him that way. Instead, I would identify him most readily with his faith, for that is how he lives his life. I have had the pleasure of attending many Bible studies with him here at the Capitol, and I have found the source of his strength of character stems from his deep faith in God. His love for God and his fellow man has inspired many of us, and led some to a deeper relationship with God themselves. I value the time I have had to work with Jim. I will miss his calming presence and insight in the 110th Congress, and I pray that God blesses him and his family in his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, Florida is a state like no other. Our distinct regions range from the white-sanded beaches of the panhandle to the pink-sanded, sophisticated boutiqued avenues of Miami, passing through the space coast, home to Kennedy Space Center, and, most exquisitely, through the beautiful, rolling horse country of Marion and Alachua counties.

Our congressional delegation is no less diverse. We have our rock- solid fiscal conservatives, our steady moderates, and our progressive liberals. I am proud to be associated with them all.

Tonight, I join my Sunshine State colleagues to bid a fond farewell to Clay Shaw, Mike Bilirakis, Jim Davis, and Katherine Harris. Each of them are unique seashells, sparkling on the beach that we call Florida.

Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Davis and I have spent many years together on the Committee on Energy & Commerce. For countless hours, we have debated the Outer Continental Shelf, Medicaid, and telecommunications issues. There were never dull moments, but even as we disagreed, I think that the three of us asked a common question as we legislated: what is best for Floridians?

In Mr. Bilirakis, further, one could ask for no more dedicated advocate for our Nation's veterans. He has introduced the fix for the unfair offset of concurrent receipt of veteran disability pay and military retirement pay for 20 years now. Happily, he must leave here with the satisfaction that Congress has made substantial progress in ending this century-old problem.

Mr. Shaw's leadership in Medicare is peerless. Physicians around Florida and around the nation have him to thank for his tireless efforts on their reimbursement, as well as medical liability reform. I am honored that he asked me to carry the torch for his work on medical screenings for first responders. I shall not let him down.

Mrs. Harris has served honorably as a brilliant stateswoman, both for Florida and for the United States. As Secretary of State for Florida, she represented and advanced our interests in trade, with diplomacy and aplomb. And, she is an accomplished horsewoman and solid booster and alumna of the University of Florida, with strong family ties.

As an example of our unity, like other States with no income taxes, our delegation has lobbied hard for federal income tax fairness, via the deduction for state and local sales taxes. When I gathered the support of the Florida delegation for this deduction in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 in a letter in the summer of 2004, I am proud to say that I collected the signatures of 100 percent of our delegation, all 25 of our House Members, and our two Senators. One of our delegation, the Honorable Porter Goss, in fact had one foot out the door, to head the Central Intelligence Agency, but he still took a moment to sign our letter. I don't think any of the other non-income tax states, including the even larger delegation of Texas, secured 100 percent support. This solidarity just exemplifies who Floridians are. Representatives Bilirakis, Shaw, Harris, and Davis, fare thee well.

Mr. Speaker, on November 16 of this year, America and the world lost not only a brilliant economist but a towering giant of an unbounded vision for freedom. Dr. Friedman was widely recognized worldwide for his economic explanations and philosophies of government and markets. Beyond pure economic analysis, Dr. Friedman promoted liberty and choices in all areas. I am honored to have the opportunity to commemorate his life with this resolution to honor him and have enjoyed collaborating with the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey.

House Resolution 1089 outlines his academic, publishing, and prize- winning accomplishments. I will not relist them here. There is so much to say.

Dr. Friedman's economic prescription advocated we steadily, constantly stabilize the growth of money supply, then more or less just stay out of the way, leaving the economy to the free creative choices of millions of productive individuals, households, and businesses, rather than one micromanaging government. Milton Friedman put individuals, not bureaucrats at best or despots at worst, in the driver's seat.

Essentially we admire him for espousing that economic freedom is necessary for political freedom. And today few would argue that Friedman's ideas went from being seen as radical to now being fully accepted. Most successful countries rely on monetary policy as their chief stabilizing tool. Some shining examples are borne out in Eastern Europe nations that not so long ago dwelled under the Iron Curtain. I think a cartoon that was printed in the Christian Science Monitor in 1990 by Danziger sums it up pretty well. It says ``Statue of Milton Friedman is erected in Poland in place of Whathisname.'' And of course it depicts a collapsed Lenin on his face with a lady chortling ``Hah!'' at the broken statue while other Poles are pulling up a smiling, bespeckled Milton Friedman statue and they have crossed out ``Lenin'' and carved ``Uncle Miltie'' on the statue base.

My colleagues, his crowning achievement was establishing with his wife the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation, based in Indianapolis, Indiana, for the purpose of promoting educational choice and reform for parents and their children. School choice continues to be

passionately debated today; yet experiments from the District of Columbia to my own State of Florida, under Governor Jeb Bush's lead, demonstrate great promise in liberating educational opportunities for all. We have done this successfully for colleges since World War II with the Montgomery GI bill. So why should we deny school choice for kindergartners through senior high school students here in America?

And, finally, my colleagues, I cannot end a tribute to Dr. Friedman without also honoring his wife of 68 years. Rose was his classmate, partner economist, fellow radical for freedom, and, I daresay, the love of his life. I know she and children David and Janet and their grandchildren mourn their beloved Milton but are at peace knowing they contributed to this great man who contributed just so much to the multitudes in this country. For me when I think of the values not only Milton Friedman and his wife promoted, I am moved by this paragraph from the Friedmans' memoirs, ``Two Lucky People.'' Mr. Speaker, this sentiment is bigger than partisan politics. It is more profound than the Washington interest group agenda. It marvelously illustrates optimism for what America could be.

`` . . . So we close this book full of optimism for the future in the belief that those ideas will prevail and that our children and grandchildren will live in a country that continues to advance rapidly in material and biological well-being and gives its citizens ever wider freedom to follow their own values and tastes so long as they do not interfere with the ability of others to do the same.''

Milton Friedman, well done. Rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the University of Florida football team for their deserving selection to play for the national championship against Ohio State.

The Gators had a tremendous season, going 12-1, playing one of the toughest schedules in the Nation, and beating Arkansas to win the SEC championship.

The Florida Gators are excellent representatives of both the university and the great State of Florida in their tenacity, spirit, and desire to succeed. I take great pride in representing the University of Florida and congratulating Coach Urban Meyer and the entire university on this great accomplishment.

I am so confident in a Gator victory that I challenge my colleague from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) to a friendly wager. In the unlikely event that Florida loses, I will provide her with a crate of Florida oranges. However, I look forward to collecting perhaps one of Ohio's great delicacies. Go Gators.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 519, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, Hugo Chavez, dictator of Venezuela, gave a speech at the United Nations last week in which he lambasted the United States and denigrated President Bush. Chavez is little more than a comical autocrat on an anti-American public relations tour, but it is interesting that the American public has channeled their wrath into their consumer purchasing, moving to boycott Citgo, the Venezuelan national gas company.

Indeed, on Wednesday, 7-Eleven reacted to growing bad publicity by announcing it would not renew a 20-year contract with Citgo. That is about 2,100 gas stations off the books for Citgo. The rest will be targets of an angry American public's spontaneous boycott of Venezuelan oil.

All of us are working here in Congress to promote America's oil independence. All of us should do what 7-Eleven is doing by boycotting Citgo gas stations.

Mr. Speaker, it has been more than five years since the terrorist attacks of September 11. In looking back, we have

made great progress uprooting the terrorists from their havens and liberating millions of people. We also have provided our law enforcement and intelligence agencies with new tools to combat these threats.

Yet, there is so much more to do. We are at war against terror and we must protect our borders. If we cannot control our borders, how can we prevent those who would murder us from entering our nation?

Millions attempt to enter our nation illegally every year, and many are apprehended. I commend our border patrol for their fine work under difficult conditions. However, millions have crossed the border successfully in the past five years, and we do not know how many are terrorists.

Our borders are another battlefront in the War on Terror.