Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I understand my Democrat colleagues have the votes. I guess there was a lot of arm twisting last night. So congratulations on getting the votes necessary to pass this. But I am sad because this bill spends $31 billion more than the President requested. It is a budget buster. And also I am kind of sad because I think a little bit about history.

You know, if George Washington had a Congress with the attitude of this Congress, we might very well have lost the Revolutionary War. If Abraham Lincoln had a Congress with the attitude of this Congress, we might very well have lost the Civil War. And I am sad for our valiant troops who you are going to jerk out of Iraq. It is a withdrawal bill. That is what you want to do, withdraw. And I am sad for our troops, our valiant troops, who want to win. Who want to win. And you are not going to let them if you have your way.

So I would just like to say, if I were talking to the President of the United States today, Mr. President, hang tough. Hang tough.

Mr. Speaker, people who are watching this debate across the country are getting confused with all of the rhetoric that is going on. It boils down to two things: the Democrats, who promised fiscal responsibility, in this bill are spending $31.5 billion more than the President requested. They are busting the budget already when they promised America fiscal responsibility. So America, remember that. Remember that. They said they are going to balance the budget and they are not going to raise your taxes. They are already trying to raise your taxes. So raising your taxes and spending $31.5 billion more than they said they would on this bill.

Finally, the second issue is capitulation. If we do what they want, if we redeploy, as they call it, it is a withdrawal, and the vacuum that is going to be filled in Iraq will be filled by the radicals, the radical terrorists, al Qaeda and their fellow travelers. It is capitulation and budget busting. That is what they are all about today.

Mr. Speaker, I was watching television last night, I think it was the O'Reilly Show, I am not sure exactly, but I believe it was the Bill O'Reilly Show on Fox Network, and they had an excerpt of another show from which were taken some remarks by a well- known comedian and political advocate in which he was inferring that the country would be better off if the Vice President of the United States died. I took great umbrage at that. I was very, very upset about that, because Vice President Cheney has been an outstanding servant of this country for a long, long time.

I had the pleasure of serving with Vice President Cheney when he served in this body as the Republican whip. He worked very hard in the Ford administration as the chief of staff. I don't know that anybody has ever really been able to question his integrity, because he is a man of integrity, and he has been trying his best to assist the President of the United States in dealing with some very, very troubling issues, not the least of which are the war against terror and the war in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I won't mention the comedian, the political pundit, who made the remarks on television on HBO just recently, but I will just say that I think it is very, very bad taste for anyone to infer, even infer, that the Vice President of the United States, Mr. Cheney, who has done such an outstanding job for this country over a long period of time, should be better off dead. That was the inference that was made. I think it was wrong, and I hope that doesn't happen in the future.

I may take issue with political leaders on the other side of the aisle, and I may very much in very severe ways disagree with them, but in no way would I ever indicate that they should be better off under the ground than on top of the ground, even though we have severe differences. And for anyone to infer that the Vice President should die really, really bothers me, especially in this time we are in, these very troubling times.

Vice President Cheney is a great man. He has done an outstanding job for this country and he should be respected, even if you disagree with him.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to my colleague from Texas.

Madam Speaker, given my tensure in the House of Representatives, I have seen more than my fair share of good and bad legislation come to the House floor. In addressing the nonbinding House Continuing Resolution 63, I would like to take a step back and call this bill what it is, it is a facade, and a political maneuver. If we are going to spend four days discussing a piece of legislation, if we are going to vote on something, we should vote on funding. Our power in Congress is the power of the purse. If the Democrats have an action item, we should get to the point; let us vote on funding the war in Iraq, and stop making pointless partisan political arguments.

However, all of my colleagues are aware that a vote to stop funding for the war will not pass, as the Republicans will not support it and many Democrats would oppose such legislation as well. This is true because we all have American resolve, meaning we will work together as a country to finish what we began.

American resolve does not quit when a situation gets messy, we do not tuck our tail between our legs and run away scared. My colleagues and I are also aware that our legislative agenda does not exist in a bubble; that there are many factors at play. If we do not have the intestinal fortitude in Iraq, how will we be viewed by other countries like Iran?

It is vital to our prosperity that the United States maintains her impenetrable stance in the international community. If the United States is seen as a Paper Tiger there will be many deep, far reaching implications; one of them being Iran's nuclear missile program, which threatens the safety of the world.

In addressing the real threat posed by Iran, Ambassador Gregory Schulte has explained that,

``The pursuit of nuclear weapons by the leadership in Tehran threatens Iran's neighbors and threatens the wider world community. In the Middle East, Iran's influence is rising. The fall of the Taliban and Saddam, increased revenues from the high price of oil, the electoral victory of Hamas, and the perceived success of Hezbollah in attacking Israel all extend Iran's shadow.

He also stated that:

``A nuclear-armed Iran could embolden its leaders to advance their ambitions even more aggressively across the Middle East. Even without detonating a single nuclear weapon, the mere possession of an atomic arsenal could encourage Iran's leaders to employ their conventional forces and step up terrorism to advance their regional ambitions. Iran, with Syria, is allowing terrorists and insurgents to use its territory to move in and out of Iraq and is helping to train and arm militants who are killing coalition forces and innocent civilians.''

In today's news, it was reported that Iraq had to shut down its border with Syria and Iran. U.S. officials have long suspected Syria of allowing foreign fighters to cross its long, porous border into Iraq, and this past weekend evidence was presented of Iranian-manufactured weapons being smuggled into Iraq. We will be paving the way for Iran and Syria to be the victors if we do not allow our troops the full force of our assistance in Congress.

I would like to be the bearer of a positive aspect of our work in Iraq, highlighting some major accomplishments achieved by our leaders and troops. Here is the positive side of the story that is rarely brought to light or reported on in the mainstream media:

Free Elections are transforming Iraq. In 2005, Iraq held two parliamentary elections and a constitutional referendum, with turnout increasing each time cumulating in 76 percent of registered voters participating in the December 2005 elections.

Economic recovery is picking up. The International Monetary Fund estimates GDP grew by 2.6 percent in 2005, and is expected to grow by 10.4 percent in 2006, adjusted for inflation.

A stable currency, introduced in October 2003, has allowed the Central Bank of Iraq to manage inflation; the IMF estimates inflation was 32 percent in 2004 and remained stable at this level in 2005.

Iraq is rejoining the international community. It is on the road to WTO accession, and received both an IMF credit facility and its first World Bank loan in 30 years.

Debt relief agreements are helping Iraq with its economic outlook; Iraq has secured an agreement to forgive at least 80 percent of its Saddam-era debt.

Foreign and domestic banks are opening new offices.

The stock market established in April 2004 currently lists nearly 90 companies.

Iraq had virtually no cell phone subscribers in 2003. Today, there are more than 5 million cell phone subscribers, and an estimated 2,000 Internet cafes.

Seventy-seven percent of Iraqi businessmen anticipate growth in the national economy over the next 2 years, in a recent nationwide poll, and 69 percent are ``optimistic'' about Iraq's future.

In conclusion, we must stand behind our troops, military commanders, and our Commander in Chief. We need to finish the job and secure areas in Baghdad and the Anbar Province. We must secure the situation on the ground so Iraq can establish the rule of law. We must provide this secure environment so social and economic development can take place.

Finally, we must protect the population and critical infrastructure. These are fundamental elements of counter insurgency strategy. These fundamental elements simply have not been able to take hold due to the amount of insurgents in the area and their ability to overturn our previous work.

I beg of my colleagues to refuse to allow our troops to become a casualty of partisan rhetoric. If we want to win the war, then we have one option. Support them. Support the mission. Support the military intelligence officers focused on this victory. Refuse to quit, refuse to weaken, and allow the counter insurgency this chance to succeed.

Mr. Speaker, those who don't profit from history are destined to make the same mistakes over and over again.

When I knew this debate was going to take place, I went back and started having my staff go through all the newspapers they could find prior to World War II criticizing Winston Churchill for his stand against Hitler and the build-up in violation of the Treaty of Versailles of Nazi Germany, and nobody listened. And as a result of nobody listening, 62 million people died. Not 1,000, not 10,000; 62 million people died. You ought to read these articles. They are very interesting. He was maligned; he was criticized. They said he should be run out of Parliament. And, of course, once the war started, he became Prime Minister and one of the greatest men of the 20th century.

We are in a world war now against terrorism. I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said this isn't a world war, this is a civil war. But if you look at the record, since 1983, there have been numerous attacks, numerous attacks, on the West. There have been attacks at the World Trade Center in 1993. There was attacks in 1994; the Khobar Towers in 1996; the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998; USS Cole in 2000; the September 11, 2001 attacks which brought this country into the war; the London bombings in 2005 and countless other attacks. This is not confined just to the Middle East. These people want to spread their venom throughout the world.

Now, if we pull out of Iraq, what does that do? Everybody knows right now that the President of Iran wants to expand his sphere of influence. He is sending terrorists across the border from Iran into Iraq. He is helping Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Let me read to you a quote from him. He said, ``Israel should be wiped off the map'' and that ``anybody who recognizes Israel,'' anybody who recognizes Israel, ``will burn in the fire of the Islamic nations' fury.'' And they have been involved in terrorist attacks. They are trying to build a nuclear bomb right now, and they are watching us on television as we speak, make no mistake.

Iran and the terrorists are watching, and they are thinking, my gosh, the will of the American people is waning, and we are going to turn tail and run. We are going to pull out.

This isn't Vietnam. Vietnam was a country, Cambodia and Laos are countries in southeast Asia. This is a world war. They have attacked the United States of America. It was a worse tragedy than that which took place in Hawaii in 1941 when they attacked Pearl Harbor, and now they are trying to develop a nuclear bomb.

If we pull out of Iraq, you may rest assured that Iran's sphere of influence will grow, and the fear of Iran throughout the Middle East and the world will grow. They will not back down from their development of a nuclear weapon and a delivery system that can reach not only the Middle East and Europe, but the entire world.

What I am trying to say now is if we start pulling out and looking like we are turning tail and running, we are likely to be in another huge war in the years to come. I don't know whether it will be 2 years, 5 years or 10 years, or quicker than that. But if they develop a nuclear weapon, and they see that we are weak, and we are pulling out, they are going to push like they have been pushing, and they will push, and they will push, and they will push until we have to go into a war that is much greater than what we face today.

There is a lot at stake right here, right now. My colleagues, I think, are being very myopic. They are not looking at the big picture. This is something that I think all of us ought to think about.

You know, we all have kids, and we all have grandkids, and we all have friends who are fighting in Iraq right now. We know young men who have gone over there and sacrificed, lost their arms and legs and have died, and it is tragic, it is a horrible thing. World War II was horrible.

Every war was horrible. When you see people dying, in combat, you can hardly stand it, because you know how their families and they feel, those who survive.

War is hell. But sometimes it is necessary. If you don't stand up to a bully or a tyrant, then they will push, and they will push, and they will push until you have to fight. If you wait too long, the fight is so severe that you really get hurt. It is better to whip them at the beginning than to wait until later on when the cost is much, much higher.

Lord Chamberlain went to Munich in 1938. He signed a peace agreement on Herr Hitler's terms, gave the Sudetenland to him and said, Hey, if you don't go into Poland or Czechoslovakia, we'll let you have it. All we want is peace, peace in our time.

He came back, and he had given the green light to Adolf Hitler because he appeared weak, and the allied forces appeared weak, they were dismantling their weapons and their military, and he said, They're weak. We can do whatever we want. So he started World War II, and 62 million people died.

We are in the same situation today, in my opinion, with the radical terrorists and Iran. We need to let them know that we are going to be firm, and we are going to stand up to whatever they throw at us right now so that we don't face a major Holocaust down the road. I really believe this. I am not just saying this as a political speech. I am not saying any of my colleagues are just making political speeches now, today. I really believe what they are saying.

But I am convinced after studying history and watching what happened in the past, that if we don't deal with this problem now, we will deal with it later, and the costs will be a heck of a lot more than it is today, and it may involve millions and millions of lives. Can you imagine what would happen if a nuclear weapon was launched in New York, California or someplace else in this country? Can you imagine?

Can you imagine a Holocaust if a nuclear war broke out involving Iran throughout the world, not only in the Middle East? This is what I think we face right now. Deal with them now, let them know we are going to stand firm, Iraq is going to be a democracy. We are not going to let Iran or any of the terrorists prevail, and we are going to stop a Holocaust in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I am not going to take much time. I am very concerned about the fiscal responsibility that we should have. And I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have spent a lot of time defending the $300,000 per trip that the Speaker is going to be spending flying back and forth to California. But I don't think the American people are going to understand how $15 million a year is being spent for one person to fly back and forth to California.

The Speaker is a very important person. She is third in line to the presidency, but there are other ways to get out there that cost less. I think the plane the former Speaker used would cost about one-fifth or one-fourth of that.

And I don't think, no matter what the other side says, that the American people are going to buy $1.2 million a trip for her to go to California or $15 million a year for her to go back and forth to her district. It just won't wash, especially at a time like this when we are trying to get spending under control.

Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to yield to my friend from Arizona.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, this debate has gone on for a long time and my colleague is very eloquent in what he says.

Let me just say that I hope that Speaker Pelosi will take the time to come down and explain to the full House the reason why she thinks she should have $15 million a year to fly back and forth to California. I think she could be very eloquent in explaining why the taxpayers should spend that much money, and I would like to hear what she has to say.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We are very sorry to hear about Benny Parsons losing his life and his battle with lung cancer. He was a great race car driver, known to his friends as BP. He spent his early years in North Carolina, where he began his career in sports playing high school football.

Shortly after high school, his family moved to Detroit where his father ran a taxicab company. He helped his father and drove cabs and also worked at a local gas station.

In a town known as Motor City, Benny's interest and experience in automobiles and racing thrived. He quickly became a real huge race fan.

As the story goes, he lucked out when a truck towing a race car pulled into the station for a fill-up, and after talking with the truck driver, he was invited to join him on his way to nearby Mount Clemens Speedway. Once they arrived at the track, the race car driver who was supposed to drive the car did not show up, and so BP offered to drive the car, and that was his first race.

It is hard to believe that somebody would go from a gas station to a race car and get in it right away. I am from Indianapolis, Indiana. The Indianapolis 500 is driven there, and I cannot imagine anybody without any past experience getting into a race car and driving it and doing well, but BP did.

In 1964, Benny Parsons drove in his first official NASCAR race. Only a year later, he received the Rookie of the Year award from the Auto Racing Club of America, in one year. He would go on to win the ARCA championship in both 1968 and 1969. He had an impressive record in racing during 1971 and 1972, and his points earned him the NASCAR championship in 1973.

He also won the Daytona 500 in 1975 and the 1980 World 600 championship at Charlotte, and he continued on to win the National Speedway USA, the Texas World Speedway and his career final victory at the Coca-Cola 500 in Atlanta, Georgia. Overall, he had 283 top-10 finishes and won 21 major races.

After he finished his last race in 1988, he switched gears from driving to commentating. He started out reporting from the pits during his final years of racing but began full time for both ESPN and TBS in 1988. His firsthand knowledge of the sport captivated his audiences. He could talk from the prospective of both a fan and a driver, and was skilled at sharing his insights through his broadcasts.

As the NASCAR industry grew more popular and was televised more frequently, he commentated for both NBC and TNT. Parsons received an ACE award in 1989 and an ESPN Emmy award in 1986. His talent as an announcer earned him the new nickname, The Professor. It is a long way from race car driver to professor, but he earned it.

When he spoke, audiences listened and learned from him. In the summer of 2006, Parsons began to have trouble breathing. His doctors diagnosed him

with lung cancer, even though he had quit smoking over 25 years ago.

After a successful treatment, he noticed more trouble breathing. Doctors found that his left lung had not fully recovered from the radiation. This past December, he reentered the hospital for treatment and passed away on January 16 of this year from complications from lung cancer.

His career encompassed four decades of racing, followed by nearly two decades of announcing. Among other awards, he was inducted into the International Motor Sports Hall of Fame in 1994, the Court of Legends at Lowe's Motor Speedway in 1994, and the Motor Sports Hall of Fame of America in 2005. In 1998, he was named one of NASCAR's 50 greatest drivers.

Benny Parsons, known for his lovable personality and his positive attitude, will be greatly missed by all of those in the NASCAR community and family.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members to join me by supporting this resolution. We have a NASCAR race, the Brickyard 400, in Indianapolis, and we are going to miss Benny Parsons there. We wish his family well.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have one more speaker who is not yet here, but since he is not here, we would like to have permission to have his remarks put in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, we yield back the balance of our time.

I would just ask my colleague from Illinois, isn't every day the day for Indiana?

Mr. Speaker, may I reclaim my time? Mr. Hayes just arrived.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

You know, there are a lot of reasons to thank Tony Dungy and Peyton Manning and the whole team for the great victory they had last Sunday. I sat in the rain for about 5 hours and watched them, and I didn't feel a drop of rain because they did such a great job.

I might have felt a drop of rain in the first part when Devin Hester ran 92 yards for the opening kickoff touchdown. It kind of scared everybody to death who were Colts fans, but we all had faith in Peyton Manning and the Colts, and we knew that they wouldn't give up, especially after watching them coming back from the biggest deficit in championship history to defeat New England 2 weeks before.

But the reason I want to thank them today is for my Illinois colleagues. I want Coach Dungy and Peyton Manning and the whole team to know, from my colleagues in Illinois, I want a deep-dish pizza, a pound of cheese cake and a bunch of DVDs for our troops over in Iraq. So I want to thank them very much for making sure I didn't have to pay for all that other stuff, but my colleague on the other side of the aisle does.

Let me be serious for just a moment. We are very, very thrilled to have a Super Bowl champion in Indianapolis, we waited for a long, long time. And it came at a time when we had some of the finest people that have ever been on a football team playing in Indianapolis. It came at a time when we had one of the finest coaches who ever coached football in Indianapolis. And not only is Tony Dungy a great coach, but he is a great American and a very patriotic man and a good Christian fellow. And everybody in Indianapolis really respects him.

Peyton Manning has been a gentleman on and off the field. The whole team has. I can name everybody on the team. And I just want to say, on behalf of the Congress, me and Julia Carson, my colleague who represents Indianapolis, and Steve Buyer and others, that we are very, very proud of the Colts. We hope they bring us another Super Bowl next year, but even if they don't, we are very, very thrilled. They have done Indianapolis proud, and we are very proud to talk about them here today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it sure is nice to hear the gentleman from Illinois extol the virtues of the Indianapolis Colts. I really appreciate that, Danny.

I am very happy to yield to my colleague from Indiana, another great Colts fan, Congressman Steve Buyer, 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to another great Colts fan, Congressman Mike Pence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to another Colts fan who is a friend of Peyton Manning from Tennessee, the great Congressman from that State (Zach Wamp).

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire of my colleague, do you have any more speakers?

Well, if he has no more speakers, I am prepared to

yield back the balance of my time. But I just want to say to my colleagues from Illinois, and I say this in a good-natured way, if you need a Colts hat, I just happen to have a few in my office. I will be very happy to buy you one.

But I still want my deep-dish pizza, my cheesecake, and I want to make sure those DVDs get to the troops in Iraq.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my colleagues who have just spoken here on the floor, but today I am here on some happy news, so I will confine my remarks to what I consider to be a real celebratory event.

Sunday, the day before yesterday, I sat in the rain with 75,000 other Americans cheering the Indianapolis Colts to victory in the Super Bowl, and I want to tell you that it was one of the greatest football games that I have ever seen.

We were very much in favor of the Colts, as you might imagine, and when the kickoff came to the Bears, and Devin Hester ran 92 years for a touchdown, everybody's heart went down to their feet because we thought it was going to be a real letdown for us.

But Peyton Manning and the Colts came roaring back and won a very convincing victory in the Super Bowl. And after that they had a parade in downtown Indianapolis for the Colts in 8-degree weather. Can you imagine people going out in 8-degree weather to be in a parade? I can't. But the streets were filled by Hoosiers who were celebrating the victory and giving tremendous accolades to the Colts and the coach and Manning and everybody else that made this victory possible.

I would like to just make a couple of comments on what happened. The Colts gained 430 yards in that game against the third strongest defense in the National Football League. Peyton Manning completed 25 of 38 passes for 247 yards and was named the Most Valuable Player. Running back Dominic Rhodes ran for 113 yards against that Bears defense, in driving rain, I might add. Running back Joseph Addai received 10 passes for 66 yards and ran the ball for 77 more yards in that driving rain.

And the Colts did a tremendous job on defense. Kelvin Hayden intercepted one of the Chicago quarterback's passes and ran it back 56 yards for a Colts touchdown, and the Colts scored in every single quarter in all four playoff games for the first time in playoff history.

So I would just like to congratulate Tony Dungy, the coach of the Colts, one of the most popular people in football and especially in Indianapolis; and we think he is one of the nicest guys you will ever meet. He is only the third person in football history to win a Super Bowl both as a coach and a player.

I want to congratulate my friend Bill Polian, the president of the Indianapolis Colts, who put this team together over the past several years and did an outstanding job. Bill, we are very proud of you.

And I want to congratulate the CEO and owner of the Colts, Jim Irsay, who took control of the team in 1997 and dedicated himself to making us a Super Bowl champion.

It was a great day for Indianapolis. We are very, very proud of the Colts. On behalf of all Hoosiers, we want to say to the Indianapolis Colts, you are the world champions, and we are very proud of each and every one of you.

One more thing I want to mention. The Colts defense was maligned throughout the season. Later in the season, they said the Colts defense was one of the worst in football. In the playoff games, they took on everybody and held them to very, very low yardage. So congratulations to the Colts defense as well as our offense. You did a great job.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

You know, this is really a great Super Bowl we are facing for a number of reasons, not the least of which for the first time we have two African American coaches who are going to be coaching the football teams in the Super Bowl. There has never been an African American coach reach the Super Bowl, and now we have two, both teams. They are two of the finest men you are ever going to want to see coaching football teams, let alone teams in the Super Bowl. Tony Dungy, in his fifth season with the Colts, has compiled a record of 68-20. He has had five playoff appearances, he has had four AFC South titles, two AFC championship games, and finally an AFC championship. He has just done an outstanding job.

And Lovie Smith has done an outstanding job with the Chicago Bears. With a team racked by injuries, his first season he went 5-11. Then they went 11-5 and made the playoffs before falling to the Carolina Panthers. And then this year they made the Super Bowl for the first time since Mike Ditka led the Bears back in 1986.

They are both very fine men. They are not just a credit to the African American race, but they are a credit to humanity. I have watched both of them on television. They are both very strong Christian men, they are both very patriotic men, and they are loved by their teams.

I have not been conversant with how the people in Chicago feel about Lovie Smith, but everybody in Indianapolis thinks that Tony Dungy walks on water; they think he is the greatest coach we have ever had. And he is the kind of guy that, even when he is behind, doesn't know the meaning of giving up. I mean, this last playoff game when they came from behind from a greater deficit than any playoff championship team in history was really something. I admitted, when we were talking about the game the other night on the floor, that in the first half I was so upset I almost changed to American Movie Classics. We were behind 21-3. And I changed over the channel for a minute and I thought, no, I can't give up on the Colts; they won't give up. I changed the channel back, and dag-gone they came from that deficit to win the game. It was an outstanding championship effort. And it was led by an African American, Tony Dungy, who was the coach.

Lovie Smith did an outstanding job with the Bears. He led them through a very difficult last few seasons and led them to the championship. They were both talking about being the first African American in the Super Bowl, and now they are both at the same time. So I think that really shows what kind of men they are.

The only difference I would have with my colleague on the other side of the aisle who has a great resonant voice, Mr. Davis, is that I am one of the few guys here on the floor today who is going to be rooting for the Indianapolis Colts.

Now, we may be outnumbered here tonight. My colleagues are going to be speaking, and most of them are going to be talking about Lovie Smith and the Bears, you will outnumber us, but on Sunday you won't because the Colts are going all the way. As I said the other night, I am blue through and through and I am rooting for the Colts and they are going to win, but I still love the Bears and Lovie Smith, and I am very sorry that they won't win, but he is still a great coach.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Before I yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Texas, a former judge, before I recognize him, I just want to say that I have wagered some Indiana popcorn for a deep dish pizza and some kind of cake, and anybody that wants to bet on the Bears, call me up, I've got plenty of popcorn.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Before I yield time to my good friend from Illinois, another Bears fan who played football without a helmet, I just would like to say to Congressman Rush, I want lots of pepperoni on the pizza you are going to buy me Sunday.

I recognize the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) for 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I am very happy at this time to recognize another great American and a great Indianapolis Colts friend from Indianapolis, Mr. Mike Pence, for 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, we have no further speakers.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a great day for the State of Indiana and the city of Indianapolis.

For a long, long time, the Indianapolis Colts, our football team, has been trying to make it to the Super Bowl; but they have come just a little bit short the last 3 or 4 years. As a matter of fact, many people were saying that they didn't have what it takes to make it to the Super Bowl.

Yesterday, the Indianapolis Colts were down 21-3 at the half, and many Hoosiers who were watching the football game and people across the country were so dismayed because they thought once again we weren't going to make it. But Peyton Manning, the quarterback for the Colts; and Joseph Addai; Tony Dungy, the coach of the team; Bill Polian, who put this thing together as president of the club; and the whole team did an outstanding job and came back and made the greatest comeback in the history of championship playoff games to win the game by 4 points right at the end.

I just have to tell you that it was the most exciting game that I have ever seen, and I want to congratulate the Colts on behalf of the Congress and behalf of the people of the State of Indiana for doing such an outstanding job.

One other thing I would like to comment on is the defense of the Colts has been maligned over the past four, five or six games of the season, and yet when it came to the playoffs, they rose to the occasion and did an outstanding job. Defenses don't usually get the accolades they deserve when they perform well, but I want to say to the Colts' defense, you guys did one heck of a job, and you proved your mettle, and I hope in the next 2 weeks you will get yourselves all up for this big game for the championship in Miami. Everybody in Indiana is rooting for you. You did a great job in the playoffs. Peyton, take them to victory in the Super Bowl. We are rooting for you.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

My first wife died about 5 years ago of breast cancer. And when she was going through her chemotherapy, we were sitting in a room with about five women that were getting their chemotherapy. And there was this one lady who was kind of complaining and actually had a few tears in her eyes, and she said that she had to pay $350 a month for Tamoxifen, which was the drug of choice. And a lady about three seats away from her said, Well, I get mine from Canada for $50. And I thought, my gosh, that doesn't sound right.

So we checked into it, and we found that the price of Tamoxifen was seven times higher here in the United States than it was in Canada. And I thought, well, that just doesn't seem right.

So I started checking into a lot of other pharmaceutical products. Today Tamoxifen in Munich, Germany is $60, and it is $360 here in the United States.

The point I am trying to make is the prices charged around the world are much less for the very same product, pharmaceutical product, than it is here in the United States. And Americans, I think, should get the same benefit as anybody else in the world. We are not second-class citizens.

Now, we get to the negotiation problem, and I heard the White House say, well, we shouldn't negotiate, shouldn't interfere with the free enterprise system.

I want you to know that we negotiate on just about everything right now. Let me just give you a few examples.

We negotiate on some of the aircrafts that we buy. As my colleague just said, we negotiated on the Cipro not too long ago. We negotiated on all kinds of military equipment. And for us to say that we can't negotiate on pharmaceuticals is just crazy.

When we passed the Medicare prescription drug in the dead of the night after 3 hours of keeping this machine open so they could drag up at least one vote for victory, we found out that it said in there that the government of the United States cannot, is prohibited, from negotiating with the pharmaceutical companies for prices. That means that they can set whatever price that they want and we have to pay it. There is no negotiation. And we hear from the White House and from others that we don't negotiate or shouldn't interfere in the private sector. We do it all the time. In fact, in the Veterans Administration they negotiate for drug prices right now. And many, many of the pharmaceutical products the people get in the military hospitals today are much, much less than they are buying through the Medicare system.

All I can say is that there ought to be negotiation. I am a Republican. My Democrat colleagues are pushing this bill, but it should be a bipartisan bill. The people of the United States should get a fair price for their drugs, and we should be able to have the Government of the United States negotiate for the benefit of the taxpayers to get the best price for the products that we are selling to our consumers.

H.R. 4 is a bipartisan bill aimed at cutting prescription drug prices for millions of seniors and individuals with disabilities.

The current Medicare prescription drug law explicitly prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services from using the strength of Medicare's 43 million beneficiaries to negotiate prescription drug price discounts.

Providing HHS with negotiating authority has bipartisan support in Congress and across America. In a recent poll, 92 percent of Americans stated they supported the proposal.

The bill requires the HHS Secretary to conduct such negotiations with drug companies on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries but provides the Secretary broad discretion on how to best implement the negotiating authority and achieve the greatest price discounts for Medicare beneficiaries.

The bill continues to prohibit the HHS Secretary from requiring a particular formulary (i.e., a list of covered drugs) to be used by Medicare prescription drug plans or limiting access to any prescription medication.

The federal government is well equipped with the skills needed to negotiate price discounts. It is done when we purchase airplanes for the military, when we purchase furniture for government buildings--and it is done in the health arena for programs in the Public Health Service, VA, and Medicaid.

We have seen that, even without establishing formularies, CMS can use its purchasing power to reduce costs. In times of dire need--Cipro for the anthrax attack on the Capitol in 2001 and with flu vaccines in 2004--CMS has been able to obtain lower prices.

The bill also clarifies that Medicare Part D drug plans are permitted to obtain discounts or lower prices for covered prescription drugs below the price negotiated by the HHS Secretary.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure that all avenues of achieving price discounts are being used to benefit the seniors and individuals with disabilities in the Medicare program.

While recent projections do indicate that the Medicare Part D program is costing less than originally expected, cost projections alone are simply not a strong indicator of the program's success. In the real world seniors are still experiencing--complications, confusion and increasing premiums in 2007.

Requiring Medicare to negotiate for lower prices may not save the federal government huge sums of money but it will help save seniors money by reducing premiums and out-of-pocket costs.

Whether this bill saves the Federal government money is really a function of whether the Secretary uses his authority effectively.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost estimates are historically very cautious and CBO has indicated they will reexamine this estimated cost savings of this bill when they have more information from the 2006 plan year.

Today's law bars the Secretary from negotiating with drug manufacturers solely because the drug industry insisted on the prohibition.

We need to put the interests of America's seniors and people with disabilities ahead of the pharmaceutical and HMO industry.

This bill has bipartisan support and we should move forward to improve this vitally needed drug program for seniors and people with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, as a Member of this House who has long voiced concerns about the lack of concerted federal action to deal with the growing epidemic of autism in this country, I was very encouraged by yesterday's passage of the ``Combating Autism Act.''

Although I believe that we missed an opportunity in this bill to resolve the problem of mercury in vaccines and its connection to autism, there is no denying that the Combating Autism Act represents a long overdue and significant expansion of the federal government's response to the autism epidemic. The bill commits an unprecedented $945 million in federal funds over five years to combating autism through research, screening, better interventions and education efforts.

But we should be under no illusion that the job is finished. Autism is a condition that has no known cure, which means that this is a crisis that is simply not going to ``go away.'' What we have done is realistically only a small down payment on the vast resources that we must invest in order to deal with this terrible scourge. For example, in my own State of Indiana we experienced a 923 percent cumulative growth rate for autism from 1992-2003. The annual growth rate of autism in Indiana averaged 27 percent compared to an average of 7 percent for the growth rate of all disabilities. And Indiana's experience is by no means unique. In fact, as a Nation we have gone from roughly 1 case of autism for every 10,000 births in the 1980's to 1 in every 166 today.

What this means in practical terms is that we are now at the beginning of what can be considered a ``bubble'' of older children who have been diagnosed and treated for autism, who now must face the challenges of their disease in a post-secondary environment and beyond. The ``No Child Left Behind Act'' has given our schools the tools to do an excellent job of providing additional teachers, curriculum and individual educational programs for our students with autism. But this assistance is largely confined to the K-12 years and for the most part our schools are only just beginning to effectively meet the growing learning needs of that age group. We are therefore still woefully ill prepared for the unique problems our post-secondary young autistic adults will face as they transition from a relatively protected learning environment to the demands of our modern life. We must recognize the plight of these older children with autism and commit ourselves to providing the additional resources necessary to deal with their unique problems as we have done for younger children with autism.

Recently, I was privileged to meet with officials from Taft Community College, located in Kern County, California. Taft, I am told is one of only two institutions throughout the country currently exploring ways to dealing with this impending crisis. I understand that for the last

ten years Taft has pioneered a ``Transition to Independent Living Program'' (TIL) which provides a structured environment for post- secondary special needs students to successfully meet the demands of our modern world. According to the statistics compiled by Taft Community College President, Dr. Roe Darnell, the achievements of these students and graduates are truly remarkable. I understand that fully 81 percent of the program's graduates are employed and 94 percent live independently. When you consider that the national employment average for all classes of people with a disability is only 37 percent, these results are noteworthy.

According to Dr. Darbell, other ``Snapshots of Success'' include: 93 percent of graduates receive no financial help; 90 percent of graduates use public transportation; 95 percent have a checking account; 80 percent have a savings account.

The Taft Community College curriculum teaches life skills and independent living strategies to its students, with TIL students receiving vocational training, ethics training and assistance in developing sound work habits. A moderately size dormitory in the middle of campus is utilized by Taft Community College as a ``laboratory'' to practice life skills, and Taft officials believe that one of the keys to the success of their TIL program is its emphasis on residential living.

Now I understand that the Taft program handles high functioning adults with autism, which means that the techniques and skills taught to these students may not be completely applicable to young adults, who are more severely autistic, but the pioneering efforts and achievements of President Darnell, his teachers, students and TIL program graduates should be applauded.

Programs like those at Taft will not solve the whole problem of how to deal with the impending boom of autistic adults, but I think it is certainly possible that they are a part of the solution. I sincerely hope that many of the approximately 2,000 community colleges around the country will also begin to recognize the growing educational needs of this underserved population and explore the idea of adopting programs like Taft's TIL, if appropriate, and if not, push the boundaries of what is possible for these victims of autism.

Mr. Speaker, due to illness I was regrettably unable to be on the House floor for rollcall votes 529, 530, 531, 532, 533, 534, 535, 536, 537 and 538.

Had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' for rollcall votes 529, 530, 531, 533, 534, 536, and 537; and ``no'' for rollcall vote 532.