Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to Mr. Terrance W. Sullivan. Mr. Sullivan has served as leader of the Colorado Springs Convention & Visitors Bureau for 20 years. In this role, Mr. Sullivan has helped support and expand the tourism industry in Colorado Springs and the Pikes Peak region. He has previously been awarded Outstanding Individual Contribution to Colorado Tourism by the Governor of Colorado in 2005, and was elected to serve as President of the Tourism Industry Association of Colorado (TIAC).

Mr. Sullivan has also served in leadership roles in numerous civic and business organizations and has contributed significantly to the economic development of the Pikes Peak region. His exemplary career is marked by his chairmanship of the Tourism Industry Association of Colorado (TIAC) and the Colorado Association of Destination Marketing Organizations (CADMO), organizations that work cooperatively to promote travel to our state, region, and city. Mr. Sullivan is also a co- founder and board member of the Southern Colorado Business Partnership and has served and continues to serve on many other community boards and committees. He continually supports community parks, museums, historic sites, and open spaces.

In addition to his achievements in the tourism industry, Mr. Sullivan was an Army aviator in Vietnam followed by service in the National Guard and Army Reserves. He is rated as a Master Aviator with approximately 3,000 flying hours. In March 2004, Mr. Sullivan participated as an organizer and crew member in the Smithsonian Museum of History's ``America's Huey, The Final Journey Home.'' Mr. Sullivan continues to support the military community by founding the Mountain Post Historical Association, serving as an honorary board member of the Peterson Air & Space Museum, and serving as an active member of the Chamber of Commerce Military Affairs Council.

Mr. Sullivan will retire from the Colorado Springs Convention & Visitors Bureau on December 31, 2010, leaving a lasting legacy of hospitality and tourism promotion for all that follow. Mr. Sullivan's future hopes for the Convention and Visitors Bureau include bringing further credibility and recognition to the Colorado hospitality industry, proactively pursuing an increased air service network, creating valuable and effective partnership marketing opportunities, attracting more sports-related events to the Pikes Peak region, and assuring the development of a community infrastructure. These will meet the future needs of a growing and healthy tourism industry.

Madam Speaker, residents and visitors of Colorado have been fortunate to have Mr. Sullivan serve as leader of the Colorado Springs Convention & Visitor Bureau for the past 20 years. His involvement in Colorado tourism and civic engagement has provided economic development to Colorado Springs and the Pikes Peak region as well as a richer experience to visitors of our beautiful state. I know my fellow Members of the House of Representatives will join me in thanking him for his lasting contribution to the community and for his commitment to our country.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question and in support of this week's YouCut item, the elimination of taxpayer subsidies to National Public Radio.

National Public Radio's recent firing of longtime news analyst Juan Williams was a wake-up call for many Americans to political correctness and liberal bias at NPR. However, it's not the liberal bias that offends me so much as that American citizens are forced to subsidize it with their hard-earned tax dollars.

Long before the Juan Williams fiasco, I sponsored legislation to pull the plug on taxpayer funding for NPR. I enjoy some programs on NPR, but I have long believed that it can stand on its own.

The question is not the quality of programming on NPR. The question today is whether government programs and services that can be funded privately should be subsidized by taxpayers. As a country, we no longer have this luxury, if we ever did. With the national debt over $13 trillion, the government simply can't afford to continue funding nonessential services.

Americans voted through the popular Web site YouCut to place this proposal on the House floor for a vote today. The selection of this measure shows the American people desire to rein in unnecessary spending. My proposal would prohibit Federal dollars from going to NPR through any of the various Federal grants they now access. I myself enjoy NPR programming, but why should Americans foot the bill for this when we have to borrow about 40 cents on every Federal dollar?

NPR local radio stations directly receive congressionally appropriated funds that reached over $65 million in 2010 alone. Plus, local stations directly receive grants from other Federal sources such as the National Endowment for the Arts. NPR stations then use these taxpayer dollars on licensing fees for NPR programming, which are then funneled back to NPR headquarters here in Washington, DC. Taking this indirect funding into account, Federal funds now make up an estimated 20 percent of NPR's annual budget.

Let me be clear, this measure will not prohibit local stations from receiving any other funding. It will just prohibit them from using taxpayer money to acquire NPR programming.

Unsustainable Federal spending is a serious threat to the United States economy and to the future prosperity of the American people. Americans know this. We shouldn't wait until the 112th Congress to start solving this problem. Cutting spending begins now. We must begin the hard work of eliminating these deficits and creating jobs by making tough choices on spending today.

The American people have asked Congress to put a stop to out-of- control spending. Millions of them have voted through YouCut that prohibiting Federal funding of NPR is a good place to start. I urge my colleagues to heed the will of the American people to get Federal spending under control and vote for a sensible reduction of spending by opposing the previous question.

Madam Speaker, on October 10th, the Republic of China will celebrate National Day, this year marking their 99th anniversary. The United States of American and Taiwan enjoy a close and strong relationship based on shared democratic values and free market economies.

I salute the people of Taiwan for their recent achievements, including the completion on June 29 of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) with China. Improving relations between Taiwan and mainland China have greatly reduced tension across the Taiwan Strait.

While welcome, the improved relations between the two sides does not eliminate the need for the United States to continue to help Taiwan's defense capabilities under the Taiwan Relations Act. We should continue to aid Taiwan in replacing its aging air force. According to the most recent Department of Defense report on Taiwan's military power, China continues to enjoy air superiority over Taiwan.

It is also my view that we must support Taiwan's participation in global affairs by supporting Taiwan and its 23,000,000 people in becoming a member of the United Nations. An internationally visible Taiwan is a strong Taiwan.

Today, Taiwan is a major trading partner and friend. Our strong economic and cultural ties go back nearly a hundred years. We hope that this strong bond will continue for another 100 years and more.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay respect to a great man in my hometown of Colorado Springs, Colorado. Greg Mitchell is a hands-on, results-oriented leader with a proven track record of achieving success. A longtime resident of Colorado Springs, Mitchell is retiring this year after serving six years as President of Colorado Technical University, CTU.

Greg, a former Naval officer, has championed our state's veterans and young people in both his professional and personal roles for nearly three decades.

As President of CTU, he played a key role in developing programs to serve soldiers, including the wounded warrior program that awards 50 scholarships annually to wounded veterans and their spouses. He once said, ``If you do the right thing, it's very rewarding. We can't do enough for the military today.'' In 2008, the school was named one of the most military friendly institutions in the country.

Under his leadership, Colorado Technical University partnered with the Freedom Alliance Scholarship Fund to provide a full four-year scholarship for a son or daughter of an American military hero who has served and sacrificed for our nation's freedom. CTU pledged $1 million in full tuition scholarships for Freedom Alliance scholarship recipients who wish to attend their University.

Prior to coming to Colorado Technical University, Mitchell worked in Colorado Springs for Plasmon LMS/Philips Laser Magnetic Storage, Media Security Incorporated, Brown Disc Manufacturing, and the NCR Corporation.

Outside of Mitchell's professional contributions to our community, he has served on numerous community boards. Some of his volunteer work includes serving on the following boards:

--Better Business Bureau

--Colorado Thirty Group

--The Home Front Cares

--Congressman Doug Lamborn's Defense Advisory Board

--Advisory Board for the Latino Chamber of Commerce

--Advisory Council on Military Education

--Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce

--Vitality Group Advisory Board

Mitchell is a devoted husband and father. He has been married for twenty years to his wife, Cindy, and is the father of three grown children, Garth, Blake, and Paige.

I thank Greg for his tremendous contribution to our community and our men and women in uniform. He is a great American patriot.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the courageous and selfless actions of Army Staff Sergeant Jamie West, which have earned him our Nation's highest congressionally authorized award for heroism during peacetime. As a member of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee, I am proud to recognize one of Fort Carson's finest soldiers who placed his own life at risk to save the lives of three Colorado Springs children in 2008. While driving off-duty on February 23, 2008, Staff Sergeant Jamie West observed three children fall through a fragile ice-pond and one of those children becoming completely submerged in the freezing water. The Soldier's Medal citation reads, ``Without thought to his own safety, he decided to attempt to rescue the endangered children. With ice crumbling around him and at risk to his own life, he pulled the children from the water and successfully administered first aid until emergency personnel arrived.''

Every soldier knows the importance of courage. It is one of the Army's seven core values of soldiering. Courage on and off the battlefield cannot be underestimated. It takes courage to withstand the rigors of war and it takes courage to assume responsibility for life and death decisions. It also takes courage to do the right thing under intense pressure, but the act of courage at the risk of one's own life deserves special recognition.

The pages of American military history are filled with heroes who willingly put their lives at risk in order to save others--and Staff Sergeant West's name will now be inscribed among them.

It was no accident that SSG West was in the vicinity of that pond at the time of crisis. It is clear that, for some providential purpose, he was in the right place at the right time and had demonstrated great courage and personal sacrifice. It is my distinct honor to recognize his heroic actions and commitment to uphold the finest qualities of leadership and military values.

I thank the gentleman from Washington.

There are many things about having more safety and environmental protection in the gulf that we can all agree on. Unfortunately, this bill goes way beyond those agreement type of provisions. There is a $2- a-barrel tax increase in this bill. And there is a proportional tax increase on natural gas production as well. And as was pointed out earlier, it's not just on offshore oil and gas production, but on onshore Federal lands. So it goes way beyond the discussion we are having about the gulf.

It's going to add up to $22 billion. And this is not the time to be raising taxes on energy. We're trying to come out of a recession. Many of us are asking, Where are the jobs? And taxing energy and making the consumer and industry pay more for energy, it's just not the right time to do that. And we're putting this, if the bill takes effect, on existing oil and gas production. That's blatantly unconstitutional. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that we as the Federal Government will have to refund about two-thirds of that $22 billion, or $14 billion, the proportion that applies to existing oil and gas production, back to the producers because it's unconstitutional. It's an impairment of contracts to come in the middle of a contract and say, by the way, we are adding a big tax increase to your energy production.

So why are we taxing industry and the consumer when we're trying to come out of a recession? This bill doesn't make sense, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chair, I submit the following.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not intend to oppose it.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, updating the supplemental guidelines on ethics every 3 years will help the Department of the Interior keep current with new issues as they arise and will focus the government employees' attention on appropriate ethical behavior as they deal with the private sector.

The Horizon disaster has focused everyone's attention on the lack of any contingency plan that could be implemented expeditiously to address a blowout in deepwater conditions. We basically watched a 3-month ongoing experiment with various devices being fabricated to cap the well or capture the oil as it's spewing out. We also found out that we didn't have enough boom in place to protect the shoreline and that new boom had to be manufactured to meet the requirements in the State oil spill response plans. And we discovered that some of the plans underestimated how much boom might be required to protect the shoreline from a major spill.

Using the best available technology is crucial in keeping the public's trust going forward with offshore oil and gas development. Both Republicans and Democrats have broad agreement on the need to protect and improve offshore production safety and environmental protection. This amendment is an example of our agreement, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

What I don't agree with is going beyond the gulf to encompass all energy production in the entire United States in order to raise energy taxes by $22 billion. Raising energy taxes in a recession will kill jobs.

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition to this amendment, although I don't intend to oppose it.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, Republicans have no problem with this amendment. The fact that the bill will force small companies to now band together simply to meet threshold requirement activities in the offshore is a sad statement on the rest of the bill.

Although this provision may help small companies meet their certificate of financial responsibility requirements, nothing in this amendment solves the liability problem and nothing in this amendment solves the $22 billion tax increase in this bill. Unlimited liability will cripple domestic production by removing all but the largest companies from offshore drilling. There should be reasonable liability, but unlimited or infinite liability goes too far. It will kill jobs. Republicans support this amendment, but it's simply like putting a Band-Aid on a broken leg. I suppose it doesn't hurt anything, but it doesn't cure the underlying problem; and it might even lull someone into thinking we're doing something.

Anyone who votes for the Teague amendment and the underlying bill together is putting the people they are purporting to help out of business. The Teague amendment does absolutely nothing to cure unlimited liability.

Mr. Chairman, I would now like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. Chairman, I would just reiterate that we have no objection to this amendment. I wish it really accomplished something, because the deeper things that are problems in this bill are going to kill offshore production in large part; and we don't need to be killing jobs and raising taxes in the time of a recession.

We have no objection to the amendment because it doesn't do any harm.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my Democrat colleagues: Where is the budget?

House Democrats haven't passed a budget for next year, something that hasn't happened in the modern era. This shows that they plan to spend without any restraint or accountability. If they can't budget, can they really govern?

However, one thing we can and must do is control runaway spending by reforming the earmark process. I have agreed to ban all earmarks for 1 year

while we consider meaningful reform. I cosponsored the resolution, along with Leader John Boehner and most of my Republican colleagues, calling for an earmark ban. I followed that up with a letter to the Democratic leadership, asking that House Democrats join me in this 1- year ban with other Republicans. I have also called for the creation of a joint select committee to come up with proposals to reform earmarks.

The American people are demanding that we get our fiscal house in order. They, too, want to know: Where is the budget?

Madam Speaker, it is with mixed emotions that I announce the departure of a valued member of my staff, Craig M. Rushing.

For the past three years, Craig has professionally and enthusiastically served the constituents of the Fifth Congressional District of Colorado, first as Legislative Director, and then as Deputy Chief of Staff and Legislative Director. He successfully handled his duties with a wealth of knowledge of the legislative and procedural processes. His dedication and work ethic will be very difficult to replace.

Beginning his career on the Hill as a staff assistant for Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (CO-04), Craig has served constituents of Colorado for nearly eight years. It was during this time he met and married his wife, Ginger, in August of 2007.

Craig worked his way through college with several jobs and internships, including with the Colorado Right to Work and the Leadership Institute. Craig graduated from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro in 2002 with a Bachelor of Science in Economics.

Craig is the son of Dennis and Kathy Rushing of Greensboro, North Carolina, and is brother to Amy Bregman and Betsy Bardi.

Craig is leaving Washington to take a position as Manager of Government Affairs at Lowe's Headquarters in Mooresville, North Carolina.

He has worked hard for the people of Colorado. His conservative and Christian values are needed today more than ever. I know God will bless him and his wife in their future endeavors.

Mr. Chair, I seek time in opposition.

At this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

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

The trouble is, this is not working so great for the Department of Defense, and to take it to all the other departments of government is not a good idea.

We were promised that we would have a cost analysis that the validity of analysis and cost models would be provided, and that really hasn't been provided. So we have these glowing claims that this is going to save money, but we haven't seen the analysis backing that up.

What we do know is that there will be people in the private sector losing

their jobs. Now, sure, it will get transferred to the government service, but are we comparing apples to apples or apples to oranges?

The claims that this will save money, I am not sure they take into account such things as health care coverage and pensions and things like that that a Federal employee would receive on top of their salary.

I also question the long-term strategic use, especially in the Defense Department, of the great amounts of in-sourcing that are being talked about, because the most innovation that we get comes historically from the private sector.

People that are in government are well-intentioned, they do their best, but there just sometimes is not that same cutting-edge innovation and technology improvement in government service that we see with people working in the private sector.

The competition is so intense, that can drive innovation in the private sector. So to give that up for core competencies, core things that should be done by the private sector is something that I see as not good for the long-term strategy of the defense industry.

For that reason, too, I really have to question this impulse to take something that's really not working that great and apply it to all of government just because you know of a few examples where maybe a contractor was paid too much.

I agree with Representative Issa. We need to first of all step back and see if this is even working in the Department of Defense. And to assume that it is, on very skimpy or scant evidence, and apply it to the entire government is just way too premature and hasty. I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I know it's well-intentioned, but I would urge strongly everyone to oppose it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, over a month has gone by since the April 15 deadline for Congress to pass its annual budget resolution. House Democrats, though, haven't even bothered to offer up a proposal. But without a budget resolution, it is still clear Democrats will go on spending unbelievable sums of money, as if a $940 billion health care bill, a $787 billion failed stimulus bill, and teeing up more permanent bailout authority weren't enough, House Democrats are going to spend another $200 billion this week on another massive spending bill.

The majority of this is not offset by other spending cuts in the budget. This latest spending spree will increase our annual deficit by $134 billion.

To the extent that there is any budgeting here in Washington at all, we are budgeting for bankruptcy. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that our debt will rise to an alarming 90 percent of GDP by the end of this decade.

This is unsustainable and puts us in the same territory as the country of Greece. Having already spent trillions of dollars, we are not even trying to budget for the next year.

This is unacceptable. Americans don't handle their checkbooks this way and neither should Congress.

Well, thank you. This is a great discussion that you all are having. Thanks for letting me participate for a few minutes.

You raised a really good point, which is that this report has shown that this is going to be a lot more expensive, that it's going to raise taxes, that it's going to raise health insurance premiums, that it's going to make people drop out of the existing coverage they have. They will be thrown into the government plan. This is a CMS report, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which is nonpartisan and objective.

What really is outrageous about this report, Representative Akin, is that they had it over at DHS before we ever had the final vote on ObamaCare. They were sitting on it. Their language now is, Oh, we didn't want to influence the debate.

Isn't that what a report is all about?

These are vital facts to have. It really is a lot more expensive. And it is going to raise taxes and throw people out of the insurance they have now than what the administration was claiming. So if we had known this maybe it wouldn't have passed by the four or five votes that it passed by. Maybe it would have failed, and we would have been on a whole different trajectory right now if they had been open and honest about this report that the American people and us as their Representatives should have had access to.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of House Resolution 1075. I am pleased to join my colleagues, Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Representative Ike Skelton, both from Missouri, as well as the many cosponsors of this resolution, in expressing the gratitude and pride of the United States House of Representatives for the work of the U.S. National Guard's Agri-business Development Teams. The efforts of these brave men and women, along with their colleagues from the Department of Agriculture and the United States Agency for International Development, are critical to creating economic opportunities for nations such as Afghanistan.

We know all too well that Afghanistan has been devastated by nearly three decades of war. And such efforts, in addition to what our combat forces are doing, are instrumental in bringing security and stability to the country.

I would like to take a moment to recognize all those who serve, our military and civilians. I am proud to stand here today and say ``thank you.'' Thank you for making the choice to serve. Thank you for sharing your skills and expertise with the Afghan people. Thank you for protecting America's interests and representing the best she has to offer. And I thank your families as well for their sacrifices.

I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri for introducing this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer).

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

Once again, I commend the National Guard for their service to this country and to the cause of freedom. The freedom they work and fight for is embodied in the constitutional system that we enjoy in this country. Few votes we have taken in this body will affect our constitutional system of freedom more than the vote we take tomorrow on health care.

Now, the American people have spoken loud and clear on this issue of health care. They do not want a government takeover of health care. And the latest health care plan that we will be voting on as early as tomorrow afternoon is still a government takeover of health care despite what others have said, because, number one, it includes billions of dollars in new taxes and over a trillion dollars of new government spending. It will cause millions of employers to cancel the health care they offer their employees and force these individuals into a government-run health care plan.

It creates a health care czar to impose health care price controls that will lead to a shortage of care and even more individuals falling into government-run insurance. It will mandate private citizens that they purchase health care whether they need it or want it.

Democrats are planning to abuse the legislative process to pass purely partisan legislation with no bipartisan support that will change one-sixth of the American economy. Democrat leaders are even considering a process that will allow their health care bill to become law without an up or down vote. That would be the so-called ``Slaughter solution,'' named for the chairman of the Rules Committee, Representative Louise Slaughter of New York.

This would declare that the House deems the Senate version of ObamaCare to have been passed by the House. House Members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but then they would be able to say they only voted for the rule and not for the underlying Senate bill. But remember, a vote on the rule is a vote on the bill. Legislative tricks and unconstitutional procedures should not be used to jam through Congress a partisan bill that will impact the life of every American and affect one-sixth of our Nation's economy.

The American people have been trying to get the message across that they want Congress to start over on health care through an open and honest dialogue and process. It is time to work step by step on health care reform that will lower costs for families without increasing the size of the Federal Government.

I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that when you add the 4,872 pages of legislative text to the 1,347 pages of committee reports, you have a total of 6,219 pages of bill text. Now, we got the final version of this 72 hours from the potential vote tomorrow afternoon. And if a Member was to take all 72 hours, allowing for 8 hours of sleep each day, because otherwise they may just get burned out, that leaves 48 hours of solid reading of this 6,200 pages. That works out to 129 pages an hour, or 2 pages a minute.

I haven't seen a lot of Members, frankly, spending their time reading 2 pages a minute for this 6,000 pages, and yet that is what we are being asked to vote on as early as tomorrow afternoon. I don't think that's really what the American people deserve for how this body should do its business.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this point, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from the State of Texas (Mr. Poe).

I would like to inquire how much time our side has remaining.

Thank you.

I will yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just continue where I left off a few moments ago talking about this huge bill tomorrow that affects our Nation's freedom so much on health care, and let me just point out that our side of the aisle, the Republicans, have introduced 70 bills that offer free market solutions to health care reform that do not take over America's system of health care.

For instance, one solution, H.R. 3400, is the Empowering Patients First Act. This particular bill would do three things, Mr. Speaker:

Number one, it gives access to coverage for all Americans. It makes the purchase of health care financially feasible for all by extending the income tax deduction on health care premiums to those who purchase coverage in the

nongroup or individual market. Right now, you only have this tax break if you're an employee of a corporation. That is not fair to all Americans. Everyone should have that same tax break.

The beauty of that is that you would have a tax advantaged purchase price on your health care premiums and you would own that premium. It wouldn't have to come to you through your job, and then it would be portable. If you go to another job, if you transfer, if you lose your job, you don't lose your coverage. It goes with you when you buy it yourself. That is why that point is so important.

Number two, coverage is truly owned by the patients. Like I said, this gives greater choice and portability and it expands the individual market. We can also, to accomplish this goal, create pooling mechanisms such as association health plans. I have friends who are Realtors in the real estate industry. They would love to form a national association of real estate agents and brokers and employees all over this country. That association would have tremendous buying power and economies of scale, but right now, that is prohibited by law. That is a commonsense solution that Republicans have offered and, I dare say, would have bipartisan support by this body.

And thirdly, we need to rein in out-of-control costs, and 3400 does that as well. It reforms the medical liability system. It establishes administrative health care tribunals--you could call them health courts--in each State and adds affirmative defense through provider- established best practice measures. That would be a defense if you're charged with some kind of malpractice as a provider. This would encourage, also, the speedy resolution of claims and would cap noneconomic damages.

So, Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude by saying that there are reforms that the Republicans have offered that would be not a massive overhaul of one-sixth of our Nation's economy and that would incorporate free market mechanisms and procedures that the American people would be much more comfortable in. If you look at the polling, Americans do not want a massive takeover of health care.

At this point, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 1099, as amended. This resolution recognizes the 65th anniversary of the Battle of Iwo Jima. I want to commend the sponsor of this resolution, Representative Bruce Braley of Iowa, for introducing it.

The Battle of Iwo Jima in February and March of 1945 has become a symbol of the devotion to duty and valor of all the men who fought there. For marines especially, the action then of five marines and one Navy corpsman raising the U.S. flag on Mount Suribachi, as captured in the iconic photo, is now the standard by which all marines measure themselves. Every marine and many others as well, when viewing that image, are almost compelled to ask: Could I do the same thing? Would I measure up?

By any standard of measure, the Battle of Iwo Jima ranks as one of the most violent and savage in the history of the Marine Corps. The Marines, the Navy, and the Army personnel who fought the battle prevailed because, as Admiral Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet at the time, said, ``uncommon valor was a common virtue.''

Today, many of those men who won that victory are now gone. Our memory of and tribute to their valor and devotion to duty, however, remain. It is for that reason that we recognize the 65th anniversary of the Battle of Iwo Jima and commend all who served in it.

I urge all Members to support this most worthy bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I just want to thank my colleague and friend from Iowa again for bringing this resolution. I had the great privilege of standing on Iwo Jima a year ago when some of us on the Armed Services Committee were going to Okinawa to review the Marine transfer that may take place to Guam. The whole island is sacred territory. We were able to bring back samples of the black volcanic sand from the beach right below Mount Suribachi. I have that in my office. We stood on the top of Mount Suribachi. There is a wonderful memorial there right now. It's very touching and very moving for all the reasons that Representative Braley has highlighted. Thank you again for bringing this resolution, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, at this point I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, Representative Herger.

Madam Speaker, at this point I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

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

Once again, I commend our fighting forces for their service to this country and to the cause of freedom. The freedom they worked and fought for is embodied in the constitutional system we enjoy in this country. Few votes that we have taken in this body will affect our constitutional system of freedom more than the vote that we take tomorrow on health care. And I would like to show, Madam Speaker, the bills that we have in front of us and the--I think--short time that we've unfortunately had to review them.

Sitting here are the various bills from the House and Senate, the reconciled version, and the committee reports. These total more than 6,200 pages. We've had a brief 72 hours to review these materials by the time our vote rolls around, projected for tomorrow afternoon. That is simply not the way we should do business in the people's House.

If we take 72 hours and subtract 8 hours a day for sleeping so you don't get burnt out completely, in that remaining 48 hours, you could read about two pages a minute if you read from morning until night, and then you would get through these 6,000 pages. You probably couldn't look up very many of the citations, though. That slows you down a bit further. But this is what we are faced with when we have our vote tomorrow.

I think we really should have a different and better process, and the American people deserve better.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that this pile of paper here representing 2,310 pages was released to the body 3 days ago, March 17. This is the text of H.R. 4872 reported from the House Budget Committee. I would be curious if my colleague from New York has read this 2,300- page document, as well as the several hundred pages of additional committee reports since that time, and possibly we will have a manager's amendment tomorrow. We will find out about that.

But even more substantively, Madam Speaker, is that we are talking tomorrow about a health care plan that the American people do not want. We should not be doing this bill tomorrow or at any time. We should start over with incremental, bipartisan reform that everyone here, or most of us anyway, could agree with, not a partisan bill that only one party will be voting for. The bipartisanship here in the House tomorrow, I suspect, will be the opposition to the bill. There are mandates in the President's proposed plan for health care as the House and Senate are taking it up. There are new taxes. There are cuts in Medicare. There is failure to have tort reform. There is increased government intervention.

Let me mention the increased government intervention. There will be new bureaucratic boards that will come up with a definition of quality and will give more power to the Federal Government through bureaucracy. Provisions such as the Comparative Effectiveness Research Board, the Independent Medicare Advisory Board and others will be set up through this plan. A form of government-run plan will maintain the OPM, overseeing multistate plans and co-ops. There are still, unfortunately, sweetheart deals in this plan. The Cornhusker kickback has some provisions still existing in the current version. The Louisiana purchase is still there. There are carveouts for unions and other sweetheart deals.

And, sadly to say, there are broken promises. The President set several parameters, including that the bill will cost under $900 billion; that has been broken. That there will be no taxes on those making under 250,000; that promise has been broken. That family's health insurance premiums would go down by $2,500 a year, and that promise has been broken. And if individuals liked what they had, they could keep it, and that will not be kept either.

The bottom line is that some might compare the last-minute inclusion of a few bread crumbs from the Republican side without true Republican input or knowledge on fraud, waste and abuse, and subsequent comments that we are somehow being partisan for standing up for our constituents and not supporting something that we in principle do not agree with is just plain wrong.

Now let me say this about reconciliation. House Democratic leaders have been searching for a way to ensure that any move that they make to approve the Senate-passed $871 billion health care reform bill as it came over from the Senate is followed by Senate action on a reconciliation package of adjustments to the original bill. However, this is a nonstarter. The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that President Barack Obama must sign Congress's original health care reform bill.

I yield briefly to the gentleman from New York.

Reclaiming my time, let me also conclude by saying that there is another problem with the health care bill that we will be looking at in a few hours tomorrow afternoon on abortion. Abortion funding will be required of the taxpayers in our country.

Current legislation would permit Federal funds to subsidize plans covering abortion, would permit a multi-State health plan to offer abortion coverage, and would require citizens in States that have opted out of elective abortion coverage in their own exchange to still fund Federal subsidies for plans that cover elective abortion in other States.

In addition, the bill includes $7 billion in new mandatory spending on community health centers, funding that is not subject to any restrictions prohibiting Federal dollars from funding elective abortions. If the current legislation passes the House without abortion funding restrictions, such as was I believe properly introduced in the Representative Bart Stupak amendment, it will be virtually impossible to alter the language through reconciliation as the two versions are reconciled over in the Senate since Senate Republicans have said they will block amendments which require 60 votes to overcome a point of order under reconciliation.

So for those reasons, I would say that we should not be passing the bill tomorrow. It will severely degrade the freedom in our country for those who want to live their lives and not be subject to government control and intervention in all the intimate decisions that they make with their doctors for their own health care.

I would yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

My good friend has raised a point. I don't know if he was able to be here at the beginning of this resolution, but we had a wonderful discussion about the tremendous valor shown in Iwo Jima. But this is a discussion also--