Floor Statements

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 139, and I thank the gentlewoman from California for her kind and supportive remarks. Like me, she is a member of the Armed Services Committee, and I enjoy serving with her on that committee.

Madam Speaker, I introduced this resolution on June 3 of this year. That date was significant because the resolution celebrates the 50th anniversary of the first graduating class of the United States Air Force Academy.

Of the 306 men who entered the newly created Air Force Academy on July 11, 1955, 207 completed the grueling coursework and the transition to military life; 205 graduates were commissioned as second lieutenants in the Air Force; one was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps; and one graduate was medically disqualified.

The class included one football Academic All-American, Brock Strom. The academy's top graduate, Lieutenant General (now retired) Bradley C. Hosmer, went on to study at Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar--the first of 35 Rhodes Scholars who graduated from the academy.

The class of '59 spent its first 3 years in refurbished World War II barracks at Lowry Air Force Base in Denver. The upperclassmen were stand-ins--active duty Air Force officers, some who had graduated from other military academies. The cadet uniforms and the campus in Colorado Springs were still works in progress. By graduation day, June 3 of 1959, the academy had earned full academic accreditation.

Ninety percent of the graduates entered pilot training and were already certified pilots in fighter and bomber aircraft during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. The remainder became navigators or pursued other Air Force specialties. During the Cold War, they saw action in the Southeast Asia theater and in the Vietnam war, and they served in major commands of the day, including strategic air command, tactical air command and military airlift command.

Since that historic day in 1959, members of the class went on to serve with distinction, as has been noted already, as astronaut, general, Thunderbird pilot, CEO, doctor, farmer, entrepreneur, commander of major commands, and vice chief of staff of the Air Force.

Sixty-five percent of that graduating class served until retirement. Many of them went on to second careers in fields including defense, finance, management, education, and religion. Fifteen graduates' impressive careers culminated in being selected as general officers with three members achieving the rank of four-star general. When Secretary of the Air Force James Douglas, Jr., awarded the diplomas in 1959, he applauded the advances in science and technology that the new graduates would embrace and explore.

The Colorado Springs campus was chosen as the ideal site of the Air

Force Academy because of its unlimited training opportunities and majestic beauty.

The famous aviator Charles Lindbergh, a member of the site selection committee, even rented a small plane and confirmed the area was fit for flight training.

Additionally, business leaders of Colorado Springs met with local ranchers who owned the land along the Rampart Range north of town. Most agreed to sell if the site were chosen. In tribute to Colorado's strong military commitment, State leaders offered $1 million to be put towards the purchase of the present day 18,500-acre campus, an investment that continues to yield immeasurable returns to our Nation.

The Class of '59 created traditions and set high standards for the 41,000 cadets to date who have followed. I am honored to represent the United States Air Force Academy in my district, and I personally congratulate all the living members of the Class of '59 for their 50 years of service to our great Nation, both in their military and civilian successes.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of House Concurrent Resolution 139.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend from Colorado for his kind and supportive remarks.

At this time. I would like to yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

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

Mr. Speaker, Washington is attempting to take over our health care system, roughly 16 percent of the economy.

In the shadow of an approximately $12 trillion national debt, I am deeply concerned about the financial direction our country is taking. Our annual deficit set an all-time record this year of $1.4 trillion, three times the previous record. Our future obligations are over $50 trillion, and we have no plan to pay any of it back. This is unsustainable.

While people in my State of Colorado and all over the country are struggling, the Federal Government has the audacity to propose raising taxes by another $730 billion for health care. Besides higher taxes, the health care plan is largely paid for, if you can call it that, by raiding Medicare, another entitlement program that is nearly insolvent.

If Congress were a publicly traded company, it would be looking at huge civil and criminal penalties for shoddy bookkeeping.

Mr. Speaker, President Obama has promised he wouldn't raise taxes on working Americans or go into debt for health care. Both promises are violated by the Democrat plan for health care.

The Congressional Budget Office's score of almost $1 trillion for the Baucus bill is based on 10 years of revenues but on only 7 years of expenditures. This is a dishonest budget gimmick that hides the true cost.

Is anyone so foolish to believe that a $1 trillion spending program won't translate into higher taxes and fees on working Americans or into higher deficits or both?

The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has confirmed that just the penalties for not purchasing government-approved coverage will translate into higher taxes on middle class families, in addition to possible jail time--a direct contradiction of President Obama's promise.

When the President's and the Democrats' actions do not match their rhetoric, the American people should know.

Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Representative Coffman, I want to thank you for your leadership and for taking the time to speak on this important issue of the economic impact of H.R. 3200, the Democrats' health care proposal, here in the House. It's a little different from the one in the Senate, but there is an impact that it will have on small business.

I remember very fondly, Representative Coffman, when you and I served in the Colorado legislature together. It was before you were either the State treasurer or the Secretary of State in Colorado. I really knew at that time, as I think you knew with me, that we were proponents of small business and that we wanted to have lower taxes and a more favorable economic environment and climate for the State of Colorado so that young people would have jobs when they graduated from high school and college, so that we would have a strong economy and, I think, as a result of that, so that we would have a better quality of life.

Sure enough, with some other tax-saving kinds of measures the State voters passed, like TABOR, Colorado had the best business environment in the United States. Now it has slipped a little bit, but we're still, in the latest ranking I've seen, No. 4 in the country. That's an excellent thing. It's because of trying to hold the line on taxes. So I'm concerned that, when we talk about H.R. 3200, the Waxman bill for health care which my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are promoting, it is going to have a negative impact.

For instance, House Democrats pay for a portion of their health care in this bill by imposing a 2 percent surtax on individuals with more than $280,000 in income, or $350,000 for a couple. That's a lot of money. Keep in mind that many small businesses file as individuals. They use the subchapter S type of status for their tax returns. So this is actually the income that a small business can have when it's hit with a 2 percent surcharge.

Yes, Representative Coffman.

I thank the gentleman.

Yes, you're right. You're exactly right. There is that 2 to 8 percent surcharge on small business or on individual income, and there's the 8 percent penalty if you don't provide government-approved health care for all of your employees.

So, when you add that all together, like you said, Barack Obama's own economic adviser, Christina Romer, said that there would be about 5 million jobs lost as a result of those tax increases, and this is the worst possible time to have tax increases on small business. Small business is the backbone of our Nation's economy. I think the figure is 72 percent of new jobs created in this country are created through small business.

So, in the middle of a recession, is this the time to be raising taxes? I really don't think so. In Colorado alone, Representative Coffman, 16,500 small businesses will be required to pay this surtax.

I yield back.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. That's an excellent question.

Just on Monday, I had a town hall meeting with standing room only. It was packed with 600 people there to listen to and debate and discuss health care. And I'm hearing their--and at other times from small business owners, Representative Coffman--and I brought with me some statements that small business owners in my district, which is Colorado Springs and surrounding counties and communities in Colorado, are saying about this Democratic proposal on health care.

Here is from a man who is a registered Democrat, ``I do not believe the government can do a better job than the private market in providing health insurance.'' Another business owner said we need to put a halt to the rampant government spending. The estimated $1.6 trillion for new government health care on top of all the other crazy government spending will bankrupt the economy and will require a significant raise to our taxes. As the owner of a small business in Colorado Springs, I can't afford to subsidize all of these government programs.

Another business owner said, I am opposed to any health care reform that includes a public option, co-op or any other government involvement by whatever name you may choose. My business training and life experiences have taught me that competition is created in a free market environment and that government only serves to interfere with this process. I do not agree that a public option will introduce efficiency and lower cost. And he goes on to say we should be buying insurance across State lines. We should have tort reform. We should do some of the free market reforms that we can and should do, instead of

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel was originally constructed by the Federal Bureau of Mines in the 1940s and 1950s to facilitate the extraction of lead and zinc ore for the World War II and Korean war efforts. The Bureau of Reclamation acquired the tunnel in 1959 hoping to use it as a source of water for the Fryingpan-Arkansas project.

With the passage and subsequent signing into law of H.R. 429 during the 102d Congress in 1992, the Bureau of Reclamation constructed and continues to operate a water treatment plant at the mouth of the tunnel. This treatment plant removes metal contaminants from the water.

Groundwater levels at the tunnel have fluctuated in recent years.

In addition, a collapse in the tunnel has increased the tunnel's mine pool significantly, leading to new seeps and springs in the area. Estimates suggest that at one time up to 1 billion gallons of water may have accumulated.

Emergency measures are currently being undertaken by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Bureau of Reclamation to relieve water pressure in the vicinity. However, legislation attempting to address this matter and authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to rehabilitate this tunnel dates back to at least 1976.

In response to the request for action from the local community, I have again worked together with Senator Mark Udall of Colorado in a bipartisan manner and reintroduced H.R. 3123. The bill would direct the Bureau of Reclamation to relieve water pressure behind blockages in the tunnel, permanently manage the mine pool behind any blockage to prevent any releases of contaminated water, and manage the tunnel in such a way to prevent failure of the structure.

I remind Members that only minor technical changes have been made since this bill was originally passed by the House of Representatives in the previous Congress. I respectfully request each Member to support this legislation. Human safety and environmental integrity need to be appropriately and responsibly addressed.

Thank you for letting me join in and contribute to this discussion tonight.

If I remember right, President Obama in this very Chamber said we have problems with Medicaid and Medicare, and we have waste and abuse and fraud. That all may be true, but I don't think the solution is let's start a new trillion-dollar government health care program because we have problems in Medicare and Medicaid. I mean, if we have problems in Medicare and Medicaid, I don't see that is any excuse to start a new trillion-dollar health care program. So I have real problems with that.

Representative Akin, let me back up and tell you what I observed in my town hall meetings in Colorado on health care. Just a few weeks ago, I had some interesting meetings where hundreds of people showed up. People were turned away by the hundreds. It was a really good exercise in democracy. I enjoyed hearing from both sides. In fact, admittedly, I heard more from those against the program, but I would ask those for the program to come forward and say what they had to say because I wanted to hear both sides and I wanted the audience to hear both sides and those watching in the media to hear both sides.

That's right. There was give and take, high passions on both sides. It was a little unruly at times. But overall it was very positive. I hear that a few of our colleagues, unfortunately, were sort of AWOL. They evaded having some of these meetings. They only did telephone meetings, which is good in and of itself but doesn't go far enough compared to a personal meeting. So some of our colleagues around the country, Representative Akin, maybe went as far as they could have.

What I am seeing with the passion of those who are concerned about what this is going to do is not just that health care is an intensely personal issue for their mother or grandmother, their loved ones, their child. It is an intensely personal issue, but it goes beyond that. I know you know this, but I will just remind you, it also has to do with the recent takeovers we have had in the government. We have been taking over financial institutions and we have been taking over auto companies.

Me neither in my wildest dreams. So it calls into question is this just another takeover.

That's exactly right. That is the wrong thing. Those who say they trust the government and yet here we are taking over these things, these huge areas of industry, they have a right to be concerned.

But the third thing, Representative Akin, is the huge spending that is involved. We get estimates anywhere from $1.2 trillion to $3.5 trillion. I think President Obama said $900 billion, which is just under a trillion. We have huge amounts that are going to be spent on this program, so we have big spending, without a doubt. We have takeover by the government within the last 7 months happening in area after area of our industry and society.

You add to that the personal involvement that we all have in our health care. You put all those together, it's a very combustible, volatile mix. And people around our country have every right to be concerned.

That's a great point. So I think you probably observed what I saw--and tell me if you did or didn't. But people around this country have every right to be concerned. It's the big spending, it's the fact that government's taking over all these sectors of our economy, plus it's health care--the most intensely personal things that we work on.

So we have a proposal before us--actually, several proposals. So I don't know what the President really means when he talks about ``my'' plan, because there's four or five different proposals floating around.

You've raised a really good point, Representative Akin, and I think you're right on that. And it's unfortunate that the President didn't really understand the ins and outs of the bill or hopefully he wouldn't have said that. So I think maybe he wasn't as familiar with the ins and outs and details as what you're explaining right now.

Let me back up and point out another problem that a lot of people in my district are having with this plan. Eighty-five percent of Americans do have health insurance, and by and large it's not a perfect system, but they're largely satisfied with the health care that they have.

And so we have a relatively small number--not just 15 percent. It's actually smaller than that. Because of that 15 percent, some of these people can't afford insurance. They're just paying bills as they go. They're self-insuring. Also, there are those who are qualified for existing programs so they don't really need a new program for them. So it may be 5 percent or less of Americans that actually need health care.

So why are we revamping one-sixth of our Nation's economy, the entire health care system, for a small percentage--5 percent or less--of our population? The people in my district can't understand that.

Will the gentleman yield?

What it boils down to, if the problem is really those who are uninsured who cannot afford it, we have a lot more targeted and focused ways of meeting that small percentage

rather than revamping our entire health care system.

Mr. Speaker, since Democrats took control of Washington last January, they have gone on an unprecedented spending spree with the American taxpayers' credit card. It began with a $1 trillion stimulus bill, which has only stimulated more government and more debt. Then came a more than $400 billion omnibus spending bill, followed by a $3.5 trillion budget for the next fiscal year. Budget officials predict that this year's deficit will reach an historic level of nearly $2 trillion--money borrowed from our children and grandchildren.

After 6 months of fiscal irresponsibility, they are now pushing for a government takeover of health care that will grow our national debt and will do little to extend quality care to the American people. Despite raising more than $800 billion in new taxes to pay for this plan, we will also go into debt by $239 billion over the next 10 years to pay for it.

Republicans have a better plan for health care reform, one that does not saddle our children and grandchildren with a mountain of new debt.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the majority has adequately and has very well explained this bill. I don't believe there is anything to add at this time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1287 has been well explained by the majority, and we support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if there are no further speakers, then I would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I have to rise in opposition to H.R. 324. As many of us have discovered, the National Heritage Area program, although well intended, is not a new program and has no established framework. Many of our colleagues have sought to ensure that despite a lack of guidance, heritage areas would include basic property rights protections. Unfortunately, this bill does not have sufficient protection for the property owners within the boundaries of this area, and it is likely many of them have no idea that they are to be included.

To remedy this problem, we request, and we have requested in the past, that the bill be amended to allow property owners the opportunity to remove their property from the heritage area.

While the current language allows owners to ``refrain from participation,'' nothing changes the fact that this bill places them within a new Federal designation that provides a basis for ambitious Federal land managers to claim that they now have a mandate and millions of Federal dollars to interfere with local decisions affecting their neighbors' property.

Three years ago, this point was brought to the forefront when my

friend, the sponsor of this legislation, authored legislation to reduce the size of the Yuma Crossing Heritage Area. When that heritage area was established in 2000, it was much larger than local farmers were expecting. Further exacerbating the problem, local zoning bureaucrats began to use the heritage area boundaries in planning.

Because the language designating the heritage area included no recourse for property owners who wanted out, or who never wanted to be included in the heritage area in the first place, their only option was to come to Congress to adjust the boundary and solve the zoning assault that they faced. We must not make that mistake again.

Complicating this particular proposed heritage area is the inclusion of some of the most heavily traveled human and narcotics trafficking routes in our country. We have already seen what happens when we lock up Federal border lands within Federal wilderness areas. The cartels run rampant knowing that Border Patrol is hamstrung by draconian rules making them subservient to land managers and the accompanying bureaucratic red tape. Now is not the time to place yet another layer of Federal interference over this region. The border lands are far from secure.

I urge my colleagues to support private property rights and the effort to secure the border by opposing H.R. 324.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would like to inquire if there are any additional speakers at this point from the majority, and if not, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

This bill provides a legislative solution for a number of homeowners in Larimer County, Colorado, who own real property adjacent to the Roosevelt National Forest. These homeowners have occupied or improved their property in good faith and in reliance on 1975 land surveys.

It was introduced in the last Congress by Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave. It is needed to resolve the issue fairly because a recent Forest Service resurvey now claims that a small portion of Roosevelt National Forest is occupied by these adjacent landowners.

This bill conveys approximately 7 acres occupied by the affected landowners to those landowners, and I support its passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Colorado for bringing this bill. She is building on the good work that was begun by her predecessor, Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave. This is a bill that I would urge all of my colleagues to support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The majority has explained this bill well. We are pleased to support this legislation also, which will help the young men of Oklahoma by allowing the Boy Scouts to expand their summer camp within the national forest to accommodate the fast-growing number of campers. This speaks volumes about the excellent organization that is the Boy Scouts of America.

I strongly support this legislation, and urge all of my colleagues to do so as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel was

originally constructed by the Federal Bureau of Mines in the forties and fifties to facilitate the extraction of lead and zinc ore for the World War II and Korean War efforts. The Bureau of Reclamation acquired the tunnel in 1959, hoping to use it as a source of water for the Frying Pan, Arkansas, project. Although the tunnel was never used for that project, water that flows out of the tunnel is considered part of the natural flow of the Arkansas River.

With the passage and subsequent signing into law of H.R. 429 during the 102nd Congress in 1992, the Bureau of Reclamation constructed and continues to operate a water treatment plant at the mouth of the tunnel. Groundwater levels at the tunnel have fluctuated in recent years. In addition, a collapse inside the tunnel has increased the tunnel's mine pool significantly, leading to new seeps and springs in the area. Estimates suggest that at one time, up to 1 billion gallons of water may have built up within the mine pool.

In November 2007, the EPA sent a letter to the Bureau of Reclamation expressing concerns over a catastrophic blowout, and in February 2008 the Lake County Commissioners declared a state of emergency.

Emergency measures are currently being undertaken by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Bureau of Reclamation to relieve water pressure in the vicinity. Their success has been notable to date. However, many of the problems reported at this site are not new. Legislation addressing this matter and authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to rehabilitate its tunnel dates back to at least 1976.

In response to the request for action from the local community, I have again worked together in a bipartisan manner with Senator Mark Udall from Colorado and reintroduced H.R. 3123. This bill would direct the Bureau of Reclamation to relieve water pressure behind certain blockages in the tunnel, permanently manage the mine pool behind any blockage to prevent releases of contaminated water, and manage the tunnel in such a way to prevent failure of the structure.

I look forward to seeing this situation remedied so that concerns about human safety and environmental integrity may be appropriately and responsibly addressed. I remind Members that only minor technical changes have been made since the bill was originally passed by the House of Representatives in the previous Congress.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the resolution has been explained well by the majority. We have no objection.

I yield back the balance of my time.