Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of the Late Senator from Georgia, Paul D. Coverdell, who died 10 years ago last Sunday.

I considered Paul a dear friend and continue to hold his wife Nancy, who is a constituent of mine, in high regard.

One thing about Paul is that one may have agreed or disagreed with him but one always respected his energy level, his knowledge of the issue, and the way he was so focused on attacking problems.

I first learned about Paul Coverdell in 1974 when my mother sent me a clipping from the Atlanta Journal & Constitution titled ``The Gospel According to Paul.'' In it, I read of a young guy running an unconventional campaign for the State Senate in Atlanta. Rather than just working the good old boys barbecue circuit and going to the back- room power brokers, Paul went directly to the voters. He stood on the side of the road waving signs and knocking on doors. He went directly to the unnamed and untitled citizens to say, ``I am Paul Coverdell. I would like to be Georgia's next senator. Here is where I stand. Do you have any questions?''

Over the next several decades, Paul's hard work brought him through the ranks. He eventually became one of the most well-connected and influential members of the United States Senate but he never forgot the common man for whom he came to Washington to fight.

Throughout his career, Paul's energy left all who met him in awe.

When Paul was first elected to the Georgia State Senate, he was one of just three Republicans in the body. When I joined the General Assembly just over a decade later, there were only nine. Paul quickly rose through the ranks and became the Senate Republican Leader. Despite the numerical odds against him, Paul refused to be shut out of the arena of ideas.

At that time, Governor Joe Frank Harris introduced a number of bills dealing with DUI laws. The conventional wisdom was that each time you increased the penalty, the number of offenders would go down but Paul bucked the conventional wisdom.

Knowing that a lot of the offenders were addicted to alcohol, Paul introduced and got passed legislation that created a component of mandatory assessment to see if they were addicted. If so, Paul's bill provided a requirement that they seek treatment.

As the eleventh Director of the Peace Corps, Paul promoted farming in Third World countries, economic growth and development, and medical help. Indeed, he saw the formula for world prosperity meant world peace and it was great and important for the United States of America to be leading the way. As Director, Paul sent the first Peace Corps volunteers to Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Paul went into the most difficult and remote places and countries and said, ``How can we help with health care? Are there better farming techniques out there? Is there a way to get cleaner water? What can we do for the children?''

Paul also knew the value of bringing the world to America. That's why he created the ``World Wise Schools'' program which connected classrooms in the United States with Peace Corps volunteers around the world. During his tenure as Director, 5,000 classrooms nationwide benefitted from the program.

I remember hosting a coffee in my living room for Paul during his campaign for United States Senate. In the middle of a detailed discussion, my daughter Ann who was four years old at the time came running into the living room and crashed through the circle of adults listening to a very dignified U.S. senatorial candidate. She had been playing out in the backyard with all the other children, and she said, ``Mom and Dad, I feel of the slide, and I hurt my heinie and all the other kids are laughing at me.''

The room full of grown-ups fell silent; and all eyes went to the little girl who was at the foot of this soon-to-be U.S. Senator, a very dignified and somewhat sophisticated man and a tad old-fashioned in his mannerisms, and he looked down at her and smiled. It said it all. Everything was fine, and the little girl got herself back together and ran back out to the yard with the rest of the kids.

Madam Speaker, that was the grace and charm of Paul Coverdell. Here is a man with a world view but who could look at a 4-year-old girl and say, ``everything is okay.'' That is what made Paul Coverdell special. It was the ``Coverdell Dignity'' and Paul carried that dignity and that gentlemanly manner with him everywhere he went.

As a United States Senator, Paul fought tirelessly for Georgia's veterans and for our military bases especially Fort Stewart in my district. He was also an amazing advocate for agriculture--the backbone of Georgia's economy. In my South Georgia district, many farmers referred to him lovingly as ``Senator Cloverdale.''

Madam Speaker, Paul Coverdell had the uncanny ability to not just have an opinion on every issue but to have a thought, an idea and a consequential action. He was a man of action.

I learned a lot from Senator Paul Coverdell. One thing I learned, although he was one of the fiercest Republicans I've ever known, Paul showed everyone by instruction to never put politics over policy.

I remember being a young member of the General Assembly when then- State Senator Julian Bond stepped down to run for the congressional seat now held by the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Lewis. Paul Coverdell was one of the men in the Georgia Senate who stood up and gave a great farewell speech for Mr. Bond.

I remember watching that and saying, ``here is a liberal Democrat and the conservative Republican leader of the State. What is he doing?'' I knew there was a lesson to be had. Bipartisanship and civility is important and you should never let politics rule over policy.

A week before he died, Paul called me at home on a Sunday. We had an issue in my district with the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and we kind of got off path. He said, ``Jack, I think we are a little out of synch here. I just want to make sure that you and I are okay on this.''

That was typical Coverdell. I think so many of us, including me, would have said, ``Alright, you are way off base. I am right and you are wrong.'' Not Paul, he made it so that it was just so easy to get along.

In closing, I want to say one last thing about Nancy Coverdell--the love of Paul's life. Paul spoke to me about Nancy often. He bragged on how much better she was than him with real estate. It is a rare man who really privately, one-on-one, takes the time to brag about his wife to another man. It is a sign of a great marriage, a great husband and true love. I have the honor of representing Nancy in Congress and I truly appreciate her sharing Paul's life with me, the State of Georgia and our great Nation.

Paul Coverdell was a good Republican, a great strategist, a great ideas man. He had a

world view, unmatched civility and integrity and was a great organizer. He was energetic, a great communicator and a loyalist. In short, Paul Coverdell was a statesman and someone whose example I try to follow to this day.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

While I oppose the rule and the bill, I want to say with great emphasis what a fiscal conservative my friend from Mississippi is, and how I know that he is struggling to find a solution to something that I would agree is a problem.

Now, I live in Savannah. I have a house on the waterfront, and I also have a beach house, so I have to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program and in the State windstorm pool. And Mr. Taylor is right, if you've ever dealt with them, it is a pain in the neck. The bureaucracy is horrible, getting the claims paid is a really big problem. The debate as to what is flood and what is wind and what is wind-driven water is very complicated. And the insurance companies will get no sympathy from me on this situation.

The problem is that here we are again under the Pelosi Congress with a closed rule in which none of us can offer an amendment. I mean, think about that. We're all elected, 435 Members representing 600,000 people, and yet we're not allowed to offer an amendment because the Rules Committee has to play favorites. And unless you're on the A list, you can't offer an amendment, even though you

still represent 600,000 people like everyone else here. So we can't improve this.

A couple of suggestions I would have said is, why not give the State insurance commissioners--since, as my friend knows, insurance is a State matter, the McCarran-Ferguson Act, Public Law 15, says that States will regulate insurance. And why not make sure the insurance commissioners have the authority to say to an insurance company, if you want to sell insurance in my State, then you're going to have to take a percentage of the flood or the windstorm exposure? Give him the power to twist their arms. Because I can tell you, having been in the insurance system--I'm a CPCU, that's a Chartered Property Casualty Underwriter--that insurance companies will cede anything, anything that's difficult they will be glad to let the State government or the Federal Government take all the flood claims, take the crime claims, take the DUI drivers. They want the unprofitable stuff off their books because they make money two different ways, one is an underwriting profit, the other one is an investment profit.

Now, ironically, right now we're in a soft market. Insurance premiums on the commercial side are actually going down because insurance companies, for some unknown reason, are making their money elsewhere. So I think what Mr. Taylor is saying is right, there are some things that are going on, and an insurance commissioner should be able to get to the bottom of it. But again, since we can't amend this to try to put language like that in there, we need to bring this rule down to send the bill back to committee.

Now, I want to say we almost got through today without a new Federal program--I thought it might happen. This is a new Federal program. We did pass $34 billion onto the next generation in increased debt--which I know some people were clapping about, I don't exactly follow that. We have a $1.4 trillion deficit, the largest debt in the history of the Nation, 90 percent of our GDP, and yet we have Members on the Democrat side clapping about $34 billion in new debt.

Now, put this in context. May of 2008, a Bush stimulus bill--which I voted against--$168 billion; it did not create jobs. Bear Stearns bailout by the Federal Reserve in March of 2008, $29 billion. Fannie Mae bailout, $200 billion in July of 2008. September of 2008, AIG bailout--again by the Federal Reserve--$85 billion, now up to $140 billion. And then we had the infamous TARP, $700 billion. I voted ``no'' on that. Then here comes the stimulus bill to keep unemployment from going to 8 percent. Unemployment at the time was 7.6 percent, and $800 billion later we're at 10 percent unemployment. We are right now borrowing 37 cents on every dollar we spend. I hope you will vote the rule down.

Mr. Speaker, in the simplest terms, my bill allows the Secretary of the Interior to enter into a lease with the Savannah Bar Pilots Association for the Bar Pilots' continued use of the pilot base located on Cockspur Island at Fort Pulaski National Monument. They currently operate under a similar arrangement, and this bill simply aims to prolong the relationship between the Park Service and the Bar Pilots. Since 1940, the Pilots Association has continuously occupied a facility at Fort Pulaski which acts as a station for the pilots to move to and from the vessels that call on the Port of Savannah. The original special use permit allowing the pilots' station at Fort Pulaski was the result of a direct order from the Secretary of the Interior.

The Bar Pilots perform a vital role in the operation of the Port of Savannah. The pilots assist cargo ships navigating the Savannah River to reach the Georgia Port Authority's Garden City Terminal, which is about 20 miles from the mouth of the Savannah River. After an incoming ship contacts the pilots and a meeting is established, the pilots are ferried on one of several pilot boats, up to 12 miles, to the ``pilotage grounds'' outside the channel in the Atlantic Ocean, where vessels wait for the pilots. The Bar Pilots then climb aboard the ship and tell the ship's captain how to safely pass the dangerous sand bars in the Savannah River. Pilots must not only hold an unlimited Coast Guard license, but demonstrate an absolute knowledge of the river. The Cockspur Island location was chosen due to its location between the Garden City terminal and the pilotage grounds in the Atlantic Ocean.

The Savannah River Pilots contributions to Savannah can be traced back to 1760s. According to early records, William Lyford established a pilot house on Cockspur in 1768 to help ships from England carrying lumber, cattle, hogs, and poultry navigate the shallow and muddy waters of the Savannah River. By the early 1800s, trade between Savannah and England was thriving, and more able pilots were needed to help the influx of ships through the channel. In 1864, the Savannah Pilots Association was formally organized to emphasize the city's commitment to developing Savannah as a port city. Today, the Port of Savannah is the second largest container port on the East Coast, the fourth largest in the Nation, and the fastest growing container port in the United States. One out of every 14 jobs in Georgia can be directly or indirectly tied to the state's ports and over 1,700 new port-related jobs were announced in 2009. The success of the Port of Savannah can be tied to the expertise of the Bar Pilots who guide the container ships safely into the harbor. Every cargo ship above 200 gross tons--which is nearly every ship that calls on the Port of Savannah--must have bar pilot on board.

Since 1940, the Savannah Bar Pilots Association has been entering into special use permits with the U.S. Department of the Interior for the use of the station at Fort Pulaski. The terms of these permits have ranged in length from a one-year permit to a 20 year permit that existed from 1973 to 1993. The current special use permit between the Pilots Association and the Department of Interior was entered on December 8, 2008 and expires on December 8, 2010. Because of recent changes to the Department of the Interior's policies regarding special use permits at various national parks and national monuments, the National Park Service since 2007 has been discussing with the Pilots Association a long term arrangement to enable the Pilots Association to continue to use the facility at Fort Pulaski. H.R. 4773 is the result of research done by attorneys for the Department of the Interior and counsel for the Pilots Association. The legislation will enable the Pilots Association to enter into a renewable 10 year lease with the Department of Interior, the pricing for which will be based upon fair market value for the property. The authorization for a 10 year lease will enable Fort Pulaski National Monument and the Pilots Association to continue their relationship spanning more than 70 years on Cockspur Island that has been beneficial for both parties.

Other than the location at Fort Pulaski, there is no other available land near the Savannah River entrance from which the pilot boats can reach the pilotage grounds off the coast of Georgia. Any relocation of the pilot station would result in longer transit times for vessels, increased safety risks in foul weather, possible delays in ship movements, and greater fuel usage and operating costs for the pilots and ships requiring pilotage services. H.R. 4773 does not seek to give any special treatment to the Bar Pilots. They currently operate under a similar agreement, and this bill simply aims to prolong this relationship between the Park Service and the Bar Pilots that has allowed the Bar Pilots to effectively perform the valuable public service of facilitating international commerce and economic development. Employees of the Park Service initially approached the Bar Pilots to suggest legislative action, and the Park Service has been involved in this process every step of the way. This bill will not take land out of the Park Service's protection, nor will it pose any cost to the American taxpayers. In fact, the bill requires Bar Pilots will to help with park maintenance costs. We are not aware of any local opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and while I certainly appreciate the sincerity of the people who are offering this amendment, I disagree with it, inasmuch as it ties the hands of the military.

I have had the opportunity to go to Iraq and Afghanistan several times, and I can say war is complicated. War does not always go your way. The enemy does not always cooperate with the best of our plans. And yet we here in the safety of the U.S. Congress can dictate to the commanders in the field what direction the war should go in and the timeframe and what should happen next, according to a political guideline and a political deadline as opposed to military guidelines and military deadlines.

When the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations visited General McChrystal and Ambassador Eikenberry and the rest of our leadership in March in Afghanistan, one of the things that they told us is that there had been a difference, some significant differences, in the war. Part of it was that the Afghan army was stepping up in a completely different way, a new culture, if you will. They were taking ownership in the war.

In Pakistan, troops had been shifted from the Kashmir border over to the Afghan border and they were being attacked themselves by Taliban terrorists, and so the Pakistanis were showing an interest and an energy which up until now they had not given us or given the Afghan people. They are no longer looking at this war as America's war in Afghanistan. They are seeing it as their war that has spilled into Pakistan, and it is causing instability in the region.

But I will say this, that our commander at the time, General McChrystal, said, I am not over here to waste our time and to waste soldiers' lives. I am keenly aware that the clock is ticking and we have to have a resolution on this.

The campaign in Marja had just been concluded. It went very well. The shift to the next campaign in Kandahar was already underway, and people were moving in that direction.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important for us to let the military make these decisions and not political representatives in Washington. I think, furthermore, bogging this bill down with all kinds of extracurricular amendments further sends a mixed signal to our troops and the international community.

I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table H.R. 4899, with the Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments.

That is why I was asking for unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker.

It is a shame, because when it comes to war, it is too bad that we are going to let parliamentary procedures tie our hands in doing what is right for the soldiers.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make this point about H.R. 4899 and the Senate amendment. It's that it gives a clean bill and a bill that will unfetter the generals so they can do the right thing. They have worked closely with the administration.

As we know, the transition from McChrystal to Petraeus has probably been traumatic or tenuous enough on all of us on a bipartisan basis, and at this time we don't need to add to the military woes in the international efforts in Afghanistan by sending a bill, which, incidentally, is not going to be signed by the President. The President has already said he is going to veto it, and the Senate is not going to pass it anyway, so why are we doing this on the eve of the Fourth of July?

We need to have a clean bill. That is why I think, Mr. Speaker, the best thing for us to do is take H.R. 4899 with the Senate amendment and concur with the Senate resolution.

Madam Speaker, I'm here to speak about a program called America Speaking Out. You can put that into Google, ``America Speaking Out,'' and go to YouTube, in which Kevin McCarthy explains it in a little bit more detail.

But the idea behind it is to ask the American people what would they like on their agenda, what do we need to be doing in Washington. Because one of the big complaints I get back home is, you know, You folks are up there and you seem to be in a bubble. You ignore what we want to do; you attach things to bills that don't belong there, and then you force through legislation and it's out of sync with the American people.

So the idea of America Speaking Out is to give the grassroots voters back home a little bit of an opportunity, and more of an opportunity than they get now, to be heard. And you can weigh in on the Web page and say, I want you to work on education as your top priority; I want you to bring the budget in, cut spending, top priority; I want you to finish up in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Whatever it is, we seek the input of the American people so that the Republican Party can work on an agenda.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Georgia, the Honorable Tom Graves, be permitted to take the oath of office today.

His certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to his election.

Madam Speaker, Members of the House, it's a great honor to introduce Tom Graves, the newest member of the Georgia delegation and, obviously, the newest Member of the United States Congress. Tom comes to us from the Ninth District of Georgia, the seat which was held by Nathan Deal. And we all miss Nathan. He was a leading voice on Medicaid and immigration issues. And I know that Tom will continue that fight for the people of the Ninth District of Georgia.

Tom comes from Ranger, Georgia. You may not know Ranger, Georgia, population 91, but it's a little bit down the road from Red Bud, Georgia, which isn't incorporated, and not too far from Fairmount, Georgia. The three of them collectively are near nothing at all. They are in Gordon County.

Now, Tom served for 7\1/2\ years in the Georgia General Assembly and was on the Transportation, Health and Human Services Committee and the Ways and Means Committee. He was a leader in job creation for the State of Georgia, and with his JOBS Act, introduced in 2009, he worked for pro-growth legislation--legislation that would phase out the corporate income tax and eliminate the burdensome inventory tax for Georgia businesses. For this, he was recognized by ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, to which many of us once belonged. He was nominated and earned the title of Legislator of the Year.

Tom has also been recognized by the National Federation of Independent Businesses as the Guardian of Small Business and by the Georgia Retail Association for being Legislator of the Year, and was one of only two State legislators in the country to be selected by FreedomWorks Foundation to receive the Legislative Entrepreneurial Award.

Tom, we're very glad to have you. But we're also especially glad to have your wife, Julie, who's sitting up in the gallery. Tom also has his three children with him today: JoAnn, John, and Janey. And we're glad that you're going to share your daddy with us.

Tom is well known back home for having a beautiful family and a very ugly pickup truck. But he is committed to the truck. He's had it for 13 years--and he thought that was a long time. But I want to introduce you to Gary Ackerman, who will tell you how to really take care of a car, which I think now is going on 30 years old.

Tom, I also want to tell my friends Cliff Stearns and Corrine Brown, who come from a State that likes to pretend like they play football, that Tom Graves is a Georgia Bulldog. We can always use one more in the world. So if any of you people from Florida want to convert, it would be a good time.

Tom, we welcome you to the greatest body, the greatest legislative body the world has ever seen: the United States Congress.

With that, I want to yield to my good friend, Mr. John Lewis, the dean of our delegation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I just find it so appalling that the defense committee, which has always had a strong bipartisan relationship and a problem-solving ability, has only been given 10 minutes to uproot a long-standing policy on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, 5 minutes per side, to make a major social change in America, a change that will change the dynamic in the barracks, in the field, the morale, the tension.

What will you do about spousal benefits in the face of DOMA, Don't Ask, Don't Tell? It would certainly be unfair to have somebody in combat and not cover his husband. So you are going to have spousal benefits.

And when you do that, what do you do about the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA? That's the law of the land. You will have to change the State laws to allow same-sex marriages. That's how profound this change is today that we will be voting on after a 10-minute debate.

What about the issue of religious freedom? We have already seen the military uninvite people like Tony Perkins and Franklin Graham for speaking at prayer breakfasts.

If you just cut out everything else on the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and say what do you do about the spouse benefits and what do you do about the religious freedom that's so important to all soldiers, how do you deal with that, you need more than 10 minutes.

I appeal to all Members of Congress, wherever you are on this, to realize we need more than 10 minutes and reject the amendment so we can get it.

I thank the gentleman.

I wanted to say, we have an issue with military chaplains who actually work for their denomination. They do not necessarily answer straight to the military. They are supposed to have their loyalty to their denomination.

If their denomination believes a certain thing that is not in alignment with a potential new policy of the defense, then they are going to be censored. How do you deal with that censorship matter and that freedom of religion issue? Again, Tony Perkins, a marine, a chaplain, the president of Family Research Council, and Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, have both been uninvited already because of their views. They are politically incorrect.

So the military invited them to speak at prayer breakfasts and they were uninvited. It would not have happened without this debate. That's why we need more than 10 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Jay Shaw's appointment to the board of Georgia Department of Transportation after a successful 30 year career in state and municipal government.

Since the late 1970's, Jay Shaw has dedicated himself to a life of public service. At the age of 32, Mr. Shaw was elected mayor of Lakeland, Georgia. Although being a small town mayor is not an easy job with everyone in town expecting something of you, he took the job in stride, always vowing that he was there for his constituents.

In 1994, he was elected to the Georgia House of Representatives. He has fought for the interests of small business owners and successfully ended long-distance phone calls within counties. His many bipartisan friendships demonstrate his congenial attitude. However, let this not be confused with his strong force and tireless effort to stand up for beliefs.

Jay Shaw grew up in a family of public servants. His mother, Dorothy Pafford Shaw, served as a state representative for 12 years before serving on the Georgia Public Service Commission for two decades; his father, Slaton Shaw, served on the Lanier County school board; and his son, Jason Shaw, is now running for his District 176 seat.

Mr. Shaw's hard work and unwavering loyalty are just two of the many attributes that have helped him to serve his constituency well. He is personable, outgoing and always has a good attitude. Aside from his outstanding work, the people of Lakeland and I find a good friend in Jay Shaw. That is why I warmly congratulate him on his appointment to the board of Georgia Department of Transportation and wish him the best of luck.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I have to say I am confused. Now I am confused maybe because I am not on the Ways and Means Committee--I'm on the Appropriations Committee-- and on March 16 at 10 o'clock we had a hearing, and our special guest at the hearing was Secretary of the Treasury Geithner, Secretary of OMB Orszag, and the President's Economic Adviser, Ms. Romer. All of them said to the full committee the stimulus program is working. It is the greatest program. In fact, I thought they were going to start high- fiving and hugging each other right there in the committee, they were so excited about it.

But now I am like you. You Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee, I kind of agree with you. It ain't working. We know that it is not working. That is why we are now debating the third stimulus jobs bill in the House. We had one a couple of weeks ago, we had one in December, and all it is is spend, spend, spend. The $862 billion stimulus program was supposed to keep unemployment from getting to 8 percent, and it is now pushing 10 percent. Of course it is not working.

But does this work? It is just more spending, more money for municipal governments. I keep hearing the mayors like it and the county commissioners like it. Oh, yeah, we are sending them more money; I guess they do like it. They envy us because we can print it, and we can borrow it. In fact, we borrow a lot of money. In fact, if you look at it, every dollar that we spend, we actually borrow 40 cents. Now you would never do that back home, but that is what is going on. We borrow to pay for the military, to pay for education, to pay for transportation, to pay for the National Park Service. We borrow foreign aid. Can you think of the absurdity of that: we borrow money to give it to other countries. That's what is going on. And here comes this bill with more borrowing.

You know, if you look at what has gone on, May of 2008, a $168 billion stimulus bill failed. I voted ``no.'' It was a George Bush bill. All of these stimulus bills, all of this spending does not create jobs. We need to vote this down.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. I was wondering if the Chair could tell us why a 15-minute vote was held open for 25 minutes.

Parliamentary inquiry. Could the Chair explain to us how long that last vote was officially and how long it was in reality, which was 25 minutes? And I am wondering why the vote was held open for so long.

Parliamentary inquiry. Why was that vote held open for 25 minutes?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have to ask my friends who have spoken before me: If the bill is as good as you say it is, why are any of these bribes in the bill to begin with?

The President said, January 25, ``It is an ugly process, and it looks like there are a bunch of backroom deals.''

And here is something that does not come out in the reconciliation process: $7.5 million to Hawaii, page 2,132. Libby, Montana 2,222, something about biohazard. Frontier States, $2 billion, page 2,238. And it goes on. The Louisiana purchase. None of this comes out in reconciliation.

I thank the gentleman. And I know my friends on this side of the aisle feel just the same way. Not one of those things comes out in the reconciliation process.

My question is, if the bill is so good, where has the transparency been? Why all the backroom deals? Why this week alone has the President had 64 calls and visits to the White House to twist arms? Why the sweeteners?

You know the bill is not as good as advertised. Vote ``no.'' Let's work for a bipartisan bill.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Will my friend yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Although we haven't worked together on any committees, I know you by reputation, and I know that your reputation is good and that you are known to be a fair Representative. So one of my concerns I just have to tell you, as somebody who has served in the minority and the majority and oftentimes in the majority felt that we ran roughshod over the minority and that it was the wrong thing to do, but I have also known that when you are in the minority and you don't get to offer, for example, a single amendment on the largest piece of legislation that we've faced maybe since the income tax debate, I would appeal to your sense of understanding why you and I have this discussion going on. Because I support this bill, and I certainly think a moment of silence is the fit and proper thing to do.

I look forward to traveling with the gentleman not just to Iraq and Afghanistan, but actually some of the places where we have World War II soldiers buried in foreign lands. I can tell you they absolutely love Americans as they look at the graves of Americans that are all over the world protecting not just our freedom but their freedom.

So I certainly understand why you are appalled that we are using this as a vehicle to discuss health care. I agree with you. There is a good sense of indignation. Yet I find myself in a few minutes one of these people who will be talking about health care because it is my only opportunity. Because as I understand it, we are going to have 1 hour of debate on two different pieces of legislation, 30 minutes per side. And if you are not directly on the health care committee, you won't have an opportunity to speak tomorrow. That is why, while I support this legislation----

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As a member of the defense committee who represents four military installations, someone who has gone to Afghanistan and Iraq five times, and never without going to Ramstein to visit our logistics crew over there, at Landstuhl Hospital to visit people in the hospital, as well as to go to Walter Reed Hospital here in Washington, I feel very strongly that this resolution is a good resolution and should be debated and voted on.

I have to tell you that at only 20 minutes per side, that sort of gives a signal to veterans also what the majority thinks about veterans. This is a good bill and I'm going to support it, but it saddens me that this is the vehicle in which we're going to be allowed to talk about health care.

But as I talk to the veterans of my four military installations back home and the ones who are retired in those areas, they're saying this is a horrible health care bill. I did not go to Iraq, I did not go to Vietnam, I did not fight in World War II for you to take away my freedom in one piece of legislation.

I've got to remind my friends of what the Speaker said just a week or two ago. I quote directly Speaker Nancy Pelosi: ``We need to pass this bill so you can find out what's in it.''

Does anyone deny that is a direct quote from the Speaker? That is exactly what Speaker Pelosi said.

So when my veterans back home are concerned, along with the middle class taxpayers, of what's in this bill, I think they have that right to have some apprehension. We do need full debate. Keep in mind that health care is one-sixth of the economy, $2.4 trillion.

This is a major government intrusion into it, not that the government should not be in it at all. But we are totally changing the balance of it, and yet we're not having a full debate. Why not have just several hours but weeks? Can you say to me with a straight face that would be unreasonable? We need to have hours and hours of debates.

The Republican Party has offered 99 amendments, and how many will be accepted? Zero. No ideas from the Republican Party. And shutting out the Republican Party might be great Democrat politics, but you're shutting out the people that we represent.

And I will point out, as you know, you don't need one single Republican vote. If this bill is so good, why did you not pass it in August? You didn't pass it because you didn't have the Democrat votes. The reason we're here on a weekend is because you don't have the Democrat votes. Now, I don't know what the President was here today doing. I don't know what he gave away. We know about the Louisiana purchase. We know about the hospital in Connecticut. We know about the Gator aid for Florida. We know about the Cornhusker kickback in Nebraska. And we found out now that student loans are being put in the health care bill. How did that get in there? The federalization of student loans is now in the health care bill. That doesn't make sense at all, and it doesn't make sense that in North Dakota they're exempted from the law.

I've got to say this on behalf of veterans; they're not comfortable with this TRICARE wording. In the dark of the night or in the light of the day, unintentionally or intentionally, the health care bill does put TRICARE on the chopping block. Now, it might be okay with the fig leaf amendment that we passed today in lots of words, but that's what happens when you ram something through.

The $523 billion in Medicare cuts, how does that affect seniors? I don't know the good and the bad and the ugly of it. I think it's worth more than 72 hours to debate. If this is such a great bill and it's going to last such a long time, why not give it more time to debate?

The impact of hiring 16,000 new IRS agents. I don't think Democrats like the IRS any more than the Republicans. I agree that the IRS is necessary. They do a vital job. But 16,000 new IRS agents with all kinds of new powers to look into the businesses and households of America? That scares me. That's why we plead to you. Let us have time to look at the bill carefully. We don't need to do it on a Sunday afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, it's a simple truth that Republicans in Congress spent too much money. It's a simple truth, though, that in 12 years of Republican deficits, the Democrats in 1 year spent more money, with a deficit of $1.4 trillion in 1 year.

It's a simple truth you can't insure 30 million more people without costing more to the Federal Government. It's a simple truth that if the government rewrites all the health care laws, you can't keep the health insurance that you now have.

It's a simple truth that with millions of new bureaucracies, or thousands of new bureaucracies and billions more dollars, bureaucrats will come in between you and your doctor.

And it's a simple truth the government that brought you ``Cash For Clunkers'' is not going to deliver good health care policy.

And it's a simple truth if the bill was so good we wouldn't need the Cornhusker kickback; we wouldn't need the Gatorade payoff; we wouldn't need the Louisiana purchase, and we would not have to promise to all Members of Congress all kinds of things that are in this bill and other bills to come if it was a good bill.

It's a simple truth the American people want us to start all over, and that's what we should be doing.

Madam Speaker, if the Democrats are so proud of the health care bill, why the subterfuge? Speaker Pelosi said, If we can't cross the fence, we will pole vault over it. We will tunnel under it, we will break through it. In other words, they are going to subvert the legislative process.

If they are so proud of the health care bill, why the Cornhusker kickback? Why the Louisiana purchase? Why the Gator aid? Why the hospital for the folks in Connecticut? Why all the other special interest bills? And if they are so proud, why not post it on the Web page? But, in fact, here is what the Speaker said. These are Nancy Pelosi's words: ``We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it.'' In other words, the height of D.C. arrogance and Beltway we-know-best.

I call on fair-minded Democrats to join me in denouncing this process and standing up for transparent, fair, and open government. Let's have a bill that comes to the floor in which amendments are allowed and one that has come through the committee process.