Floor Statements

Thank you for yielding.

Madam Speaker and my colleagues, if everyone isn't totally confused by what's going on with the FAA legislation, it will be a miracle, but let me just try to take, for a moment, Madam Speaker and my colleagues, a little time to explain to Members and staff and you, Madam Speaker, where we are and how we got here.

Now, what we are considering now is not a new FAA bill but the extension of the old FAA bill. In fact, the FAA bill, when I was chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee in 2003, in May of that year, we introduced a bill that became law 6 months later and was signed by the President the end of 2003. That bill has been in effect, that authorization which authorizes all the policy, all the projects for FAA, has been in effect, and it expired in September of 2007. Since September of 2007, we have not had a new FAA bill. What we have done is a series of extensions of the 2003-passed bill.

Now, last week, we were here doing the 12th extension of the FAA bill, and we passed that measure and we sent it over to the other body. The other body took that legislation and they passed it, but a little mistake was made, I understand, in the formula for AIP funding, so that's why we are back here the 13th time passing an extension of a bill that expired in 2007.

Yes, I would be glad to yield.

Yes. I wish I didn't have that honor. But as the gentleman who just spoke is now our chairman, was the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee when I came to Congress, and I met him first in 1993, he knows the importance of getting this authorization done.

Now, meanwhile, back at the ranch, Madam Speaker and Members of Congress, the FAA bill that the House passed last May has been over in the other body being considered. Of course, other things have gotten in the way and, finally, I believe, last night, they passed the FAA bill. But the other body didn't use our legislation that we had passed in May. They took a Ways and Means bill and they tacked on the provisions that they want, and it's coming back to the House of Representatives, and tentatively scheduled before the Rules Committee is that full bill. What we are debating now is just an extension to get us to July 3, because they are sending back--they are playing a little bit of games with the entire bill.

They took our bill out. They put other provisions in on a Ways and Means bill, which really raises questions as to our jurisdiction because we're the Transportation Committee, although I know the chairman is planning to tack our bill, our full bill back on, hopefully, in the Rules Committee and then bring that back to the floor.

So this little ping-pong game of the FAA reauthorization is not over by any means. I'm hoping and praying that this authorization extension that gets us to July 3 is accepted without change over in the other body because, as we know, there was a highway bill extension to December 31 put on a jobs bill last week.

But when we passed that in the House and the President signed it into law, it's my understanding it contains a provision that the other body put in; and four people, four individual States, rather, benefit by the provisions of that taking the highway trust fund money for special projects of national significance, and four States get 58 percent of the money. Now, we didn't want that in the bill when it passed.

Mr. Oberstar obtained agreement from Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi that we would change that, and we actually had a provision to change that in this bill, this extension.

Now I'm getting confused. But, in fact, that provision is in this bill that would give every State equitable distribution of those highway funds. So that's why we support it on the Republican side.

Mr. Oberstar's been working to get this done. We don't want four States to benefit. We don't want all the money to be put in the discretionary fund and then distributed at the will of a few bureaucrats. We want everyone to be treated equitably.

So there's at stake both the extension of the FAA authorization until July 3. There is the reformulation of the highway money that goes through December 31 in this measure. So that's why we must pass this.

But this is not, I repeat, this is not the FAA bill that we do need to pass that Mr. Costello, Mr. Petri spoke about.

Now, Madam Speaker, if that hasn't confused everyone, every single Member outside the committee and members of the public and everyone else who may be interested in this, I don't know what will confuse them. But that, folks, is basically where we are, and that's why we need to pass this extension. Hopefully, we won't see this for the 14th time, hoping and praying; but it may be possible because they like to play games as this process moves forward to the benefit of some, not everyone. We don't want that to happen.

So I urge your passage of this extension. Don't confuse it with the FAA bill which still will be around the corner.

And I thank our ranking member, I thank Mr. Costello for their continued work, and my counterpart, the chairman, Mr. Oberstar, for their work in bringing this forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Obamacare proposal that is before the U.S. House today. Unfortunately for both the American Taxpayer and millions of our senior citizens this legislation is a bad deal. As crafted this bill will increase taxes by $569 Billion dollars and cuts medicare by $523 Billion dollars. Additionally this bill will create more than 118 new federal bureaus, agencies and czars. Furthermore I am concerned that this legislation will in fact increase health care premiums for millions of current policy holders because of the taxes and mandates in the 2700 pages of

the bill. Also missing is any provision for tort or libiablity reform that would actually bring down health care costs.

At a time when our national debt is ballooning out of control passing a multi-year multi-trillion dollar spending measure is heading in the wrong direction. Yes, I do agree that we need health care reform however this bill badly misses the mark. Congress can and must do better for the American people.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I am pleased to rise in support of this legislation, which would provide a 3-month extension for the operations of the Federal Aviation Administration.

This is kind of interesting. I think just for the record, Madam Speaker, and also for the benefit of our colleagues who may be listening or their staff trying to figure out what is going on, Madam Speaker, this is in fact the 12th extension of the FAA reauthorization.

I was the chairman back in 2001 and through the next 6 years, and my leadership I think is looking better and better every week and every month now.

I introduced the current bill that has been extended--today will be the 12th time--May 15 in 2003. It actually was agreed to in conference on November 21, 2003, and it was signed by the President on December 12, 2003. So I got it done in 6 months. Not record speed, but pretty good speed.

My bill has been in effect for about 7 years, I think the longest FAA authorization in history. I am quite proud of it, but in fact even my legislation does need improvement. We do need an update in policy for running the FAA. We need definition and delineation of projects which are authorized, including the important next generation getting the best technical equipment, going from a ground-based system to satellites, and getting better utilization out of our air space, and also using less fuel and more efficient utilization of our important airports. But, again, I think it is incredible that we are on the 12th extension with the passage of this, but it must be done.

The other body continues to belabor this particular bill. We are hoping for the best and that it does come out, and that we do have new language for the country and for the operation of our Federal Aviation Administration.

What is sad, too, is, again, I think if you look at the 3 years that the other side has controlled this Chamber, and this was pointed out again in a meeting that we had with some of the former TSA administrators, the turnover in personnel, not only in TSA and failure to replace the Transportation Security Administration leader, but also in the FAA. We had seen turnover in the FAA administrator's position when I came to Congress some 18 years ago. We reached a bipartisan accord and agreement to have a 5-year appointment of an FAA administrator, and that would transcend a Presidential term.

We had two great administrators. One appointed by President Clinton, served for 5 years, Jane Garvey; and then we had one appointed by President Bush for 5 years, Marion Blakey, and she did an outstanding job.

And then what did we have? We had a period for an acting administrator, and the other side held him up, demeaned him. While he served in the position, we had a vacancy with an FAA administrator for over 1 year, and we didn't adhere to the bipartisan agreement to keep FAA out of politics and keep it with sound continuous administration. So I am disappointed in that fact.

Then, again, Madam Speaker, and for those Members that are listening, people are wondering what we are doing here on adjusting the jobs bill that just passed the Senate, I am told, today.

In that bill, as you may recall, and I offer this particular exhibit to the Record, it showed that with the extension through the end of December, the other body in fact denied 22 States payment and gave 58 percent of payment for one of our largest portions and designations of funding to four States. One was, of course, California; another one was Illinois, surprise; the State of Washington, another surprise; and then the Louisiana Purchase at the end.

But, Mr. Oberstar, I will say I have to compliment him. He did get an agreement, and he got the correction in this legislation so it is something we can all vote for. We can now equitably distribute the money to all 50 States.

There was a proposal to give it to the Secretary of Transportation. Now, I have been there and done that with the Secretary. I didn't like that proposal, because just several weeks before this fiasco took place, we distributed $1.5 billion worth of stimulus funds to our economically job-disadvantaged States. And my State of Florida, seventh in the Nation with now 11.8 percent unemployment, they ended up getting zero, with discretionary money being distributed to again supposedly States that were hurting, and Florida is number seven of the top 10 in unemployment. So I wasn't a big fan of having the Secretary distribute that money.

I think what we have done here, which I suggested to the chairman and to the other side, was a fair distribution. Everyone knows what the distribution formula is; everyone will be treated equitably and fairly. So I am pleased to support both the FAA extension and then the correction and proper distribution of highway trust funds.

Now, this takes us only, folks, through December of this year. I know it is confusing because we are on a 30-

day highway extension because we haven't done a highway and transportation major rewrite of the TEA-legislation, but it will take us through the end of the year.

That is somewhat good news, but it is also bad news because States cannot plan beyond the end of the year. That means that we can't get people working beyond the end of the year. That means that we can't make commitments for improving our Nation's infrastructure and probably the biggest programs that we could do as far as this Congress in employing people.

So I am disappointed that the administration failed to support Mr. Oberstar, my chairman, on a 6-year authorization. At a time we needed to do it, they recommended an 18-month. And what have we got here? We have got until December, and leaving everyone at bay, people without work, States not knowing what to do after the end of this year.

So we have to do this. We have to get the extension as long as we can get it. Right now the other side is saying until December. I am disappointed in that. We have to straighten out the formula. And then we have to extend the FAA bill, and I am so pleased that we are extending my FAA bill, which, wasn't, I must say in closing, a bad piece of work.

Madam Speaker, my colleagues, the American people, and I think myself would like to see health care reform. There is a lot of room for improvement. There are a lot of people that don't have coverage or access to affordable health care.

Most of the people I talk to want their premiums down if they do have insurance. If you talk to Americans, what do they want now? They want jobs, and they want the economy expanded so people can even get their own health care. What they also want is a bipartisan effort on behalf of Congress to get these things done.

Instead, what they've got in all of the proposals before us is a proposal to cut Medicare and to dramatically increase taxes. What they wanted was some transparency in this process and openness. Instead, they are getting a closed-door deal and a back-door deal that is not transparent, not open to bipartisanship, imposes taxes on all Americans and, in fact, cuts Medicare for our poorest and oldest citizens. They just don't get it.

I thank you for yielding and for the opportunity to stand up and talk on the rule here that is before us that would allow the so- called ``jobs'' bill to move forward.

I've had to think long and hard about my position on this because I do favor every opportunity to increase jobs. I have one county with nearly 18 percent unemployment. Florida is in the top 10 States with unemployment with 11.8 percent, and I understand we're going to get some even grimmer news tomorrow on the job front nationally.

I have to oppose the rule, and reluctantly I'm going to oppose the bill. Many people, because I'm the Republican leader of the Transportation Committee, have asked me how I'm going to vote on the final bill and final passage, and it's a reluctant ``no.'' And let me tell you why.

The substance of my opposition really lies in what the Rules Committee did. If we ever needed a time to amend, we should have had an opportunity to amend this. And we have time to send it back to the Senate.

The previous speaker, a Democrat from the other side of the aisle--I believe the gentleman from Texas--stated his opposition to a tax provision, but let me tell folks that are listening, Madam Speaker, and the Members that may be concerned about this. When the Senate passed the transportation provision, four States take 58 percent of the new money in this in transportation projects of national significance. Those States, I believe, are California, Illinois, the State of Washington and Louisiana. Twenty-two States get zero, the big goose egg, including my State, the State of Florida. Now, this isn't a parochial issue just for Florida, but 46 States are in fact disadvantaged by the way the Senate passed the bill in giving an advantage to four States. So it's unfair.

Now, Mr. Oberstar, my Democrat counterpart, the Chair, he has a letter of intention from the Speaker, and also from Mr. Reid, to correct this after we pass this. But to do this in a proper legislative fashion to actually create jobs, we should be fair to everyone and distribute this equitably among all States.

Also missing from this is a 6-year bill, which we really need. This only extends transportation authorization through December 31 of this year, which will leave many States behind.

So this bill leaves many jobs behind. It leaves fairness behind. And, again, it doesn't do the job that it should do in creating jobs that we so badly need in this Nation.

So I will reluctantly oppose the so-called ``jobs'' bill on the basis that I stated. It's my hope that we can correct this measure. I will do everything I can, working in a bipartisan fashion, to correct it so that we have fairness for all 50 States in the distribution of the funds that they sent to Washington.

Madam Speaker, with record national unemployment in my State, 11.8 percent unemployment, one of the top 10 unemployment States in the United States, I would love to come before the Congress and say, ``Pass this bill,'' titled the ``jobs'' bill, but I can't do that today for several reasons.

First of all, let me say to those who have come before us who have said that just getting more money even in a short-term Transportation bill will get things going: I don't know the facts.

Over 1 year ago, we passed $48 billion in stimulus money that went to the Department of Transportation. So far, as of March 2, only $8.8 billion has been spent. This is not a 6-year bill we are passing, and that's what we should be doing to ensure that States can do long-term projects, not just the repaving of sidewalks and simple things that we've seen done. This bill does not contain the elimination of the redtape and the hoops that States have to go through for compliance to do any project. This will be our fifth extension, and it only goes to December 31.

Now, I was also told that we had to pass this because it was going to go straight to the President for his signature. Intervening, we did pass a 30-day extension. So this is not going straight to the President. We did not have an opportunity to correct the flaws in this bill.

You heard of the Senate passing--what was it?--the Nebraska deal and the Louisiana purchase. I'm telling you this is the four-State grab. California gets 30 percent of the additional money in this bill; 58 percent of the money goes to four States; 22 States get nothing.

Senate Surface Transportation Extension Act State-by-State Allocations of Funding for Projects of National Significance and National Corridor

Programs

($932 million over the period from Oct. 1, 2009, through Dec. 31, 2010)

California--$278 million

Illinois--$151 million

Louisiana--$59 million

Washington--$55 million

Oregon--$40 million

Oklahoma--$36 million

Arkansas--$36 million

West Virginia--$35 million

Virginia--$29 million

Tennessee--$27 million

Minnesota--$25 million

New Jersey--$25 million

New York--$25 million

Dist. of Col.--$19 million

Wisconsin--$15 million

Colorado--$13 million

Pennsylvania--$13 million

South Carolina--$13 million

Connecticut--$9 million

Alaska--$8 million

Michigan--$5 million

Indiana--$4 million

New Mexico--$4 million

Maryland--$3 million

Iowa--$2 million

Kentucky--$2 million

Mississippi--$2 million

Texas--$2 million

Arizona--$1 million

Alabama--$0 million

Delaware--$0

Florida--$0

Georgia--$0

Hawaii--$0

Idaho--$0

Kansas--$0

Maine--$0

Massachusetts--$0

Missouri--$0

Montana--$0

Nebraska--$0

Nevada--$0

New Hampshire--$0

North Carolina--$0

North Dakota--$0

Ohio--$0

Rhode Island--$0

South Dakota--$0

Utah--$0

Vermont--$0

Wyoming--$0

This chart shows each State: 22 States get nothing; 46 States are disadvantaged because of the four-State grab in this, and it could and should have been corrected. If it's going back to the United States Senate, then it should be corrected so everyone is treated fairly and equitably in the distribution of transportation funds.

Mr. Oberstar has done his level best, and he has a written letter from Ms. Pelosi, the Speaker, and from Mr. Reid to correct this after we pass it. If this were the only flaw in the bill, maybe we could look away.

You've heard from Democrats who also voted against the rule, who almost took this bill down, who also stated their objections to provisions that should have had the opportunity for at least an amendment by this body. So there has been no consideration of changing the bill and of making the appropriate fairness changes, equitable changes, so we would all be treated equitably.

Madam Speaker, although I voted ``yes'' in support of H.R. 3326, the Defense Appropriations Bill, and consider myself a strong advocate for those in military service to our nation, I want to express my opposition to funds appropriated in this measure to move and house Terrorists from Guantanamo to Illinois. Having personally visited Guantanamo I can attest that prisoners and detainees have accommodations for better than many seniors, veterans and law--abiding Americans. These terrorists are enemy combatants who committed international acts of war and terror and should not be entitled to our civil or criminal system of justice.

Furthermore after spending nearby half a billion dollars on the Guantanamo facility to now waste a half a billion dollars more on that scum of the earth is a horrible insult to all Americans and every taxpayer. When you think that this administration cannot possibly come up with another dramatic waste of public funds it seems today in this rarified air in Washington one never ceases to be stunned and annoyed.

Unfortunately, the wasteful action and insult relating to Guantanamo is only one of a number of unacceptable provisions that have been tucked into the Defense Appropriations Bill.

Mr. MICA: Madam Speaker, delays to US Airways flight 859 caused me to be unavoidably detained, and I was unable to vote on rollcalls 969 and 970. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on each of these measures.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 967 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, I attended the funeral of former Florida U.S. Senator Paula Hawkins and was unable to vote on rollcalls 947, 948, 949, 950, 951, and 952. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 950, and ``nay'' on rollcalls 947, 948, 949, 951, and 952.

Madam Speaker, it is with sadness that I report to the House of Representatives the passing of former United States Senator Paula Hawkins. Florida's former State Public Service Commissioner and U.S. Senator died Friday, December 4 in Orlando, Florida. With Paula Hawkins' passing, we have lost a remarkable public servant and trailblazer for women and all Americans in the state and national political landscape.

A resident of Winter Park, Florida, who began her public career in nearby Maitland, Florida, was born Paula Fickes in Salt Lake City, Utah, on January 24, 1927. She received her education from the public school systems in Salt Lake City and Richmond, Utah, as well as, Atlanta, Georgia, attending Utah State University from 1944-1947.

In 1972, she became the first woman in Florida elected statewide with her winning a seat on the Public Service Commission. With her election and work to reform Florida's State Utility Commission, she gained the name as the battling ``Maitland Housewife.'' In 1980, she became the first woman elected to the United States Senate without being proceeded in office by a husband or family member.

In the United States Senate, she authored the Missing Children's Act in 1982. During her 6-year term, she championed children's and women's issues and created a public dialogue on the subject of missing, exploited and abused children. ``Senator Paula Hawkins was tireless, tenacious and an incredible champion for America's children,'' said Ernie Allen, President of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. ``We will cherish her memory and miss her very much.''

Senator Hawkins was also responsible for the passage of Radio Marti legislation and a number of measures assisting women in the workforce. She Chaired the Investigation and Oversight Subcommittee of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee. In addition, the Senator served as Chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Children, Family, Youth and Drugs and was responsible for establishing the U.S. Senate Child Care Center.

Mrs. Hawkins was instrumental in building the Republican Party, both at the state and national level. She began her GOP work at the local level, served as National Republican Committeewoman from Florida and co-chaired the 1984 Republican Convention Platform Committee. Senator Hawkins was also state co-chair in Florida for several successful Republican Presidential campaigns.

Senator Hawkins received numerous awards and was honored by selection to Florida's Outstanding Women's Hall of Fame.

Prior to election to the U.S. Senate she served as a vice president of Air Florida 1979-1980; director, Rural Telephone Bank board 1972- 1978; member President's Commission on White House fellowships 1975; served on Federal Energy Administration Consumer Affairs/Special Impact Advisory Committee 1974-1976; and served for 7 years as a representative for the United States on the Organization of American States Inter-American Drug Abuse Commission.

Senator Hawkins is survived by her husband Gene Hawkins of Winter Park, Florida and three children, Genean McKinnon of Winter Park and Montreal, Kevin Hawkins of Denver, Colorado and Kelly McCoy of Orlando, Florida, as well as, 11 grandchildren and 10 great-grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I have to thank the ranking member, Ms. Ros- Lehtinen, for having this resolution come before the House this afternoon, as well as Mr. Ackerman and Mr. Berman, and I thank the staff on both sides of the aisle.

I have been here 17 years, and I have never had a resolution with my name on it. This is an historic occasion. It is historic for me personally for several reasons. First, I have never had a resolution with my name on it; and, secondly, because of my personal ethnic background. Many people know the name John Mica and think it is Italian. And actually, my mother's side is Italian, but Mica is not an Italian name; it is a Slovak, a Czech-Slovak name. John Mica, my great- grandfather, came to the United States about 100 years ago this year, a century ago, and settled in upstate New York.

Some of you know, the Mica family has a unique place in the history of the Congress. My brother, Dan Mica, was a Member of Congress from 1978 to 1988, some 10 years. He was a Democrat Member, and I am a Republican Member. We are the only brothers to serve since 1889 from different political parties. Maybe that is part of our rich Slovak American, Italian American heritage. But it is kind of neat to bring this resolution.

I would venture to say most Americans probably even today couldn't find the Slovak Republic or the Czech Republic on a map. But there are, as Mr. Ackerman pointed out, millions of Americans, many in Congress, too, who have roots and heritage with what is today the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic.

The Czech and Slovak people for centuries, actually millennia, lived under somebody else's rule or oppression. I appreciate the comments of the ranking member, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. She and her family only lost their country for the last half a century or so; but these people in Europe, some of my ancestors lost their freedom and independence and were dominated by someone else for millennia. Maybe that is why they appreciated so much the opportunity, some 20 years ago, when students came out in commemoration of a slaughter that had taken place some half century before; 20 years ago yesterday they came out into the streets of Prague, led by students.

I have to tell you, that sounds like not much, but I have been there. The first time I traveled to what was Czechoslovakia was in the 1960s, and then again in the 1980s. I went through the barbed wire, the dogs, and the landmined areas to get to the area where my grandparents came from. When I got there, everything was gray. Everything was dark. It was one of the most depressing things I had ever seen. People when they walked down the street would not look you in the eye; they looked down. The repression under several regimes, under the Communist, was one of the worst in the world and the worst in Europe. The economic situation was deplorable. The rape of the beautiful landscape of Czechoslovakia-- the Communists polluted the streams and destroyed the landscape and the economy.

Before that, they had the misfortune of being dominated by the Nazis. I saw some villages where they took the Jews out, and nobody still lived there. They loaded them into boxcars and they loaded them into trucks and trucked them off, and in 1980, no one lived in those homes, because they had taken the people and destroyed them and their lives. All that was left was the vacant houses. I still remember that.

These people, led by students 20 years ago, came out into the street. After the students came out, then the average citizens came out. They came out by the tens of thousands, and they filled the streets. They basically said they had had enough.

And you know, people weren't killed in 1989. There weren't the killings that they had had over their history. That is why it is called the Velvet Revolution. Most people don't understand that. But in the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic, they had had enough. And within no time at all, they had cast their communist bonds aside.

One of the most incredible experiences I have ever had, I wasn't a Member of Congress, but I sat up in the gallery across from me as a citizen, and I heard Vaclav Havel, the just-elected President of the Czechoslovakia Republic, Mr. Speaker, come up and speak from just below where you are, and I will never forget his words. Here are his words, The last time they arrested me on October 27 last year, I didn't know whether it was for 2 days or for 2 years.

Here was someone who had been in jail just weeks and months before speaking before the House of Representatives in a joint session. He went on to say, Today, less than 4 months later, I am speaking to you as the representative of a country that has set out on the road to democracy, a country where there is complete freedom of speech, which is getting ready for free elections and which wants to create a prosperous market economy and its own foreign policy.

He said that to us here.

So thank you for bringing this resolution up to commemorate the Velvet Revolution. Thank you for recognizing that people, no matter how much you repress them, whether it's in Cuba, whether it's in Myanmar or Burma, as they call it, whether it's in China, Tibet, somewhere in the heart of mankind is a quest, a yearning to be free and independent. And that's what this resolution today recognizes is that 20 years ago people stepped up and they'd had enough. They wanted to be free. And they have turned into two of the most incredible allies, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic, great economies, some of the strongest of the former Eastern bloc, productive citizens, incredible citizens, and not only of their country but of the world community, and great allies to the United States.

So I thank you for allowing me to have the opportunity along with many of my colleagues to bring to the floor this special resolution with that little name on it.

And for those who were interested in linguistics, ``Mica'' there its pronounced ``Meecha.'' It has a caret over, like, the ``c.''

I'm very proud to have this resolution offered today in the House in commemoration of my grandparents and those that came before them and those who on the 17th of November 1989 and today we celebrate the 20th anniversary of that occasion yesterday to recognize their freedom.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Thank you. And I think that would be very fitting, too, to show the people again and the House and the Senate that have their roots there and across the great country that we remember all they did to become free and independent.

Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for the Congress and particularly a sad day for Americans who lack health care coverage. While Democrat efforts to resolve health care problems may be well intended, in fact they totally miss the mark. People want lower premiums, increased access, less cost, and less red tape. They want choice and quality health care.

Instead, the Democrat health care plan dramatically expands government, cuts Medicare, and imposes significant costs to taxpayers. The creation of 118 new Federal programs, agencies, and czars adds bureaucracy and red tape rather than providing a cure to bring health care costs down and accessibility up. The $729 billion in new taxes on Americans and small businesses will result in a loss of 5.5 million more jobs at a time when our country can least afford it and unemployment has topped a record 10.2 percent.

I oppose the cuts of nearly a half trillion dollars in Medicare. This is the wrong solution at the wrong time.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 858, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, there is quite a bit of talk right now about the spread of the H1N1 virus, but I want to talk about amnesia in Washington. You might recall on September 12, hundreds of thousands of Americans from every State and every locality, community, converged upon Washington, and they left us some messages. And sometimes the people in Washington have forgotten those messages. One they left to me and the Congress in a petition was: serve us honorably and responsibly. They demand no more taxes. Stop spending our money. Exercise our freedoms; you will not take them away. Halt the dismantling of America. First, say ``no'' to cap-and-trade; second, say ``no'' to government- run health care.

Members, unfortunately, have amnesia around here. But I just wanted to bring forward the petition the people brought me from north central and really all of Florida petitioning their government: no government- run health care.