Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, we do know that the war in Iraq will come up for debate in this body, as it should. But the debate on this floor should not be about partisan politics. It should be about doing what is in the best interests of our troops, making certain that we win in this global war on terror, and how we are going to keep this Nation and our communities and our cities safe.

I recently read a quote from Specialist Tyler Johnson. He is serving his first tour of duty in Iraq. When asked about the criticism back home, he said that passing no-confidence resolutions does send a message to our troops overseas: ``You may support or say we support the troops, but you're not supporting what they do, what they're here sweating for, what we bleed for, what we die for. It all just doesn't make sense to me.''

Mr. Speaker, I agree with Tyler and our troops. Passing no-confidence resolutions does send a message, and it is not a message of courage, of confidence and strength.

I agree, let's support Sam Johnson's House Resolution 511. Stand with and fully fund our troops.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia; and I was so pleased that the gentleman from California mentioned Ronald Reagan and his birthday and brought up the Ronald Reagan quote that government does not have a revenue problem; government has a spending problem. This is something that we all know and we all realize and certainly because of the tax reductions that were put in place, and the gentleman from Georgia showed us the charts that showed how the tax reductions went into place in 2003, and we have seen not only growth in our GDP, not only jobs growth but a reduction in the deficit and record revenues for the Federal Government. Because when those rates of taxation go down, we know that revenues to the government go up.

I was listening to the gentleman from California, and I recalled a conversation with one of my constituents this weekend. He came to me and he said, Marsha, look at this here in the paper. It was a note that on February 3, 1913, is when the Federal income tax went into place. So here we are at a time when that is being remembered. February 3, 1913, a 1 percent temporary tax, only on the wealthiest, went into place to pay for a war.

And look at what we have got now: an IRS that is big and is bloated and is cumbersome and wants more and more and more, a government that wants more and more and more of the dollar that the taxpayer earns. It is like another saying that Ronald Reagan had: The closest thing to eternal life on earth is a Federal Government program.

1913, a tax was put in place to pay for a war, to fund a defense effort; and today it is bigger than ever and is still in place.

So how appropriate that we come this week and we talk about the budget and we talk about what the President is bringing forth and we talk about the Tax Code and the changes that should be made and the changes that ought to be made and the steps that we should be taking to be certain that the American people retain more of their paycheck. It is an important thing to do.

As I was looking through the President's budget that he is offering forth this week, one of the things that caught my eye and that I was pleased to see is that he is recommending the elimination of 141 programs that maybe have outlived their usefulness, that need to be revisited, that the duties could be shuffled to another one, that could be merged with another program so that services are delivered more effectively and more efficiently. I was very pleased to see that because, as I said earlier, we know that there is a spending problem in Washington, DC.

We have had our focus on addressing that; and what we want to do is reduce that spending, eliminate programs that have outlived their usefulness and make certain that we do not raise taxes. It is important that we move forward balancing the budget. It is important that we get the fiscal house in order. It is imperative that we do it without raising taxes.

So I am looking forward to working to make certain that we focus on waste, fraud and abuse, working to make certain, Mr. Speaker, that we eliminate those programs and, Mr. Speaker, working to make certain that we keep the commitment to the American people that their tax bill is not going to go up, that their tax bill is going to be going down.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia.

One of my constituents this weekend was talking about this very issue, and he was very concerned. He had been reading some of the reports, hearing some of the things about the tax reductions that had been put in place in 2003 may be allowed to expire; and he said, Marsh, you know, it is all too often that I have got too much month left over at the end of my money.

His point to me and his admonition was the time has come to achieve greater efficiencies. Every one of our constituents can go through their district and see any number of Federal agencies, State agencies, local agencies that are wasting taxpayer money. They know they cannot do that in their family budget. They know that they cannot do that in their small business

budget. As we have said time and again, this is the hold-on-to-your- wallet Congress. They are determined to get more of the taxpayer money, and we are going to stand solid with the taxpayers to make certain that we help protect those pocketbooks.

Mr. Speaker, you know, today President Bush presented his budget to the American people, and even though it is bigger and more bloated than I think it should be, I am pleased that it does include a balanced budget without raising taxes.

As stewards of the taxpayers' money, we must be diligent in working to achieve savings and making this government run more efficiently. We have plenty of data from the GAO and from our Inspector General showing that money is wasted throughout the Federal Government, and the President's budget does target 140 programs that could and should be removed.

So whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, there is consensus among the American people that we do have a spending problem in the Federal Government. It is not a revenue problem. Tax reductions have generated record revenues. It is definitely a spending problem, and it is time that we begin to fine-tune our focus and decide what is a priority with this government.

So I hope that my colleagues on either side of this center aisle will join together, will take a good hard look at this budget, and will find a way to balance it without raising taxes.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in congratulating the Franklin High School Varsity Cheerleading Squad for winning the 2006 TSSAA Cheerleading (Large Squad) State Championship.

On November 18, 2006 at Middle Tennessee State University, hundreds of hours of hard work were rewarded as the Lady Rebels narrowly upset another squad that had recently won a national championship.

This recognition reflects a dedication to practice and commitment to excellence. The teambuilding skills acquired by working together as a squad will doubtless benefit these young women for a lifetime.

Madam Speaker, please join me in thanking the parents, coaches and faculty of Franklin High School and again congratulating the members of the 2006 State Championship squad. I am sure this is not the last we will hear from this talented group of young women.

Laura Satterfield, Lindsey Jones, Taylor Kennerly, Kathleen Engstrand, Christie Kibler, Stacey Caravetta, Carly Joseph, Hannah Johnson, Chelsea Steen, Kacey Capps, Kelsey Raymond, Kate Allman, Rachel Mezger, Mary Musgrove, Kelsi Cates, Corianne Carter, Chelsea Ridens, Taylor Harrell, Grace Tenkhoff, Paige Tenkhoff, Kathryn Chambers, Courtland Harrell, Caroline Watson, Chandler Howell, Sara Thames.

Mr. Speaker, today we are considering this Democrat joint resolution, which really is nothing more than a big old omnibus bill. It is a bill that uses what appears to be budget gimmicks and what appears to be some misleading rhetoric to mask their true passion, which is spending more of the taxpayer dollars on government programs. And we know government does not have a revenue problem. Government has a spending problem.

And despite their campaign promises, they are refusing to allow the House to discuss and vote on something that they advocated just last month, which would have been a true continuing resolution to restore fiscal responsibility and to pay down the deficit.

Now, as my colleague from Texas said, Representative Campbell offered an amendment, which would have been a true CR. It would have spent $6.2 billion less. But they didn't want that. They wanted the omnibus. If they were committed to fiscal responsibility, they would join us in that CR. They would help pass Paul Ryan's line item veto bill, and they would show what fiscal responsibility looks like. It is another action of the hold-onto-your-wallet Congress.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia. He does such a wonderful job of pulling the Truth Squad together and helping us focus on the issues that are important to our constituents and of concern to our constituents and of concern to all Americans.

Certainly the process that we have seen carried out here in the House of Representatives is one that causes us concern. For those of us who respect regular order, who respect the integrity of the House, to see an omnibus spending bill go straight from the drafting table of a couple of Members, one in the Senate and one in the House, and then come directly to the floor for a vote is of tremendous concern.

We all know that our Nation has a process that was laid forth in the founding of this Nation, a process by which this body would conduct its business on behalf of the people, the people's House. Today, as I heard some of my colleagues across the aisle talk about how we had returned to regular order, I thought, oh, my goodness, I do not think this is what people had in mind.

I really do not think, Mr. Speaker, that when people went to the polls in November and voted and said we want to see a change in things, we want greater accountability, we want greater transparency and we are frustrated with what we have seen in Washington. I do not think this is what they had in mind, and certainly we would hope this is not the process that the Democrat majority will follow as they talk about what is going to be regular order.

What the gentleman from Georgia just said about the omnibus is so very true. As he said, this is a continuing resolution. It requires two sheets of paper. It is a total of about 40 lines of type. That is it. It just says we abide by the budget that was in place in 2006. Our constituents may remember that the budget that we passed in 2006 was the budget that made 1 percent across-the-board reductions in spending, 1 percent. It was a $40 billion savings to the American people.

Now, the budget, this omnibus budget, this 137 pages is going to end up spending about $17 billion more. So they are reducing and doing away with the savings that we worked hard to put in place.

The thing that is of tremendous concern to me, and I am so delighted to see the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) who is such an advocate for our military and is really, having chaired our Armed Services Committee, speaks so well to that issue and I know he is going to talk about it, but it just breaks my heart to know that our National Guard troops and our troops at Ft. Campbell, which is located in my district, are going to have far less money for quality of life because of the actions that were taken in this budget and the way in this budget, in this document, H.J. Res. 20, and people can go online and pull this up and look, and how they have taken from military quality of life, money that should be going to our military families and have moved that to other departments; how they took money from our military quality of life, $50 million, and that is given to the Palestinian Authority. That is something that with my constituents has certainly raised a lot of questions.

The thing that interested me when it came to the issue of the earmarks was they had said, oh, no earmarks are going to be in this budget, and then I found out that, well, there were earmarks that were in the budget. Nevada seems to have earmarks. Other States seem to have some curious earmarks that are left in there, but then there are funds that are turned back to the agencies.

I said, well, how does this money get spent? Is it done with letters of instruction? How is it done? What I found out was that the process that they would revert to, and I guess this is regular order, would be the process before money started being earmarked. It is where you pick up the phone and you call the agency and say let me tell you how I think we need to spend that money.

My constituents long ago said they did not want the activities of smoke-filled rooms. They wanted more transparency and the American people wanted to see greater accountability, and I think that we will continue to hear from our constituents. They want a smaller budget that is going to be more responsible of their money. This is not our money. It is the taxpayers' money. Government does not have a revenue problem. With the tax reductions that have been passed, the Federal Government has brought in more money than ever.

What government has is a spending problem. It has a priority problem, and this big, bloated budget that was passed today is a budget that will continue to fund a bloated bureaucracy that just cannot get enough of our constituents' money.

I was disappointed today with the actions of the majority. I was disappointed in how they chose to carry it out. I do hope that we see a change in the way they carried forth, and to the gentleman from Georgia, I will tell you, I hope that we continue to see a return to a respect for how we address the people's business in this House.

We talked some about one man, one vote and the sanctity of that and the importance of that, and I do hope that

everyone will continue to keep their focus on being certain that we respect that for our constituents.

I thank the gentleman for the time.

Madam Speaker, the hold-onto-your-wallet Congress is at it again. Just a week after raising costs to nearly all of America's small businesses, they are spending billions of taxpayer dollars with little or no explanation of where it is going.

After months of campaigning and pledges on open government and more accountability, the Democrats are still behind locked doors spending billions of taxpayer dollars with very little transparency.

Tomorrow, they are going to cram through an omnibus spending package, not a continuing resolution, which basically is going to pay the government's bills; and the price tag is $463 billion, a $463 billion budget. And from what we understand, it has been crafted by a couple of folks, that's all. The Budget Committee didn't hold hearings. It was not reviewed for waste, fraud and abuse.

But from what we are understanding from the reports in the news, we have two Appropriations chairmen who have put it together, and you and I are just supposed to trust their judgment. I think so, Madam Speaker; we need to have accountability, we need to have review.

Mr. Speaker, you know, the subject of Iraq and the war in Iraq, the global war on terror, is indeed a subject that is a tense subject, it is a difficult subject. In districts like mine, with Fort Campbell, with our National Guard men and women, it is one that we talk about a lot.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I do fear is that in this debate, as we talk about it, we have lost civility in this debate. It has been of great concern to me that I have heard of some of the actions of the protesters who came to our Nation's capital this weekend. I am deeply disturbed by the report of a veteran who was counterprotesting the protesters that were here, and he was spat upon by those protesters, spat upon, a man who fought for our freedom, to protect the freedom that allows them to have a protest. That is shameful, and they should be ashamed; they should be dealt with.

You know, one of the things that we continue to hear from the Iraqis is, do not leave us until we are stable. That, Mr. Speaker, is something that we need to remember. It is imperative that we make certain that they move to stability and productivity.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the time and the opportunity to talk with my colleagues about an issue that is of tremendous importance to us. It is certainly one that I have heard from from my constituents in Tennessee's Seventh Congressional District. They are quite concerned about this. It seems that all of a sudden last week, outside of regular order, outside of the normal committee process, an old idea resurfaced and came before this body in the form of a piece of legislation that is not going through regular order, is not going through the committee process. And I had many constituents who were quite concerned about this, and how could a bill that is important to us, important to our Nation, important to our structure and our way of governing come before us without people being aware? This issue is the issue of delegate voting. We are going to hear more about this today and tomorrow. Then the Democrat majority is going to push this to the floor for a vote so that they can circumvent what is the constitutional underpinning of this great Nation.

Now, we as Republicans believe in the constitutional principle of one person, one vote. We think that that is important. It is important to adhere to that, that everyone is equal under the law. Everyone is entitled to their vote, everyone is entitled to that representation of one person, one vote. And to change that principle and allow delegate voting would require an amendment of the Constitution. That is not a statement that comes only from me but the Democrats can look at their former Speaker of the House, Tom Foley, who is on record in 1970 when this old issue came up at that point. In 1970, former Speaker of the House Tom Foley, a Democrat from Washington State said, and I am quoting, it is very clear that a constitutional amendment would be required to give delegates a vote in the Committee of the Whole, which is the full House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this act by the Democrats is nothing more than an unconstitutional power grab that they want in order to be able to further their agenda. So we feel that it is important to stand against this. We feel that it is also important that we look at the Constitution, when it says that the House shall be composed of Members chosen by the people of the several States, not delegates representing the non-State territories. There is a distinction here. There is a bright line here.

We also feel like that it is important to note that this plan would run over that tenderly held principle of one person, one vote. The average congressional district has approximately 650,000 people. Mine in Tennessee has a little bit more than that. We know that Speaker Pelosi's has 640,000 people. But we also know that American Samoa has 57,000 people, the Virgin Islands 108,000, and Guam 155,000. So the Delegates that represent those numbers of individuals could vote to raise your taxes, but--and this is another point that concerned my constituents--they would not have to pay them. So their Delegates can vote to raise the taxes of my constituents in Tennessee but those Delegates' constituents wouldn't have to be paying the taxes. They get benefits, they want a vote, they want to use that money. They are just not having to pay the taxes.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do believe that this is something that many people would say, well, if we're going to have equity under the law, if they're not going to have to pay though those taxes, if they're going to have a Congressman for 57,000 people and they have their vote for 57,000 or 108,000 or 155,000, then why don't we just change the rules for everybody? The answer to that, Mr. Speaker, we know is because this Constitution means something. This is a Nation of laws. It is a Nation that is built on the rule of law. And to give Delegates the right to vote is inappropriate. It is a circumvention of our law. It is a violation of our Constitution.

Now, we know that the Democrat leadership is trying to ram this through the House and there are some reasons for doing this. They feel like they can literally do it on the sly this week. Tonight is the State of the Union. They feel like they can do this in the shadow of the State of the Union without going through the process of the committees, without going through the process of amending the Constitution. We also know that they would choose to do it before they establish regular order.

Mr. Speaker, you know, we have not been in the committee process. The committees have not been functioning. We have been having bills come straight to the floor without the due diligence and the oversight that is done by the committees. We know the Democrats would choose to circumvent that process and pass this before regular order is established. It is an issue of great concern. I appreciate very much that my constituents have been involved in the issue.

Madam Speaker, efforts to cut off funding for our troops in harm's way is really unacceptable and would be a devastating message for us to send to our men and women in our Armed Forces, to their families, and to the families of our Nation's fallen heroes. No one knows this better

than Sam Johnson, our colleague from Texas, who is a true American hero; and I commend him for introducing House Resolution 511. I would commend it to every Member of this body to support.

And I want to say to the Democrats that if they should mean what they say and do what they mean, they really cannot have it both ways on this vote. To vote to support the troops in the field and then not give them the equipment and the supplies and the resources that they need to win is deceptive, it is dangerous, and it puts the lives of American servicemen and -women at risk.

The Democrat majority must understand the stakes in Iraq. Certainly, our constituents understand the stakes that are there, both in the terms of human life and global stability.

I would commend H.R. 511 to our colleagues for support.

I thank the gentlemen for yielding their time back and doing it in the spirit of bipartisanship.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that now that the 100 hours is out of the way and we are to the point of having the State of the Union, that we will see this body return to a format of regular order and regular process and rules that we have had in place and have respected and this body has abided by through the course of this great Nation. That would, indeed, be welcomed.

In the 100-hour agenda we have seen the majority party take action on some of the issues that they had chosen to address. Their 100-hour agenda has included legislation on student loans that really is not going to do anything to make loans more accessible and available to those students that are trying to get into college. It is not going to reduce the cost of college while it is there. And it will take effect

after a person has graduated and then is working and is looking at consolidating those loans and paying them back.

So that one was a little bit of a head-scratcher for a lot of our constituents because we have worked tirelessly to make college more affordable, to raise the caps on what could be loaned for students to get those Stafford loans, Pell Grants and increasing the funding for those, things that actually would make a difference, and that is an accomplishment of the Republican majority over the past decade.

Minimum wage. One of our colleagues had just mentioned minimum wage. And I will point out, Mr. Speaker, to the Members of this body that the actions that were taken on minimum wage, we heard from our small business community. Certainly small business employers that are in my district were very concerned about this. We have heard estimates of 5 to 7 to as much as $17 billion in costs that this would be to our small businesses. That is of tremendous concern. That is a cost that is going to get passed on.

That is a cost that is going to get passed on. And of course in the minimum wage bill, we had the unfortunate error of Tunagate that was crept into that bill somehow in one of the sessions as the bill was being drafted, and there again, not going through regular order in making its way to the House. And we hope that we will see that situation addressed.

And the tuna producers that American Samoa were exempted from that, American Samoa was exempted from that minimum wage. That is not fair to the rest of the tuna producers in this country. It is not fair to the rest of the companies that sell tuna and tuna products, and we do hope that there will be attention placed to that and that issue will be addressed, because it was a northern California, San Francisco, company that produced the tuna that is harvested in American Samoa. We do have concerns about favoritism that was shown there.

The Medicare bill that was passed in the first 100 hours will indeed yield additional costs to the VA. We have had some numbers there that are of quite concern, as much as three-quarters of a billion dollars that this would end up costing, be an additional cost to the veterans health care system, to our veterans for their pharmaceuticals.

And what we have heard from our seniors is that they are pleased with Medicare part D. They are pleased to have access to affordable health care. They are very pleased that prescriptions and pharmaceuticals and therapies that at one point they did not have, that they now have access to that.

It was a little bit of a head-scratcher, Mr. Speaker, that a program that has been so well received by our seniors, that the new majority would come along and say, well, we are going to change it. We are going to tweak it. It does not matter if it is working well.

And it leads us to question: Is it just they want programs that only they design and only they grow, or do they want programs that are going to be of service to the American people?

Another of the bills that came through was the 9/11 Commission implementation, not exactly what had been promised in campaign promises. But, you know, the new majority did take the bill up and did take action. And we have heard from a lot of our businesses that are in logistics and transportation with great concerns, great concerns about the cost.

Mr. Speaker, when you pass additional fees and additional mandates, and additional costs on to business, guess what? Ronald Reagan was right. It is the people that end up paying those costs. It is not businesses that are bearing those costs and absorbing them. They get passed on to you, to me, and to other consumers, the taxpayers, who see their costs go up because the business that they are doing business with is having to meet the mandates of who? Guess what? The mandates of the Federal Government.

So, yes, this has been a very expensive first 100 hours. And it has been troublesome in that regular order was not abided by, the bills were not going through committees and having hearings and having the due diligence process that we as Members of Congress are bound to do. And then they were just coming to the floor without those hearings.

I just had another of our colleagues mention something on health care. Of course, this is an issue that we know the President is going to speak a little bit about this evening. Before we move on to a couple of other points, I do want to make a couple of observations about health care and some of the discussion that was taking place on the issue of health care.

We know the President is going to talk about health care tonight. Now, the Republicans, the conservatives, have an approach that they think is a right approach. We think that it is appropriate for small businesses to be able to band together and come together under an umbrella and purchase health care, health coverage, health insurance for their employees.

That is very good. Our Nation has 40 million uninsured, and to be able to have groups come together, small businesses, let us say all of your florists, or all of your auto supply companies, or all of your plumbing companies, or companies that are a part of the Chamber of Commerce or other small business organizations, or women-owned businesses, businesses of like groups can come together and make that purchase of insurance.

It is called small business health plans or association health plans, very good idea for helping our Nation's 40 million uninsured, and the right type, the right type step because it helps make health care insurance affordable.

Mr. Speaker, that is positive. That is a free-market way to address the situation. It is a pro-small-business way to address the situation. It is the right step.

Another good step is allowing a tax deduction, $5,000, $7,500, for small business that buy insurance. That is the great step. That is the way it should be. You know, when you start looking at the end of the year and filling out your taxes, that is money that you have earned, and being able to take that deduction because you have done something that is right, way to go.

It should be incentivized. There should be deductions for that. And it is appropriate that that take place. Now, those are private sector, free market responses to addressing the health care situation. They work very well with the health savings accounts that were passed as part of the Medicare modernization when that bill came forward in 2003.

Health savings accounts have been tremendously popular. We now know that we have about 15 million Americans that are insured through health savings accounts. The number is growing. By 2010 we know that there will be over 20 million American families that are there and insured through health savings accounts, having the opportunity to take responsibility for their health care from dollar one.

And continuing to incentivize health savings accounts, tax deductions there. There again, it is a private sector, free-enterprise solution to the health care situation, more market-driven, allowing people to have control of access, to take control of their health care decisions, and to participate in those, have choice over who their physician is. Those are the right things to do.

Now, one of my colleagues just made a statement about the haves and the have-nots in health care, and made a statement that health care could be provided and, I think I am quoting this correctly, said: We could do it without any additional cost to the system.

Oh, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you, when I hear things like that, without any additional cost to the system, it certainly causes me to pay a little bit closer attention, because one of the things that we have realized, Mr. Speaker, is you know what? Nothing is free. There is nothing free. Nothing. There is no free lunch. There is nothing free in health care. Somebody is paying the bill.

What we see take place many times is cost shifting, and you will see costs shift within a system. Now, in my wonderful State of Tennessee, we have had an interesting situation take place. We have had a program that went into place in January 1, 1995. It is called TENNCARE, and it was basically a template for Hillary Clinton's health care plan. And one of the talking points on it was: There will be no additional costs. We will just spread out

the risk. We will allow those who are uninsured, up to so many percent of poverty, 400 percent of poverty, to come in and to access health care, and we will spread the risk. We will do it through managed care organizations. And managed care organizations can compete for the opportunity to provide this insurance.

Well, it has been a program that has had quite a bit of turmoil. We now see that nearly 30 percent of the individuals in our State are on the program, and it is eating up about 36 percent of our State's budget.

The reason for that, Mr. Speaker, is because whenever you are trying to give things for free, someone else is paying. In the case of TENNCARE, it has been the citizens of our State, the taxpayers of our State. And there is no way to ever keep up with the exponential growth of that program. So I would encourage all of my colleagues to be very, very thoughtful as we move forward on the health care debate.

There is no such thing as being free. There is no way to do this with no additional cost, because, as you try to make more things free, what happens is your access is restricted. What happens is you have fewer physicians who are available for those individuals that need those services. What have you when things are free is people flood into that State trying to get that for a reduced fee, and your own citizens of the State who need the program many times are not able to access it.

So I would step very cautiously as our colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about health care that is going to be free, and universal health care and Hillary Clinton's health care plan. There are some pitfalls that are there, and they deserve to be recognized by the body of this House.

As we talk about health care, I would love to yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price, a distinguished Member of this body who is an expert on health care, for some of his thoughts on the issues of the day.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Before I yield back to him for some further comments, I just want to highlight one of the things that he brought up as a physician, and someone who deals with this.

When you have a government-run program, what you are doing is putting bureaucrats in charge of your health care decisions, and you are removing that doctor-patient relationship many times. You are putting a barrier there between the individual and that doctor. Someone else that is removed from the process is making that decision; thereby it removes the patient many times from that decision process.

That is something that we do not want to see this Nation run toward. Our seniors, our families want to be able to participate in making those health care decisions for themselves. We are so pleased to know that the President will talk about, as I said earlier, the private sector free market-based approach to solving our health care problem.

Mr. Speaker, that is what it is going to require, innovation, thinking outside of the box and being certain of something we know: access, affordability, and preserving that doctor-patient relationship.

In my case, preserving health care for Tennesseeans. In the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), preserving health care for Georgians. That is where our focus will be as we move forward on this discussion. We do not want a government-run, government-directed program that is going to place barriers between patients and the individuals that are making those decisions with their health care professionals.

I thank the gentleman for bringing that forward. The unintended consequences are many times what is so difficult to deal with. In theory to bureaucrats sitting in buildings, that sounded like a great deal: let's have everybody sign the forms.

In practice what happened for physicians, it was additional paperwork, additional staff, and removing the patient from the process, making it longer before they get a definitive diagnosis and know how to begin a protocol and treatment that will restore their health, things that impede a quality of life that our constituents desire.

So those unintended consequences many times get in the way. We are just very hopeful that we will continue the focus and that the Democrats will join

us in wanting a private sector, free-market solution to health care and not a government-run bureaucracy.

It does indeed. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.

Having this process that gets more and more convoluted every single day is of such concern to our constituents who just want to be able to go to the doctor, have a relationship with the doctor and know a little bit about what to expect.

As I said earlier, not knowing what to expect has been one of the interesting points that we have dealt with in this first 100 hours. I think that we all have been a little bit concerned about a bill that was brought forward on Friday. I know my constituents asked about it as they heard about it over the weekend. We talked about it on the floor some this morning, and this is allowing the Delegates voting rights.

I have had constituents say, well now, wouldn't that require an amendment to the Constitution? They remember when this debate took place at different times through history back in the 1970s and again in the early 1990s when there were those that wanted to give voting rights to our territories. They are very, very concerned about this, and rightfully so.

This morning on the floor earlier I quoted a comment that was made by the Democrat Speaker of the House in 1970, Tom Foley, who said: ``It is very clear that a constitutional amendment would be required to give Delegates a vote in the Committee of the Whole or in the full House.'' That was taken from a New York Times editorial.

Now, this is something that we have to realize, we hold our Constitution and the orderly process and the rule of law that is laid forth in that Constitution, we hold that to be meaningful. We recognize the necessity, Mr. Speaker, to respect the Constitution of this great land. We respect that it is built on one man, one vote and equal representation under the law.

So when we hear about giving the residents of our territories a vote, it is of concern to us and it does raise several succinct points that we have discussed on the floor today. It is a point worthy of discussion because it appears that since this has not gone through regular order and through the committee process, we haven't held hearings, this is nothing more than an unconstitutional power grab in order to try to move the new majority's agenda. It is of tremendous concern.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia for some comments on the issue.

Mr. Speaker, repeating again from the Constitution that the representatives of this body are popularly elected from the several States, and that is so important, and I want to talk for just a moment about the size of our districts.

Mine is right around 700,000 people. We have some that I think are as low as 640,000, 650,000. They are going to vary just a little bit. But that is the size of them.

We do appreciate so much the guidance that is given by the Delegates from the territories. They are a valuable participation and a valuable addition and a wonderful and treasured resource of this body. We need their opinion and their input. But the Constitution does not allow for their having a vote.

I think in Guam we have about 155,000 people, and in American Samoa there are about 57,000 people.

So we look at one man, one vote and the equal representation, and then we have to say, my goodness, that is just really a far smaller number. That is the size of many of our towns or our counties that we represent when you have a district like mine. So I think that it is important for us to realize that.

And it is important for us also to realize that these are Delegates that will be able to vote to raise your taxes, but they are not paying those Federal income taxes, and that is of tremendous concern to our constituents.

Mr. Speaker, we have dubbed this time and again the ``hold on to your wallet Congress'' because it seems as if they are looking for ways to increase the cost of government and increase the size of that bureaucracy. And our concern is that this is another of those ways that would make it easier to raise your taxes.

And I yield back to the gentleman from Georgia.

I thank the gentleman.

And one of the things that we have our focus on as we prepare for the State of the Union tonight and for the work that is before us for the rest of this Congress is certainly making certain that we are successful in our efforts in Iraq and making certain that we are successful in the war on terror.

Mr. Speaker, our constituents know that this has been a long war. They know that the terrorists started attacking us over two decades ago, and they also know that on September 11 this Nation decided we were no longer going to respond to terrorist attacks as civil disobedience. What we were going to do was to change course, and we were going to respond to it as what it is: an act of war. And our constituents all know, especially constituents in my district, National Guard families, Reserve families, families at Fort Campbell that are in our district, they know that this is a very, very difficult time for our Nation, and it is a difficult time for our men and women in uniform. And they know that freedom is worth protecting.

And when I talk to those men and women, many who have been deployed in Afghanistan, have done two deployments in Iraq and know that they may be going back, they will say, Yes, we are going back because our job is not done. And they understand it, Mr. Speaker. And they know that we take a step forward and then we take a step or two back, and that it comes very slowly, and that progress is very slow.

We have seen, and our colleague John Shadegg had handed me an article from Real Clear Politics that pointed out some things that have been happening recently that just haven't caught the eye of the media, and I wish that they had because I would like for them to catch the eye of the American people.

First of all, there appears to be some retreating by al Qaeda from Baghdad because they know that troop levels are returning to where they were during the electoral process that took place in January of last year in Iraq. They know that the radical cleric, al Sadr, has decided to call off his boycott, and that his people are returning to participate in that newly formed Parliament, and they know that he is lowering his profile. And they also have seen Prime Minister al Maliki begin to take a change of course and to put some distance between himself and al Sadr. But this is of tremendous concern to us when we hear the naysayers talk about cutting funding and not supporting the troops.

And this morning I was on the floor speaking about our colleague Sam Johnson, who truly is a hero and has a wonderful piece of legislation that steps forward. It is House Resolution 511, and it really pushes forward on the idea of supporting our troops and funding these men and women who are in harm's way, making certain that they have what they need to do the job that is in front of them; sending the message to them that we stand with them and we are not going to desert them.

We know that this is difficult work. We know that it is a job, as I said, that is slow; that progress is slow. But, Mr. Speaker, as we stand here today preparing for the State of the Union, and as we expect to hear this evening from our Commander in Chief that the state of the Union is indeed strong, we also want these men and women in uniform to know that it is strong because of the work they do.

We have the ability to stand here every day and talk about freedom and defend freedom and talk about having a Nation that is so wonderful and so diverse that we all, each and every one of us, can pursue our dreams, can focus on hope and opportunity that is so important to us. We do that because men and women have put their life on the line, many times more than once, many times for days on end, to be certain that freedom remains. And we feel that it is appropriate to bring forward a resolution that says fund the troops and fund their needs.

We think that it is important that we move forward letting the men and women know that, when they are in the field, we are listening to them. We are listening to the troops. We are listening to the commanders, and we respect their judgment. That is an important message for us to send.

And I yield to the gentleman from Georgia for his comments.

I thank the gentleman.

I will close our hour by referencing some comments I have had from some veterans in my district. I love the fact that I have absolutely wonderful veterans who participate with me on these issues in our National Security Coalition, in our Veterans Coalition, which are advisory groups for me. And I have had great discussions with them and have sent them information about the new strategy going forward in Iraq, about some of the conversations that have been taking place here, and have sought their best judgment, men and women who have worn the uniform and have been there and who have fought and seeking their best judgment. And a couple of their comments, I think, are so incredibly significant.

One of them says: ``We have to continue our push forward and let our military make the decisions in this war. When the House and Senate changed, there was no doubt there would be a change of efforts. Our enemy knows this and will continue to strike as long as they think our country is not united.''

And another of the veterans said in this e-mail: ``What is important is that we show a unified front to the enemy and we give the new plan and the deployment a chance to work. If we win, if we defeat radical Islam, then maybe, maybe, this is all going to be worth it.''

Mr. Speaker, these men and women who have put that uniform on and have gone into battle know that this is the price that we pay. They understand that this is not going to be easy. They know, and they are watching the President's speech tonight, and they are watching our response. And I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that our enemy is watching our response. And I will submit to you that, while we all have different philosophies, we all come from different districts, and we are a very diverse body, I would commend to you and my colleagues that it is important that we stand with our men and women in uniform, that we show a unified front and show that we are committed to being certain that this Nation continues to stand as a great Nation and that we persevere.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will hear the State of the Union address from the President, and one of the issues that he will highlight in his speech tomorrow night is the need for expanded health care for Americans.

This is something that the Republicans in Congress have focused on for several years, and it is with excitement that we anticipate the President's remarks tomorrow night as he talks about small business health care, talks about small business health plans and how expanding small business health plans to 40 million uninsured Americans, 60 percent of whom work in small businesses, will help more and more families to be able to control their health care and their health care expense, their health care decisions, and preserve their right to access to physicians of their choice.

We know that by giving small businesses the opportunity to band together, they will have greater options. And we know that this will reduce the number of uninsured Americans.

We look forward to the President's plan for expanding health care through small business health plans.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today to remember and honor Christy Walsh. Christy was Woodland Middle School counselor in Franklin, TN. After a life dedicated to helping mold the youth of America and a valiant 4-year battle with cancer, Christy finally has peace and rest.

We all know how important counselors and educational officials are to our communities. In our school systems throughout America, counselors are there for our children, to guide them, advise them through their education and life choices, and to celebrate with them in good times and comfort them in the bad. Christy was innovative, energetic, and dedicated to our kids and we can't thank her enough for that.

Christy served as a Students Taking a Right Stand (STAR) counselor where she led a movement to help guide students away from drug abuse and held support groups for children with social issues such as grief and anger. Her dedication to STAR has had a tremendous positive impact on these students and left a ray of hope for the children she influenced.

I invite my colleagues to, again, join me in extending our condolences to her son Brennan and the entire Walsh family and keep them in our thoughts and prayers. May Christy and her work live on in the hearts of her family, friends and the children that she helped throughout her life.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in the acknowledgement of the architectural and design firm TRO Jung- Brannen located in Shelby County, TN.

On October 19, 2006, TRO Jung-Brannen was awarded the Export Achievement Certificate given by the United States Department of Commerce in recognition of the firm's export excellence, increased export sales, and the opening of new international markets.

TRO Jung-Brannen is an architectural and design firm with 325 people on staff with billings in excess of 50 million. The Shelby County office has 13 architects and 38 additional employees. The firm specializes in designing healthcare, educational and commercial facilities. The firm was established in 1909 and has served over 500 clients with projects totaling more than six billion dollars.

Please join me in honoring TRO Jung-Brannen on their wonderful award and remarkable record of accomplishments.

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me today to take a moment and honor the group of dedicated students and faculty of the Houston High School Marching Band and their remarkable 2006 marching season accomplishments.

With a history of academic and competitive success, the Houston High School Band has contributed a sturdy foundation for the students involved with this distinguished family. Director Jim Smith continues this program of good works through instilling lessons of citizenship, character, and team-building as the current director of the Houston High School Band.

The Houston High School Marching Band's show, ``An American in Paris,'' earned championships in the Dixie Marching Band Championship, Vanderbilt Marching Invitational, Briarcrest Marching Invitational, and JCM Marching Invitational. These triumphs have certainly earned Houston High School the well deserved title of Champion Marching Band of the Mid South.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Jim Smith and the Houston High School Marching Band of Germantown for their dedication of success during the 2006 marching season.