Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Raymond Eric Jones got married at the tender age of 19 to Lucille, and then he was off to serve his country 2 years later in the great World War II. Raymond flew B-17s over Germany, including bombing Normandy to prepare for the D-day invasion. In 1944, before his 25th mission, he was informed that upon completion of that mission, he would be taken back home to America as a hero and do public relations for the Air Force.

But that was not meant to be. His B-17 on that 25th mission was shot up and quickly crashed in a German field. Four members died on impact. Even though he was wounded, Lieutenant Colonel Jones pulled the remaining two from the wreckage, and he would remain in a German prisoner of war camp for the next 11 months. Fifty-eight years later, Lieutenant Colonel Jones received the distinguished Flying Cross for saving his two crew members. He has also received the Purple Heart, the Air Medal with six oak leaf clusters, the POW medal and the Presidential Unit Citation.

Monday, in the presence of his family, Taps will be played at Arlington National Cemetery, where Lieutenant Colonel Raymond Jones will be buried with full military honors, another member of the Greatest Generation who made America proud. Amazing breed--a rare breed, these World War II veterans.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey yielding time and his work on this legislation and, of course, the chairman from Maryland and his work as well, but also the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), who has been a relentless advocate of protecting citizens that are on cruise lines.

I recently was a cosponsor of similar legislation, H.R. 1485, the Cruise Vessel Security Act of 2009, that was passed by this House. And this bill, H.R. 3360, the Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2009, makes cruise lines more accountable when passengers become victims of crime at sea.

Every year cruise line companies carry over 10 million American citizens to and from America's ports, and these cruise lines promise Americans safety, security, fun, relaxation aboard their ships. But sometimes that is not the whole story.

In 2007 the Los Angeles Times published an article disclosing sexual assault data that was provided by Royal Caribbean International as part of a civil lawsuit. The article's disturbing and startling report showed that over a 32-month period, Royal Caribbean reported over 250 incidents of sexual assault, battery, and harassment. Cruise companies have been forced to pay millions of dollars in order to settle civil lawsuits filed in American courts for failing to protect American passengers. Congressional testimony by victims of sexual assault on cruise ships exposes so much more than the cruise lines have really told us.

Most disturbing from this testimony were from female victims that were sexually assaulted by crew members on the high seas. Almost 40 percent of the crimes were committed by cruise company employees. And as the gentlewoman from California has pointed out, her constituent Laurie Dishman in 2006 was sexually assaulted by a man on the cruise ship who was a security officer.

This individual, Laurie Dishman, reported the incident, and the cruise line did absolutely nothing. When the cruise was over with, she met with the FBI and explained her case, and after several days she later received a phone call saying that the Department of Justice would not prosecute her case and that the FBI had closed the investigation and gave her no explanation.

So then she wrote a letter to Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, and they wrote her back, Mr. Speaker, thanking her for her business and even had the audacity to send her a coupon for future trips on their cruise line.

I commend Ms. Dishman for bringing this whole issue before Congress and especially Ms. Matsui, her Representative from California, for exposing these atrocities to the American public and to this Congress. If these U.S.-based cruise ship companies who own and operate foreign flag passenger vessels want to access the millions of Americans who travel their cruise ships every year, they should be required to implement proper safety and security improvements for all travelers.

The U.S. Government also needs to ensure that American citizens and American families are safe when they travel on cruise ships departing from our ports. And when crimes are reported on the high seas, the perpetrators should be accountable.

As chairman of the Victims' Rights Caucus, I strongly support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, Major Nidal Malik Hasan is a terrorist. If anyone needs confirmation, it says on his own business cards, Soldier of Allah, and those business cards were found in his apartment. Within an hour of his terrorist attack on Fort Hood, the FBI quickly told us he is not a terrorist. The authorities told us not to jump to conclusions while they jump to conclusions.

The news media has called Hasan everything but a terrorist. Hasan was called a ``lone gunman'' or a ``troubled individual'' who somehow suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. The main problem with that is he hadn't been deployed overseas, so how could he have post- traumatic stress disorder? Maybe it should be called pre-post-traumatic stress disorder.

They said Hasan's terrorist rampage was an ``isolated incident,'' a ``random act of violence.'' Hasan was ``under stress,'' ``harassed'' and was somehow forced to ``snap.'' And they even blame it on guns. But don't call him a terrorist.

The day after Hasan's terrorist attack, reports leaked out that he had yelled the standard terrorist ``Allahu Akbar,'' Arabic for ``God is great,'' while gunning down innocent people.

According to The Dallas Morning News, authorities are investigating whether Hasan wired money to Pakistan terrorist groups in recent months.

His apartment cost $350 a month and didn't have much furniture in it. He drove an old car, but he made over $100,000 a year. Now people are asking, Where did all that money go?

According to a colleague at Walter Reed Hospital, Hasan gave an hour- long lecture there on what he called the ``Koranic View of Military Service, Jihad, and War.'' Instead of the medical lecture he was supposed to talk about, Hasan talked about punishment visited upon infidels--consignment to hell, decapitation, and having hot oil poured down your throat. According to his colleague at the hospital, this ``freaked a lot of doctors out.'' Well, no kidding. But apparently not enough for anyone to break their politically correct silence and report him. Why have the politically correct police made those who report crime so timid?

Hasan's colleagues said that he was the kind of guy who the staff actually stood around in the hallway saying, Do you think this guy is a terrorist or is he just odd? Nothing was done. And why wasn't he formally reported by colleagues? There are no answers.

Hasan exchanged emails with an al Qaeda recruiter in Yemen 20 times. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Pentagon said they were never told by intelligence agencies about the emails, which raises even more questions.

The FBI, Army Intelligence, the CIA, apparently they're still not talking to each other. So we need congressional investigations on this entire situation. I've asked that the Terrorism Subcommittee, which I serve on in Congress, investigate this situation.

There were warning signs that were ignored because he was a Muslim. Is

this a reflection on all Muslims in the Army? Absolutely not. We have those in the Muslim faith loyally serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many speak Farsi and help our troops in combat. But it is a reflection on one person who radicalized.

There were warning signs, and interventions should have occurred much earlier. It's a reflection on the Army's ability to be decisive and take care of business, take care of a threat when they see it. They missed the obvious. The question is: Is this continuing to happen in the military? Are they going to continue to ignore the obvious? Hasan had murdered 14 people, including a pregnant soldier and her unborn child. She was sent back home from Iraq out of the war zone to have her baby.

Mr. Speaker, when it gets to the point where political correctness puts the lives of our troops in danger on American soil at their home base, it's well past time to stop playing preposterous PC games.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, do you know what the military officially calls terrorists? We don't use that term ``terrorist'' anymore. They are officially called alien unlawful belligerents. Now, isn't that lovely. We can't call them terrorist or killers or criminals because that might hurt their feelings.

The American military, the FBI, and the media must deal with the facts and the truth without trying to mislead the American public.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, here we are after Veterans Day still indecisive. Our soldiers continue to fight in Afghanistan. Winter is setting in. The commander of our Afghan forces laid out the plan to defeat al Qaeda and their Taliban terrorist pals. General McChrystal says he needs more troops to defeat the terrorists. The response has been months of indecision, doubt and delays that have encouraged the enemy. Losing Afghanistan to radical terrorists hangs in the balance.

So what's the holdup? Vietnam taught us that wars can't be won with political posturing. We owe our troopers a commitment to winning when we put them into the valley of the gun.

Churchill once said, ``As long as we have faith in our own cause and an unconquerable will to win, victory will not be denied us.'' It is that dogged determination, the will to win that is essential to victory and freedom's cause.

The courage and capability of America's fighting men and women are unequalled anywhere in the world. The only thing capable of defeating our military is politics.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, the 9/11 terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four of his terrorist buddies are getting a trip to New York City to be tried in Federal court for their crimes against America.

Some of the other terrorists, however, are being tried in military courts. So why are we trying Mohammed in Federal court in the United States? Why aren't we treating them all alike, treating them all the same? Is it different strokes for different folks? It appears to be so. So why are these five special individuals being treated this way and brought to the United States for trial?

Military tribunals throughout history have always been used to try captured enemies on the battlefield. They have different rules and standards for evidence and interrogation, and the military courts make allowances for these basic differences. And tribunals

won't use classified intelligence material in open court.

The military courts and the prosecutors in the military courts have been preparing for 18 months to try these five terrorists in military court. Now all of that's over, and all of that paperwork now is going to be turned over to Federal prosecutors who know nothing about the case, and they will start over with their investigation.

Now, the way I figure it, it's been 8 years since 9/11 occurred. How long is it going to be before these people are tried? No one knows, because the government is now not prepared and they'll have to start getting prepared.

Military tribunals have always been created in a time of war. War criminals and people on the battlefield who are captured are tried there. And now we're making some exception, and the reason is we don't know. We don't know the reason why they're being tried in New York and why some of them, well, they're going to get their military trials. Maybe those are lower-ranked terrorists. Who knows. Nobody's talking in the Justice Department.

It does make a difference where a person is tried, whether he's tried in a Federal court or a military court, which has the jurisdiction. Let there be no mistake about it: these military courts have the jurisdiction to try these war criminals, but they are giving up their jurisdiction to the Justice Department.

For example, in 1993 in the World Trade Center bombing, prosecutors were required to turn over evidence to defense attorneys that included a large amount of intelligence secret information. Those intelligence documents were never supposed to be provided to anyone outside of the attorneys for each side. But guess what happened, Madam Speaker. Copies of those were later found in al Qaeda caves overseas. So much for secrecy.

We used to have Osama bin Laden's cell phone number, and we used it to track his movements and hundreds of calls he made back in 1998. It helped us to uncover members of the terrorist network prior to 9/11.

But during the Federal trial of four al Qaeda terrorists who blew up two American embassies in East Africa, the extent of our methods of intelligence of tracking the terrorists through using their cell phone numbers were disclosed. And not only were they disclosed; the phone records were made public to the whole world. So guess what. Terrorists quit using their cell phones and shut them off. Now they communicate with each other using different methods. This was the result of trials that took place in Federal court. The rules of evidence are different.

Doesn't anybody know we are at war and the rules of war ought to apply? And when we capture these people on the battlefield, when we capture these people who are at war with America, we ought to try them in military tribunals.

Our anti-terrorist operations depend on secrecy. It makes the job of the FBI and Homeland Security agents harder when the methods they use are publicized in open court. And it doesn't seem to me to make any sense why we would want to make all of the evidence that we have obtained against these five terrorists public record.

One more example: the 20th hijacker, Moussaoui, escaped the death penalty during his Federal trial, and here's the reason why: the court ruled the evidence of his participation in the 9/11 plot from his own computer was not admissible in a Federal courtroom. And without that evidence, the Feds had to settle for a life sentence. Thus he avoided the death penalty.

Much of the evidence against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was gathered through interrogations, and now unless the interrogators read this individual his Miranda rights before water-boarding, it makes us wonder whether the evidence obtained against him lawfully under military rules will be admissible in Federal court.

Federal courts were never intended to deal with wartime situations; military courts have always been the reason. And now we're going to allow this individual to have center stage in New York City to be tried and maybe possibly convicted and become an international martyr on the international stage. It makes no sense. They ought to be sent back to Guantanamo.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government promised to save the country by providing 120 million H1N1 virus vaccines in 3 months. Of course the government only made 20 percent of that number on time. So the government had to decide who would get medicine and who would not. Wall Street special interest groups got their shots, but vaccines didn't go down the street to hospitals for children and pregnant women, the most vulnerable.

The Feds are also giving criminals in prison and even the terrorists at Guantanamo Bay prison flu shots while Americans who have committed no crime must get to the back of the line.

This simple shot program administered by the government is a mess and has its priorities wrong. Why? Because the government is in charge. The government decides who gets flu shots and who doesn't. Patients don't decide; doctors don't decide. This is what a universal government-run and government-rationed health care program looks like. Welcome to the future. And get to the end of the line.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this tax- increasing, runaway-spending, government-controlled, rationed health care bill.

Mr. Speaker, we debate this great legislation about health care, but we forget the obvious. This massive government takeover of our health care still allows the 20 million people in this country that are illegally here to get one of those fake Social Security cards without benefit of even a photo ID and get some of that free government health care that everybody else has to pay for.

We need to fix that problem, and we need to fix some other problems, but don't turn the Federal Government loose on the health care of America. This bill costs too much, $700 billion in new taxes, and citizens and legal immigrants are going to get stuck with the bill with poor health quality and health care.

And that's the way it is.

Madam Speaker, in my prior life I was a judge for 22 years. I tried only criminal cases.

This bill forces everyone that can to buy insurance whether they want to or not. If they don't, they're taxed. But that tax is really a fine. Be that as it may, if they don't pay the fine, they're in violation of the IRS Code and they can pay another $250,000 fine and go to a Federal penitentiary for 5 years.

That is government oppression of the people, forcing them to buy insurance whether they want to or not. That is repressive government control, and that's the way that I see it. If they don't submit, they are forced to go to jail.

You know, this bill is about government control. It's not about choice. It's oppression. It's not about liberty. The Constitution starts out with ``We the people.'' If this bill passes, especially that section, let's scratch out ``We the people'' and write in the phrase ``We the subjects of Big Government.''

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3962 forces businesses and individuals to purchase health insurance. It raises at least two constitutional issues. Congress should never pass an unconstitutional bill, and I will vote against H.R. 3962.

The Constitution doesn't give the Federal Government direct authority to compel the purchase of health insurance. The Supreme Court would once again have to come in and by judicial edict give the government the intrusive power to do what it obviously cannot do now: stretch the meaning of the Commerce Clause.

Can the Federal Government force people to buy health insurance whether they can afford it or not? Can the Federal Government then impose a criminal fine on them under the guise of calling it a tax if they fail to buy the insurance?

What happens if the citizen doesn't pay the fine? Do they go to jail without the benefit of trial by jury? Do they lose their right to confront witnesses and have a lawyer?

Congress forcing mandatory health insurance on Americans and then imposing criminal sanctions without due process is a violation of the Constitution. This action would shock the Framers of our Constitution.

These serious constitutional issues cannot be ignored and I strongly oppose H.R. 3962 and any other bill that violates our Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I am strongly against H.R. 3962, and I will vote against it should it come to a vote on the House floor. However, I do believe the sections relating to the creation of a market for biosimilar products is one area of the bill that strikes the appropriate balance in providing lower cost options to consumers without destroying a healthy and functioning industry in this country. These provisions were one of the few areas in the bill adopted on an overwhelming bipartisan vote for the Eshoo-Inslee-Barton (EIB) amendment in the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Creating a pathway for new products that doesn't destroy the ability or the incentives for innovator companies to develop breakthrough technologies and at the same time providing a safe and effective way to bring competition to benefit patients is a laudable achievement. I wish we could remove this provision from this fatally flawed piece of legislation and consider it separately because it would pass with the kind of overwhelming bi-partisan support that Americans across the country wish to see.

However, these provisions are only the first step in a long path to the marketing of these new products. New research and clinical testing will have to occur and the FDA will write rules that will ensure this research is done safely and effectively. One of the reasons I have long supported the U.S. biotechnology industry is that it is a homegrown success story that has been an engine of job creation in this country. Unfortunately, many of the largest companies that would seek to enter the biosimilar market have made their money by outsourcing their research to foreign countries like India. With this week's devastating news that unemployment has reached 10.2% it is critical that we preserve jobs in the United States. While the innovators, have created jobs here, these generic companies have shipped them overseas, so they can turn around and sell cheap knockoffs of innovative American products.

As this new market launches in the U.S., we need to ensure that we foster innovative products in this country for the creation of jobs and research that will go into proving whether these products are interchangeable with the innovators products. I have my doubts that these companies can create such interchangeable products, but I am certain that the research and testing of whether or not they can should occur in this country and not somewhere across the globe. Testing and research on these interchangeable biosimilars should occur in this country to ensure that it is done properly and safely and to benefit our economy.

Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize Professor Richard Harrel of Lamar University. Professor Harrel is the recent recipient of the Maxine Johnston Distinguished Service Award. The biology professor received this award for more than four decades of research, field studies and publications that benefited the Big Thicket region. Harrel is also one of the founding members of Clean Air and Water Inc., a Beaumont-based environmental organization.

For all of his hard work, Harrel was rightfully awarded at the 35th anniversary of the Big Thicket National Preserve in October. The Second District of Texas commends Professor Harrel for his dedication to improving and preserving this dense wilderness area.

Madam Speaker, the bugle sounds Taps. The flags of Texas and the U.S. are at half staff this crisp morning.

In the hill country of central Texas, at the largest military base, a place called Fort Hood, soldiers and families mourn. They mourn for 13 of their own who have been murdered. They weep for 30 others who fill hospitals because of bullet wounds.

The soldiers were going about the business of making ready to deploy and defend this country overseas against tyranny and terrorism, only to face a terrorist here at home. A radicalized soldier named Nidal Hasan rejected his order to go abroad and took out his anger on those he knew.

We come upon Veterans Day next week where we honor our veterans, but let us here today in Congress on this solemn occasion give thought, prayer, and thanks to the men and women of the military who have volunteered to defend the rest of us against those forces of evil. We mourn with their families. These of our military are a rare breed, a unique breed, the American breed.

And that's just the way it is.

I thank the gentleman for yielding time.

Fort Hood, Texas, has a long, long history. It is right in the center of the State of Texas, and many of us from the State of Texas have connections with that institution.

It is named after a Confederate general, John Bell Hood, who was in charge of the 4th Texas during the War Between the States. After the war was over with, it became a military installation for the United States Army, the biggest Army installation in the world. Those from every State, every territory, from all over the U.S., come and serve at Fort Hood, Texas; and it has been that way for a great number of years.

My father, who served in the great World War II when he was an 18- year-old did basic training in Texas and came back home in 1945, was sent to Fort Hood, Texas, to be re-equipped for the invasion of Japan. That, fortunately, never took place. But he met my mom there in Temple, Texas. They got married, and that is why I was born in Temple, Texas, and have a great affection for that institution and all those that have served with the United States Army at that location.

It is now the deployment post for individuals who go overseas to represent the rest of us. They go to Iraq. They go to Afghanistan. They go to Kosovo. They go all over the world. They are being deployed at this time to represent our country and the values that we have. Many of them have served multiple tours of duty, some of them up to four tours of duty in Iraq. But yet they are all volunteers, they continue to serve, and they continue proudly to wear the United States uniform.

Approximately 40,000 people are associated with the base at Fort Hood, Texas. And not only the soldiers, but their families are there. We must remember as Americans, when troops go to war, their families go to war, too; only they stay home. Those Blue Star Moms and those Gold Star Moms, they stay here and they support our troops.

This event that occurred yesterday at Fort Hood, is an attack that was done by one of their own, someone who had been apparently radicalized, who was opposed to the war. He will be held accountable to the law for his actions. Hopefully, he will be tried by the State of Texas for his actions. But what makes this a tragedy, are the 13 that were killed, and the 30 that were wounded.

Yet, as my friend Mr. Wilson has pointed out, the people at the base, civilians and military, came to the rescue to help others, even though it endangered their own lives. And, today, this morning, not far from Fort Hood, Texas, in Temple, Texas, at Scott and White, many of those 30 are still there, receiving treatment because of their injuries; and the whole community and the whole Nation needs to understand the importance of taking care of the survivors and the families who have lost those loved ones.

We owe a great deal to our military. Next week is Veterans Day, where we celebrate the end of the great World War I and honor the veterans that have served since that time. While we celebrate our veterans and honor them next week, we should continue to honor those who continue to serve and are in the military today, including those who have given their lives and those that have been injured because by some act of criminal activity against them.

So our hearts, our prayers, and our thoughts are for them, those brave few, those noble few, that rare breed, that unique breed, the American breed, who volunteer to represent the United States wherever they are assigned, somewhere in the world.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, specifically, I stand in support of the gentleman's amendment. I probably represent as many, if not more, refineries and chemical plants as any Member of Congress.

I agree. It is imperative that we have security at these institutions, at these plants. I do believe, however, that the citizen suit problem exposes two specific issues, one of which is that it's too broad. It allows anybody to file a lawsuit, and it leaves the discretion as to what is sensitive material up to the Federal judges, and the Federal judges have broad discretion as to what material they will release and will make public.

The second problem I see--and it's specifically under (b)(2)--is that ``the district court will have jurisdiction without regard of the amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties.'' I am not clear why that would be added, but it allows standing to anyone, regardless of citizenship of the parties, to file a lawsuit. Specifically, it gives that permission.

Under the environmental suits that have been filed, standing has always been regarded--in most cases it's very broad, giving many people that standing. I think it's unwise. What it will do is bring unnecessary litigation. I think that's the purpose and duty of the Federal agencies, to bring this litigation against these chemical plants and not citizens because, of course, it will promote litigation; it will promote discovery of sensitive information; and it will allow anyone, anywhere, to file these lawsuits.

Mr. Speaker, many years ago during the mid- eighties, I had the opportunity to travel to what is now the former Soviet Union when it was the Soviet Union. I had that experience based upon the fact that I was a judge in Texas and got to go see what it was like to live under that type of regime.

Of course, in those days, everything was controlled. Everything was controlled by the government. The lives of the people were totally controlled by the government because the government, as they say, knew better. It made all decisions for the people. It made the decision what town they lived in, what apartment they lived in, what job they had, where they worked, and gave them permission or not to even travel from town to town. And, of course, government made also the decision and the control over their health care.

I noticed as I went from clinic to clinic that the lines would be down the street. Four in the afternoon, they shut the door. The people disappeared. The next day they would come back and stand in line again, hoping to get some of that government-controlled, rationed health care.

I also noticed something more important than all of that, that the spirit of those Russian people was broken. They had given up. They had given up on themselves and on their government.

Eventually, of course, they were defeated, as we say, when the wall came down. But they were not really defeated by the United States, by the West. They were defeated by their own government because of their oppression and subjugation to the government and government control of their lives. Yes, in those days, the evil empire, as we

called it, was the ultimate example of total government control.

Now, of course, we are not the Soviet Union. I am not saying we are. But today we are engaged in the great debate of at least this century of health care. But it is a bigger issue than health care. The issue is about government control of our lives. Regardless of how you put the bill that is now over 2,000 pages, it changes the philosophy that the government now will control health care in this country, rather than us as citizens.

You know, the idea that government is going to save us all. We are going down that road of government, more government, more government, more government, and more government. You know, government is already the biggest employer in this country. It is the biggest consumer in this country. It is the biggest landowner in this country. It is the biggest spender in this country. It has most of the money. And when it runs out of money, it takes money from the people when they are alive and even when they are dead because of the death tax.

Just a few months ago, the government took control over the financial industry, the mortgage industry, the banking industry, and the automobile industry, just to name a few. But I don't believe the people in this country are broken, and they are not defeated. They showed it when they came to Washington, D.C., this week. They are concerned about government. It is a bigger issue than health care. They are concerned about government running roughshod over their lives. They exercised, even with all of the critics and cynics, they exercised their right to peacefully assemble and petition government for redress of grievances. It is in the First Amendment. It is first because the First Amendment is the most important.

But people are fearful of government, of government control over their lives. This health care bill is just one example of us moving down that road of government is going to take care of us all; it is going to save us all.

Mr. Speaker, this country has never been great and will never be great because we have government programs. Government programs have not made this country what it is today. Individuals have made it. But, also, the individuals that had the right and have the right of liberty, to make decisions on their own rather than government taking care of them all. We are great because of the people here and who have not been defeated by the government of the United States.

So I hope we in this House would turn against the temptation of turning everything over to government. This is one place where we can put the brakes on and say no to government running the health of this Nation. Because government doesn't do it better. You know, this government-run health care plan has the confidence of FEMA, the efficiency of the Post Office, and the compassion of the IRS, and we should start over and fix the problems that we have rather than expecting government to take care of us all.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the $1 trillion government will take care of us all health care bill will allow illegals to get benefits. Every year, 10 million illegals use fake or stolen Social Security cards to work here. The Government Accountability Office reports over a 15-year period, 9 million people even used the same Social Security number. It was 000-00-0000. How is that for policing the system?

This is the same inept, goofy program that will be used to monitor citizenship under the health care bill. No one has to even show a valid photo ID to sign up. Can't do that, it might hurt someone's feelings. There is no real enforcement to prevent illegals from receiving health care that citizens and legal immigrants must pay for; all they need is a name and fake Social Security number. Isn't that lovely.

Once again, Americans will continue to pay for illegals who disrespect the law. So now Americans and illegals will stand in line side by side together for that expensive rationed health care.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 859, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''