Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, a great tragedy is now unfolding across America as we prepare for the new year.

Millions of Americans are losing their health plans. Millions more are facing staggering price increases. Millions more are having their hours cut back at work or seeing their salaries pared back because of ObamaCare.

Sadly, this is just the beginning. In coming days, millions of employer-provided plans face cancelation, multiplying this disaster many fold.

The administration recently held a contest for videos to promote ObamaCare. Its grand prize winner featured this message: Don't worry about the price tag. Don't worry about the price tag? Isn't that helpful and compassionate advice to the millions of Americans who are struggling through the fifth year of Obamanomics and who are now also facing the reality of seeing their premiums doubling or tripling.

Just don't worry about the price tag, skip the House payment, and cough up the extra cash. That is the best that this administration can offer? Many millions of Americans who had health coverage on New Year's Eve will not have it on New Year's Day because of ObamaCare.

What awaits those who actually can sign up? According to the government's own numbers, about two-thirds of exchange applicants have been forced into Medicaid. That includes many on limited incomes who have maintained bare-bones policies because they are desperately trying to stay out of Medicaid. Some have found that nearly by looking at prices they have ended up trapped in this dreaded welfare program.

A major study documents that Medicaid patients have worse health outcomes than those without any insurance. If you doubt that, just see how long it will take you to see a Medicaid doctor, if you can find one, for a bad cold.

If you are a part of the one in three exchange visitors who escaped this fate, the next problem will be to find a doctor--any doctor. The president of the California Medical Association reports that 70 percent of California doctors will not accept ObamaCare patients. That means the remaining 30 percent will be overwhelmed, resulting in life- threatening waiting lines.

As patients desperately seek doctors in emergency rooms, actual emergencies will go waiting. Top-flight specialized doctors and facilities will become increasingly inaccessible as they opt out of the system.

Those patients who actually can get an appointment may then discover that there is no record of their policy because the government hasn't been able to connect patients with their new insurers. Patients will next face the cold reality of sky-high deductibles and copayments that many will be unable to pay. Many hospitals that serve large populations of the poor can only do so because of supplemental payments, but ObamaCare is phasing those out. Some may be forced to close their doors.

Those ObamaCare patients fortunate enough to stay well in this brave new world can expect a highly elevated risk of identity theft in what the founder of McAfee Security Software calls a ``hacker's dream.'' And there is no need to wait for hackers. In some cases, the government has already accidentally released patients' private financial and medical information.

Since so many people--particularly the young--are choosing not to pay inflated prices to subsidize others, we can expect another major round of rate increases next fall on those remaining in the system in order to make up the shortfalls.

That is what the new year will bring to our country. Many of us in the House warned of this coming train wreck, and we tried at least to delay it. For this, we were called arsonists, terrorists, jihadists, and demagogues; but now those warnings have proven chillingly and entirely accurate.

This program has devastated the lives of millions of Americans. This damage now cannot be undone by delaying it or tinkering with it. It must be repealed and replaced with the patient-centered plan proposed by House

Republicans, a plan guided by individual freedom of choice and open competition.

This will only happen if there is a massive change of heart by the congressional Democrats who imposed this nightmare on our country. Now is the time for all Americans whose lives have been upended by their folly to share their stories with their Representatives and to pray that they actually can touch some hearts and change some minds during this holiday season. Otherwise, I am afraid that New Year's Day will be nothing to celebrate.

Mr. Speaker, the House Judiciary Committee yesterday raised the overarching question of our generation: Will the American Constitution stand?

All the laws passed under that Constitution have elaborate enforcement mechanisms backed by armed force, but the Constitution itself has no such enforcement mechanism. It was designed to be internally self-enforcing, with the powers of government clearly divided among three separate and equal branches of government.

But this self-enforcement mechanism can only work when the powers are evenly divided, when those who exercise those powers are devoted to the Constitution, and when the American people insist on it. That is the great question for our generation and for which we are deeply answerable. Are we allowing the Constitution to disintegrate before our eyes?

The Constitution makes very clear that only Congress may make laws and that the principal responsibility of the executive is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Yet the executive branch has increasingly asserted sweeping powers to unilaterally nullify laws that it dislikes, to pick and choose who must obey the law and who need not, and even to impose entirely new laws that Congress has explicitly refused to enact.

James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said that its single most important feature was giving the legislative and not the executive branch the decision of war or peace. Yet the executive now asserts the authority to attack other nations without congressional authorization.

The Bill of Rights protects every American from retribution for expressing their political beliefs; it protects a free press from intimidation; it protects the free and open expression religious beliefs; it protects the means of individuals to protect themselves and their freedom; it protects every individual from having their records searched or their property seized without due process of law. Yet, these fundamental rights have been made a mockery of by the agents of this administration from the IRS to the Justice Department to the NSA.

The rot began long before this administration, but under this administration it has become a crisis. All this is happening, we are told, for the common good. Ours wouldn't be the first civilization to succumb to the siren song of a benevolent and all-powerful government, but every society that has fallen for this lie has awakened one morning to discover that the benevolence is gone and that the all-powerful government is still there.

Much of the structure of the American Constitution that has preserved our liberty for 225 years, that has contained the unwarranted expansion of governmental power, and that has preserved the natural and individual rights of every citizen has been allowed to decay.

The form is still there--the institutions continue to function--but they no longer serve their principle role to protect the rule of law and the liberty of the people.

Here in this Capitol, we are surrounded by the symbols of the Roman Republic. They should be a warning to us. The Roman Senate continued to exist 400 years after the fall of the Republic, but its nature and purpose had become empty.

Chairman Goodlatte quoted Gibbon yesterday, who observed that ``the principles of a free Constitution are irrevocably lost when the legislative power is dominated by the executive.'' That is precisely what is happening.

The institutions of our American Republic continue to operate, but the structures within it are rapidly degrading. In this condition, our Constitution is becoming like a rotting porch: we can still discern its form and purpose, but the structure that gave it strength and support is hollowing out through years of abuse and neglect until one day it will simply collapse.

The Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday was the first step by Congress to assess the harm already done and to begin reversing that damage before it is too late. But I must warn that

in its current divided condition Congress cannot do so alone. Ultimately, it will require the active assistance of the rightful owners of the Constitution, the American people.

How ironic it would be if the liberties of this Nation, heroically defended by the sacrifices of nine generations of Americans on far-off battlefields, might someday be carelessly thrown away here at home.

Let that not be said of our generation. Let it be said instead that just when our Constitution seemed most in peril, this generation rose up, insisted on absolute fidelity to the Constitution by those it elected, and then went on to revive, restore, and preserve that Constitution for the many generations of Americans who followed.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 255) to amend certain definitions contained in the Provo River Project Transfer Act for purposes of clarifying certain property descriptions, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 255, sponsored by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), allows the Provo River Waters Users Association to own a canal facility that it has operated, maintained, and repaid for decades. This title transfer was the original intent of public law enacted in 2004, and the passage of this bill would remove existing legal barriers in order to fulfill that intent. A companion measure by Senator Hatch passed the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in May.

The whole matter comes down to this: the canal was originally an open, earthen canal in a rural setting. The city of Provo grew up around it until, for a variety of reasons, it was decided to enclose the canal, essentially changing it to a pipeline. In order to make it possible for the local water authority to raise non-Federal capital to do so, Congress adopted the Provo River Transfer Act in 2004 to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to convey title to the association for the canal as if existed when the act was adopted.

Now that the enclosure is completed and the time has come to transfer title--as Congress directed nearly a decade ago--the Bureau of Reclamation has opined that by covering the canal, it technically is no longer a canal but rather a piped facility, that it is now different than the facility in existence when Congress ordered the transfer of title. Therefore, it doesn't meet the specifications of the conveyance act.

So, in an only in Washington, D.C., moment, we now have this measure before us that changes the facility description in the 2004 act to the ``water conveyance facility historically known as the Provo Reservoir Canal,'' so that the title transfer can proceed.

The passage of this bill would amend outdated legal definitions while accelerating repayment to the U.S. Treasury. This legislation continues the positive trend demonstrated by the Natural Resources Committee of economically empowering our communities.

The Bureau of Reclamation supports the bill. I am unaware of any opposition, and I urge its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), the author of the measure.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2388) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to take certain Federal lands located in El Dorado County, California, into trust for the benefit of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians occupies a Federal reservation in the Sierra foothills in El Dorado County, California. They lost much of their land when Highway 50 was constructed through the reservation several decades ago. They were left with enough land to eventually build a successful casino, but have very little additional space for tribal housing.

Adjacent to their reservation is a 40-acre abandoned and landlocked property. I say ``abandoned'' because it was never developed, and it is presently dangerously overgrown with scrub brush that is just waiting to become a wildfire, which could rapidly spread either to the existing reservation or to an adjacent residential neighborhood.

As it turns out, this abandoned parcel is owned by the Bureau of Land Management. The Bureau of Land Management didn't even know that it owned the property when the Miwok first approached it about this matter. In fact, I am told the BLM actually had to be convinced that it does, indeed, own the land that it has obviously never managed.

The Miwok would like to acquire this parcel for the reservation, making up some of the land they lost due to the construction of Highway 50. It would be used for tribal housing, and the bill specifically forbids its use for gambling, a condition that the Shingle Springs Band has agreed to.

The parcel is untended, overgrown, and unused, and this land transfer

would put it to productive use for reservation housing, use fully compatible with adjacent land usage. Indeed, by doing so, the tribe will be removing a major risk for both the reservation and the nearby community. Access would be through the existing reservation to avoid any impact on the existing neighborhood, and the tribe is committed to working with the nearby homeowners association to assure that it doesn't affect the rural nature of the community.

The property is on unincorporated county land, and the County Board of Supervisors, which is the land use planning agency with jurisdiction over this land, fully supports the transfer.

The administration supports my bill. I urge adoption of the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their support of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1963) to amend the Water Conservation and Utilization Act to authorize the development of non-Federal hydropower and issuance of leases of power privileges at projects constructed pursuant to the authority of the Water Conservation and Utilization Act, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

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

H.R. 1963 by Congressman Daines of Montana seeks to jump-start conduit hydropower development at 11 Bureau of Reclamation projects. The bill specifically removes statutory impediments by authorizing non- Federal hydropower development at these conduits and provides administrative and regulatory reforms necessary to foster such development.

Earlier this year, the House passed H.R. 678 by Congressman Tipton and Congressman Costa by a 416-7 vote to promote conduit hydropower development at reclamation facilities. H.R. 678 applied to hundreds of reclamation facilities that are covered under the authorities of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939. This measure applies to the remaining reclamation facilities, all of which are governed under the different and more complex authorities of the Water Conservation and Utilization Act of 1939.

The Tipton bill provided for a streamlined regulatory process in part by providing a categorical exemption for redundant environmental reviews. The WCUA actually forbids the installation of small hydroelectric generators in the projects regulated under this act, and thus the need for this separate legislation.

The arguments in favor of getting the Federal Government out of the way so that private contractors can lease existing Federal pipelines and canals for the purpose of installing small hydroelectric generators are well known to the House, as evidenced by the overwhelming bipartisan vote accorded the Tipton bill earlier this year. That bill was signed into law a few months ago, and I am told it has already produced a flood of new applications for clean and cheap small hydroelectric generators.

Not only has a new source of absolutely clean and inexpensive hydroelectricity been made available, the Federal Treasury benefits from the revenues that these leases produce in addition to the added economic activity that they enable. Mr. Daines' measure completes that work by applying the same policy to the remaining reclamation facilities that fell under the WCUA.

I commend the gentleman from Montana for his leadership on this issue, and I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines), the author of this measure,

Mr. Speaker, I again commend the gentleman from Montana for his work on this issue. It is one of the most important achievements in power development that we have had recently, the jump- starting of these small hydropower generators.

I thank the gentleman from the other side of the aisle for his support of the measure and urge its adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1241) to facilitate a land exchange involving certain National Forest System lands in the Inyo National Forest, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

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

H.R. 1241 authorizes the Forest Service to acquire two parcels of land outside the boundary of the Inyo National Forest in exchange for a parcel of national forest land conveyed to the Mammoth Mountain Ski Area.

The ski area has been operating its main base under a special-use permit. However, acquiring ownership of that parcel under this legislation would allow the ski area to conduct desperately needed renovations to its facilities. At the same time, the Forest Service would be able to acquire land that it currently leases to operate the facilities outside the boundary of the Inyo National Forest.

I urge adoption of this sensible measure authored by Congressman Paul Cook and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from California, Congressman Paul Cook, the author of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the gentleman for his support of the measure and urge its adoption. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1846) to amend the Act establishing the Lower East Side Tenement National Historic Site, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1846 expands the boundaries of the Lower East Side Tenement Historic Site to include an additional building purchased in 2007. This Manhattan museum is a National Park Service affiliated site, and therefore, it carries no cost to the taxpayers because it's owned and operated by a private foundation.

I urge its adoption and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers and reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2650) to allow the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa in the State of Minnesota to lease or transfer certain land, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation would ensure that the Non-Intercourse Act, which limits legal transactions by tribes, does not interfere with the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa tribe's ability to lease, buy, or sell fee land owned by the tribe. The bill also clearly states that it does not authorize the tribe to sell, transfer, lease, convey, or warrant all or any portion of land held in trust by the Federal Government. There is precedent for tribes to seek legislation in Congress to waive the Non-Intercourse Act for transactions of nontrust land because of an overabundance of caution by both tribal and nontribal parties.

I would ask for adoption of the bill and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the legislation and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are now 7 weeks into the implementation of ObamaCare. We know that in the first 4 weeks, 106,000 Americans placed health plans in their shopping baskets, although it is not clear how many of them actually purchased plans. Meanwhile, it is estimated that 5.5 million Americans have lost the health insurance that they had, that they liked, and that they were promised that they could keep.

The inconvenient truth is that this law has dramatically increased the ranks of the uninsured. Yesterday came word that college students are seeing their low-cost student plans canceled, with replacement costs as much as 1,800 percent higher under ObamaCare.

Although the President recently assured the Nation that the cancelations are confined to the individual market, we are now learning that his administration gives a mid-range estimate that two-thirds of the small employer plans and 45 percent of the large employer plans face cancelation as well. Some estimates are as high as 93 million Americans who have employer-sponsored plans will lose their plans next year.

And these reports don't account for the millions more who are seeing massive rate increases in their current plans; nor do they account for the millions more who have had their hours cut back to part time or had their wages cut back or have lost their jobs altogether as employers struggle to stay in business while bearing these staggering costs; nor do they account for those who discover that by accepting ObamaCare plans, they are losing their doctors.

Walmart now warns that the financial impact of this law on families could materially depress holiday shopping.

Mr. Speaker, we are watching nothing less than the wholesale destruction and collapse of the American health care system, which, for all of its flaws, was still the most advanced, accessible, adaptable, and responsive health care system that the world has ever known; and if you doubt that for a second, ask yourself where the world's elites came when they needed first-class medical care. It wasn't to Canada or England or Mexico. It was to the United States. And now we are losing that.

There was nothing unforeseen about this fiasco. Republicans have been warning of these outcomes from the very beginning.

When we warned that Americans would not be able to keep their health care plans, we were called extremists. When we warned that ObamaCare would result in massive cost increases on consumers, we were called alarmists. When we warned that many Americans would lose their jobs, have their hours cut back, or see salary cuts, we were called racists. When we asked for a 1-year delay in this program to address these issues, we were called demagogues, arsonists, and jihadists.

But, now, all of these warnings are coming to pass, and still the Democrats persist in imposing this law on an unwilling Nation. In doing so, great violence is being done to our Constitution.

In implementing this takeover of one-sixth of the American economy, the President has repeatedly asserted what can only be described as a doctrine of executive nullification--the authority to ignore the parts of the law that he finds inconvenient or embarrassing and to pick and choose who must obey the law and who need not.

He has granted some 1,600 exemptions for well-connected interests-- mainly labor unions. He has excused big businesses from the requirement that they provide health care to their employees, while forcing employees to fend for themselves. He has excused Members of Congress and their staffs from paying the full cost of ObamaCare policies.

And last Thursday, he announced that health insurers can ignore the law that requires them to cancel existing policies. Notice that he didn't say that he was going to seek to change the law. He said he would ignore the law for a year. He invited health insurers to do the same, in direct violation of the principle constitutional responsibility of the Presidency to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.''

Mr. Speaker, I appeal to my Democratic colleagues to consider the damage that this law is doing, both to the American health care system and to the rule of law itself and, above all, to the families who are struggling to deal with its effects.

I ask them to heed the growing pleas of the American people to have their health plans restored to them. I ask them to join Republicans in repealing ObamaCare and to help us replace it with the patient-centered health care system that we have long proposed: reforms that preserve the best of American health care while repairing its flaws.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard yet another empty promise from the President that, by fiat, he can delay provisions of law under ObamaCare that have already cost a staggering 5 million Americans their health insurance.

Now, notice that he has not changed the law. He has simply said that he will ignore the law, and he invites health insurers to do the same.

This is a constitutional abomination. We live in a nation of laws and not of men. The principal constitutional responsibility of the President is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. If a law is bad, we change that law. We don't ignore it.

As a practical matter, the President's announcement has no effect. Since the law hasn't changed, the criminal and civil liability that a

health insurer would incur for disobeying it has not changed either.

The President has cruelly given people false hope while severely damaging the fundamental concept that separates democracy from despotism, the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, by the government's own numbers, for every American who has found health coverage under ObamaCare since it rolled out, some 50 Americans have lost their health insurance on the individual market, but that doesn't account for the many millions more who are losing employer insurance or are losing wages as a direct result of the Democrats' ObamaCare fiasco.

One such family is the Howard Asbury family in Mariposa, California. Mr. Asbury writes:

I am a retired union carpenter, and I am covered under the

union's retiree health plan. When I retired, my wife went to

work in the billing department for an ambulance company.

Yesterday, she was informed by the owner that he was dropping

all health care coverage and cutting all employees below

supervisor to part-time. We will be able to enroll her and

our two children under my retirement health plan through my

union, although this does not address the loss of income. So

now we have to pay for her coverage and the children on $440

less income.

Mr. Speaker, my office is being flooded by such complaints. I have to believe that our colleagues across the aisle are hearing the same things. Why aren't they listening?

Madam Speaker, this summer the biggest fire in the history of the Sierra Nevada Mountains burned 400 square miles of forest land. The fire left behind an unprecedented swath of environmental devastation that threatens the loss of not only the affected forest land for generations but sets events in motion that could threaten the surrounding forests for many years to come.

The fire also left behind as much as a billion board feet of dead timber on Federal land that could be sold to raise hundreds of millions of dollars, money that could then be used to replant and restore the devastated forests. In addition, processing that timber would help to revive the economy of the stricken region. But time is already running out. Within a year, the value of the timber rapidly declines as the wood is devoured by insects and rot. That's the problem: cumbersome environmental reviews and the litigation that inevitably follows will run out the clock on this valuable asset until it becomes worthless.

Indeed, it becomes worse than worthless--it becomes hazardous. Bark and wood-boring beetles are already moving in to feast on the dead and dying timber, and a population explosion of pestilence can be expected if those dead trees remain. The beetles won't confine themselves to the fire areas, posing a mortal threat to the surrounding forests in the years ahead.

By the time the normal bureaucratic reviews and lawsuits have run their course, what was once forest land will have already begun converting to brush land, and by the following year, reforestation will become infinitely more difficult and expensive.

Within 2 years, several feet of brush will have built up, and the smaller trees will begin toppling on this tinder. It is not possible to build a more perfect fire stack than that. Intense, second-generation fires will take advantage of this fuel, sterilizing the soil, eroding the landscape, fouling the watersheds, and threatening the surrounding forest for many years to come.

Without timely salvage and reforestation, we know the fate of the Sierras because we have seen the result of benign neglect after previous fires. The trees don't come back for many generations. Instead, thick brush takes over the land that was once shaded by towering forests. The brush quickly overwhelms any seedlings struggling to make a start. It replaces the diverse ecosystems supported by the forests with scrub brush.

For this reason, I have introduced H.R. 3188, which waives the time- consuming environmental review process and prevents the endless litigation that always follows. It authorizes Federal forest managers, following well-established environmental protocols for salvage, to sell the dead timber and to supervise its careful removal while there is still time.

The hundreds of millions of dollars raised can then be directed toward replanting the region before layers of brush choke off any chance of forest regrowth for generations to come. It is modeled on legislation authored by Democratic Senator Tom Daschle for salvaging dead and dying trees in the Black Hills National Forest, a measure credited with speeding the preservation and recovery of that forest.

This legislation has spawned lurid tales from the activist left of uncontrolled logging in the Sierras. Nothing could be further from the truth. This legislation vests full control of the salvage plans with Federal forest managers, not the logging companies. It leaves Federal foresters in charge of enforcing salvage plans that fully protect the environment.

The left wants a policy of benign neglect: let a quarter-million acres of destroyed timber rot in place, surrender the ravaged land to beetles, and watch contentedly as the forest ecosystem is replaced by scrub land. Yes, without human intervention the forests will eventually return, but not in the lifetimes of ourselves, our children, or our children's children.

If we want to stop the loss of this forest land and if we want to control the beetle infestation before it explodes out of control, the dead timber has to come out soon. If we take it out now, we can generate the funds necessary to suppress brush buildup, plant new seedlings, and restore these forests for the use and enjoyment of our children. If we wait for the normal bureaucratic reviews and delays, we will have lost these forests to the next several generations. That is a choice. Congress must make that choice now, or nature will make that choice for us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the members of the Auburn Area Honor Guard, who bring military honors to the memorial services of deceased service men and women in northern California. These patriotic volunteers present themselves, rain or shine, at funeral services and provide the traditional military farewell ceremony. This includes presentation of the American flag to next of kin, firing of three volleys, and playing ``Taps'' to honor those who have served our country.

The Auburn Area Honor Guard has presented the colors at more than five-hundred veterans' funerals. As word spreads about the Honor Guard, its services are in demand in an ever-larger geographic area. Demonstrating their never-ending commitment, the Guard has increased its scope to meet the demand. Thankfully, grateful citizens have stepped up and contributed funds to help the Honor Guard meet travel and other expenses.

Due to the ceaseless efforts of the dedicated and patriotic men and women of the Auburn Area Honor Guard, the friends and families of hundreds of veterans have seen their loved ones off with a proper military funeral. With the support of a grateful nation, the Auburn Area Honor Guard leads the way in providing a ceremony that honors and memorializes the service that military men and women have rendered to their nation.

Mr. Speaker, over the past few weeks, it has become obvious that we are watching nothing less than the collapse of the American health care system. Millions of Americans are losing their health plans and set adrift into a dysfunctional system where they cannot find comparable affordable policies.

Few are signing up on the ObamaCare exchanges. How few, we don't know. Because the numbers are so embarrassing, the administration refuses to report them. There are published reports that some 80 percent of the signups are pushed into the Medicaid system, which is itself nearing functional collapse as doctors simply opt out. Those who are able to keep their health plans are seeing their rates skyrocket to unaffordable extremes. Those few who can find affordable policies often discover they are losing their doctors.

Many employers are dropping their employee health plans or reducing salaries or cutting back on work hours or laying off workers while trying to cope with increased costs. A constituent of mine reports her employer cut her salary 23 percent as it tries to cope with ObamaCare costs.

The ObamaCare Web site is a monument to governmental incompetence. This is a Web site designed to sell a single product that has been under development for more than 3 years at a taxpayer cost of more than $600 million--more than was spent developing Facebook or Twitter--and it does not work.

But that is not the big problem.

The big problem is that, today, there are fewer people with health insurance--apparently, a lot fewer than before this program began less than 1 month ago. This is the disaster that Republicans tried to prevent or at least to delay, but that disaster is now unfolding before our eyes with dire consequences for millions of Americans.

With all its flaws, the American health care system was the finest in the world. It was the most innovative, the most advanced, the most adaptable, and the most responsive to the individual needs of patients, and now we are losing it.

The one question I keep hearing is: Well, what do the Republicans propose?

In fact, Republicans have had a comprehensive alternative for years. Spearheaded by Dr. Tom Price of Georgia and Dr. Phil Roe of Tennessee and sponsored by the Republican Study Committee, this package would bring within the reach of all Americans health plans that they could choose according to their own individual needs of their own families, that they could own and that they could control, but this package has never passed the House, and it is high time that it did.

It extends the same tax breaks we currently give to companies to employees so they can afford to buy their own health care, again, according to their own needs.

It expands Health Savings Accounts so people can meet their needs with pretax income.

It restores to people the freedom to shop across State lines to find the best policies to suit their needs.

It restores flexibility so that health plans can accommodate people with preexisting conditions while expanding risk pools to provide for those conditions.

It attacks cost drivers like medical liability law that are making health care unaffordable.

It restores pricing flexibility to plans so that a healthy young person can again purchase catastrophic insurance for next to nothing.

It takes the best of the American health care system, preserves it, and corrects its flaws.

Now, I realize the Senate is likely to bury this reform as it has so many, but it is important that the House pass it so the American people can see that there is still hope to save what was once the finest health care system in the world and that it can be again as soon as this fever dream of ObamaCare finally breaks.

We have just been through a government shutdown because Democrats refused to even consider delaying the ObamaCare train wreck. They got their way, and that train wreck is now upon us. I believe, in coming months, the American people will recognize the urgent warnings that the Republicans tried so desperately to convey, and they will be looking for a way out. We need to blaze that trail now.

For that reason, I ask the House leadership to bring the Republican health care reforms to the floor, to get them to the Senate, and then let the American people decide.

Mr. Speaker, freedom works. It is time we put it back to work.

Mr. Speaker, this Nation has gone through 18 government shutdowns in the last 37 years. Fifteen of those 18 shutdowns occurred when Democrats controlled the House. In those 15 shutdowns, the Democrats demanded increased abortion services and labor and environmental policy concessions.

Perhaps the reason we don't remember those shutdowns as vividly is because, in those days, Presidents negotiated around the clock to resolve the disputes that caused them and did everything that they could to minimize the public's inconvenience and suffering.

This time was different. This time, the President refused to negotiate, and he took unprecedented steps to amplify the pain and suffering that the public endured. A senior administration official told The Wall Street Journal, ``We are winning . . . It doesn't really matter to us how long the shutdown lasts because what matters is the end result.'' A park ranger said, ``We've been told to make life as difficult as we can for people. It's disgusting.''

This administration barricaded open-air venues like the World War II Memorial for Honor Flights by World War II veterans, yet it opened The National Mall for an amnesty rally by illegal immigrants. It closed simple parking lots and roadside turnouts that merely offered passers- by distant views of Mount Rushmore and Yosemite. It ordered businesses to close just because they leased land from the Federal Government. It even tried to close the ocean to Florida fishermen. These measures had never been taken in prior shutdowns, and they often cost more than simply leaving these venues open.

A constituent of mine in Hume, California, wrote, ``To get to my place of residence and work, I have to travel through the Big Stump entrance station of Kings Canyon National Park on Highway 180. Currently, the entire roadway is barricaded, and it appears as though the Park Service is attempting to prevent anyone from traveling to or through the national park. I was in the area 17 years ago as a young adult during the last government shutdown, and this type of thing didn't happen. Sure, the facilities at the visitor centers were closed, but the land was still accessible.''

Now, why would the administration do this? Why would it deliberately order our public servants to ``make life as difficult as possible for people''? They told us why--because they were winning politically.

On October 2, House Republicans, joined by 23 Democrats, passed H.J. Res. 70 to open the national parks, but the bill was killed in the Senate. Why? Well, they told us why. They were winning politically.

When Republican Governor Jan Brewer stepped forward to use State funds to staff the Grand Canyon National Park--as Arizona had done in previous shutdowns--she was stonewalled by the administration for 10 days. Why? Well, they told us why. They were winning politically.

Now what was the outrageous Republican demand the Democrats refused even to discuss during the 16-day shutdown while they ordered our public servants to make life as difficult as possible for people? Well, on September 30, with the deadline just hours away, House Republicans had dropped all conditions to fund the entire government with one substantive exception: delay the individual mandate that forces people to buy policies against their will. Democrats summarily rejected this proposal and, for 16 days, refused to negotiate on this single point while literally accusing Republicans of sedition.

Then, this past Monday, the President's press secretary made this stunning admission: the administration may, itself, seek to delay the individual mandate by dropping the penalty for noncompliance. They have got to be kidding.

For the 16 days of the shutdown, the only substantive dispute was the Republican plea to delay the individual mandate for the millions of Americans who couldn't find or afford ObamaCare policies. Doing so would have ended the impasse instantly. During those 16 days, it was clear to everyone that the exchanges weren't working. Yet for 16 days, the President and congressional Democrats refused even to discuss the matter while they turned their formidable propaganda machine to the task of winning politically. Then, just 4 days after Republicans capitulated on all points, including dropping our single substantive request to delay the individual mandate, the administration is now, itself, considering delaying the individual mandate.

Mr. Speaker, these facts speak for themselves and need no embellishment from me. John Adams once observed, ``Facts are stubborn things.'' As passions cool and reason resumes its rightful place in the Nation's discourse, these facts will speak eloquently and stubbornly of what happens when politics trump policy and propaganda trumps reality.