Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague from Georgia in support of this legislation. This legislation is simple and direct, and as my colleague stated, is necessary. It is basically a technical correction for the Presidential $1 Coin Act enacted in December 2005. That bill sought to use the mechanism of a regularly changed design on the $1 coin to draw that coin into circulation, and it had specific language directing that retail operations on Federal property, including vending machines, accept and dispense $1 coins. It makes sense since the coin is an official form of U.S. exchange, and not to handle the coin would be inappropriate.

But certain vending machines, such as soda machines, only accept change and bank notes of no greater value than $1. Logically, there would be no reason for these machines to dispense a $1 coin. To convert them to do so and to stock them with a stack of coins that never would be dispensed clearly would be unnecessary and not intended by the original bill.

Worse, as my friend from Georgia mentioned, oftentimes that cost for doing so would fall on our servicemen and women. So there really is no point to this change that was mandated, and we can easily fix that today.

Mr. Speaker, the language of this bill exempts solely those $1 vending machines from the requirement to dispense $1 coins. I urge all Members to support this bill, and I commend my colleague from Georgia for bringing this bill to the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, it used to be that there were just some things you simply didn't play partisan games with: Our military, our kids, and especially our veterans.

But not in this Congress. In this House of politics, no matter is safe from political posturing and exploitation. From playing class warfare with every proposal, to using children as political props, politics has trumped policy from day one.

Now the new majority has sunk to a new low, holding our Nation's proud veterans hostage. And for what, Madam Speaker? Pork.

Though the veterans spending bill passed this House months ago with 409 votes, the new majority has refused to allow the legislation to move forward, and veterans demand action.

This is a clear demonstration of where the majority's priorities lie. It's shameful and sad that the loony left in this House are willing to exploit our veterans as a political tool so that they can get their hands on ever more hard-earned American tax dollars.

Madam Speaker, bring up the veterans bill free from pork and free from politics.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 7: Page 24, line 7, strike ``section 301''

and insert ``section 301 and has been certified by the

Secretary of the Treasury that it does not significantly

reduce or displace private sector competition''.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 8: Page 18, after line 14, insert the

following new subsection:

(g) Limiting Federal Loans to Only Catastrophic Events.--

Notwithstanding subsections (d) and (e), the Secretary shall

not make any subsidized loans under this section unless it

determines that a natural disaster, or series of natural

disasters, has occurred causing homeowners insurance losses

that either--

(1) exceed the capacity of the insurance industry for that

region; or

(2) exceed the amount equal to such losses projected to

incur from a natural disaster event or events having losses

of a magnitude such that the event or events occur once every

100 years in the United States for homeowners insurance with

respect to the covered peril.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 9: Page 24, after line 14, insert the

following new section:

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great privilege and honor to come back to the floor of the House and present some alternative views, some views that I hope are more grounded in truth as this is another edition of the Official Truth Squad. We've heard some interesting comments over the last hour and over the last few days and weeks and months. So, Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honor to be designated by our leadership to come and share some words with this Chamber.

I would first comment about the relative tone and the divisiveness of the language that we have just heard. It just astounds me that people think who come to Washington that our constituents want us to be divisive. When I go home, what I hear from folks is that they want us to work together, that they want us to work together positively for solutions. So the class warfare debate that we have just experienced over the last hour is truly remarkable, as one Member talked about the spirit of Lincoln, a proud Republican, and what he brought to our Nation. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people is what he championed. He also championed an end to class warfare. So I would encourage my colleagues to read further in history and to expand their vision of what it is that their constituents truly want. And as I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, my constituents, our constituents, I think, want us to work together.

This is the Official Truth Squad. This is a group of folks who come to the floor and have an opportunity to address our colleagues and hopefully

bring, over the course of an hour, a little brighter perspective, a little more upbeat perspective, a little more optimistic perspective, and, hopefully, a little more truthful perspective because so often what happens on the floor of this House during the course of our debates is that the truth tends to be swept away. And, again, that frustrates our constituents. It frustrates my constituents, I know, when they ask why we can't stick to the facts, stick to reason as we try to solve the significant challenges that confront us as a Nation.

I have a number of favorite quotes. One of them is this one from the late United States Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He said, famously, ``Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.'' Another one of my favorite quotes is ``Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.'' So I was so pleased when I heard either the Speaker or the majority leader say just this in a debate recently, and I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to heed this. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and you ought to state so, and that's appropriate. But you're not entitled to your own facts.

So tonight, Mr. Speaker, we're going to share a few facts with our colleagues, and I am going to start by bringing a couple of quotes from a true American institution. Certainly the ``Tonight Show'' is an American institution. The current host of the ``Tonight Show,'' Jay Leno, oftentimes crystallizes in just a very humorous way what the American people are thinking. So I thought it would be appropriate to share with our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, what Jay Leno has said over the past couple of days. This is about the state of Congress right now. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the numbers for Congress aren't great right now. I would again encourage my colleagues to try to use the sense of what the American people are saying as a positive impetus to have us move forward together in a commonsense, positive, upbeat, principled way that reflects the will of our Nation.

But Jay Leno said the other day, ``And our new Democratic Congress, remember, they promised longer workweeks. Well, now they announced they're going to a 4-day workweek. I guess they realized they don't need a full 5 days to do nothing.'' It was alluding to the fact that really not much has gotten done in these first 10 months of this 110th Congress under the new leadership. And it hasn't for a variety of reasons. We will talk a little bit about that tonight. But I would suggest most clearly, Mr. Speaker, that it hasn't because this new majority seems to be unwilling to work together on behalf of the American people. SCHIP is a classic example, and our colleagues mentioned that, and we will talk a little bit about that tonight.

Jay Leno also said just 2 days ago, ``The Democrats in Congress have announced they will now be taking Fridays off. Apparently they were getting worried their approval rating was getting too high.'' As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the approval rating for Congress is not great.

And that troubles me. It should trouble all of us. It troubles me because I think that what the American people are seeing when they look here to Washington, when they look to the Speaker and to the leaders that are running this Congress, they see an institution and they see a group of leaders who are not willing to work with each other. And for those of us who are less than senior Members, certainly in the minority party at this time, it is very distressing because we came here, all of us came here, to solve problems. I oftentimes encourage my colleagues to go back and read their first piece of campaign literature in their first campaign because I think, Mr. Speaker, that speaks to the goals and the vision and the dreams that we all had when we came to Congress.

But as you know, Mr. Speaker, a recent Zogby poll found that for the second month in a row, this Democrat-led Congress's approval rating was 11 percent. Now, why is that? Well, I think if you look at the bills that have been passed through this Congress and signed into law, there have been 107 of them so far, Mr. Speaker, 107 bills. Now, you might think that that would be a grand accomplishment, and I suspect that it is on one measure. This new majority touted the fact that they have had over a thousand votes. What they didn't say is that the vast majority of those were procedural votes. They were determining how the bills ought to move forward, oftentimes in significantly noninclusive ways. But 107 bills have gone through the House and the Senate and signed into law by the President. So I thought it would be helpful to kind of break down those 107 bills. What were they? Were they wonderful solutions, as have been proposed, to children's health insurance? Were they wonderful solutions to health system reform? As a physician myself, I believe so strongly that we need significant, positive, patient-centered health system reform.

Was that one of the bills that was signed? Was controlling the crisis that we have in the area of illegal immigration, was that one of the bills? Well, regretfully, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, it wasn't.

In fact, of 107 bills signed into law, 47 of those bills named post offices, courthouses or roads. Now, those are important things to do, and certainly when we name and honor individuals with the naming of a post office or a courthouse or a road, that's an important thing to do, but it ought not be something that the majority party brings forward and champions as a grand accomplishment. I haven't looked at what the votes were on those 47 bills, but I suspect that, by and large, they were unanimous. I will just take a wild guess, Mr. Speaker; I suspect that the vast majority of those were unanimous.

So, 47 of the 107 bills signed into law were naming post offices or roads or courthouses. Forty-four of the bills were noncontroversial measures that were either sponsored by Republicans or they passed overwhelmingly. And those are the kind of routine things that you've just got to do to keep the trains running on time here.

So, 47 naming post offices or other buildings; 44 were noncontroversial. Fourteen of the remaining 16 were to extend preexisting laws or laws that had been passed during the Republican-led Congress. Now, that means that there were only two left out of that whole 107 bills that were signed into law. In fact, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that these were the two most important bills. One of them was the extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and we'll talk a little bit about that. But to keep our Nation safe, one of them was that bill. That passed. But as I note, Mr. Speaker, that passed over the objection of the leadership of the Democrat Party.

So, one of the most important things we've done, in fact, probably one of the two most important things that we've done, passed over the objection of the leadership of the Democrat Party, the majority party. The other bill that passed was the supplemental to provide appropriate resources for our troops.

So, Mr. Speaker, not an opinion, but a fact is that we have, yes, we have, indeed, had over 1,000 votes. And the majority party is very proud of that, and maybe they should be. But when you look at the number of bills that have passed Congress, 107, 47 of those were to name post offices or buildings, 44 were noncontroversial, 14 were to continue previous law, and two, the two most important, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the appropriate resources for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, passed over the objection and the vote of the majority leadership, the majority of the majority leadership.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure that's something to champion, but I will tell you that I believe that's part of the reason that the American people say, ``What's going on? What's going on up there in Washington? Can you all please work together on behalf of the American people?'' which is what I believe and my colleagues, I know, believe we ought to do. In fact, many of those things would be very, very humorous if they weren't so doggone serious. We are in challenging times, Mr. Speaker, and I would suggest and encourage my colleagues, frankly, on both sides of the aisle to put positive issues out there and work together as we move forward.

One of the bills that we heard from our good friends on was the SCHIP bill, the State Children's Health Insurance

Program, and I will be joined by a number of colleagues tonight to talk about that. I would just like to say that as a physician who practiced in the northern side of Atlanta for over 20 years taking care of kids, I take personal offense to anybody who says that those of us who have not supported so far the State Children's Health Insurance reauthorization bill don't care about kids. Clearly, we care about kids. I spent my entire professional life caring for kids.

The other side says, well, 81 percent of the American people want SCHIP. Well, they do when you ask them the question, do you support the State Children's Health Insurance Program? And I ask that of my folks when I go home and have meetings and talk to Rotary Clubs and other kinds of groups. And I have asked them over the past 2 or 3 months, do you support renewing the State Children's Health Insurance Program? And sure enough, the vast majority of the people raise their hand, and as well they should. And I ask them to keep their hand up. And then I said, now, would you support that bill if you knew that poor kids were not going to be taken care of before kids in wealthier families? Put your hand down if you wouldn't support that bill if you knew that kids from higher income families would get insurance paid for by the taxpayer before lower income kids. And about one-third or so of the hands come down; still a number of hands up there. And I say that because that's what is in the bill that the majority party passed and that was vetoed by the President, and then we sustained that veto.

And then I say, well, now, would you support that State Children's Health Insurance Program if you knew that it also covered childless adults? And a number of other hands come down. And I don't make that up. I ask that question because that's in the bill. Now we've got about one-half or maybe one-third of the folks still raising their hand saying they would support the bill. I say, now, would you support the bill if you knew that 2 million kids would be forced from private personal health insurance onto public, State-run, government-run bureaucratic medicine? And you get almost all of them coming down at that point. They've kind of gotten the clue that in the fine print in the bill, it's not what they've been led to believe.

And then I ask them, well, would you support the bill if you knew that in order to make the funding work, you would have to have 22 million new smokers in America because it's paid for by tobacco tax, would you support it now?

Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't have to tell you the results of this unscientific poll. But the fact of the matter is, not an opinion, but the fact of the matter is when I get through outlining what was in the bill, there isn't a hand left. There isn't a hand still raised that said they would support that bill.

And so, Mr. Speaker, that's why the numbers have come down. In the length of time that the majority party has been demagoguing this issue and trumpeting out their radio ads and their television ads across this Nation, what has happened is that the American people have recognized that the story that they were being told by this majority party, the Democrat leadership, was, in fact, not the truth. It may have been an opinion; it certainly wasn't the truth.

And so now what we see is 55, 60, 60-plus percent of the American people saying yes, we want to help poor kids, absolutely, that's appropriate. And we'll talk tonight about how we should do that, a positive message, an upbeat message, an optimistic message, a message that says, yes, Americans are generous, we know that, and they believe that, in fact, there is a better way, there is a better way to do business here in Washington, hopefully to raise those numbers. There is also a better way to fashion a bill that would provide health insurance for low-income kids.

So I am pleased to be joined tonight by a couple of colleagues, my good friend from New Jersey, who certainly knows fiscal issues as well as the issue of State Children's Health Insurance Program. I look forward to your comments this evening and yield to my good friend Mr. Garrett.

I would be happy to yield.

Would the gentleman yield?

I appreciate your perspective on it and your comments because they ring true. Those are the absolute facts, Mr. Speaker.

And to put a few more numbers on that, at 300 percent of the poverty level, which is about $62,000, $63,000 of income for a family of four, 79 percent of those families already have health insurance. The children have health insurance. And this bill that the President vetoed and the veto that we sustained, this bill would have made it so that those children would have been essentially forced, because the employers would say, well, why should I insure these kids if the government is going to do it, those kids would be forced into government-run medicine.

At 300 percent of the poverty level, at 62, $63,000, folks who live in families with incomes at that level or below comprise 53 percent of the kids in this Nation, 53 percent of the kids, which means that over half of the kids would be eligible for State-run, government-run bureaucratic health care. And as a physician, I know that whenever the government got involved in the decisions I was trying to make on behalf of my patients, it was even more difficult.

I am pleased to welcome my good friend and physician colleague from Georgia, who understands those issues as well with governmental intervention into the practice of medicine. I appreciate you joining us tonight and look forward to your comments.

I try to bring posters, because when I look at something like this it really drives the issue home and brings it much more clear to me. But this is what you have mentioned that is so true, and the bill that was passed, as you said, would require 22 million new smokers, new smokers, that means from 2010 to 2017, 22 new Americans would have to start smoking. This is the number of folks that would have to begin smoking just in order to pay for the program.

Thank you so much. I appreciate my physician colleague pointing out again the number of new smokers needed to pay for it. And the last time I remember, it has been a while since I have been in medical practice, but we used to try to get folks to quit smoking, that is what we tried to get them to do, instead of beginning to smoke to pay for it.

This chart really describes it very, very well, talking about the bait and switch of the funding. In addition to having a tobacco tax pay for it, which is really counterproductive because we want folks to quit smoking, not start smoking, but in addition to that, what happens at 5 years, this is 2008 program, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, when you get out to this fifth year, what happens in the majority party's bill, the Democrats' bill? The funding drops way off, which means that they weren't sincere about this in the very beginning.

It really isn't about cost. It is about control, about who is going to control health care. Is it going to be patients, individuals, families and doctors? Or is it going to be government? It really is about something as basic as that, a basic question.

I'm so pleased to be joined tonight by my good friend from Florida who has a district that is probably as sensitive to health care as any in this Nation, Ginny Brown-Waite. I appreciate so much your joining us and I look forward to your comments.

Thank you so much, Congresswoman Ginny Brown- Waite. We appreciate your perspective. What a moving story about the beginning of the program where you were on the front lines at the beginning. I know of nobody in this Congress who has greater compassion for kids than you. I sincerely appreciate your coming down, sharing that story and trying to bring some truth. That is what we are trying to do, trying to bring some truth and some light to this issue.

When folks at home ask me what the alternative is, because there are alternatives, there are wonderful, positive alternatives, a number of other Members of Congress have introduced bills. I, along with over 60 folks in Congress, have introduced a bill that we call More Children More Choices Act. It would be a bill that would in fact reauthorize SCHIP, State Children's Health Insurance Program, up to 200 percent of the poverty level, that is $42,000 for a family of four. For those kids between $42,000 and $62,000 and their family, we would provide premium assistance, premium support, make it so that all kids can, indeed, get health insurance. But most of those kids would then be able to have health insurance provided in a personal and private way so that their doctors and their families were making health care decisions, not the government.

Thank you so much. I appreciate your joining us and providing that perspective.

Again, Mr. Speaker, there are all sorts of alternatives. The alternative we put forward was H.R. 3888. I encourage my colleagues to look at it.

It's a bill that would reauthorize SCHIP. It would make certain that we had premium assistance or support for

those folks in low to middle-income families so that they could make certain that they could own their own personal private health insurance and be able to make health care decisions, with families and doctors being the ones in charge, not State or Federal Government. It would allow States greater flexibility to provide health insurance for their uninsured population.

So I would encourage my colleagues to look at that. I think it is the kind of bill that folks across this Nation I think are clamoring for because it allows us to work together in a positive way and do something that benefits our constituents, does something that benefits the vast majority of Americans. One of the things that benefits the vast majority of Americans is not to have the Federal Government reach into their pockets and destroy their economic well-being.

This Federal Government, under the new leadership here, has shown a penchant for increasing the desire to have this government involved in all sorts of personal decisions, and probably the most personal of decisions is what to do with one's money. When you think about it, tax issues, taxes are, in actuality, the government, either the local or the State or the Federal Government coming into peoples' lives and saying, We know how to spend your money better than you do. We know so well how to spend your money better than you do that we are going to take it from you, because you certainly don't know exactly what you ought to be doing with your money.

This new majority, this new majority has passed all sorts of tax bills, almost at every turn. As we have talked about, Mr. Speaker, they have passed a $392.5 billion tax increase in their budget; $50 billion in new energy taxes; $35 billion in new tobacco taxes; $7.5 billion in new taxes on a farm bill. Hold on to your wallet when you go to the gas tank; a 55 cents per gallon increase in gas taxes for infrastructure and global warming studies; new taxes on homeowners by ending mortgage deductions.

Mr. Speaker, that isn't all, because Congressman Rangel, chairman of the Ways and Means, you have got to honor him for his candor, because what he says is he is coming with the mother of all tax hikes, the mother of all tax increases, and, Mr. Speaker, this is a $3.5 trillion proposal for a tax increase over the next 10 years, the largest individual tax increase in American history, $3.5 trillion. Mr. Speaker, that is with a T. Only in Washington can we talk in those kind of numbers.

It is very concerting to me, I know to my constituents, and it's concerting to my colleagues who have joined me tonight to talk about the issue of taxes, the issue of money and Washington's appetite for money.

I am pleased to welcome my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).

I thank my friend from California for outlining what truly is a frightening issue for many Americans. Many folks, especially in the middle class, there has been talk about a war on the middle class. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, the war on the middle class is being fully engaged by this majority party when you think about a $3.5 trillion tax increase.

Congressman Rangel, again, you have to honor him and commend him for his candor and his honesty. He says, well, look, 90 million Americans will have a tax decrease with his proposal. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is that over 200 million Americans will have their taxes increased. That is where this $3.5 trillion comes from. It comes from anybody who is paying taxes currently to any degree will have their taxes increased. My friend from California outlined so many different ways that we are taxed and taxed and taxed by folks who think they know how to spend our money better. I believe I know that most folks on our side of the aisle believe that individuals know how to spend that money better. I recognize my good friend from Ohio, who believes that sincerely and has great knowledge and acumen about the issue of taxes and financial issues, my good friend, Mr. Jordan from Ohio.

Thanks so very much for joining us tonight, and for really shedding the truth on issues as they relate to taxes. You are so right about the spending.

That is what we have seen in this Congress, Mr. Speaker, is bill after bill after bill with more spending and more spending and more spending. And it will drive, it has to drive, increased taxes. So what we have seen is a proposal from not just a back-bencher, not just somebody who took some wild hair and decided that they were going to propose a tax increase; the proposal comes from the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the tax writing committee. And in fact the Speaker in her first comments about it said she supported it.

Mr. Speaker, on Halloween, you talk about something that is frightening. As my friend from California said, that is frightening, to have the Speaker and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee supporting a $3.5 trillion tax increase, the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation, on individuals.

My good friend from California, I am pleased to yield.

I thank the gentleman for those comments, but the truth sometimes is painful. And it is important as leaders in this Nation

that we bring the truth to our constituents. And the truth of the tax bill that has been proposed is on this chart right here, Mr. Speaker. This describes the time from 2007 through 2050 and the amount of money that would be raised, the amount of taxes that would be raised by the Democrats is this orange line right here, this top line, and it continues to go up and up and up.

And the reason it is important to appreciate it going up is this ordinate here, the Y axis, has the percent of GDP. That is the entire economy of the United States. And once you get above about 18, 19, 20 at the outside, the economy tends to plummet. You can't run the economy in an aggressive and appropriate way to provide jobs for people when you get above 20 percent.

And the majority's party plan, the plan proposed by the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and supported by the Speaker of the House in her first comments, what that plan does is move us upwards of 24 percent of gross domestic product. Mr. Speaker, that is a frightening prospect. That is not the kind of leadership, I believe, that the American people bargained for last November. The kind of leadership that they wanted, that they desired, were individuals to work together for solutions.

And the yellow line down here, Mr. Speaker, is a solution. It is called the Taxpayer Choice Act. It is uplifting, optimistic, enthusiastic support of the American people. It says, Mr. and Mrs. American, you know what to do with your money more than we do; and we believe that so strongly, we are not going to increase taxes on you. If you work harder, you will be able to keep more money. You will be able to appreciate the fruits of your labor. Isn't that what America is all about, Mr. Speaker? To be able to reward hard work and reward success and reward entrepreneurship and reward vision? That is what America is all about. That is what my constituents tell me when I go home.

So my constituents are concerned, which is why the numbers for Congress are so very, very low. An 11 percent approval rate of the United States Congress by the American people. Again, that troubles me. This is a wonderful, fine institution. It works best when people work together positively for their constituents.

So I challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I challenge them to embrace them in the SCHIP arena, embrace a positive bill which provides reauthorization for the bill but ensures that moms and dads and families and kids can be able to make health care decisions with their doctor without the intervention of the Federal or State government.

As a physician, I know oh so well how the intervention of the State and Federal Government into the practice of medicine destroys the ability to take care of people. It makes it so you can't provide quality health care for children and moms and dads.

There are alternatives to that. H.R. 3888, the More Children More Choices Act. More kids being insured, the same number of kids proposed by the other side, but more choices. More personal ownership and more ability to control one's future.

In the area of taxes, Mr. Speaker, the alternative is clear. It is allowing Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money. It is what we have done for the last 6 years. It has resulted in the largest economic boom we have seen in a number of decades. In fact, it has resulted in the largest economic boom that we have seen since taxes were decreased before in the sixties and the eighties under President Kennedy and President Reagan. And what we saw under them was increasing revenues to the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, it is an incredible privilege to come to this floor and present ideas and speak on behalf on our constituents in a positive and optimistic and enthusiastic way. I encourage my colleagues to embrace the kind of optimism and enthusiasm we have for America. And if this majority party would do just that, I promise you that the ratings for this Congress would increase. I look forward to joining my colleagues in that positive and upbeat way.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 1012, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

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

Mr. Speaker, has the Speaker determined the vote on the previous motion?

I move to reconsider the vote.

Motion to Table Offered by Ms. Slaughter

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank my friend for yielding.

As a physician for over 25 years, we've got a diagnosis for what's going on here today. It's called ``a crying shame.'' Crying shame.

You hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle that there are multiple improvements that are made in this bill. Well, they didn't improve the portion of the bill that said we ought to take care of poor kids first. What they did was weaken the requirements for making certain that you were providing benefits to legal residents in both SCHIP and in Medicaid, and they did all that with a massive tax increase. It doesn't sound like improvements to me, Mr. Speaker.

But there is an alternative. It's H.R. 3888. It provides insurance for the same number of kids that this bill does. It does so in a way that didn't move kids from personal private insurance to government-run bureaucratic health care; and it does all of that without a tax increase, all of it without a tax increase.

So why proceed today? Because, as the majority party knows, this is about all politics, all the time.

So the diagnosis, Mr. Speaker, ``a crying shame.''

Madam Speaker, I want to say to my friend from Michigan, the chairman of the committee, that he says that this bill is coming to the floor today because all of the concerns in a letter that were about this bill have been addressed.

Well, as a physician and a coauthor of that letter, I respectfully disagree. The letter said that SCHIP ought to be reserved for low- income kids first. In fact, what this bill does is provide incentives to ensure higher-income kids before poor kids.

The letter said that SCHIP ought to be for children only. In fact, CBO estimates that over 700,000 adults will be on the program in 2012, not in 1 year, in 2012.

The letter said that SCHIP ought to cover low-income American children. In fact, the bill weakens both Medicaid and SCHIP citizenship verification, and all with a huge tax increase.

Madam Speaker, Members ought to know that there's an alternative. There are multiple alternatives. One of them is H.R. 3888. It would provide insurance for the same number of kids. It would not move any kids from private personal insurance to government-run insurance. It would make certain that personal choices were respected, and it would not increase taxes.

So why proceed today? Why is the majority party proceeding today? Because it's all about politics. In fact, they've already had their cronies purchase TV and radio ads in the districts of folks that they believe aren't going to support this for political gain. It's all about politics. Not about policy and it certainly isn't about the kids.

As a physician, there's a specific diagnosis for that. It's called ``a crying shame.''

I thank my colleague for yielding. I am so pleased to join my colleagues in support of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, Charlie Norwood, Congressman Norwood, was a dear friend to me, and he was a friend to this body. It's wonderful that we have this opportunity to recognize and honor him here today and forever with the commemoration and renaming of this veterans facility.

Congressman Norwood spent his entire life helping others. After serving

valiantly in defense of our Nation in Vietnam, he returned home to serve his community in Augusta, Georgia, as a dentist. For 12 years he was a faithful servant to the people of Georgia as a Member of Congress, and all of this service, with his wife, Gloria, close by his side, indispensably.

In Congress, Charlie Norwood was a passionate supporter of our military and our veterans, and he never forgot for whom he was to work in Washington, his constituents. His leadership on veterans issues and a broader conservative vision for America are deeply missed. Anyone who knew Charlie knew that he was as tough as they come, and he always stood on principle.

His legacy in the House of Representatives will be one of integrity, vigor and loyalty. It's fitting that we memorialize his life with this tribute today.

Thank you, Charlie.

Mr. Speaker, today I call on the Speaker to open up a positive dialogue with Republicans to find SCHIP solutions that put poor kids first. House Democrats have wrapped their expansion of bureaucratic Washington-run health care in so much deception and political theater that they have lost focus of what SCHIP is really all about, helping underprivileged kids. But as a recent Gallup poll has shown, American people now see through this insincere ploy and support keeping SCHIP rightfully focused on poor children.

It is unacceptable for the majority to continue exploiting the neediest of children in pursuit of an ideological agenda controlling health care decisions. This charade has gone on long enough, and the American people want solutions, not these political games. If Democrat leaders truly want to help needy children, now is the time to support a plan that reflects the original bipartisan intent of the program and the views of the American people. A positive solution will put poor kids first and promote the purchase of personal health care for all Americans. H.R. 3888 is such a bill.

I thank my friend from Texas for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the passion of the gentleman from New Jersey. I share his passion for national parks, and I am sure that this area is a beautiful and a wonderful area. As such, it has already been designated as a National Historic District, which makes it eligible for about $3 million in funding.

I would point out, as my friend from Texas said, that it is the National Park Service that said it didn't meet the criteria, not us. I am pleased, though, to hear from my friend from New Jersey that, in fact, the partnership with the State will be ongoing. I had understood that the State of New Jersey had not agreed to provide matching funds. I wonder if the gentleman might be able to clarify that.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate that. That is information I had not had. My concern is kind of rising to the 30,000- or 40,000-foot view for the National Park Service.

Mr. Speaker, I represent the Sixth District of Georgia, which is on the northern side of the City of Atlanta, and through my district runs the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area, a 48-mile long linear park, the longest linear park in our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, we have been trying to get accurate communication from the National Park Service about how they determine how much of their resources, their finite resources that they have, come to the various national parks across this Nation.

We asked that because, as my friend from Texas mentioned, the National Park Service appears to be at least $1 billion, if not more, in arrears on their maintenance and operations budget. So the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area has trails that are, in fact, a danger to those that visit this beautiful park. It is unable to patrol the park, again, a 48-mile linear park. It doesn't have the number of full-time equivalent employees that ought be there for this size park. When we look at other parks around the Nation, we see that parks of equivalent visitation, the same number of folks visiting each year, get a significantly greater budget. So as we try to drill down and find

out why that is, it appears that that is all political. For example, there is a park that a former Speaker of the House of Representatives had in his district, and that park gets four or five times the amount of funding that parks with the same visitation across this Nation get.

So we asked the National Park Service, what is your formula? How do you determine how much of your budget goes to various national parks and national recreation areas. Of course, we haven't been able to get that answer. It hasn't been just a week or two, Mr. Speaker; it has been years, years, that we have been trying to get that answer.

So I rise with great concern about the political nature of the relationship of the National Park Service and the priorities that they set. And as my friend from Texas raised, there may be some concerns about this bill that we have on the floor today about that matter as well.

So I raise a greater concern, a concern that I believe would be appropriate, to pull back this resolution and find out from the National Park Service the answer to those pivotal questions that Americans want to know, and that is is there any rationale to how you are spending your money. Where is the accountability in how you spend your money.

I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey and his passion for this area. I am sure it is a beautiful and wonderful area, and I look forward to visiting it at some point in the future. But I believe we have got challenges and problems within the National Park Service. I hope we address those first.

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