[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 42 (Saturday, March 20, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H1778-H1783]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           RECOGNIZING MILITARY AVIATORS WHO ESCAPED CAPTURE

  Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to 
the resolution (H. Res. 925) expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives regarding the meritorious service performed by aviators 
in the United States Armed Forces who were shot down over, or otherwise 
forced to land in, hostile territory yet evaded enemy capture or were 
captured but subsequently escaped, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                              H. Res. 925

       Whereas aviators in the Armed Forces, including pilots, 
     navigators, bombardiers, weapons control officers, and other 
     aircraft crew members, have served the United States with 
     great courage and distinction in every major conflict during 
     the 20th and 21st centuries;
       Whereas thousands of aviators in the Armed Forces have been 
     forced down while performing their missions, as a result of 
     hostile action, mechanical failures, or other problems;
       Whereas many of these aviators overcame long odds and great 
     hardships to return to their units and resume their service 
     to the United States;
       Whereas some of these aviators tried to evade enemy forces, 
     but were captured, and some of these aviators were compelled 
     to endure arduous confinement, retaliation, and even death as 
     a result of their efforts to evade capture or escape;
       Whereas these aviators faced the added responsibility of 
     maintaining the secrecy of their escape and evasion methods 
     in order to protect the lives of people who assisted them and 
     other aviators; and
       Whereas the need to maintain secrecy initially may have 
     prevented these aviators from being publically recognized for 
     their meritorious service in avoiding capture, in escaping 
     from captivity, or for their efforts to escape: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of 
     Representatives that--
       (1) aviators in the United States Armed Forces who, as a 
     result of hostile action, mechanical failures, or other 
     problems, were forced to evade or escape enemy capture, were 
     captured but subsequently escaped to return to their units 
     and resume their service to the United States, or were 
     compelled to endure arduous confinement, retaliation, and 
     even death as a result of their efforts to evade capture or 
     escape should be publically recognized for their 
     extraordinary service; and
       (2) the Secretaries of the military departments should 
     consider these aviators for appropriate recognition within 
     their branch of the Armed Forces.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Guam (Ms. Bordallo) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Guam.


                             General Leave

  Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on the resolution under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Guam?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in support of House Resolution 925, which recognizes aviators 
in the United States Armed Forces who were forced to evade or escape 
enemy capture, were captured but subsequently escaped, or were 
compelled to endure arduous confinement, retaliation, and even death as 
a result of their efforts to evade capture or escape. I want to thank 
my colleague from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for introducing this measure.
  As a member of the House Committee on Armed Services, I am honored to 
recognize the aviators of the Armed Forces who have valiantly served 
the United States in every major conflict during the 20th and 21st 
century. Aviators, including pilots, navigators, bombardiers, weapons 
control officers, and other aircraft crew members, with fierce courage 
and distinction face the threat of being forced down each time they 
take to the skies.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 925 recognizes those downed aviators 
that have not only miraculously survived unexpected flight termination, 
but also have confronted additional dangers escaping or attempting to 
escape enemy capture on the ground. It also expresses the sense of the 
House that those downed aviators that were tortured or killed as a 
result of their efforts to evade capture or escape should be publicly 
recognized for their extraordinary service. So in honor of these men 
and women who have selflessly served our Nation, many without the 
encouragement of public recognition, I urge my colleagues to vote 
``yes'' to this resolution.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I too rise in support of House Resolution 
925, which seeks recognition for aviators who, as a result of hostile 
action or other causes, were forced to escape and evade their potential 
captors. Every military aviator who begins a combat mission recognizes 
and prepares for the possibility that hostile actions or other events 
will compel the aviator to escape and evade capture.

[[Page H1779]]

  Thousands of American aviators have faced that daunting task. Some 
overcame long odds and great hardships to return to their units to 
resume their service. Others tried to evade enemy forces but were 
captured, suffering arduous confinement, torture, and even death. 
Except for a few, the specific identities of those thousands have 
mostly faded from American memory, and many were not recognized for 
their determined efforts to escape and evade. That is why this 
resolution is important. These aviators deserve recognition. That is 
why I call on all Members to support this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
my friend and colleague, and the sponsor of this resolution, the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentlelady.
  The previous resolution had to do with the anniversary of Iwo Jima. 
This is something that would actually go to a number of wars and 
conflicts that the U.S. Armed Forces have been involved in, but I will 
focus a bit on a veteran of World War II in terms of the need for this 
recognition and resolution.
  Oddly enough somehow, the Defense Department has overlooked the 
valiant service of many who were previously in the Army Air Corps, now 
in the United States Air Force, or in the flying arms of the United 
States Army or the Marines and Navy and their sacrifice when they have 
been shot down behind enemy lines and not captured and imprisoned, but 
actually managed to evade escape, sometimes allying themselves with 
resistance movements, other times just depriving the enemy of the 
victory of capturing a downed U.S. pilot, bombardier, airman of any 
sort.
  This first came to my attention when I was approached by a gentleman 
I have known a number of years in Eugene, Oregon, Don Fisher. And he 
came to me with a request I hear from a lot of vets, which is, ``Hey, 
could you help me get my service records?'' We had the infamous fire in 
St. Louis which burned up so many veterans' records. And we are often 
asked to help reconstitute their records, generally for benefit 
purposes, but sometimes for other purposes. And I said, ``Sure, Don.'' 
I mean that's really pretty routine. ``We can help you with that.'' He 
said, ``This one isn't quite so routine.'' And I said, ``Well, how is 
that?'' And he said, ``Well, I was shot down over occupied France in a 
B-17. I came down behind enemy lines, and I was harbored by French 
families who were friendly to the allies. I cooperated and worked with 
the resistance and evaded escape until D-day.'' And on D-day he 
revealed himself to British forces and was first allowed to send a 
message home. But then when turned over to the U.S. forces, they had 
questions about whether he really was a U.S. aviator, and he was rather 
extensively interrogated.
  So what he wanted was to get his interrogation files. He said, ``I 
really don't remember everything that happened to me when I was behind 
enemy lines.'' He said, ``I'm sure when I was a young man I had a 
better memory. And I would like to have that for my family and 
myself.'' I said, ``Well, sure. We'll help.'' It's either still in the 
depths of some classification system somewhere or it was declassified, 
so we could never find that file.
  But that brought me an interest in him and his organization. There is 
an organization of what they call evaders. In this case they are World 
War II. Many of them are becoming quite elderly. They are going to have 
a reunion in the not too distant future out at the Air Force Academy in 
Colorado.
  I took on the task to try to get them some recognition. So this is 
actually two parts. One is expressing the sense of Congress for 
admiration for their extraordinary service. And again, this does not 
just extend to World War II. It would be Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq, 
Afghanistan, other conflicts and other involvements by U.S. forces. 
Anybody who has been in this situation.
  Secondly, I am recommending strongly to the Secretary of Defense that 
a special ribbon, award, or medal be developed to recognize these 
activities and encourage these activities, because there will be future 
U.S. aviators who will be in the same position. And we want them to 
know that we honored their forebears, those who came before them who 
for years hid and operated behind enemy lines and then came back to 
freedom with our victories.
  It is almost exactly 47 years since he was shot down. It's a story 
that is not totally extraordinary. I know other World War II veterans. 
But I just recount it briefly. His plane was shot down. They bailed 
out. He doesn't remember much because they were at a pretty high 
altitude. He blacked out. The next thing he knew he was hanging from a 
tree, and the German fighter pilot circled him. And he thought for sure 
he was going to be strafed. Instead, the German fighter pilot saluted 
him and flew off.
  He then managed to get extricated from his harness, and after that 
was sheltered by the French, and ultimately became associated with 
French resistance, and as I say, met the liberators in Paris when we 
liberated Paris. So this is one of thousands of extraordinary stories 
and acts of valor by our soldiers.
  I just hope strongly that we can get unanimous agreement on this 
resolution and restrict the debate to the subject of this resolution to 
honor these people for their extraordinary service, and move on.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, the service performed by aviators in the 
U.S. Armed Forces is indeed meritorious. They have fought bravely and 
risked much to take care of our country. Indeed, they deserve the 
recognition and care for their sacrifice that this resolution embodies. 
As members of the military, their health care falls under the TRICARE 
system, which as Representative Skelton mentioned earlier in this day, 
must be addressed in any health care bill before Congress.

                              {time}  1745

  We must make sure that any bill we pass in this area gives them the 
benefits that they deserve.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Posey).
  Mr. POSEY. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I applaud the sponsors, cosponsors, and everyone in 
the body who is taking the time to support the heroes that we're 
discussing today. I would also like to take this opportunity to remind 
the body, as my colleague just has, that we must keep the TRICARE 
promised them for life as well. And while we're on the TRICARE/health 
care subject, I'd like to stress my strong objections to the health 
care legislation, the unprecedented abuses, and perhaps 
unconstitutional process through which it's being considered.
  The American people are telling us, either in letters or calls, in 
every poll that they don't want it. Besides the fact of Social Security 
is unsustainable, Medicare is unsustainable, and only a few doctors 
even accept Medicaid as it is now. There are other top 10 reasons to 
reject it.
  It raises taxes by over $550 billion. It adds over a trillion more 
dollars to the national debt, kills over 2 million more jobs, and 
drives up the cost of medical insurance; gives the IRS unprecedented 
power over the lives of the American people; replaces your doctor with 
Federal bureaucrats to make critical decisions about your medical care; 
cuts Medicare by more than a half a trillion dollars, and of course 
Congress is exempt; provides for the largest expansion of abortion 
coverage since Roe v. Wade, including taxpayer-funded abortions. It 
will bankrupt States through billions in unfunded mandates; force 
American citizens to foot the bill for health care for illegal aliens, 
inasmuch as it fails to include strict enforcement; is the result of a 
flawed process, having been written in secret out of the view of C-SPAN 
cameras and filled with backroom deals and vote buying.
  We're a Nation of laws. Laws are not supposed to be ignored when they 
are inconvenient or simply pose a hurdle to achieving certain agendas. 
We teach our children to play by the rules, but this Congress is 
teaching them something very different.
  How can we expect the American people to obey the laws Congress 
passes when Congress won't obey its own rules? It is respect for the 
rule of law that has distinguished the United

[[Page H1780]]

States from the banana republics and authoritarian regimes.
  Indeed, millions of Americans, including those we're honoring today, 
have fought and even have died for this country; yet this bill, this 
process grossly compromises that principle. Clearly, Congress isn't 
listening to the American people and is once again ignoring their 
voices.
  There is an old political axiom that says any time you promise to 
take from Peter to pay Paul, one thing usually happens--Paul votes for 
you. And that is where we are right here, right now today in Congress. 
This is exactly what ultimately leads democracies to fail, and this 
bill, if enacted into law, will greatly undermine the future of our 
Republic, the greatest Nation in the history of the world that these 
men and women fought and died for.
  It has been said democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of 
government; it can only exist until the voters discover they can vote 
themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the 
majority usually votes for the candidates promising them the most 
benefits. Therefore, the average age of the world's greatest 
civilizations has been about 200 years.
  These nations have progressed through this sequence: from bondage to 
spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to 
liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from 
selfishness to apathy, from apathy to dependence, and from dependency 
back into bondage.
  It is not difficult to see where we are right now on that scale, but 
what is true is it's frightening. It's frightening that some people 
think our government is some kind of cosmic Santa Claus who cannot 
fail. It isn't--and it can fail if we are not good stewards of the gift 
our Forefathers gave to us. We must not allow the American experiment 
at representative self-government to fail on our watch.
  If our Founders wanted to live like Europeans, they would not have 
come here in the first place or they would have turned the ships around 
and headed home. But they didn't. They wanted a land of opportunity, 
not a land of government-administered, cradle-to-the-grave 
entitlements.
  Americans don't want to go down this path toward future socialism, 
increasingly losing power to government. Vice President Biden said it 
best yesterday when he said, if this bill is passed, government will 
``control'' health care in America. His words not mine.
  No one believes the status quo in our Nation's health care system is 
acceptable. There are many areas where we can find agreement, and we 
must move forward to fix those problems. The American people deserve 
better. Let them know that we know we don't work for Congress. Congress 
works for them by defeating this bill.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much 
time is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Guam has 12\1/2\ 
minutes. The gentleman from Colorado has 14 minutes.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I grew up in the forties and fifties, and I remember 
the men and women that came back from the war, some gravely wounded, 
carrying those wounds the rest of their lives, and some having survived 
but survived behind enemy lines. This resolution honors those that 
fought in so many different ways, and particularly those behind enemy 
lines and were unable to really be recognized for the extraordinary 
contributions they made to the war effort. And it's perfectly 
appropriate.
  What is not appropriate is what our colleagues on the Republican side 
have done with this debate and with the previous debate. We're honoring 
our soldiers. We're honoring our men and women that have fought. We 
will soon be debating the health care issue, and in the appropriate 
time, we should be taking that up. But to somehow demean, to somehow 
demean the courage, the resolution, and the extraordinary sacrifice 
made by these people is just plain wrong.
  I would ask our colleagues to set it aside. In a few moments we will 
pick up the health care debate, and then I would be delighted to join 
you in that debate. But now let's focus on those who have served this 
country in time of war.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I would say that it's always the proper time to talk 
about issues that impact our freedom, and we have momentous issues here 
in Congress at times that deal directly upon our freedom.
  With that in mind, I would like to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my 
colleague and friend who is an Army veteran from the State of Michigan 
(Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I commend Madeleine Bordallo on the work on 
this bill, and it does sadden many of us that we have to come here 
today and talk about an issue that is so pressing, an issue that 
affects 310 million Americans. And it's hard to find that time to get 
out and talk about that issue that will take away health care from 
millions, that will tax health care for millions, that will raid the 
Social Security trust fund, that will actually cut a half a trillion 
dollars out of the Medicare budget. But there are things in this bill 
that I think the other side does not want to talk about that is in 
here, and that is exactly why we feel compelled to come here to offer 
amendments at the Rules Committee to get this thing at least where the 
American people can have some faith that you're going to have an honest 
debate.
  The number of sweetheart and sleazy deals in this bill, the bill that 
this Chamber will vote on tomorrow, is sickening. It pits one American 
against another American. It pits one neighbor against another 
neighbor, and it happens time and time and time again in your 
legislation.
  If you're a retired UAW worker living next door to a retired tool and 
die machinist, guess what? There is a special provision where you get 
offsets for the increase in your premiums for a UAW worker but the tool 
and die machinists get nothing except a higher tax bill. It's wrong. It 
was a special provision tucked in this bill.
  If you're a senior citizen in Florida, there is a special provision 
that says your Medicare Advantage stays intact, but if you're a senior 
citizen living in Ohio or New York or Michigan, guess what? Not for 
you. You get treated differently. You lose your Medicare Advantage. 
It's wrong. It's sleazy. It's un-American.
  If you're a UAW worker in Michigan, you're going to get a higher tax 
on your insurance plan. If you're a longshoreman in New York City, you 
don't pay the higher tax on your insurance plan. It's unseemly, sleazy, 
and it's wrong.
  These are provisions tucked into this bill we can only assume to get 
to the magic number to pass on this floor.
  You know, if you're a banker in Michigan, you no longer, after this 
bill is passed, will be able to make a private student loan. That is 
right. But if you're a banker from North Dakota, guess what? You will 
get to make a private student loan. It's un-American. And each and 
every one of these sleazy deals ought to be brought to this floor and 
eliminated from this bill.
  We will have that opportunity in Rules Committee. We will see the 
commitment of this Chamber to be honest and transparent, not to mention 
the fact that we will stop the Social Security raid to pay for a bill 
that adds a trillion dollars to the deficit.
  And do you realize, Madam Speaker, why the impact of this is so 
important? Because this administration has had more deficit spending 
than every other President of the United States combined. It is 
shocking and it's breathtaking, and the arrogance of this Chamber to 
bring such an un-American bill with special sweetheart, sleazy deals 
tucked in and arm-twisting to make it happen is wrong.
  I know that the soldiers I served with fought for a unified country, 
a country that believed in liberty and personal responsibility and 
limited government. I know that today we ought to stand for that, too, 
and we ought to ask all of this to come to light and put those 
amendments as a part of the bill and clean up our act in Congress.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Again, I wish that the Republican side had been able to 
wait until later this evening during their 2

[[Page H1781]]

hours to raise their concerns about health care, but there are some 
things that merit response in the interest of truth and the American 
way.
  The gentleman before me is extraordinary. This President has deficits 
totaled larger than every other President combined? No. Actually, yes, 
we do have a record deficit this last year. Most of it is inherited 
from George Bush. But it's true, now, that that's a very high year.
  But George Bush is the one who doubled the national debt and did 
accumulate more debt than every other President before him, before the 
collapse of Wall Street because of the deregulatory agenda of the Bush 
administration and the Republican Party--every ounce of which I fought 
on the floor of this House--which brought America to its knees, which 
dissolved people's savings and 401(k)s and everything else for greedy 
bankers and investors and others. And the Republicans put that agenda 
in place when they controlled the House, the Senate, and the White 
House with their deregulatory approach.
  So it's not even factually true. Yes, I'm very concerned about the 
astounding deficits, and we've got to deal with that, but George Bush 
doubled the debt. There is a record 1-year increase. It does not exceed 
even the amount of debt George Bush accumulated. He may be looking into 
the future, but it's not factually true.
  To the gentleman before him who talked about bankrupting people 
because we're going to give them access to quality, affordable health 
care, I wish he would tell that to the woman from my district who I 
talked to who got cancer, had an individual policy, and guess what? She 
paid her premiums, and when it became time for renewal, the company 
said, Sorry. We don't renew policies of people who have cancer. Thank 
you very much for your premiums.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

                              {time}  1800

  Ms. BORDALLO. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Or the gentleman I met in the unemployment office. Yeah, 
he had rights to purchase his health care under COBRA. But the cost of 
his health care was three-quarters of his unemployment benefit. His 
wife was deathly ill. This is a tough guy. He cried in public in that 
office. That won't happen again if we pass this legislation tomorrow. 
That gentleman will not be forced to choose between keeping his home, 
feeding his family, and getting his wife needed health care. Under your 
plan, that continues, status quo. You guys are the pets of the 
insurance industry, and you know it.
  And then the woman that needed a double mastectomy and they had a 
special team from her insurance company. That was great. But their job 
was to find a way to get her off the plan. They reviewed her history. 
They found she had been to a dermatologist for acne. They said she 
hadn't reported it. They rescinded her policy. And a gentleman from 
your side of the aisle had to threaten that insurance company publicly 
to get her reinstated. This law will prohibit that in the future.
  We need to take on the health insurance industry in America and 
prevent these abuses, and you guys did nothing about that under your 
charge, and your proposals for the future will do nothing about that.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is reminded to address his 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Finally, some spirited debate on an issue 
that will impact 310 million Americans. The problem with your anecdotal 
stories is, you are going to say that 85 percent of the system that is 
working right and having insurance are going to be punished and 
rationed in health care to fix the 15 percent. That's the travesty. You 
won't have one tough guy crying; you will have millions and millions of 
Americans crying for losing their health care.
  And on the deficit, to set it straight, the year prior to the 
Democrats taking over control of this Congress it was a $270 billion 
deficit. The year leading up to their takeover of this Chamber, $160 
billion. And guess what? The very next year, $1.4 trillion. That's your 
problem. That's your plan. You need to deal with the facts.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. The purpose of this resolution is to honor the aviators 
who have done such courageous duty for this country. And they have. And 
I think one of the things they have done because of their sacrifices is 
that they have always given America a chance to become a more perfect 
union. And I think the language in our founding documents of working 
towards a more perfect union suggests that we're a country that's 
always looking for an opportunity to get just a little bit better. And 
we now have a bill we will be voting on tomorrow that does give America 
a chance, not to solve all our problems, but to get a little bit better 
when it comes to health care.
  And I just want to, in the context of an aviator, suggest what that 
may mean. Let's take an aviator that goes to France, serves in a B-17 
like so many courageous aviators did, is shot down, rescued, prisoner-
of-war, returns, starts a little business, raises a family back home, 
survives World War II, raises let's say his daughter, she grows up to 
maturity, maybe has a kid. He is a proud grandfather like many of these 
aviators are.
  What could happen to his daughter right now in the current situation 
of the law? What could happen is she could have insurance, she could 
have a good job, she could be taking care of her family, and then she 
can develop cancer. And do you know what this side of the aisle wants 
to allow to continue to be the law of the United States of America? 
They want to let the aviator's daughter to be able to be canceled in 
her insurance policy because she develops cancer.
  Let's assume the grandchild of the aviator develops diabetes and gets 
to maturity and wants to go out and buy an insurance policy. Guess what 
this side of the aisle wants to allow to be continued practiced in 
America? They, who are going to be voting en masse, en masse, against 
health care reform, against this step forward tomorrow, they will be 
voting tomorrow to allow the aviator's grandchild to be denied 
insurance because she developed diabetes.
  Now I question whether American aviators who fight wars proudly think 
it's really up to American standards to allow the children and 
grandchildren of aviators to be denied coverage because they developed 
illness. We don't think that is good enough for America. We think we 
deserve better. And what we will be doing tomorrow is voting for a 
provision that will give the families of aviators the right, in fact, 
to be treated fairly in America.
  Now I know many people, they have argued this is somehow a government 
takeover of health care. I've thought about that, and I can understand 
people don't want a government takeover of health care. But it is 
fundamental. What this does is it changes the relationship between 
Americans and the insurance industry. And that's a relationship, and 
the rules of that relationship do need to change because we need to 
give Americans more choice. We need to give them more freedom. We need 
to give them more protection against some of the practices of the 
insurance companies. And that's what we will be voting to do tomorrow.
  So I say let's honor some aviators. Let's honor their families by 
giving their families the right to have health care even though they 
have asthma, even though they have diabetes, even though they have 
Parkinson's. Whether they are Republicans or Democrats, or red and blue 
States, all Americans deserve to be able to have insurance in this 
country. That's what we're going to do tomorrow.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, there are some important, vital, and 
principled reasons why those of us on this side of the aisle will be 
opposing the health care plan should it come to a vote tomorrow. And 
just briefly let me recap these. It raises taxes by $570 billion over 
10 years. It will cost the taxpayers $1.2 trillion, not to mention the 
so-called doc fix of about $371 billion, a massive increase of 
government spending. It's also a takeover by the

[[Page H1782]]

government, a dramatic step away from personal, private coverage and 
choice to a government-run system that will end up rationing care. It's 
unconstitutional. There is nowhere in the Constitution that says the 
government has the power to require every single person to go out and 
buy insurance whether they want to or not. It fails to adequately 
address illegal immigrants through no enforceable means of citizen 
verification. It funds abortion. There's lack of tort reform. It forces 
Americans out of their current plans. It increases premiums. It will 
increase personal health expenditures whether people can afford it or 
not. It bends the curve of government spending in the future in the 
wrong direction. It constitutes a massive permanent government takeover 
of the private student loan industry. That's 30,000 jobs right there. 
It is chock-full of special deals, from the Bismarck bank job to the 
Louisiana purchase and others. It does not factor in market risks 
regarding defaults on student loans.

  So for all those reasons, Madam Speaker, we should be opposing that 
bill when it comes, if it comes, to a vote tomorrow.
  At this point, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my friend and 
colleague from the State of Ohio who is also a member of the Armed 
Services Committee that I serve on with him, Representative Turner.
  Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, while we are debating this bill, Americans 
are concerned about the pending health care legislation. Americans know 
that advances in medical research are a strength of the American health 
care system and should be encouraged instead of restricted by 
additional layers of redtape.
  Unfortunately, this misguided health care legislation would reduce 
Medicare payments to CAT scan and MRI providers. It also creates a 2.9 
percent excise tax on medical device manufacturers. The lowered 
payments and increased taxes can reduce the availability of new and 
advancing medical imaging technology. This will inhibit future 
innovation in medical research and will delay or deny patient access to 
new and valuable technologies.
  Continued innovation that improves patient-centered medicine is vital 
to the long-term availability of health care services in America. This 
is just one example of the number of provisions buried in this pending 
health care bill.
  The unintended consequences of lowering payments and increasing taxes 
will constrain future research and development and hinder our doctors' 
ability to deliver the best quality care to our patients. This pending 
health care legislation will end up restricting the innovation and 
invention which is at the heart of the American economy. And for that 
reason, I strongly oppose the bill, and we should be debating that bill 
today.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, could I inquire about how much time we 
have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Guam has 5 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Colorado has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my 
friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. A moment ago, I asked, Madam Speaker, if we could 
focus on the issue before us, which is certainly a meritorious issue. 
But apparently our colleagues from the Republican Party want to debate 
health care so, okay, guys, let's debate health care. A moment ago, the 
speaker from wherever you were from spoke about somehow limiting the 
MRIs. You are absolutely right. The legislation does limit MRIs that 
are ordered by a doctor that owns the MRI machine. There is blatant 
fraud going on, and there's blatant overuse and payments by the 
taxpayers to the Medicare and Medicaid program as a result of 
physician-owned practices, pharmaceuticals, pharmacies, as well as the 
MRIs and hospitals, and this legislation does limit it. You're quite 
right. We must limit that kind of overuse.
  I've been at this a long time. I was the chairman of the health 
committee in California in the 1980s when we limited it. I was the 
insurance commissioner. I've seen these pernicious practices over and 
over.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members to address 
their remarks to the Chair and not to others in the second person.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and 
colleague from Alabama, Representative Aderholt.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I want to rise today to voice my strong 
opposition to the massive health care bill that is scheduled to come 
before the U.S. House of Representatives in the next 24 hours.
  Backdoor deals to coerce Members to support the government takeover 
of health care is something the American people completely disagree 
with, and they're making their voice known loud and clear. However, the 
President and the Democrat leadership of this body are forcing us to 
vote on this bill.
  In many countries, people have no free speech. But in America we do. 
So on behalf of all the families in north Alabama that I represent, I 
say to my colleagues in Congress, reject this massive takeover of 
health care that we are to vote on in the next 24 hours.
  To make this legislation even worse, no amendment is being allowed to 
stop abortions from being federally funded. Members of the majority are 
not even being allowed to bring up a vote on abortion, one of the 
issues that means most to Americans. Businesses will be crippled with 
new taxes, and they won't be able to hire out-of-work Americans.
  America has never gone down this road, Madam Speaker, the road for 
government-controlled health care. And never in our history have we 
forced individuals to actually purchase insurance. As I was walking 
into the Chamber this afternoon to cast my votes, there were literally 
thousands of people outside the Capitol. They were shouting their 
opposition to this bill, and it was loud and clear.
  Madam Speaker, these people are still out there, and the message is 
still the same. And it is loud and clear: No government-controlled 
health care. Kill this bill.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank my very good friend.
  I want every veteran in America who is watching this debate who has 
at one time or another tried to figure out why it takes so long to get 
an overdue medal, why they have to wait so long to get a retroactive 
payment for a disability or PTSD, I want them to remember that tonight, 
when we try to pass a resolution on Iwo Jima, the Republicans delayed 
it. When we tried to pass a resolution honoring aviators, the 
Republicans delayed it. When we are going to try to pass a resolution 
honoring Cold War veterans, the Republicans delayed it.
  How can you expect as veterans to have your medical care taken care 
of promptly when the other side won't even allow us to pass resolutions 
honoring veterans expeditiously?
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and 
colleague from Texas, Representative Brady .
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I thank and commend the gentlelady from Guam for 
her resolution. We have so many heroes, aviators who have been shot 
down in foreign countries, defending our freedom and enduring 
tremendous hardship, even death.
  One of those who was shot down over Vietnam, the longest-serving POW 
in America, Congressman Sam Johnson of Plano, Texas, is a friend and a 
true hero to many of us. He opposes this health care bill because he is 
worried about the impact it will have on veterans. He believes by 
taking on a huge new entitlement we can never hope to pay for, at the 
end of the day we will end up robbing Peter to pay Paul, and we will 
rob from veterans' health care, which we don't even fully fund today as 
a Nation. It's embarrassing. And yet we are going to launch a brand new 
health care bill we can never afford to pay for. He is worried about 
rationing.
  He has seen what happens when Congress has the greatest intentions. 
They passed this wonderful new GI Bill and updated one, yet never even 
bothered to put in place a mechanism today. Most of the veterans 
waiting in our offices are just trying to get the fair benefits this 
Congress promised them, but

[[Page H1783]]

this administration, this government can't deliver. He is worried about 
the fact that we can't fund health care under this bill.
  And I think what frustrates people is we already have a Medicare 
program that is going bankrupt. We have Social Security not far behind. 
We don't fully fund veterans for military care, yet we are going to add 
this new entitlement. Americans, I don't think, are very easily fooled. 
They know the Democrats in Washington aren't really blameless when it 
comes to who is responsible for driving health care through the roof. 
Fueled by labor and lawyer contributions, millions and millions of 
dollars from them in their pockets, Democrats have for decades 
successfully killed lawsuit reform and efforts to allow small 
businesses to join together to buy health care at the same discount the 
big companies get. As champions of government mandates have driven up 
health care premiums and union contracts have demanded unsustainable 
health benefits, Democrats have fought voraciously against reasonable 
efforts to keep health care costs down. Yet today Democrats in 
Washington wield this sword of a massive government takeover in order 
to slay the health care beast that they have been feeding for decades 
and decades.
  So tomorrow, even if the powerful combination of threats, union 
paybacks, and backroom deals ultimately produce 216 votes, the fight 
isn't over, and nor are the consequences. The images of Democrats in 
Washington running from town halls, hiding from C-SPAN cameras, 
slipping in sweetheart deals and arrogantly ignoring the voices of 
constituents is also indelibly etched in the public's mind. It is a 
disturbing picture the American people won't easily forget.
  I object to that bill. I will fight it with all my might. It is not 
the right solution for America.

                              {time}  1815

  Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I would inquire as to the time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Guam has 3 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Colorado has 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, let me point out that there is a big flaw 
in the process that we have been following here recently. We have these 
massive groups of bills that we are supposed to absorb in a 72-hour 
period which finishes tomorrow, and then we culminate potentially with 
a vote on a massive piece of legislation reforming one-sixth of our 
Nation's economy.
  And if you look at this bill right here, this is the reconciliation 
bill, H.R. 4872, the bill reported from the House Budget Committee, 
2,310 pages; the two plain-language reports from the Budget Committee 
totaling about 1,300 pages; and, the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute of 150 pages. You add all that together, that is 3,800 pages 
that we have been given in the last 3 days. I dare say there is not a 
single Member of this House that has read these 3,800 pages, and that 
is on top of the original bill of a couple thousand pages.
  So we have a process here where we are not really given enough time 
to absorb and go through these bills, and the American people really 
deserve better than that. This system has not been followed like we 
should be doing, and I just regret that. I think that is a flaw in this 
process.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) that the House suspend the rules 
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 925, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________