Doug Lamborn

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentleman from Washington. There are many things about having more safety and environmental protection in the gulf that we can all agree on. Unfortunately, this bill goes way beyond those agreement type of provisions. There is a $2- a-barrel tax increase in this bill. And there is a proportional tax increase on natural gas production as well. And as was pointed out earlier, it's not just on offshore oil and gas production, but on onshore Federal lands. So it goes way beyond the discussion we are having about the gulf. It's going to add up to $22 billion. And this is not the time to be raising taxes on energy. We're trying to come out of a recession. Many of us are asking, Where are the jobs? And taxing energy and making the consumer and industry pay more for energy, it's just not the right time to do that. And we're putting this, if the bill takes effect, on existing oil and gas production. That's blatantly unconstitutional. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that we as the Federal Government will have to refund about two-thirds of that $22 billion, or $14 billion, the proportion that applies to existing oil and gas production, back to the producers because it's unconstitutional. It's an impairment of contracts to come in the middle of a contract and say, by the way, we are adding a big tax increase to your energy production. So why are we taxing industry and the consumer when we're trying to come out of a recession? This bill doesn't make sense, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, updating the supplemental guidelines on ethics every 3 years will help the Department of the Interior keep current with new issues as they arise and will focus the government employees' attention on appropriate ethical behavior as they deal with the private sector. The Horizon disaster has focused everyone's attention on the lack of any contingency plan that could be implemented expeditiously to address a blowout in deepwater conditions. We basically watched a 3-month ongoing experiment with various devices being fabricated to cap the well or capture the oil as it's spewing out. We also found out that we didn't have enough boom in place to protect the shoreline and that new boom had to be manufactured to meet the requirements in the State oil spill response plans. And we discovered that some of the plans underestimated how much boom might be required to protect the shoreline from a major spill. Using the best available technology is crucial in keeping the public's trust going forward with offshore oil and gas development. Both Republicans and Democrats have broad agreement on the need to protect and improve offshore production safety and environmental protection. This amendment is an example of our agreement, and I urge my colleagues to support it. What I don't agree with is going beyond the gulf to encompass all energy production in the entire United States in order to raise energy taxes by $22 billion. Raising energy taxes in a recession will kill jobs. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition to this amendment, although I don't intend to oppose it.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I submit the following.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my Democrat colleagues: Where is the budget? House Democrats haven't passed a budget for next year, something that hasn't happened in the modern era. This shows that they plan to spend without any restraint or accountability. If they can't budget, can they really govern? However, one thing we can and must do is control runaway spending by reforming the earmark process. I have agreed to ban all earmarks for 1 year while we consider meaningful reform. I cosponsored the resolution, along with Leader John Boehner and most of my Republican colleagues, calling for an earmark ban. I followed that up with a letter to the Democratic leadership, asking that House Democrats join me in this 1- year ban with other Republicans. I have also called for the creation of a joint select committee to come up with proposals to reform earmarks. The American people are demanding that we get our fiscal house in order. They, too, want to know: Where is the budget?

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, it is with mixed emotions that I announce the departure of a valued member of my staff, Craig M. Rushing. For the past three years, Craig has professionally and enthusiastically served the constituents of the Fifth Congressional District of Colorado, first as Legislative Director, and then as Deputy Chief of Staff and Legislative Director. He successfully handled his duties with a wealth of knowledge of the legislative and procedural processes. His dedication and work ethic will be very difficult to replace. Beginning his career on the Hill as a staff assistant for Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (CO-04), Craig has served constituents of Colorado for nearly eight years. It was during this time he met and married his wife, Ginger, in August of 2007. Craig worked his way through college with several jobs and internships, including with the Colorado Right to Work and the Leadership Institute. Craig graduated from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro in 2002 with a Bachelor of Science in Economics. Craig is the son of Dennis and Kathy Rushing of Greensboro, North Carolina, and is brother to Amy Bregman and Betsy Bardi. Craig is leaving Washington to take a position as Manager of Government Affairs at Lowe's Headquarters in Mooresville, North Carolina. He has worked hard for the people of Colorado. His conservative and Christian values are needed today more than ever. I know God will bless him and his wife in their future endeavors.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I seek time in opposition.

Mr. LAMBORN. At this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The trouble is, this is not working so great for the Department of Defense, and to take it to all the other departments of government is not a good idea. We were promised that we would have a cost analysis that the validity of analysis and cost models would be provided, and that really hasn't been provided. So we have these glowing claims that this is going to save money, but we haven't seen the analysis backing that up. What we do know is that there will be people in the private sector losing their jobs. Now, sure, it will get transferred to the government service, but are we comparing apples to apples or apples to oranges? The claims that this will save money, I am not sure they take into account such things as health care coverage and pensions and things like that that a Federal employee would receive on top of their salary. I also question the long-term strategic use, especially in the Defense Department, of the great amounts of in-sourcing that are being talked about, because the most innovation that we get comes historically from the private sector. People that are in government are well-intentioned, they do their best, but there just sometimes is not that same cutting-edge innovation and technology improvement in government service that we see with people working in the private sector. The competition is so intense, that can drive innovation in the private sector. So to give that up for core competencies, core things that should be done by the private sector is something that I see as not good for the long-term strategy of the defense industry. For that reason, too, I really have to question this impulse to take something that's really not working that great and apply it to all of government just because you know of a few examples where maybe a contractor was paid too much. I agree with Representative Issa. We need to first of all step back and see if this is even working in the Department of Defense. And to assume that it is, on very skimpy or scant evidence, and apply it to the entire government is just way too premature and hasty. I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. I know it's well-intentioned, but I would urge strongly everyone to oppose it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, over a month has gone by since the April 15 deadline for Congress to pass its annual budget resolution. House Democrats, though, haven't even bothered to offer up a proposal. But without a budget resolution, it is still clear Democrats will go on spending unbelievable sums of money, as if a $940 billion health care bill, a $787 billion failed stimulus bill, and teeing up more permanent bailout authority weren't enough, House Democrats are going to spend another $200 billion this week on another massive spending bill. The majority of this is not offset by other spending cuts in the budget. This latest spending spree will increase our annual deficit by $134 billion. To the extent that there is any budgeting here in Washington at all, we are budgeting for bankruptcy. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that our debt will rise to an alarming 90 percent of GDP by the end of this decade. This is unsustainable and puts us in the same territory as the country of Greece. Having already spent trillions of dollars, we are not even trying to budget for the next year. This is unacceptable. Americans don't handle their checkbooks this way and neither should Congress.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. These are vital facts to have. It really is a lot more expensive. And it is going to raise taxes and throw people out of the insurance they have now than what the administration was claiming. So if we had known this maybe it wouldn't have passed by the four or five votes that it passed by. Maybe it would have failed, and we would have been on a whole different trajectory right now if they had been open and honest about this report that the American people and us as their Representatives should have had access to.

Mr. LAMBORN. Well, thank you. This is a great discussion that you all are having. Thanks for letting me participate for a few minutes. You raised a really good point, which is that this report has shown that this is going to be a lot more expensive, that it's going to raise taxes, that it's going to raise health insurance premiums, that it's going to make people drop out of the existing coverage they have. They will be thrown into the government plan. This is a CMS report, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which is nonpartisan and objective. What really is outrageous about this report, Representative Akin, is that they had it over at DHS before we ever had the final vote on ObamaCare. They were sitting on it. Their language now is, Oh, we didn't want to influence the debate. Isn't that what a report is all about?

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health bill.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. I will yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. LAMBORN. Republicans believe that we can have health reform, and we should, without a government takeover of one-sixth of our Nation's economy. Republicans introduced over 70 bills that offer free market solutions to health care reform, and one of those is H.R. 3400. H.R. 3400, a bill I have cosponsored, is the Empowering Patients First Act. It does three things. It gives access to coverage for all Americans. It does this in large part by extending the tax deduction, which right now unfairly only goes to corporate employees, and says every American can have this tax deduction. That lets you have your insurance and not be dependent on your job to provide it for you. That way you can take it with you. It becomes portable. You have less to fear from preexisting conditions. Coverage will be truly owned by the patient under H.R. 3400. The individual market is expanded. Things like pooling mechanisms, where national associations can form together, use national economies of scale to form membership plans and accounts to pool across State lines. Right now that is not allowed under law. And reining in out-of-control costs. We can do this for instance, through reforming the medical liability system. The bills in front of us that we may vote on tomorrow do nothing about medical tort reform. That's a huge driver of defensive medicine and needless costs in our health care system. But if we, for instance, establish administrative health care tribunals, known as health courts, in each State, added affirmative defense through provider-established best practice measures, or encourage the speedy resolution of claims, we would do things to cut down on the cost of defensive medicine. So Republicans have solutions that, unfortunately, have not been allowed to come to this floor for a vote. We also have about a hundred amendments being heard, as we speak, over in the Rules Committee, and I doubt that a single one of those rules will be labeled in order for voting on the floor tomorrow. Let me conclude by reading some lines out of today's Wall Street Journal. They have summed it up better than anyone can. This is the lead editorial in today's Wall Street Journal: ``A self-governing democracy,'' it concludes, ``can of course decide that it wants to become this kind of superwelfare State. But if the yearlong debate over ObamaCare has proven anything, it is that Americans want no such thing. There is no polling majority or any bipartisan support, much less a rough national consensus for this expansion of government power. The election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts for Ted Kennedy's seat, of all things, was as direct a referendum as you could have. ``So if the health bill passes in the House, it will only do so the way it did in the Senate, with a narrow partisan majority, abetted by political bribery and intimidation, budget gimmicks and procedural deceptions.''

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, let me highlight several sweetheart deals in the health care legislation that I think are a real problem to me, many of my colleagues, and many Americans. We have the Rocky Top Vote Swap. Tennessee is quite familiar with the runaway costs associated with government-run health care as seen with TennCare. Payoffs from Washington, though, have a way of smoothing thing things over. So the bill includes tens of millions of extra Medicaid dollars for the State of Tennessee. The Big Sky Buy-Off. A special provision was inserted in the Senate bill recently that provided taxpayer-funded health care to only certain Montana residents. U Conn. As part of the original health care bill, a mysterious provision was inserted providing a whopping $100 million in a cryptically worded provision for a new medical facility. After some investigation, it was discovered that Connecticut was the lucky recipient of this taxpayer dollar giveaway. The Bismarck Bank Job. A helpful provision was inserted in the reconciliation package. While most American banks will be cut off from subsidies for private student loans when the government takes over the student loan industry, which is part of the bill we will vote on tomorrow, banks in North Dakota will still see the cash rolling into their banks. PhRMA'ing for Favors. As has been reported, Democratic staffers were huddled behind closed doors over the last few weeks with PhRMA lobbyists as they crafted the final bill. Coincidentally, PhRMA has now decided it will run expensive TV ads in the districts of 38 wavering Democrats. Cowboy Cash. North Dakota and Montana, along with Wyoming and South Dakota stand to get extra Federal cash for their States' Medicare rolls. And the Louisiana Purchase that we have all heard about. Three hundred million dollars extra for Medicaid payments to one State is still in the bill. That is just yet one more reason we should reject the health care bill tomorrow. At this time I will yield 3 minutes to my colleague and friend from the State of Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I take exception to the suggestion that this process has been conducted in an open way. We have 3,800 pages of materials right here that we have been given in the last 3 days. Who on earth is able to go through 3,800 pages? That consists of the bill itself, H.R. 4872, 2,300 pages; House Report volumes 1 and 2 from the Budget Committee report explaining the bill, that adds up to 1,300 pages; and the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the Reconciliation Act, 150 pages. That is a total of 3,800 pages that we have been given in the last 72 hours. What kind of process is this? I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, the service performed by Cold War veterans is indeed honorable and meritorious. We should encourage the people of the United States to participate in activities to honor these brave men and women in uniform. We must give them the recognition and benefits they rightly deserve. As members of the military, their health care falls under the TRICARE system which Representative Skelton worked on earlier today and which must be protected in any health care bill before Congress. We must make sure that any bill gives them the health care benefits they deserve. However, what happens to them and their families tomorrow? We are going to be voting on a massive health care bill that will affect the health care of our veterans and their families and, indeed, of all Americans. Something I would like to briefly address is that we have many doctors and physicians in the United States who are opposed to this health care plan. Yes, there is one large organization of about 245,000 members which supports the plan, the American Medical Association; but we have a number of medical plans, including the State associations of Alabama, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, South Carolina, and Texas, which are opposing the health care plan. And we have many medical national societies which are opposing this plan such as the American Academy of Dermatology, American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, the American Academy of Ophthalmology, American Academy of Otolaryngology, the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Surgeons, American Osteopathic Academy of Orthopedics, American Pediatric Surgical Association, American Society of Breast Surgeons, American Society of Anesthesiologists, and it goes on and on and on. General surgeons, colon and rectal surgeons, plastic surgeons, neurological surgeons, on and on and on. Twice as many doctors in this country are formally opposed to this health care plan as have supported it through the American Medical Association. Twice as many are in opposition, and I think that speaks importantly for what we should consider the medical community's response really to be to this legislation. At this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 1119, as amended, which asks that all people in the United States participate in a moment of silence to reflect upon the service and sacrifice of members of the Armed Forces who are currently serving both at home and abroad. Service in the Armed Forces during peacetime is a difficult enough proposition; but during an extended period of war, like we have had since 9/11, the courage and sacrifices required of our all-volunteer military are especially challenging. These men and women are working for us all over the globe: on land; on and under the sea; and in the skies above. They are on duty around the clock, every day, 7 days a week, in every month of every year, in all seasons and climates. This Nation owes the members of the Armed Forces and their families the respect and thanks for their willingness to serve and sacrifice. This resolution asks us to do that by taking a moment out of our own busy lives to pause and in a moment of silence honor our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who are currently serving. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. I yield the balance of my time to Representative Cassidy from Louisiana.

Mr. LAMBORN. There will be one more speaker.

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague from Kansas, Representative Tiahrt.

Mr. LAMBORN. You'll have a chance shortly, I'm sure. I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. LAMBORN. In just a moment. And we should have gone farther. We did not do that. We only went halfway. So it's still undefined who has final control over imposing all the regulations. And I have veterans in my district, a hundred thousand of them, who feel that they have earned a right to have health care, and they don't want to have to be told that they need a second policy, that somehow that's not good enough. That's what the danger is, because it hasn't been defined like it should be.

Mr. LAMBORN. Let me say in response to the gentleman from New Jersey that it was a good step we took with the Ike Skelton bill today. It solved half the problem. We still have a remaining problem, and that is that it's not clear, like it should be, who has jurisdiction over defining beyond whether it's a minimum standard that TRICARE will satisfy, whether there will be additional impositions and regulations put on by the health czar. I think a health czar should have no impact, no say whatsoever on TRICARE.