Doug Lamborn

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to Representative Souder from Indiana.

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, Representative Goodlatte.

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I rise also in support of House Resolution 900, as amended, supporting the goals and ideals of a Cold War Veterans Recognition Day, and encouraging the people of the United States to participate in activities honoring the sacrifices and contributions of Cold War veterans. The Cold War was a war between the freedoms of democracy and the totalitarian ideology of communism. It was fought around the world, often in places that were on the brink of slipping into the harsh realities of communism. It was fought by millions of Americans who, as members of the Armed Forces, were at the point of the spear defending democracy whenever it was in peril. Many Americans sacrificed their lives in the long struggle against communism. For that reason, Madam Speaker, it is right to recognize the veterans of the Cold War and thank them for their dedication and efforts toward defeating communism. I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) for introducing this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN

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.

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I would inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague from Texas, Representative Brady .

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague from Alabama, Representative Aderholt.

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 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. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

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. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).

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. 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.

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. 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.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. My good friend has raised a point. I don't know if he was able to be here at the beginning of this resolution, but we had a wonderful discussion about the tremendous valor shown in Iwo Jima. But this is a discussion also--

Mr. LAMBORN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LAMBORN. Reclaiming my time, let me also conclude by saying that there is another problem with the health care bill that we will be looking at in a few hours tomorrow afternoon on abortion. Abortion funding will be required of the taxpayers in our country. Current legislation would permit Federal funds to subsidize plans covering abortion, would permit a multi-State health plan to offer abortion coverage, and would require citizens in States that have opted out of elective abortion coverage in their own exchange to still fund Federal subsidies for plans that cover elective abortion in other States. In addition, the bill includes $7 billion in new mandatory spending on community health centers, funding that is not subject to any restrictions prohibiting Federal dollars from funding elective abortions. If the current legislation passes the House without abortion funding restrictions, such as was I believe properly introduced in the Representative Bart Stupak amendment, it will be virtually impossible to alter the language through reconciliation as the two versions are reconciled over in the Senate since Senate Republicans have said they will block amendments which require 60 votes to overcome a point of order under reconciliation. So for those reasons, I would say that we should not be passing the bill tomorrow. It will severely degrade the freedom in our country for those who want to live their lives and not be subject to government control and intervention in all the intimate decisions that they make with their doctors for their own health care. I would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. I yield briefly to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that this pile of paper here representing 2,310 pages was released to the body 3 days ago, March 17. This is the text of H.R. 4872 reported from the House Budget Committee. I would be curious if my colleague from New York has read this 2,300- page document, as well as the several hundred pages of additional committee reports since that time, and possibly we will have a manager's amendment tomorrow. We will find out about that. But even more substantively, Madam Speaker, is that we are talking tomorrow about a health care plan that the American people do not want. We should not be doing this bill tomorrow or at any time. We should start over with incremental, bipartisan reform that everyone here, or most of us anyway, could agree with, not a partisan bill that only one party will be voting for. The bipartisanship here in the House tomorrow, I suspect, will be the opposition to the bill. There are mandates in the President's proposed plan for health care as the House and Senate are taking it up. There are new taxes. There are cuts in Medicare. There is failure to have tort reform. There is increased government intervention. Let me mention the increased government intervention. There will be new bureaucratic boards that will come up with a definition of quality and will give more power to the Federal Government through bureaucracy. Provisions such as the Comparative Effectiveness Research Board, the Independent Medicare Advisory Board and others will be set up through this plan. A form of government-run plan will maintain the OPM, overseeing multistate plans and co-ops. There are still, unfortunately, sweetheart deals in this plan. The Cornhusker kickback has some provisions still existing in the current version. The Louisiana purchase is still there. There are carveouts for unions and other sweetheart deals. And, sadly to say, there are broken promises. The President set several parameters, including that the bill will cost under $900 billion; that has been broken. That there will be no taxes on those making under 250,000; that promise has been broken. That family's health insurance premiums would go down by $2,500 a year, and that promise has been broken. And if individuals liked what they had, they could keep it, and that will not be kept either. The bottom line is that some might compare the last-minute inclusion of a few bread crumbs from the Republican side without true Republican input or knowledge on fraud, waste and abuse, and subsequent comments that we are somehow being partisan for standing up for our constituents and not supporting something that we in principle do not agree with is just plain wrong. Now let me say this about reconciliation. House Democratic leaders have been searching for a way to ensure that any move that they make to approve the Senate-passed $871 billion health care reform bill as it came over from the Senate is followed by Senate action on a reconciliation package of adjustments to the original bill. However, this is a nonstarter. The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that President Barack Obama must sign Congress's original health care reform bill.

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Once again, I commend our fighting forces for their service to this country and to the cause of freedom. The freedom they worked and fought for is embodied in the constitutional system we enjoy in this country. Few votes that we have taken in this body will affect our constitutional system of freedom more than the vote that we take tomorrow on health care. And I would like to show, Madam Speaker, the bills that we have in front of us and the--I think--short time that we've unfortunately had to review them. Sitting here are the various bills from the House and Senate, the reconciled version, and the committee reports. These total more than 6,200 pages. We've had a brief 72 hours to review these materials by the time our vote rolls around, projected for tomorrow afternoon. That is simply not the way we should do business in the people's House. If we take 72 hours and subtract 8 hours a day for sleeping so you don't get burnt out completely, in that remaining 48 hours, you could read about two pages a minute if you read from morning until night, and then you would get through these 6,000 pages. You probably couldn't look up very many of the citations, though. That slows you down a bit further. But this is what we are faced with when we have our vote tomorrow. I think we really should have a different and better process, and the American people deserve better. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, at this point I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I just want to thank my colleague and friend from Iowa again for bringing this resolution. I had the great privilege of standing on Iwo Jima a year ago when some of us on the Armed Services Committee were going to Okinawa to review the Marine transfer that may take place to Guam. The whole island is sacred territory. We were able to bring back samples of the black volcanic sand from the beach right below Mount Suribachi. I have that in my office. We stood on the top of Mount Suribachi. There is a wonderful memorial there right now. It's very touching and very moving for all the reasons that Representative Braley has highlighted. Thank you again for bringing this resolution, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Madam Speaker, at this point I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, Representative Herger.

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 1099, as amended. This resolution recognizes the 65th anniversary of the Battle of Iwo Jima. I want to commend the sponsor of this resolution, Representative Bruce Braley of Iowa, for introducing it. The Battle of Iwo Jima in February and March of 1945 has become a symbol of the devotion to duty and valor of all the men who fought there. For marines especially, the action then of five marines and one Navy corpsman raising the U.S. flag on Mount Suribachi, as captured in the iconic photo, is now the standard by which all marines measure themselves. Every marine and many others as well, when viewing that image, are almost compelled to ask: Could I do the same thing? Would I measure up? By any standard of measure, the Battle of Iwo Jima ranks as one of the most violent and savage in the history of the Marine Corps. The Marines, the Navy, and the Army personnel who fought the battle prevailed because, as Admiral Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet at the time, said, ``uncommon valor was a common virtue.'' Today, many of those men who won that victory are now gone. Our memory of and tribute to their valor and devotion to duty, however, remain. It is for that reason that we recognize the 65th anniversary of the Battle of Iwo Jima and commend all who served in it. I urge all Members to support this most worthy bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. I will yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just continue where I left off a few moments ago talking about this huge bill tomorrow that affects our Nation's freedom so much on health care, and let me just point out that our side of the aisle, the Republicans, have introduced 70 bills that offer free market solutions to health care reform that do not take over America's system of health care. For instance, one solution, H.R. 3400, is the Empowering Patients First Act. This particular bill would do three things, Mr. Speaker: Number one, it gives access to coverage for all Americans. It makes the purchase of health care financially feasible for all by extending the income tax deduction on health care premiums to those who purchase coverage in the nongroup or individual market. Right now, you only have this tax break if you're an employee of a corporation. That is not fair to all Americans. Everyone should have that same tax break. The beauty of that is that you would have a tax advantaged purchase price on your health care premiums and you would own that premium. It wouldn't have to come to you through your job, and then it would be portable. If you go to another job, if you transfer, if you lose your job, you don't lose your coverage. It goes with you when you buy it yourself. That is why that point is so important. Number two, coverage is truly owned by the patients. Like I said, this gives greater choice and portability and it expands the individual market. We can also, to accomplish this goal, create pooling mechanisms such as association health plans. I have friends who are Realtors in the real estate industry. They would love to form a national association of real estate agents and brokers and employees all over this country. That association would have tremendous buying power and economies of scale, but right now, that is prohibited by law. That is a commonsense solution that Republicans have offered and, I dare say, would have bipartisan support by this body. And thirdly, we need to rein in out-of-control costs, and 3400 does that as well. It reforms the medical liability system. It establishes administrative health care tribunals--you could call them health courts--in each State and adds affirmative defense through provider- established best practice measures. That would be a defense if you're charged with some kind of malpractice as a provider. This would encourage, also, the speedy resolution of claims and would cap noneconomic damages. So, Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude by saying that there are reforms that the Republicans have offered that would be not a massive overhaul of one-sixth of our Nation's economy and that would incorporate free market mechanisms and procedures that the American people would be much more comfortable in. If you look at the polling, Americans do not want a massive takeover of health care. At this point, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. I would like to inquire how much time our side has remaining.