John Shimkus

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the St. Joseph's Church in Olney, Illinois as they celebrate their 150 year anniversary. The St. Joseph's Church in Olney, was established in 1857 by Father Laughren and celebrated its 150 year anniversary on October 7, 2007. It was Bishop Junken, who was appointed as the first Bishop of the Alton Diocese by His Holiness Pope Pius IX in 1857, who selected Father Laughren as the founding Pastor of St. Joseph's Church. The first church was built in 1861 on property that was donated by Thomas Lily at the corner of Fair and Butler Streets. The church was then moved on rollers to its present location to Elliot and Chestnut Streets. A prominent family of the time, that of Dr. George Weber, was very influential in establishing St. Joseph's school do to the fact he wanted to provide his own children with a Catholic education close to home. When the school was completed in 1907, Weber strove to bring the Ursuline Sisters of Paola, Kansas, who taught from 1907-1914, to the school. It grew to 70 students by the fall of 1908. Construction of the present day church began in 1937 and was dedicated on Thanksgiving Day in 1938. The exterior of the church remains basically unchanged to this day, and the parish is presently serving about 700 families. The first and smaller parish house was purchased from the estate of C.P. Porter in 1953 and originally served as the sister' covenant. A larger and more modern structure was then built and became known as the Parish House but was then demolished in 1997 to make room for a more spacious building to enhance the parish facilities. I salute St. Joseph's Church as it is an icon in the city of Olney and has provided a sense of stability and constancy as it has endured many tests during the course of the last 150 years. Members of the church and community equally have had this pillar of strength given to them by the church, which is something that will expectantly remain important for the city of Olney for at least an additional 150 years.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor, not only our courageous men and women in uniform, but the students at Buford Intermediate Center in Mt. Vernon, IL, for their contributions to our service men and women. The pupils at Buford personally welcomed home Zach Wood, Brian Gibson, and Tony Mays, all National Guard soldiers, from a 15-month deployment in Iraq. Along with welcoming home soldiers, the students are raising money for gift cards for soldiers who will be serving during the holidays. In addition, the students send care packages and letters to the soldiers to become acquainted with them. After their welcome home, the soldiers took time to answer questions from the students ranging from fast food opportunities to the deaths of fellow soldiers to help students and faculty better empathize with the soldiers and their struggles. Now, more than ever, our service men and women need the encouragement demonstrated by the students at Buford Intermediate School to show they are in our thoughts and prayers. We must demonstrate our support and admiration for their work and I thank these students for the example they have set for us. I applaud the students at Buford Intermediate School for their service to our men and women serving in Iraq. May God bless them for their efforts and may He continue to bless America.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address the schedule for the rest of this week. Regular Members don't have a chance to talk. It's usually the majority leader and our chief deputy whip. But I did this a couple of weeks ago when we left at 5 o'clock. Today it's another 5 o'clock ending session. We have really three bills left to address this week, the Hard Rock Mining and Reclamation Act, which we could do tonight, Trade Globalization Assistance Act, which we could do tomorrow morning, and we could appoint our conferees tomorrow morning, mid-afternoon, which would allow many Members to be able to get home with their family. I have an 8-year-old son. It might be nice to go trick-or-treating with him. There's no reason we have to be here for 2 days to conduct this type of work. I'm embarrassed for this House and the time spent here doing no work.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the patriotism of Michael Heiermann. Michael is a High School Junior from Mt. Vernon, Illinois. For several years now, he has put out small American flags throughout his neighborhood to mark special national holidays. President Kennedy said, ``A nation reveals itself not only by the men it produces but also by the men it honors.'' Today, America is a better place because of young men and women like Michael. And America is a better place because of good parents like Edward and Dorothy Heiermann. Small acts of great love are the unremitting actions that make America great. It is my honor today to recognize the service of this young man as an example of a true patriot--a testament to which we should all aspire.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H. Res. 106.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Antonio Moore, a 16-year-old student at Mt. Vernon Township High School in Mt. Vernon, Illinois. Antonio was chosen as one of the 401 athletes for Team USA that will be competing in the Special Olympics World Summer Games in China. While in China, Antonio will compete in the 400 meter run, shot put and 4 400 meter run. I also rise to honor the organization that makes Olympic dreams like Antonio's a reality. The Special Olympics currently serves over 2.5 million athletes with intellectual disabilities worldwide. Their volunteerism and commitment to helping people with disabilities is truly remarkable. I am pleased to congratulate Antonio on his success. I wish him, and all of Team USA, the best as they represent their country.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my colleague, Congressman Costello, for his great work. It is a pretty simple premise that if we are going to do the FEMA floodplain analysis, it ought to be in a watershed. As he so aptly put, when floods come across rivers, they will flow across banks on both sides. So as we have to address how to do the compensation, it only makes sense that they do it that way. So I appreciate him bringing this forward, and I appreciate Chairman Frank's effort in this aspect.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, it is 4:10 and we have finished the work of today. Should I be surprised? I wish I wouldn't be surprised. I was going to give the new majority a chance to get their sea legs in about 6 months to manage the floor so that we would work throughout the day, but I continue to get disappointed at our early departure hours from the floor. I have got numerous dates from throughout the year where we have stopped work: January 11 at 3:26 p.m.; 17 January, 5:52 p.m.; 23 January, 2:40 p.m.; 4:23 p.m., 2:44 p.m., 2:28 p.m., 4:58 p.m., 3:01 p.m., 2:51 p.m., 3:21, 3:46. Yesterday I think we left work at 3:30. Today we leave work at 4. The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that just because we are here more days a week doesn't mean we are doing any more work. Many of us who would like to be home to visit with our constituents or be home to visit with our families would say let's work in the evening, let's work at 6 p.m., let's work at 7 p.m., let's go to 10 p.m. By golly, let's go to 11 o'clock at night. Let's be brave. Let's be courageous. We know there are many issues that the American public want us to address. We heard the concern from my colleague just before. But where are we? We're done for the day. No more business. Now it is just Members coming to the floor and speaking what is on their mind. What is on my mind is we ought to be about the business that we are sent here to do. I understand the new majority, and I wanted to cut them some slack on the first 6 months. Five days a week. Let's work. That's fine. But now we're past that time. Now we should be able to say: The days we are here in Washington, let's work. Let's start at 10, let's go to 6, let's go to 8, let's go to 10. Let's get our work done and then allow 435 Members to go back to their districts to do their town hall meetings, to visit with their constituents, to take care of the business. Not only that, but most of us live at home. Most of our families live in the districts we represent. We can't be good fathers, good mothers, good parents when we are stuck here at 4 p.m., 4:10, nothing else to do, just wait for the next workday to begin. So, Mr. Speaker, my simple point is, if we are going to work here in Washington, can't we please go back to working in the evening? I don't think that is too much to ask for.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Zion Evangelical and Reformed United Church of Christ in Addieville, IL. One hundred years ago this past Saturday, the congregation of Zion Church of Christ set the cornerstone of their present church building. Contents of the cornerstone included, among other things, the church constitution, membership list, a catechism, songbook, and church calendar. On May 31, 1908, the new church was finally completed. Over 3000 parishioners and spectators attended the dedication services, The magnificent edifice was erected at a cost of $23,000 dollars and was hailed in the Nashville Journal as the finest church in Washington County, IL. But while a sturdy and beautiful building is a testament to the handiwork of the church's carpenters and craftsman--the success of the Zion Church over the course of a century is a living testament to the souls who fill the church pews. May God continue to bless the Zion Church for another hundred years.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about natural gas for a few minutes. Natural gas is a major commodity product in a lot of what we do in our country. I think this chart basically shows that as the price of natural gas goes up jobs go down. We are not competitive with countries around the world on natural gas. Look what we have done and what we continue to do in this bill. It is amazing how our major coastal States want to drive us to energy efficiency, they want to use electricity, but they don't want us to use the natural resources off their coast. This is a map of our country. It shows all the areas in red that are off limits for natural gas exploration. So we have the States of Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont; we have the great State of California, Oregon, Washington State. Guess what? It is okay if we use natural gas, but don't get it from our Outer Continental Shelf. What do they do in this bill? They put a big ``don't get it from'' the mountain States any more. So we continue to want to use electricity, we continue to want to use natural gas, but you know what, we don't want to explore for it. That is why I am concerned about this bill. I have great friends, and I appreciate the efficiency debate. Light cars, light bulbs, it could be a little bit of help. But if we don't move with a renewable fuel standard, if we don't use coal in an alternative fuel standard, if we don't continue to move on ethanol, if we don't expand nuclear options and hopefully move to a hydrogen economy, we're kidding ourselves. We have to do both. To come to this floor and say that this is going to decrease our reliance on imported crude oil and this is going to make us safer is not correct. Vote against this bill.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to count to 10 and make sure I'm calm and deliberative. I do appreciate my friends on the other side. Throughout the process in our committee, numerous times I've heard the promise that we will have coal provisions in the Greenhouse Gas Bill this fall, and I think we kind of heard it again today. I am skeptical. I am a doubter. I don't believe it will happen. That's why I'm upset about the bill today. We just heard Education and Workforce people talk about jobs. I'll talk about jobs; coal-to-liquid jobs. One coal-to-liquid refinery that produces 80,000 barrels of coal-to-liquid, a thousand jobs, 2,500 to 5,000 construction jobs, 15 million tons of coal per year, and up to 500 coal mining jobs. Those are real jobs with great benefits and great wages. Energy security. We have our soldiers deployed in the Middle East, and they've been there for a lot of reasons for many, many years. I think it was Carter who said the Persian Gulf region was an important national security interest. Why? We know why. Crude oil. How do we decrease that importance of the Persian Gulf region? We move to coal- to-liquid technologies, our coal fields to a coal-to-liquid refinery, through a pipeline to fuel our aviation assets that the Department of Defense really wants. What is wrong with this bill? Everything. No soy diesel. No renewable fuel standard. No ethanol. No renewable fuel standard. No coal. No alternative fuel standard. Nothing on nuclear energy. No expansion. There is no supply in this bill. Defeat this bill.

Mr SHIMKUS

Mr SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, this rule is a joke. It does nothing for supply. No renewable fuel standard, no alternative fuel standard, 7 minutes for debate by the minority side on energy policy in this country. Are you crazy? Coal. Take it down then, take it down, if you want. This is coal, our largest resource in this country, to help decrease our reliance on imported crude oil. What will it do for the economy? Coal-to-liquid, 1,000 jobs, 2,500 construction jobs, 15 million tons of coal, up to 500 coal-mining jobs. You all say no. What's it do for our national security, coal, to coal-to-liquid refinery, to pipelines to fuel our Air Force? Our Air Force is demanding liquified gasoline moved into jet fuel to decrease our reliance on important crude oil, and you guys won't bring up an energy bill? Shame on you.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, upon conclusion of this debate, I will be offering the motion to recommit. The motion to recommit will require the House conferees to adopt the House position, which was supported in a motion to instruct conferees on this floor only 2 days ago by a vote of 258-167, 69 of them being Democrats, including nine Science Committee Democrats. For fiscal conservatives, this would require the conferees to insist on the overall House authorization level, which is $20 billion less. For the second part of this motion, it would require the House conferees to again support the previously adopted House position with regard to giving priority grants to expand domestic energy production through the use of coal-to-liquid technology and advanced nuclear reprocessing. Again, this was the exact motion to recommit of 2 days ago. I have heard the debate of my friends: if we want to have a blueprint to where we want to go, we want to go for energy security. We are going to take up a bill on the House floor in a day or two that has no energy production. So how are we going to go advance science research, the next generation, if we don't have priority grants in nuclear reprocessing and coal-to-liquid technology? We heard the debate. We know that people want to go to coal-to-liquid technologies, but we don't know if it's going to work. We don't know if we can sequester. We don't know if we can refine it less than the barrel of crude oil. That's what this energy is for. Energy security. Let's get our best minds on this, but the conference report pulled it out. That's why I will offer the motion to recommit. Two things on coal-to-liquid, I could talk about nuclear reprocessing all day. It should be in this bill. But I want to focus on coal-to- liquid technology, economic security, national security. Look what coal-to-liquid does, are 80,000 barrels, 1,000 new jobs, 2,500 to 5,000 construction jobs, 15 million tons of coal per year, up to 500 coal mining jobs in one coal-to-liquid refinery. Talk about national security? Here's national security for you. Are you tired of our reliance on imported crude oil from the Middle East? If you are tired of it, then you go to coal-to-liquid technologies. You take our coal that's under our ground. You move it up to a refinery that's not on the gulf coast, that's in the Midwest, or wherever there are coal fields in this country, you refine it, you put it in our pipelines, and as this shows, you know where it goes? To our jet fighter planes, to our jet cargo planes. The Department of Defense is crying for us to provide jet fuel for them through this technology. But, no, we can't do it. Here you got a science bill, you want to give grants to help us move in the next generation, you pull out nuclear reprocessing, and you pull out coal-to-liquid technology. You are going to bring to the bill an energy bill with no energy. That's why I am moving this motion to recommit.

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member and my good friend, Congresswoman Tauscher. This is a tough bill, and I appreciate it being brought to the floor. People know I come here heartfelt because of my 25 years connected with the United States Army. I don't like to throw that out. You know that. An Army Ranger and Army paratrooper, still an active reservist, but I have become frustrated that we are losing sight of why we have a military. The mission of the United States military is to fight and win our Nation's wars. Now, many people don't want us to have a military, I understand that, but I think the best hope for democracy and freedom in the world today, even in our work with NATO, is a strong, powerful, committed, professional United States military, and we work on that with our NATO allies. The mission of the infantry is to get close with and destroy our enemies. Destroy our enemies, to go after them and fight them and send down the message that we're going to fight you until you leave us alone. Now, there are folks on the other side who don't want us to have that. I am one that thinks it's necessary to have in this country. So I don't think we're in conflict. I do think that we have lost some faith in our leadership in the military. I still have it. I still think our career military officers will make the tough call to deploy and use their troops. I'm going a little bit slower than I hoped because I'm talking from the heart, but more than just the officer rank, it's the career enlisted leaders. In the Army, it's the command sergeant majors all the way up, from the commanding down to the first sergeant in the company. You have to believe that they will raise the issue about whether their troops cannot perform the mission. That is part of who they are. And when you fight in the trenches and you develop that bond that makes you an effective fighting force, how dare they not think about their soldiers first. I think they do. I believe in the military. I think their heart's right, and our volunteer military is the best on the face of the earth today. I know we want to keep it that way. I'm not sure this is the right way to go, but I just wanted to come down and talk from the military's perspective. General Leave

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, under the current Illinois SCHIP program, it covers up to 200 percent of poverty, $41,300 in annual income for a family of four; 26,830, or 31 percent of all families with children under the age of 18, in my district are already eligible for either Medicaid or SCHIP. In this bill, Democrats have opposed cutting at least $194 billion in Medicare spending. Specifically, the Democrats have proposed cutting Medicare spending for 6,070 seniors in my district who are currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage. Payments for hospital inpatient care will be cut $2.7 billion; inpatient rehabilitation services, $6.6 billion; skilled nursing facilities, a $6.5 billion cut; certain drugs, $1.9 billion in cuts; home health care, $7.2 billion; end-stage renal disease cut by $3.6 billion; motorized wheelchair and oxygen cuts.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, in 1997, a Republican-led Congress passed the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, a program that combines the best of public and private approaches to delivering vital health care coverage to low-income children across the country. Today this program provides coverage to 6.6 million children and has lowered the insurance rate by nearly 25 percent. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle decided not to include us in crafting the reauthorization of SCHIP. In addition, it included many other provisions affecting Medicare, without any input from the minority. The legislation put forth by the Democrats has many problems, and I have serious reservations on how they propose to fund this legislation. Specifically, there are proposed funding streams in the bill passed out of the Ways and Means Committee that seek to take money out of end- stage renal disease programs by establishing policies that are shortsighted and ill-advised. As currently structured, this proposal takes funding from among the sickest patients in the Medicare program, those who have end-stage renal disease, and reallocates it to a massive SCHIP expansion. As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I was pleased to learn that Chairman Dingell was prepared to offer an amended version of the CHAMP Act that did not include any end-stage renal disease cuts, and, as indicated by CBO score sheets of Chairman Dingell's amendment, that do not include entries for any end-stage renal disease provisions. It was unfortunate that the bill was discharged from the Energy and Commerce before amendments could be offered to strike these cuts, but I wholeheartedly agree that we should not be making cuts to end-stage renal disease, which treats some of the sickest patients in Medicare, to fund SCHIP expansion. As the CHAMP Act currently stands, my concerns with end-stage renal disease are twofold. First, the bill proposes to disrupt the market- based average sales price reimbursement system that Congress worked hard to pass in the Medicare Modernization Act. This average sales price payment system was first implemented in the physician setting in 2005 and the end-stage renal disease setting for all drugs in 2006. This system has been a great success across the board, and moving to reimbursement rates of ASP plus 6 percent has demonstrated significant savings. In fact, the Office of Inspector General estimated annual savings of $1 billion because of the shift from the old average wholesale price system to the ASP system in 2005. Starting in 2006, the average sales price system includes drugs used to treat anemia in end-stage renal disease patients, as well as all other end-stage renal disease drugs. MedPACs have noted a decline in end-stage renal disease drug spending since the implementation of the average sales price, and when looking at erythropoietin stimulant agents, which are biologics used to treat anemia in end-stage renal disease, specifically it is clear that the ASP has resulted in a reduction in the price of Medicare, which had previously paid for these biologics going from $10 under a statutory rate in 1994 to 2004. Point of Order

Mr. SHIMKUS. Especially in this debate, the end stage renal disease aspect; and that is the nexus. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SHIMKUS. If the gentleman from Illinois controls the time, I yield to my colleague from Georgia.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Starting in 2006, the average sales price system included drugs used to treat anemia and end-stage renal disease patients as well as other end-stage renal disease drugs. Additionally, there are provisions in the bill that propose to institute a statutory price control rate. It would be a mistake to change a system that has reduced prices for this medicine by 6.8 percent since the average sales price-based reimbursement system was implemented in January of 2006; 9 percent compared to what Medicare paid for the drug back in 1994 under a statutory price control rate. This market-based system is working to drive down prices for Medicare in Congress, and Congress shouldn't try to fix something that's not broken. Most importantly, I also question how a cut in payment would affect patient care. A payment cut may create financial incentives to reduce or ration clinically beneficial drugs. Dialysis providers may reduce their costs by providing fewer services and drugs, transferring patients to another setting of care, or discharging patients more quickly. Mr. Chairman, in 1997 a Republican-led Congress passed the State Children's Heath Insurance Program (SCHIP)--a progam that combines the best of public and private approaches to delivering vital health coverage to low-income children across this country. Today this program provides coverage to 6.6 million children and has lowered the uninsured rate by nearly 25 percent. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle decided not to include us in crafting the reauthorization of SCHIP and in addition, included many other provisions affecting Medicare without any input from the minority. The legislation put forth by the Democrats has many problems, and I have serious reservations on how they propose to fund this legislation. Specifically, there are proposed funding streams in the bill passed out of the Ways and Means Committee that seeks to take money out of the End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) program by establishing policies that are shortsighted and ill-advised. As currently structured, this proposal takes funding from among the sickest patients in the Medicare program, those that have ESRD, and reallocates it to a massive SCHIP expansion. As a member of the Energy & Commerce Committee, I was pleased to learn that Chairman Dingell was prepared to offer an amended version of the CHAMP Act that did not include any ESRD cuts as indicated by CBO score sheets of Chairman Dingell's amendment that do not include entries for any ESRD provisions. It was unfortunate that the bill was discharged from Energy and Commerce before amendments could be offered to strike these ESRD cuts, but I wholeheartedly agree that we should not be making cuts to the ESRD, which treats some of the sickest patients in Medicare, to fund SCHIP expansion. As the CHAMP Act currently stands, my concerns with the ESRD provisions are two-fold. First, the bill proposes to disrupt the market based Average Sales Price (ASP) reimbursement system that Congress worked hard to pass in the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA). This ASP payment system was first implemented in the physician setting in 2005, and the ESRD setting for all drugs in 2006. This system has been a great success across the board and moving to reimbursement rates at ASP+6 percent has demonstrated significant savings. In fact, the Office of the Inspector General estimated annual savings of $1 billion because of the shift from the old Average Wholesale Price (AWP) system to the ASP system in 2005. Starting in 2006, the ASP system included drugs used to treat anemia in ESRD patients, as well as all other ESRD drugs. MedPAC has noted a decline in ESRD drug spending since the implementation of ASP and when looking at Erythropoeitin Stimulating Agents (ESAs), which are biologics used to treat anemia, in ESRD specifically, it is clear that ASP has resulted in a reduction in the price Medicare had previously paid for these biologics--going from $10 under a statutory rate from 1994-2004 to $9.10 today for one of these ESAs--EPOGEN. This is a 9 percent drop which represents real savings. Additionally, there are provisions in the bill that propose to institute a statutory price controlled rate that would distort the market and ASP system by establishing a cap which restricts Medicare payment at a statutory rate of $8.75 or ASP+2 percent, whichever is less. It would be a mistake to change a system that has reduced prices for this medicine by 6.8 percent since the ASP-based reimbursement system was implemented in January 2006 and by 9 percent compared to what Medicare paid for the drug back in 1994 under a statutory price controlled rate. This market-based system is working now to drive down prices for Medicare and Congress shouldn't try to fix something if it's not broken. Most importantly, I also question how a cut in payment would affect I patient care. A payment cut may create financial incentives to reduce or ration clinically beneficial drugs. Dialysis providers may reduce their costs by providing fewer services and drugs, transferring patients to another setting of care, or discharging patients more quickly. So when we are looking for ways to save money, a reduction in reimbursement levels could actually result in unintended consequences, such as increasing the number of ESRD patients who are hospitalized. Published studies show that patients who are under dialyzed or who are suffering from anemia are more likely to be hospitalized. Increases in hospitalization due to dialysis payment changes could end up being very costly to Medicare and taxpayers. This is just bad policy rationale. I am also concerned with a provision that would move to a fully bundled dialysis composite rate--that is bundling drugs and other separately billable services into a composite rate--for large dialysis providers beginning in 2010, and for all other dialysis providers by 2013. Since passage of the MMA in 2003, CMS has tried to design and test a fully bundled payment system and has been unsuccessful. I believe that CMS must be given more time to study this issue and complete the bundling demonstration authorized in the MMA that it has been working to implement to ensure that all of the complex factors that go into a bundled payment are accounted for and that patient care and access are not harmed under a bundled payment system. Again, bundling may create financial incentives to reduce or ration care resulting in worse health outcomes. An insufficient Medicare payment could cause facilities to close their doors or result in poor patient outcomes. This underscores the need to test a bundled payment through a demonstration first before implementing. Congress and CMS should be fully informed on how to protect patient access and quality before implementing bundling system-wide. Although I am committed to the reauthorization of SCHIP I cannot support these types of cuts to Medicare. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Democrats' SCHIP expansion in its current form. Point of Order

Mr. SHIMKUS. If there are cuts in one bill based upon increased spending in another, is that financial connection enough to continue to proceed?

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the patriotism of Mr. Jim Wham of Centralia, Illinois. Mr. Wham delivered a passionate speech this past May 5th expressing the importance of winning the War on Terror. In his brief message, Mr. Wham, an attorney at law in my district, remarked on the immense debt we owe our fighting men and women for this sacrifices they have have made in this war and rebuked the defeatists who would set an arbitrary date for surrender. Therefore, I respectfully submit the text of Mr. Wham's speech for the Record in the hopes that others will stand with him in support of our troops and the mission for which they fight. [From the Sentinel, May 8, 2007] 2007 Tribute to the Troops (By Jim Wham) I want to commend the 15th Street Church of God for this event at the Bandshell. This evening of prayer and song forms the perfect occasion to recognize the men and women serving this country in the Armed Forces of the United States. Each one of them and their families are making a sacrifice unlike any other. Every American when called to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States performs the duty assigned to him or her by the Commander-in-Chief and not by Congressmen and Senators. I thought of each life of these men and women and all others who served their country. The course and destiny of their lives are set by chance assignment of that duty. Some come back unscathed, others marked by grievous wounds and others never come back. The month of May is the month we pay honor to the men and women on Armed Services Day a couple of weeks from now, and then a week later, Memorial Day--a day when everyone in this land of liberty must stop, look to the story of the soldiers, sailors and marines who fell on battlefields--went down in sinking ships--in crashing planes--in the deserts--in the jungles--in the towns--all over this world during the entire lifetime of this nation. The unknown soldiers and the unsung heroes--there are thousands and thousands of them. These gallant men and women most likely will never be known by the people for what they did. They served and they did not ask for glory. Their deeds of valor on battlefields and oceans and in the air never had a chance to be forgotten because they remained unspoken and unknown. The American people never forget these known and unknown living and dead Americans--this ever expanding LEGION OF HONOR has never let their country down and no one in this country should ever let them down. Jesus tells us ``Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.'' The peacemakers--they are the men and women in the American Armed Forces--the peacemakers who in defending freedom do so to bring peace to the world--God's world and to the children of God. The tyrants foment conflict and war. The armed forces of the U.S. are always against the tyrant--never in support of the tyrant, and these American men and women we honor today-- honor them for opposing a tyranny of a new dark age, a tyranny of worldwide terrorism--a dark age spawned from the dens of terrorists throughout the world even in this country and in our allies Britain and Israel as well as in countless other nations. These insane religious fanatics misuse their religion to cultivate and persuade thousands of suicide bombers to destroy multi-thousands of innocent people who are unlucky enough to be at the wrong place at the wrong time when the suicide bomber explodes himself in their midst. This war in Iraq is no civil war--it is a war against gangs of vicious mad dog criminals who want to kill off any democratic government that can be formed--a government that people yearn for and deserve. These criminals know that they cannot succeed as long as American troops are in Iraq helping good people form a democracy. These criminals hide in the casbahs and mountains while promoting their lackeys to kill themselves and others, hoping that such killings will aid the second-guessers in America to oppose the Commander-in-Chief by insisting on a day of surrender--a day to leave the Middle East--a day to quit any resistance against the terrorists. These second-guessers proclaim to the world that the war is lost; their words bring smiles to the evil faces of those marauders. These quitters are like a quarterback shouting to the other team. ``We're not going to pass, we're runnin' around the left end.'' We are running away from you--the terrorists--is the message of the quitter. If they want to win a war they say is lost, they, the second guessers not the President, must change their tune because quitters never win. The Scripture proclaims ``If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle.'' There are far too many uncertain trumpets being sounded in Washington today and in the national news media. These uncertain trumpets inspire nothing but joy in the haunts of the terrorists who love to hear those mournful tunes in the USA. When these friends from Hell see the leader of the Senate on television proclaim the war is lost, the terrorists around the world applaud and promote more suicide bombers to hasten the day of American surrender. And when they see and hear the Senate leader condemn the Vice President, they applaud again and try to kill him in Pakistan. Don't these second guessing quitters know that the United States has a vital interest to contest the terrorist in the Middle East--in that caldron of hatred and insanity which is the launching pad for terrorists against this country and its allies? Don't be second-guessers give any thought at all to the downside of an American surrender by pulling out of that part of the world? Every concerned American who stops, looks, and listens to the present day happenings knows the disastrous downside of an American pull-out from Iraq. It would proclaim to the world an American confession that terrorism has won a victory over the United States. World power of the United States would evaporate. No longer would the United States lead in the battle for peace and freedom which is so necessary to the salvation of our own way of life. Do the quitters ever envision their day at the Baghdad airport--when a thousand transport planes land and take off with the American army to the dismay of every decent person who knows that there goes the last best chance for peace and freedom? Why can't these quitters envision that into the vacuum left behind, the criminal gangs of the Taliban, al Qaeda, the death squads of both Sunnis and Shiites will seize the opportunity in a common cause against their own people and against America and her allies by joining together these legions of evil against the decent people of the Middle East. Doesn't it occur to the quitter that a coalition of Iran, Iraq and Syria under despotic leaders will bring pressure and threat of conquest against Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as Saddam Hussein attempted to do in the 1990's Desert Storm? Can't the quitters envision the utter chaos that will come when the nuclear bomb is developed in Iran or acquired from North Korea and those reckless fanatics threaten their surrounding countries to joint the crowd? If America is gone from Iraq, will that insane fanatic from Iran, Ahmadinejad press the button that will lead to a premature Armageddon in Israel? A hundred years ago, when Teddy Roosevelt was President, he spoke these words about this nation's destiny: ``We have no choice as to whether or not we shall play a great part in the world. That is already the case. ``All that we can decide is whether we shall play it well or play it ill.'' Thus far, we have played it well but we are now at the crossroads of the decision that will affect all mankind. The question is, will we stay and fight for freedom and for peace or will we forfeit the field to those vicious criminals who in no way respect the God-given miracle of life. Rudyard Kipling--the great British patriot and poet of the 19th and 20th Centuries put to verse the lesson of perseverance in long lasting battles. Here's the way he wrote it: ``How do we know, when the long fight rages, On the old, stale front that we cannot shake, And it looks as though we were locked for ages. How do we know they are going to break? There is no lull in the level firing, Nothing has shifted except the sun. Yet we can feel they are tiring, tiring-- Yet we can tell they are ripe to run. Something wavers, and, while we wonder, Their centre-trenches are emptying out, And, before their useless flanks go under, Our guns have pounded retreat to rout.'' In other words, we win by hanging on. My friends, American forces are going to win this war against terrorism. The war is not lost and no one should listen to the quitters because they are the losers of the present and the future. If we but stand fast with the troops and our Commander-in- Chief, the fiends of Hell will lose. And the sacrifice of these gallant men and women we honor today will not have been in vain. They must not be let down by quitting and surrender.