[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 23, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H875-H880]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REPUBLICAN PERSPECTIVE ON 110TH CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentlemen for yielding their time back
and doing it in the spirit of bipartisanship.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that now that the 100 hours is out of the way and
we are to the point of having the State of the Union, that we will see
this body return to a format of regular order and regular process and
rules that we have had in place and have respected and this body has
abided by through the course of this great Nation. That would, indeed,
be welcomed.
In the 100-hour agenda we have seen the majority party take action on
some of the issues that they had chosen to address. Their 100-hour
agenda has included legislation on student loans that really is not
going to do anything to make loans more accessible and available to
those students that are trying to get into college. It is not going to
reduce the cost of college while it is there. And it will take effect
[[Page H876]]
after a person has graduated and then is working and is looking at
consolidating those loans and paying them back.
So that one was a little bit of a head-scratcher for a lot of our
constituents because we have worked tirelessly to make college more
affordable, to raise the caps on what could be loaned for students to
get those Stafford loans, Pell Grants and increasing the funding for
those, things that actually would make a difference, and that is an
accomplishment of the Republican majority over the past decade.
Minimum wage. One of our colleagues had just mentioned minimum wage.
And I will point out, Mr. Speaker, to the Members of this body that the
actions that were taken on minimum wage, we heard from our small
business community. Certainly small business employers that are in my
district were very concerned about this. We have heard estimates of 5
to 7 to as much as $17 billion in costs that this would be to our small
businesses. That is of tremendous concern. That is a cost that is going
to get passed on.
{time} 1600
That is a cost that is going to get passed on. And of course in the
minimum wage bill, we had the unfortunate error of Tunagate that was
crept into that bill somehow in one of the sessions as the bill was
being drafted, and there again, not going through regular order in
making its way to the House. And we hope that we will see that
situation addressed.
And the tuna producers that American Samoa were exempted from that,
American Samoa was exempted from that minimum wage. That is not fair to
the rest of the tuna producers in this country. It is not fair to the
rest of the companies that sell tuna and tuna products, and we do hope
that there will be attention placed to that and that issue will be
addressed, because it was a northern California, San Francisco, company
that produced the tuna that is harvested in American Samoa. We do have
concerns about favoritism that was shown there.
The Medicare bill that was passed in the first 100 hours will indeed
yield additional costs to the VA. We have had some numbers there that
are of quite concern, as much as three-quarters of a billion dollars
that this would end up costing, be an additional cost to the veterans
health care system, to our veterans for their pharmaceuticals.
And what we have heard from our seniors is that they are pleased with
Medicare part D. They are pleased to have access to affordable health
care. They are very pleased that prescriptions and pharmaceuticals and
therapies that at one point they did not have, that they now have
access to that.
It was a little bit of a head-scratcher, Mr. Speaker, that a program
that has been so well received by our seniors, that the new majority
would come along and say, well, we are going to change it. We are going
to tweak it. It does not matter if it is working well.
And it leads us to question: Is it just they want programs that only
they design and only they grow, or do they want programs that are going
to be of service to the American people?
Another of the bills that came through was the 9/11 Commission
implementation, not exactly what had been promised in campaign
promises. But, you know, the new majority did take the bill up and did
take action. And we have heard from a lot of our businesses that are in
logistics and transportation with great concerns, great concerns about
the cost.
Mr. Speaker, when you pass additional fees and additional mandates,
and additional costs on to business, guess what? Ronald Reagan was
right. It is the people that end up paying those costs. It is not
businesses that are bearing those costs and absorbing them. They get
passed on to you, to me, and to other consumers, the taxpayers, who see
their costs go up because the business that they are doing business
with is having to meet the mandates of who? Guess what? The mandates of
the Federal Government.
So, yes, this has been a very expensive first 100 hours. And it has
been troublesome in that regular order was not abided by, the bills
were not going through committees and having hearings and having the
due diligence process that we as Members of Congress are bound to do.
And then they were just coming to the floor without those hearings.
I just had another of our colleagues mention something on health
care. Of course, this is an issue that we know the President is going
to speak a little bit about this evening. Before we move on to a couple
of other points, I do want to make a couple of observations about
health care and some of the discussion that was taking place on the
issue of health care.
We know the President is going to talk about health care tonight.
Now, the Republicans, the conservatives, have an approach that they
think is a right approach. We think that it is appropriate for small
businesses to be able to band together and come together under an
umbrella and purchase health care, health coverage, health insurance
for their employees.
That is very good. Our Nation has 40 million uninsured, and to be
able to have groups come together, small businesses, let us say all of
your florists, or all of your auto supply companies, or all of your
plumbing companies, or companies that are a part of the Chamber of
Commerce or other small business organizations, or women-owned
businesses, businesses of like groups can come together and make that
purchase of insurance.
It is called small business health plans or association health plans,
very good idea for helping our Nation's 40 million uninsured, and the
right type, the right type step because it helps make health care
insurance affordable.
Mr. Speaker, that is positive. That is a free-market way to address
the situation. It is a pro-small-business way to address the situation.
It is the right step.
Another good step is allowing a tax deduction, $5,000, $7,500, for
small business that buy insurance. That is the great step. That is the
way it should be. You know, when you start looking at the end of the
year and filling out your taxes, that is money that you have earned,
and being able to take that deduction because you have done something
that is right, way to go.
It should be incentivized. There should be deductions for that. And
it is appropriate that that take place. Now, those are private sector,
free market responses to addressing the health care situation. They
work very well with the health savings accounts that were passed as
part of the Medicare modernization when that bill came forward in 2003.
Health savings accounts have been tremendously popular. We now know
that we have about 15 million Americans that are insured through health
savings accounts. The number is growing. By 2010 we know that there
will be over 20 million American families that are there and insured
through health savings accounts, having the opportunity to take
responsibility for their health care from dollar one.
And continuing to incentivize health savings accounts, tax deductions
there. There again, it is a private sector, free-enterprise solution to
the health care situation, more market-driven, allowing people to have
control of access, to take control of their health care decisions, and
to participate in those, have choice over who their physician is. Those
are the right things to do.
Now, one of my colleagues just made a statement about the haves and
the have-nots in health care, and made a statement that health care
could be provided and, I think I am quoting this correctly, said: We
could do it without any additional cost to the system.
Oh, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you, when I hear things like that,
without any additional cost to the system, it certainly causes me to
pay a little bit closer attention, because one of the things that we
have realized, Mr. Speaker, is you know what? Nothing is free. There is
nothing free. Nothing. There is no free lunch. There is nothing free in
health care. Somebody is paying the bill.
What we see take place many times is cost shifting, and you will see
costs shift within a system. Now, in my wonderful State of Tennessee,
we have had an interesting situation take place. We have had a program
that went into place in January 1, 1995. It is called TENNCARE, and it
was basically a template for Hillary Clinton's health care plan. And
one of the talking points on it was: There will be no additional costs.
We will just spread out
[[Page H877]]
the risk. We will allow those who are uninsured, up to so many percent
of poverty, 400 percent of poverty, to come in and to access health
care, and we will spread the risk. We will do it through managed care
organizations. And managed care organizations can compete for the
opportunity to provide this insurance.
Well, it has been a program that has had quite a bit of turmoil. We
now see that nearly 30 percent of the individuals in our State are on
the program, and it is eating up about 36 percent of our State's
budget.
The reason for that, Mr. Speaker, is because whenever you are trying
to give things for free, someone else is paying. In the case of
TENNCARE, it has been the citizens of our State, the taxpayers of our
State. And there is no way to ever keep up with the exponential growth
of that program. So I would encourage all of my colleagues to be very,
very thoughtful as we move forward on the health care debate.
There is no such thing as being free. There is no way to do this with
no additional cost, because, as you try to make more things free, what
happens is your access is restricted. What happens is you have fewer
physicians who are available for those individuals that need those
services. What have you when things are free is people flood into that
State trying to get that for a reduced fee, and your own citizens of
the State who need the program many times are not able to access it.
So I would step very cautiously as our colleagues on the other side
of the aisle talk about health care that is going to be free, and
universal health care and Hillary Clinton's health care plan. There are
some pitfalls that are there, and they deserve to be recognized by the
body of this House.
As we talk about health care, I would love to yield to the gentleman
from Georgia, Dr. Price, a distinguished Member of this body who is an
expert on health care, for some of his thoughts on the issues of the
day.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding. I want to thank you for your leadership and your organization
of this hour, and day in and day out of working here in the Congress to
represent your constituents in Tennessee, but working so diligently on
behalf of the hardworking American taxpayer out there, making certain
that their interests are upheld here in the House of Representatives.
I appreciate you bringing up the issue of health care. There are a
couple of things that I would be interested in talking about today. But
the issue of health care is near and dear to my heart. As you
mentioned, I am a physician, or was in my former life before coming to
Congress, spent over 20 years in the private practice of orthopedic
surgery outside Atlanta.
One thing that I knew for certain and that my patients knew for
certain was that when doctors and patients are able to make health care
decisions, then good decisions get made. When insurance companies or
government inserts themselves into those decisions, then most often,
most often those decisions do not resemble the kind of decisions that
individual persons would make in very personal health care decisions
that they have.
I appreciate the comments that you made. I would like to commend the
President for putting on the table what I believe will be discussed
tonight in his State of the Union; that is, the individual tax
deductibility of health insurance. I have been a longtime supporter of
the right of individuals to have the same kind of benefit that
employers do in the purchase of health insurance.
So I am pleased that we have heard that that is indeed going to be a
possibility brought forward by the President this evening. It would
give so many people an opportunity to purchase health insurance that
right now are not able to do so financially. So I look forward to that
proposal coming forward tonight. And I would be happy to yield back to
the gentlewoman and talk about some other issues if you so desire.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Before I yield back to him for some further comments, I just want to
highlight one of the things that he brought up as a physician, and
someone who deals with this.
When you have a government-run program, what you are doing is putting
bureaucrats in charge of your health care decisions, and you are
removing that doctor-patient relationship many times. You are putting a
barrier there between the individual and that doctor. Someone else that
is removed from the process is making that decision; thereby it removes
the patient many times from that decision process.
{time} 1615
That is something that we do not want to see this Nation run toward.
Our seniors, our families want to be able to participate in making
those health care decisions for themselves. We are so pleased to know
that the President will talk about, as I said earlier, the private
sector free market-based approach to solving our health care problem.
Mr. Speaker, that is what it is going to require, innovation,
thinking outside of the box and being certain of something we know:
access, affordability, and preserving that doctor-patient relationship.
In my case, preserving health care for Tennesseeans. In the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Price), preserving health care for Georgians. That is
where our focus will be as we move forward on this discussion. We do
not want a government-run, government-directed program that is going to
place barriers between patients and the individuals that are making
those decisions with their health care professionals.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Sometimes it is hard to get your arms around
what do you mean the government being involved in the process.
I would suggest to my colleagues here and others who are listening
that we already see the inroads of some government decisions. One of
them is what sounded wonderful at the time, the HIPAA legislation,
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which was supposed
to make every individual citizen in this Nation make their health
records more secure and private. In fact, what that bill has done is
make that information less private and more available to more
individuals than ever before. That is because, as you well know when
you go in to see your doctor, the first thing you have to do is sign a
ream of documents. You feel like you are in a lawyer's office. You sign
a ream of documents.
What you are doing when you sign those documents is providing so that
the physician, when he or she shares your medical information with
anybody, isn't liable for violating HIPAA. Medicine is a collegial
activity. It requires that Dr. A communicate with Dr. B who
communicates with Dr. C, and they get together and come up with the
best solution for anybody's health problem.
When you are not able to share that information, the quality of
health care goes down. What has happened because the government had
this brilliant idea to get involved in the process is to say we will
make it so that your information cannot be shared with anybody unless
you give your permission. So because Dr. Smith doesn't know when he or
she is going to run into Dr. Jones to discuss that case, it is
imperative that every single patient sign away their right to any
privacy so the doctor can communicate when that time arises.
What the government has done by putting these rules in place, which
sounded wonderful, but what the government has done is made it so every
single patient in this Nation, their medical information is less
private and less secure than it was before governmental intervention.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman for bringing that forward. The
unintended consequences are many times what is so difficult to deal
with. In theory to bureaucrats sitting in buildings, that sounded like
a great deal: let's have everybody sign the forms.
In practice what happened for physicians, it was additional
paperwork, additional staff, and removing the patient from the process,
making it longer before they get a definitive diagnosis and know how to
begin a protocol and treatment that will restore their health, things
that impede a quality of life that our constituents desire.
So those unintended consequences many times get in the way. We are
just very hopeful that we will continue the focus and that the
Democrats will join
[[Page H878]]
us in wanting a private sector, free-market solution to health care and
not a government-run bureaucracy.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. If the gentlewoman would yield, I appreciate
that description of a free market private system health care. I call it
patient centered when I am talking about private because it means that
patients are empowered to do what they feel is appropriate in their
instance.
When you have a medical problem or when somebody else has a medical
problem, their decision about what they want to do to treat that may
not be what mine would be or my family's would be. It is only when
individuals get to make those personal decisions that we are able to
make certain that patient-centered health care exists.
When we try to describe what the future may be if our friends on the
other side of the aisle had their way and put in place a government
system that they tried to do in the early 1990s, all you have to do is
think about the last time you were at your doctor's and you needed a
test or an X-ray or some type of procedure done. Well, it is very
likely that discussion and education that you got as a patient with
your physician didn't last terribly long and you came to an
understanding and agreement about what would happen next.
What you may not have known what happens next is one of those
employees in that office then gets on the phone and talks to the
insurance company to make certain that it is okay. Most often we have
gotten that process down to be relatively streamlined. But can you
imagine if we put the government in charge of health care and you had
to get on the phone and get the government's permission, Washington's
permission, so you could have an MRI or biopsy or some other procedure?
That is what is looming.
The problem is now just time and inconvenience. The problem is that
if you, in order to have that happen and to be effective from the
government, from Washington's viewpoint, if you were not to follow
those rules, there would be significant punishment. In fact, you would
violate the law.
So what we saw in the early 1990s in the proposal that was put on the
table, if you as a patient or a physician were to do something that
wasn't allowed by the government, that would be a crime. It wouldn't
just be a bad decision; it would be a crime.
So what our friends on the other side of the aisle are in fact
proposing in the small print, and I know they like bumper-sticker
politics, I know they like to give these glorious titles to things, and
they sound wonderful, but when you get down to the fine print, what you
see, especially in the area of health care that I feel so passionately
about, when you get down to the fine print, what it means is that
patients and doctors will be exposed to criminal violations if they
don't follow what Washington says they ought to do. That concerns me
very, very greatly; and I know it does you.
I yield back.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. It does indeed. I thank the gentleman for yielding
back.
Having this process that gets more and more convoluted every single
day is of such concern to our constituents who just want to be able to
go to the doctor, have a relationship with the doctor and know a little
bit about what to expect.
As I said earlier, not knowing what to expect has been one of the
interesting points that we have dealt with in this first 100 hours. I
think that we all have been a little bit concerned about a bill that
was brought forward on Friday. I know my constituents asked about it as
they heard about it over the weekend. We talked about it on the floor
some this morning, and this is allowing the Delegates voting rights.
I have had constituents say, well now, wouldn't that require an
amendment to the Constitution? They remember when this debate took
place at different times through history back in the 1970s and again in
the early 1990s when there were those that wanted to give voting rights
to our territories. They are very, very concerned about this, and
rightfully so.
This morning on the floor earlier I quoted a comment that was made by
the Democrat Speaker of the House in 1970, Tom Foley, who said: ``It is
very clear that a constitutional amendment would be required to give
Delegates a vote in the Committee of the Whole or in the full House.''
That was taken from a New York Times editorial.
Now, this is something that we have to realize, we hold our
Constitution and the orderly process and the rule of law that is laid
forth in that Constitution, we hold that to be meaningful. We recognize
the necessity, Mr. Speaker, to respect the Constitution of this great
land. We respect that it is built on one man, one vote and equal
representation under the law.
So when we hear about giving the residents of our territories a vote,
it is of concern to us and it does raise several succinct points that
we have discussed on the floor today. It is a point worthy of
discussion because it appears that since this has not gone through
regular order and through the committee process, we haven't held
hearings, this is nothing more than an unconstitutional power grab in
order to try to move the new majority's agenda. It is of tremendous
concern.
I yield to the gentleman from Georgia for some comments on the issue.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and her
leadership on this issue.
The issue we are talking about is House Resolution 78, H. Res. 78. As
the gentlewoman mentioned, it was just brought up as a possibility that
we would be voting on it this week this past Friday. I would venture to
say, Mr. Speaker, that in your race and I know in my race and I doubt
in anybody's race around this Nation, save possibly the elections in
the territories, did anyone ever address the issue of Delegates voting
on the floor of the House of Representatives. I can honestly say I
don't know of anybody who used that as an issue that they ran on in
November.
We all appreciate that the American people were interested in change
when they voted in November, but I'm with you: I don't think that the
American people were interested in this kind of change, this kind of
change that I believe to be unconstitutional.
When I go to schools, middle schools and high schools, around my
district and I talk to students and we talk about the process of
government, oftentimes I will ask them a question: Can we make any law
we want in the House of Representatives? Can we make any law in
Congress we want?
Sometimes you will get some folks that say yeah; but most often the
young men and women and boys and girls in my district and I know across
this Nation know and understand and appreciate that the guiding
principles that we follow here are defined in the Constitution. I know
that it is challenging sometimes for people to be held to make certain
that they follow the Constitution, because there are some really stiff
rules in this Constitution.
But one of the ones at the very beginning, article I, is about the
legislative branches, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, and I believe
article I was about the legislative branch because the Founders knew
the incredible importance of the representative branch of government,
the legislative branch of government. And section 1 is about all powers
being vested in the House and Senate. Article I, section 2 states:
``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen
every second year by the people of the several States.''
It didn't mention anything about territories, Delegates from
territories. I am so pleased, and we are really aided by the
representation in the committees by the Delegates from the territories,
by the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, by the Delegates from
Guam, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa, and by the Delegate from
the District of Columbia, but clearly they do not represent States.
In this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, when we gather as a Committee of the
Whole or as the House of Representatives, it is clear that the Founders
and that our Constitution states that an individual to vote in that
instance must be a Member of the House and a representative of the
State.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, repeating again from the Constitution
that the representatives of this body are popularly elected from the
several States, and that is so important, and I want to talk for just a
moment about the size of our districts.
Mine is right around 700,000 people. We have some that I think are as
low as 640,000, 650,000. They are going to vary just a little bit. But
that is the size of them.
[[Page H879]]
We do appreciate so much the guidance that is given by the Delegates
from the territories. They are a valuable participation and a valuable
addition and a wonderful and treasured resource of this body. We need
their opinion and their input. But the Constitution does not allow for
their having a vote.
I think in Guam we have about 155,000 people, and in American Samoa
there are about 57,000 people.
{time} 1630
So we look at one man, one vote and the equal representation, and
then we have to say, my goodness, that is just really a far smaller
number. That is the size of many of our towns or our counties that we
represent when you have a district like mine. So I think that it is
important for us to realize that.
And it is important for us also to realize that these are Delegates
that will be able to vote to raise your taxes, but they are not paying
those Federal income taxes, and that is of tremendous concern to our
constituents.
Mr. Speaker, we have dubbed this time and again the ``hold on to your
wallet Congress'' because it seems as if they are looking for ways to
increase the cost of government and increase the size of that
bureaucracy. And our concern is that this is another of those ways that
would make it easier to raise your taxes.
And I yield back to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank you so much for yielding. And I
appreciate your bringing up that point because it is so important and
really so basic to our Nation.
Our Nation began for a variety of reasons, but not the least of which
is that our Founding Fathers believed that they were being taxed
without any ability to have representation in the body that was
deciding whether or not to tax them. They had taxation without
representation.
Well, this is really turning it on its head because, as you
mentioned, the individuals, the people in American Samoa, Guam, Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands, wonderful people that they are, but they
are not obligated to pay any Federal income tax. None. So what we would
be doing would be allowing Members, individuals in this House of
Representatives who would be described as Members, to vote on whether
or not to raise income taxes, but not be affected personally and not
have the people that they represent be affected. So that would be
representation without taxation. And I simply believe and I think that
our constituents believe across this Nation that that is fundamentally
wrong. Fundamentally wrong.
And I want to get back for just a moment to the issue of one person/
one vote, because when people say, well, it does not make a whole lot
of difference if the districts are a little bit different size. What
difference does that make? But, again, our Founders knew and understood
wisely that every Member of this House of Representatives ought to
represent essentially the same number of people so that when
individuals at home, citizens at home, vote for their representative,
their vote counts basically the same as every other citizen of this
Nation. And when you have districts that are one-tenth the size of
other districts, which, as you mentioned, American Samoa has a
population of about 57,000, 58,000, and most of our districts are
around 650,000; so that means that every person in American Samoa who
votes, their vote counts 10 times, 10 times the amount that your vote
and my vote and every other American citizen's vote counts. And that,
Mr. Speaker, and ladies and gentlemen, and colleagues of the House of
Representatives, one, is not fair; and, two, it is not the way our
Founders envisioned anybody voting in this House of Representatives.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman.
And one of the things that we have our focus on as we prepare for the
State of the Union tonight and for the work that is before us for the
rest of this Congress is certainly making certain that we are
successful in our efforts in Iraq and making certain that we are
successful in the war on terror.
Mr. Speaker, our constituents know that this has been a long war.
They know that the terrorists started attacking us over two decades
ago, and they also know that on September 11 this Nation decided we
were no longer going to respond to terrorist attacks as civil
disobedience. What we were going to do was to change course, and we
were going to respond to it as what it is: an act of war. And our
constituents all know, especially constituents in my district, National
Guard families, Reserve families, families at Fort Campbell that are in
our district, they know that this is a very, very difficult time for
our Nation, and it is a difficult time for our men and women in
uniform. And they know that freedom is worth protecting.
And when I talk to those men and women, many who have been deployed
in Afghanistan, have done two deployments in Iraq and know that they
may be going back, they will say, Yes, we are going back because our
job is not done. And they understand it, Mr. Speaker. And they know
that we take a step forward and then we take a step or two back, and
that it comes very slowly, and that progress is very slow.
We have seen, and our colleague John Shadegg had handed me an article
from Real Clear Politics that pointed out some things that have been
happening recently that just haven't caught the eye of the media, and I
wish that they had because I would like for them to catch the eye of
the American people.
First of all, there appears to be some retreating by al Qaeda from
Baghdad because they know that troop levels are returning to where they
were during the electoral process that took place in January of last
year in Iraq. They know that the radical cleric, al Sadr, has decided
to call off his boycott, and that his people are returning to
participate in that newly formed Parliament, and they know that he is
lowering his profile. And they also have seen Prime Minister al Maliki
begin to take a change of course and to put some distance between
himself and al Sadr. But this is of tremendous concern to us when we
hear the naysayers talk about cutting funding and not supporting the
troops.
And this morning I was on the floor speaking about our colleague Sam
Johnson, who truly is a hero and has a wonderful piece of legislation
that steps forward. It is House Resolution 511, and it really pushes
forward on the idea of supporting our troops and funding these men and
women who are in harm's way, making certain that they have what they
need to do the job that is in front of them; sending the message to
them that we stand with them and we are not going to desert them.
We know that this is difficult work. We know that it is a job, as I
said, that is slow; that progress is slow. But, Mr. Speaker, as we
stand here today preparing for the State of the Union, and as we expect
to hear this evening from our Commander in Chief that the state of the
Union is indeed strong, we also want these men and women in uniform to
know that it is strong because of the work they do.
We have the ability to stand here every day and talk about freedom
and defend freedom and talk about having a Nation that is so wonderful
and so diverse that we all, each and every one of us, can pursue our
dreams, can focus on hope and opportunity that is so important to us.
We do that because men and women have put their life on the line, many
times more than once, many times for days on end, to be certain that
freedom remains. And we feel that it is appropriate to bring forward a
resolution that says fund the troops and fund their needs.
We think that it is important that we move forward letting the men
and women know that, when they are in the field, we are listening to
them. We are listening to the troops. We are listening to the
commanders, and we respect their judgment. That is an important message
for us to send.
And I yield to the gentleman from Georgia for his comments.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding. And it is so important. And I appreciate your bringing up
Congressman Johnson's resolution. I spoke for a brief moment on the
floor earlier about that as well.
And I know that in this Chamber we can disagree about a lot of
things, and we should. Our system works best when ideas are exchanged
and the best solutions rise to the top, because it really
[[Page H880]]
is a battle of ideas. But in this instance we can disagree, as I
mentioned, about many things, but we ought not disagree about whether
or not our men and women in harm's way, our troops who are defending
liberty truly around the globe, ought to receive every single resource
that they need in order to defend themselves and to defend us.
I know that many folks go to Walter Reed and visit some of those
brave men and women who have been injured in battle. I have had the
opportunity to do that, and I was struck always by every conversation
that I had with some of those men and women who have come back, some
with devastating injuries, truly. And I am just so humbled by those
conversations that I have with those brave soldiers and warriors
because I would try to close every conversation and ask them what it
was that we could do to help. What can I do to help? And virtually
every single one of them said without fail, Congressman, if you can do
one thing, if you can do just one thing, please, please let me get back
to my unit. And that kind of enthusiasm, that kind of commitment, that
kind of sense of duty and honor and patriotism is chilling. It really
is.
There are incredible stories that each of them tell, but also I
believe those men and women serve as a guidepost for us. And, in fact,
we ought to look to them and look to their courage to have the courage
that we need in order to support our men and women who are in harm's
way.
And I am very hopeful that this House of Representatives will support
Congressman Johnson's resolution because it truly speaks for, I
believe, the vast majority of the American people who want to make
certain that, regardless of how you feel about this conflict, we as a
Congress state clearly that we will make certain that we provide all of
the resources necessary for our men and women in harm's way.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman.
I will close our hour by referencing some comments I have had from
some veterans in my district. I love the fact that I have absolutely
wonderful veterans who participate with me on these issues in our
National Security Coalition, in our Veterans Coalition, which are
advisory groups for me. And I have had great discussions with them and
have sent them information about the new strategy going forward in
Iraq, about some of the conversations that have been taking place here,
and have sought their best judgment, men and women who have worn the
uniform and have been there and who have fought and seeking their best
judgment. And a couple of their comments, I think, are so incredibly
significant.
One of them says: ``We have to continue our push forward and let our
military make the decisions in this war. When the House and Senate
changed, there was no doubt there would be a change of efforts. Our
enemy knows this and will continue to strike as long as they think our
country is not united.''
And another of the veterans said in this e-mail: ``What is important
is that we show a unified front to the enemy and we give the new plan
and the deployment a chance to work. If we win, if we defeat radical
Islam, then maybe, maybe, this is all going to be worth it.''
Mr. Speaker, these men and women who have put that uniform on and
have gone into battle know that this is the price that we pay. They
understand that this is not going to be easy. They know, and they are
watching the President's speech tonight, and they are watching our
response. And I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that our enemy is
watching our response. And I will submit to you that, while we all have
different philosophies, we all come from different districts, and we
are a very diverse body, I would commend to you and my colleagues that
it is important that we stand with our men and women in uniform, that
we show a unified front and show that we are committed to being certain
that this Nation continues to stand as a great Nation and that we
persevere.
____________________