Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Schock

Amendment No. 117: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

Sec. 534. None of the funds made available in this Act may

be used to pay the salary of any individual currently

participating on the entity known as the ``Presidential Task

Force on the Auto Industry''.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 626.

You know, ladies and gentlemen, what we do here in the United States House and in the United States Congress--the standards that we set and the expectations that we have in terms of benefits--really sets a precedent not only for the people whom we employ in the Federal Government but also for whom small businesses and large businesses around our country employ.

Like everyone else, I enjoy Federal benefits. My employees here with me enjoy our great benefits plan. Unfortunately, back home in central Illinois, many individuals there are not employed by the Federal Government. By and large, they're employed by the private sector. Unfortunately for them, this is a time when they're not looking to expand their benefit programs, when they're not going to their employers and asking for more. They're thankful for the paychecks they've got.

It seems to me a little disingenuous by those in support of this legislation that, at a time when we're talking about stimulating the economy and at a time when we're talking about feeling the pain of the American people, we know the truth--that our constituents are having to do the opposite. They're having to cut back. They're having to do with less. This bill and this measure seek to do the opposite.

Expanding 4 weeks of paid parental leave will not only add a cost to the Federal Government by the Congressional Budget Office's own figures of $1 billion over the next 5 years, but it will undoubtedly set a precedent for the private sector. Unfortunately, for the private sector, they cannot print the money or tax the American people to pay for their benefits.

The unemployment rate in my State of Illinois was just over 9 percent as of April. This includes over 24,000 jobs that were lost by my hometown employer, Caterpillar. When I go back there this weekend, I will have to tell those individuals who are now unemployed, not only do they not have jobs, but my colleagues in this body decided that our employees, who have not felt the economic impact of a downturn, are not only getting to keep their jobs, but they will also have added benefits at their expense as taxpayers.

I don't know how we can honestly vote for more benefits, for more pay, and for more cost to the Federal budget at the expense of taxpayers and of those people who are cutting back and losing their jobs.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

I, too, rise with concerns about section 303. As the author of an amendment that would have worked to rectify this job- killing portion of the bill, I went before the Rules Committee yesterday and heard from our distinguished chairman, Mr. Oberstar, our ranking member, Mr. Mica, Mr. Costello and Mr. Petri, all who spoke to the issues of these FAA inspections.

I find yet today on the House floor much of the time today is being spent talking about this very issue. And I first might say that perhaps the other 430 Members of this body too deserve the opportunity to weigh in on whether or not this provision is good or bad for America, and specifically, good or bad for their district.

I'm not going to suggest to another Member that it's going to be bad for their district. I can only speak for myself, and I will tell you, it will be. One company in my district, it may be small, Standard Aero in Springfield, Illinois, does $5 million of business, even given the economic downturn, working on aircraft from other countries. This provision that will require FAA inspections of foreign service stations, there's no question what the result will be. The European Union, with whom we have an agreement now, will reciprocate, will retaliate. It's not a question; they've been very clear. They've said it in public. They've gone so far as to write a letter to this administration and this body stating that.

When that happens, they've also been very clear what will happen. They don't have the inspectors to come over here to service our stations, to inspect our service stations. And as a result, our service stations who currently work on foreign aircraft will no longer be able to. There are over 1,200 of these stations, one of them in my town of Springfield, Illinois. So this question about what will happen is bogus. It's been very clear.

The argument of safety has yet to be justified. The idea that additional inspections and duplicative inspections somehow makes us safer has been yet to be justified. And since this agreement between the European Union and our country, which has made our inspections process more efficient, has been in effect for a number of years now, there's been little evidence to suggest that we're any less safe.

And at a time when we have a crisis on our hands with commuter aircraft and an inability within the FAA to provide adequate inspections and safety for the American citizens who travel on that aircraft, I would suggest that is where our money, our attention and the FAA's time and talent ought to be focused.

I, too, agree there's much good in this bill. But I'm, unfortunately, going to have to oppose it because of these provisions which will cost jobs in my district.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2352, the Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act.

I, too, wish to extend my appreciation to Chairwoman Velazquez, to Ranking Member Graves, and specifically to the bill's sponsor, Mr. Shuler, for including not only my language in H.R. 1845 but also the proposals of five other Republican members on our committee. This is truly a bipartisan bill, and I think you'll see that the votes reflect it.

I introduced H.R. 1845, which seeks to modernize the Small Business Development Centers. Small Business Development Centers are commonly referred to as SBDCs. They provide emerging entrepreneurs with the tools they need to successfully take their business concepts into reality and also to provide existing small business owners with important financial and budgeting consulting to assist in long-term growth and management. Investments in the SBDC network provide a truly cost-effective way to help stimulate our economy while also enhancing American companies and our competitiveness around the world.

With all of the talk today about how we should stimulate growth and create long-term economic growth here in our country, we shouldn't look any further than where half of all Americans get their paychecks--with small business.

The facts speak for themselves. A new business is opened by a Small Business Development Center client every 41 minutes. A new job is created in the United States by a Small Business Development Center client every 7 minutes. In the year 2007, SBDC clients created over 70,000 new full-time jobs. With the current economic condition, more and more small business owners are visiting their SBDCs, seeking the advice on how to best manage their resources during the economic downturn. The bill also works to make the money that we are appropriating to SBDCs more efficient, and it also rewards those who have better outcomes.

For these reasons and many more, I urge passage of this bill and the Small Business Development Center Modernization Act legislation that is included in it.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today is really targeted at reducing identity theft and ensuring that consumers have the appropriate information they need to make themselves aware of inappropriate activity on their accounts that may be opened in their name.

As the current legislation stands, it leaves inactivated credit cards off of credit reporting altogether. The legislation would allow a potential identity thief to apply for and obtain numerous credit cards in someone else's name, accruing massive lines of credit, all with the intention of opening each credit card at once and simultaneously spending massive amounts of that victim's money and then disappearing, as often is the case, which ruins the victim's credit history and oftentimes costs the victim thousands of dollars.

My amendment ensures consumers are aware of credit activity made in their name by removing the requirement that open lines of credit are not reported to the credit bureaus until the issued credit card is activated.

Now, identity theft is a real problem. As an individual who has had my identity stolen, I can tell you that it is also a very costly problem. Eight million Americans were victims of identity theft in 2005, and over 2 million of those 8 million victims were victims because new accounts were opened in their names that they were not made aware of.

The Federal Trade Commission also states that a quarter of those victims' problems were exacerbated because they were not made aware of the problems for over 6 months. The underlying legislation will only exacerbate that without this amendment.

The Federal Trade Commission goes on in the report that they encourage consumers to stay vigilant in protecting their identity through two ways; one is monitoring accounts that you didn't open and debts on your accounts that you can't explain. Well, Mr. Chairman, my amendment does exactly that by ensuring consumers continue to have the information about these accounts that would otherwise have been applied in their name but up until this point would not be noted on their credit account. Under the 2003 Fair Credit Reporting Act passed by Congress, consumers are allowed this information free of charge. And with the amendment I offer here today, they will be given that information in advance of any adverse credit effects that a potential identity thief could be trying.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I urge passage, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 97, Rule for H.R. 1106, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege yesterday of traveling with the President to my hometown of Peoria, Illinois, to visit a company that has made the news recently, Caterpillar Corporation. And during that speech, the President had me stand up in front of the hundreds of my constituents and Caterpillar workers and urged them to call on me to support this bill, and asked them to approach me after his speech to put pressure on me to vote for this bill.

I found it very interesting that after the President finished his speech and I stayed around, not one employee at that facility approached me and asked me to vote for this bill. In fact, I have received over 1,400 phone calls, e-mails and letters from Caterpillar employees alone asking me to oppose this legislation. Why? Because they get it. They know that this bill is not stimulus. They know that this bill will not do anything to create long-term sustained economic growth. This bill is too big to get it wrong.

I hail from a district that once had Everett Dirksen, who is famous for a billion here, a billion there.

Everett Dirksen once said, a billion here, a billion there. Unfortunately, ladies and gentlemen, we're now a trillion here, a trillion there. We cannot afford to get this wrong. It is too important to get it wrong.

My district also had a man by the name of Abraham Lincoln who served in this seat for 2 years. We celebrated his 200th birthday yesterday. I'm reminded of his quote: ``What kills a skunk is the publicity it brings itself.'' Perhaps that is the haste by which this bill is being brought forward.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment process for H.R. 1.

A couple of points. First of all, I rise in opposition as a Member who has submitted a thoughtful, bipartisan amendment to the Rules Committee, one of the over 200 that was submitted, one of the few that had bipartisan support. I worked with my good Democratic colleague from the State of Washington.

Simply put, it would have required the Federal Government, State government and local governments receiving this stimulus money to spell out who is getting this money, what contractors were awarded the money and its intended use. Just shortly, a few months ago, we awarded nearly $700 billion to financial institutions; $350 billion has been spent, and many taxpayers in my district and around the country are asking where it went. This simply would have required that this money moving forward would clearly spell out who is getting it for what purposes.

I can tell you, coming from the State of Illinois, where we have a Governor on trial right now for giving pay-to-play contracts for campaign contributions, I and many of my colleagues from our State wish to know where this money is going to go given the great latitude given to local governments and States.

The second point. This bill flies in the face of the American public's wishes. Frank Luntz just released a survey that over 84 percent of the American people wish for more spending on infrastructure as a means to stimulus, yet $800 billion in this bill, less than 8 percent is going to go for infrastructure. A similar super majority of Americans oppose giving tax incentives, tax credits, tax cuts to people in this country who do not pay income tax, yet this bill does just that.

So we have heard a lot of talk about bipartisanship, we had a great meeting yesterday with the President, his willingness to work with us, but bipartisanship is not ``you write the bill, we vote for it.''

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to mourn the anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Roe v. Wade. My colleagues have provided a litany of great arguments against this decision, ranging from the legal (the court overstepped its bounds), to the scientific (fetal awareness and pain) to even their personal beliefs as guided by their religion. As such, let me bring a new perspective to this debate.

I have the unique distinction as being the only member on the Floor today to have lived their entire life within the dark shadow cast by the Court's decision on January 22, 1973. As such, I do not remember the fiery debates the demonstrations or the heartache which followed a day which saw a nine-person judicial body devoid of medical knowledge singularly arbitrate a question that has plagued men for ages, ``when does life begin?''

What I do know is that this decision has artificially divided the country for far too long, creating a single issues litmus test for every politician, judge and doctor. And while it seems this country will remain divided on this issue, it is my sincere hope that we all agree that human life is a precious gift that cannot and should not be wasted.

Throughout my life, women have been able to obtain abortions only to realize after the fact the sadness that comes with any death.

I am left to wonder about potential achievements that America could have accomplished had so many of its precious and innocent of citizens been given a chance to reach their potential. The future doctors, scientists, actors, teachers, policemen, coaches and, yes, even politicians that America has missed because nine people decided the definition of human vitality. Creating an almost arbitrarily line-- above which exists human life, below which equals a mass of tissue.

But perhaps more troubling than these lost opportunities is the thought process that abortion on demand has created. A 2004 study

found that women have cited ``social reasons,'' such as feeling unprepared for a child or considering themselves too immature to have a child, as the reason for an abortion in 93% of the cases. While I do not have personal experience, I know from talking to my sisters that they both felt woefully unprepared when they were pregnant. They both felt too young, worried if they would be a good parent and fretted about their children's future. But they had a support structure provided by family, friends and their church standing beside them.

Now I certainly understand that unfortunately not everyone has access to the amazing support network that my sisters had, but that is not reason to allow abortion, that is reason to provide more services to these women, services which can help provide these women the tools to make strong decisions, to see the light at the end of the tunnel and see that a child is a gift, not a burden.

I am reminded of this fact when I look into the face of my nieces and nephews, I cannot imagine thinking what my life would be like without my young nieces and nephews in it. The holidays we've experienced and the memories we shared are times I will forever cherish. I am indebted to the wisdom these children have shown me though their looks of happiness on their faces during birthday celebrations, Christmas mornings and family vacations. In fact, just recently, they have given me another memory that I will always cherish. I was touched by their kindness and support when on the opening day of this Congress; they left me letters of congratulations and support on my desk.

It's the little things they have done and the joys they have brought to my life have been unimaginable. I cannot imagine my life without the happiness they have brought. I shudder to think how different my life would be had my family chosen a natural feeling of worry and self-doubt over the gift of life.

I hope that my fellow Americans will choose life and remember the potential for every American. I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman Frank, Ranking Member Bachus and Congressman Garrett, first let me thank you for the opportunity to come to the floor and speak today.

Chairman Frank, I congratulate you on bringing this piece of legislation forward, and I admire the meticulous and bipartisan nature in which you have crafted it.

I would like also to thank you, the both of you, for the inclusion of my noncontroversial amendment into the manager's amendment. I believe this amendment represents a small but important step which will serve the good of the American people.

My amendment is very simple. It establishes a user-friendly Web site where the American people can quickly and accurately see where their money is going.

During debate yesterday, we heard the need for more oversight, more transparency, and more control over the flow of TARP funds.

I am glad that we here in Congress will be provided more information about TARP funds. However, what about the American people?

This is their money, and I believe they need to be able to track it. I hope that an online database will provide a helpful tool in this effort. In essence, this amendment seeks to create a Google for TARP. This Web site will clearly display who is using the money, for what purposes and how their dollars will ultimately cycle back to their pockets. I intend this Web site to be easily searchable and to contain information on both specific payments and on the aggregate amounts received by each receiving entity. This amendment is about accurate accounting, openness, fair government, transparency, and hopefully, one day, balancing our budget.

You know, when my constituents leave the grocery store, they know three things--what they've spent, what they got for their money and how their purchases are going to help their families. Well, the American people deserve to know the same thing when they, for the very first time, are pouring billions of the same hard-earned dollars, which they used to purchase groceries, into the financial and housing markets. Americans should be able to identify what is being spent in their name.

Currently, the Treasury Department provides limited balance sheets, listing complex purchases on their Web site. The target audience of this Web site is for those applying for TARP funds, in other words, financial experts. It is not for those who are looking to see how their money is spent.

Well, I'm sure my constituents are very similar to yours. They're not high-powered New York City investment bankers. While they have not been a part of this problem, they're being asked to foot the bill for it. In doing so, it is their right to know where their money is going, for what programs it is being used and how it will benefit them in the long run.

While I support the bill we are considering today, I am concerned that these changes, while needed, will further confuse where this money is going. Funds will begin to cross over multiple government agencies to the point where anyone wanting to track the flow of money would have to visit multiple Web sites with his mouse in one hand and his calculator in the other. A person should not have to be a forensic accountant to decipher where his tax dollars are being allocated.

Thank you, Mr. Frank.

My hope is that, through this amendment, we can establish something similar to or what can become a part of what our President-elect has established under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006--the USAspending.gov Web site, a Web site explaining to the American people the different Federal agencies and how their hard- earned money is being spent to better their lives.

As I said, this is a commonsense amendment that seeks to improve the people's access to their government.

Yes, sir.