Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to strike $328 million in funding for the Legal Services Corporation. Now, at no point in the past 32 years has any party in Congress felt that this agency was important enough to reauthorize it. That's just the fact.

Now let me put it another way. Since 1980, Congress has been appropriating the Legal Services Corporation an average of over $400 million a year while at the same time, again, deeming it unworthy of reauthorization.

Why has Congress not felt compelled to reauthorize the Legal Services Corporation? Perhaps it's because the Legal Services Corporation has become so far removed from its original intended purpose which was, yes, to provide attorneys for the poor.

In 1975, Congress created the Legal Services Corporation to provide free legal assistance to the poor in civil matters. Currently, they provide less than 6 percent of the need-based legal services in this country. Today, the States, bar associations, and private organizations provide the majority of the pro bono legal services to the poor.

The Legal Services Corporation has, in effect, become bounty hunters who attack farmers and other employers. Instead of representing the needy, they have chosen to focus their attention on another activity-- actively lobbying, even though it is against the rules, for the advancement of their chosen Big Government priorities.

Fifteen years ago, Senator Phil Gramm explained his opposition to the program by saying, ``They're being advocates for the existing welfare bureaucracy, and while they may have a right to do it, they don't have a right to do it with taxpayers' money.''

Now every phone book in America has plenty of attorneys in it that will be happy to take any good case on a contingency fee. A recent analysis by The Washington Times found that the Legal Services Corporation--instead of spending your taxpayer dollars on what they were appropriated to do--purchased ``a decorative natural stone wall, more than 100 casino hotel rooms that were never occupied, limousines, and first-class airfare,'' rather than providing the need-based legal services that the funds were actually appropriated for.

The Legal Services Corporation has clearly been poor stewards of taxpayer dollars, and the constituency they were originally intended to serve simply does not need them, Mr. Chairman.

Tough decisions need to be made. This is not one of them. Certainly there is an attorney that will take any legitimate case that any citizen of this country has, whether they be poor or not. The Legal Services Corporation is duplicative; it's nonessential; it's unauthorized. I encourage my colleagues to defund it completely.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia

Amendment No. 35: Page 74, lines 13 through 19, after each

dollar amount, insert ``(reduced to $0)''.

Page 101, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $328,000,000)''.

Thank you. I will tell you the key to this is open and honest debate.

We hear a lot from the President and from Democrats today about America's millionaires not paying their fair share. And they, quite honestly, quote Warren Buffett and talk about the Buffett rule. And certainly I'm happy that Mr. Buffett lives in a country like I do where he's able to achieve what he has. But Warren Buffett is a billionaire, not a millionaire.

Now, let's talk about who America's millionaires are. In my part of the country, farmland sells for about $3,500 an acre. So if you own 285 acres of land that you farm, you're a millionaire. In other parts of the country, it may sell for as much as $15,000 an acre. And if you're a farm family with 66 acres, that's one of America's millionaires.

These are hardworking, middle-income Americans who have saved all their lives to pay for the farm. We need to work to protect these family farms so the next generation can carry on their legacy. We hear a lot about that--protecting the American farmer--from the other side of the aisle. Yet they propose tax policies that do the exact opposite and very much would destroy our agricultural industry and the safety net that it provides this country.

In fact, if you follow their tax policy, America's farmers will simply be another statistic. What statistic? As it stands today, approximately 30 percent of family businesses will be passed on to the family's second generation--only in America--12 percent will make it to the third generation, and only 3 percent of all family businesses make it to the fourth generation or beyond. For a family farmer, for a small business owner, that's very disheartening. However, if the President has his way, those percentages will be even lower.

On January 1, 2013, the death tax will rise from the dead again, re- ordained by President Obama, and return with a rate of as much as 55 percent. Again, in my part of the country, a middle-income family farmer in my part of the country who owns more than 285 acres of land could be assessed a death tax of as much as 55 percent of what they try to leave to the next generation. That's what the President defines as the family farmer's ``fair share.''

Mr. Speaker, family farms are a significant and reliable food source for our country and the world, and they play a vital role in our Nation's national security. However, under the President's death tax proposal, family farmers will be forced to downsize their operations chunk by chunk, selling their assets to pay for what amounts to nothing other than the seizure of the family farm. Many may shut down and have to sell everything just to cover the cost.

I think of the song by Crosby, Stills & Nash that said: ``Tax the rich, feed the poor, 'til there are no rich no more.'' This is certainly the attitude of the current administration.

The truth is you simply can't feed the hungry without the family farmer. They play a vital role in everything we are and do as Americans.

Mr. Speaker, you want more hungry people in America? You want a decline in family businesses and higher unemployment? Follow the President's proposal on the death tax, because that's exactly where it leads. It's the seizure of assets of the family farmers and the family businesses in America. I promise you, if that happens, there will be more hungry people in America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2682, the Business Risk Mitigation and Price Stabilization Act of 2012.

This bill provides a clear exemption for nonfinancial end users that qualify for the clearing exemption under title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Across the country, consumers and businesses alike are confronted with risks that are associated with their day-to-day operations. To manage this risk, businesses use over-the-counter derivatives to provide price certainty and stability in many other conditions which may arise or may otherwise be less specific. Consumers, in turn, benefit from these business prudent risk management practices a through lower volatility in the day-to-day prices of the products that they purchase.

Due to the importance of protecting the consumer while providing a pro-growth environment for business, Congress provided an exemption from clearing and margin requirements for businesses and individuals who are not financial institutions. By providing this exemption, less than 10 percent of the capital involved in the derivatives market is relieved of the burdensome regulations and can be kept in the U.S. economy. To further the initial goal, H.R. 2682 clarifies Congress' intent of keeping much needed capital in the U.S. markets, which plays an important role in the country's economic growth.

For this reason, I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 2682 so businesses and individuals can manage their risks of day-to-day operations while not being constrained with the burdensome capital requirements.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, this week, the United States Supreme Court began hearing testimony on the constitutionality of the President's health care law, a law that, according to a USA Today poll, 72 percent of Americans believe is unconstitutional.

Mr. Speaker, the key question is: If the Federal Government can mandate its citizens buy health insurance, then what can they not mandate from Washington, D.C., that the American citizens must buy?

Mr. Speaker, the consequences of this mandate are severe. If the Supreme Court does not overturn it, what will the Federal Government allow themselves to mandate next? Life insurance? Just one word difference, health insurance versus life insurance. Bank accounts? A red car instead of a blue one? Organic apples instead of grapes? President Obama has put America on a very steep and slippery slope, and House Republicans are here to stop him.

During his takeover of one-sixth of the economy--and that's what it's about, Mr. Speaker, it's about the fact that this is one-sixth of the economy--President Obama stated that if you liked your plan, you can keep it. It was a promise, a pledge he made to the American citizens. However, Americans soon found out, as we know today, exactly what he meant.

Under President Obama's health care law, you technically have a choice: You can keep your current plan as he promised, the health insurance plan that you chose. And yes, as long as the President, by his commission of unelected bureaucrats, approves your purchase, then you can keep the plan without paying a penalty. However, if his bureaucrats don't approve your plan, you'll pay a penalty. Mr. Speaker, the American people know that's not a choice.

Two years after this bill was signed into law, our worst suspicions are now being confirmed. Thanks to President Obama and the Democrats who used their control of Congress, Americans will have higher costs and a reduced level of care.

The nonpartisan CBO estimates that non-employer-sponsored health insurance premiums will be 13 percent higher than if this legislation had not been signed into law, Mr. Speaker. Over 90 percent of seniors will lose their retiree prescription drug coverage they currently enjoy, and also be hit with double-digit premium increases. The CBO has also noted that the health care law ``may'' hinder job creation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe there's no doubt this bill kills jobs. In fact, when you get right down to it, a small business owner who has more than 50 employees is actually going to be encouraged to terminate the number of employees that they have above 50. Otherwise, they will be penalized if they do not comply with the law. Now, think about that, Mr. Speaker: Not only does this law hinder job creation, but it forces employers to get to under the 50-employee threshold so that they will not have to deal with the job-killing bureaucracy that this bill forces upon them.

Since coming to Congress last January, the House Republican Conference has voted to repeal not only this health care bill in its entirety but the 1099 provision, which the President agreed with us on; the CLASS Act, which the President agreed with us on; and, most recently, the IPAB rules.

It's time for the Senate and President Obama to wake up and realize what the majority of Americans already know: The Not So Affordable Care Act is simply bad economic policy, bad health care policy, and a violation of our constitutional rights as American citizens.

Will the gentleman yield?

After listening to my colleague from Florida, I'm going to tell you it just drives home the point that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

You're talking about a panel that will have control of roughly one- sixth of the United States economy. That means more power in Washington.

I'm going to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, whether you're a Republican or a Democrat or an independent, the more power that rests in this House, the less liberty you have in your house. We're here standing up for your personal freedom and your individual liberties. We're working to make sure that you get a health care system that will continue to support you and your children.

We have over 300 children and grandchildren that we're the parents and grandchildren of in the freshmen class, and that generation is more important than the next election.

I think the gentleman from Arkansas made a wonderful point, that maybe we haven't made enough and should have made more. And that's the difference between a recommendation and a decision.

Oftentimes, we put together many panels of experts to make recommendations to Congress, and then Congress can decide to take action on the recommendation or not to take action. This bill flips that on its head in that a panel of unelected people is going to be convened that are actually going to make the decision. They are taking away the right of the American citizen to make the decision for themselves, completely contrary to what has been done in most cases in the past.

This isn't a recommendation, ladies and gentlemen. This is a decision that is going to be made for you by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. And I'm going to tell you now that, just like a lot of Americans--both Republicans and Democrats and certainly the Independents--I feel that the people in Washington need to mind their own business and leave Americans alone. And that's the bottom line. People are fed up with it. More power in this House means less personal freedom and individual liberty in your house.

As I listen to you talk about the individual States out there--the 50 individual States--and I'm from Georgia. The Second Amendment is extremely important to us in Georgia: the right to keep and bear arms. We haven't passed a law on the House floor and passed by the Senate and signed by the President that says every American must own a gun, or a firearm, if you want to be proper about it.

Again, it's those constitutional rights that we as Americans have. It's not for the government. It's for us as individuals. That Constitution guarantees me as a citizen that nobody in Washington can take those things from me. Our Forefathers understood, again, that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. They gave us the Constitution. They knew that with the House and the Senate being political bodies and with the President being a political body that eventually something like this would happen in this country. And so they gave us a Court. They gave us a Court with one duty--and that duty is to protect the constitutional rights of the United States citizens. And let's just hope and pray that the Court does its job and upholds our constitutional rights.

With that, I will yield the remainder of any time I have left to my colleague

from New York. Thank you so much for having us here tonight.

Mr. Speaker, as I heard the gentleman from Oregon speaking of debt, doubt, despair, decline, I couldn't help but think that all of those words start with ``D,'' just as ``Democrat'' does, and ``recovery'' starts with ``R,'' just as ``Republican'' does.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the President presented a budget, and that's a fact, and the House passed a fiscally responsible budget. The Senate defeated both of those budgets and then failed to produce an alternate.

Republicans in the House stand willing to work and want to move to regular process. Senator Reid has closed that door at every opportunity.

Today, we call on the President to appeal to the Senate in his State of the Union address tonight to ask the Senate simply to pass a budget. Without a budget, there is no plan. With no plan, that means no recovery, and no recovery means no new jobs.

Mr. Speaker, Americans did not send us here to play the same tired old games that Senator Reid continues to play. They sent us here to get something done for this generation.

This is my son, Wells. He's 12 years old. Our class represents over 300 children and grandchildren. Now, times are tough, but Americans are tougher, so the future of America is bright. But today is 1,000 days that this country has operated without a Federal budget.

I understand the majority leader likes to say that we don't have a budget because of House freshmen, but that's simply not true. When we arrived in Washington, we were sworn in just over a year ago, and America had operated at that time without a budget for 678 days. Our freshman class knew we could do better than that, and we did better than that, Mr. Speaker. We passed a budget in the House, and we call on the President tonight to ask the Senate to fulfill their job for the American people and simply pass a budget.

Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue.

I, as most Americans, love this time of year. It's Christmastime where we celebrate the birth of Christ and spend time with our family and friends and at church. I sent a quick message to my wife last night, and I said: Honey, I may be here for a while.

And she said: We have 5 days until Christmas. Stay in the fight. Americans need you.

I know a lot of people on the other side of the aisle want to use that as an excuse to go home, but America needs us to be up here and work. A lot has been said today, but the fact is simple: The Senate put a bad amendment on a good bill, a bill that passed this House with almost as many Democrats voting for it as Republicans who voted against it, a bipartisan bill that does what the President asked us to do, which is to extend the payroll tax cut for 12 months. Twelve months is what the President asked for; 12 months is what we did.

Now, the Senate, in their haste to get out of town--the Senate, in their haste to get out of town--passed it for 60 days. I would respectfully submit that if they had done any consideration at all, they would have made it at least 90 days. I'm one of those who signed a quarterly wage and tax return like many of my freshman colleagues.

I, again, want to ask the President to stand with the Republican House. Let's pass this tax cut for a year and do what the Americans need us to do.

Mr. Speaker, as a University of Georgia graduate and lifelong Bulldog fan, I'd like to pay tribute to a fallen legend in the Bulldog Nation. Last week, Larry Munson passed away at the great age of 89.

From an announcer for Major League Baseball to a U.S. Army medic during World War II, Larry Munson was a leader and a hero. However, he'll best be known for his time spent as a radio football announcer for the Georgia Bulldogs.

For over 40 years, his passionate and authentic sportscasting set him apart from every other sports broadcaster. In fact, many of his phrases have become a part of Bulldog fan lore. From Herschel Walker running over people, to Kevin Butler's 100,000-mile field goal, Larry Munson's radio calls will live as some of the most memorable in college football.

Georgia Bulldog fans will never forget the sugar falling out of the sky and the hobnail boot. Thus, with the Georgia Bulldogs and the LSU Tigers to square off this weekend in the SEC championship, I end with the words Bulldog fans are used to hearing from Mr. Munson each and every game day:

``As we prepare for another meeting between the hedges, let all the Bulldog

faithful rally behind the men who now wear the red and black with two words, two simple words which express the sentiments of the entire Bulldog Nation: Go Dawgs.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about passing a balanced budget amendment today. I will tell you, there's been a global debate most recently over the finances of the world. And even in Europe, in the eurozone, Merkel and Sarkozy are proposing that balanced budget amendments be a part of the constitutions of those countries that make up the eurozone. It's not often that you will find me agreeing with President Sarkozy. He is certainly not the great leader that Benjamin Netanyahu is. But on this one, I do believe that he was right to come out of his foxhole and support the balanced budget amendments.

Every year, our Americans sit down at the kitchen table, pencil and paper in hand, and balance their budgets in their households. Every American business owner will tell you that they cannot continually deficit spend the way this country has well over the last decade.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Georgia's Eighth Congressional District are hardworking and responsible people. They expect the same of their government leaders. They work each day to ensure that the future remains bright for their children and grandchildren, and they sent me here to do the same.

The work that will be required by the balanced budget will not be easy, but Americans are counting on us. They are counting on us to make tough decisions and put America back on a path to prosperity. Passing the balanced budget amendment is the first step to that.

Mr. Speaker, Americans are hurting, and there's nothing more important right now for every Member of Congress than fostering job growth for the American people. House Republicans have been focused on this since day one. We passed more than a dozen pro-jobs bills that are currently awaiting a vote in the Senate. Additionally, we also passed a budget this year, something the Senate hasn't done in 888 days--888 days, Mr. Speaker.

America must lead the world out of this global recession. And I, for one, believe that if we can just get a couple of things right in Washington, we'll see our economy turn around and therefore the world economy turn around.

In the House, we believe in helping small businesses, we believe in free trade, and we believe in shrinking bureaucracy. Measures supporting these causes have already passed the House--with bipartisan support, I might add, Mr. Speaker--only to stall in the Democratic- controlled Senate.

Mr. Speaker, House Democrats and Republicans have found common ground on many measures to build more confidence for job creators. We invite the Senate to join our efforts. Mr. Speaker, Americans can't wait. It's time for the Senate to join the House in taking action to help restore our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge President Obama to take a strong stance against the Palestinian Authority's efforts to seek unilateral recognition for statehood from the United Nations.

Mr. Speaker, Israel is our ally, an ally that has proven, time and again, a devotion to freedom, democracy, peace, and economic stability. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, Israel is our greatest ally in the turbulent Middle East, and we need to support their efforts to resolve their issues with the Palestinians. The President must show that America is resolute in support of Israel and that he is determined that we find real solutions for peace in the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, solutions between Israel and the Palestinians will come through good-faith negotiations and cooperation. Solutions and peace come through both sides sitting at the table with equal determination to reach an agreement.

I hope that the President realizes all of this, and that he will show America's support for Israel and be a strong voice for peace reached through negotiations and partnership. The President should make clear to the Palestinian Authority that the way to a bright and stable future for the Palestinian people will be through talking to Israel, not unilaterally seeking statehood through the U.N.

I urge all of my colleagues in this House and the Members of the Senate to join me in this call.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 648 I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Offered By: Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia

Amendment No. 32: Page 32, line 12, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $12,507,550)''.

Page 158, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $12,507,550)''.

Offered By: Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia

Amendment No. 33: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia

Amendment No. 31: Page 103, line 14, after the dollar

amount insert ``(reduced by $1,660,000)''.

Page 158, line 25, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $1,660,000)''.