Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as regards to energy, I'm an all-of-the- above-type person. We need a diversity of energy sources. But we will not be carbon free for generations. Our need for plastics, fertilizers, lubricants, and fuels so dictates.

So given the fact that we're not going to be carbon free, it seems like domestic energy production should be encouraged. If we've got to have something, it's better for us to buy it from ourselves, for our workers, for the money to stay here.

In Louisiana alone, my home State, oil and gas production in the petrochemical industry employs 320,000 people. They work as welders, pipe-fitters, on barges, engineers. Countless small businesses with another 100,000 or so workers. Yet the President's budget contains at least eight separate tax hikes specifically targeting domestic oil and gas production.

Tax hikes create uncertainty, uncertainty creates caution, and caution inhibits economic activity. As we seek energy security and to create and preserve American jobs, I have to ask why are we punishing the industry which contributes both?

Mr. Speaker, secret ballots say a lot about the societies that defend and preserve them. They say that society trusts the people, and given the facts and the arguments, the people themselves are trusted to make the right decisions. You can be persuaded. You can be begged. But in the privacy of the voting booth, your vote is your own.

When government attempts to abolish the private ballot, it says that people are not trusted. It says to every citizen, you, do not know what is good for you.

For over 60 years, American workers have decided whether to unionize in secret ballot elections, for the very same reasons that in political elections we cast our votes in private. Card check assaults that right. It imposes coercion over conscience, force over freedom.

Since 1776 Americans have expected Congress to defend their democratic rights, not abolish them. Card check denies fundamental democratic rights to over 100 million Americans. Congress should defend this right.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 91, offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). This resolution honors the life and service of William Spoelhof, president emeritus of Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Dr. Spoelhof was born in 1909 in Paterson, New Jersey, and passed away on December 3, 2008, at the age of 98. He graduated from Calvin College in 1931 and began teaching social studies at the middle school level. In 1937, he received his Master of Arts degree, and began his doctoral studies at the University of Michigan.

During World War II, Dr. Spoelhof enlisted in the U.S. Navy and served

our country in the Office of Strategic Services. He was awarded the Bronze Star Medal by the Navy for his service. Also, for his contributions in liaison with the Dutch Resistance Movement, Dr. Spoelhof was honored by Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands with the Order of Orange-Nassau with swords and a laurel wreath.

Following the war, in 1946, he completed his doctoral work and returned to Calvin College to teach history and political science. After becoming President of Calvin College, Dr. Spoelhof oversaw the process of moving Calvin College from its original Franklin Street campus, located in urban Grand Rapids, to its current campus in southeast Grand Rapids.

Dr. Spoelhof carefully balanced Calvin College's vision for excellent academics with its relationship with the Christian Reformed Church as he effectively steered the college through occasional church conflicts and the tumultuous, nationwide student protests of the 1960s.

In 1976, after 25 years of service as an administrator, Dr. Spoelhof became the longest-serving president in Calvin College's history to date. After his formal retirement, he was named president emeritus and maintained an office and steady presence at the college, offering continued support and goodwill whenever needed.

Dr. Spoelhof was a Christian role model and mentor to many faculty members, staff and students as he provided wisdom and counsel to thousands during his more than six decades of service to Calvin College. Dr. Spoelhof lived a life of gratitude and desired to give glory to God in all that he did.

On December 3, 2008, Calvin College lost a visionary leader and wise friend. He is to be honored and recognized for his outstanding devotion and service as a member of the military, a Calvin College professor, and president and friend.

Again, I commend the gentleman from Michigan for introducing this resolution and urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield back my remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, I would classify ``intelligence'' as important, but when I was back in my district last weekend, what folks asked me about was the stimulus package. They sense that something is needed, but they also sense, as, I think, all of us do, that what is most important are tax cuts and infrastructure development. Yet the bill that came out last week reminded me a little bit as though my wife had sent me to Wal-Mart and had said, ``I want you to get some bread and meat,'' and instead, I come back with a DVD and a grill. Now, DVDs and grills are great, but someday, you have got to pay the credit card bill.

Right now, we have to focus on the bread and meat--the jobs and the infrastructure--not on the DVDs and grills. I keep on thinking: What would Dave Ramsey say? He is the guy who kind of advises couples on how to get out of financial difficulty. Dave would say, ``Get a job, and stop spending on your credit card.'' Now, the parts of this that are infrastructure and tax cuts are ``get a job,'' but the part of this that is maxing out the credit card and that is putting $2,700 worth of debt on my children and grandchildren going henceforth is the part that Dave would advise against.

I ask that we in Congress follow Dave Ramsey's wisdom--that we focus on tax cuts and infrastructure and forgo the rest.

You know, I was just kind of sitting in my office, kind of sitting there staring at the Capitol dome, kind of frustrated. And I came to Washington--I'm a freshman, this is my first talk--and I came not to oppose what Democrats do automatically because they're Democrats, I came to try and do something good for my country.

And the remarkable thing is there is an incredible amount of agreement between the two parties. We agree the economy is in trouble. We agree that the government can do something to make it better. We agree that tax cuts and infrastructure can create jobs. And I'm sitting there thinking, man, we've got so much we agree on, why don't we just pull it together and pass a bill? And yet, where we disagree is whether or not discretionary spending--you know, stuff that doesn't create jobs, but folks want to get it--whether that should be included in the bill.

And so I'm sitting there thinking, wait a second, we can consider that in a spending bill, why do we have to put it in this? And as a Republican, I have to say that I don't think we should, and I don't think we should for at least three reasons. First, we said we're going to have a bill that creates jobs, and this is about discretionary spending. The second thing that just kind of disturbs me, as you have spoken about so----

You know what this bill is like? When my wife sends me to Wal-Mart and tells me to buy bread and milk, and instead of coming home with bread and milk, I come home with CDs, I come home with DVD players, and I come home with all this stuff

that actually I've had my eye on for a long time. And when she finally sends me to Wal-Mart, I get to get what I want. And yet, really what's important to my family is that I come home with bread and milk.

Exactly. And we should not be running up our credit card bill to get the DVD player and the iPod and that other stuff that is purely discretionary. You know, we have a credit card debt here which we're eventually going to have to address.

And so, there are three reasons why I don't think we should do this. One, we said we're going to do a job bill and we're doing something more than that. Two, there's going to be a $1.2 trillion price tag on much of which is not related to job stimulation. And you know what the third thing is? I'm 50 years old, but I'm still kind of a young idealist. I thought those people at home heard ``a change you can believe in'' and ``yes, we can,'' and they thought that this was a new era of politics. And yet, if I may point out to the gentleman, it almost seems as if we've taken those two phrases, which hold so much promise, and we're making them out to be nothing but cheap political slogans. We say we're going to give you a job bill, and instead we give you a discretionary spending bill. We say we're going for jobs, and instead we go for that which is--maybe important, but certainly not related to job creation.

Yes. I think that, again, what we agree on is that tax cuts--particularly for individuals and small businesses-- infrastructure, that can create jobs. If we could just focus on that, we would have a bipartisan bill that all of America could sign onto, and no one would wake up and suddenly feel like there's been a bait and switch; rather, they would say this is what we asked for, this is what we've been given, now let's see the benefit.

And as a personal observation of my very first speech, I would ask that we, as both parties, give the American people what we truly said we would as opposed to something which is more than we said we are.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote 36, I inadvertently voted ``nay.'' I meant to vote ``yea.''