Floor Statements

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

I think Mr. Michaud was correct in applauding the staff. I think on all these four bills that we should be applauding the staff for their timely efforts and their hard work to get this accomplished.

I rise in support of H.R. 3155, as amended, the Caregivers Assistance and Resource Enhancement Act of 2009. A family member or friend who serves as a caregiver in many cases drives the successful treatment and recovery of a severely wounded veteran or soldier. Yet those who care for their loved ones make sacrifices and can face difficulties in simply caring for their personal physical and mental health needs and financial well-being. So it is important that we reach out and make education, counseling and other support services available so the family caregiver can meet their own daily needs as well as the needs of the wounded warrior for whom they care.

H.R. 3155, as amended, would establish new programs, enhance services and coordinate services system-wide. Key components of the legislation would require the VA to provide more and better education using new technologies, expand mental health and respite care services and travel benefits for family caregivers.

Mr. Speaker, it also provides certain primary caregivers of very severely injured returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan with health insurance if they lost or don't have it, and a monthly personal allowance to mitigate financial problems that may occur.

The bill would also require the VA to conduct a national survey of veterans' family caregivers. This survey would be vital to helping us gain a better understanding of the needs and develop additional good policies to support family caregivers.

I want to commend the subcommittee chairman, Mike Michaud, and subcommittee ranking member, Henry Brown, for their leadership and hard work in developing this bipartisan piece of legislation. This bill, as amended, would provide veterans' family caregivers with a strong, system-wide array of support to depend upon.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to thank the chairman, as I have done earlier, Mr. Filner, and Steve Buyer, the ranking member, for their hard work in bringing this bill to the floor. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a little bit like Mr. Neugebauer's, pretty much straightforward. It freezes the transportation spending in the Transportation-HUD appropriations bill just simply at last year's level. Obviously with the economy contracting and unemployment rising, it's not responsible to drastically increase spending by almost $14 billion, and this represents a 25 percent increase over our current levels. This funding obviously does not even include the $62 billion that came from the stimulus act.

So if the stimulus act funding is taken into account, even with the 25 percent reduction that I am proposing, funding for the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development would receive an increase of $48 billion over last year. And that's, of course, with the stimulus package.

So think about this. You have this bill. You have the stimulus package, which adds additional money. So in a sense we're asking just to freeze the spending level at 2009-fiscal year level.

You know, when you take a look at all the appropriations spending combined, funding for programs within this bill will have increased 146 percent since the Democrats took over in the year 2007. This level of spending is simply unsustainable in the light of the Nation's growing deficits and the debt.

Now, there's a lot of good programs in this bill that I strongly support, but increasing all these programs by 25 percent at a time when we're drowning in debt and experiencing the worst economic crisis in decades is simply unwise. For example, discretionary spending for the Department of Transportation is increased by $4.5 billion, or 27 percent, including a 25 percent increase for the Office of the Secretary and a whopping 1,384 percent increase for the Federal Railroad Administration.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development also receives an increase of $1.6 billion, or 3 percent, in discretionary spending, including a 100 percent funding increase for the HOPE VI program. The HOPE VI program, President Obama proposed that program to eliminate it.

So approving this huge increase without doing anything about the budget disaster looming on the horizon obviously is only going to magnify the problems for this country. Families across my congressional district and across the country are having trouble. They are tightening their belts during this tough economic time. They don't have the luxury of an unlimited government credit card that allows them to simply throw borrowed money at every single problem they face. Instead, they have to set priorities and make tough spending decisions.

So I don't think it is too much to ask Congress to do the same thing, and I say to my colleagues on that side, are your constituents getting a 25 percent increase over the last year? I don't think so.

This Congress and President Obama continue to ignore the fact that this reckless spending will bury our children and our grandchildren under a mountain of debt. In fact, in a recent report, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office warned that excessive spending proposed by this administration and the Democrat leadership in Congress such as contained in this bill, as a good example, will drive the Department- to-GDP ratio from 41 percent to a staggering 71 percent. You know, we're just doubling the national debt in 5 years. So we must hold the line, attempt to hold the line on spending and make sound budget choices that are sustainable and that do not rely on continued deficits and borrowing.

Obviously, there's plenty of blame to go around, but here at this point we have an opportunity to stand up. We have a lot of work to do. I think this is a good amendment. I think we should start forward by simply passing my amendment, by saying that we should hold the line here and keep the spending under control.

I urge my colleagues to support this.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?

I would say to my colleague from western Massachusetts, the beautiful country up there, you have in this bill, there's a 25 percent increase for the Office of Secretary.

I would ask my colleagues, are his constituents getting a 25 percent raise in western Massachusetts, you know, running from Springfield up to Deerfield across from Hatfield over to Amherst. I don't think they're getting a 25 percent increase.

And if you look at the Federal Railroad Administration, it has a whopping 1,384 percent increase. So I would ask my colleague to address those two questions. Does he support a 25 percent increase for the Office of Secretary, and does he support a whopping 1,384 percent increase for the Federal Railroad Administration?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman hasn't answered the question: Why a 1,384 percent increase for the Federal Railroad Administration?

Another question he hasn't answered is, why is he increasing 100 percent funding for the HOPE VI program, which the President of the United States, your President, said he proposed to eliminate?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I have received in the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Act, the Homeland Security Appropriations Act and the Energy and Water Appropriations Act.

Requesting Member: Congressman Cliff Stearns

Bill Number: H.R. 2847

Account: Department of Justice, OJP--Byrne Discretionary Grants

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Alachua County, FL

Address of Requesting Entity: 12 South East 1st Street, Gainesville,

Madam Speaker, as the polls show disapproval for the Democrat health care up to 44 percent and now more than 43 percent of Americans now see the Obama Democrats as the old-style, tax and spend liberals. The President is starting to take note.

He has delayed the White House release of its mid-year budget review. The administration officials have rescheduled its release to conceal record-breaking deficits. At the same time, the Democrat leaders rush to take over healthcare and they continue to push cap and tax legislation.

Both of these bills will push spending out of control.

The Democrats won't even listen to the CBO Director Elmendorf who said their healthcare bill won't save money but will add to the deficit.

Madam Speaker, the Democrats need to work in a bipartisan way to gain control of our spending to create jobs for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to address the critical issue of regulatory reform in our financial markets. In 1912, a year before he became President, Woodrow Wilson ominously stated ``waiting to be solved lurks the great question of banking reform.'' So here we are almost 100 years later, and we are facing the same lurking question.

The Treasury Department recently issued an 85-page white paper containing five main objectives for reforming or financial markets. Although a few of these objectives may sound good on paper, the devil is always in the details. A closer look at this new plan reveals a fundamental change to our financial system and economy that will stifle the innovation and competition fostered by the traditional American free enterprise system, giving way to a future of Big Government propping up all companies that are ``too big to fail.''

Specifically, the Obama financial regulatory reform plan calls for ceding the Federal Reserve a vast amount of additional authority with the power to create new requirements for capital and liquidity and for any firm ``whose combination of size, leverage, and interconnectedness could pose a threat to financial stability if it fails.'' The Fed, which has failed in the past as a regulator, will be allowed to oversee almost all aspects of any financial company in the United States and its foreign affiliates. Specifically, the Fed will be able to regulate, lend to and close down companies not normally under their control if they deem them to be a danger to the economy.

My colleagues, this is total government control. Additionally, the Treasury will be given more powers as well, such as the ability to appoint a conservator or receiver to ``stabilize'' any large financial firm that is failing, any large financial firm. This will be done in lieu of bankruptcy proceedings, and the result will almost certainly lead to those ``too big to fail'' institutions, backed by the United States Government, having the upper hand in the market, particularly when it comes to raising funds, and smaller competitors will be forced out down the line. Thus, we are destined for an economy dominated by what essentially are government-backed entities, like the Fannie Maes and Freddie Macs.

Big government backed by an all-powerful Federal Reserve isn't the answer to our financial problems. We cannot erode the components of our free market economy because we are afraid to let the market work. It will devastate the innovation and competition that has traditionally driven the American economy.

Another issue worth mentioning when discussing regulatory reform of financial markets is the issue of transparency and possible conflicts of interest. Bill Gross of Pimco, a private financial institution that manages the world's largest mutual fund, is heavily involved in the mortgage securities market and is an open proponent of the Treasury's public-private investment program. Interestingly, in the spring of 2008, Pimco actually presented a plan in Washington, D.C. for a public- private partnership, very similar to the plan that Geithner came out with this year. Pimco is now hoping to be one of the companies that the Treasury picks to help buy up some of the $1.25 trillion in mortgage bonds that have sank big institutions like Bank of America and Citicorp.

In addition, the Federal Reserve has also looked to Pimco to specifically ask for advice on which banks needed more taxpayer TARP funds to stay afloat. Pimco's close relationship with the Treasury and the Fed should not allow it to be the beneficiary of billions of dollars gained through Federal contracts and preferential investment opportunities, particularly with Geithner's public-private investment program he has proposed.

Mr. Speaker, a free market is an economic system in which individuals, rather than the government, make the majority decisions regarding economic activities. In a free-market economy, the government's function is limited, and it should act in a way as an umpire and issue regulatory procedures. The Obama financial regulatory reform plan will move us away from our free-market system and towards a future where the free market is negated by government over-involvement in the private financial sector. We are moving toward a system of permanent interdependence of big companies' reliance on big government. This is fundamentally un-American, and the long-term consequences of such a plan are dire.

Let's not make Washington, D.C. the bailout capital of the world for every private company in America. Let those companies suffer the consequences for their risky actions. Instead, let's be good stewards of taxpayer dollars, keeping in mind that more regulation doesn't mean better regulation and a powerful Federal Reserve isn't the answer to all of our financial problems.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 531, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, as both the House and Senate Democrats attempt to pass a multitrillion-dollar government-run health care bill, there are some facts that have come out that we can now all see.

These three facts are now evident about the House Democrat legislation:

First, the bill will force 114 million Americans out of their current health care coverage into a new government-controlled health care plan;

Second, the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office states that the bill will cost the American taxpayers $1.5 trillion;

And third, 29 million Americans will still remain uninsured if this disastrous piece of legislation becomes law.

But 83 percent of Americans like the insurance they now have. Yes, we must reform the system to include those without insurance, but we must not throw out what is working.

The American people need real reforms, not government-run medicine.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady from New York talked about bipartisanship. This is a bipartisan amendment.

The President has requested $373 million be allocated to the Peace Corps under the State-Foreign Operations bill and related appropriations. The gentlelady should realize, all my amendment does is ensure that we fund the Peace Corps at simply the level the President requested.

So when you look at this amendment, it's really an President Obama- Stearns amendment in which he is saying, I think we can get it done, the Peace Corps allocation under the Foreign Operations bill, for $373 million. And when you look at the facts, I think you will probably agree with me. In fact, I think, obviously, the President must agree because that's what he has allocated.

In 2009, the Peace Corps was funded at $340 million. President Obama has requested $373.4 million, so this is an increase of $33 million. So there is an increase, 10 percent, it's right there, I agree with him. Let's go ahead and approve it this afternoon at what the President requested.

Now, I support the Peace Corps, but I think what you have done is allocated $450 million, which is almost $77 million increase from what President Obama has requested. That's $110 million above the FY 2009 level.

So what you are trying to do is increase the Peace Corps by 33 percent over last year's level and, frankly, to the gentlelady from New York, with the economy the way it is we should keep the money in America and not in 76 other countries. Certainly the money that we are spending overseas could be used in this country. So I think President Obama tried to be conservative in saying let's allocate $373 million rather than your number of $450 million.

So I think again, with the severe economic crises, and all of us agree, we must consider carefully how we use taxpayers dollars. We certainly don't want to send them overseas when we can use them here in the United States. As Mr. Buyer mentioned we are spending Federal tax dollars at a rate we can't sustain, and we are putting ourselves into deeper debt.

Today our national debt stands at almost $12 trillion. You know, adoption of my amendment, my simple amendment, will demonstrate a positive step towards restoring fiscal balance and responsibility but also staying in line with what President Obama has requested.

So with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, it's obvious that the gentlelady from New York does not agree with her President. Her President has offered a funding level. He said he thinks this will do the job, and you obviously don't agree with him.

So I am a little surprised if the President of the United States, your President, indicates he thinks the job can be done with those dollars, them why don't you agree with him? Using your argument, you want to increase spending so that we can send jobs for people in America to go overseas.

And the question is, a simple question for you is, why not let these people have jobs here in the United States? Why not take the money, give the jobs to the people in the United States so they don't have to go overseas?

It is cheaper. It is cheaper to give a job to a student, a college graduate, here in the United States than to send them oversees into all these 76--100 countries that we have allocated it for. It's also cheaper logistically. So I think if the Democrats will look at this, why aren't you agreeing with your President on the allocation for the Peace Corps, and why do you want to spend more money overseas when we can put the jobs here in this country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, President Obama certainly doesn't endorse your plan because he did not propose $450 million. He proposed a lot less. He proposed a 10 percent increase; you proposed a 33 percent increase.

Really, although the President hasn't called me up to say he endorses my amendment, frankly, I have endorsed his. I have endorsed his legislative initiative. What he has proposed, is a 10 percent increase, I think this is fair. I am just asking you folks to recognize what he has proposed is fair.

Why not adopt my amendment and let it go at that. Why do you want to increase the Peace Corp 33 percent and send these jobs overseas when, frankly, we can keep them here cheaper, and logistically it's easier. So again I ask you to explain to me why you don't want to agree with the President's request.

I reserve the balance of my time.

The gentlelady says the Peace Corps is not meeting the demands around the world. I think the American taxpayers want the people to meet the demands of the American people here at home.

I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, you know, this is a defining moment. And ``where were you when this legislation came on the floor'' is going to be something that you're going to remember.

As the ranking member has indicated, the lobbying on this by Vice President Gore and the President and all of the people has been tremendous, and there is a possibility that they still don't have the votes. One of the reasons is there is not a fairness factor here.

China adds more CO2 to the atmosphere each year than any other nation in the world. However, they have consistently said they reject any binding international cap on such emissions and claim the right to continue to increase its release of greenhouse gases while at the same time we are going to pass--attempt to pass this legislation.

My colleagues, without equivalent efforts by China and India to limit greenhouse gas emissions, the United States stands to lose many hundreds of thousands of jobs to these countries that will profit from this bill today.

The proponents of this legislation say we should make unilateral reductions, unilateral disarmament, which will in turn impose moral pressure on other countries. I find it hard to believe that China and India will reduce their economic growth and idle their people because they are willing to adopt a cap-and-trade. The cap-and-trade is flawed. China and India are not going to go forward. Any meaningful effort to achieve long-term, sustainable reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions depend on the development and deployment of new energy technologies, we all agree, we must include clean coal technologies, carbon capture and sequestration, and advanced nuclear power generations. I had an amendment that was designed to do this. It was not allowed.

The rapid development demonstration of widespread deployment of such technologies are of paramount importance in any reasonable and any effective effort to address CO2 reductions. The massive new regulatory burdens imposed by this cap-and-trade scheme will invariably cut the growth and innovation in this country and we will lose jobs. Let's foster new technology. Let's not pass this bill.

Last night, I offered two substantive amendments to improve this flawed legislation. One of my amendments would have allowed states that have existing nuclear power plants to more easily meet the Renewable Electricity Standard by excluding all electricity generated by nuclear power from a retail electric suppliers bases amount. My other amendment would have eliminated the home Energy Star labeling program that will further reduce property values at a time when many homeowners have seen their equity and retirement savings vanish. Unfortunately, both of these amendments were struck down by the Rules Committee along with 221 other amendments.

Quoting from yesterday's Wall Street Journal editorial, Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history.''

In fact this cap and tax scheme could cost families up to $3,100 more per year and result in real GDP losses of $9.6 trillion over the life of the bill, especially if we do it alone.

China adds more CO2 to the atmosphere each year than any other nation in the world, however they have consistently rejected any binding international cap on such emissions and claims the right to continue to increase its release of greenhouse gases. Without equivalent efforts by China and India to limit greenhouse gas emissions, the U.S. stands to lose many hundreds of thousands of jobs to these countries that will profit from this bill.

The proponents of this legislation say we should make unilateral reductions, which will in turn impose moral pressure on other countries to reduce their emissions. I find it hard to believe that other nations would follow the United States in reducing economic growth and idling millions of workers. Although cap and trade is flawed, there is much that we can do to reduce carbon emissions and our dependence on imported energy sources.

Any meaningful effort to achieve long-term, sustainable reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions will depend on the development and deployment of new energy technologies, including advanced clean coal technologies, carbon capture and sequestration and advanced nuclear power generators. The rapid development, demonstration and widespread deployment of such technologies are of paramount importance in any reasoned and effective effort to address carbon dioxide reductions.

The massive new regulatory burdens imposed by this cap and trade tax scheme will inevitably undercut the growth and innovation we desperately need to build lasting and effective solutions. Fostering new technology and scientific research across all sectors of the economy, not capping our economy and trading U.S. jobs, will guard our nations security and increase our energy independence.

I encourage all my colleagues to join me in strong opposition to this legislation.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, I am not going to take all my time. I think my amendment is going to have a very difficult time passing.

I have heard the gentleman's arguments on many occasions. He and I have gone toe to toe on 1 percent cuts, 2 percent cuts, the National Endowment for the Arts. We have been through this.

I would just say simply that my amendment freezes the total amount of spending in the bill for the Environmental Protection Agency at the current level. Now, I know you are going to scream and holler on that, but with the economy contracting and unemployment rising, it would simply be irresponsible to increase the EPA by almost 40 percent, and that's what you're doing here. You are increasing the EPA by 40 percent during a fiscal crisis. In fact, when combined with funding approved earlier this year in the fiscal year 2009 omnibus budget bill and the stimulus bill, the EPA will receive more than $25 billion in a single calendar year, which is equal to more than three-fourths of the entire Interior Appropriations budget. So that is my say for tonight.

Madam Chair, my amendment is very straightforward. It would freeze the total amount of spending in this bill for the Environmental Protection Agency at the current level. With the economy contracting and unemployment rising, it would simply be irresponsible to increase spending for the EPA by 38 percent during this fiscal crisis. In fact, when combined with funding approved earlier this year in the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus and the ``stimulus'' bill, the EPA will receive more than $25 billion in a single calendar year, which is equal to more than three-fourths of the entire Interior Appropriations bill.

Americans are seeing their family budgets get smaller and smaller, while Congress continues to spend and spend. I don't think it is too much to expect Congress to make the same scarifies that millions of Americans are making everyday.

Providing a 17 percent overall increase in total funding in this bill--and an astonishing 38 percent increase for the EPA--when our country is experiencing the worst economic crisis in decades is the height of irresponsibility. We must hold the line on spending and make sound budget choices that are sustainable and that do not rely on continued deficits and borrowing.

Families across my congressional district and all across the country are having to tighten their belts during this tough economic time. I don't think it is too much to expect Congress to do the same. We need to set the example.

This Congress and President Obama continue to ignore the fact that their reckless spending will bury our children and grandchildren under a mountain of debt. Since 1970, federal spending has increased 221 percent, nearly nine times faster than median income. In 2008, publicly held debt, as a percentage of the GDP was 40.8 percent, nearly five points below the historical average. Under President Obama's budget, this figure would more than double to 82.4 percent by 2019.

My colleague from Washington, Chairman Dicks, stated during the markup of the FY2010 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill that, ``this Bill demonstrates a clear break from the past.'' He is most certainly correct. This bill demonstrates a clear break from sound fiscal policy and instead ushers in a new era of reckless out of control spending that will saddle families with oppressive levels of debt for generations to come.

There is plenty of blame to go around for the out of control spending. At some point, we have to stand up and say stop. We still have much work to do but we can start with this amendment.

Passing this amendment will send a strong message to the American people that Congress is serious about reigning in this out of control government spending. As families across America continue to tighten their belt, Congress needs to do the same.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, did he know that they found a water bay on Saturn, the planet Saturn? And using your line of reasoning, we should also consider funding for this new water bay on Saturn.

This is not a reduction. This is not a cut. This is simply a freeze. And I would ask the gentleman: How many people in your congressional district are getting a 38 percent increase this year in their salary? And how can you justify a 38 percent increase on EPA?

With that, Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Good morning, Madam Speaker.

My colleagues, it is vital that the elected officials in the United States express their solidarity with those who peacefully advocate for freedom in Iran.

It is clear that the votes in the Iranian elections were manipulated. An analysis by the London-based Chatham House, a British think tank, found that the turnout in two provinces exceeded 100 percent, along with other fraudulent activities. How could they count 40 million votes in 4 hours, many of them paper votes?

Let's see a list of registered voters and voter turnout by province and how these elections compare with earlier Iranian elections. These are crucial questions and considerations in determining the validity of these elections.

I agree with the President that the disputed elections are a matter for the Iranians to resolve themselves. However, as a leader of the Free World, the President should have stepped up earlier in support of the pro-democracy demonstrators and in condemning the attacks on them. And he should ask, Where is the proof? Where is the proof in the Iranian elections?

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 415, 416, 417 and 418, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on all 4 articles of impeachment.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 379, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

personal explanation

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 384, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Motion to Reconsider

Madam Speaker, the late Senator Daniel Moynihan published a paper on defining deviancy down in which society lowers its standards whereby unacceptable conduct becomes acceptable.

I recently heard from a number of my constituents about the abusive attack on Governor Sarah Palin's 14-year-old daughter. I also read about this and was just as upset as they were. Governor Palin and her 14-year-old daughter had attended a Yankees game and David Letterman told a totally inappropriate joke about them.

I recall that last year, David Shuster made an inappropriate comment about Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of Bill and Hillary Clinton. The president of NBC apologized and suspended Shuster from the network. The Palin family received a belated apology a week later.

I hope the host, David Letterman, realizes that children should not be the targets of sexually charged jokes. We must not allow the unacceptable to become the acceptable.

Offered By: Mr. Stearns

Amendment No. 17: Page 13, line 11, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $100,000,000)''.

Page 47, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $100,000,000)''.

Page 48, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $100,000,000)''.