Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this is not a roadmap. This is the Democrats' new health care plan, all of these white things. Can you believe that? I was just talking to my colleague over there, Mr. Poe from Texas.

All of these white things are new agencies of government, new agencies of government that we're going to have to pay for in order to take care of the health of the Nation. Now, this thing is going to cost between $1 and $3 trillion over the next 10 years, and I doubt seriously if anybody who is writing this 1,200-page bill, or whatever it is, knows what this stuff does. It's just crazy. Look at all of these agencies. Look at the minefields that people have to go through to get to their doctors down there at the end to take care of their health care needs.

Other countries that have used this kind of an approach ration health care for senior citizens. They ration health care for people who have certain kinds of diseases. They have to wait months and months and months for MRIs and for other things that we would get very rapidly here in the United States because we have the highest quality of health care in the world, and so we are going to create a government bureaucracy.

I hope my colleagues back in their offices are looking at this, because most of them haven't seen this.

We are creating a government bureaucracy that looks worse than any Federal highway system like in California. I mean you can't even find your way around this thing, but that's not the worst of it.

Since last October, this is how much money we've spent: $700 billion on the TARP program, which includes $54 billion for the auto bailout, which we really didn't need to do because they filed for bankruptcy anyhow, so that $54 billion was wasted. Who cares. That's just taxpayers' money. Then we had $1.1 trillion, including interest, for the stimulus package, which is not working, because they said that was going to keep unemployment below 8 percent. Now it is 9.5 and is going up like a rocket, so that didn't work. That's $1.1 trillion. On the omnibus spending bill, we had $410 billion. The defense supplemental was $106 billion. Now, there may have been some necessity for that. The SCHIP bill was $73 billion. The cap-and-trade is going to cost every family in this country between $1,000 and $3,000 a year in additional expenses for turning on their lights or for putting gasoline in their cars or for getting gas to heat their homes. Then there's this health care bill, which will be $1 trillion to $3 trillion, and I'll tell you: It is going to be a lot more than that.

Let me tell you a little story, my colleagues who may be paying attention. When I was a state senator, the Federal Government came into Indiana and said, If you don't take the Medicaid bill, we're going to withdraw $2.5 million in Federal highway funds. They were blackmailing the State of Indiana into taking the Medicaid program by saying that we were going to lose $2.5 million if we didn't take it.

I went up to the Senate floor, and I said, Hey, it's going to cost us 10 times this amount of money if we do take Medicaid. I said it would cost about $25 million. Do you know how much that costs now? Between $1 billion and $2 billion a year. I was so far off it isn't funny.

This thing right here is not going to cost $1 trillion to $3 trillion. It's going to cost trillions more than that. It's going to reduce the quality of health care. It's going to cause the rationing of health care, and it's going to ruin the system of health care we have in this country. It's just a tragedy that this is happening.

This administration is moving as rapidly as they can toward a socialistic form of government, and everybody in this country ought to know it. They are trying to control and are controlling the investment business, the banking business, the automobile business; with cap-and- trade, they're controlling the energy business; and now the health care business. This is really a tragic time for America, and I hope everybody in this country who may be paying attention will really take a close look at this and will call their Congressman if they are paying attention.

I know I can't address them, Mr. Speaker, but if I were addressing the American people, I would say, Contact your Congressman and tell him you don't want this mess passed into law. It is going to jeopardize the quality of your health care here in America.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this country want to know how we're going to pay for this health care plan that the Democrat majority is going to put forth.

Last week, on ``Fox News Sunday,'' Mr. Wallace asked this question of Congressman Hoyer, the majority leader, he said, How are you going to pay for it specifically? What taxes are you willing to raise, and are you going to tax health care benefits? And Mr. Hoyer said, ``Well, I'm not going to go into--that's a proposal on the table in the Senate, not in the House, as you know. The pay-fors are going to be tough. Nobody wants to pay for what we're buying. And very frankly, our financial status in America has gone down.'' In other words, he didn't want to tell how the American people were going to have to pay for that program.

And then the President of the United States, at his town meeting last week, said, Now, one-third of it we're going to pay for by increased revenues--that's increased taxes--and the cost will be between $1 trillion and $3 trillion, probably closer to $3 trillion. So he's saying they're going to have to raise at least $1 trillion in new taxes.

And then he went on to say about two-thirds of it would come from reallocating money that's currently in the system. Now, where in the world are they going to get $2 trillion out of other programs to pay for the extra two-thirds?

The people of this country are being hoodwinked. This health care program they're talking about, this socialized medicine, is going to cost an arm, a leg, a lot of taxes, and inflation because they're going to spend money we do not have.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this country many times get so frustrated because they think that we here in Congress don't hear them, we don't listen to them. I have a couple of letters here I would like to read into the Record--at least part of them--so that my colleagues in the House can get some flavor for what the people in mid-America are thinking right now.

This letter is from a lady named Emmaline P. Henn in Huntington, Indiana. And she says: ``Dear Congressman Burton, it was great to hear you and speak with you at Huntington's Lincoln Day Dinner, but we want to stress the things we said then. We do have confidence in you''-- which I really appreciate.

She says: ``We are appalled by what is happening in Washington. Now in our 80s, we have seen many administrations; none has been as frightening as this one. In less than 6 months, President Obama and his team have drawn the U.S. Government deep into private business. The government's business is governing, not business.

``There is no doubt the President and his team have taken us far on the road to socialism, so far that we fear there may be no return. Their spending is out of this world, and it will not save the economy.

``In the long run, bailouts don't work. The health care issue, the credit card issue, the card check issue, and more, are taking us far from free enterprise and are causing many citizens to give up on self- reliance and responsibility in favor of relying on the government. There is little incentive for talented people to innovate, work hard, and create business. What a terrible lesson.

``We pray you fight for this movement. At the same time, we pray you will support keeping the United States safe in every way you possibly can.''

You can hear the frustration in this lady by the way her letter sounds. But then there is another one here from a

General Motors dealer in Wabash, Indiana. And I will just read part of this letter because I think it really--I want to put the whole thing in the Record, but I want to read part of it because it tells you the frustration that small business people have in this country.

It is from David and Kay Dorais. And she says: ``My husband, David Dorais, and I are the owners and operators of Dorais Chevrolet in Wabash, Indiana. This business was started over 60 years ago by my husband's grandfather, Gus Dorais.

``Gus was the first All American in football from Notre Dame University. He came to Wabash, Indiana, from Detroit. He began a Chevrolet dealership operating under the philosophy of `give back to the community that has given so much to you.' This is the philosophy we have strived to operate under.

``We have always been extremely loyal to General Motors and to our community. Small business is what helped to build this great country of ours, and loyalty is what makes all of us successful. We have always given back whenever asked, often times without being asked. We have always paid taxes. We have always voted. We have always made contributions. We've always participated in the programs that General Motors asked us to participate in.''

And then they go on to say that they had an attorney that was talking to them about the way they're being treated by the government and by General Motors, which is now controlled by the government--Government Motors now, no longer General Motors. And they say: ``We are now no longer to be a part of the `new General Motors.' We are no longer good enough, even though we were part of the faction that helped to support them for years.

``Yesterday I listened to an attorney representing auto dealers speak. He is the first person I have heard make any sense in this mess. He asked, where are your elected representatives? Where are the elected officials that you donated to? Where are the elected officials that you voted for? He further added that these people never hesitated to ask for your help, but where are they now? The most important question asked was, why are you allowing them to turn their backs on you?''

And I would just like to say, if I were talking to my colleagues in the House, my friends in the Senate, or if I were talking to the President, I would say, it's time for us to pay attention to these people. Instead of putting everything under government control, instead of trying to bail out everything by printing money that we don't have, we ought to be cutting taxes like they did under Ronald Reagan.

We cut taxes across the board when we had terrible problems back in the early eighties. We had 14 percent inflation, we had 12 percent unemployment--worse than we have right now, and when Reagan came in, instead of throwing money at everything what he did was said, we're going to give people some of their money back, we're going to cut their taxes. We're going to cut business taxes because if we do that, they will have more income and more money to spend on expanding our economy to buy products, to produce new products. And he did that.

And because of that, we had one of the longest periods of economic expansion in this country's history.

You compare that to what we're seeing today where businesses are being driven out of business. This business has been there for 60 years, and they're going out of business because we're trying to solve the problems by letting government solve everything. Sixty-one percent of General Motors is going to be run by the unions now, and we've spent $57 billion bailing these companies out when we could have done it the way Ronald Reagan did.

I want to end by just saying I feel real frustration when I get these letters from my constituents, and I hope my colleagues are paying attention and the people at the White House are paying attention, because instead of printing more money and throwing more money and putting more government control in charge of everything, we ought to be giving the American people the right to have some of their money back so they can expand this economy, because government sure isn't doing it.

June 3, 2008.

Congressman Dan Burton,

Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Burton: My husband, David Dorais, and I

are the owners and operators of Dorais Chevrolet in Wabash,

Indiana. This business was started over 60 years ago by my

husband's grandfather, Gus Dorais. Gus Dorais was the first

All American in football from Notre Dame University. He came

to Wabash, Indiana from Detroit. He began a Chevrolet

dealership operating under the philosophy of ``give back to

the community that has given so much to you''. This is the

philosophy we have strived to operate under.

We have always been extremely loyal to General Motors and

to our community. Small business is what helped to build this

great country of ours and loyalty is what makes all of us

successful. We have always given back whenever asked, often

times without being asked. We have always paid taxes. We have

always voted. We have always made contributions. We have

always participated in the programs that General Motors asked

us to participate in. We have even participated in extra

programs that General Motors did not request, such as an

advertisement group. My husband served as an officer in this

group for years. We employ many people, who also help to keep

our community alive. We pay our employees a fair and honest

wage and we provide insurance to them. We feel we have done

everything that an American citizen should do. We have been

voted Small Business of the Year in our community, the only

auto dealer to receive this award.

May 15th, 2009 we received a letter from General Motors

that stated they will not be renewing our contract with them.

Our American Dream became our American Nightmare. The

Automotive Task Force (none of which drive American cars)

handed down their decree. We are now no longer to be a part

of the ``New General Motors''. We are no longer ``good

enough'', even though we are a part of the faction that

helped to support them for years. Yesterday I listened to the

attorney representing auto dealers speak. He is the first

person I have heard make any sense in this mess. He asked,

where are your elected representatives? Where are the elected

officials that you donated to? Where are the elected

officials that you voted for? He further added that these

people never hesitated to ask for your help, but where are

they now. The most important question asked was, ``Why are

you allowing them to turn their backs on you?

These are the people that wanted your support to put them

in their present position. It is a position that is to help

the people. Where are they and why are you not furious that

they are turning their backs on you''. It did give me reason

to think. Politicians run on the premise of helping the

people. Yet, when you are actually needed, where are you? Has

a political office simply become a place to sit and receive a

check? Are campaign promises simply empty words used to

become elected. During the last election it was all about the

Middle Class, all about small business, it was all about

keeping business alive, it was all about keeping people

employed. What happened? Was it all simply political

rhetoric, business as usual.

As previously stated, we are a small business. We do

believe in helping and giving back. We believe in helping and

supporting those around us. We have even managed to keep

doing this in these difficult economic times. We are a small

business in Wabash, Indiana that does give back in every way

possible. We are a small business in which the owners do not

take huge paychecks in order to give back to a community that

we are loyal to. We received the Small Business Award because

of our loyalty. It is our hope that this is not a word that

has been forgotten in government. No, we are not as

profitable as we once were. Yet these are difficult times and

they will pass. Given the opportunity, we will again be

profitable--even more profitable than in the past. It is our

hope that you will look at this Small Business of the Year in

Wabash, Indiana. Look at the contributions we make to the

people who live here. It is our hope that you have not turned

your back on us.

Sincerely,

David and Kay Dorais.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

You know, I think the American people would like to see us debate the issues that they're very concerned about on this floor, and there are many of these issues we're not going to be able to debate because of this closed rule.

I'd just like to cite a couple of amendments that I introduced that I think the American people, many of them, would really like to hear debated.

One of them was a sense of Congress bill or amendment that would expand the economic sanctions against Iran. Iran is a terrorist state developing nuclear weapons. A sense of Congress resolution saying we should put severe economic standards on them, sanctions on them, and get our allies to do it, is something that should have been debated and passed, because I think Americans are concerned about this terrorist state and they want us to stop their nuclear program and to put pressure on them.

Another amendment would have prohibited funds from being used to establish diplomatic or commercial ties in or with Iran until these changes are

made, until they stop their nuclear development program, which threatens the Middle East oil supplies, our energy supplies, and the whole world.

Finally, we had one that dealt with putting pressure on terrorist organizations until they recognize Israel's right to exist. I think all of us support Israel and we want to make sure Israel's right to exist is guaranteed. So why wouldn't we want to have an amendment on the floor which said that the organizations that are trying to destroy Israel should be put under extreme pressure to make sure that they recognize Israel's right to exist?

Finally, one of the things that really concerns me is the United Nations is going to spend almost $900,000 in legal fees for Benon Sevan. He is the man who ran the Oil-for-Food program, and it was a corrupt program. He was working with Saddam Hussein.

The man has fled the country. He has been charged with bribery and wire fraud, and the U.S. Federal and State prosecutors are looking for this guy, and they're using our taxpayer dollars to defend him, to help him with his legal fees.

What I said in this amendment is we should withhold the amount of money that would go for his legal fees from our commitment to the United Nations, and I think the American people would agree with that.

So I can't understand why the chairman and the members of the Rules Committee didn't make these in order. I hope in the future they will be a little more openminded about this, because the American people want these issues debated in the people's House.

Madam Speaker, due to mechanical difficulties involving my flight back to Washington, DC from Indianapolis, I was unable to be on the House Floor for roll call votes 478 and 479.

Had I been present I would have voted aye on Roll Call vote 478-- Directing the Architect of the Capitol to place a marker in Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center which acknowledges the role that slave labor played in the construction of the United States Capitol; and nay on Roll Call vote 479--To create a new Federal grant program to facilitate an iron working training program for Native Americans.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard of the problems with the rule, but that's not the thing that really bothers me. What bothers me is how much money we're spending.

Since last October, this is what we've spent: $700 billion for TARP; $70.3 billion for CHIP; $1.16 trillion, that includes the interest, for the stimulus bill; $625 billion, which includes interest, for the omnibus bill; $125 billion for the war supplemental. The American people are struggling right now because of the economy, and we're spending money like it's going out of style.

This bill that we're talking about right now under this rule is going to have a $2.4 billion increase over last year. That's 12 percent. And if you compare that to fiscal year 2008, the budget that the programs under this bill operated under until passage of the omnibus in February, it's $4.8 billion more, or a 27 percent increase. And then they've also added $7.9 billion of emergency designated spending during the current fiscal year. Where in the world are we going to get this money?

The American people are starting to realize that there is going to be very high inflation down the road because we can't pay for this stuff, so they're printing this money down at the Treasury Department. And when you print more money and it's chasing the same amount of goods and services, you're going to have inflation, and it's going to be high inflation. We had it in the early eighties when it was 14 percent, and they had to raise interest rates to 21 percent to stop the inflationary trend. And that is what's going to happen again if we don't get control of the spending.

This is the wrong approach. We need to cut spending instead of keep blowing this money.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and military service of Major Earl G. Anderson, Jr. who was recently named the 2009 Aviator of the Year at the Indianapolis Air Show.

Born in Rockford, Illinois in 1920, twenty-two-year old Earl Anderson, Jr. enlisted in the United States Army Air Corps in April of 1942 leaving behind his wife Geraldine to serve his country in its time of need. By September 1943, Aviation Cadet Anderson had completed his State-side training and was assigned to the United States 15th Air Force flying The Consolidated B-24 Liberator bomber over Europe. The B- 24 was an American heavy bomber that still holds the record as the most produced U.S. military aircraft.

Between December 1943 and June 1944 Major Anderson flew fifty-one successful combat missions against enemy targets before being shot down. He spent the remainder of the war as a Prisoner of War (POW) in a camp outside Munich, Germany. For his heroic and courageous flying, Major Earl Anderson, Jr. was awarded by order of the President of the United States the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Air Medal with 6 clusters, and the Distinguished Unit Badge with one cluster.

Earl's prison camp was eventually liberated by allied troops in 1945 and after debriefing Earl was sent back to the United States to spend some time on furlough before returning to duty. Major Anderson continued serving both on active duty and as a member of the Reserves until he was Honorably Discharged in 1961.

Fortunately for all Hoosiers, Earl's passion for aviation stayed with him after he left the service and he's been an active part of Indiana's aviation community for many years. Earl and his wife Geraldine (Gerrie) have been married for 67 years. They have two daughters, Marilyn and Barbara, and five grandchildren.

I ask all of my colleagues to join me now to thank Major Earl Anderson, Jr. for his service and his sacrifices for our country, and to congratulate him on being named the 2009 Indiana Aviator of the Year.

Madam Speaker, if this energy tax passes, the estimated job loss or my district is an average of 3,702 jobs per year from 2012 through 2035. If this bill passes it will mean financial ruin for thousands of my constituents.

5th CD Gross State Product Loss for 2012: $361.7 million

5th CD Gross State Product Loss on average from 2012-2035: $720.1 million

5th CD Personal Income Loss in 2012: $458.7 million

5th CD Personal Income Loss on average from 2012-2035: $265.7 million

5th CD Non-farm Job Loss in 2012: 4,552

5th CD Non-farm Job Loss on average from 2012-2035: 3,702

the consequences of cap and tax

Over 1,200 pages long, H.R. 2454 contains four sections outlining mandates for renewable energy, mandates for energy efficiency, a cap- and-tax proposal, and a ``transitioning'' section focused on forestalling expected job loss.

higher Energy Prices

Every consumer will pay for this both directly and indirectly.

Independent researchers, CBO, and the President all agree that this cost will be passed to consumers.

every provision in the bill either increases the cost of energy directly or tried to keep it from increasing too much.

Example: new federal renewable electricity standard that would likely cause electricity prices to spike.

This is the ultimate regressive consumption tax to the tune of nearly $3,000 per year according to the Heritage Foundation.

The costs per family for the whole energy tax aggregated from 2012 to 2035 are estimated to be $71,493.

fewer jobs

Yesterday in the Rose Garden, President Obama said that Cap-and-Trade was a ``jobs bill.'' Yet many studies reports rampant job loss through the year 2035.

A national energy tax would undoubtedly outsource millions of manufacturing jobs to countries such as China and India.

According to the independent Charles River Associates International, H.R. 2454 would result in a ``net reduction in U.S. employment of 2.3 million to 2.7 million jobs each year of the policy through 2030,'' even after the ``creation'' of new green jobs.

Green Jobs Are a Proven Failure: According to a recent study that reviewed the impact of ``green jobs'' in Spain, the U.S. can expect 2.2 jobs to be destroyed for every 1 renewable job financed by the government. Only 1 in 10 of the jobs actually created through green investment is permanent, and since 2000, Spain has spent 753,778 U.S. dollars to create each ``green job,'' including subsidies of more than $1,319,783 per wind industry job.

government mandates and intervention

This includes new federal mandates on everything from outdoor light bulbs and table lamps to water dispensers, commercial hot food cabinets, and Jacuzzis.

Establishes a myriad of new federal agencies intertwined between at least 21 established agencies with the mission of reallocating trillions of taxpayer dollars. According the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the bill will impose 397 new federal regulations that require traditional agency rulemakings.

The bill transfers wealth from rural areas to cities. States like California, Washington, and New Jersey would receive more emission credits than they need, enabling them to sell surplus credits to smaller facilities in states like Ohio that receive maybe half of the credits they need--making the rich, richer, and the poor, poorer.

The bill would also increase the demand for electricity (to fuel plug-in vehicles via new hybrid incentives) at the same time as the other portions of the bill cause consumer electricity costs to spike.

Although the bill includes ``free'' allowances for some sectors, economists agree that even if 100 percent of the industry's emissions were initially covered by free allocations, the bill's declining carbon cap will force higher and higher costs onto the American public.

According to the Heritage Foundation, by 2035 this legislation would:

Reduce aggregate gross GDP by $9.4 trillion;

Raise electricity rates 90 percent;

Raise gasoline prices by 58 percent;

Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent; and

Increase inflation-adjusted federal debt by 26 percent, or $28,728 additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation.

Furthermore, a recent poll shows that 78 percent of individuals questioned said that a $50 increase in monthly utility bills would be a hardship.

58 percent of respondents say that they are unwilling to pay any more than they currently pay for electricity to combat climate change.

To that end, one-half of those polled oppose enacting a carbon tax to fund energy research (up from 31 percent in 2007).

In addition, the bill:

Creates a Derivatives Market for Companies like AIG: Companies like AIG and ENRON will be participating in a new derivatives market that is much more volatile than housing or natural gas. This new unregulated derivatives market will be more perilous for companies like these than the traditional ones that got them into trouble in the first place. In addition, since the created artificial market contains no transparency, it is more likely to attract traders intent on imposing Ponzi schemes in the same spirit of Bernie Madoff and swindle thousands of Americans.

Devastates Rural America: Rural households spend 58% more on fuel than urban residents as a percentage of their income. The Heritage Foundation estimates farm income will drop by $50 billion by 2035.

Concedes to the Competition: Currently, China accounts for 85% of global growth in coal each year and is the world's largest annual emitter of greenhouse gases. China's energy usage rose by 7.2% last year and they are building approximately two coal fired power plants per week to keep up with demand. Recently, at a U.N. conference, the Chinese government's advisory panel on climate change asserted that the cap and tax targets were too low by stating Given that, it is natural for China to have some increase in its emissions, so it is not possible for China in that context to accept a binding or compulsory target. In addition, India will not agree to any cap on their total energy production, and many believe India will double their coal-fired- capacity by 2030.

Discriminates Against Developing Nations: The bill creates a new program under USAID to provide U.S. foreign aid to developing countries for their efforts to adapt to climate change. Essentially, the bill is sending taxpayer funds to encourage third world nations to not develop carbon emitting energy sources keeping them at a competitive disadvantage from developed nations for even more decades to come.

Establishes an Unrealistic Renewable Energy Standard (RES): ``Cap and tax'' does not take into account the fact that additional hydropower, nuclear and advanced fossil coal power plants cannot be deployed quickly enough to meet expected growth in electricity demand while also dramatically reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Since renewable technology accounts for a small percentage of energy demand, consumers can expect not only higher rates, but more transmission problems during peak hours of demand. Additionally, the bill preempts at least 23 state renewable electricity standards.

Includes Davis-Bacon: ``Cap and tax'' expands Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements to many provisions of the bill. This policy has been shown to increase public construction costs by anywhere from 5 to 38 percent above projected costs for the same project in the private sector.

Groups Scoring as a Key Vote: 60 Plus Association, Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform (double-rating), Citizens Against Government Waste, Club for Growth, FreedomWorks, Independent Petroleum Association of America, National Association of

Manufacturers, National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, National Cattleman Beef Association, National Federation of Independent Businesses, National Taxpayers Union, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council).

Madam Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues in supporting the ``Student Internet Safety Act of 2009'' (H.R. 780), which the House of Representatives passed on June 16, 2009. H.R. 780 amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to allow local educational agencies that receive Title II (teacher grants) funds and Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities funds, to develop and implement programs promoting safe Internet use by students (i.e. how to prevent online stalking and promoting parental involvement).

My colleague from Florida, Representative Adam Putnam is the author of H.R. 780. I commend Representative Putnam in crafting thoughtful and much needed legislation to provide schools with the ability to teach children about the potential dangers associated with the Internet. Congressman Putnam said that ``We teach our children how to look both ways before crossing the street; we also need to teach them the safety rules for the `information superhighway.' '' I could not agree more and that is why I was pleased that the House Leadership scheduled a vote on

Madam Speaker, the 4th of July is a holiday that we hold very near and dear because it deals with our independence and our desire for freedom and liberty, and we celebrate that with a great deal of awe.

What bothers me right now is that this administration, in my opinion, is violating the sanctity of that day by inviting Iranian diplomats to our embassies around the world to help us celebrate the 4th of July. Let's just look at what Iran's doing.

Iran is still pursuing nuclear weapons; Ahmadinejad is still calling for the destruction of Israel; Iran is still pursuing long-range missiles; Iran is working to destabilize Iraq and killing American soldiers; Iran is still a state sponsor of terror; Iran continues to supply Hezbollah and Hamas, terrorist organizations. Now the Iranian regime has turned on its own citizens and killed many of them in the streets.

It is unthinkable, at a time when we are celebrating freedom and independence in this country, the 4th of July, that we're going to invite into our embassies people who support this kind of terrorism. It makes no sense. And if I were talking to the President, I would say, Mr. President, rescind that invitation. Rescind that invitation.

Madam Speaker, the national health care program that is advertised by the administration, they estimate it will cost $1 trillion just to insure one-third of the uninsured in this country. So it is going to cost $3 trillion if you add all of those people to the health care rolls, money that we just don't have.

The thing that bothers me is ABC News over the next week is going to be advertising a 2-hour infomercial that is going to take place by the President at the White House in the next week. They are doing this at the White House. ABC is actually moving into the White House to advertise this for the President.

You know, the President is on television every single day, and it is pretty obvious that CBS, NBC and CNN are all very supportive of the President. They are advocating everything he is talking about. But ABC is going overboard. They are absolutely flipping by going to the White House and supporting and advertising for the President's program.

I think this is just dead wrong. It is okay to be supportive of the President, but I don't think ABC should become Obama news.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the rule preprinted in the Congressional Record at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very straightforward. It simply says that ``none of the funds made available in this act may be used to relocate the Office of the Census or employees from the Department of Commerce to the jurisdiction of the Executive Office of the President.''

In February of this year, after Senator Judd Gregg, a Republican, was nominated by President Obama to be the Secretary of Commerce, the White House announced that control of the Census Bureau and the 2010 census would be removed from the Commerce Department and placed in the hands of the White House staff. Senator Gregg eventually withdrew his name from consideration, in part because of his concerns about taking control of the next census out of the hands of the Commerce Department and putting it into the hands of political operatives at the White House. Contrary to Democratic claims, there was no historical precedent for placing the census under the control of political operatives on the White House staff.

According to former Census Bureau Director Bruce Chapman, who directed

the Census Bureau from 1981 to 1983 under President Reagan, he said, ``The White House and its congressional allies are wrong in asserting that the Census in the past has reported directly to the President through his staff. Directors of the Bureau often brief Presidents and their staffs, but as a former director under President Reagan, I don't know of any cases where the conduct of the Bureau was directly under the White House supervision; that includes President Clinton in 2000, Bush 41 in 1990, and Carter in 1980.''

The Obama administration has since backtracked and attempted to downplay its role regarding the census. And to his credit, the current Secretary of Commerce, Gary Locke, has expressed his intention to not cede control of the 2010 census to the White House during his confirmation hearings.

The U.S. Constitution, article I, section 2, clause 3, as modified by section 2 of the 14th Amendment, requires a population census every 10 years to serve as the basis for reapportioning seats in the House of Representatives. The Constitution stipulates that the enumeration is to be conducted ``in such manner as they [Congress] shall by law direct.''

Congress, through title 13 of the U.S. Code, has delegated this responsibility to the Secretary of Commerce and, within the Department of Commerce, to the Bureau of the Census.

Let me be very clear on this point: The Constitution stipulates that Congress shall direct how the census is to be conducted and Congress delegated this responsibility to the Bureau of the Census, not the Office of the White House Chief of Staff.

The United States census should remain independent of politics. It should not be directed by political operatives working out of the White House. Such a move is especially troubling considering the census at the time was considering entering into a national partnership with ACORN, an organization ripe with internal corruption and that was responsible for multiple instances of vote fraud in the 2008 presidential election.

Asking an organization like ACORN to help recruit the 1.4 million temporary workers that will go door-to-door is akin to inviting the fox into the henhouse. An estimated $300 billion in Federal funds are distributed annually on the basis of the census data, according to the Census officials. This is very important, because all the people in this country are affected by this money.

The Census Bureau is staffed by experienced and talented professionals who are leaders in the field of statistics. In order to produce a fair, accurate and trustworthy count during the 2010 census, the Census Bureau needs to remain an agency free from political or partisan interference.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I believe Mr. Mollohan is well- intentioned. I believe he is an honorable man. But my concern is that there could be a change of attitude by some in the White House.

I appreciate that the White House has reconsidered and reversed their decision on taking control of the census, but unless we pass this amendment, there is nothing to prevent the White House from reversing itself once more, and that concerns me.

I am encouraged because the Secretary of Commerce, Mr. Locke, has expressed his intention to not cede control of the 2010 census to the White House during his confirmation hearings. But, nevertheless, to make sure that Congress retains its right to control the census and the $300 billion that will be disseminated as a result of the census, I think we need to make it very clear by passing this amendment that it is up to the Congress and not the White House to make this determination.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the majority leader, and he is very eloquent at the microphone, but he forgot to mention a couple of things that, I think, the American people would like to know.

For instance, 80 percent of this bill is helping the troops, but this is a war supplemental; 100 percent should be helping our troops. In addition to that, he did not mention that this is a 22 percent reduction from what was in the supplemental last year, so we're actually cutting funding to the troops by 22 percent over what we did last year, and we're just expanding our operation into Afghanistan. So I think that the people ought to really get the whole picture. The whole picture is that this is a war supplemental, and it's being cut over what we spent last year for the same type of legislation.

Now, he mentioned the International Monetary Fund, the $5 billion for that. This is a war supplemental. This is not an IMF bill. It's going to create $108 billion in additional loaning capability by the IMF. A few of the countries that will benefit from this with Special Drawing Rights are people who are not our friends--like Venezuela, Mr. Chavez down there; like Iran, a terrorist state; Yemen; Syria; Zimbabwe; and Burma.

So I would just like to say--and I would never admonish the majority leader, because he is a great man, and I really like him--let's get all of the facts out there and not just part of them.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I guess the biggest problem I have with this bill is that we've been talking about cutting spending and about controlling the budget. So far this year, in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, the TARP bill, we've spent $700 billion. In the Children's Health Reauthorization Act, the State Children's Health Insurance, we've spent $73.3 billion. In the America Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the stimulus, we've spent $1.16 trillion. In the February '09 consolidated appropriation, the omnibus bill, we've spent $625 billion. Now, I understand the necessity of this bill, but it's 11.6 percent higher than, I think, the same bill last year.

The thing that really bothers me is that, I think, you have 80-some pages of earmarks, of pork bill projects, whatever you want to call them, at a time when we're suffering severely economically and at a time when we're spending way, way more money than the American people can afford. We're spending so much money that they're actually, I think, running the printing presses over at Treasury day and night. I can't understand why we're allowing all of these earmarks, many of which have nothing to do with Commerce, Justice and Science.

So I would just like to say that I think this is something that we ought to take a hard look at when we get into the amendments. I wish that we didn't have this kind of a tremendous amount of additional expenses, and I sure wish we didn't have all of these earmarks.

If there is one thing the American people are very concerned about right now it is all of these additional projects, especially at a time when they're suffering at home. People can't afford their houses. They can't afford to take care of their kids' educational needs. There are so many problems the American people have. The unemployment rate is at--what?--9 percent nationally. Here we are with all of these earmarks, and we're spending all of this money that they don't have and that, certainly, the government doesn't have.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the Record a June 16, 2009, document on general funding levels.

To: Congressman Dan Burton

From: Legislative Staff

Date: June 16, 2009

Subject: Talking points

General Funding levels:

The bill provides $6.7 billion (11.6 percent more than FY

2009 for programs funded under the CJS Appropriations bill.

Agencies funded through the bill received approximately $16

billion in supplemental appropriations outside the normal FY

2009 appropriations process, the vast majority of which came

from the ``stimulus'' bill.

H.R. 2847 would provide $13.85 billion for the Department

of Commerce, which is an increase of $4.57 billion, or 49

percent, over FY 2009. The majority of the increase for

Commerce is due to a $4.2 billion increase in spending for

the Census Bureau.

The bill provides $27.74 billion for the Department of

Justice, DOJ, which is an increase of $1.65 billion, or 6.3

percent, above FY 2009.

Funding for science agencies is $25.1 billion, an increase

of $868 million, or 3.5 percent, above FY 2009.

Spending for other related agencies is $956 million, which

is $83 million, or 9.5 percent, above FY 2009.

Conservative Concerns About the bill:

Earmarks: The Report accompanying H.R. 2847 contains $386

million in funding for approximately 1,100 earmarks, listed

on 80, non-searchable pages.

Earmarks in the bill range from: $180,000 for ``Training

the Next Generation Weather Forecasters'' at San Jose State

University; $1 million for a forensics laboratory in South

Carolina; $100,000 for Tennis, Sports, Literacy and Education

Program in New York City

Competitive Bidding Ban: The bill prohibits the Bureau of

Prisons from using any funds to enter into a public/private

contract under the OMB Circular A-76, which requires private

contractors to compete for Federal money to ensure that the

U.S. receives maximum value for tax dollars.

Matching Funds Waived: The appropriation grants the

Attorney General, AG, authority to waive a legislatively

mandated requirement that Federal grants for prisoner reentry

programs under the Second Chance Act be matched by State or

local funds.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I have great respect for my colleague, Mr. Mollohan, and undoubtedly he is going to be one of the conferees. I would like to ask him a question.

What I would like to know is, when you go to conference, you and I both know that there's a lot of give-and-take. And if you really feel strongly about an amendment, you fight for it. So I'd just like to ask you this question: Because the Colombia Free Trade Agreement is so important, will you use every bit of your fiber and being to fight for this in conference?

I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Sure.

Let me just say that we've been fighting this issue for a long, long time. One of the biggest problems that we've had is drugs coming into the United States from Central and South America. And President Uribe of Colombia has been one of our best friends and allies down there. He has stabilized that country, and one of the things that he really needs is a Free Trade Agreement to help further stabilize his country. I think it's extremely important that Mr. Mollohan, or whoever else is on the conference committee, realize the gravity of this situation. And Mr. Mollohan well knows that when you go to conference, and you're sitting across the table from your Democrat counterparts, if you are willing to really hang tough on an amendment, many times you can get that accepted, especially when you start compromising on other issues that may be in the bill. So I asked the question of Mr. Mollohan, will you fight for this in conference, and he reluctantly skirted the issue just a little bit.

So since this amendment has been accepted by Mr. Mollohan, it seems to me that it should be pretty well guaranteed that he is going to do everything he can to keep it in the bill when it goes to conference committee. And if that is not the case, then, you know, this might appear to be--I would never accuse my colleague of being insincere--but it might appear to be a facade. So if you accept this, Mr. Mollohan, I would just like to ask you one more time: Will you do everything you can to keep this in the bill?

Will you answer the question? Will you do everything you can to keep it in the bill?

I thank the gentleman for his answer. I will just end by saying, I really hope this stays in the bill. I can't think of anything that's more important as far as stabilizing Central and South America than free trade agreements. We've been fighting for a free trade agreement with Panama and Colombia for a long, long time; and if we're going to make sure that we slow down the illegal immigration that's coming from Central and South America, we've got to do things to stabilize that entire region, not only from a drug standpoint, but also from the illegal immigration standpoint. So I really hope that my colleague--and I'm sure Mr. Wolf will--I really hope my colleagues will do everything they can to make sure that this stays in the piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, this last weekend, I met with several auto dealers in my district, and it was very interesting to find out really what all of them are going through right now.

The Chrysler and General Motors companies are closing hundreds and hundreds of automobile dealerships across the country, and after talking to these dealers, I can't figure out why. It isn't costing the automobile companies anything. They sell the cars to the dealers and the dealers sell those to the consumer. And the dealers pay for those cars.

In addition, the dealers pay for the advertising, the dealers pay for the plant and equipment, their dealerships, the buildings. They pay the mechanics. They pay the sales people. So the car company, all they do is make the car and sell it to the dealer. And so why are they closing all of these dealerships? It seems to me, as you reduce your sales force across the country, you're going to reduce the amount of cars that are sold to the consumer. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

But let me tell you some of the things that these dealers are going through right now. One dealer told me that--it's a Chrysler dealer--he had a Dodge dealership. And Chrysler asked him a couple of years ago to buy another dealership that wasn't doing as well, and they asked him to not only buy the property but to upgrade the equipment and upgrade the property and upgrade the showroom.

So he put $3 million into buying a property and upgrading the showroom in the mechanics area, the garage area. And after he did it, just recently, right after he got it done, had invested $3 million, they closed him down. They closed him down. He lost $3 million after they asked him, the company asked him, to invest that money in purchasing and upgrading this other store.

Now, that's terrible. He put $3 million in it as the company requested, and then they cut the legs off from under him and he loses $3 million.

I talked to a Chevrolet dealer who was negotiating with a GMC dealer across the street. The GMC dealer and the Chevrolet dealer were right across the street from one other, and General Motors said, Why don't the two of you combine? And so the two companies were negotiating with one another on who would buy the other out, and it was a $3 million to $5 million purchase. Well, they couldn't reach agreement before the deal with General Motors took place, and they were going to close a whole bunch of dealerships. So what they did is they decided to close the dealership of the Chevrolet dealership down even though he was very profitable.

And what that means, simply, is the GMC dealer across the street is going to get this Chevrolet dealership that would have sold for $3 million to $5 million to him for nothing. And so this dealer is going out of business, and it's going to cost him $3 million to $5 million because they closed his dealership. He sold as many cars as they asked him to sell, he was up to snuff on his payments and everything else that was requested by the company, and they knocked the legs out from under him as well, and it cost him $3 million to $5 million.

There was a GM dealer that came to me at this meeting the other day, and he had eight dealerships, and they closed one of them down. It's going to cost him several million dollars. But he can't complain publicly because GM is going to be closing other dealerships down in the future, and he's afraid if he says anything they will close some of his other dealerships down and cost him more money.

You know, I just don't understand this. We have the government, the car czars, if you will, now taking control of the entire auto industry. They're forcing the executives of the companies out of office and replacing them with handpicked people by our government through the car czar and the Auto Task Force. So the government is taking over the auto industry and closing these dealerships, putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work, closing thousands of dealerships across the country, and actually hurting the American auto industry's ability to sell cars when they're in competition with car companies around the world. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

So, once again, here we have the government taking over an industry, socializing the auto industry, and really killing an awful lot of the people who work in it--not to mention the restaurants and the stores that surround these car dealerships who have been in business as well, and it's going to cost them jobs.

Government control of the private sector just destroys the private sector. And they want to now take over our health care industry. They're taking over the banks. They want to take over the energy industry with cap-and-trade, which is going to cost every family in this country $3,000 to $4,000 more per year for energy.

We don't need socialism in this country. We certainly don't need it. And here's an example, the car industry, of what happens when government takes over.