Floor Statements

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania for bringing this to the floor.

I rise today in support of H. Res. 1381, recognizing the National Museum of American Jewish History, an affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution, as the only museum in the Nation dedicated exclusively to exploring and preserving the American Jewish experience.

This resolution simply commends and congratulates the National Museum of American Jewish History for its outstanding work in presenting and preserving the Jewish American experience and in teaching all Americans about the importance of freedom, respect, and diversity.

Opening on July 4, 1976, the museum holds the largest collection in the world of Jewish Americana and is currently expanding to a beautiful new facility appropriately located on Independence Mall in Philadelphia near Independence Hall, the National Constitution Center, and the Liberty Bell. There it will continue to showcase how the freedom of America fostered an environment in which Jewish Americans made and continue to make significant contributions to American life.

The National Museum of American Jewish History shares its current site with a Jewish congregation established in the 1740s. This was one of the first organized Jewish congregations in the colonies and was later called the Synagogue of the American Revolution. Indeed, Madam Speaker, our founding documents and the principles upon which our Nation was built reflect our Founding Fathers' adherence to Judeo- Christian values and ethics.

From the 1 million Jews in the United States in 1900, to the 550,000 Jews who served in the U.S. military during World War II, to the Jewish peoples liberated by American forces, to the approximately 6 million Jewish Americans with us today, Jews, Americans, and Jewish Americans have been intertwined in their support for liberty and have been vital to our self-governing and culturally rich Republic.

Madam Speaker, I would be remiss if I didn't say that this resolution comes at a time when current events have subjected the American Jewish community and Jews around the world to greater concern than they have been subjected to for some time. The statements of madmen who have positions of authority in some countries should have us recall the madman of World War II who said similar things.

The descriptions utilized by those who vent hatred today against those of the Jewish faith and Jewish ethnicity, those words of vitriol and hatred can do nothing but foster uncertainty, fear, confusion, and ultimately can incite violence.

We should recall that a good portion of the world, the free world, stood silently some 65 or 70 years ago when those words were uttered by Adolf Hitler, some saying he is nothing but a madman and Germany is such a distinguished, scientifically advanced, culturally progressive society, that certainly these words of a madman will never take real form. Yet, we know they did.

Today, unfortunately, we hear the words of a madman in the country of Iran. In my judgment, too many people say it doesn't mean much, they are just the rantings of someone without real power and, from a country that has the tremendous history of the Persian culture, they certainly would not act on those statements made by that man. Well, we ought to pay attention to history.

I would advise Members of this Chamber, perhaps, to read George Gilder's excellent work that was published a year and a half ago called ``The Israel Test.'' In there, he talks about the tremendous contribution of Israelis who have come to the United States and become American citizens and also Americans who have gone to Israel and become tremendous citizens of that country, and the continuing relationship between our two countries and our

two cultures, which is to the advantage of both, and the fact that over and over again we have to remind ourselves that those in the State of Israel share common values with the United States and that those common values should not be taken for granted. When they have been taken for granted, they have either been lost or they have been destroyed for some period of time.

So, as we today salute this museum for its historic value, we should remember that museums are, in many ways, invitations to study history so that we might not repeat the terrible mistakes of history but, rather, be inspired by the tremendous advances of history.

So I would like to thank my good friend for offering this resolution. I would urge all my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would just say again that I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I hope there is a unanimous vote for it, and I thank the gentleman for bringing it to the floor.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 1178, directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to ensure that cost estimates prepared by the Congressional Budget Office are available to the public. Shouldn't we be spending our time perhaps having the Budget Committee meet and giving us a budget this year? I mean, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt, whom I hold in

tremendous regard, said a number of years ago when the Republicans were in charge, If you can't set a budget, you can't govern. So instead of us giving meat, we're giving what? I don't know what you would call this? It's not even broth.

While I approve of measures that will help the American people know where their money is being spent, that really is the definition of a budget: a budget is the blueprint. In the mid-1970s, we passed the Budget and Impoundment Act for the purpose, purportedly, of making sure that Congress was required to come up with a blueprint that would guide it. Now, it's supposed to be a concurrent resolution, meaning that both Houses pass it. It doesn't go to the President for a signature, so it's an internal document to this institution, that is, the Congress of the United States. And its purpose is to set out markers that will establish the guidelines for spending for the year.

That's one of the reasons we have a Rules Committee that would be required to give a waiver on a budget if an appropriations bill came here in violation of the budget. Well, we're not going to have that this year because we're not going to have a budget. Maybe what we're going to do is we're going to deem things. Remember that from the health care bill: we're going to deem it passed. And when the American people heard about that, they said, well, you can't do that. And finally the majority fell off on that one. But I suppose that's what we're going to do when we bring appropriation bills to the floor. They're going to be deemed to meet the budget that doesn't exist. So instead of us giving us meat like that, we're going to bring up this bill.

What does it do? What does it do? It requires the Clerk of the House to have on her Web site a link to the CBO analysis. Well, that would be important if they weren't available already, but they're available both through Thomas.gov and the CBO Web site. So I thought maybe it's because the Clerk has some responsibility over the Congressional Budget Office, but that's not the case. If you look at all of the obligations that the Clerk of the House has, they have absolutely nothing to do with the Congressional Budget Office.

So what are we doing here? We're bringing a bill to the floor which pretends, it seems to me, to do something about the budget; and it's nothing more than a distraction. The fact of the matter is we do not have a budget this year; we will not have a budget this year. The majority has said they don't want to bring a budget forward. Now, certain news reports have suggested the reason why we will not have a budget is that it will be too embarrassing for us to bring a budget to the floor, particularly before an election. Now, I don't know whether that's true or not, but that has been cited in the public press.

We've been hearing a lot lately from our friends on the other side about the importance of disclosure. Section 301 of their highly touted DISCLOSE Act requires reporting organizations to post a link from their home page to the page where its financial disclosure information is available; yet in this bill there is no requirement for a CBO link for the House's home page or for the Members' home page or from the committee's home page or for Members who voted for the spending that will impact the budget, but just from the Clerk's. I really don't understand what this is really going to do.

It is telling, while the majority attempts to pass measures like this, we're doing nothing to actually take less of the hard-earned tax dollars of the American people. I was home for the last 10 days in my district, or at least preceding yesterday, and I didn't hear a single person beg me to put a link on the Clerk's Web site for this information. They demanded that we do something about the budget. And when I told them at home we're doing nothing about the budget because the majority has decided we're not even going to bring a budget up-- this will be the first time since we passed that law in the seventies that the House has not passed a budget. Now I hear them say, When the Republicans were in charge we didn't have a budget. That is true. Sometimes the Senate and the House weren't able to reconcile it, but we always passed a budget document from the House of Representatives.

So we will be making history this year: no budget for the American people. But they can get on a link and they can go to CBO and they can find out what it costs for a particular bill, but they can't tell whether it's in the budget or not because we don't have a budget. We don't even have to have budget waivers this year from the Rules Committee because there's nothing to waive. Where are the points of order against excessive spending? That's what this House is built on, rules that are supposed to protect the taxpayer. We now are exempting ourselves from our own rules.

When I go home, people say, Why doesn't Congress work under the same rules that the rest of the world works under? And I have to agree with them. Now, when I go back to my district and I talk to folks, they talk about the budget for their household. I met with a number of small business people, all the way from a small community in my district called Copperopolis, which celebrated its 150th anniversary, to Folsom, where we celebrated the 150th reenactment of the Pony Express-- actually, they may have the Pony Express there, they also have Intel there--down to Citrus Heights in my district, talking to people all the time, and they kept saying, Why are you taxing so much? Why are you spending so much? Why are you busting the budget? Why are you putting all of this heavy debt burden on our kids? And I said, Those are the same questions I'm asking. When I go back, I'll ask them again. So I'm asking right here, Why are we doing it? And instead of us getting serious, we're going to have this: give you a link to the Clerk's office so that somehow you can find the estimate that's already available on two other Web sites.

Now, what are we doing? Have we run out of post offices to name? We have rid the world of the scourge of unnamed post offices in this Congress, and now maybe we're going to start going link by link by link by link. I've been in this Congress for a number of years. I didn't realize it took us to pass a resolution to allow the Clerk to do this. Maybe that's something we have to do from now on.

Madam Speaker, instead of wasting the time of this House, maybe we should actually lower the cost estimates produced by the CBO. That would be a good thing; we'll actually take an effort to try and lower them. But the first way you do that is adopt a budget where you debate it and we come to the floor and we say this is what we can afford and this is what we can't afford. We're not even doing that.

It would be irresponsible for any family in my district to not have a budget. It would be irresponsible for any business in my district to not have a budget. It would be irresponsible for any local government in my district to not have a budget, yet we don't have a budget. So instead of dealing with that, we are here dealing with this bill.

I don't question the gentleman's sincerity in offering this bill. I don't suggest he doesn't want more transparency. But, frankly, transparency over a system that doesn't have the essential foundation of a budget is really a wisp in the wind.

Madam Speaker, I reluctantly oppose this.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the gentleman said. However, the CBO scores are already linked for the public to view through Thomas.gov as well as a large number of other House, Senate, and other private Web sites.

To find out how many, we went and we did a Google search. It reveals over 1,180 Web sites which link to the CBO home page. 1,180 Web sites are already linked to the CBO home page. In addition, the estimates are already publicly available on the CBO Web site, so adding a link there from the Clerk's Web page doesn't make it any more available than it already is.

Again, I would just say this: When I was home, not a single person said the way to solve the problem is to put a link on the Clerk's Web site to the CBO estimates that are already available on 1,180 Web sites. What people back home said is, Get a grip on reality. Stop spending too much. Stop taxing too much. Stop putting us into debt--and for God's sake, can't you at least spend time coming up with a budget?

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

If the gentleman would yield, frankly, I don't know. That has not been presented to us at all.

If the gentleman has no more speakers, I will yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, again, the point is that there are 1,180 Web sites already linking to the CBO. If anything would add to the frustration of the American people, it would be in response to their complaint that we are spending too much, taxing too much, putting them in too much debt, and we don't even have a budget, but we're going to give them a link. Maybe Patrick Henry said, ``Give me a link or give me death,'' or something like that. I don't know.

All I'm saying is we almost make ourselves silly here. I know that's not the intent of the gentleman, and I wouldn't suggest so, but back home, this would be considered laughable.

With that, I would ask for a ``no'' vote on this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I rise for the purpose of a colloquy with the chairman concerning amendment No. 15 introduced by the gentleman from Florida. I would ask the chairman to confirm that the amendment does not envision any shortcuts in the process of checking the background of any Iraqi nationals applying to come to the United States, nor does it ask for a shortcut in any process designed to protect American national security.

I thank the chairman for that clarification.

Mr. Speaker, oh when, oh when will the majority party get rid of its legislative policy of ``don't ask, don't tell''? We saw it when we were dealing

with the health care bill, where they refused to ask the American people what they wanted and then refused to tell them what was in the bill. Remember? Pass the bill and you will find out what's in it.

Now we have a new rendition of ``don't ask, don't tell.'' Don't ask us what our budget is, we don't know what it is, and we won't tell you what's in it. Wait until after the year is over and we add up all the debt and we add up all the deficits and we add up all the taxes and we add up all the spending.

Mr. Speaker, it's time for the Democrats to get rid of their legislative policy of ``don't ask, don't tell.'' Let's be truthful with the American people and tell them what we are doing to them.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 5330, a bill to extend the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act for 10 years. Portions of title II of Public Law 108-237, the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004, called ACPERA--now that's not a drug or a disease, it is just the acronym for this law--are set to expire on the 22nd of June. The expiring sections relate to incentives for companies to participate in the Antitrust Division's corporate leniency program.

Specifically, the expiring provisions allow a company that's entered into the leniency program to request that it be held liable only for the full compensatory damages in a follow-on civil suit. Normally, as was mentioned by the gentleman from New York, defendants are required to pay treble damages in an antitrust action. This program has proven to be successful in allowing the Antitrust Division to pursue criminal price-fixing cases in recent years.

Last year, Congress approved a 1-year extension of ACPERA so that the Judiciary Committee could study the issue further. After months of discussions with the stakeholders, we have made some changes to ACPERA to require defendants to disclose more information to plaintiffs in the follow-on class action suits.

These additional cooperation requirements apply only if, one, the defendant has pleaded guilty to a criminal price-fixing conspiracy and, two, seeks the liability limitations that ACPERA provides. Most importantly, the changes in this bill will not affect the Justice Department's ability to prosecute these cases. So for this reason, the Department does not oppose these additional disclosure requirements.

This bill provides a 10-year extension of ACPERA. Given the success that the program has had in uncovering criminal price-fixing schemes, a 10-year extension appears to be quite appropriate. It is crucial that we continue to provide the Justice Department with the tools it needs to ensure that it can protect consumers against price-fixing schemes.

With that in mind, I am happy to support this legislation. I hope that my colleagues will support this measure and the Senate will take it up in a timely manner so as to ensure that this authority does not expire next month.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 5330, a bill to extend the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act for 10 years. Portions of title II of Public Law 108-237, the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004, called ACPERA--now that's not a drug or a disease, it is just the acronym for this law--are set to expire on the 22nd of June. The expiring sections relate to incentives for companies to participate in the Antitrust Division's corporate leniency program.

Specifically, the expiring provisions allow a company that's entered into the leniency program to request that it be held liable only for the full compensatory damages in a follow-on civil suit. Normally, as was mentioned by the gentleman from New York, defendants are required to pay treble damages in an antitrust action. This program has proven to be successful in allowing the Antitrust Division to pursue criminal price-fixing cases in recent years.

Last year, Congress approved a 1-year extension of ACPERA so that the Judiciary Committee could study the issue further. After months of discussions with the stakeholders, we have made some changes to ACPERA to require defendants to disclose more information to plaintiffs in the follow-on class action suits.

These additional cooperation requirements apply only if, one, the defendant has pleaded guilty to a criminal price-fixing conspiracy and, two, seeks the liability limitations that ACPERA provides. Most importantly, the changes in this bill will not affect the Justice Department's ability to prosecute these cases. So for this reason, the Department does not oppose these additional disclosure requirements.

This bill provides a 10-year extension of ACPERA. Given the success that the program has had in uncovering criminal price-fixing schemes, a 10-year extension appears to be quite appropriate. It is crucial that we continue to provide the Justice Department with the tools it needs to ensure that it can protect consumers against price-fixing schemes.

With that in mind, I am happy to support this legislation. I hope that my colleagues will support this measure and the Senate will take it up in a timely manner so as to ensure that this authority does not expire next month.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Salvation Army, and to honor its 125th anniversary in the Sacramento region today on May 19, 2010.

The founder and first general of the Salvation Army, William Booth, was born in economic and spiritual poverty, yet he founded a worldwide organization dedicated to their eradication--an organization that now serves the neediest of the needy in 120 countries.

In 1865, the Salvation Army began in the East Side of London, and several years later General Booth sent a few of his followers to establish army roots in America.

In 1885, Major Alfred Wells arrived in Sacramento with the determination to follow the lead of General Booth by ministering to anyone in need. Back then, there were many families and individuals looking for work, looking for food and looking for hope. Fast forward to the present time--125 years later--and the Salvation Army is still in Sacramento, still reaching out to people who need assistance with jobs, food, and of course, hope.

Today, on May 19, 2010, the Salvation Army marks 125 years of service to Sacramento. As they look to the future, they know times may become even more challenging. And yet, they are ready to accept that challenge. Nothing will deter the Salvation Army from continuing its service to the Sacramento community.

Over the years as the needs of the Sacramento region have changed, the army's programs in Sacramento have reflected those needs. There have been shelter programs for men, women, and families; rehabilitation programs for those overcoming alcohol or drug problems; programs for emergency and disaster response, and disaster preparedness training; programs providing sports leagues, youth activities, tutoring, and child development centers, and many more.

Now, I thank the Salvation Army--on behalf of our community--as it continues its legacy in the Sacramento region.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor E. Charles Connor's elevation to Jurisdictional Bishop within the Church of God in Christ.

Bishop Connor is a graduate of the University of San Francisco and has also completed the Hospital Administrator's Course at the U.S. Air Force School of Applied Health Science at Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas.

E. Charles Connor has spent much of his life in public service. Governor George Deukmejian appointed Connor to serve on the Board of Vocational Nurses, Psychiatric Technician Examiners from 1989 to 1992, and was re-appointed by Governor Pete Wilson to serve from 1992 to 1996 where he rose to the level of Vice President of the Board. Connor also serves in the U.S. Air Force Reserve as a Hospital Administrator in the grade of Major, after having served in the U.S. Air Force for 26 years--participating in the Viet Nam War and the Persian Gulf War.

Within the church, Bishop Charles Connor has spent 18 years working overseas with various ministries in Korea, Jamaica, Japan, and the Philippines.

Connor is the Bishop of the St. Lucia Eastern Caribbean Jurisdiction, and while his main responsibilities are ecclesiastical, Bishop Connor's goal is to respond to the needs of all people; spiritual, natural and emotional.

I am pleased to recognize and congratulate Bishop E. Charles Connor for his dedication to the Church of God in Christ, his elevation to Jurisdictional Bishop, and his contributions to our community at large.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to the Jewish Heritage Festival and the Jewish Federation of the Sacramento Region.

May is National Jewish American Heritage Month, and an opportunity to celebrate all that Jewish life has brought to this Nation.

In conjunction with National Jewish American Heritage Month, the Jewish Federation of the Sacramento Region will bring to the capitol of California the annual Jewish Heritage Festival on May 2, 2010.

The Jewish Federation of the Sacramento Region was founded more than 150 years ago, and has grown to more than 25,000 residents in their eight county area.

The Heritage Festival is a celebration of Jewish culture in the United States, and an opportunity to increase communication, coordination, and cooperation between the local communities and their Jewish and non-Jewish residents.

With so many differences and divergent upbringings, there is much we share as a global community. The Festival will celebrate all that unites people with traditional food, live music and entertainment, dancing troupes, cultural exhibits and displays, family and children activities, and a special teen zone. Global values such as Tikkun Olam (repairing the world) will be highlighted with a variety of booths and activities that participants can learn from.

In collaboration with community organizations, the Tikkun Olam area will highlight the importance of social action in the Sacramento region. The area seeks to improve human welfare, deepen civic culture, and develop group life and commitment to others.

I am pleased to recognize the Jewish Federation of the Sacramento Region for their contribution to our district and their leadership in the Jewish Heritage Festival.

Mr. Chairman, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, I stand here proudly in support of this bill. I am somewhat surprised by some of the criticism registered here. I understand how we can have differences of opinion, but to suggest that somehow this undermines the authority of the Congress of the United States or that it is somehow contrary to the Constitution is just beyond the pale as far as I can see.

As the gentleman who just spoke before me said, this is an attempt to get an idea of how the people of Puerto Rico feel about this very important issue. They are American citizens. People have raised all sorts of scenarios about what may or may not happen. Go back and look at how other States have been admitted to the Union. Ultimately, the decision is made by this Congress.

I remember reading about Utah. When they were a territory, Utah wasn't accepted in the Union until they changed a certain policy on marriage. It was an extraordinary change that was required, but that was what happened. Congress didn't supinely stand here or lay down there and say, Oh, yes. You've said you want to be a State. Therefore, we take no action.

This is a way of our getting a measure of the sentiment of the people of Puerto Rico. I don't see why we should be upset about that. I know there are some outside observers who have suggested that somehow this undermines the Constitution and that somehow there is the Tennessee's plot. Examine the history of Tennessee. Examine the history of the response of Congress. It is absolutely historically factual that Congress decides under what terms a new State will be formed, when and if we will accept a new State.

So all I am saying is allow this to go forward. Allow us to find out what the sentiment is here. Our good friend Luis Fortuno is not someone who shows little respect for the Constitution.

Pass this bill.

If the gentlewoman would yield, No.

Mr. Speaker, the biggest issue on the minds of the American people is jobs. So imagine my surprise when I took another look at the so-called health care reform bill and found a provision which is just another job-killer provision.

Beginning in 2012 under section 9006 of the Obama care bill, any company, large or small, that purchases more than $600 worth of goods or services from any corporation during the previous year will be required now to file a 1099 with the government and with that company. That means you have to keep track of all the food that you buy, the paint that you buy, the secretarial supplies that you buy, and then you have to give this information to the government. Not because of any obligation on your part to pay something but on the part of the other individual.

The assumption is that everybody else cheats, and so what this is, is nothing more than a universal snitch tax. It requires all Americans to give up information on somebody else.

Repeal this nonsense. Get rid of this burden. Save small business, and cosponsor H.R. 5141.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation, providing Members of Congress shall not receive a cost of living adjustment in pay during fiscal year 2011, sponsored by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Mitchell), actually mirroring language that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) has had before our body for some period of time. Both gentlemen have worked on this together, it is my understanding.

Across the country, we know that there are serious issues plaguing Americans, mainly a deteriorating economy and very high unemployment rates. In my home State, the underemployment rate is over 20 percent. In my district, Sacramento County has an unemployment rate of 12.9 percent, which is actually lower than some of the cities in my district. The city of Galt, for example, has an unemployment rate of 15 percent. So it goes without saying that things are not well in our economy and people are suffering.

As Americans around the country are struggling and sacrificing to make ends meet, it appears that we in Congress should not be immune. Other institutions are doing likewise. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court recently announced in his Year-End Report for the Judiciary that he would not be requesting the usual salary increase for Federal judges given that ``so many of our fellow citizens have been touched by hardship.'' The President has also announced a pay freeze for top White House officials and other appointees in the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, recently in this House we passed H. Res. 1257, supporting the goals and ideals of National Financial Literacy Month, 2010. This legislation sought to raise public awareness about financial education through highlighting the importance of maintaining and managing personal finances, increasing personal savings, and reducing indebtedness in the United States. Some would ask whether we in Congress ought to undertake that same examination with respect to our spending in this House and our spending overall on the Federal budget.

At a time when we are passing resolutions telling Americans to be more cognizant of their financial situation, their debt, their savings, we do need to do the same in the House.

Millions of Americans are not getting a pay raise this year. Many, unfortunately, are not even getting paychecks. Under these circumstances, Congress must forgo a pay raise to save the hardworking taxpayers and hard-looking job seekers in this country a little of their money. Relative to the overall Federal budget, this single act doesn't have that great an impact. But any dollar, any Federal dollar, is something that we should treat with utmost responsibility because it comes to us in a sense involuntarily from our constituents. It comes through taxes or future taxes to pay for current debts.

So under these circumstances I think most of my colleagues, if not all of my colleagues, would agree that this is the time for us to forgo a pay raise. I would urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the indomitable distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), who has worked on this issue for some time.

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

After listening to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), I am reminded of some freezes I would like to see. In addition to this freeze on our pay for a year, I would like to see us put a freeze on regulations on small business.

The previous speaker just mentioned that he believes we have somewhat of an arcane procedure for providing for pay raises to Members of Congress. That may be true. But there is certainly no more arcane activity that we engaged in than when we passed the health care bill in that having a new burden on business, particularly small business. And I speak of section 9006 of the health care bill, which has nothing to do with health, but has everything to do with regulation in that now, as opposed to the law which has existed for many years in which you had to file a 1099 on someone who provided a service for you, the purpose of which was to make sure that there was some paper trail to see if you were paying payroll taxes, we now have decided under this bill, the health care bill, section 9006, to require anybody involved in a trade or a service, that is any type of business who makes a purchase from some other corporate entity of any type that amounts to more than $600 cumulatively over a single year, that requires a 1099 to be filed with the person that you purchase the product from and the Federal Government.

What this means is that now if you purchase plane tickets and it amounts to more than $600 and you are engaged in a business, you will have to file a 1099 with United Airlines or American Airlines and the Federal Government. If you purchase food for your company and it amounts to more than $600, you will have to file a 1099. If you happen to be a rancher and you purchase bales of hay, you are going to have to keep a running tab all year long, and when you go over $600 you are going to have to file a 1099. If you in fact utilize FedEx or UPS, if during the course of the year it is more than $600, you will have to file a 1099 with FedEx or UPS and the Federal Government.

So this is a new burden that will require accounting procedures for anybody involved in business, particularly imposed on small business. But more than that, there is a double-edged sword to this. And that is this is a dagger at the heart of small business. Because if you have this obligation, it is easier to deal with one single big vendor than to have a number of them. Instead of going to your local hardware store if you are a small company and you need some hardware, you ought to go to one of the big guys because their universe of products is greater. And so if you have everything you purchased from them, knowing it is going to be over $600, you only have a single 1099 to file.

So what we have done in one fell swoop is make it more difficult to actually operate with this new regulatory scheme, and on the other hand, create disincentives for small business.

Now, when we contacted the Internal Revenue Service to see how they are going to interpret it, they said we haven't interpreted it yet because we are waiting for HHS to give us guidance. So now we have tax policy going to be determined by HHS.

All I'm saying is, if people think that we've had arcane procedures for means of pay raises for Members of Congress, it is nothing compared to what we've done in this health care bill with regulation on small business. I actually call that provision of the health care bill the ``universal snitch act'' because, when you file this 1099, it has nothing to do with your obligation to pay taxes. It has got to be premised on the idea that every vendor you deal with cheats and that the only way to catch cheaters is to have this new paper trail.

So I don't know. It just seems repugnant to me that we would do that, and I happen to have a bill that I introduced yesterday that would repeal that.

I just bring this up because the gentleman from Texas prompted this thought in my mind about freezes that would be appropriate. Then when the previous speaker mentioned arcane procedures, there was nothing more arcane than the health care bill we passed.

In fact, when we called the IRS, they weren't sure that this was in the bill. When we talked to the Congressional Research Service, they said, Oh, it couldn't be. Then when we pointed out that the new language in the bill is property and not just services--and that includes anything that you purchase--it has an unbelievable obligation on small business.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the pride of the Coast Guard, the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.

I would just urge my colleagues to support this resolution. This is appropriate at this particular time. I think all Members of Congress recognize the difficult economic straits we are in. It is a simple resolution. It forgoes the pay raise for the year 2011, and I would urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join others in expressing our support for House Resolution 1216, congratulating our Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel Coughlin, on his 10th year of distinguished service to the United States House of Representatives. I think the only thing Father Coughlin is going to be upset about is that we're going to reveal his age here on the floor today.

Since the very first Congress, Members of the House have benefited from the services of chaplains and ministers. Throughout history, they have helped all of us, the individuals serving in the Congress. They have helped us navigate our responsibilities to the American people, and they have aided us in our quest to integrate faith and reason in our execution of the law.

As has been mentioned, Father Coughlin is the first Roman Catholic House Chaplain. Following after the Reverend James Ford, Father Coughlin has diligently, humbly, compassionately, and intelligently served this House, its Members, our families, and this Nation.

Born during the Great Depression, Father Coughlin has a prestigious record, one that demonstrates his deep desire to heal a broken society. A graduate of St. Mary of the Lake University in Illinois, he was ordained for the Archdiocese of Chicago in the spring of 1960. In addition to serving as a pastor and as a director in various offices within the Chicago diocese, Father Coughlin has studied world religions, has lived with Trappist monks, has

worked with the Missionaries of Charity in Calcutta, India, and has served as scholar-in-residence at the North American College in Rome.

We wouldn't ask him which of those he enjoyed the most and whether it was more difficult working among the Members of Congress or living with the Trappist monks. As a matter of fact, I recall that no one has ever compared us to the Trappist monks.

In March 2000, he was sworn in during the 106th Congress as the 59th Chaplain of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, as you can see, Father Coughlin has brought a wealth of experience, education, and discernment to this House. We have all benefited from his wisdom, from his patience, and from his kindness. We are right to honor the 10 years of service that Father Coughlin has given us thus far, and I believe that we all wish him many more days with us as we deliberate in the people's body of this soft-governing Republic. There is no doubt we need his help.

I thank the sponsor of the resolution, Congressman Lipinski, and I thank the chairman of our subcommittee for bringing this resolution to the floor.

I would urge my colleagues to vote in support of this resolution. Hopefully, we will get a unanimous vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, now it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), a distinguished Episcopalian Member of this House who is also a heartfelt friend and admirer of Father Coughlin.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat ironic that we are recognizing Father Coughlin's service to our Nation and to this House as the Chaplain of the House of Representatives in the same week that a Federal judge has instructed us that the National Day of Prayer is somehow unconstitutional.

I look and I see, Mr. Speaker, over your head the words ``In God we trust,'' the national motto, which indicates that one does not have to be a person of faith to be an American citizen. But the idea of the worth of the individual and the idea that the rights of the individual came from God and not from some monarch is essential to the understanding of the beginnings of this Republic. And from the beginnings of this Republic we have had a Chaplain ministering to the needs of the Members. It is not a new idea or novel idea. It is an idea that is firmly entrenched in the tradition of this institution and this country. Father Coughlin has been a great example of that tradition. And we hope he continues.

I might say that he ministers to all of us no matter what party of which we are a member, but I sort of enjoy the fact that he ministers to those of us on

this side since I found myself in the minority on most of the years I have served here, and therefore by definition the underdog. So when I met Father Coughlin's great mother, who is dedicated to the great underdog of all time, the Chicago Cubs, I felt some kinship.

And I thought it interesting just a couple of years ago when Father told me that his mother, in her nineties, still serves as an usher at Wrigley Field. But to show you the ability that Father has to take a situation that may be fraught with some peril and give guidance, he told me that he finally convinced his mother that she should not be ushering both ends of a doubleheader. So that we do understand that she now goes home after the first game of a doubleheader at Wrigley Field.

It is that type of pragmatic guidance, combined with the great spiritual principles, that makes him such a great friend to all of us here in the House of Representatives, and allows us to do our job with a little more civility than we otherwise would, understanding that what we do is important, maybe we're not that important, even though we might be from time to time in our minds.

He reminds us of transcendent values and helps us through very difficult days with an objective of helping us to do the people's business here in the House of Representatives.

It is a pleasure and a privilege for me to serve in the House of Representatives. It is a privilege and a pleasure for me to have the friendship of Father Coughlin and the assistance of Father Coughlin as he gives that to all of us who serve here.

And so I would hope that all Members would join us in supporting House Resolution 1216.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I asked if I could borrow this display here which really should have minuses in front of all these numbers because essentially these companies had to file in their financial reports the losses that they will incur immediately as a result of the passage and signing into law of the health care reform bill.

Now that's bad enough, but even worse was the initial response by this House to them following the law. And it was to receive a letter commanding their CEOs come before a committee of this House, a subcommittee of this House, with all of their internal documents as to how they could come up with this position.

Now think about it. This is one of the concerns many of us expressed about having the government take over medical care in this country to the extent this bill allows it: if you criticize the government, you will be called to heel before a committee of the House.

Now it is true that that call has been removed, but they have received a letter which told them the Congress will continue watching. This is not democracy. This is not independence. This is what we fought against.

Mr. Speaker, I just returned from my district, where I had an interesting meeting with people representing one of my companies, that is one of the companies in my district that employs hundreds of people.

They told me that as a direct result of the passage of the health care bill and the reconciliation package they have laid off 75 people. Hundreds of jobs are in jeopardy. Why? Because they happen to work for a company called The Ed. Fund, a private sector firm that facilitated the availability of college, yes, loans. Thirty-one thousand people in this industry are in jeopardy of losing their jobs because we decided we needed to nationalize that industry.

It's not only the wrongheaded approach to the health care problem, it's an anti-stimulus, anti-job bill. Seventy-five jobs already lost in my district, hundreds in jeopardy, thousands across this Nation. Thank you very much, U.S. Congress.