Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 151. For the last several years, I have joined my colleague, Ms. Lofgren from California, in sponsoring this bill. This is a bill which would create a congressional clerkship program to qualified law school graduates to serve for temporary 1-year terms in offices in the House and the Senate.

The genesis of this actually was the dean of the Stanford Law School, when he came on a visit back here and spoke to Ms. Lofgren and myself and others and explained that he thought that with the prominence that judicial clerkships are given, that most aspiring outstanding law students look to the judicial branch--and even with the clerkships that are available and fellowships that are available in the executive branch--look to those two branches of government as somehow the epitome of government service. And in a sense, what that does is it confers a sense of importance on those two branches of government, at least in my judgment, to the exclusion of the legislative branch.

The way our system works, many outstanding young people who serve clerkships to judges go on to be judges themselves.

The idea of the dean of Stanford Law School was that if we had a similar-

type program in the legislative branch, perhaps we would have some of those people who are outstanding members of the legal profession who would go on to receive judgeships, but they would have a better understanding of the importance of the legislative branch.

Currently, as I said, both the judicial and executive branches have clerkship programs that attract these highly talented law school graduates. Judicial clerkships, in particular, offer both prestige and practical legal experience for such graduates. Should this bill pass, initially 12 clerks per Congress would be selected to serve in the offices of various committee chairs and ranking members. It would be on a competitive basis. It would be on a bipartisan basis. It would be on a bicameral basis.

Not only would congressional clerks gain invaluable experience and knowledge about the legislative process, but they would then move into other leadership positions, not only with the courts but with the major law firms around the country and in other positions, bringing that understanding of the workings of Congress to bear on those careers.

I thank Chairman Brady for considering this bill and the expeditious way in which it was handled. I thank the Speaker for scheduling it so quickly, and I believe that this will truly provide an opportunity for some of the most gifted, young, legal minds to serve in Congress and, thereby, increase the understanding of its work by the public.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote for this, and I would yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1299, known as the United States Capitol Police Technical Corrections Act.

I am pleased to join Chairman Brady in sponsoring this bill, which will create a stronger operational framework for the police, allowing them to better accomplish their mission by providing much-needed clarity and eliminating unnecessary or conflicting provisions of existing law.

The technical corrections in this bill provide the chief of the Capitol Police with the appropriate authority and responsibility related to his role as head of the agency. This bill also clarifies important reporting and notification processes for personnel, administrative, and operational actions.

So I am pleased that the chairman has taken up this issue. I am confident that the work of the full committee, in addition to that of the Subcommittee on Capitol Security, will create a stronger law enforcement organization and, therefore, a safer and more secure Capitol complex.

I would urge that all Members support this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 279. It does provide funding for committees for the 111th Congress so that we might do the work that we're constitutionally required to do.

I'd like to begin by thanking Chairman Brady and his staff for truly engaging in a collaborative process as we work towards our common goal of providing adequate and appropriate funding for committees. It is my belief the legislation before us today does allow the Congress--the House--to carry out both its legislative and oversight functions while balancing those needs with the responsibility placed on us by the American people to spend their tax dollars wisely.

During these difficult economic times we have a shared interest in making sure we're frugal and wise stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. However, this commitment to tighten our collective fiscal belts cannot come at the expense of our constitutionally mandated role of providing oversight over the Federal coffers.

There's one complaint I've had about the Congress when I served here before--some two decades ago--and while I was gone and when I first returned, was that I think there was not the commitment to oversight that was necessary on both sides of the Congress and both sides of the aisle. I think there are many that have done a good job, but we can always do better.

As we have seen recently with the reports of questionable uses of TARP funds, the potential for waste, fraud, and abuse is real, requiring us to be ever vigilant in performing effective oversight and making sure that that's done in a timely fashion.

Just as these committees have a responsibility to conduct effective oversight over the matters under their jurisdiction, the House Administration Committee must ensure that expenses of the House are being used in a manner that prevents waste, fraud, and abuse as well.

So I was extremely pleased that our committee's majority adopted our proposed amendment to have the chairs and ranking members of all committees appear before our committee after the first session to provide an update regarding the funding requests and operations of each respective committee.

One of the things that we should understand is that the rules that we've adopted for the operation of the House in this Congress require that all authorizing committees take the responsibility to provide the vital oversight for those operations of the executive branch that are under their jurisdiction. I believe that we have made progress on that.

The majority has worked with us to move towards the goal of making monthly committee reports available online. These reports are already required, but we will get them in a timely fashion. We will establish a template so that those committees will report and then we will move to make those available online so that we can in fact in the House of Representatives move further to transparency, as we are requiring transparency in the executive branch.

The public can take a look at our work. It's all out there for them to see. They can see the work that we're doing. They can see the oversight that we're providing. They can see, most importantly, how their dollars are being spent in this, their House of Representatives.

In addition to determining appropriate funding levels and ensuring that transparency in committee operations, one of my chief concerns during the committee funding process was that the precedent of allocating one-third of each committee's resources to the minority party was upheld.

When Republicans assumed the majority in 1995, we started what has been an ongoing tradition of ensuring the minority party receives at least one-third of the committees resources, an amount I believe necessary to carry out the minority's responsibilities as the party of ``loyal opposition.''

I'm therefore pleased, Mr. Speaker, that Chairman Brady has not only honored this commitment, but has made very strong statements in the committee, on the Record, that he will be diligent to address any complaints raised by ranking minority members in this regard. For that, I thank him. I think this sets an excellent precedent for the future for all of us.

I believe that both sides have worked well to improve this committee funding process. As the chairman has said, there were just a couple of exceptions where we did not grant the request made by the chairmen and ranking members for the increases as they came forward. We did give increases, but not in the numbers they talked about.

When I look over the numbers, it looks to me like we cut in half the requests for increases that were asked for. I happen to think that that is a good thing here. We can go through the committees one-by-one. Luckily, my staff has printed it large enough so that I can read it now. When I was here 25 years ago, I did not need this large print. I was able to use smaller notes. That just shows the progress that we have made, Mr. Speaker.

I would thank the chairman for working with me to advance this funding process. I would say that we brought this forward in as expeditious a fashion as we were able to.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

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

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken in support of this resolution, and I continue to do so.

I would just say with respect to the statements made about the Small Business Committee, it received the single largest increase of all the committees of the House of Representatives.

I might say we actually managed for the Budget Committee to come in with no increase whatsoever. We had the Intelligence Committee come in with a 1.5 percent increase below inflation.

I remember when we asked them why they were coming in for such a small request, they said: Well, we had to increase some of our things last year. We were moving into a new SCIF, we had a new meeting place, we had to have new computers. But we made those expenditures last year; we don't need them this year. It was refreshing to actually hear that sort of thing. And there is no indication that, by virtue of the fact that we are giving them but a 1.5 percent increase, that we are trying to short them in any way, form, or fashion.

The Rules Committee also came in below 2 percent. And, again, they talked about the fact that they were trying to keep themselves within those limits.

I would just say, however, with respect to some things that have been said on the floor, I just wish that in the stimulus package we passed it would have had as much in it for small business as we have for the Small Business Committee in this particular resolution relative to other things. I think we could have done far better than that, and particularly with the tax consequences of the President's proposal.

Mr. Speaker, because of some of the questions brought up by Mr. Issa and others, we and our committee fought and we brought this up on our side of the aisle, it was supported by the chairman, that we would try and increase the transparency of the committees of jurisdiction so that in fact people could make judgments as to whether they were carrying out the oversight function, and we do it in two ways. Let me just underscore that.

One is, there is already an existing requirement that every committee report on a monthly basis as to what they are doing. If you look at those reports now, sometimes they are kind of difficult to decipher. So trying to make it much more clear for both the committee and the public, we are working on a template so that information can be presented and easily accessible. We

also are working then to put that on the committee Web site so that people can see and make judgments for themselves. That is one way in which we are trying to ensure that we in the Congress in our committees do the oversight, as well as the legislative work, that we are supposed to do.

The second way we did it was to request--and it is part of this resolution--that the chairpersons and the ranking members of each committee come back to us at the end of the year. And it's not that we are going to question the subject matter that they are dealing with or question how they handle things, but rather we are going to just have some inquiries, looking at those reports, and seeing how what they are doing matched up with their budget request. One of the areas in which we are required to provide oversight of this House is to make sure that oversight is being done.

So I think we have tried to answer the question of whether or not real oversight is going to be done by the way that we made these changes contained in this resolution. I would hope that people understand that I take oversight responsibility very, very seriously; the chairman has indicated that he does as well; and, this committee will do its work to ensure that the American public can make their judgments. It seems to me that is what we are supposed to be doing. If all we are is a rubber-stamp committee, the public can say we are not doing our job.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we are a rubber-stamp committee with this chairman, and I am certainly going to work with him to ensure that is not the case. We are going to make sure that we do the people's work and that all the committees do as well. If, at the end of the year we can't prove it to ourselves, we are not going to be able to prove it to the public, and then it is on us. And I would hope that we will step up to the plate, take the responsibility, and do the job that we are sent here to do not only as individual Members but as the collective work of Members in committee.

And if the chairman has no other speakers, I would say that we ought to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Yesterday, Father Jenkins, the President of my alma mater, Notre Dame, explained his decision to give President Obama an honorary degree, in spite of his opposition to the culture of life expressed by that university and the Catholic Church. He explained it as an invitation to dialogue with the President. Let us hope so.

Let us hope there is a dialogue on the President's support for partial-birth abortion; on his opposition to the born-alive baby legislation; on his reversal of the Mexico City policy; on his support of Federal funding for embryonic stem cells where, denouncing it, he gave the back of the hand to Catholic moral teaching; and, in vitiating the Federal regulations guaranteeing the conscience clause, which is aimed at Catholic hospitals, doctors, and nurses.

Will this be an invitation to dialogue? Will the commencement address be an opportunity for the President to question his prior decisions? God only knows.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology, I am pleased to see this important bipartisan legislation once again come up for a vote.

In the last Congress, we spent a great deal of time discussing the efforts of the Department of Homeland Security's Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, or DNDO, to deploy radiation portal monitors at our Nation's ports of entry. These monitors, staffed by Customs and Border Protection officers, are the Nation's primary defense against illicit trafficking of nuclear and radiological material. DNDO continues to improve these technologies, and I hope that we will be supportive of their efforts.

Yet terrorists could overcome even the best detection systems. As we know, no technology is 100 percent sensitive. Border areas between official ports of entry also remain vulnerable. For this reason, defense against terrorism requires a multilayered approach, as it does in so many other areas. This bill is a strategy to add another layer. It will fortify our national capabilities in technical nuclear forensics, a science that plays a key role in the attribution of nuclear material to its source. It enumerates a variety of responsibilities for the department to advance and sustain a technical nuclear forensics capability, and it authorizes the National Technical Nuclear Forensic Center to undertake this mission.

A key component is language designed to strengthen the pipeline of talented new scientists into this field. In recent years, as we know, the number of young people entering science has declined throughout this Nation. Nuclear fields in particular are suffering, especially harmful to nuclear forensics. This bill therefore instructs the Department to establish a National Nuclear Forensics Expertise Development Program devoted to developing and maintaining a vibrant and enduring pipeline of scientific professionals. The program will grant scholarships and fellowships from the undergraduate through postgraduate and doctorate level in nuclear and geochemical science specialties directly relevant to technical nuclear forensics.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, we must remember that forensics is only one component of attribution. Success also requires credible intelligence and law enforcement-style investigation. All of these components together comprise a credible attribution program that will serve as a deterrent against nuclear terrorism.

The detonation of a nuclear device in a populated region of this country would be catastrophic in the truest sense of the word. It is indeed my greatest fear. We must have a layered system of defenses to deter, detect, disrupt and recover from terrorist attacks. This legislation will reinvigorate the scientific workforce and improve our defenses against nuclear and radiological terrorism.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill and improve our much-needed U.S. nuclear forensic capability.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would be happy to grant 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. Speaker, if I might inquire, does the gentleman have any other speakers?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation. This deals with one aspect of what I consider to be perhaps the greater threat we have to our homeland and that is nuclear weapons, nuclear material that could be made into weapons to be utilized against the United States and its citizens.

We need to do more in the area of nuclear nonproliferation. We need to do more in the area of negotiations with Russia, it seems to me, and bringing down our overall stockpiles. We need to do more in terms of invigorating or reinvigorating Nunn-Lugar. All of those are elements of an approach that is necessary to us.

This bill takes on a slightly different aspect of that same threat that is out there. It is necessary, it is important, and I hope we will have the unanimous support of the membership for this.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, facts are inconvenient things and the United States Constitution is an inconvenient truth at times, particularly when Congress wants to show it's upset about something it already did.

Here are the facts. In the stimulus package, an amendment was adopted that the majority put in, the majority voted for, stating that provisions in the TARP and in the stimulus bills that limited compensation payments would not apply to ``any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009.''

It was written specifically to protect the very bonuses that we are talking about here today. So now we are asking, how do we undo what we did? And the majority has brought to us a bill that doesn't recognize the truth of the Constitution.

There is something called a bill of attainder. You cannot punish a group because you don't like them. You can't have them treated more onerously than somebody else without a trial.

Now, that's an unfortunate truth that we have to deal with. How can we deal with this? Yesterday in Judiciary Committee, applying bankruptcy principles, we had an alternative. But that's not here on the floor today, because that's arguably constitutional. This is to get headlines to show that we are outraged.

But let me tell you, if we overturn the Constitution to show our outrage, no single American is safe. Because in the future what we will do is say we have a precedent that when we have an unpopular group, when we have a group that deserves some punishment, we won't go through the real laws, what we will do is we will pass a new tax law with confiscatory rates and say we have done it for the American people.

Well, if you do that, you are tearing up the Constitution. I didn't come here to tear up the Constitution to undo something that the majority did just a few weeks ago. We are better than that. We need to protect our Constitution.

Madam Speaker, just a few moments ago the President of the United States made a press statement in which he outlined parts of his budget and then challenged the Republicans, or those who might oppose his budget, to come up with alternatives. Well, let me say in the spirit of St. Patrick, as a great descendant of the Irish aisle, I accept that challenge. I accept that challenge on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, but also on behalf of my constituents.

When I was home this weekend, I heard from many of them. In fact, I continued to hear from them on the plane ride back from Sacramento here to Dulles Airport. They said, please tell the President this: Let's get our priorities straight. Fix the financial system first. Get the economy working right. Then we will talk about your other ideas.

So I would say to the President, the better idea that I have from my constituents back home is set your sights on righting the financial institutions in America.

Now, what we have heard from the President by and large is well, it is somebody else's fault. It was the fault of the previous administration. And there may be some truth to that. But let's remember, for instance, with AIG it was Treasury Secretary Geithner who negotiated that deal with AIG. It was this administration that allowed something like $30 billion to go to AIG just recently without any strings attached.

Let's focus on the situation we have with respect to our financial institutions first. The President tells us we have to do all these other things first. Well, as Warren Buffett said the other day, he doesn't think Franklin Delano Roosevelt said on the day after Pearl Harbor, ``What a great opportunity for us to expand government. We shouldn't let this crisis be wasted.''

Let's not listen to some around the President who say that a crisis like this gives us a great opportunity to do all of the things we have wanted to do with respect to government. Let's get down to the basics.

So let's talk about the budget that the President has presented to us. It increases spending by $1 trillion over the next decade. It includes an additional $250 billion placeholder for another financial bailout. It likely leads to a 12 percent increase in discretionary spending. It permanently expands, makes larger, the Federal Government by nearly 3 percent of the gross domestic product over pre-recession levels. In other words, the answer to big government and big spending and big taxing and big borrowing is more big government, big spending, big taxes and big borrowing.

It raises taxes on all Americans by $1.4 trillion over the next decade. It raises taxes on 3.2 million taxpayers by an average of $300,000 over the next decade.

The President said look, he is going to raise taxes on the rich, but 95 percent of Americans are going to get a better deal. Well, guess what? His cap-and-trade plan, if adopted, is a cap-and-tax plan. He calls it cap-and-trade. It actually is cap-and-tax, because it increases the cost of anything basically produced by fossil fuels in America. That means your air conditioning, that means your heating, that means your transportation. That means it is going to be placed into the cost of food being developed, of food being delivered to us. It is going to wipe out any suggested tax relief that the average family gets, and more. And the average family uses these things as a higher percentage of these income than do the rich, therefore they will be disproportionately impacted.

So, Madam Speaker, let's look at what the President has presented. I love his melodious tones as he explains to us he is not for more spending, he is not for more taxes, he is not for more borrowing, he is not for expansion of entitlement programs. But his budget does precisely all of those things. It is a net increase in taxes on every American. It is an increase in spending. It is an increase in borrowing on my children and my grandchildren and everyone's children and grandchildren. It is the greatest transfer of wealth from one generation to another in the history of the United States.

Madam Speaker, you don't have to dislike a President of the United States personally, you don't have to dislike what he is trying to do, to dislike his policies, particularly if they undercut the very promises he is making, if they undercut the very things he says we want to do. We stand ready to join him. We stand ready to join him in meeting the goals that he sets up. But, Madam Speaker, this budget taxes too much, spends too much, borrows too much. It is in fact a repudiation of the very goals he has established.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I come from the State of California, which has been hit about as badly as any State in the Union with the burst of the housing bubble, and particularly my part of the State of California. So I know, and I am earnestly hopeful that we will enact legislation that will be a benefit to that phenomena that has occurred throughout this country.

However, I rise in opposition to this rule and rise in opposition to this bill precisely because of the inclusion of the bankruptcy cramdown provision. It is a classic example of the law of unintended consequences.

The gentleman came to the floor, the gentleman from Texas, just a moment ago, and said, look, we should treat this the way we do with other homes and other investment properties. That is an inept analogy in that if you look at chapter 13 right now and you do have a cramdown on a vacation home, for instance, from $550,000 to $500,000, that plan would require the entire thing to be paid back within 3 to 5 years.

That's not the proposal we have here on the floor with respect to the primary residence. This would be extended over 30 years. This would create an additional uncertainty in the marketplace so that the accessibility, the eligibility and the low rates that are now given in the arena of primary homes, as opposed to other homes or other investments, would be in jeopardy.

That's the thing that we have to understand. We are treated precisely, differently in bankruptcy court because we want to promote homeownership, we want to promote eligibility. We want to promote accessibility, and we want to promote low rates.

When you introduce an uncertainty like this, and we have in our minority report from the Judiciary Committee extensive reference to experts who say this is the case, when you introduce additional reduced risk, as you do here, you are going to jeopardize the accessibility and eligibility of these mortgages in the future to everybody, particularly those who are of the medium and low-income groups.

So sometimes we have got to learn on this floor that best intentions don't conclude with the best results. What we are doing here is working against the interests of the very people we claim to be helping.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to George H. Williamson who is retiring after 31 years of service as a criminal prosecutor. George was my Chief Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division during the eight years that I was privileged to serve the citizens of California.

When you think of George Williamson, the first thing which comes to mind is that he is a ``lawyer's lawyer.'' Were Black's Law Dictionary to put pictures next to their definitions, you would find a picture of George next to the definition of ``criminal prosecutor.'' What else could you say about a man who has tried over 70 homicide cases? It is not surprising that he was named ``Prosecutor of the Year'' by the California District Attorneys Association and received the ``Outstanding Advocacy Award'' from the Association of Government Attorneys in Capital Litigation. The National District Attorneys Association inducted George into the ``Home Run Hitter's Club'' in recognition of his stature as one of the finest litigators in the United States. He was meticulous in his legal preparation, persuasive in his courtroom presentation and unequivocally ethical in his dealings with all parties.

In his work supervising our Criminal Division in the California Department of Justice, George was not only responsible for managing 450 attorneys and staff, but he personally handled major case litigation as well. In this regard, he was responsible for one of the most significant public corruption cases in California history, where he obtained a conviction against the former California Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Let me also say that one of the most admirable leadership qualities displayed by George was his role in mentoring young lawyers in the California Department of Justice. Although George may be retiring, he leaves behind him a legacy of fine lawyers who include District Attorneys within their ranks.

It was an honor to work with George H. Williamson during my tenure as Attorney General. He will always have my friendship and respect, and I wish him the best with his endeavors.

Mr. Chairman, the suggestion has been made that it makes no sense to treat primary residences in the way that the current bankruptcy law does. Well, in fact, Supreme Court Justice Stevens, in the case of Nobleman v. American Savings Bank, explained why we have this when he said that, ``At first blush it seems somewhat strange the Bankruptcy Code could provide less protection to an individual's interest in retaining possession of his or her home than of other assets. The anomaly, is, however explained by the legislative history indicating that favorable treatment of residential mortgages was intended to encourage the flow of capital into the home lending market.''

In other words, it is precisely because we want to promote home ownership that it is treated in this way.

Now, we in the Judiciary Committee believe we can do a lot of things. But one thing we have been unable to do, but we're trying to do it once again is suspend the laws of economics. This suggests that this change will have no impact whatsoever.

The change will have this impact: It will include higher risk premiums on all mortgages in the future because of the uncertainty now involved with respect to all mortgages. That's what's going to happen.

I had a telephone town hall in my district with thousands of people on the line, and one person said to me, how is that fair? How is that fair to me? How is that fair to my children and my grandchildren, when this means this is going to increase the cost of home mortgages in the future across the board and maybe limit the accessibility to home mortgage notice future to those very people we say we're trying to help?

Sometimes it is more than just a sentiment that we have to act on here. It is reality. And unless we can suspend the laws of economics, this provision will actually undo what the bill is intended to do, that is, help people be able to have access to mortgages and help people get lower rates. This is one of the reasons why you have lower rates for home mortgages than you do for second homes.

And some people have suggested well, look, it's treated differently in all other aspects.

Interestingly enough, if you look at chapter 12, which has to do with agricultural loans, and you see the argument being made that, well, when they made that change there, it had no impact. Interestingly enough, it was during the Clinton administration that their Department of Agriculture concluded that chapter 12 may have substantially increased costs for farm businesses. That's not the Bush administration. That's not a Republican economist. That's the Clinton administration, their Department of Agriculture concluding that this type of a change in the agricultural setting actually substantially increased costs for home businesses.

If you want to substantially increase the cost for home mortgages in the future across the board for all Americans then vote for this provision. Go home and talk about how you felt good about it. But don't tell folks what it's really going to do. It's going to hurt everybody in terms of their accessibility to home mortgages.

Mr. Speaker, today the President of the United States continued a tradition that has existed since the beginning of this Republic, and that is for the Presidents of the United States to send to Congress a message including his budget. This is the blueprint for this administration in the area of taxation and spending for the foreseeable future.

At the outset, Mr. Speaker, let me give the President credit where credit is due. We should remark that the President's budget does highlight the dire problem with unsustainable growth and entitlement spending. He acknowledges that, as it should be acknowledged, and he does it up front. And for that, he is due respect.

Secondly, the President does propose to fix the alternative minimum tax, the AMT, and builds the impact of this proposal into his budget's out-year projections. Now, this is something the previous administration did not do. So this is an improvement in terms of what we might call accounting procedures.

The reform of the AMT does fall short of full reform since it only adjusts for inflation, and bracket creep will push more and more of our constituents, the taxpayers of America, on to the AMT, which was originally considered to catch just a few, a handful, of multimillionaires who, in periods of time some decades ago, escaped any payment of taxes--not because they did anything illegal, but because they took advantage of various tax credits, tax shelters, et cetera, that were then available in the Tax Code.

The President does one courageous thing, I would suggest. He asks us to consider means testing Medicare Part D premiums. Always a controversial issue but one that the President at least presented us with the facts forcing us to deal with those facts.

And the President should be commended for proposing in this budget for emergencies. The previous President, President Bush, set aside $5.6 billion in a reserve for emergencies in his first budget, but President Obama should be advised that the results of that were that Congress quickly spent the reserve on other problems--base programs, not emergency programs. And there is a tendency in this body, and that on the other side of the Capitol, to do the same thing.

Now, those are the things for which I can give the President credit, but overall, this budget is of great concern to me and ought to be great concern to the rest of the American people.

What it would do is increase the national debt by $2.7 trillion. That's not billion; it's trillion with a ``T.'' $2.7 trillion this year to $12.7 trillion requiring another increase in the debt limit which was just increased to $12.1 trillion in the stimulus bill. It actually doubles the national debt in 8 years.

Now, I know my friends on the other side of the aisle have said, ``How can you Republicans speak? You didn't do a very good job.'' And I will be the very first to admit that when I came back here after an absence of 16 years, I was surprised by the lack of intestinal fortitude in this institution towards fiscal responsibility, and my party was in charge.

You might say, well, President Bush allowed the debt to rise from the first day he was in office to the day he left by $4.9 trillion. That is a record. But President Obama has already shown us that he's a record breaker because under his budget, the debt is projected to increase by $5.6 trillion in just 3 years.

How are we going to take care of this? Are we going to be more indebted to the Communist Chinese? Are we going to be more indebted to those around the world? When do we stop the printing presses printing our money? When does the impact of that fall on our most vulnerable in this society, that is those on fixed incomes, when the value of the dollar they have in their pocket or in their bank account or somewhere in the their investment portfolio is worth less than it was just a few months before?

So we raise taxes by $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years. Now, some of it doesn't really look like taxes because it's called cap and trade revenues. Cap and trade. So under the guise of global warming or climate change, we now are going to have a huge tax increase.

So what we have here is a budget with some small good points, huge debt, huge taxes. That's not the way forward. We must do something better. We can do better.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 1105, The FY 09 Omnibus Appropriation Act:

1. Daniel E. Lungren, H.R. 1105, Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Western Center for Food Safety: The FDA Western Center for Food Safety is a proposed cooperative partnership between FDA, the Western Institute for Food Safety and Security (WIFSS), and the University of California at Davis that will enhance FDA's critical food safety and food defense mission by building collaborative links between FDA scientists and WIFSS/UC Davis' established programs in food safety research, higher education, food defense, and on-farm training of safe food production practices. Funding the FDA Western Center for Food Safety at UC Davis is an excellent opportunity to strengthen all aspects of food safety and defense for United States consumers.

Grantee Legal Name: University of California at Davis.

Grantee Address: One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616.

Local Contact Name/Title: Marjorie M. Dickinson, Assistant Vice Chancellor.

Federal Nexus of Project: Currently, the FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition has three well-established Centers of Excellence addressing other components of food safety: the Joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (www.jifsan.umd.edu), at the University of Maryland; the National Center for Food Safety and Technology (www.foodsafety.iit.edu/food_safety.htm) near Chicago; and the National Center for Natural Products Research, at the University of Mississippi (http://www.olemiss.edu/idepts/ncnpr). Our proposed FDA Western Center for Food Safety will compliment these affiliated organizations by providing FDA with strong technical and scientific support for pre- and post-harvest food safety, microbial and chemical detection and food defense research, technology transfer to the agricultural sector, and on-farm training and outreach to plant and animal agricultural producers that comprise our expansive food production systems of California and the Western United States.

($1,399,000).

2. Daniel E. Lungren, H.R. 1105, Commerce, Folsom Emergency Operations Center: This project will expand the crucial capabilities of the Folsom EOC to function for both the City of Folsom and as the Alternative County Site. Best practices highlight the importance of having redundant emergency management capacity to ensure a balanced strategy for handling emergencies.

Grantee Legal Name: City of Folsom, CA.

Grantee Address: 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630.

Federal Nexus of Project: Homeland security is a stated top priority for the Administration and Congress. The Folsom EOC is a vital local, regional, and national link in our country's homeland security strategy and efforts. Folsom is uniquely situated in Northern California and the western United States in terms of needs and capabilities to provide top level EOC facilities. The Folsom Lake Dam is the primary flood control facility for the Sacramento region as well as a primary electricity producer. The City of Folsom is uniquely situated as a gatekeeper to the security of the state capital in Sacramento, the greater western United States for management of the two major power grid control centers (ISO and WAPA) and the home of one of Intel's major facilities, employing over 6500 citizens. The City of Folsom is the first responder to the Dam, WAPA, ISO and important regional and national employers.

($500,000).

3. Daniel E. Lungren, H.R. 1105, Energy & Water, New Bridge Below Folsom Dam--Additional Authorization: This additional authorization will permit funding that would be used to cover engineering, design, and construction of the new bridge below Folsom Dam as authorized in the Fiscal Year 2004 Energy & Water Appropriations Bill. Due to changes in the engineering on the part of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, this additional authorization would be commensurate with the funding necessary for project completion.

Language: ``The bill includes language increasing the cost ceiling for the Folsom, California Bridge.''

Grantee Legal Name: City of Folsom, CA.

Grantee Address: 50 Natoma Street; Folsom, CA 95630.

Federal Nexus of Project: United States Army Corps of Engineers.

4. Daniel E. Lungren, H.R. 1105, Energy & Water, New Bridge Below Folsom Dam. The funding would be used to cover engineering, design, and construction of the new bridge below Folsom Dam as authorized in the Fiscal Year 2004 Energy & Water Appropriations Bill. Due to changes in the engineering on the part of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, additional authorization commensurate with this funding request is necessary.

Grantee Legal Name: City of Folsom, CA.

Grantee Address: 50 Natoma Street; Folsom, CA 95630.

Federal Nexus of Project: Army Corps of Engineers.

($1,000,000).

5. Daniel E. Lungren, H.R. 1105, Energy & Water, Folsom Dam Outlet Modifications: The funding would be used to develop and evaluate feasible alternatives to the Corps outlet modifications design. The partners have selected an integrated design which would include a gated auxiliary spillway in place of the river outlet gate enlargement.

Grantee Legal Name: City of Folsom, CA.

Grantee Address: 50 Natoma Street; Folsom, CA 95630.

Federal Nexus of Project: Army Corps of Engineers.

($9,000,000).

6. Daniel E. Lungren, H.R. 1105, Energy & Water, Folsom Dam Raise (American River Plan): The funding would be used to continue coordinated design of the Folsom Dam Raise Project as part of the integrated Joint Federal Project.

Grantee Legal Name: City of Folsom, CA.

Grantee Address: 50 Natoma Street; Folsom, CA 95630.

Federal Nexus of Project: Army Corps of Engineers.

($1,000,000).

7. Daniel E. Lungren, H.R. 1105, Energy & Water, Calaveras--Cosgrove Creek Flood Control Project. This project will target one of the most flood-prone areas of Calaveras County, and is needed to protect lives and property in the communities of Valley Springs, La Contenta, and Rancho Calaveras.

Grantee Legal Name: County of Calaveras.

Grantee Address: 891 Mountain Ranch Road, San Andreas, CA 95249.

Federal Nexus of Project: Army Corps of Engineers. Cosgrove Creek is a tributary to the Calaveras River, a navigable water. Calaveras County is designated by FEMA as eligible for Federal assistance for severe storms and flooding.

Priority U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Project Under Section 205: Emergency Streambank and Shoreline Protection.

8. Daniel E. Lungren, H.R. 1105, Energy & Water, American River Common Features: The funding would be used for design and construction of the remaining improvements identified in WRDA 96 and WRDA 99 which includes levee widening near Jacobs Lane, levee raising between Howe Avenue and Watt Avenue, levee strengthening near the confluence of the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal/American River, addressing seepage around utilities, and for continued work on the American River Common Features General Re-evaluation Report.

Grantee Legal Name: Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency.

Grantee Address: 1007 7th St., 7th Floor, Sacramento, CA 98514.

Local Contact Name/Title/Phone: Stein Buer, Executive Director, 916- 874-7606.

Federal Nexus of Project: Authorization--Section 101(a) WRDA 1996 (P.L. 104-303), as modified by Section 366 of WRDA 1999 (P.L. 106-53), as further modified by Section 129 of P.L. 108-137, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill of 2004.

($13,000,000).

9. Daniel E. Lungren, H.R. 1105, Energy & Water, South Sacramento Streams Group: The funding would be used to extend the project upstream along Elder Creek, Unionhouse Creek and construct levee improvements to 3300-feet of railroad embankment protecting several hundred homes. In addition, design efforts will continue so that construction can occur in 2010 further reducing flood risk to residences along the various streams.

Grantee Legal Name: Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency.

Grantee Address: 1007 7th St., 7th Floor, Sacramento, CA 98514.

Local Contact Name/Title/Phone: Stein Buer, Executive Director, 916- 874-7606.

Federal Nexus of Project: Authorization--Section 101(a)(8) WRDA 1999,

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting sitting on the floor listening to the speeches during this period of time.

On the one hand, I listened to the gentleman from Virginia talk about a bipartisan approach to deal with our problem of fiscally irresponsibility and the load of debt that we are placing on our children and grandchildren. On the other hand, I did hear a gentleman from the other side of the aisle talk about why it's Bush's fault.

When I was in school, they were teaching us debate. We talked about the ad hominem argument, the personalization of the argument. Usually that meant that when you didn't have the facts you tried to make it personal.

There was also discussion by a gentleman from the other side of the aisle about the fact that we're finally going to be concerned about the people of America, as if those who disagree with you would be people who are not interested in Americans. I'm not sure that

gets us anywhere. As a matter of fact, I think that gets us nowhere. It is that kind of quasi-debate which leads down the wrong path.

We are without a doubt facing a very difficult economic situation, and as did others, I returned to my district to talk to constituents about that. I had a tele-town hall where we had over 6,000 people on the line, and I listened to their comments. I also sent out a questionnaire by e-mail, and thus far we've received over 1,800 responses. I thought it might be informative to tell this body the feelings of the people in my district, at least as reflected in this survey; although I realize it is not a scientific survey.

In response to the question, what is the most immediate economic concern you face, overwhelmingly, 53 percent of the respondents said they were most concerned about declining value of retirement accounts. We ought to be very concerned about that, because if we send a message to the world that we are fiscally irresponsible, that more and more spending and more and more debt is the way to get out of the situation that we got into because of spending and debt, those retirement accounts are going to lose more value. We ought to be concerned about the future, as well as the immediate present.

Secondly, in response to the question, what is the most important element of an economic stimulus package, the number one response was tax cuts. Why? Because many of the American people do believe the argument that raising taxes in the midst of a recession doesn't make sense and that tax cuts, properly articulated, properly enforced, create a stimulus to the private sector, particularly the small- and medium-sized businesses where the jobs are really created, not the government sector. Secondly, the biggest response was, nothing, the economy is strongest when government does not interfere. And the third response was funding for infrastructure projects. And unfortunately, the percentage of money that goes to infrastructure projects is relatively small, as is the percentage that goes towards tax cuts.

The next question: Are you satisfied with the economic stimulus package Congress passed? Thirty-four percent of the people in my district said, no, the details of the size and scope needed to be worked out. Perhaps they thought having less than 24 hours to look at a 1,076 page bill was inappropriate. The second largest response, 33 percent, was, no, Congress shouldn't have passed any stimulus package. Those are concerned that a stimulus package does not stimulate. And third, by a much, much smaller margin, yes, anything the government can do is better than nothing.

The next question: I expect the worse of the economic crisis to be over within--and this is truly difficult to read because it said that 42 percent of the respondents thought it would take 24 months or more. Second largest response was 13 to 18 months by 21 percent. And then 17 percent believe it would be 19 to 24 months. In other words, the American people, at least reflected in my district by this survey, understand the seriousness and the depth of this economic difficulty.

And lastly, I asked them: The economic crisis' impact on me is such that--and the response, number one, was, I am okay right now, but I'm worried about what will happen to me if the economy continues to get worse, 59 percent. Thirty-three percent of the people said, I will face tough decisions but I will survive. And less than 9 percent said, I do not know how I will make it through the time.

Interesting thing about that response is the resiliency of the American people. They do believe, they do have faith that we will get out of this, but they believe that we will get out of it through the ingenuity, the creativity, the stick-to-it-iveness of the work ethic of the American people, not government.

While certain government programs might be able to assist, we should not forget that the essence of the greatness of America lies in its people, not in its government. This government reflects its people. This government is one that was set up to protect the rights of the people but also to be protected against an overweening government. If we are to work ourselves out of this economy, we must rely on the people for their creativity and do nothing that impinges upon that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk about a gutless move by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. They are currently sending robo-calls into my district criticizing me for my vote on the stimulus package. Well, maybe that's fair game.

But last week I was home in the district and I accepted an invitation by a bipartisan group, the Public Policy Institute of California, to discuss the issue. Three Members of the other side of the aisle in my area were invited to be on that panel. They all declined, including one who had accepted and then declined when she found out I was going to be there.

You're messing with my children and my grandchildren's future. You're messing with my 91-year-old mother's current retirement.

Have the guts to appear on panels with Members of this side of the aisle, and quit hiding behind the skirts of Mr. Van Hollen.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 44. It has been articulated very well on this floor as to the reasons why this should be supported. I would like to suggest for Members on my side of the aisle that they might consider voting for this in tribute to our former colleague, Mr. Blaz--who was on the floor--a brigadier general of the United States Marine Corps, a Member of Congress for a number of terms, including those during which I was here the first time around; and, as importantly, a fellow graduate of the University of Notre Dame. I salute General Blaz.

We are talking about facts that go to instances or events that occurred some 60-plus years ago. Sometimes we only hear about that by reading it in the history books and we attempt to try and place ourselves there to understand.

We don't have to do that today. General Blaz is here. He went through it as a young boy. He is a credit to this country, he's a credit to Guam, he's a credit to this institution. He is an example of the triumph of American forces during World War II and what they allowed the people that they liberated to become. From rather modest beginnings in a war zone, he picked himself up, was educated in one of the finest universities in this country, became a member of the United States Marine Corps, rose to the position of brigadier general, and later had the privilege of representing those same people with whom he lived in an occupation status later on here in the House of Representatives.

If there is any question about the loyalty of the people of Guam, if there is any question about what they suffered, if there is any question about the justice of this bill, it can be answered by just looking at this gentleman, Mr. Blaz. It is an honor for me to be here

on the floor when he is here visiting us again to talk in favor of this bill.

I would hope that there would be a unanimous vote for this bill.