Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is very simple. It strikes the tax hike from the bill. A vote for this motion to recommit gives us all an opportunity to vote for the underlying bill whose purpose is to provide relief to homeowners impacted by the subprime crisis without raising taxes on America's families. I, for one, don't believe we should raise taxes on one family to cut taxes for another.

Contrary to the remarks made by my friend from Oregon who alleges that some are gaming the system, which could or could not be true, there is an instance, and plenty of which occur, that will impact real families. If we don't pass this motion to recommit, there will be a real cost to real people and real families who are relying on the equity built up in their greatest asset, their home.

Take, for example, a family that moves to a new area in search of a job. If that family currently lives in an area with a depressed housing market and the family intends to return in the future, they may make the reasonable decision to rent their home instead of selling it. They would do so in hopes of recovering some of the home's value in the next few years.

Under existing law, if they later move back to their home and, having lived at least 2 years in the home for the last 5, any gains realized from the eventual sale of the home would be excluded from the tax up to $500,000. The underlying bill, however, will change that. Families that move back into their old house after several years and then intend to sell it could be facing tens of thousands of dollars in additional tax bills when they later sell that home. This is nothing more than a tax increase on those American families, an additional burden on families that are trying to put their children through school, provide health care and live the American Dream.

This provision adds another level of complexity to an already complicated Tax Code. Bottom line, Mr. Speaker, the net effect is to take away from some American families a tax benefit that they are currently enjoying.

We, in this House, should be making it easier for the American people to comply with the Tax Code, and we should strive to make it easier for them to provide for their families.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the opponents of this motion will argue that because the motion directs the committee to report back promptly that somehow this kills the bill; that simply is not true. Instead, it directs the committee to reconsider the bill.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Senate is in recess next week and the House schedule is extremely light. If this motion passes, we will have plenty of time next week to improve the bill. And I, for one, pledge to work with the chairman, as I'm sure our leadership will and our ranking member, so that we can have a good bill waiting for the Senate when they return from their week-long recess.

So, Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill has a tax increase in it. I urge support of this motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of civil rights pioneer Oliver W. Hill of Richmond, Virginia, who passed away on August 5, 2007.

Oliver Hill will be remembered for his many achievements and contributions to the causes of equality and justice. He worked tirelessly to ensure that all people are given the same rights and opportunities under the law.

His landmark successes in the field of law, including a crucial role in the U.S. Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954, paved the way for the elimination of segregation in this country.

His steady leadership and unwavering dedication to principled change sets him apart as a true hero of our time. His service to the Commonwealth of Virginia and to this Nation is a legacy that will continue for future generations of Americans.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of Oliver Hill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to mark the 250th birthday of the Marquis de Lafayette, born 6 September 1757.

By the age of 20, Lafayette had already served for several years as an officer in the French army. Inspired by the concept of American independence, in 1777 Lafayette came to the United States to volunteer his services, and was appointed a Major General by the Continental Congress.

He became a stalwart friend of General George Washington, and also of future President James Monroe. Lafayette fought and was wounded at Brandywine, and wintered at Valley Forge.

Returning to France late in 1778 to rally support for the American cause, he was instrumental in France's decision to join the Revolutionary War in support of the United States. He returned to America in 1780 to help lead a new infusion of French troops.

Working closely with General George Washington, Lafayette led the French forces which helped to trap Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown, and forced the British surrender there in October 1781.

After the victory at Yorktown, Lafayette returned to France, but came back to the United States in 1794 at the invitation of President George Washington, and again in 1824-1825 at the invitation of President James Monroe.

Declared an honorary citizen of both the United States and Virginia, the Marquis de Lafayette truly played a vital role in the American Revolution.

In Virginia, in celebration of Lafayette's 250th birthday, ceremonies will be held in Richmond by various historical and lineage societies on Saturday, September 8 at Mason's Hall, the State Capitol and the John Marshall House, all venues visited by Lafayette, to commemorate this anniversary.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring Marquis de Lafayette on his birthday.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. Frankly, I think that the American people are looking for some common sense when we talk about an energy plan. I don't think there is any disagreement among my colleagues in this House that we certainly ought to be looking at ways to diversify our energy sources. There is no question.

But I think that the imperative, and that most Americans would agree, that we must first look to securing our energy independence. I would dare say there aren't many experts out there who would predict that we can establish our energy independence through the tax benefits allowed through this bill.

I think most Americans would agree we do have a fossil fuel economy. And given the instability around the globe today, it is imperative that we do all we can to support our domestic production industries so that we do not, do not find ourselves on the receiving end of the global pricing structure or from other countries that we rely on for our global energy supplies.

With that, I would posit, Mr. Speaker, that $14 billion in taxes on our production industry will do so much to damage the incentive to see an increase in domestic production, much less do anything to help our constituents and the people of this country when they go to the pump and see prices nearing $3 a gallon.

So I don't see the common sense in this bill. My colleagues have already talked about the $6 billion in taxpayer funds that are going to flow to localities unfettered. These are taxpayer dollars. These are not our dollars. This kind of allocation of funds deserves some transparency. This reminds me of some of the hidden funds that we see in many of the other bills, and that somehow this money is going to show up and add to our energy independence.

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to some of the comments that were just made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle; notably, ``how quickly we forget.''

Also what the majority leader just said about our anger, and he understands our anger. Well, you know what? I don't think he understands our anger when he says it does no good to repeat the last 12 years of our feeling aggrieved. Because I can assure you that never once did we in the majority attempt to steal a vote, attempt to steal a vote to make sure, to make sure that illegal immigrants, to make sure that our position, the Republican position to defeat the ability for benefits to flow to illegal immigrants. That is what this is about.

So, Mr. Speaker, as the whip said before me, the gentleman from New York admits a mistake and apologizes. We accept that apology. It was a bad call.

But the price to pay for that bad call should be to admit that the motion to recommit passed, the bill should go back to committee, the committee does its work, and the bill comes back to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I rise in opposition to this bill.

And, Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to some of the remarks that were just made about somehow the Republicans are against insuring poor children and offering them access to health care.

I can tell you one thing, this Republican was not in this body when President Clinton was in office. So I could never have been against this program before I'm for it. So I take issue with that.

I am for, as I believe most of my colleagues are for, a program that provides access to health care for poor children, but what we have here is a 400 percent increase in the SCHIP price tag because what the majority has done has increased eligibility to the 400 percent level over poverty. In many areas of this country, we're well in excess of families who are making $100,000 a year. These are children, 90 percent of whom already have health care coverage.

So what that means is the price that we pay for this type of expansion is a dangerous lurch forward toward a Washington-based, bureaucratic-controlled health care system. Which

medicines will we get? Which surgeries will be available? And when? And when? Which disease is worth treating? These are the vital choices that right now American families are able to make, but frankly, the majority wants the government to make.

But how do they pay for this? They pay for this largely by cutting Medicare. That's what we're about here, choosing to cut Medicare, cut seniors' ability to have a choice under the Medicare program so we can provide access to insurance for children whose parents make over $100,000 a year. That just doesn't make any sense.

Now, secondly, Mr. Speaker, I would say as my colleagues before me, another way that this bill is funded is a brand-new tax on health insurance for all Americans that have health insurance policies.

Again, the bill creates a health care competitiveness-affected research trust fund. That's another attempt basically to allow perhaps, if not run right, a government bureaucrat to dictate which therapies a physician can use.

The bottom line, this bill is misguided. We need to take a much better look at this, and frankly, the last point I was going to make, Mr. Speaker, is this bill makes it up to the States, optional, whether to require documentation as to anyone who is legal who wants to receive benefits under this. This is another attempt, Mr. Speaker, at allowing our SCHIP benefits to go to illegal immigrants, something that I don't believe the American public is in favor of.

Madam Speaker, I yield to my friend from Florida for the purpose of inquiring about next week's schedule.

I thank the gentlelady from Florida.

I notice the gentlelady indicates that the SCHIP bill will be on the calendar next week. As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I and others worked until 2 a.m. on the package to increase the taxes to pay for the SCHIP bill supposedly coming out of the Energy and Commerce Committee that was supposed to have scheduled to mark up their bill today.

How do you expect this bill to come to the floor next week, and under what kind of rule from the Energy and Commerce Committee?

I would ask the gentlelady, is it the intention to bring one package with the bill out of Ways and Means and the not yet marked up bill from the Energy and Commerce Committee?

I thank the gentlelady.

I would also like to ask about the energy bill. Would you expect that the energy bill will come to the floor again in one package? Is there a multiple energy bill still floating out there in the committees?

I would ask the gentlelady, does she expect the energy bill that comes to the floor to contain CAFE standards?

Further, Madam Speaker, what day do you expect to begin consideration of the energy bill?

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.

Next, you mentioned that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will be on the floor next week, and I am aware that the Rules Committee met today on this bill. I would remind the gentlewoman that it is very rare for the Rules Committee to meet the week before a bill is on the floor, and in today's case that committee met on not just one bill but on three.

I would ask the gentlewoman, Madam Speaker, will the rule granted be open given that Members were not afforded an amendment deadline and the Rules Committee meeting was not noticed until 9:04 p.m. last night?

I thank the gentlewoman. Again, it is very rare for that to happen, especially when there was absolutely no amendment deadline given to the Members and the notice only coming since 9 o'clock last night.

I would ask the gentlewoman further on the DoD approps bill, you have been talking about having an Iraq vote each week before we leave. Do you anticipate a freestanding bill next week, or do you expect legislation to be confined to a DoD approps bill having to do with Iraq?

Again, I know the gentlewoman may not have the information in front of her. We are trying to get as much information as we can, Madam Speaker, for our Members in order to plan their schedules for next week. And along those lines, the schedule is rather heavy.

Should we expect and should our Members be prepared for legislative business next Saturday?

I thank the gentlewoman.

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask about a few things that are out there expected to or at least having been reported to come up but are not yet on the schedule. I would ask, do you expect the patent reform legislation to be added to next week's schedule, as it

was marked up in committee last week?

I thank the gentlewoman.

Madam Speaker, I would also like to indicate that the Republicans have repeatedly been trying to close the terrorist loophole in our FISA laws with our previous-question votes over the last several weeks. And I would ask the gentlewoman, first of all, why the fix to the terrorist loophole was not put into the conference report that we just voted on, the 9/11 conference report? And after that, what is preventing this important national security legislation from coming to the floor? And I would ask the gentlewoman if it could be added to next week's schedule.

Again, I would just like to reiterate the concern to the gentlewoman, Madam Speaker, that it was August of 2001 in which, unfortunately, we had experienced an increase in terrorist chatter, and that was in all the reports, and likely, hopefully, never again will that happen to the United States and its citizens, a terrorist attack at all or, God forbid, on that scale.

Given the reports lately and the fact that there is increasing chatter among the various reports coming out of different sources, I would just like to reiterate the importance of that type of legislation to the gentlewoman and the desire on the part of the Republicans to see that legislation come to the floor.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman and ask one final question.

The House approved legislation earlier this month to reform the activities at the FDA, including reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act and the Medical Device User Fee Act. Without reauthorization, the FDA will be forced to send out notices to reduce staffing. In other words, we will have to lay off government employees. It is my understanding that the FDA will send these notices as early as August if Congress fails to reauthorize the user fee programs next week.

I would ask the gentlewoman, how does the majority plan to complete these important bills before we adjourn next week?

I would just respond, Madam Speaker, that there is a projected over 2,000-employee layoff if we in this Congress do not act to make sure that reauthorization occurs, and that is something that I am sure the gentlewoman will agree we do not want to see happen.

I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to just first respond. I rise in favor of this amendment and respond to some of the remarks that were made on the other side of the aisle.

I think we can all agree that we must continue as a people to invest in our people, to invest in this country. All of us, all of us were elected by the constituents that we represent to leave an America stronger and more secure than the way we found it, stronger and more secure for our children and our grandchildren.

The problem is here, every time we get a chance, every time we turn around, we seem to be raising taxes. There is no way that we can leave an America stronger or more secure if we somehow cut off the economic engine that allows us to continue to make the investments in our people of this Nation and in our security.

There were remarks made about the national debt that we are now experiencing. Well, you know what? The national debt, frankly, is 1\1/ 2\ percent of GDP. And from all corners, from the economists to the former Federal Reserve Chairman to the current Federal Reserve Chairman, that 1\1/2\ percent of GDP is a lot lower than it has been recently, and it is due to the very forward-thinking economic and tax policies that we have in place which reward risk-based investment which, frankly, don't shun the notion that we should empower the families and the businesses of this country so that they can take care of themselves.

And you know what? The revenues in this Federal Government are up beyond that which we've seen before. That's the product of the economic policies. That's our key to success and security of this country.

Now, as far as the pay-as-you-go rules that the majority has adopted, you know what that means? That means never cut spending, always raise taxes.

That is why we are here opposing this because, yes, this amendment allows us not to have to raise taxes to fund the expansion of the farm bill that the majority has proposed.

Again, I would just ask my colleagues to support the gentleman's amendment because the bottom line here is what we are talking about is the difference between raising taxes and raising spending or somehow getting ahold of ourselves, applying some fiscal discipline so that we can show the American people that we hear them when they say there is too much waste and spending in Washington.

I rise in support of the gentlelady's amendment because, as has been so eloquently said prior, the fact that this amendment simply attempts to cut .5 percent from the extraordinary levels of expenditure in this bill. It amounts to a $107 million reduction in the rate of growth of spending. Again, a $107 million reduction in the rate of growth. So instead of the bill growing, since last year, by 9.9 percent, the bill will then grow by 9.4 percent. That's all we're talking.

Points have been made that if the average American family is faced with a requirement that they reduce their budget by .5 percent, I think everyone, everyone who has a job and can do that would do that. And that is the situation we're in.

I want to respond to some of the remarks that were made by the chairman when he said that this is just another effort by the GOP to somehow cripple agencies that help poor people, that help people who can't help themselves. You know, that is just not the case. We are in support and have continued to be, our side of the aisle continues to be supportive of American families to allow them to take control of their own future, and for us here in Congress to recognize that the government doesn't spend government money, it spends taxpayer money. That's the bottom line.

We cannot just sit here and think that we can solve everybody's problem just by having government step in and do it. So this is taking a very reasonable approach to say, okay, let's go ahead and cut by .5 percent.

I thank the gentleman.

I rise today in support of the Smith-Stupak amendment to strike the language eliminating the vitally important protections of the Mexico City Policy. I just believe it's wrong to force American taxpayers to subsidize organizations who actively promote abortion in foreign nations.

In response to some of the arguments on the other side that this is not about promoting abortion or not, I disagree. It's really not about providing contraceptives. This is about promoting abortion. Because as the gentleman from New Jersey was trying to say before he was cut off, there are NGOs that are in compliance with the Mexico City Policy which means that they neither perform nor actively promote abortions as a method of family planning in other nations. It is they who are eligible for assistance under the Mexico City Policy. It is they who should be getting the benefit, not those organizations that are promoting abortions around the world that can substitute the provision of these contraceptives to then use that money available to go and pursue their other agenda.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, in all due respect to my good friend from California who knows I have a great deal of respect for him, this is not a sickening or pathetic amendment. It is not primitive, stupid or absurd, as it was described. It is not an ostrich amendment. And this is not a low blow, nor is anyone saying that the Speaker of this House is not an eloquent speaker and Representative as she goes forward out into the world as Speaker of this institution.

Nor would I tell my colleagues, is this an amendment about Member travel. No one says that we should not be about educating ourselves so that we can better effect public policy here in our roles as Members of this Congress and as Representatives of the constituents that elect us.

What this is about is about travel by an individual who is second in line to the President of the United States. Like it or not, for the 434 others of us, it does mean something different when the Speaker of the House goes somewhere.

As my friend from Iowa indicates, all reports say when the trip to Syria occurred, that somehow it was perceived on the ground and in the region that somehow the United States was embarking upon new foreign policy.

Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I would say from Iran's hot pursuit of nuclear weapons to Syria's eagerness to stir violence against our interests in the Middle East, America faces a growing list of terrorist states, as my good friend from California is well aware. And amidst such threats, the United States must speak forthrightly and with one voice.

Iran, Syria, North Korea, Sudan, Cuba, they all are feeble states whose interests are diametrically opposed to ours. Their regimes are vulnerable to international sanction, and they will not change until America and its allies apply enough pressure to endanger their regimes.

I would just say when the Speaker of the House goes to these nations and it is perceived that somehow we are capitulating, it goes against our interests. That is what this amendment is about.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia. It is a very straightforward amendment. It simply applies an across-the-board cut of 1 percent to this bill to send the signal that this Congress gets it; that we understand what the American people said, both during the election of last year and what they continue to say today.

As the American public continues to watch Congress, as we have now engaged upon and entered upon the spending season, as the spending and appropriations process is in full bloom, I think we owe it to the American people to do what the gentleman from Georgia says, which is to recognize that these dollars don't belong to the government. They are the hard-earned dollars of the taxpayers of this country.

Now, the underlying bill, as the gentleman said, spends considerably more than what this similar bill spent last year and this Congress spent in this bill last year. In fact, the increase in the level of spending is 10 percent in this bill alone. That is triple the rate of inflation and that means $1.3 billion, billion with a B, taxpayer dollars, more on this one bill.

Mr. Chairman, what that means in real terms to me and to my constituents, that means more than 3 years' worth of property taxes for every household and every business in my home County of Henrico in the Richmond area of Virginia. That is an awful lot of money.

So the public expects us to return Washington to fiscal sanity. The message that was sent last November was that the public expected us to operate differently. Frankly, I don't believe that this bill moves us in that direction. But I do know one thing for sure:

that the spending in this bill, if we don't adopt this amendment, will further erode the public trust, not only in this body but in government as a whole.

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 469, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment Offered by Mr. King of New York

I thank the gentlelady. And I want to commend the committee for bringing this bill forward, but really take some difference in the remarks that were made regarding the gentlelady from Virginia's amendment on the 287(g) program. I couldn't think of anything that would be more effective in helping us enforce the law in the interior of this country than additional funds for this program.

As some of the speakers prior to me have said, we need all hands on deck as far as the criminal population that has made its way into this country. We need the ability to go after these criminals, in the words of the gentleman from Kentucky, these rapists, these murderers and these thieves. And there is no more effective way to identify them than to empower the folks, the first responders that are on the ground in our communities across this country.

Now, some of the words from the gentleman of North Carolina, the chairman of the subcommittee, were that, in fact, we have too much money in this program and it hasn't been used, and, in fact, they are unobligated funds. Well, then I would say to the gentleman and to my colleagues that we haven't done our job, because we have got to do our job to put the vision out there that we intend to get serious about the illegal immigration population, especially those that are criminals in this country.

The American people expect us to enforce the law. This vehicle allows the Federal Government to step up to the plate to provide local law enforcement and our agencies at home the necessary resources and the tools with which to identify and apprehend the illegal population that has run afoul of our law in the interior of this country.

Not more than a month ago we saw the individuals in New Jersey; we saw them apprehended, planning a terrorist attack on Fort Dix in that State. Later, we come to find out that those individuals had had various run-ins with the law, and in fact, combined, 75 times had been involved with some type of either traffic violation or other criminal interdiction, but yet these individuals were never identified as being illegal.

We have got to make sure that that scenario is not repeated. We have got to empower the most powerful force we've got, which is that on the grounds and in our local community.

So I would urge my colleagues to join the gentlelady from Virginia Beach in making sure that we adequately fund this program and insist that our local law enforcement agencies have the necessary tools and the resources that they need to assist in enforcing the law.

Offered By: Mr. Cantor

Amendment No. 126: Page 72, line 22, after ``statute''

insert the following: ``(execept a mechanism included in this

Act)''.

Offered By: Mr. Cantor

Amendment No. 127: Page 73, after line 4, insert the

following new subsection:

(c) For the purposes of this section, the term ``other

mechanism that is required By: statute'' does not include any

provision of this Act that specifies by name or specific

physical location the intended recipient of a grant or

contract.